Trying and failing to avoid the comments

... the good the bad, the ugly and the ignorant + how I’m really feeling about ‘Fake’ the TV series

David Wenham as Joe Burt in my favourite scene of Fake. (Thanks to Kindling Pictures)

It’s irresistible. On Facebook, a Paramount+ ad for Fake (for those new here, the television adaptation of my book) pops up. What am I going to do? Boldly stride on to the next post in the feed (photos of a friend’s wedding anniversary, an ad for a pedicure wand … “get smooth feet in minutes from the comfort of your home”, someone’s European vacation). No of course I’m not. I’m going to linger at the Paramount+ ad for Fake and look at the comments and then feel a bit sick and sorry. …

Helen (commenter): “I just kept yelling at her to open her flamin’ eyes! Are we really this gullible?”

Me: “Fuck off Helen. Hi Helen, thanks so much for your feedback. I appreciate it and the generous spirit in which it is offered. Perhaps I could encourage you not to judge other people’s decisions in relationships, even fictional characters like Birdie Bell in Fake? It’s almost impossible to know what’s going on in a relationship unless you’re in it. We all need to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before we cast judgement. Plus: I wrote a whole book explaining the nuance and complexity of how human beings and their brains behave in love (there’s science involved), how we can end up in relationships that aren’t good for us for too long, why we might ignore or not see red flags, and how very clever some people can be in their efforts to deceive and control.

But wait, there’s more:

(Female) ABC interviewer: “… in your book you talked about the issue of your own neediness.”

Me: “Um, no, at no point did I ever use the word ‘neediness’ in my book. … that’s your word, not mine. Did you actually read my book? Why don’t you just fuck right off too with your victim blaming or would you like to see my wounds bleed just a little more in public for your audience? Hi! Great to be with you. Thanks so much for giving me an opportunity to discuss this. One of the main reasons I wrote my book was to attempt to understand the complex reasons I stayed for too long in a relationship with a man whose stories and behaviour had my instincts howling. I don’t think reductionist thinking and commentary is helpful or interesting in this context. I believe that it’s time to be a bit more sophisticated in how we talk about relationships and the language we use around them; in fact I think it’s time we banned the words “neediness” and “needy” when we’re talking about people in love, in relationships. Mostly the word is used with smug, pejorative intent; almost always it is used to describe women; frequently it is prefaced by the adverb “too”. (Just FYI … I actually didn’t use the words “neediness” or “needy” in my book to describe myself or anyone else.) It is the most natural human emotion to want companionship, touch, love. That’s not neediness. Perhaps the more useful and insightful word you were looking for is “vulnerability”. I might have been vulnerable but given the right set of circumstances, there is not a human being in the world who would not be. Also, using a word like “neediness” to describe one party in the relationship lets the other party, typically an abusive male partner, off the hook, ignores their role in seeding uncertainty, chaos, doubt and anxiety, absolves them of their cruelty and lack of care.

And more: