Tag: marriage

Politicians: Erect & Standing Up, But Not For Women

/ Deanna / 3 Comments

Maybe you don’t want to call it a “war on women”. Maybe you find the word “war” to be over-the-top, despite the facts regarding bombings, shootings, rape, and other violent attacks against women, including the places where they seek access to medical care. Perhaps you just don’t think that violence is enough to be called a “war”. But what about when you factor in the legislative bombs aimed directly at women here in the USA?

Legislating against women’s rights is at the center of politics. In the past three years, state legislatures in the US have enacted a record-setting 205 restrictions on women’s reproductive rights. That exceeds the total number of such restrictions enacted during the entire previous decade — and that last decade was no small potatoes either. Between 2001 and 2010, states passed 189 abortion restrictions. (Data from a Guttmacher Institute report.)

women's rights restrictions in states

Legislating against women’s rights is so popular right now, that one candidate for congress in Virginia, Richard Black, thinks that marital rape should be legal again, like it was in 1965, and that military rape is “as predictable as human nature”. That says a lot about his nature. And a lot more about a society in which someone espousing such beliefs can run for office.

wives-rights-sex-1965a

Maybe 1965 isn’t so far back that we need a stone tablet to mark the date, but we sure are moving backwards.

And all this while, from 2006 to 2011, Medicaid was paying $175 million for 473,620 claims for penis pumps — you know, so men can have sex. Sex that maybe their spouses didn’t want to have. Sex that maybe resulted in unwanted pregnancies, because, you know, birth control isn’t always an option. It’s a limited option with many private insurance companies and with Medicare. And it’s even less likely that your insurance or Medicare will cover an abortion. But let’s just be glad that men not only have the right to those erections but the access to medical help to force those erections too.  Isn’t it nice to know that men are all about standing up for themselves?

The Way To A Man’s Heart Is Through His Stomach & Other Lessons In Vintage Cookbooks

/ Deanna / 2 Comments

This is the cover of The Way To His Heart “A Cookbook with a Personality”, 1941; note the figures on the cover.

the way to his heart vintage

The five female figures on the cover of this vintage cookbook depict the five cooks featured in the book itself. These five women are said to be three generations of one family. From the bottom left working our way to the top right are “Grandmother” Grace Toulouse Hunt, “Mother” Priscilla Wayne Sprague, “Newly Married Daughter” Dorothy Hunt Hales, “Collegiate Daughter” Jeanne Wayne Sprague, and “Teenage Daughter” Nancy Grace Sprague.

While I can admit to certain body changes in terms of aging, I find the rounding of age in proportion to hem length somewhat amusing… Not only is Grandma rather stout, but combined with her nearly floor-length dress she closely resembles a Russian nesting doll. And notice how only newly married Dorothy has curves in all the right places — illustrating her appropriate fertility status. (Heck, her proportions make me want to ask the new wife when she’s going to have a baby!) Perhaps even more amazing, this illustrated figure study of body image stereotypes is the artwork of one of these women; at least Dorothy “Dot” Hunt Hales is the artist credited. (More on that later.)

way to his heart author and artist credits

The story or “personality” behind this cookbook is that newlywed Dot writes home to her mother asking for some recipes. The occasion is the wonderful celebration of their 6 month wedding anniversary and the young bride has learned how important cooking and food is to her marriage:

I have discovered one important thing in the past six months — glamour and romance can be preserved in marriage if one’s husband is well-fed and comfortable.

Mother is, of course, no doubt delighted her daughter has seen the light and become a believer in the old adage that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. Not only is mom thrilled to help her wise and dutiful newly married daughter Dot, but mom enlists the help of Dot’s grandmother and sisters. These are their “letters” from the front of the vintage book:

etsyscans10-30-13013

etsyscans10-30-13014

And then, the most amazing thing happens! “One of the top men of Jack Sprat Foods, Inc., heard about it” and they decided to publish the cookbook! Enter Western Grocer Company, owner of the food brand, as publisher; enter the advertisements for Jack Sprat brand foods.

etsyscans10-30-13015

While the “homey, friendly” premise seems rather contrived to the jaded consumers of today (and the corporate ads themselves also draw into question Dot’s artwork), the book’s editor, Priscilla Wayne Sprague appears to be an actual author. But the proposed family relationships get a bit confusing…. My research continues and shall be reported soon. (Watch this space.)

I also have to share some information from the vintage cookbook’s section by college daughter Jeanne. Jeanne’s appearance certainly tones down any sex appeal, and we are likely to suppose any fears about daughters in college along with it. And even if such imagery might lend itself to jokes about college girl experimentation and stereotypical lesbian dress, the experimentation in the kitchen appears to have been limited — at least for sorority girls.

A College Girl (this one at least) doesn’t really cook at all — sororities provide cooks and sincerely hope they can keep the girls out of the kitchen. There are certain things, however, that the cook just isn’t in on, such as late Sunday sandwiches with you and your date — or rush teas and other occasions of state.

When the cook is out and the girls have free rein in the kitchen, here are some of the foods they can cook. All of these recipes are of the type that can be prepared quickly, cheaply and (for the benefit of the dates) charmingly.

Oh, how can poor Jeanne ever get her M.R.S. degree if she doesn’t cook?!

when a college girl cooks

This vintage book from 1941 has some of the racism you might expect from the 1930s and 40s. At the bottom of the page, Jeanne starts a story which continues on the next page:

One of the girls at the sorority house is Irish — shanty Irish — we call her, because she has simple tastes — fried potatoes, baked beans and such. But one time I tasted the baked concoction she used to make and believe me there was nothing “shanty” about it — it was pure Park Avenue — here it is:

vintage shanty irish baked beans

It is recipes like this one, based on canned goods, which certainly marks a change (if not decline) in cooking itself. This turning point in American history turns out to be a good thing for Jack Sprat Foods, Inc. and the Western Grocer Company. The grocery store addresses this issue in one of the advertisements for the Jack Sprat brand:

“Now, when I was a girl,” said Mom

“They used to joke about ‘cooks who were lost without can-openers.’ But it’s just a pleasant smile these days.”

