India's Dating Website--> Marriage

From The Atlantic...

India's Dating Sites Skip Straight to the Wedding

The online dating scene in India is primarily matrimonial websites, predicated on the idea that the first meeting between two paired users will be to chat about their wedding. It highlights a false dichotomy between modern arranged marriages and fairy tale love.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/indias-dating-sites-skip-straight-to-the-wedding/281817/

Love Actually

For an anti-romantic take on one of the most popular holiday romance movies, read...

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/-em-love-actually-em-is-the-least-romantic-film-of-all-time/282091/

I especially appreciate the analysis of the married couple's break-up.  I agree...Marriages withstand far more than a spouse buying an inappropriate gift for a co-worker.

Sex and the City epiphany of the day

For better or for worse, I've acquired a few summer addictions: booking vacation lodging, reading Hillary Mantel's novels, and watching Sex and the City reruns.  First, I must confess that I came close to banning my daughters from watching this show when it first appeared, based on the only scene I'd viewed, which featured Samantha, Richard Wright, and a public space.  If you know Samantha, you get the idea.  So why then, after so many years (details unimportant), have I become an S+C junkie?  Can't really say.  But salvaging a bit of pride, I can say that there's more to learn about female self-actualizing from Carrie, Miranda, Samantha, and (even) Charlotte than I'd ever imagined.  Or maybe I'm just rationalizing.  

Today's show, "Sex and the Ex," hit the jackpot.  It's that worse moment of a failed romance when you're desperately trying to claim/blame that he was commitment phobic and deny that he just wasn't that into you. Even if you broke up with him, you still can't accept that he has finally committed to a woman.  But it ain't you.  So you badger and harangue your friends, "Why?"  "Why her?" "Why not me?"   until one of them finally has the guts to tell you the truth.  Usually, it's brutal.  Always, it's what everyone--including you--already knows.  In Carrie's case, Miranda bottom-lines the brutal truth:  "Hubbell."  Charlotte, astonished, echoes, "Hubbell."  Carrie explodes, "Oh, my God, Hubbell!  It is.  It is so Hubbell!"  Maybe you're as clueless as Samantha admits she is. Let me fill you in.  http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/sex-and-the-city/videos/8165834/title/sex-city-hubbell
  

To recap...Mr. Big = Hubbell; Carrie = Katie.  More importantly, Carrie declares she's having an "epiphany": "The world is made up of two kinds of girls--the simple girls and the Katie girls."


The Katie Girls don't always get what they deserve in the romance department.  In truth, it's their own fault. They set themselves up for failure by embracing the fantasy of the romance--the master narrative that has always and will always work against Katie Girls.  Here's why...According to Romance 101, the guys who see relationships with Katie Girls as too "hard," like Big explains.  Hubbels find Katies to be too much trouble and leave them in the rubble.   

Ironically, at the end of the movie, we feel sorry for Hubbell--not Katie.  We already know that it's Hubbell's life--not Katie's--that will be diminished.  It's the same with Big's life, as we learn in a later episode.  After only one year of marriage, he's trapped in his bachelor pad that his Simple Girl wife has redecorated in beige--all beige.  He says, "beige" like it's 3 syllables, so disdainful is he.  In such a way, the Simple Girl gets the guy and imposes her beigeness on his world.  

And what does our Katie Girl get if not the guy and power to beige his world?   At the time of the break-up, Katie (no last name revealed), feels like one big fat loser.  She has lost Hubbell and, therefore, according to the romance hype Love.  Mamma Mia! illustrates the loser's loss of Love.  Toward the movie's end , the romance hype overwhelms our middle-aged leading lady Donna (again, no last name, what up?), who bursts into a lyrical lament:
                                 The gods may throw a dice
                                 Their minds as cold as ice
                                 And someone way down here
                                 Loses someone dear
                                 The winner takes it all
                                 The loser has to fall
                                 It's simple and it's plain
                                 Why should I complain?
Donna asks herself why she should complain when it's the cold-minded gods who have conspired against her.  No one else is to blame.  Certainly not these male twits, goading her.  Certainly not herself, a self-actualized woman.  It's all so unfair.  Is there no way she can win?  Couldn't she simply stop self-actualizing and adore/adorn the twittiest twit?  That's her only hope for winning, according to the script.  So she stops self-actualizing and becomes syrupy simple.  And it works. Hurrah!  She wins the twit and the game of romance.  But she loses the spotlight.  You'll notice that the true Simple Girl--Donna's young, hot daughter--appears alone on the cover.  There's no spotlight in a romance after the girl gets her guy.  She won't even appear in the shadows. 

