Why is networking so hard when it's not social?

I remember when networking was  the buzz word for new graduates. There were career fairs galore and final year students would be advised to attend all of them and to network. It was certainly an exciting time and most of us being young and naive, believed that all we had to do was to wow the HR director from Freshfields or any other top Law firm and the job would be our's. Some of the go-getters even went further and ensured that they were only friends with those they felt were going places, it was all about securing your future. So rubbing shoulders with the Oxbridge graduate who was heading for the top city law firm meant that some of their success would rub off on you too. I confess that I was one of the ones who paid little attention, although I knew I wanted to be successful in whatever I did, I realised even then that I wouldn't find happiness or peace of mind at these top commercial law firms and as such I opted out of what I considered the painful exercise of networking. I say painful because it was the employer's market then and is probably even more so now, therefore they could have their pick of the cream of the class and would either dismiss the rest or worse still patronise them with comments like 'You're very bright and I wish you all the best in finding a training contract' - read 'You're not smart enough but we are completely out of your league'. You had to be extremely thick-skinned to not realise then and there, even before knowing your results that you had as much chance of getting on their trainee programmes as you did of being discovered on the streets as the next Naomi Campbell.
Having entered the workforce and found my way into the international civil service, I began to realise the value of networking however inadvertent. It was less about telling potential employers that you were open to offers and more about making the right impression with people knowing that you could never be sure when your paths may cross in the future. I tried to live by the motto 'Don't burn your bridges.'
Having joined the 'professional' networking site Linked In - and spent the first few months with a bland profile, I thought it was time to update the 'about me' section and reacquaint myself with those key contacts I'd made over the years. The reactions were unexpected - ex colleagues were happy to touch base and catch up personal news, the new baby, new house, new town and even a new job but then when it came to something more concrete like trying to introduce friends to old and useful contacts, people seemed more reluctant and almost put out. I noticed a familiar unease which I had found when I worked as a consultant years ago in New York - everyone assumes you're looking for the next contract so you can become something of a pariah.
Most people were almost possessive about the organisation they work for; some gave the impression that you had just asked them to slip you a £50 note or to give you a room to sleep. General banter would be met with immediate replies; the more concrete stuff like asking people if they know of opportunities or good contacts for a highly qualified friend looking for a job - would be met with an uncomfortable silence or evasion. I recognise that people sometimes feel as though they are not in a position to influence a recruitment process and far from wanting them to hand people a job on a platter, what I believe the networking exercise is designed to do, is simply broaden your scope as a jobseeker. There is always someone who knows someone who might be looking for someone, so how better to make that 3rd degree connection than with a simple introduction.
I must confess I do judge people who are guarded and who do feel put out by professional networking because I think we all need to acknowledge that we've been given a hand at some point. None of us were born experienced project managers, human rights officers or economists, someone had to give us the break which made all the difference.
As a woman networking in the East and West African countries where I've worked, has been largely about stroking the egos of powerful businessmen or government officials in the hope that they will sign on the dotted line without you having to compromise your education, intelligence and experience. It can be frustrating and at times humiliating because you wonder why your Masters degree counts for so little and why you have to resort to the same feminine wiles your mother and grandmother had to use.
In the West, networking can be even tougher because the competition tends to be fiercer. The window of opportunity to impress on paper and in person can last from a few seconds to a few minutes at most. It can be endlessly tedious trying to think of clever ways to say that you are the best person for the job because you are the smartest one they've probably seen and let's face it you can probably do this job with your eyes closed. A lot of employers tend to take on people who have the gift of the gab but often fail to deliver when they start the job they so cleverly campaigned for.
And yes it is still an employer's market so we have to play nice and expand our professional networks with a view of securing that little extra, that edge that you hope will make a difference. It can be even more of a minefield when so many people are uncomfortable with professional networking and feel inclined to act as though you had an empty begging bowl outstretched.
I'd like to think I've come to acknowledge the importance of expanding one's network, regardless of your position, short of handing someone your job, there is no reason why we cant give useful and impartial advice. Whilst I can't guarantee you'll get the job, if I can atleast give you some useful information or willing contacts who knows what he outcome will be. What's more we live in a time of such professional uncertainty that the jobseeker of today could end up being the recruiter of tomorrow and then you may feel some relief that you did the art of professional networking such justice.