“Why, Mom?” questioned Nancy, giving just the opening Mom wanted.

“Because now we get the very finest foods in cans — just take these Jack Sprat Peaches, for example.” Mom emphasized her point by holding a can at arm’s length.

“These are peaches at their very best — completely ripened on the tree, and canned quickly, to capture the fresh flavor and the precious vitamins all fresh fruits contain. No more sweating over a hot stove for me, when Jack Sprat will do the job for me so well!”

Of course Nancy agrees with Mom. What modern girl wouldn’t rather play tennis or swim on a summer afternoon, instead of helping can fruit in a sizzling kitchen?

Mom’s verdict applies not only to Jack Sprat Peaches, but to pears, apricots, pineapple, and an arm-long list of fine berries. You’ll find it pays to let Jack Sprat do your canning too.

jack sprat canned food cooking jokes

If the convenience of modern canned foods was the advent of more free time for girls and women, perhaps it can be linked not only to the decline in cooking skills but to the decline in the “way to a man’s heart” adage. Men such as Barry Popik say this approach works for dogs and not men; however ironic the dog reference may seem to me, Popik seems to be saying this food-as-lure lore doesn’t work. Also, men at AskMen no longer find cooking on their top list of skills necessary in a female partner. Enlightenment reaches us, maybe? Would that such enlightenment about female body images would change as well.

What Are Women Earning? (And How Are Men Shrinking?)

/ Deanna / 4 Comments

If you’re following my Dare To Be A Feminist topic at Scoop.It (or have just been paying attention to the news), you probably noticed all the discussion about the Pew Research Report that states that women are earning more than their husbands in 40% of American families with children:

A record 40% of all households with children under the age of 18 include mothers who are either the sole or primary source of income for the family, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The share was just 11% in 1960.

These “breadwinner moms” are made up of two very different groups: 5.1 million (37%) are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, and 8.6 million (63%) are single mothers.1

The income gap between the two groups is quite large. The median total family income of married mothers who earn more than their husbands was nearly $80,000 in 2011, well above the national median of $57,100 for all families with children, and nearly four times the $23,000 median for families led by a single mother.2

If you, like many other people, just skimmed that headline, here’s what you need to really know about this discovery:

Compared with all mothers with children under age 18, married mothers who out-earn their husbands are slightly older, disproportionally white and college educated. Single mothers, by contrast, are younger, more likely to be black or Hispanic, and less likely to have a college degree.

The growth of both groups of mothers is tied to women’s increasing presence in the workplace. Women make up almost of half (47%) of the U.S. labor force today, and the employment rate of married mothers with children has increased from 37% in 1968 to 65% in 2011.3

(There’s also discussion of the dreaded single mothers; so I urge you to read the entire Pew findings.)

One should also note that this is not simply a matter of “feminism having won, so just let it all go away.” For the findings also reveal that “total family income is higher when the mother, not the father, is the primary breadwinner.” Thanks, pink collar ghetto, unequal pay, and continuing notions of gender inequality in the workplace. Not to mention all the BS traditional notions of motherhood.

Never mind the facts, however; let’s just get to the million dollar subtext question Liza Donnelly put forth regarding the 37% — the married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands: Can Husbands Handle Being Outearned By Their Wives?

The answer is, quite clearly, “No.”

Exhibit A: Lou Dobbs and his all-male panel of guests. Here, the comments range from Doug Schoen’s “a catastrophic issue” that “could undermine our social order” to Erick Erickson’s statement that this is the real “war on women.”

Yea-gads.

If you want to dismiss all this as the ramblings of irrelevant talking asshats on Fox (for which I will gently remind you that their rhetoric is often too dangerous to be dismissed), you’ll need to also know about this other study, called In Sickness and In Wealth, from Washington University in St Louis’ Olin Business School.

This research found that “men are more likely to experience problems with erectile dysfunction and other forms of mental and physical anguish as a result of his female counterpart being the primary breadwinner”.

Olin Business School professor Lamar Pierce and Michael S. Dahl of Aalborg University in Denmark write: ‘Male sexual desire and behavior is tied to cultural and social factors such as patriarchy and money, potentially causing men to suffer reduced sexual desire or dysfunction when perceiving their traditional role of provider to be usurped.

‘In fact, the medical literature has shown that anger and frustration can lead to serious sexual problems such as erectile dysfunction (ED), a problem also linked to unemployment and decreasing household income.’

Additionally, Pierce told NBC News: ‘There is a powerful social norm for many men that it’s important to make more than their wives and, essentially, when that social norm is violated, what this does is make them feel emasculated.’

And men do not usually suffer alone, as research found that the female breadwinner also has problems with insomnia and anxiety.

Men in such a relationship have also been found to be more likely to cheat in an effort to regain their bedroom mojo.

Seriously?!

Seriously.

It seems we have not come a long way, baby, in terms of marital duties, especially not in terms of how men think. Shudder. Bigger shudder. Because this all sounds like a lot more permission slips are about to be handed out.

Of course, not all men are this primitive. But for some reason, primitive still prevails in the politics (and libidos) of our lives.

guys love it

No Subsidy For Cupid, Stupid (Lessons In Pay Equity & The Value Of Teachers, From 1948)

/ Deanna / 2 Comments

I found this article, Subsidy For Cupid: Request for Salary Differential for Married Teachers Is Unsound, in the December 10, 1948, edition of The Wisconsin State Journal.

The first line reads, “The board of education has been asked to establish a permanent salary differential of $600 annually for instructors who are married.” This had me thinking that the proposed salary adjustment would remove $600 a year for married teachers; you know, because married women are therefore little women who do not really need a salary anyway. But then we get to the second line. “The request comes from the recently-organized Madison Schoolmasters club, whose members are married teachers in the city’s school system.” Surely this club would not be suggesting they cut their own salaries?!

Read on:

This type of a salary differential is based upon a poorly-thought-out idea, upon a misconception of the purposes of a salary structure, and is suggested without foresight.

