It was on one of those endless fabulous afternoons of the past, when we were walking down a crowded canal path after lunch, that my friend first introduced me to the concept of a “softboi.” She was single at the time and painfully gorgeous — watching her talk, my skin would prickle as if sunburned. She had amassed a sophisticated understanding of the available dating apps and was able to answer questions about their differences, their clientele, their various ways to hurt you, much like a black cab driver having studied the Knowledge. She could tell you the fastest route to a bad decision both in and out of rush hour.
There was a type of man that she seemed to attract, and it was on this leisurely walk that she tried to describe him. At first glance, he was decent. Interesting. Interested. He was in touch with his feelings. His bio was carefully littered with cultural detritus, an author’s name here, a song lyric there. He’d read all the Jonathans, from Franzen to Livingston Seagull. When he respectfully entered her Instagram DMs with a question about her thoughts on such topics as post-feminist marketing or the gentrification of the Internet, he was halfway home. It was in the medium of the private message where the softboi could relax. This was his stage, his canvas: an “I’m typing” ellipsis showed the artist was present.
Within 24 hours (less if he was at his parents’) he would have mentioned a film that he understood in an extremely deep and unique way, or sent an uninvited statement of allyship, or given a compliment about her looks that creamily Oreo-ed an insult within it. These men would shoot philosophies at her like small darts and test her on her knowledge of music.
Photo: Reuters
They were performatively emotional, often confiding their mental health status before the paint had dried on her first hello. They were different to the other guys. She could tell by their record collections, their T-shirts, their poetry and also because they told her so. Some would fade away politely. Others would attempt to subtly destroy her, using their forced emotional connection to undermine and sneer. It would not end well. She and others found it helpful to name this type of man — partly as a warning to others, mainly as a warning to themselves.
I have been thinking about the softboi again recently, because, like Deliveroo and toilet paper, his has been one of the COVID success stories. The reason they’re thriving right now is because they don’t need to leave their room to begin, maintain or even end a relationship. The softboi’s skills in creating whole narratives, whole romantic story arcs where he is the troubled antihero, transfer very well to lockdown. These boys are words, not action. Many, many words, some, admittedly, copied and pasted from online “famous quote” sites, but others simply wrung from the flannel of his mind. As a fantasy boyfriend perhaps he’ll do, while the world is still closed, but I predict trouble once the trains are running again.
Despite his insistence that he’s unique, the softboi is now mainstream. See celebrities like Harry Styles and Timothee Chalamet, or Barack Obama, who recently admitted his strategy for picking up women at Harvard was to quote Foucault. Their dark side is illustrated by the men in Carey Mulligan’s new film, Promising Young Woman: it begins with Adam Brody’s character helping her up when she appears blackout drunk. He wants to get her home safely, because he’s not like the other guys, who might take advantage. He’s gentle, sensitive. He gets her a cab. But then, well.
On Instagram, an account called “Beam Me Up Softboi” continues to document real men’s efforts at manipulation. “I will never be with a girl like you. I’m too ugly,” began a recent screengrabbed message. When the woman replied kindly, he added, “Send nudes.” Another: “I’m literally addicted to you, like morphine for my soul, it’s so weird because I know you’re not conventionally attractive but you have such a transcendent quality that compels me to keep coming back, like a Tolstoy novel or the Smiths on vinyl aha’.” Last one: “I’m really good at reading people. You feel a lot of guilt and you suffer from depression. And all the friends you had didn’t truly care about you. But you cared about them a lot.” He ends, “Guess I don’t know you though… right?” I screamed.
We are all older now, my friends and I, and our hearts, like our bodies, are larger and looser. Isn’t it a relief, I said in the group chat, gazing out at the rain, that we’ve aged out of the softboi bracket? What kind of messages do you get these days, I asked. Well, there was one from a man keen to discuss how the pain of his divorce had made him “emotionally superior,” and another from a 55-year-old looking for a young woman to listen to Radiohead with and… “Eva,” one friend interrupted. “You’ve heard of the softdad, right?”
Oct. 27 to Nov. 2 Over a breakfast of soymilk and fried dough costing less than NT$400, seven officials and engineers agreed on a NT$400 million plan — unaware that it would mark the beginning of Taiwan’s semiconductor empire. It was a cold February morning in 1974. Gathered at the unassuming shop were Economics minister Sun Yun-hsuan (孫運璿), director-general of Transportation and Communications Kao Yu-shu (高玉樹), Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) president Wang Chao-chen (王兆振), Telecommunications Laboratories director Kang Pao-huang (康寶煌), Executive Yuan secretary-general Fei Hua (費驊), director-general of Telecommunications Fang Hsien-chi (方賢齊) and Radio Corporation of America (RCA) Laboratories director Pan
The classic warmth of a good old-fashioned izakaya beckons you in, all cozy nooks and dark wood finishes, as tables order a third round and waiters sling tapas-sized bites and assorted — sometimes unidentifiable — skewered meats. But there’s a romantic hush about this Ximending (西門町) hotspot, with cocktails savored, plating elegant and never rushed and daters and diners lit by candlelight and chandelier. Each chair is mismatched and the assorted tables appear to be the fanciest picks from a nearby flea market. A naked sewing mannequin stands in a dimly lit corner, adorned with antique mirrors and draped foliage
The consensus on the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chair race is that Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) ran a populist, ideological back-to-basics campaign and soundly defeated former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), the candidate backed by the big institutional players. Cheng tapped into a wave of popular enthusiasm within the KMT, while the institutional players’ get-out-the-vote abilities fell flat, suggesting their power has weakened significantly. Yet, a closer look at the race paints a more complicated picture, raising questions about some analysts’ conclusions, including my own. TURNOUT Here is a surprising statistic: Turnout was 130,678, or 39.46 percent of the 331,145 eligible party
The election of Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) as chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) marked a triumphant return of pride in the “Chinese” in the party name. Cheng wants Taiwanese to be proud to call themselves Chinese again. The unambiguous winner was a return to the KMT ideology that formed in the early 2000s under then chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) put into practice as far as he could, until ultimately thwarted by hundreds of thousands of protestors thronging the streets in what became known as the Sunflower movement in 2014. Cheng is an unambiguous Chinese ethnonationalist,
RSS