{ 0 comments }
Posts tagged as:
marriage
After 68 years of simultaneously dating 2 women, Archie Andrews has decided to ask one of the Riverdale girls to marry him. But which will it be? The sweet, blonde, girl next door, Betty, or the affluent, brunette vixen, Veronica? Well, it looks like nice girls finish last, since Archie will be proposing to Veronica Lodge in the comic book’s 600th issue, which is set to arrive in stores on August 19 and newsstands on September 1.
Given that the feud between Betty and Veronica has been going strong since what feels like the beginning of time, I was actually surprised to hear that Archie would be settling on one of the two iconic ladies. Isn’t part of the allure of the Archie Comics the ongoing storyline that pits the homespun Betty against the sassy Veronica? Isn’t Archie’s entire character based on his incurable dithering? Although I personally grew tired of the stereotypical characterizations of Betty and Veronica and their incessant cat fights, I’m not sure what the comic will be like once the battle for Archie is no longer being waged. (Why either girl would settle for Archie anyway is a whole other story.)
Not surprisingly, fans of Archie Comics have very strong opinions about the upcoming marriage proposal. And, according to a Globe and Mail story, relationship experts believe that whether you think Archie should choose Betty or Veronica indicates your overall view of marriage and relationships. Those who vote for Veronica are idealists while Betty backers are traditionalists.
But, while many people tend to pity Betty as the underdog and laud her for her sweet and homely qualities, I kind of wonder whether Veronica has been unfairly maligned for all these years. When I used to read Archie Comics during my childhood, I mostly sided with Betty. No matter how hard she tried, her honest, good-natured persona always seemed to lose out in the end. More recently, however, as I perused a few issues of the series, I realized that the adult me has grown to favour Veronica. Sure, Veronica can be a bit nasty and shallow at times, and her capitalist, rich-girl tendencies are less than appealing, but I can’t help but applaud Veronica for her self-confidence. Veronica isn’t worried about being a bitch when push comes to shove. Unlike Betty, she refuses to be a door mat. Veronica is stylish, shrewd, and doesn’t put up with Archie’s nonsense. She may have a few flaws, but she knows who she is.
Ultimately, the Veronica-Betty dichotomy is outdated. These two female characters reflect a 1950s sensibility that should no longer resonate with women today. Instead of having to choose between blonde or brunette, nice girl or mean girl, homely or stylish, sweet or sassy, I think it’s time to come up with an amalgam of these two girls–someone who can bake a delicious chocolate chip cookie, be a nurturing mother, speak her mind, and wear a killer stiletto heel when heading out for a night on the town. In the end, that’s who Archie should marry.
{ 1 comment }
Blogs are abuzz with news that the Japanese arm of lingerie maker Triumph International has unveiled a new bra with special “features” for women looking to wed.
The Kontaksu (literally meaning “marriage-hunting”) bra features a countdown clock; if an engagement ring is inserted into a slot on the bra, the countdown stops and a Felix Mendelssohn’s “The Wedding March” plays in tinny digital tones.
Triumph spokeswoman Keiko Masuda tells Reuters the bra, which is not for sale, “would suit modern Japanese women who are no longer content to sit and wait for a potential husband to approach them.
“‘Japanese women are becoming more aggressive than men, working actively to make marriage happen, whereas in the past it was men who led women toward marriage,’ she said.”
Er, score one for feminism?
No word on what happens if the date passes without a ring being inserted. Perhaps it plays Joan Jett’s Spinster.
{ 1 comment }
Last weekend, the Calgary Herald ran a really weird op-ed piece thinly disguised as an article (way to rock those journalistic standards, CH!). Entitled “Marriage Benefits Us All” (snorting yet?), authors Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek demonstrate their very loose relationship with reality. Turns out that Walberg and Mrozek are publishing a report next month called the Cost of Family Breakdown in Canada and the Herald piece was a little horn-tooting to pave the way.
Apparently the report quantifies the costs the state racks up when family relationships fall apart. This is a legitimate area of study. But the angle the authors take is that people should form and remain in nuclear (read: hetero) family relationships because single-parent families are more likely to be poor and reliant upon public assistance than a nuclear family. The authors write:
A U. S. study last year determined that $140-billion in public spending could be saved if all children lived with their own married parents. In the U. K., the extra costs to the taxpayer of poverty in single-parent households were measured at $66-billion, equal to more than 6% of total government spending.
The authors admit no similar study has taken place in Canada. But my question is, if more people stayed in married relationships (for the sake of the state, dontcha know), wouldn’t there be social and economic costs associated with that in the form of, say, increased stress, megaloads of unhappiness and even (possibly) spousal abuse?
A marriage is a private relationship, but it is also a public institution. Strong marriages are public goods because they generate social capital from which we all benefit. Marriage makes families less likely to turn to the government for financial assistance, either directly through welfare, or, less directly, in the form of housing and day care subsidies.