Am I suggesting that you can't self-actualize while coveting the romance? Yes, I am. No, you can't. If you want a fuller life, you need to be a Katie Girl.  You can have lovers. You can have boyfriends. You can have husbands. But you can't have male rescuers, who sweep in, sweep the decaying villa clean, and sweep you off your feet.  

What you can have is a fuller life--with or without a lover.  Let's face it...being the Katie Girl is the only hope that women have for self-actualizing.  Being the Katie Girl requires doing the dumping--of the romance ruse.  And this doesn't mean Erin Brockovich-style.  Rather, while self-actualizers reject unhealthy master narratives, they remain classy.  Think  Trouble with the Curve Clint Eastwood, not Unforgiven Eastwood.  Without revenge, or even resentment, self-actualizers regard themselves as just too caring, intelligent, truthful, and virtuous to succumb to society's vision of them as pawns in this olde patriarchal game masquerading as love.  

Gracefully, Carrie adopts Katie's final words to Hubbell and releases Mr. Big:  "Your girl is lovely..." She is gracious and classy, realizing that, like Katie before her, she chooses to be the consummate "good loser." She chooses to lose at a game that isn't run by fickle rulers who coldly  punish and reward but is run by an outdated, constricting patriarchy that, like slavery, diminishes all involved.

Choosing to keep her curls (remain complicated), Carrie chooses to lose.  And what, exactly does our Katie Girl lose?  Plot-wise, she loses Mr. Big.  Character-wise, even the distraught Carrie knows he's no great loss. What she will come to learn is that she's lost only the culture's romance fantasy.  In her case, she has known all along--from the beginning of their romance to the end--that he is not her soul mate. Why else has she reduced him to the nickname "Mr. Big"?  

What of Carrie's future? Will there be a soul mate for her? Will there be a Mr. Bradshaw?  :) 

For the most part, the series doesn't endorse romance as the quick fix.  Ironically, it doesn't endorse sex either as the panacea for all women's aches and ills. Rather, what I'm discovering (after giving the show more than one cursory viewing) is that  in its own way, Sex and the City has a great deal to say about female empowerment, that is, about female self-actualization.

At the end of this episode, Carrie stands alone on an NYC street corner while watching Mr. Big being driven off with his much younger Simple Girl. Miss Bradshaw turns toward home. She walks confidently (and looks fabulous). She seems prepared to rescue her own broken heart.  We can only hope that she will set to work developing her "soul" as the prerequisite to finding her soul mate.  "Know thyself," the Greeks would advise.

With self-knowledge learnt, Aristotle proclaimed more work.  To achieve eudaemonia, Aristotle knew that it's our intentions, habitual actions, and our virtuous friends that come together to create our future self.  Good intentions, good actions, and good friends create good selves. 

The way we were isn't nearly as important as the way we will be.  

Sleepwalking

Sleepwalking (2008)  Director:  Bill Maher; Writer:  Zac Stanford

Stars:  Charlize Theron, Nick Stahl, AnnaSophia Robb
 

 I’m not sure how many reviews you’d have to read before you found a reviewer who appreciated this movie.  So, up front, I recognize that my praise is relatively solitary and admit that the penultimate scene dangerously romanticizes or at least unjustifiably forgives parental neglect, which is ironic for this film.  That confessed, here’s why I value the film.

James self-actualizes in almost a text-book manner under the most extreme of disadvantages.  Fulfilling the three criteria for self-actualizing, he 1) accepts who he is; 2) rejects forced acculturation; and 3) contributes to a better world.