Men v Sex and the City - proof that we still inhabit different planets

The time has come again for female friends to get dolled up and slip on their sexiest heels for a special visit to the cinemas. As you can imagine, we're not just talking about any old rated R film, its nearly time for us to laugh, cringe and sob over the much anticipated Sex and the City 2. Whether you're in Jo'burg, Paris, New York or Madrid, most women with access to American television will have heard of the dynamic foursome known as Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha. Two years ago I went with my girlfriends to see the first installment in West London and was able to discuss the tear-jerking and downright hilarious parts with friends who lived way across the pond in New York. We could all relate and whilst we didn't think it was a Oscar worthy plot or performances, we still loved every minute of it and saw it several times. Like Jimmy Choos, SATC seems to unify women, regardless of colour or financial means, we love the celebration of femininity, friendship and general fabulousity. So why does this US export cause so much disdain, dismay and irritation among men folk? Why, I wonder are men so averse to Sex and the City?

Yesterday as I savoured my copy of my favourite bite size magazine (http://www.stylist.co.uk/ ), I decided against my better judgement to read what four male writers had to say about the women of Sex and the City. It took some courage and tongue biting as each one analysed a different character with comments like 'Women realise ditsy in a woman over the age of 33 is unbecoming but they forgive all this because she has...shoes' - no prices for guessing who the Shortlist magazine's editorial director is referring to there. Another writer comments that Miranda who is apparently 'exactly the kind of woman decent men like' (which makes me think there cant be many of these decent men out there as I know an awful lot of single Mirandas) is portrayed as selling out as she settles for 'bored domesticity with a man not fit to clean her shoes'. As if we hadn't been insulted enough, Samantha, who many of us believe epitomises female strength and sexuality is dubbed as a single man's dream because she is willing to and encourages single women to have non committal sex without the promise of  a ring or expensive gift. Perish the thought that a woman would actually enjoy sex and engage in it for her own pleasure. And so these four masculine 'thinkers' go on, pulling apart the women and the series as little more than a disgrace to feminism. Carrie is apparently the least attractive to men because aside from being 'ditsy' she 'works from a rule book made from princessy-ness and insecurity'. But before you rush out to buy yourself a cat and resolve to live a life of singledom, there is hope for the single woman; writer Chris Bell gives us all a little encouragement  by encouraging us to look to Charlotte who he describes as 'perfect wife material - formal and reserved in public; a 'goer' in private, as our role model. So all is not lost, if we all strive to be 'Park Avenue Polyanna(s)' we could land ourselves husbands and have our very own happily ever after - apparently Charlotte's character is the one who 'wins' - true love, marriage and kids! Talk about hitting the jackpot.
If on the other hand you prefer to make feminists lament all over the world by having 'free' sex with men then you'll only have yourself to blame when you can't even find a boyfriend let alone a husband! Tut tut tut Samantha.
Now if you go for option no. 3 a la Miranda, be prepared to settle for table scraps - according to Justin Quirk, what stands out most about Steve is not his unconditional love for Miranda or his willingness to put up with her at times 'difficult' and domineering ways but that he is a 'not good looking semi-literate barman'. Take note those of you who have looked for substance over style in a partner.
Whatever you do, do not and I repeat do not accumulate shoes, no matter how beautiful you find them and how they make you feel and how much disposable income you have, because if you do, you'll simply be expressing everything that is 'shallow and materialistic about modern womanhood'.