This is really gross and totally wack. Are we seriously supposed to keep families intact because otherwise it’s too expensive for the government? Ri-i-i-ght. Let’s all stay in marriages, regardless of how happy or fulfilling they make us, because we don’t want to be a burden on the state. Wait, I’ve got an idea. How about un-burdening family relationships by instituting something really crazy like universal childcare! Oh, right. Not gonna happen under a Harper government. Rats.
Here’s the final, heterosexist closer, if you’re not convinced already:
All children deserve to grow up in a household with their own married [code: straight] parents. Supporting strong families is the right thing to do; it's also the financially responsible choice, for individual families and for Canada as a whole.
This kind of unanimous, unqualified, ra-ra parade for (hetero) marriage makes me feel like I need to go to the bathroom. Sure, I'm all for marriage--I even got myself a husband of my own. But the idea of maintaining a nuclear version of the family for the sake of minimizing economic costs to the state is ridick.
{ 2 comments }
This cover of the March/April issue of Psychology Today is one of the tackiest I’ve seen in a long time. Check it out: headless woman in a miniskirt, brandishing a toilet brush, towering above a shlubby-looking guy drinking milk straight out of the jug. “You’re Driving Me Crazy!” reads the headline, the implication being that an irritated Suzy Sexpot here took a break from scrubbing the toilet (which I always do in a skirt n’ heels combo, BTW) to nag her hapless hubby. But don’t forget, Suzy: if hubby doesn’t grasp the basics of household etiquette, maybe you’re the problem!
Okay, I understand and (in some instances) agree with the whole idea that, as the cover states, sometimes the solution to a problem lies with the irritatee, not the irritator. But I’m miffed that the article seems to be subtly directing its advice to the female half of hetero relationships. The piece provides a litany of irritants that are stereotypically associated with men: the aforementioned dirty socks on the floor, chewing loudly, leaving the toilet seat up, putting feet on the furniture, and so forth. But these objectively gross habits become, in this article, women’s problem:
If your partner has a habit that he or she is not aware of but that drives you up a wall—keeping the bathroom door open, leaving bread crumbs in the butter dish, walking around in underwear—bring it up in a loving way. Maybe it simply never occurred to your partner that it bothers you.
Nice job on the “he or she” there, but the exhortation to “bring it up in a loving way” sounds to me like another way that women are expected to take on the burden of relationship management. This kind of advice doesn’t really sound a hell of a lot different from advice that would have been published in the Good Wife’s Guide from the 1950s (you know what I’m talking about: “Don’t complain if he’s late home for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through that day.”). Compare:
If your partner can’t seem to change sloppy ways, reframe the issue in your own mind. Instead of focusing on how inadequately he cleans, remind yourself how much you appreciate his contribution to household chores.
I just think this is such a good example of the ways that sexism sells men short. It’s like the message to men is: you’re stupid! You’re lazy! Women can’t expect any better from you!
But there’s also something really sinister about this article in its failure to really look at the gender dynamic of so-called “irritating” behaviour. What about when “irritating” becomes, oh, say, abusive?
Instead of seeing your partner as controlling, ask yourself what’s motivating them. A partner who doesn’t want you to go out with your friends may be scared of being abandoned. A partner who is second-guessing your decisions may be worried about you.
Um, yeah. Tell Rihanna that.
Also in the creepy/dangerous department is a “case study” (about as real as the “case studies” in Cosmo) about two young lawyers who wanted a baby, but fought all the time (read: the wife nagged the husband and the husband responded by physically pushing her, ’cause men who use physical violence on their partners have been provoked, right?). The couple decided in family therapy that their relationship was too violent to bring a baby into it. But then their therapist said to the husband:
“In the future, whenever she begins to go after you and wants to discuss money—whether at home, at a party, on the street—put your hand under her blouse or her skirt and fondle her.”
WHHAAAA…??? Um…WHHAAAA…??? Uh, call me a spoilsport, but if my husband responded to my need to discuss an issue as important as money by going in for a grope, he would not be getting lucky that night at all. And, um, this is a violent relationship we’re talking about, here! Aw, but what about the happy ending?
Not only did the tactic successfully interrupt the pattern of angry confrontation, it transformed it into a playful and warm dynamic. Within a month, she was pregnant.
YIKES YIKES YIKES YIKES YIKES YIKES YIKES. What happened to good, old-fashioned advice like, “If you’re husband is pushing you around, leave him”?!
Honestly, Psychology Today, why not just write an article that says, “Come on, ladies. You know men! Sometimes they just do stupid shit. They can’t be expected to do any better. So if you’re irritated, turn the scrutiny back on yourself. We know you do it so well!”
{ 2 comments }
Confabulous badges!