Teachers’ salaries, like all others, should be based upon value received. All teachers should be paid decently, and The State Journal has pushed hard for a minimum teachers salary law that will attract qualified men and women to the profession.

[Hear that, Scott Walker, et al.?]

But in any good system, workers’ salaries are set with an eye on the value of the individual worker. The scales are based on training and background, efficiency, ability to cooperate, and perhaps seniority.

Unmarried teachers should not be penalized because they happen to prefer to remain unmarried.

[The picture becomes a bit clearer now…]

Taxpayers should not be asked to grant special subsidies to teachers who prefer to get married, any more than they should be asked to subsidize teachers who choose to buy automobiles or houses or trips to Europe.

[I am astounded at the suggestion that at any time in our history a teacher could afford a trip to Europe on their own salary!]

By all means, school salaries should be substantial enough to allow a teacher to get married if he wishes.

A-ha! So here it is! We are primarily speaking of male teachers! You know men, they have to take care of the little woman, the kids, the bills, the dog… No woman has to do that.]

But he shouldn’t get a bonus for walking to the altar, or for accumulating other personal obligations. Those matters are up to the individual.

***

There is good reason for teachers — particularly those who are married — to oppose the plan.

During a depression, boards of education must cut expenses, If that married-teacher salary differential were on the books, the inclination of money-conscious school board members would be to hire instructors whose personal status didn’t require payment of that extra $600. That would man less job-security for the very people who would need it most.

While the ending line nearly eradicates my hopes of some sort of gender equality, the lines before it certainly are felt in the pink ghetto and by women at every level during the rough economic times. When talking heads speak of how women are faring better, their 77 cents to a man’s dollar means a twisted sort of job-security.

Old Maids

/ Deanna / 2 Comments

In Reflections: The Life, Writings and History of Geneva Mae Thomas Bridgford (2012), compiled by her daughter, Bonnie Bridgford Good, there’s the story of 18 year old Geneva and her friend going to the big city to attend Miss Brown’s Training School in Milwaukee. The year was 1928, and the two young ladies stayed at the Methodist Boarding School House on 11th and State — under watchful eyes.

The spinster owners of the boarding school took their responsibility of chaperoning the young women quite seriously. The older women at work (ranging in age from 25 to 40) also felt a need to mother them, and warn them of the dangers in the city. As a vent to her frustration, Mother wrote the following poem:

Old Maids

Tell me not in mournful numbers
Of the habits of old maids.
Well I know their every weakness
How their beauty wanes and fades.
They are old, they are ugly
And their hearts though staunch may fail;
For they shake and they quiver at the coming of a male.
They surround me, jeopardize me
These old maids of whom I write.
At my home and at my office
They boss me with all their might.
I’m rebelling, I won’t stand it!
And I’m very sure of this,
If I can prevent it
My name won’t always start with Miss

Antique Sexist Postcard

/ Deanna / 3 Comments

Nothing’s new in terms of mocking wives, as this antique (circa late 1800s – 1910s) proves.

Here’s to our wives —
They keep our hives in little bees and honey.
They darn our socks, and save life’s shocks,
And they also spend our money.

Cheap Thrills Thursday: Skeeter Davis Was A Lover (Not A Fighter)

/ Deanna / Leave a comment

Skeeter Davis fan club pinback, circa 1970s, printed with her photo and one of her song titles, I’m A Lover (Not A Fighter).

Here are the song lyrics:

I only married you for love dear I didn’t go for all of your dough
Now and then you say you love me but honey baby it didn’t show
I never seemed to please you lately cause all you ever do is complain
I’m sick of this fussin’ and fightin’ so baby let your loving woman explain.

I’m a lover not a fighter
I kinda like it that way
If you want a fightin’ partner
Go live with Cassius Clay.

— Instrumental —

A woman is soft and tender and willing to love her man
So why don’t you take advantage of the woman that you know I am
I don’t want to fuss and fight dear for the rest of my natural life
Stop treatin’ me like your enemy start treatin’ me like a wife.

I’m a lover not a fighter
I kinda like it that way
If you want a fightin’ partner
Go live with Cassius Clay.

I’m a lover not a fighter
I kinda like it that way
If you want a fightin’ partner
Go live with Cassius Clay.

I’m a lover not a fighter
I kinda like it that way
If you want a fightin’ partner
Go live with Cassius Clay…

Happily Ever After?

/ Alessia / 2 Comments

In Wedded Blisters, Neely wonders if marriage is something she even wants to enter into. With the media, as she writes, “depicting marriage as this energy-sapping, miserable way of life, where husbands have to practically beg their wives for sex and wives feel like they’re not being validated enough by their husbands” she’s not enthusiastic:

But what about this daily bombardment of television shows and movies, depicting marriage as the root of all evil? The truth is that these comedies and films play off of real life, and we know this to be the case because we laugh at their humor. We laugh because we recognize truth. People love shows like Everybody Loves Raymond because a depiction of an average guy dealing with the daily struggles of marriage is true to the way it is outside of that rectangular, silver screen. Unmarried couples may not entirely relate to the humor but they understand that this is what they’ll eventually encounter once they walk down the aisle. Are we destined for the same path as Ed and Peggy Bundy, we wonder.

So we turn off our televisions, looking elsewhere for signs of encouragement, only to be bombarded by another reality check on the state of marriage today: the nation’s divorce rate, which towers over us at all times, giving us very good reason to doubt that we will escape the odds.

The media’s reflection of our marital problems may be exaggerated ~ but as Neely points out, it’s funny because it’s true. Marriage is a tricky thing, and certainly our libidos aren’t magically put in sync just because we live together. But if I were to look at our media for answers regarding how we’ve got to this place where Ed and Peggy Bundy are more typical than representative of our greatest fears, I’d say the problem lies with the fantasy of marriage.

From early on we are fed fantasies wherein once love is found they ride off into the sunset. If the story is supposed to be saying “and they lived happily ever after,” they never show it. In film, finding one’s mate is the end of the story when in truth it should be just the beginning.