I confess that I wasn't under any illusions about men being thoroughly different from us but I think having lived with one for a number of years, I came to believe that there can be common ground even if the fundamentals differ. Yet after reading these four accounts, I can't help but conclude that when given the opporunity to truly express themselves without fear of reproach, men confirm that they inhabit a planet that is light years away from our's. If we consider that these men are supposedly the intelligent, well-read and presumably 'exposed' minority and yet they spout such sexist tosh where everything we do is in relation to their world and their being, then what hope is there for the not so smart ones.
Samantha cannot simply have a high female libido, nor can Miranda genuinely love her family and her career because the two must cancel each other out. I can honestly say that pieces like this give me a whole new level of a lack of respect for men. It's unfortunate that we live together, work with each other and yet so many of them still find it hard to see us as equals. The usual misogynistic stereotypes still pervade where women are only defined by their ability to bag a husband. Likewise when they do choose a career, it has to be all of nothing, they cant be mothers, wives and career women too.
Note to the opposite sex - yes we do like shoes ....so what? - you like football, we like shoes, atleast they make us look and feel sexy.
If these men are a representation of what the majority of men think, then I'm glad that most of my friends are female and I cant wait to hit the town with them for our Sex and the City 2 night out so we can raise a glass to four fabulous ladies who remind us quite a bit of ourselves.

Mr Cameron, you are no Barack Obama

The Sun newspaper defaced Barack Obama's Hope poster in today's edition by replacing the man whose campaign and image reflected the true meaning of the word with the image of the far from inspiring toffee-nosed Mr Cameron. Their melodramatic headline went 'Cameron is our only hope :http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/article2961073.ece
The very idea of me having to pin my hopes on the constantly airbrushed, disingenious David Cameron is enough to make me pack my bags and return to Africa sharpish.
The sad thing is that because British journalists are so lacking in imagination, they get on a bandwagon and hold on to it for dear life, regardless of whether it smacks of contradictions or not. Mr Cameron could not be more different from Barack Obama in style, politics and vision if he tried.
Aside from there having two very polarized upbringings, David Cameron was born into a privileged English family, went to private schools all his life including a preparatory school attended by the Princes of Wales and York and the prestigious Eton. All this was rounded off nicely by a noble degree at none other than Oxford University.
Barack Obama on the other hand was born to a Kenyan father and American mother who divorced when he was very young, had a very modest childhood, attending local schools in Indonesia and finally moving back to the US to live with his grandparents, hard working Americans who were by no means wealthy.

Fast forward to their political and ideological ideas and I still fail to see the likeness, Mr Cameron is the leader of Conservative party which by definition has always favoured the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have nots'. They believe that, like the Republicans in the USA that everyone should do for themselves, this is partly reflected in their policies to fix what they refer to as 'broken britain' including rewarding married couples because we should aspire to marriage and those who are irresponsible enough to find themselves as single parents should just go and hide in shame. Likewise they would like to encourage people to create their own schools when the state ones are failing. This is all very well for the highly educated overzealous mummies who move about in their 4x4s and are fortunate enough to not have to work. The majority of us who rely on the government providing good schools for our kids will end up being left out in the cold. Although the Tory party (as the Conservatives are also known) now claim the NHS as the best thing to happen to Britain, something they wish to protect, once upon a time would have quite happily cut spending on the service that affords the majority of Britons free healthcare.
The democrats and President Barack Obama on the other hand believe that government has a responsibility to ensure fairness for all. Obama has, against all odds been able to push through a healthcare bill which will ensure that all Americans regardless of their financial means have access to affordable healthcare.

The Conservative party and Mr Cameron's approach towards everyone taking responsibility wouldn't be so objectionable if we all started on an equal footing. Instead we have a world where there is no level playing field and yet you expect me to pull myself up when you've been given a significant head start and advantage? It would be like telling women to stop moaning and work hard so they can become CEOs and Directors of companies and earn the same salaries as men; all good and well, if you would be so kind as to take away the social and professional advantages afforded to these men.
The Times newspaper had a front page photo of the Camerons in what I would call a cringe-worthy pose - SamCam (as Mrs Samantha Cameron is fondly referred to) stretched out lovingly on her husband's lap. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/04/david-samantha-cameron-caption-competition I didn't have to go through my old copies of Newsweek and Time magazines which covered the US election campaign to recall the likeness of many of the photos we saw of the Obamas on the road, campaigning from one US State to another. The difference was that unlike this extremely staged pose, theirs seemed very real and did not scream PR stunt to the discerning public. Perhaps it's the Brit mentality but I cant help but be cynical by Mr Cameron and his heavily airbrushed images and massively staged photo ops. I would perhaps find it all a bit forgiving if it were original but for either the media or Mr Cameron himself to try and position him as Britain's answer to Barack Obama is insulting for those who know what the two leaders and their parties stand for.
Gordon Brown may be awkward and not a people's person, wrinkles, gaffes and all but atleast he is who is he is, warts and all. I would much rather have a leader who  is dull and real than one who is so bent on selling us the perfect image, that he deliberately misleads the public into thinking that he is something that he is not. The people's leader you are not and will never be Mr Cameron, win or lose this election so rather than spending mounds of cash which I appreciate you and your wealthy party can more than afford, you should focus on the substance. Have the balls to say what you stand for and to reflect this in everything you put out to the public. That way atleast those who do end up voting for you will be fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for.
And please do us all a favour and jump off the hope bandwagon!