1.   James learns that he is not an “idiot” as his father has categorized him. Rather, he is a compassionate, generous, and resourceful human being.  He doesn’t so much develop those attributes as he discovers and cultivates them. He learns that he cannot go home, fix his past, or tolerate his father’s abuse. 

2.   He rejects the forced acculturation of the legal system and his father’s patriarchy. 

3.   Tenaciously, he salvages the paltry existence he’s left with and saves the life of his young niece.  He builds a meaningful and salvific relationship with his sister’s daughter though no one has a right to ask him to sacrifice so much for her sake. 

Yes, there are disappointments.  The film’s pace is very slow. And we’d like to see the acting of Theron and Harrelson much more.  (Hopper, not so much.) And bleakness turns bleaker and bleaker.  By the end of the movie, I was nostalgic for the nights when Jack slept in someone’s dark, unfinished basement on a deflated mattress.  By the end, those are actually the good olde days. That’s how rough his life becomes.  But the worst failure is the mother-daughter reunion, which is both unrealistic and romantic.  It’s both insipid and unethical.

Thankfully, the film continues for one more scene, which though not conclusive, affords hope. We see that Jack has opened up from his shut down personality, woken up from his abuse-imposed lethargy.  He has become not just a rescuing uncle, but a human on the brink of flourishing—for his own good. It’s hard to imagine that his life will be easy, but it’s easy to imagine that his life will be productive. And if there is hope for Jack, there is hope for each of us—no matter our upbringing, class, or self-image.

Afterthought: The set designs establish Jack’s slow, spiraling loss of hope.  From the damaged walls of Jack’s one-bedroom apartment stretched to house 3 to the dingy basement with hanging old rags to the dilapidated farm with rotting animals and manure everywhere, jutting out in the middle of nowhere and no time, the sets force viewers to journey deeper into emotional, mental, and physical ruin.  It’s no wonder that despite Jack’s exit in a run-down pickup truck, the scenery finally uplifts our spirits and invites our optimism.

When She Woke

   Jordan, Hillary. When She Woke.  Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2011.

This is a good book, full of good ideas embedded in a good story.  Well, at least the first half is.  Let me catalogue these ideas for you.  But you’ll have to take word for it that the story intrigues. At least the first half.

1.      “She wondered how many of them were liars, their outer purity masking crimes as dark or darker than her own.  How many would be Chromes themselves, if the truth in their hearts were revealed?”  (172) Hannah is chromed—turned red—for the crime of an abortion in a US where church and state co-mingle and not in a good way.  So one has to wonder, as does our narrator, if the non-chromed have their own secrets and transgressions, especially those berating, rejecting, torturing, and murdering the chromes.  Are those crying the loudest cries of outrage, criminals or sinners themselves?

2.      “Had becoming a Red given her an extra sense, a knowledge of the hidden desires and evil in other hearts?” (185-6) Seriously, no.

3.      “We are feminists, not revolutionaries.” “Feminists. The word made Hannah bristle with distaste.  In her world, they were viewed as unnatural women who sought to overturn the order laid down by God, sabotage the family, emasculate men and, along with gays, atheists, abortionists, Satanists, pornographers and secular humanist, pervert the American way of life.” (206-7)  These “feminists” stand for  women persecuted for their rights—to abort, chose their lovers, preference their sexual choices, and defend themselves.  Their constant mantra is “It’s personal.” More on that later.

4.      “Why had they kept her life so small? Why had they never asked her what she wanted? At every possible turn, she saw, they’d chosen the path that would keep her weak and dependent.  Ant the fact that they wouldn’t see it that way, that they sincerely believed they’d acted in her best interest, didn’t make it any less true or any less culpable.” (253) “One by one, she’d conjured all the boxes she’d been put into: The good girl box and the good Christian box. The confines of her sewing room above the garage. The mistress box, played out in the boxes of all those indistinguishable hotel rooms…” (268) In the name of religion and all its claims of righteousness, her parents, the church, her associates, and the government have consigned women into boxes of motherhood, womanhood, wifehood—everything but sisterhood.  No matter, says our narrator, their alleged good intentions, the effect (and probably, the intent) is to stifle and conform.

