Posts Tagged ‘marriage’

Happy Birthday, Honey! Now I know what it’s like to conduct an affair.

May 20, 2013

Last year, as we got ready to celebrate five years married and ten years together, I decided to throw my husband Lala a surprise party for his 30th birthday.

A big party is consuming enough to plan, but keeping it a secret from a spouse who is the guest of honor? Not only do you have to plan the venue, the theme, the food, the drinks and the guest list without any help from your partner – you have to do it without arousing the slightest suspicion that you’re going out of your mind trying to keep it all under wraps. And perhaps most important, you have to construct the perfect ruse to preserve the shock until your loved one steps in the door.

The whole thing needs more planning and accomplices than a casino heist.

Since our apartment is way too small for a birthday bash, I enlisted my cousins, who live in a large and beautiful row home in South Philly that we all call The Clubhouse.

I invited our mutual friends, but for my husband’s work buddies, I had to approach his boss.

That’s when I realized that this must be a little like having an affair. E-mail and social media accounts that I typically leave open on un-locked laptops at home could blow the whole thing, if my husband happened to borrow my computer for a moment and an errant RSVP popped up.

Is that what it feels like when married people surreptitiously frequent dating sites?

I became more secretive than Don Draper, logging out of everything every time I left the house, and keeping the screen pointed away from my husband when he was at home.

It was exhausting.

And I still had yet to spin the web of lies that would get him to the party unsuspecting.

I realized that the same thing city workaholics use to keep their suburban spouses from discovering an affair would also help me throw a surprise party.

When I told my husband that I had to work downtown all day on the Saturday before his birthday, he didn’t give it a second thought because in real life, that’s what I do anyway.  I said he should meet me downtown because I had a birthday dinner reservation for us.

You see the myriad holes in this plan, don’t you.

But here is where it got good.

My cousin Johanna Austin, who lives in The Clubhouse, is a professional photographer who just happened to be doing some work at the time for a publication I write for.

So I told my husband that one of my editors had happened to match Johanna and me up. And that we would be working on the piece together. At The Clubhouse.

But, you say, how did you know Lala wouldn’t just pull up and call my cell, forcing me to awkwardly wheedle him into the house while I kept friends away from the windows? Seriously, who wants to find street parking in South Philly at 7pm on a Saturday night when you think you’re about to drive to the restaurant, anyway?

Not to mention the fact that my husband knows I’m excellent at using public transportation. Why, he would think, could we not save time, gas, and a possible brawl with the Philadelphia Parking Authority and just meet at home or at the restaurant?

And this is where it got really good.

Before I left that morning to shop and prep the house for the party, I packed my party clothes in my purse without Lala noticing. And then I left a second outfit folded on our bed.

An hour or two before he was supposed to arrive, I called to say I had forgotten my dinner clothes and could he please be sure to bring them to The Clubhouse so while he waited I could get ready without having to go all the way home again.

And like a good husband, he did.

Here’s the video. Note how, because he is illegally parked, he tries to expedite the process by just reaching his arm inside the door with the clothes.  Proof positive that he had NO IDEA!!

The party was great but the lies wore me out. Tonight, we really are going out for dinner.

You, Me, and the Portman Effect: Like It Or Not, It’s Bringing Gay Rights

March 26, 2013
A save-the-date card for an event my friend calls her "big ole dyke marriage." "Yay! I declare victory!" she says.

A save-the-date card for an event my friend calls her “big ole dyke marriage.” “Yay! I declare victory!” she says. (Design credit Crystal Davis.)

This week I published an essay about friendship and marriage that included a few examples from my own life. My editor said he loved the insights in the piece, but he warned me to watch out.

Pointing to advice maven Ann Landers’s divorce, he said I should consider the future – I might be writing a personal essay now about my perspectives on a healthy marriage, but who knows? In ten years, I might be in the middle of a divorce, and then, a reader might dig up this article to mock me.

Could I handle that?

I told him that I preferred to live in the present, and if I end up getting divorced, I will deal with it when it happens, instead of letting that unpleasant hypothetical notion hinder what I publish now. I also said that while I strive to write in good taste and not bare anything that’s too personal, I feel that if readers give their attention to my essays, I should be willing to give them my honest self in relatable terms.

My editor listened and nodded and said that was wise. Then he chuckled and shook his head.

“It’d be funny, though, if it happened,” he said of my supposed future divorce.

I share all this with you now because, as the US Supreme Court hears landmark cases this week about marriage equality, I think my gay pals have been resting easy for far too long – it’s high time their unions were as legal as mine, so they can shoulder their share of rude comments like this.

Gay pals have been getting a lot of press recently, as this nugget from the Stephen Colbert show sums up pretty well:

Colbert and NPH

People are calling it the Portman Effect, after Republican Senator Rob Portman announced his support for gay marriage (following a long history of anti-gay legislative votes) because, as it turns out, his son is gay. After years of seeing gays as sub-par, faraway citizens who don’t deserve the right to marry their partners or adopt children, Portman looked at his own child and then wrote “All our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joys and stability of marriage.

Some people lauded Portman for his courageous stance, given the current state of America’s Republican Party, and others scoffed that politicians should support equality because it’s the right thing to do, not because the issue suddenly becomes personal to you.

Many speculate that the Portman Effect will be at work in the Supreme Court chamber itself, because apparently a gay cousin of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the oral arguments.

