stupid girls

So, by now we all know that Delaware’s Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Christine O’Donnell, may or may not know where in the Constitution it says that religion and government should be separated (here’s a hint – right here). Maybe it was taken out of context – to be fair, the exact phrase “separation of church and state” actually originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, and does not appear verbatim in the Constitution. Or maybe O’Donnell really is so far down the right-wing, conservative Christian rabbit hole that she thinks she can re-write centuries-old documents to suit her whims and beliefs. Either way, the point is, every time O’Donnell and her female political ilk wind up playing dumb, intentionally or unintentionally, on the national stage, I die a little inside.

From Abigail Adams to Hillary Clinton, smart, capable women have always played a large, if overlooked or under-appreciated, role in American politics. However, there’s still a long way to go, and beauty-pageant politicians like O’Donnell and Sarah Palin are not making the road any shorter or smoother with their vapid rhetoric, bumbling statements, and blatant, almost blissful ignorance.

Maureen Dowd of The New York Times wrote a great op-ed piece this week exploring this issue,  comparing O’Donnell and Palin to Marilyn Monroe, who built a career and became a legend by being sexy and playing dumb.

“At least, unlike Paris Hilton and her ilk, [Monroe] had a firm grasp on one thing: It was cool to be smart,” wrote Dowd. “But now another famous beauty with glowing skin and a powerful current, Sarah Palin, has made ignorance fashionable.”

Although she knew she’d get more mileage out of playing the sexy-but-stupid bombshell on-screen, Monroe strove to educate herself. Palin, on the other hand, is content to remain mired in ignorance, buoyed along by being the prettiest face in politics, and that’s a dangerous game, not just in the political realm, but for women in general. What kind of message does it send – “I’m attractive, so I can call it a day?” Dowd refers to  ”the false choice between intellectualism and sexuality,” because what Palin fails to see – what Marilyn Monroe knew – is that intellectualism is sexy.

I mean, I guess I shouldn’t complain too much – I’m not in any hurry for Palin or O’Donnell to fire up the cylinders in their brains and actually start making sense and being legitimate – but I have to bemoan the opportunities they’re wasting to show women that you can be more than just a pretty face. Marilyn Monroe got it – why can’t they?

funny business

Today’s post was inspired by my friend and Philly funny girl Rachel, who recently started writing for the web site Metropolis. In her first piece, “Make ‘Em Laugh, Make ‘Em Laugh,” Rachel talks about how downright depressing it can be sometimes to be a single girl with a sense of humor.

“One of my best guy friends once told me at a party, ‘Guys don’t date you because you’re too funny,’” writes Rachel. “At the time it seemed ludicrous, but it buzzed around in my head, like a pesky fly caught between two windowpanes. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it was true…I’ve been told before that men ‘love a woman with a sense of humor.’ When speaking to fellow comediennes, they have all responded with a resounding ‘bullshit.’”

As someone who considers her sense of humor one of her best assets, this information is troubling, to say the least. While I know I have flaws that can scare off potential suitors (my stubbornness, my opinionatedness, my unending devotion to the Backstreet Boys), I never thought of my sense of humor as a roadblock to romance, especially since I’ve learned to save the really inappropriate jokes until I’ve gauged if a person’s filter is similar to mine (read: nonexistent).

But, like Rachel said, maybe it’s a power thing. “Men are supposed to be the comedians and women are supposed to laugh at their jokes and make them feel important.” That’s all well and good; I want a man who’s funny too. I like it when other people make me laugh just as much as I like making them  laugh. And the burden of providing all the comedy in a relationship is just way too much pressure for me anyway. But is that any reason not to date a funny girl?

I’d even take it one step further than Rachel, and venture a guess that men are less willing to date a funny girl because we make them uncomfortable. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – guys love girls who need them to feel good about themselves. Guys love girls who need to be told they’re pretty and wonderful and not a complete jackass for falling down the stairs or wearing a barely-there minidress to the bar in the middle of a blizzard. Girls who can laugh at themselves don’t need that. I’ll be the first one to call myself a klutz or a jackass or make fun of myself and my foibles. And what’s more, I’ll do that to any guy I date, too – in a good-natured, not bullying-way, of course, but anyone in my vicinity (or anyone named Snooki) is potential fodder for comedy. And some guys, unfortunately, just can’t handle that.

You also have to consider the reasons people, especially women, use humor. As Rachel said, “Comedy soon turned into the greatest coping mechanism for social awkwardness and the brutal pains of growing up…Being able to make people laugh and poke fun at myself kept me from getting picked on. It was one of the best shields for utter insecurity and helped me to relate to people way out of my social ranking.”

That’s the thing about being funny – it’s like nature’s own defense against suffering and humiliation for anyone who is awkward, insecure or different. I’ve heard many professional comedians, both male and female, say that they first started being funny and telling jokes because they were shy and awkward, didn’t make friends easily, to stop being picked on or beat up. It’s why I developed a sense of humor in junior high and high school – I wasn’t one of the pretty girls that all the boys wanted to date, but I could be one of the funny girls who made them laugh until milk shot out of their noses.

Now, even though I’m older, wiser and better-looking (all those pretty girls who peaked at 17 can suck it), the old insecurities linger, and can certainly impact romantic relationships. Confidence is sexy and makes you more attractive, there’s no denying that. Maybe if a girl is using humor to defuse her insecurities, guys can see that, just like women know that men buy expensive sports cars because they’re afraid their penises are too small.