5.      “It’s personal. Hannah fully grasped for the first time, the meaning of the words.  They weren’t just about choice or privacy; they were a declaration of self-worth, a demand for personal dignity. Their fundamental truth pealed inside of her, clarion bright.” (279) There’s a great speech in the movie You’ve Got Mail, when Kathleen Kelly announces that’s “It’s not personal” just means that it’s not personal to the person saying that.  But it’s personal to the person assailed.  Further, she ponders, what’s so wrong with actions and talk being personal.  That’s the very least, she contends, that our lives should be.  Her sentiment permeates the Novembrists’ agenda.  For each of the feminists is personal.

6.      “A wild exaltation seized her as she realized that she meant it; that she was laying claim to her life as she’d never done before. She had never felt more wholly alive than at this moment…” (289)  Sounds impressive but—and here’s what so very wrong with the second half—Hannah wants it all: her freedom and a last fling.  Thankfully, for her self-actualization, she realizes that she can’t continue her affair: “She’d just be putting herself into another box.” (331) But what chaffs me is that while she deserts her parents, allowing them to assume the worst about her life, she reconnects with the reverend. Her parents deserve more.  He deserves nothing.

7.      “You must set foot upon the path with nothing but yourself. It felt right and necessary, this letting go, this total surrender.  She had never in her life been this vulnerable, or felt this powerful.” (339) This is supposed to be her ultimate epiphany.  But is it her self-actualizing?  Let’s consider Maslow’s three criteria… 1. True, she knows now who she isn’t, but she has no clue who she is.  2. And I’ll grant that she finally rejects unhealthy forced acculturation. 3. But what’s missing is that she doesn’t contribute at all—zero—to a better world. Too bad. Jordan should have read her Maslow.

Lamb in His Bosom

Caroline Miller informs her readers about the people and life of the back woods of rural Georgia during the ante-bellum period of the US.  More than that though, she teaches her readers about human endurance, suffering, hope, and constancy.  We follow Cean--as mother, wife, daughter, and sister--through her struggles to become a woman she can look in the mirror and be proud of.  She is a true Stoic and a likable one. 

How to be a good Stoic (from Richard Walsh): 

According Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, 

to be a Stoic, you should begin the morning by saying the following to yourself.  

1. Be grateful.

2. Be a Roman.

3. Trust Providence.

4. Know your place.

5. Control your mind.

6. Remember that you are worth only as much as those things you busy yourself with.

7. Live over your troubles.

8. Don'ts whine.

9. Don't think you're special.

10. Live today as not to be ashamed when you face the mirror tomorrow.

Back to Cean...Despite her hardships and disappointments, Cean self-actualizes, growing more confident, competent, and beautiful. The first half of the novel paces more slowly, leisurely letting us get to know the families and their situations.  The second half narrates more drama and culminates with a perspective while not totally unexpectedly, certainly intriguing. 

I haven't the heart for Stoicism.

Confession: I haven't the heart for Stoicism.

I’m on a gurney in a hospital gown and my wool socks.  My bp is high.  I think I can feel my heart pounding. The doctor is late, hasn't even arrived.  Someone in the adjoining curtained-off “room” can’t stop cataloging all of her ailments.  She’s next, that is, when the doctor arrives.  I realize that I’m not even close to getting drugs to calm me down.  I keep thinking that I didn't tell my husband how much I love him, how much I need him.  I keep thinking of my high bp and pounding heart.  I keep thinking of Marcus Aurelius’ advice about calming your mind, facing death with confidence, and managing crisis.  

I keep thinking and thinking.  But my heart keeps pounding.  And there I see it.  The device with the button to push for help.  I will not push that button.  I will act like a good Stoic.  I will control my thoughts.  But I can’t seem to control my heart pounding.  I push the button and ask if my husband can join me. Sure. He does. He helps me breathe evenly.  He distracts me with chit-chat about last night’s movie.  He looks worried and tender-hearted.  My heart seems better.  The doctor arrives and my neighbor is wheeled away.  I ask to use the restroom, mainly so I can get up and move around.  Sure.  It’s so easy.  I ask for help and get it.  Not very stoic, I grant you.  But try as I may, it seems to go against my nature to calm my brain on my own.  I need someone else.  Perhaps, that’s not such a bad thing.
 

