September 8th, 2008, a Monday

I am convinced that Mondays will always feel like Mondays, no matter what.  It doesn't matter if you work weekends and Monday is your day off, or if you don't work at all, or you love your work, there is just something about Monday morning that screams "Monday".  It is useless to try to describe it.  Everybody knows.  It's just Monday.   So I wonder if that means I am at a disadvantage with my Monday morning entry because it's Monday and that's a lot to overcome.  Or if I, Gina Rose, can be the beacon of light and hope and comfort on Monday morning.  Maybe even the only one who can. 

EQ, not IQ.  A way to measure your emotional intelligence is making the rounds.  It is some kind of simple test that can be taken in just moments.  Well, obviously, that is the first problem.  Emotions are far too complex and, well, emotional to be measured in a quick test.  My personal opinion is that it would be easier to measure regular intelligence than emotional intelligence but that's just me.  Let's go ahead and play the game and see where it leads us.

I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that the inventors of this (silly) test claim that women score an average of 12 points higher on the part about relationship management.  They explain this by saying that women are socialized to nurture so they learn to give their best to others, as in relationships.  (They didn't go so far as to say that men are socialized to be taken care of but it's kinda where your mind goes.)  Interestingly enough, men and women score the same on self-awareness, another (silly) category.  They therefore conclude that men understand feelings but are not expected to do anything with them.  Awesome.  Love this test. 

CEO's have the lowest score on the EQ test than any other group.  They explain this fascinating fact by saying that CEO's tend to be dry financial types who would obviously not be in touch with their feelings.  But they are quick to add that the really dynamic, successful CEO's do score well, they are just not the norm for the group. 

They say that demand is increasing for improvement on EQ test scores.  I assume they mean for men since they are the ones who seem to be somewhat deficient in their scores.  My guess is that men will work on this now, or at least learn how to test better for its own sake.  That will enhance their careers (opportunity to be one of the good CEO's) and trick women into believing they are actually in touch with their feelings and willing to talk about them.  "Hey, honey.  Let's take this EQ test to see if we are emotionally compatible?"  "See, honey.  I passed the test.  I am so sensitive."  "Oh, that.  Yeah, we took that before we got married.  Who cares anymore?  I am who I am."

The EQ guys recommend something they call "leaning into discomfort".  You know, if it feels bad, do it, because that means it must be good for you.  His example is forcing himself to go out with his wife socially even though he would rather stay home because that makes him a better husband.  I hope he's eating his broccoli, too.  It tastes bad but it's really good for you.

So you think I'm being cynical?  You think that an EQ test can really be a good tool to get men to feel more comfortable with their emotions?  Well, let's see.  You got a test to make me feel less comfortable with mine? 

GR