Calling a spade a spade

http://bit.ly/abIjqV
Today the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain made a gaffe by branding a woman he came across while campaigning a bigot, albeit in the privacy of his car, although stupidly with his mic still switched on. The whole episode has been referred to rather unoriginally as ‘bigot-gate’ making one wonder how long some of these British journalists spent studying their art.
The media more than anyone else has been up in arms about the incident with Sky News covering nothing else for a good part of the afternoon and evening much to ordinary people’s irritation. Rupert Murdoch’s band of merry men and women went to town with their public lynching of the Prime Minister. The video and audio of the incident has been played and replayed with subtitles, and various people analysing what the incident says about him. We had the supposedly impartial former conservative spin doctor, a journalist from the Spectator and several other not so gainfully employed pundits all give their take on what this meant for Gordon and for the election. One concluded that his reaction was as a result of Gordon Brown’s deep dislike for people. Yes that’s right folks; the Prime Minister is now a people- hating –gaffe-prone oddbod. He is also, we learned today often quick to blame other people and never himself. And finally we were told by the Sky News reporter that this is evidence that Gordon should not say anything in private that he would not say in public. Mais bien sur...that’s exactly what we upright citizens do isn’t it?

I can only hope that reasonably minded people will appreciate that although he did not handle the situation well and more than anything else it proved that one of his idiotic aides should get the boot for not spotting the microphone thing, it by no means warranted this level of media coverage. And to be frank, someone who makes a comment like ‘These Eastern Europeans, I don’t know where they’re flocking from’ is indeed a BIGOT of the highest order. Were she asking a constructive question about Immigration which is a legitimate campaign issue albeit one I feel is always used to score points with the prejudiced masses; I would sympathise with her and argue that Mr Brown should have discussed the issue with her sensibly and with respect. Instead she chose to go down the line of blaming these foreigners. Lest we forget not so long ago it was the Blacks who were coming here and taking our jobs, now it’s those Eastern Europeans. As Mr Brown sensibly pointed out, there may be a million of the Eastern Europeans in this country but there are equally 1 million or more British people in various parts of Europe exercising their right of freedom of movement as European Union citizens. In some cases their arrival en masse has resulted in countless difficulties for the local population. In many parts of France for instance, the British influx has meant an increase in house prices resulting in many French people not being able to buy property in their own home towns. In Spain the British have created mini-Blighty in parts like the Costa del Sol, becoming renowned for their excessive drinking and their inability to hold their liquor. Spain recently tried to rebrand itself in order to shake off the image of lager louts and tarts eating fish chips and throwing up in their once peaceful towns.

So, yes it does work both ways and if we’re really honest with ourselves, we will admit that many of the Eastern Europeans who come and work here do jobs that many of us will not want to do or they work for themselves in fields like construction. I appreciate that the experience of other people may vary but I work in a company that has over 100 staff and not 1 is Eastern European unless of course you count the contracted cleaners who arrive as we leave in the evenings. The representation of foreigners will vary from one sector to the other but before we make this election about ‘hanging’ the immigrants, let’s remind ourselves that outside of the United Kingdom, we too our immigrants. If the bigoted Mrs Duffy, who spouted her nonsense at Gordon Brown today would only agree to stay put in this country and encourage her grandchildren who we learned were stuck in Australia (perish the thought), if they could just stay here and not go to those foreign lands then perhaps we could all have a bit more sympathy for her. Until then I hope someone finds the courage to call a spade a spade in public when someone expresses narrow-minded views without fear of what shameless media houses like Sky News and the Daily Mail who would have us believe the immigrants are all out to get us, would have to say.

