Romantic Comedies are Neither Romantic Nor Comedies

I caught up with an old friend last night online. He was telling me that his ex-girlfriend recently re-entered his life through the power of IM. We talked about the tendency of people to pop up over and over again, and how, when we were younger the re-appearance of an ex would have been at the least dramatic, and potentially devastating.

I commented that there are SOME advantages to being older and wiser.

And he replied, yeah, like realizing that your happiness doesn’t hang on another person.

And it’s true. I think maybe that realizing that not only are your responsible for your own happiness, but that you are free to pursue your own happiness is the real moment when we finally grow up.

Hollywood romance movies thrive on us staying immature children. Some actors (i.e. Meg Ryan) have made their entire careers by teaching us through stories that our happiness not only depends on another person – ONE particular other person – but that we are also responsible for that other person’s happiness.

What a load of crock.

Here in broad strokes is the plot of a romantic movie:

Boy lies to get into girl’s pants.
Girl falls for it.
Stupid and annoying events (otherwise known as "wacky antics") occur because either:

1. Boy must make up more absurd lies to cover the first one
2. Boy and Girl never actually TALK to each other

Boy gets caught in lie, and only after getting caught realizes that he was doing anything wrong
Boy makes some grand gesture, girl falls for it AGAIN (probably because she’s been brainwashed by other romantic comedies)
And we’re supposed to leave the theater believing the boy has changed because the girl is the ONE.

Did I already say what a load of crock? I did? Okay then.

BULLSHIT.

And there are people who actually have these kinds of relationships – men who cheat or lie or patronize over and over again, and then make some grand gesture, and the woman, brainwashed by stupid concepts of romance, believes that grand gestures = real change, every single time. And worse, she believes that an absence of grand gestures means that he doesn’t really love her, anyway.

I know so many people who live their life with their gears in neutral, waiting for the other person who is going to make their life something meaningful. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if your life isn’t already meaningful, no one can fix that for you.

When you enter a relationship, the best and only thing any of us have to offer is ourselves. There will always be someone out there who is prettier, smarter, stronger, more… whatever it is we think we need to be in order to find love, but no one, NO ONE can compete with you in this thing – being YOU. And if you’re with someone who loves your attributes rather than you, that’s not good enough.

Love is not about grand gestures and it’s not about the attributes. Love is about living with each other every day and loving the whole of someone else. It’s about seeing the faults, knowing their past, believing in the future.

Love is this grand experiment, and it’s scary and wonderful and comfortable and challenging.

Anything less is just a tepid movie.

How Gay Marriage Got Me to the Altar

My dad and I had dinner a few weeks before my wedding, and talk turned rather naturally to marriage.

My father is gay, and he and his partner have been together for a number of years. They would like to be married - gold bands, legal obligations, the whole shebang. I asked him if it bothered him that I am getting married while he is still denied the opportunity. He thought it was an absurd question.

He said, "I don't want to rain on anyone else's party. I just want the chance to throw my own." I pointed out that my work as an activist and supporter of gay marriage is what made me think marriage was something worth considering. Dad laughed and told me that I should write a blog entry about THAT. So I am. :)

Up until a couple of years ago my views on marriage were cynical - and that's the kindest thing I can say about them.

I saw a lot of people move from dating to marriage not because they made the decision to get married, but because that was the next step to a relationship. First you date, and then you get married. I saw a lot of people get married out of obligation, because of pressure, out of guilt, or just because it was time to get married based on some life goal timeline in their mind. I saw lots of people get married for lots of bad reasons. And I saw lots of people get divorced.

I even served as a bridesmaid at a wedding where the wedding party (sans bride and groom) had a betting pool as to how quickly the couple would divorce. The most optimistic was 2 years. The couple separated after less than year.Worse, I saw many miserable people staying together because they were married. If they'd been dating both parties would have left - and been better off for it.

My friend Thomas pithily put it best, "I've seen couples get married for the wrong reasons, but I've never known anyone who got divorced for the wrong reasons."

My views on marriage were shaped by watching marriages fall apart: my parents', my friends', other relatives'. I'd seen some people in happy marriages, but they were the exception.