While we often are entertained by (and feed-off of) the drama of ‘the chase’ and the obstacles faced in the pursuit, we forget that ‘ever after’ is a story complete with dramas of its own. There are obstacles, chases and pursuits to be found in every marriage and I think we should thank our lucky stars for that ~ for each one is a chance to reaffirm our love and dedication.

In the romantic movies, our heroes and heroines do not crumple at the first (or even the 10th) problem presented ~ instead they keep their eye on the prize and fight for the chance at true love. Shouldn’t we view and pursue our marriages with the same ardor, passion and dedication?

Work, bills, children, household chores ~ surely none of these is as difficult as the matter of finding, competing for, and securing your mate. (And in truth, now that we are a couple we can attack these problems together; it’s you and me against the world, kid.)

He’s a morning person while she’s most definitely not, he’s stressed out at the job, she’s afraid she’s not as lovely as she once was ~ surely these will yield to the holding of hands, a quiet shared look in a crowded room, a secret slap on the bottom…

We are presented with a myriad of opportunities to sweep our partners off their feet, seduce and charm our ways into their beds, and show that obstacles mean nothing in light of our love.

We need not be complete drama lovers and go overboard creating chaos or imagining things ready to tear the marriage apart, but we can view the problems, difficulties and obstacles with more passion. We can treat each obstacle as the romantic lead does: as a chance to prove our love and win our mate.

And of course, at the end of the day we should be as eager to fall into bed.

Image via.

Walking The Line Of Bad Relationships

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Kari wrote in:

I was so glad to read your post on bad relationship signs – I saw myself in number 10.

My husband has been two-timing me for at least 5 years of our 11 year marriage. When I confront him, he is always sorry — but mainly for himself in his “inability to choose” He says he can’t break off his relationship with the other woman, but that he will in time, that I make him stronger and when he is strong enough he will end it with her. I want to believe him because I love him… But my heart knows better; he’s having his cake and eating it too. How do I get him to break it off and have a healthy relationship, the marriage I signed-up for?

Kari, I’m afraid you don’t get to make him to break it off.

No one can make anyone do anything. (Well, literally, it can be done. But then it’s controlling and abusive; Guantánamo Bay detention camp is no model for good relationships.)

The only person you control in your relationships is you.

But that doesn’t leave you powerless. Far from it.

Gregory Peck & Tuesday Weld in I Walk The Line (1970)

1) You can draw the line for yourself. If your marriage was agreed to and built upon the notion of fidelity and his actions to the contrary hurt you, then do not accept anything else but his fidelity.

 

2) Communicate that line. Tell him in no uncertain terms that his infidelity is not just upsetting to you, but a breach of contract. Let him know that if he does not end his extra curricular activities that the marriage is over. Or, if you don’t want to bother working on this relationship any more, tell him that since he did not end his affairs the marriage is over. (You should know if you want to continue this relationship or not before you communicate your line; it does no good to demand he toe the line when you just want out.)

Don’t let him cry & claim that you are giving him an unfair ultimatum; he has committed a breach so fundamental that he has terminated the contract. It’s not you; it is him.

3) Walk the line. Should he not cease his affairs with women, you must then take a walk: leave & sue for divorce. Almost all states are no “no fault” divorce states, so you should be able to get divorced without a problem; few states allow fault divorces, so you may not be allowed to actually sue for damages. Even if you live in a place as ridiculously difficult to divorce in as New York, you should be able to find another location or get thee to Guam. In any case you will get your clean slate and the opportunity to find a healthy relationship.

You probably figured out that these three steps, draw the line, communicate the line, and walk the line, can all be used for any relationship, any circumstance (though in cases of domestic violence, greater care must be taken in dealing with the abuser — for instance, communicating the line is not only an irrelevant step, but a dangerous one).

But no matter what your partner does or doesn’t do, you must know what you want/need, set the boundaries & enforce them for yourself. Draw your lines, communicate them (if only to yourself and your support system), and then walk the expectations — even if that means walking away. You will never have a healthy relationship until you do.

Image info: Movie poster from I Walk the Line.

Quick, Check Your Stone Tablet For The Date!

/ Alessia / 1 Comment

A recent study reports that today, in 2009, 71% of Americans think women should take their spouses name after marriage — and half of the respondents said the act should be a legal requirement!

Researchers from Indiana University and University of Utah say these findings come despite a clear shift to more gender-neutral language. “The figures were a bit sobering for us because there seems to be change in so many areas. If names are a core aspect of our identity, this is important,” said Brian Powell, professor of sociology at IU Bloomington. “There are all these reports and indicators that families are changing, that men are contributing more, that we’re moving toward a more equal family, yet there’s no indication that we’re seeing a similar move to equality when it comes to names.”

Laura Hamilton, the Indiana University associate professor who lead study, was interviewed at NYDailyNews:

When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.”

Other respondents said they felt the marital name change was essential for religious reasons or as a practical matter.

“They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.

Americans who feel that women should take their husband’s last name also tend to be conservative in other areas, according to Hamilton.

“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”

It’s National Romance Week

/ Alessia / 2 Comments

National Romance Week was established in 1995 by Michael Webb. Set the second full week in August, it’s six moth opposite to Valentine’s Day is by design because Webb intended this week to celebrate romance by focusing on people & relationships — spending time and attention, not money on “things” &/or events, like going out to fancy dinners.

Webb, who does sell romance on his websites, says, “Real romance comes from the heart, not the wallet” — but he does offer free tips, including a free 101 Romantic Ideas ebook to those who subscribe to his free newsletters. So, if you’re stuck for “things to do that show you care,” you can get the generic commonsense tips & give ’em a try.

In this economy, who couldn’t use a reminder that love & romance & need not have a price tag?