Mudbound by Hillary Jordan

Jordan, Hillary Mudbound.  Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2008. 

Jordan, Hillary Mudbound.  Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2008.

My discussion questions…

1.      Laura discusses the difficulty of knowing when to begin telling a story.  Obviously, Jordan struggled with that decision—not just when but from who’s perspective.  She chose to begin with Jamie’s view of his father’s burial.  So from the beginning, we not only know that Pappy dies, but we know that Laura, Henry, and Jamie have an uneasy relationship together.  This establishes the novel as a mystery.  How do Jordan’s plot twists, foreshadowings, forebodings, etc. keep you intrigued?

2.      Narration is important, as well.  We hear many voices but Jordan silence Pappy’s.  Ironically, Ronsel’s voice concludes the novel.  Would the novel have been more realistic with Pappy’s perspective? Fairer?  How do the perspectives compete?  While as narrators, Laura and Ronsel conclude the novel, as characters, they are not running things.  Predominantly, Henry has his way, as he always had.  Does this seem realistic? Fair?

3.      Which characters consider themselves religious?  Irreligious?  Would you agree with their self-assessments?  Ultimately, is the novel religious?

4.      In her first section, Laura narrates that most depictions of farm lives are romanticized.  Does the novel romanticize her longing for and affair with Jamie?  According to the novel, what enervates and what energies a marriage?   Both Jamie and Laura have sex outside the bounds of marriage.  In addition, life has disappointed and damaged both Jamie and Laura.  Does the novel pose a double standard for how it judges their sexual behavior—OK for the guy but not for the gal?

5.      Laura is miserable on the farm.  How much does she contribute to her own miserableness?

6.      The ancient Greeks believed in the need for strong philos relationships within the noble household and strong xenios relationships with their neighbors.  The novel’s conclusion shows the McAllans (as they appear in the beginning) together burying their patriarch and expecting their neighbors to help them.  However, unlike the Greeks, there’s a lack of reciprocity in this xenios relationship.  Initially, why did you think Hap helped?  Ultimately, what do you think motivated him?  Does this make him a good or bad man?  Does this make him a realistic or romantic character?

7.      Some of the narrators accept their natures as innate and unalterable.  Pappy’s a jerk—always was and always will be.  Jamie’s a charmer, Henry’s a stubborn male.  Florence is the salt of the earth.  Does anyone change significantly? If so, how?  If not, what prevents them from changing?

8.      Jamie asserts, “Sometimes it’s necessary to do wrong. Sometimes it’s the only way to make things right. (294)”  Arnold van Gennep adopts a different perspective—sometimes licensing violence as not only necessary but good.  He acknowledges the need for violence when a group loses its order and operates in chaos.  Is that true of this family or this place?  Is violence their only solution? If so, is it the Klan’s violence or the murdering of Pappy that begins to restore order?  Are you, as a reader, aware that the novel sanctions violence?  After all, without the murder, would there be any hope for these people?  Or does the murder change nothing? Does Jordan offer any successful strategy for operating humanely in such a prejudiced, desolate environment?  Is the novel ultimately hopeful or disturbing?

9.      Late in the novel, Jamie complains, “Did he [Hanry] never get tired of being the strong one, of being stoic and honorable  and dependable (301)?” A Stoic believes in two ways to handle life: 1) accept what you can’t control and 2) act upon what you can control.  Is Henry really a Stoic?  How do some of the characters fail to be good Stoics?  Would being a good Stoic have saved any characters? Would being a good Stoic have helped any characters become content with their lives?

10.  A self-actualizer believes that 1) it may become necessary to reject forced, unhealthy acculturation.  In this novel, those forces would be racism, sexism, and classism.  Is it possible for the characters deprived of power/agency to reject social codes and self-actualize?  For example, is there any hope for the African American characters to self-actualize?  The women?  The poor?  Of course, there’s more to self-actualizing than rejecting confining prejudices.  You must also 2) have a firm sense of self (which you accept) and 3) participate in bettering others’ lives.  If there’s any character who fulfills the 3 criteria for self-actualization, it’s probably Florence.  Why? But what about Henry?  He certainly fulfills self-knowledge and acceptance.  But does he stand apart from society when he needs to?  And does he contribute to making this a better world or cultivating a better relationship?  Is he selfish or self-actualizing?