Fun, happy go lucky black female seeking best friend

I bumped into an old uni friend the other day and aside from making a mental note that she looked quite good, albeit heavily made-up, our encounter left me a little green and questioning my social skills if not know, certainly back then when I was young and perhaps a little foolish. This self-consciousness came about because I asked after some old mutual friends of ours and was surprised to hear that she was still in touch with all of them. She then asked me if I was in touch with anyone from university which admittedly happened over 10 years ago and my response was a shameful No. In my defence, I added, it was because I had spent 10 years out of this country, working abroad and discovering life. Yet still there was an awkward silence probably brought on by the fact that even I had to admit in my head at least, that the real reason wasn't my absence but my inability to maintain friends from university.

I can honestly say though that I loved my uni days, had a blast, I made President of the African Caribbean society (ACS) in my first year which was quite an achievement for a fresher and organised all sorts of social activities including a trip to Paris with other UK university ACS members. I'd like to think I got on well with people and had a wide cross section of friends. However, somehow, disastrously I managed to ostracise four so-called friends including this chance encounter before university ended and my close group of friends were no more. Fortunately for me and my social life, I had made friends from other circles, so I wasn’t left feeling like a 'Betty No-mate' but this fall out definitely left me wondering if I was to blame.

As the premise goes, ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ so I had to admit to myself that I must have been to blame; after all, they can't all be wrong, can they? It was surely my bossy overbearing self that caused the problems? To be fair, the animosity was only felt by these four friends all of whom made it clear that they thought I had grown too big for my own ‘fresher’ boots. Nonetheless, instead of putting it down to a difference of opinion that should not reflect on my self-confidence, I think the experience ended up having far reaching consequences throughout my life.

Fast forward 10 years later and although I've travelled and met my closest friends in the world, I still feel as though there is no one person or two people for that matter that I can refer to as my best friend/s. Although this shouldn't make me feel inadequate as I am now a grown woman, with a husband, children, close family and friends, it somehow does. I love, in fact I adore my girlfriends and cherish the times we spend together but each one of them has someone they refer to as a best friend and for the most part this is someone they have known since childhood or at the very least since their time at university. I, on the other hand have made friends along the way, the closest ones being those I made during my stint in Uganda, yet none that I refer to explicitly as my best friend. This is not to say that I can't pick up the phone and call them when I choose or that we don’t make time for each other, there is nothing aside from the title that I lack in my close friends but I can’t helped but be filled with regrets that there is no one person that I share that extra special bond with. I couldn't say what it is as I haven't experienced it, at least not since primary school and perhaps it is more a figment of my imagination and reflection of my inadequacies than anything else. Yet the more elusive the character of a best friend is, the more compelled I feel to turn back the clocks and find one I can claim as my own.

I imagine this problem may be a purely feminine one or granted a 'me' one - but I think if we're honest with ourselves, we can all identify with the allure of a best friend. I don’t mean the kind you refer to your husband or wife as; rather the kind who knows you inside out and shared all your dreams and aspirations when you were young. The kind of friend that can give a speech at your wedding and talk about what you did when you were children and the promises you made to each other. How can this kind of relationship not be a source of envy to those of us who've forged bonds later in life? Best friends not only act as one's security in life in that they are steadfast but they also remind us that we are good people and capable of being loved. They remind us that we functioned well as children and have grown up to be adults who consider the feeling of others and who others want to be around. In short best friends validate us.

I have no idea what life would have been like had I remained best friends with the four girls from university, I suspect I am not worse off for it, having had a varied and very rich life so far, filled with fun and an array of friends. Rather than lament my lack of a best friend, I perhaps need to celebrate my many many better friends who allow me to be myself, warts and all and without whom my life would be a lot less enjoyable.

Is there such a thing as Facebook etiquette?