My advice, however, is to begin by doing as Web says and focus on the person in your life and think about what pleases him or her specifically. You know, those wishes & requests they make everyday…

From “more sex” to “pick up your socks,” from saying “yes” to the request for a back massage to saying “no” to another invite to dinner during an already busy week, from “put the toilet seat down” to picking the kids up (from the mall, soccer practice, etc.), from letting her have the remote to not acting so remote…

Huh, maybe I should write 101 tips book. *wink*

This One’s For Jon & Kate

/ Alessia / 1 Comment

I know you’re probably sick of Jon & Kate + 8 talk, but…

I just don’t get why people keep on calling Kate Gosselin the bitch when it’s so obvious that Jon’s a passive-aggressive jerk. Well, I got it at first; passive-aggressives always make the other person look like the bad guy — and that public perception combined with the private hell that is living with a passive-aggressive spouse will drive you crazy. It truly is a special kind of hell.

I know; I’ve lived it.

And I wish people — especially now that they know all the BS Jon’s done (the dating, the spreading rumors about Kate, the complete self-absorption) — would just stop blaming Kate.

I’ll admit that I’ve been a fan of the show for years, but I’ve been complaining about Jon since I first saw it. In fact, that’s why my husband often won’t watch the show with me; he hates to hear me bitch about how lazy Jon is, about how Kate has to plan & do everything because Jon can’t or won’t initiate anything that’s not about his selfish needs.

Arg! I really dislike that man — and those like him.

So when I spotted this at a rummage sale recently, I had to snap it up. The vintage metal trivet, now on my wall, reads, “If more husbands were self-starters the wife wouldn’t have to be a crank.”

more-husbands-self-starters-wife-would-not-have-to-be-a-crank

It’s funny because it’s so true.

And serves as a little reminder of reality for all who enter my home. But Kate, if you want this, contact me and I’ll send it to you, darlin’. I am so understanding of & sympathetic towards you & your position.

Sensationalized Sexist TV That’s Mean To Men?

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Have you seen these screaming headlines yet:

Is your boyfriend/husband HAIRY and you are sick of it?? Now Casting

and

America’s Uggliest Husband — Is he yours?

Can you imagine if we saw headlines & programs dedicated to calling women ugly? If we saw casting calls announcing how husbands who were sick of their wives looks could get help — as if it were acceptable?

The media would have a field day, bringing on expert after expert to discuss female body image pressures & concerns & how this sort of valuing females for their looks was abusive. But do it about men? Oh, that’s fine.

Not.

Even if women are taught to be more (self) conscious about their appearance and so are (often) more obsessed with make-overs etc., even if these shows are aimed at a (materialistic  & superficial) female audience who wants to see men transformed back to some snazzier (more romantic novel looking) version of themselves, these sorts of shows are just plain mean.

Double-standards flipped back to bite the sexist stereotypical hand that feeds them BS are not what equality & respect are about.  Physical makeovers and unrealistic romantic notions are not the stuff that gets you through a healthy, longterm relationship. And dragging your mate in for a show which wants to make him less hairy because “you are sick of it” or pronounces him “ugliest” is a sure way to run your relationship off of a cliff.

If you’re really considering such a thing as being on such a TV show, just ask for a divorce, you shameless bitch.  Don’t prolong the guy’s agony, don’t encourage shows like this — and don’t let me hear about it. I have rolled-up newspaper; will travel.

Married? Wanna “Throw Down” On TV?

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

I spotted this casting call at RealityWanted:

Looking for married couples to throw down on a nationally syndicated court show!

We give you a $500 appearance fee each, airfare, hotel & $70 each for food.

Now I ask you, what married couple is going to “throw down” (whatever that means — I hope it’s not violent!) for a grand? I mean, there’s not even the pretense of help.

All they say is that it’s for a “syndicated court show,” so is the “throw down” a divorce? Or what? …With such little information, I think it’s safe to say that whether it was your intention or not, simply suggesting you & your spouse “audition” is probably going to result in the end of your marriage.

Refreshingly Honest Pond Scum

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

I have mixed feelings about AshleyMadison.com, the “married dating & affairs” site… With a trademarked tagline of “Life is short. Have an affair.” they’re really putting the “tery” in adult dating sites. The adultery dating site even guarantees “an affair to remember.” While I suppose divorce court, public shunning, and loss of respect from your own family are all things you’d remember (literally protecting the guarantee), what the guarantee actually does is offer your money back if you don’t err, have an affair.

According to this article (page 2):

It’s free to become a member and to create a profile and search others. But to chat with another member, a user has to buy credits– $49 for 100 credits (it takes five credits to initiate a chat; subsequent back-and-forth chats are free). For the Affair Guarantee Membership it’s $249 and the Web site will refund your money if you don’t have an affair in three months. “If somebody had a genuine, sincere message and sounded like a nice person, I would send a message back,” she says. “You had to really weed through those who didn’t want what you wanted.”

(And don’t you just love the idea of a person screening requested messages for affairs for “genuine, sincere & nice” people to cheat with?)

Obviously, the whole idea is disheartening. But these people are going to break their vows with or without AshleyMadison.com — and if that means there are less of the lying cheats on other dating sites and social networks, then that’s a good thing. And hey, at least these like-minded cheaters are being honest with one another; they are all saying they are just there to get inside one another’s pants.

Then again, I suppose AshleyMadison.com has its own liars… People who aren’t married who just want a lay. But again, let them stick to fishing in that dirty water with the other pond scum — refreshingly honest pond scum.

Jerry Seinfeld Wants To Referee Your Relationship Arguments. Maybe.

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Variety announces that the U.S. arm of British shingle Shed Media has won the contract to produce Jerry Seinfeld’s upcoming NBC reality show The Marriage Ref. You can read the Variety article to get the skinny about which producers got in bed together (or at least rubbed elbows) to solidify the deal — sans pilot; me, I’m just more interesting in the show’s concept: Seinfeld’s plan isn’t to play Dr. Phil to your relationship arguments, but to mock you. Maybe even mock some sense into the two of you.

The official logline is, “Jerry Seinfeld is back and in the producer’s chair for a funny and revealing series about the unpredictable and hilarious institution we call marriage. Married life takes center stage as celebrities, comedians and sports stars candidly comment, judge and decide who’s right and who’s wrong in real-life disputes between real-life spouses.”