Of course that doesn’t explain why boys lie, and say they love a girl with a sense of humor when they don’t. But I know where you’re coming from, Rachel – the last guy I dated who laughed at all my jokes hasn’t been seen or heard from in weeks either (perhaps it’s the same person…hmmm). Either way, the joke’s on them, for letting us and our razor-sharp wit get away!

And lest we feel down, we can always take a cue from the original funny girl, Fanny Brice (or Babs as Fanny Brice. Whatevs.):

 

 

things that exist: the frenemy

So, I just discovered this web site yesterday, The Frenemy, even though it’s been up for a few months apparently, and I’m obsessed. I love it. It’s fantastic. It’s what Miss Right Now wants to be when she grows up. (Although technically Miss Right Now is older, so that would require some Back To The Future-style hijinks. I’ll power up my DeLorean.)

Anyway, I fell in love with The Frenemy and it’s writer, Alida Nugent, the moment I read this acerbic, satirical ode to singlehood. As I know all too well (and I’m sure all my single ladies out there will agree with me) sometimes (or often) you have to be reminded that being single has its perks, and it’s nice if those reminders come with an infusion of sassy, kiss-my-ass humor. Well done, Frenemy!

 

sins and sensibility

As those of you who checked my blog yesterday know, at the tail end of the day I posted a link to a Newsweek.com article about the increased prevalence of unmarried couples  ”living in sin” (or the less-fire-and-brimstoney term, “cohabitating”) and the positive and negative effects of such arrangements.  The article basically says that cohabitation before marriage no longer means a couple is more likely to eventually divorce if they do wed, but that it doesn’t mean the relationship will necessarily end in marriage either.

Personally, I think cohabitation is a great idea. I mean, you wouldn’t buy a car without taking it on a test drive first, right? Same concept. It’s easy to love someone and think the sun shines out of their ass when you only see each other for a limited amount of time, and don’t have to constantly deal with each other’s messes, habits, schedules and idiosyncrasies, which can’t be hidden when you live together. And not that living with a person for a year or two or 10 before you get married means you will know everything about each other and have the perfect marriage – my parents have been married for 35 years, and they still find ways to surprise, confound and annoy each other – but as far as I can tell, it’s a good way to hedge your bets.

It would seem that there are plenty of people in my generation who agree with me. Among my friends who are in relationships, most of them are living with or have lived with their significant other, and most of us, regardless of current relationship status, would insist on living with their partner before getting married (granted, I don’t know many super-conservative Christians or anything like that, so maybe my data’s a little skewed). And even if cohabitation isn’t an absolute financial necessity, which the Newsweek article cites as a big reason for the spike in couples living together, sometimes it is the most practical way to go. Why pay two rents and two sets of utility bills when you’re basically living in one residence or other anyway?

Of course, moving in with someone is a huge step with a lot of attendant risks and questions, not the least of which is, “What the hell do we do if things don’t work out?” One line that jumped out at me in the Newsweek article is when sociologist Andrew Cherlin said, “Many cohabiting couples may now be in limbo, unable to marry and afraid to break up.” It’s a lot easier to break up with someone who isn’t living in your house, sharing your bed, and bearing half the financial burden of your cost of living. I wonder if there’s any wisdom in a couple plotting out some sort of exit strategy, in case the worst should happen and they break up. Then again, if the U.S. military doesn’t bother with exit strategies, why should we? (Cue cymbal crash.)

Anywho, the other thing that tripped me up in this article was this: “Although both partners will most likely end up contributing household income after marriage, men and women alike say that a husband should be able to provide for his wife and children financially. “There seems to be a cultural expectation that young adults feel that the male is supposed to be the breadwinner,” says (sociologist Pamela) Smock, citing research she conducted with 18 focus groups separated by gender for a forthcoming paper.”

It really surprised me that the majority of young adults apparently still expect the man to be the main breadwinner in the family. I don’t know, I guess I just thought we were past that, but like Smock goes on to say, “It’s a masculinity issue.” The idea of the man as the main provider for a family is so ingrained in the fabric of our culture and the minds of men that even though we know it doesn’t have to be that way, we still feel like it should. I always think about something Steve Harvey said in his book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man (one of the few self-help/relationship books I’ve read that didn’t make me want to dig my eyes out with a spoon), about how one of things a man needs to feel secure and confident in his relationship is the ability to provide for his significant other, whether or not they actually need to. They just need to know they can, and if they don’t, it can be problematic. This is something I’ve witnessed in real life, not really surprisingly, considering the unemployment rate for men right now is 9/8%, compared to 8% for women.

So is cohabitation the right choice or not? Only under the right circumstances, it would seem, but the same goes for marriage, or just about any big life decision. As long as it’s done for the right reasons, the chances of success are that much better.

On that note, here’s a funny story about farting, somewhat related to cohabitation: My parents, products of a more conservative era and Catholic upbringings, did not live together before they got married. Scatton lore has it that on the first night of their honeymoon, as they were going to bed, my dad turned my mom and said, “I’ve been good the whole time we were dating and engaged, but now that we’re married and going to be living together, I’m going to fart when I want to fart,” and proceeded to do so. That my mom did not run sobbing from the room and instead remained in love with and married to that man for 35 years is a testament to her enduring strength and patience.

this just in

Ack. Just found this really interesting article, “Does ‘Living in Sin’ Still Lead to Divorce,”  on Newsweek.com, but I have to leave work in 10 minutes and don’t have time to write a coherent analysis of it.  But follow the link and read it, and we’ll discuss tomorrow. Kthanksbye.