Although I’ve been a Facebook user ever since I received my first ‘please join Facebook and add me as your friend’ invitation, I can relate completely to those who choose not to join the social network. Admittedly I also admire their resilience especially as the social network now boasts over 400 million users and counting, and that 90% of their friends and family are already avid users. It takes some courage to keep saying no to invitations even though your curiosity is trying to get the better of you. I mean let’s face it who doesn’t love to look at people’s photos, see how they’re doing in life, scrutinise the background behind their children’s pictures – frown at the site of the fabric they choose for their curtains or at the amount of weight they’ve put on since we last saw them. Worse still that their wedding cake was a little tacky and their groom looked a little ‘mature’ and just a bit portly. We love it and probably do it more often than we’d care to admit. It takes a brave person to resist that kind of temptation and I am happy to put my hand up and say I am not that person. Nonetheless I have been recently contemplating leaving my Facebook account with its 134 friends (who I constantly have to cull to keep at a manageable number) and various notes which I’ve written, photo albums mostly featuring my children, yes I admit I’m one of those doting unbearable parents who thinks everyone wants to see pictures of their children aged 1-16. I have seriously thought about giving it all up so that I can exercise my freedom of speech once again which I am convinced is killed off by the yet unwritten but well known Facebook etiquette.

Let me explain: as you trawl through your ‘friends’ and their updated statuses boasting about their new homes, holidays, their undying love for their husbands and children, the latest party they went to, food they ate and their various achievements be-it professional or otherwise, you are more than a little inclined to comment. Now if like me you tend not to suffer fools in real life, you would ordinarily want to impart these same principles in cyberspace. For instance if someone, friend or acquaintance walked up to me and said how lucky they were to have been on the most fantastic holiday with their spouse who they had undying love for, my instant reaction would be to say ‘That’s nice for you’ and walk off. It’s not that I don’t love a good holiday story, in fact travelling is still my passion even though I don’t get to indulge as much as I’d like to, it’s all about the way you tell the story. Rather than telling you about a new country and its beauty, and recommend that you visit it (recommendations from Facebook friends are my personal favourite), what Facebook User no. 57,860 is doing is showing off. And let’s face it nobody likes a show off do they? Likewise I don’t want to hear stories about your issues – if you have money problems, your boyfriend has dumped you or you’ve recently discovered that your husband is having a cyber affair then please keep it to yourself – anything that you wouldn’t disclose to anyone other than close friends in real life should remain off your Facebook status in my humble opinion.

There are also those who do battle with their ‘friends’ on their status, declaring things like - ‘I’m stronger than all the Haters’ or my personal favourite - ‘those who thought they could break me, sorry to disappoint you’. Well, aside from rolling my eyes, I’m inclined to suggest these ‘hard nuts’ try not to take the saying ‘Keep your friends close and your enemies closer’ too literally. Why on earth would you give someone who you dislike or who dislikes you access to your personal information, thoughts, photos etc? Surely it would be much simpler to delete the ‘haters’ than to tell them in a vague and not even mildly threatening way that you are ready to ‘take them on’. Is this some form of passive aggression?

The difficulty I have with these types of status is the response they elicit – people seem to be constantly stroking each other’s ego. Is that really what ‘friends’ are for? The response to ‘My son has just been named the most gifted and talented child in his school’ meets with ‘oh wow, what a genius you gave birth to’ when really what you want to/should say is ‘Get a real hobby you pushy mum!’. Likewise the ‘I just got back from a fabulous holiday in Bali’ meets with ‘Lucky you, I wish I was there’ when really what you want to/should say is more like ‘I bet you missed your Facebook friends to gloat to didn’t you?’. Although I’m not bold enough to say some of these things, I can’t help but wish someone would be crazy enough to post a similarly brutally frank response. Now, I’m not suggesting for a minute that I don’t talk about my ‘social exploits’ – partying till late is a huge achievement for the boring old woman I’ve become so yes I will update my Facebook when I manage to stay awake at a party until the wee hours of the morning. Likewise if I enjoy something I will definitely recommend it to friends but I guess its all about moderation. If you can look at your status updates over a period of time and see only evidence of your ‘achievements’ and your life deemed fabulous by none other than yourself, then perhaps you are one of the users I’m talking about. If on the other hand you manage to balance the showing off with things that interest people other than you then you probably class as a well-rounded Facebook user and the type of person I’d happily befriend. Unfortunately more and more people seem to fall in the other category and make me lament staying on Facebook, I mean aren’t we politically correct enough in real life without having to endure so-called friends and their odd narcissistic ways in the name of Facebook etiquette?