Around five years I started working for marriage rights for gay and lesbians. In retrospect, it was pretty hypocritical of me. I didn't really believe in marriage at all. I did believe in rights for everyone though, and marriage in our society comes with rights. It comes with significant tax breaks, legal protections, and it makes a whole host of things like inheritance, adoption, and travel easier. It provides the vehicle for making "next of kin" decisions in hospitals.

Then, three years ago, I spent a week in Washington, DC training to become a grassroots organizer for marriage rights. That week totally changed my outlook on marriage. I watched couples who had invested themselves totally in each other, despite the pressure from society to conform to the hetero-norm. I was surrounded by people who had fought so hard to be in legitimate relationships that they had given an incredible amount of thought about what marriage meant for society as a whole and what it meant to them, personally.

To these people marriage meant:
-An outward sign of an inner commitment- The ability to create a family (even if it was only a family of two)
- The ability to welcome the person he/she loved into THEIR family- A way to tell their SO that they were committed to the relationship
- A way to tell the world unequivocally that they were committed to each other

One story broke my heart. A young man lost his partner of many years six months before the DC conference. His partner’s family never accepted their relationship and completely shut him out of the funeral process. Not only could he not give a eulogy, he wasn’t even welcome at the service. He doesn’t know where his SO is buried. Because he couldn’t marry his SO; he was denied the bonds of family that marriage can provide. He was denied closure and even the right to mourn that we take for granted.

Even if his partner’s family had accepted him as family, many employers would not have given him funeral leave, nor the time needed to settle his SO’s affairs.I also saw for the first time the role that community plays in a relationship. Married couples are given a level of support and acceptance in the community that is absent for couples who are “just dating” regardless of level of commitment or length of time a couple has been together. This is true with straight couples who choose not to marry, as well, as same sex couples.

I see it in my own short time married. People treat me differently, and they respect my relationship with my husband in ways I couldn’t even imagine before our ceremony. They assume that he will be included in decisions – and that I will be included in his. They assume that we are a priority in each others’ lives and take that into account when they ask us to do additional work or to alter our plans. Our marriage license is a notice to the community that our relationship matters to us. Same-sex couples simply don’t get that level of community support.

That week in DC was the first time that I looked at marriage without the lens of legal obligations and without the bitterness born of watching marriages fall apart. I came home more thoughtful about the institution of marriage. I began looking for married couples who might share the spirit of the group in DC. And, to my surprise, I found them.

The healthy, positive, thoughtful approach to marriage isn’t just a result of romantic notions of a group to whom the privilege has been denied. There are many couples who make the decision to get married for good reasons. Legal reasons? Yes. Romantic notions? I hope so. But more than that, the institute of marriage brings something meaningful to their relationship.

It’s ironic that I discovered the joy and the sanctity of marriage by working for a cause many Americans fear will destroy the institution. It’s sad that so many people marry for the wrong reasons. Six weeks ago, I married the love of my life. I am beholden to the gay community for giving me the insight into marriage that made this possible. Without my experiences in DC, I never would have been open to the way marriage could enhance my already committed relationship.

I hope that my own marriage provide a platform to fight for the same privilege to those who gave me this gift.

Next Month in Forbes Magazine: The Benefits of Whoring

Forbes Magazine has an article up telling men not to marry career women - with a photo slide show.

She's more like to cheat because when your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners,"... Perhaps if you're so insecure and uninteresting that the fact that she works means that she might cheat is a concern, you're not quite ready for a serious relationship yet.

Women have dealt with this issue for years, after all. Men moved in broader circles and had more opportunities to meet other women. Now, women have that some opportunity. Perhaps Maxim and the other men's magazines should start adding helpful columns on "how to stay interesting for your wife". I assume they will be as insulting as the similar articles filling the pges of Cosmo every month.

Basically the article says that marrying a career woman is risky because if you're a lousy husband, she has the wherewithall to leave your sorry ass. Of course, it makes this out to be that she is less committed to marriage. Gah! It also infuriates me because if this same article appeared in a women's mag, it would no doubt be telling us how to change to become "better wives".