If that sounds intriguing… But you’re tempted to dismiss the pitch as, well, a pitch, Broadcast reports the following juicy gossip details:

A tiff with his wife Jessica prompted Jerry Seinfeld to create The Marriage Ref. The comedian was entertaining at home and asked one of his guests to “referee” the argument, stumbling upon the show’s central concept.

The studio show will be recorded in front of an audience and hosted by the Marriage Ref – a comedian who has been signed but not yet named.

VT of the couple rowing is played into the studio and three celebrity guests debate the rights and wrongs of the argument before the referee has the final say. The emphasis is on comedy, with silly prizes awarded to the ‘winning’ member of the couple – such as a golden vacuum cleaner if the row is about cleaning.

If you’re interested in airing your hysterically dumb but true arguments to an NBC audience (while comedians take whacks at you like a piñata until silly prizes spill out, yet!) casting is open until July 10th:

“The Marriage Ref” casting team is searching the country for outgoing and opinionated couples in long-term relationships, willing to appear on national television, who have a long standing argument or issue that must be resolved. No problem is too small!

Is there an object, a person, or a habit (e.g. computer, pet, a friend, the remote control) that is a third wheel in your relationship and causes a problem?

Or does your partner have an annoying obnoxious habit or item that causes fights?

Whether you argue about parenting, pets, fashion, money, in-laws, weight, housework, chores, communication, neatness, jealousy, past history, friends, sex… Whatever you argue about, we want to hear from you. Tell us why you absolutely NEED a MARRIAGE REF to weigh in and decide who is RIGHT and who is WRONG.

…we want to hear what absolutely makes you nuts when it comes to your partner!

(Don’t forget to tell ’em Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent ya!)

Engaged? Be A Big Tease On TV

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Engaged? Getting married? Want to get a free smoking-hot hair makeover for yourself, your Maid of Honor, and one of your Bride’s Maids?

44 Blue Productions is now casting for a new show called Big Tease, a special (not a series) in which the best of the best hairstylists from Style Network’s two-time Emmy nominated hit show, Split Ends, will compete for a huge money grand prize and a magazine cover.

For more information, contact 44 Blue Productions at reception@44blue.com.

When He’s (Sexually) Shrinking From You, Violet

/ Alessia / 5 Comments

In response to my “Helping You Get In The Mood” Contest, Violet writes in:

Hey, Alessia,

I have the opposite problem — I’m always ready and my husband’s never ever in the mood.

I’ve tried all the crappy magazine suggestions and the tips from your readers in response to your contest, but all I have is more rejection.

Any ideas besides spiking his coffee with little blue pills disguised as sugar cubes?

Thanks,
Violet

Violet, your situation is not as unique as you might think — frustrating & painful, yes; but it’s not rare for women to have, err, blue ovaries.

First, I’m hoping you read this — and this. Because that will save us all some time & ovary-ache.

Second, please consider having hubby get a check-up — and not just for the plumbing & physical parts, but for depression & other mental health issues. One of the most typical signs from men who are struggling with anxiety &/or depression issues is a lack of interest in sex. (Over) simply put, they do not feel worthy of having sex. It’s the emotional equivalent of women packing on the pounds (whether depressed or not) whereby males think they are not “masculine” enough in terms of “success” etc.

However, if hubby passes such screenings & is otherwise fine, the honest to gawd’s truth is the exact opposite of what most women’s & men’s mags tell you.

Cover text screams that men want sexually aggressive women — but that’s a lie. A big fat stinking lie.

At least for some men.

“Aggressive” should not be confused with “confidence”; confidence is sexy period, no matter the person or the gender. But when it comes to making the moves, giving out the sexual invitations, many men (unless they are into Dominatrix scenarios) literally shrink from sexual offers, Violet.

And it’s not just about the pressure to perform; it’s about a perception of your sexual value.

I know I’m going to get a bunch of men (and women) telling me this is BS. But please spare me your anecdotal evidence; I’ve got my own & I raise you some basic evolutionary evidence.

Men are hunters, providers; they are the risk-taking, chest-beating victors to whom the sexual spoils go because they have won. In this case, they’ve won “the woo” so they get to bed you.

Now, when you, female of the species, are on the sexual hunt yourself — especially when you are living with them or are otherwise sexually available to them — men no longer have to work, woo or win you & your favors. They lose interest because there is a shift (in their perception) of your value.

If you think I’m nuts, ask yourself why so many men are led around like bulls with rings in their noses by spoiled princess-types who demand trinkets or deeds in order to put out.

Some men just have to work for it in order for it to be any good.

Some women think, instinctively, that they can ignite more heat with a few sparks of jealousy; but don’t do it. Even if it works in the short-term, it’s eventually likely to garner you additional issues to sort out — and doesn’t he already have enough reasons not to go to bed with you? Let’s not add insecurities about your faithfulness to the mix. Not to mention that he might feel it’s fair game now for him to go after those other birds rather than your bush…

No, the best way to increase your sexual value & “up” his desire, is to have him think it’s all his idea — that he’s worked for “it” or talked you into “it.”

How?

For starters, just stop asking, hinting, insinuating and throwing yourself at him. I don’t mean become a cold mean bitch; just make yourself a little less obviously available… Instead of suggesting sex (verbally or by lounging naked in Saran-wrap), just relax.

It may mean dialing down your sex drive — pushing it out of your mind so that you aren’t watching the clock, expecting that since 15 minutes (or a two days) has passed, that he out to be lunging at you by now. And if you are having difficulty doing that, let me remind you that May is Masturbation Month. Spend some quality time with yourself — it will relax you in any case. (He’s likely doing it — otherwise how does he manage to function? If he’s not, I’d really drag him in for medical care — seriously.)

Generally speaking, a few days or weeks maybe and most men find themselves thinking of you in that way…  From there, you’ll likely find a balance for yourself between “aggressive” and “willing” that won’t feel like game-playing.

If you honestly have dialed down your sexual pursuit of him and he’s still just not that willing to get into you, then seek counseling. Because something’s just not right.