11.  There’s a tension between being hospitable, compassionate, and generous vs. looking out for your family.  Being nice seems to endanger folks in this novel.  Florence exposes herself to whooping cough and later, returns to her family.  Henry allows Carl and his family to stay on even though he’s a violent drunk.  Etc.  Perhaps, that’s as it should be when it’s so darn hard to stay alive.  Contrary to ancient Greek ethics, to be good doesn’t guarantee happiness.  How are morality and happiness connected in this novel?

12.  The last two sections afford hope. First, Laura proclaims that love will save us all: “It will be a boy…And while I’ll always regret that I got my son at such terrible cost to hers, I won’t regret that I got him.  My love for him won’t let me. I’ll end with that.  With love.”    Is it love that saves her or is it more that her quality of life has so drastically improved—electricity, indoor plumbing, a “colored maid,” and an order life?  Abraham Maslow believed that until our basic needs are satisfied, humans can’t become ethical.  Does Laura exemplify that philosophy? Second,  Ronsel demands more: “If I worked and prayed hard enough.  If he was stubborn as well as lucky.  If he really had a shine.” Realistically, will being religious, industrious, and stubborn help him succeed and find happiness?  Are these two perspectives satisfying moral closures? Or are they oversimplifications—patently ignoring the struggles against racism and patriarchy amidst a harsh socio-economic environment?  Has Jordan fallen into solipsism and romanticism?

Just Kids

  Just Kids by Patti Smith disappoints.  The story of her relationship with Robert Maplethorpe; their careers--combined and separate; and every person she met, garb she wore, and place she parked her butt has such potential. (You may need to recoup the subject of that sentence.)  So where does she go wrong?

First, she writes what amounts to a Cinderella tale without marriage and with homosexuality.
1. Man rescues girl.  Robert's a bit older and more savvy.  He has resources although meager.  She's homeless and starving.  He affords her shelter and artistic guidance.  She joins him--on his terms.
2. Girl becomes man's appendage.  For all of Robert's us-against-the world worldview, it's Robert running the show.  They are so broke that they have to split a grilled cheese sandwich and eat lettuce soup; but Robert can blow $5 on a sealed porn magazine in hopes of some artistic material.  He creates whenever he wants while she holds down 9-to-5 jobs.  They can barely fit into their hotel room together but he secures a loft while she's writing in the hotel's busy lobby.  Etc. She bolsters his ego.  She nurses him through days of trench mouth, impacted wisdom teeth, and high fever.  Thereafter,  he abandons her to hustle men and pick up more diseases.
3. This is a man's world, starring Robert Maplethorpe, alleged artist genius.  Screw her and her life. He discovers men, S&M; high society, and artistic-types' salons.  She lurks in the background, longing to fit in or waits in her room for him to return.  He eventually ditches her.  And it's absolutely no coincidence that afterward, she blossoms.

This all makes for a too-familiar, disappointing story, which the author seems oblivious of.

The second reason that the book is a dud lies with the writing style.  A diary extended into a hagiography promises nothing but insipidness.  Robert, the artist, the lover, the misunderstood.  Come on.  It's more than a little infuriating to this reader that such an intelligent and talented woman waits around one half hour for stoned roommate to tie his shoes so that they can finally go out after she worked at a colossally boring job all day to support him. She tolerates his promiscuity, creepiness, even evilness--without any attempt to analyze him or educate herself.  Someone in the book club lamented that she didn't learn anything from reading this memoir.  I wonder if that's because Smith, herself, doesn't learn anything.  While cataloging her outfits, meals, travels, residences, conversations, and her acquaintances, she never wonders if Robert is toxic for her.  She only praises his creativity and overlooks his self-destruction.  It's either poor, dear, Robert or Robert, creative genius.

Don't read it because you already know this worn-out story of female self-subjugation.