According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

Can we get a gender breakdown, please? Because thanks to the Victorians, men both make more money than women, and for most of our social development as a society were encouraged to sow their seed among as many fields as they could manage to plow. I notice the fact that these statistics are based on income neatly sidesteps the question of gender.

Also, it's true that a woman dedicated to her career might not want children. If you want children, marry someone else who wants children. Don't assume that you can knock some woman up and that she's going to be happy staying off with your crotch spawn.

And if you're the type of man who is going to be depressed because your wife makes more money than you, buy a bride. They'll be happy to live off your leavings afterall, she comes from a situation where she felt compelled to sell herself to you in the first place.

There is so much wrong with this article, I don't even know where to start.

Your house will be dirtier? If both of you make more than $30k annually, you can probably afford to hire a cleaning service. My husband and I have already discussedthis as part of our household budget, because not only do I intend to have a career, but I'm a lousy housekeeper anyway.

I LOVE this: A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.

So the article makes all these assumptions, but when the author notes that marriage might be a good idea in the first place, we'll make a corrlation/causation distinction. Why not for the whole damn article?

I hope to god every businesswomen in America cancels her subscription to Forbes.

ETA: The cowardly editors over at Forbes apparently aren't happy about the ruckus, but they didn't want to actually take the article down, so they moved it to here:

http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

with a "counterpoint". I prefer the counterpoint on BoingBoing where someone just reversed the gender pronouns to make their point.

Don't Give a Damn About My Reputation

I just finished reading an article inspired by the Radio Shack lay-offs. It springboards into thoughts I've been having lately as I begin job hunting in my field. I wonder if companies realize the impact that their reputation in the community has on recruitment efforts - do they not get that employees talk to old classmates and friends and that the "networking" that is touted as a great way to get jobs is also a great way to find out which companies to avoid? Do companies make any effort to gauge their reputation as EMPLOYERS? Sometimes I think not- or at the least, that they are desperately out of touch with their reputation among prospective employees.

For example, there is a large, prestigous, international accounting firm here in Louisville- one of the big four. As far as I've been able to see, no one is happy working for them. I've never met anyone who works for them who likes their job or work environment. I would never apply for a job with them - and I'm not alone. My study group is the top tier of my graduating class, and only one of us is considering even applying with them - and she's not planning to stay - she wants to work with them a year or two at the most and then move into a different type of accounting. So essentially, among those most qualified, no one plans to even apply for a position with one of the big four in Louisville. This is significant. It is no way for an organization to have anything resembling long-term quality. Not a single public accountant from this graduationg class is interested in becoming a future principle in their firm.

Another company in town, one of Louisville's largest employers, has a similiarly bad reputation. It also has an aging workforce - because younger workers have seen the reputation and want no part of it. Once again, younger workers might go to work for them, planning to gain a year or two of experience "in the mines", and then they take their experience elsewhere. For example, I worked with a woman at a local company where she couldn't acquire a skill she wanted to develop. She went and worked for less than a year at the company with a poor reputation, and then once she acquired the new skill, took a job back with her previous employer. She had planned to stay at the other company, but the work environment was so poisonous that she came back, bringing her newly acquired skills with her.

Companies with poor reputations become proving grounds. New, inexperienced workers go and obtain some experience and knowledge, and then leave to work for a better company once they have the resume fodder. In the long run, especially once the baby boomers really begin to retire en masse, these corporations are going to be hurting for workers and most especially for quality, experienced workers. Companies will be competing for fewer prospective employees in the next decade anyway, because of the generational difference between the boomers and their decendents.

There are fewer of us than there were of our parents (and grandparents). Our values are different, our work ethic and our sense of self-worth is different. We grew up with lay-offs and "downsizing", we understand implicitly that there is no real loyalty contract between us and our employers. We do not have pensions. We do not have retirement plans through our employers. Many of us don't even have health insurance. We plan to live longer, and we do not see careers as an end goal, for us they are a continuation process - we may change midstream; we may develop something different.

Companies need to recognize that recruiting and keeping us is a whole new game.