The “Helping You Get In The Mood” Contest

/ Alessia / 114 Comments

k-y-brand-intense-arousal-gel-for-women Thanks to the makers of K-Y Brand, I’m giving away 5 full-sized tubes of K-Y® Brand INTENSE™– the female arousal gel scientifically shown to enhance female pleasure, arousal and satisfaction during intimacy.

If you read my review, you know that I not only liked the product, but said that a little dab of K-Y Brand Intense Arousal Gel For Her there will do more for you & your romantic sex life than that perfume you dab behind your ears.

If you want a chance to prove it to yourself, just leave me a comment telling me what other tips, tricks &/or products you’ve tried to help you and your partner get in the mood at the same time — and be sure to let us know which ones work!

(Try to keep it at or below an an ‘R’ rating, ladies!)

Fine Print: This contest is open to US residents of the contiguous 48 states who are over 18 years of age only; entries must be dated on or before midnight, May 19, 2009. I’ll draw & announce the five winners at random on May 20, 2009.

When You Are Surprised To Find A Relationship Deal Breaker After Three Years Of Dating

/ Alessia / 5 Comments

Ashley writes in with a personal problem stemming from the Steve Ward/Vh1 mess:

Hi Alessia,

I’ve been following along with the Steve Ward fiasco (what a piece of work that jerk is!) and I wonder what you think of the situation that I now find myself in…

While I was drafting my letters of outrage, my boyfriend of 3 years (you can call him Bob lol) came on over. Because I was feeling pretty intense about things, when he greeted me with the casual, “Whatcha doin’?” I actually answered him. I told him of Ward’s hurtful stupidity, the lack of concern on the parts of show producers etc., and my overwhelming grief to discover (via reading all the comments etc.) just how widely held & deeply rooted such irrational beliefs are in our world.

At first I thought Bob’s lack of concern over the situation was because he hadn’t seen the show and maybe he thought I twisted the words… So I sat him at the computer and ordered him to read. But when he read, he wasn’t as outraged as I had thought he would be.

Not only did he not share my opinions, but he started to argue Ward’s side!

Now, after years of dating I was shocked! I mean we’ve discussed rape and violence towards women (and children too) and he’s always seemed educated, concerned for women’s safety and nearly apologetic in that male way of like “I can’t believe there are men who would do that.” So I was flabbergasted that Bob would hold Arian or any women accountable for what a man or men do.

I want to rant on & on about this, but you’ve covered the issue really well and I know I’m preaching to the choir, so I’ll get to the problem here. ;)

After three years of dating we’ve been talking marriage. (The only reason we aren’t officially engaged is the money thing — until I get to the next level at work, I’m still not able to afford an apartment of my own which is something I insist upon doing before I marry.) But now that I see that Bob is holding onto some archaic, dangerous, misogynistic and mean victim blaming beliefs, I just don’t know…

I sent him away that day and our conversations since then have mostly been short. Anytime the elephant on the phone line is mentioned, we just end up debating at best, arguing at worst.

Bob thinks I’m over reacting; I should know after three years that he’s a good guy. But I can’t get past the fact that good guys don’t ever excuse the behavior of bad guys — let alone hold the victims responsible for what the bad guys do.

I still love him… Otherwise this wouldn’t hurt so much. But I don’t trust him the way I used to — and I’ve lost some respect for him. I think, as hard as it will be, that I need to end things with him.

Am I being overly sensitive? Am I irrational or otherwise sabotaging a good relationship for a small thing?

Biting my nails with anxiety & heartache while I await your reply,
Ashley

Dear Ashley,

I probably should say that I’m sorry my blogging has disrupted your relationship with Bob — but I can’t honestly say that.

I’m sorry to hear that Bob’s not the good guy you thought he was, but,see, from where I sit, I think you are better off for making this discovery now. Even three years of dating in is better than making this discovery after three years of marriage & building a family. That’s what dating is for, to learn all you can about one another.

I don’t think I even have anything to tell you that you don’t already know…

You know that if trust and respect for your partner diminishes you are faced with two choices: Work it out, with compromise & communication (maybe some counseling), or walk away safely.*

And there are some things we just can’t compromise on.

This situation is not purely one of political difference, like say gun control, where you might compromise by owning a gun but keeping it in a locked gun safe in the garage or something– and by knowing that each of your votes cancels-out the other’s vote.

This is far more than theory, philosophy, or ideals; this is a fundamental framework of every day living. It’s a matter of freedom, equality & safety because, as you know, even if Bob is not personally a threat to you or others, he insists upon perpetuating an environment which places women with the responsibility to control male behaviors — and when that (obviously & maddeningly ridiculously) doesn’t work, he leaves victims to suffer the guilt & blame.

Heaven forbid any violence should ever befall you or someone you love, Ashley (knocking wood!) — but given the odds… How would you cope or assist another survivor in their recovery with Bob at your side? Even if his mouth never uttered a blaming sentence, you’d see it, feel it.

Whether or not you & Bob should have children of your own, building a family between yourselves involves each of your extended families and you community of friends. Can you live with Bob passing along his views about the responsibilities women (or potential victims) have to control the behaviors of rapists and abusers to your nieces & nephews, your friends’ children?

You know Bob’s views help shape our world; and you’ve clearly said that his views help shape a world you don’t want to (continue to) live in. So you know what the math is: If Bob can’t be educated out of this, you’re better off living without him. There’s no sense in living in a toxic relationship.

This is definitely a relationship deal breaker.

In the interest of fairness to your relationship with Bob, and your heart, you owe it to yourselves to communicate this as plainly as you can to Bob.

Wherever the chips fall, I wish you well.

Alessia

* Note how when a human being has less respect for another human being, that the first human is not entitled to hurt, abuse or force the less-respected human to do whatever they want.

Quick, Check Your Stone Tablet For Today’s Date: More Legalized Rape News

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

At BUST Magazine‘s blog, a post that Afghanistan Legalizes Marital Rape — which naturally reminded me that it wasn’t so long ago that we were writing on the same stone tablet. (I did post a comment there to that effect; but so far, it is not showing up at the site. I hate that.)

