Archive for March 2010

The Month that was: March

The Month That Was is a new feature on Through the Looking Glass. On the last day of each month, it will take a look back at the month that was and the highlights (and lowlights) from it.


Redefining a marriage

This weekend, I read an article in the New York Times Magazine called The Marrying Kind. In it, Lisa Belkin takes a look at how the roles in marriage — specifically the role of the wife — have changed from her mother’s generation, down to her generation, down to my generation.

Belkin explores the stereotypical ’50s housewife who baked pies and sewed and did all the Leave it to Beaver things and how that has changed in today’s couples. She has some startling facts — only 16% of British women can make their own pie crust, compared to more than half their mothers who could, according to a supermarket survey and only 25% of young women today can poach an egg without the help of a kitchen gadget, while 75% of their mothers could (I can do the latter, but not the former).

But Belkin’s article is not another run-of-the-mill today’s wife wants to find the perfect career/mother balance, instead it takes a different look at marriage. It looks at how my generation tends to approach marriage as a partnership.

And it’s not because women are changing what they’re doing, it’s because of the men their meeting and marrying.

Part of the reason women are baking fewer pies and shining fewer floors, and may even be backing away from the feeling that their children’s activity schedule is a measure of their own worth, is because more men are adding these and other tasks to their own to-do lists. The young men and women coming into adulthood right now consistently tell researchers that they are determined to make their marriages into partnerships and to not default to traditional gender roles at the expense of equality.

I re-read those couple paragraphs at least a dozen times.

It all makes sense to me, but it’s something I don’t think I ever consciously realized that it was what I wanted, or expected, in a lifelong mate.

I’ve never been a particularly “domestic” woman. I don’t tend to clean my apartment on  a scheduled basis (I only do the dishes once a day because if I don’t, then I have nothing to eat off of). I don’t sort my whites from my colours (I swear it’s just to save on change, though). I don’t really cook (well, not until recently).

While marriage is not in my immediate future, the relationship I have with my partner right now is that of a partnership. Sure, I do most of the cooking, but he does a lot of the cleaning and laundry. And we both want one another to be successful professionally.

There is no expectation for either one of us to settle, or to fall into a pre-determined gender role. We wouldn’t want it that way. Partly because we don’t fit into those gender roles as individuals as it is: I’m a girl that likes sports and doesn’t do my hair or makeup, he’s a guy that like fashion and style and art.

But it’s the fact that our relationship is built on being partners that really makes us stand together. I don’t think I would want a marriage to be different than that.

Belkin says a lot of people my age use the term spouse or partner because of that. Right now I call my boyfriend my partner, because it seems silly to be calling him my boyfriend at my age. However, when and if I do get married, I will admit I don’t want to be considered someone’s partner or spouse — I want to be their wife. Being a wife may not carry the same roles and expectations as it has in the past, that word still means something to me.

I don’t think it’s necessarily that my generation is redefining marriage, so much as we are redefining the terms attached to that marriage — specifically what it means to be a wife or a husband.

After all, to have and to hold is still there, even if the pie is store bought nowadays.

If Lost existed in the 1960s

Then this would likely be the credits:

Lost vs. Saul Bass from Hexagonall on Vimeo.

Now, if that gives away the end to the series, I’ll be kinda pissed. But it is really cool and really well done.

The one post I hope you don’t read

I don’t entirely mean what the title of this post says.

Of course, I want you to read this post. I want you to read all kinds of posts on this blog. I want you to bookmark the site and keep coming back. But I don’t want you to be reading this post for an hour after it is published.

I’m publishing this post at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday March 27 — Earth Hour. The time when we — for one hour — turn off all of our lights as a statement that we are against climate change. That we are willing to change our habits and try to reverse the damage we have made to this world.

I’ve done Earth Hour since its inception. The first year, I even unplugged everything in my home I normally have plugged in (except for the fridge and stove, I just couldn’t move those). I sat in the dark by candlelight enjoying some sushi.

Last year, I played board games with a friend by candlelight for the hour. It was kind of neat to see how you can still have fun nowadays without having to watch television or a DVD.

This year, unfortunately, I may be a little late with my tribute to Planet Earth. I have some previously scheduled plans outside of my house, so maybe I will unplug stuff before we leave so at least I’m kind of making a statement.

Not everyone agrees with Earth Hour, and I really don’t see why. Yes, we should be making these changes on a bigger level — introducing them into our lives everyday. But we won’t. It’s impossible to change behaviours and habits that have grown from being a “have” society.

It doesn’t mean I don’t wish we could. Because I do. I worry what future generations will have to deal with — that they will be cleaning up the mess we were too lazy to do anything about. That saddens me  very much.

One hour may not be much, but it’s a start.

What did you do for Earth Hour? Leave a comment and let me know.

The fame game

Do we really all just want to be famous?

That question has caused me to pause quite a bit the past little while.

I mean, there’s no doubt that people want their 15 minutes of fame (if they didn’t, reality TV would not have stuck around). But reality TV isn’t the only place you can become famous anymore.

Bloggers have a history of taking what they write online and turning it into something more tangible (if they didn’t, then some bloggers would not be able to make their living blogging).

Sure, the obvious bloggers come to mind immediately: Heather Armstrong, Matt Logelin, Julie Powell (and some Canadian content, Christa Jean). But there are more bloggers who crave that kind of fame, the kind of noterity only being “famous” provides.

Today on Torontoist, there’s a bit of a flame war going on between an article written for Torontoist, and its subject of “attack”, Sean Ward (scroll to the comments for the full back and forth).

I didn’t know who Sean Ward was until one of the blogs I read posted a video featuring him and a few other of Toronto’s “blog stars” about a workshop they were giving (thanks Toronto Mike). For $20 they would teach you all you need to know to become famous by blogging.

I know people who went to the event (they were live tweeting the whole thing). I also knew, based on the video, this was not something worth putting my money into. If these were Toronto’s top three bloggers, how have I never heard of them? But hey, if these three wanted to give a workshop, who’s to stop them?

And really, they were working on the fact that deep down, everybody wants to be famous.

I did. I think of all the other incarnations of this blog that didn’t work, and all of them were initiated by my desire to be somebody. To get somewhere by blogging. To be famous.

But I’ve come to realize in my old(er) age, that doesn’t always happen. In fact, it’s the minority of bloggers who do become household names, who get book deals, movies deals etc.

Would Heather Armstrong be who she is today had she not been dooced? I’m sure Matt Logelin’s life — and blog  — would be much different if Liz had lived. And when you come right down to it, Julie Powell is not a good writer, she just had a good idea (I barely made it through the first 50 pages of Julie and Julia).

If you want to write, then write. That’s all it should come down to.

Sure, I still get excited about hits on my website and comments being left, but it’s not my entire world. I’m not writing in the hopes of making tons of money, I’m writing for me.

When I started writing for newspapers when I was 17, I wrote the most candid things about my life because I wasn’t writing for the readership of the newspaper. In fact, when I wrote columns about losing my viriginity or buying condoms for the first time or being too thin, I wrote them without thinking that my mother, my grandmother or my teachers would be reading them.

When I write, it’s the last thing on my mind who will be reading this when I’m done. The audience matters to me, but they’re not why I write.

And to all the bloggers out there looking for fame and fortune, I give the same advice.

Write because you want to write, and then the true success will come.