This brings me on to the definition of ‘friends’ in the social networking world. Now I put my hand up and admit that indeed some of the people listed on my Facebook aren’t my friends in the Oxford dictionary sense of the word; they may be siblings/partners/friends of friends but I’m happy to keep them on my friends list as long as I find them engaging. I draw the line however at parents of friends, period, no matter how fun and ‘whacky’ they are, yes call me ageist but I’d rather not learn from my mother or aunt that ‘Aunty so and so’ thought my photos taken at a random party were a little risqué for a woman my age. The in-laws and ex boyfriends are also a tricky category; as a general rule I would say ‘avoid’ but if they’re harmless enough and don’t judge you or report back to your spouse when a friend of the opposite sex ‘pokes’ you or in the case of the exes start reminiscing about your defunct relationship, on your wall no less, then I guess they can stay. I also tend not befriend friends of friends who I have little in common with and find not even remotely interesting because what’s the point…no really, what is the point of that ‘friendship’?

My director recently scoffed when I declared in the office for all to hear that I didn’t think having colleagues on your Facebook was a good idea. She then teased saying she’d have to see about that, to which I responded ‘You’d have to find me first’ because of course as some of you more discernable Facebook users know, it is entirely possible to make your name unsearchable and your profile visible only to your friends. I am a firm believer in separating work life from personal life and within that personal life I think there should also be a certain level of privacy and privileged disclosure. I can count on one hand, okay perhaps two who my closest friends that I would happily divulge certain pieces of information about my life to. There are others who I think we can interact with on a ‘networking’ level because we share common interests. In between are the majority who we used to know, used to go to school with and have found thanks to a Facebook friend name search and although we’ve become re-acquainted, almost wish we hadn’t. I’ve been known to cull friends on a periodic basis because often the initial excitement of being in touch with a long lost ‘friend’ has worn off and I realise that it’s best if we spend another decade out of touch with each other. That way we can act surprised and feign delight when we bump into each other at the school reunion. On my culling list are also the spectators who quite happily observe others’ activities, scrutinise their photos, read their postings and contribute little or nothing themselves. I appreciate it may be because they have nothing to say or simply that they’re guarded, in my fiercely honest opinion though, whether it’s the former or the latter, they too need to be deleted.

I’m hoping that in a few months, perhaps a year’s time if I’m still one of the half a billion users, my Facebook will include real friends and interesting acquaintances who I can be brutally honest with when their showing off gets too much or when I get tired of seeing the 3976th picture of their newborn child. I suspect that day will see me having much fewer than the 134 friends currently residing in my Facebook space which may not be such a bad thing.

This whole sordid affair

You’d have to be blind and possibly deaf to have missed the stories of infidelity that have been populating the papers recently. There was Ashley Cole, John Terry, the now infamous Tiger Woods, Jesse James, to name but a few. In the US recently the beautiful Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon apparently outed her husband of 9 years by an email to his work colleagues for having cheated on her for 5 of those years. As a married woman or a woman dating for that matter, you cannot help but start sleeping with one eye open. Let’s face it, if beautiful women like Cheryl Cole, Sandra Bullock and the quintessentially Swedish Elin Nordegren can be cheated on, often with less than desirable looking women, then what chance do we ordinary cellulite-burdened females have?


I guess if I’m honest none of the stories came as a surprise, not because I could somehow foresee that these men were going to cheat but because a man cheating is hardly newsworthy in my humble opinion. It has been happening since time immemorial and I suspect will continue for as long as there are relationships. What is amusing is the media’s reaction to it all, their feigned indignation and readiness to crucify these men. Not that I’m suggesting for a second that they deserve anything less than crucifixion but perhaps not by the equally immoral members of the media. It also smacks of disingenuous journalism to pretend that it is shocking for a married man to be having a flirtatious exchange by text or twitter with women as was the case with former T 4 presenter Vernon Kay. Apparently they call it sexting and it is as bad as a full blown affair; that is according to the journalists who stalked him and covered the story with such fervour.