Anyway, as Peter at BUST‘s blog writes:

Want to read something mortifying? The Guardian just released an article stating that Hamid Karzai, Prime Minister of Afghanistan just rushed a bill through the Afghan parliament which will legalize marital rape. ‘The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands’ permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands’ permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.’

At the post, Allison left the following helpful comment:

Revolting and infuriating.

If you are not aware of them already, please check out Rawa.org, a group that has been trying to help Afghan women find a voice and equality against fundamentalist/sexist power in their country since 1997: http://www.rawa.org/index.php

1965: Legal Marital Rape

/ Alessia / 4 Comments

Can a husband legally force his wife to have sexual relations when she doesn’t wish to? That 1965 Dell Purse Book by Richard T. Gallen, Wives Legal Rights, says, “Yes.” As long as his demands are “reasonable and her health is not impaired or endangered.”

wives-rights-sex-1965a
wives-rights-sex-1965-b

No mention of hitting or physically forcing her exists (apparently because on page five they’ve already said no hitting allowed).  But what’s really implied here with this notion that a husband’s legal right to force his wife to have sex so long as it doesn’t impair her physical health, is a side-step of physical abuse on the part of the man, neatly placing responsibility for any altercations at the feet of wives, for a wife can’t/ought not resist or she would be at fault for denying him his sexual rights.

All of this completely denies the existence of any other reason for sexual denial. As if her body & mind are indeed his property, subject to his whims.

We could just ignore this, write it off as “history,” but these idiotic notions are still with us. They linger in court decisions, media coverage, and even family reactions, even 40+ years later.

They only specifically mention sex during pregnancy, which clearly shows the fetus (or ‘baby’) has more value than the mother-to-be.

Then again, I know many women who while pregnant, wanted sex at least every night; those hormones, you know…

And there’s no mention of her right to have sex, pregnant or not. The stereotype that women don’t want sex was is so prevalent, that it doesn’t even warrant discussion of women’s marital rights to sex. *snort*

Real Life Brady Bunch

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Mike Mathis Productions is looking for the real life Brady Bunch: A man with at least two kids and a woman with the same about to get married. The production company wants to follow a newly blended family for (yet another) reality tv program.

You can get in touch with them via their casting department. (Don’t forget to tell ’em Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent ya!)

Yes, I’m A Domestic Violence Survivor

/ Alessia / 2 Comments

This snippet on page five in Wives Legal Rights, by Richard T. Gallen (Dell Purse Book, 1965), breaks my heart. Not just because it’s about what we’d now call domestic violence which “may be” pursued as a crime, but because while the publication is over 40 years old, the cultural lag is so much further behind.

husband-legal-right-hit-wife-1965

You see, I’m a survivor of domestic violence. Times two. I’m not proud to say that I’ve lived it twice; but it’s important to know because once the abuse damages your world, you may be even more susceptible in the future. This is contrary to what most would call “common sense” or even a natural human instinct to survive by avoiding the warning signs (should there actually be any prior to being in the middle of the madness), but it’s the truth.

I’ll be posting a lot more about domestic violence… I hope sharing my experiences not only educate and support others living it — or even provide a means to strengthen my own voice on a subject I’ve long been afraid to speak of outside of court rooms and therapist offices — but that talking about this serves as a catalyst for awareness and change from the rest of the world who feels they are exempt for the blight. Whether they know it or not, they are part of the problem.

And yes, if that feels accusatory, like I’m pointing a finger at you, I am. Too many people are locking their doors and windows under the mistaken assumption that they are then safe (which is so not what the numbers say). And when they do so, they lock out the realities, putting themselves and their children at risk as well as perpetuating the myths and, by placing judgments on those involved (including the victims), they further allow domestic violence to live — not in dark corners or under rocks, but in the light of day.

You have been put on notice.

Marriage: We’ve Come Along Way, Baby?

/ Alessia / 4 Comments

In Wives Legal Rights, by Richard T. Gallen, a Dell Purse Book, © 1965, marriage is defined as both an emotional relationship and a legal arrangement, “a valid contract between a man and a woman, granting certain rights to each, demanding certain responsibilities of each.” It’s taken decades for Webster’s to catch up on the definition of marriage to include same sex couples (which, as you’ll see at that link, is upsetting to co-called conservatives — selfish, intolerant bastards), and the legal definition is even worse. So it shouldn’t be surprising that other concepts are having an equally long a culture lag.

wives-rights-responsibilities-duties

Paging through this retro Dell booklet, it’s easy to see that the gender split isn’t just regarding who is in a marriage, but what role each gender has within a marriage. Women are legally required to perform domestic chores and to care for husband and children. On the flip-side, men are required to support, protect and maintain wives and children (but nowhere is is listed that husbands are to care for their wives and/or children).

wives-rights-responsibilities-duties-husband

This may not seem very alarming on the surface (to me it’s a giant WTF?! moment), but the antiquated way of legally assigning roles in a personal relationship sure is government dictating personal lives. Even if marriage laws are no longer written this way, the cultural lag exists and for many, such shifts in change have not been made, making it more difficult even for those who do believe differently.

It’s easy to see where the cultural assumptions of women having the ‘home sphere’ impacts equal pay for equal work, the pink ghetto from pink collar jobs etc. Women are still not true equals in society because we are not seen as having equal footing and participation, which leads to attitudes & assumptions about women’s roles in society and individual marriages.

It’s not just the cave men (and their families) who wish to keep women in their (historical) place, but the insidious perceptions off of which people operate — sometimes unaware they hold such notions (or the unhappiness they instill) until they are tested. But once you are married, it is often too late to renegotiate what has already been seen as accepted.

My advice to you is to clearly discuss your expectations about roles in relationships with prospective mates. Be clear about what you and won’t do or tolerate — and be equally clear what you expect. Better to leave that old fashioned thinking fish in the pond, than to forever be on the hook.