I can’t help but ask out loud ‘Who on earth are we kidding?’ Unless you’re a teenager, inexperienced, idealistic and a little ‘green’ where relationships are concerned, there is no reason for you to think that the majority of people in relationships, men and women alike go through their lives without what some would term ‘transgressions’ . Granted monogamy is the accepted norm but people like Bill Clinton, John Major, John F Kennedy, Prince Charles and then the more famous but less powerful Jude Law, Eric Benet and Hugh Grant do not have two heads. Nor are they from another planet, the only difference between them and the ordinary man in the streets is that they are public figures. We can scrutinise them thanks to the increasingly voracious paparazzi. So many of us are also quick to point the finger and start our public witch hunts as though we were so morally pure that these men have offended our very beings. It is hypocrisy in its highest form and rather than feed us with lies that infidelity is some shocking phenomenon that Tiger Woods invented, the media should be putting these stories into perspective. Infidelity happens and yes we caught these famous men with their pants down much to our delight but there is no need for psycho analysis babble about why men cheat or what women should do to stop it from happening. People cheat....and as the American adage goes ‘Get over it’.

Essence magazine ran a forum on infidelity – this very new phenomenon that requires our attention and understanding and I read a few exchanges with people, mostly men telling despondent women what they needed to do to keep their men from cheating. After a few comments about pleasing him and ‘taking care of your business’ – euphemism for giving him sex when he wants it, I thought to myself ‘enough already’ and switched off. I think it’s great that these affairs of famous people which have been made public gives us all something to talk about and creates an easy news story for the media but frankly after a while it all becomes a little dull. At a personal level, people should deal with their own realities and not succumb to pressure from society or the media. I’m almost certain that if the media had not been so vociferous about numerous affairs, a lot of these women would never have left their husbands having found out about their infidelity. I feel sorry for the likes of Sandra Bullock, Cheryl Cole, Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon and Elin Nordegren because even if they wanted to give their husbands a second chance, they would be compromising their public personas. The media would subtly chastise them by raising the issue at every opportunity and transforming them into either the stoic Mrs Clinton type whose ‘forgiveness’ was viewed as political expediency or the pathetic victim of infidelity to be pitied until they decide to walk away with what little dignity is left. Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon has removed her options having gone public herself, any u-turn now in favour of working things out with Mr ‘not even remotely cute’ Nilon would make her seem pathetic and desperate so the lesson perhaps is to work it out in your head and then your home before telling all and sundry. It may well be a woman’s prerogative to change her mind, but going back to a cheating spouse after swearing blind you won’t, may turn you into the headline guest at a Pity-fest!

One question I feel we should be asking is ‘Who are we to judge’ – how many of us can say with absolute certainty that we have never cheated, either physically or emotionally. Thanks to Facebook, we seem to be rekindling all types of previously defunct relationships, leaving ourselves open to flirtations which we would hate for our partners to see. To the one in a million who says that they do not and have never fallen in this category, I would commend them but add they are a rarity and rather than pretend that the exception is the norm, wouldn’t it be better for us to acknowledge and then find a way to deal with the norm. If every woman left her husband because of infidelity, many of us ‘children’ would not be here today.

The bottom line is that we must acknowledge that, like shit, infidelity happens – and it can happen to both men and women so let’s not for a second assume that this is a flaw reserved for the male species only. We then have to close the door to outside influences and work out the best way forward with our partners. There are no hard and fast rules and every relationship is going to be different but it helps to realise that you are not alone. In fact the female lawyer representing you through your divorce may well be going through the same thing and may have decided to stick with her unfaithful husband. If on the other hand you are not looking for solutions as this so-called ‘sweeping epidemic’ hasn’t hit you yet, then sit back and enjoy the various ‘kiss and tell’ stories but be careful how loud you laugh because your partner may have more in common with Ashley, Tiger, Bill and Eric than you realise.