In general, I sympathize with those who find the Portman Effect a lousy reason to support equality – one based on personal experience rather than a larger, more rational acceptance on principle. It reminds me of this fabulous article by Anne Theriault, who argues that a common piece of rape-combating rhetoric is “reductive as hell.”

Pundits and politicians often beg would-be harassers or attackers of women to imagine how they’d feel if their own mother, sister or daughter was battered this way.

Theriault lobs back that this “defines women by their relationships to other people, rather than as people themselves. It says that women are only important when they are married to, have given birth to, or have been fathered by other people.”

Rape isn’t wrong because women are wives, sisters and daughters. Women are people and rape is just wrong.

Maybe a man who would refrain from attacking women because he doesn’t like to think of his own family members being attacked is sort of like a politician who doesn’t support equality until he realizes that anti-gay laws affect a member of his own family.

But the plain truth is that humans are primarily emotional creatures. We can call for high-minded, objective, rational ideals, but things must touch us personally before we can process them.

Count me in on the Portman Effect club – I grew up in an insular Christian atmosphere that didn’t exactly heap bile on gays, but did make it clear that theirs was a sad and disordered lifestyle. Gay schoolmates were well and truly closeted and I didn’t know any better than to oppose gay marriage, declaring I had nothing against gays themselves (should I ever meet any), but I didn’t think they had a legal right to marry.

That lasted about as long as it took me to make some friends who were gay, as soon as I hit college and moved outside the sphere of my family’s church.

The personal is the last bastion between acceptance and prejudice. A family member who opposes gay rights once asked me, in a tone that was meant to end the argument, once and for all,

“Well, how would you feel if someone gay was your children’s teacher?”

The answer I think she expected was that of course, in that case, I would be opposed. However, by that time I had already had a gay teacher and turned out just fine. I bet my future kids would, too.

I admit my own investment in equality probably has as much to do with my own personal universe as it does my civic principles. My own marriage would’ve been illegal just a few decades ago – back when people were arguing that Jesus wouldn’t want the races to mix. I imagine what it would feel like if people were protesting my relationship with signs like “God hates interracial couples” and “Marriage = two people of the same race.”

Imagine how stupid you are going to look

I think the Portman affect applies to racial attitudes as well. I remember sitting around a holiday table with someone who referred to African-American people collectively as “the blacks.”

But in subsequent years, my African husband joined the table, and I was interested to note this dinner guest change her tune ever so slightly the next time she shared an anecdote about an African-American person.

“He was a black…person,” the speaker faltered, eyes dodging ever so slightly – or did I imagine it? – at my husband.

In an ideal world, we’d all sit up and cast out our prejudices on principle, before they looked us in the eye and made us sweat.

Until then, we legally married heterosexual people are just going to have to bear the brunt of other people’s odd comments about our marriages – but I sure hope gay people can get their share soon.

Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off: The Case Against Weddings.

February 1, 2013
My own wedding reception, in July of 2007.

My own wedding reception, in July of 2007.

I’ve got an idea.

High school and college freshmen should all get a party. The night before their first classes, they should celebrate with a big cake, gifts and gift-cards, toasts and a dance party for all their friends. Their intention to finish their diploma or degree merits a big bash.

And why should anyone have to wait until they’re 65 to enjoy the professional accolades of all their friends and colleagues over a catered dinner and plenty of cocktails? If they intend to give a career their best shot, we should encourage them with a lavish celebration before their first day on the job.

If all that actually sounds foolish to you, then why don’t extravagant weddings seem equally unwise?

I don’t want to minimize the boundless suffering of badly-clad bridesmaids, slighted mothers-in-law, and the aftermath of champagne-induced sexual debaucheries.  But a recent New York Times article examines one of the true plagues engendered by our cultural wedding fetish. It’s called “Married to the Plan. Still Looking for a Possible Groom.” It’s about young American women who have their weddings planned all the way down the napkins – even though they don’t even have a boyfriend.

In a stroke of truly incisive and creative reporting, this NYT piece reveals that there are drawbacks to planning your wedding as if the groom is a last-minute prop stitched into a tux.

“First, what some single women imagine may not be feasible and may actually be a waste of effort,” writer Alyson Krueger explains.  She turns to the owner of a wedding trade show company, who says that brides, for example, might dream of guests sipping pumpkin soup. But then, if they get married in, say, Miami, in, say, February, the chef might announce, “I know you love pumpkin soup, but it’s not in season right now.”

Horrors.

“Another problem [as bad as the soup debacle, d’you think?] is the not-quite-bride is not taking into account a future partner and what his needs and considerations might be.”

The trade-show maven goes on.

“‘Even though you have all these ideas and you’ve done your homework and you are prepared as a single girl,’ she said, ‘you have to understand that marriage is a union and you have to take your other half into consideration.’”

But the single girls obsessed with their as-yet-unscheduled weddings weren’t worried.

As one woman explained, “if she met someone she wanted to marry, she doesn’t think his input would matter.”

Krueger does her homework and quotes a clinical psychologist:

“‘I think for anybody it’s much easier to plan a wedding than it is to form a meaningful relationship that is going to lead to a fulfilling marriage.’”

Stop the world, I want to get off.

Not only are women spending untold hours of their lives planning weddings to non-existent grooms. The New York Times finds it necessary to inform us that this one-sided, superficial obsession does not prepare anyone for a real partnership.

I’d like to shake the hand of whoever came up with that angle. I mean, really, thank God for clear-eyed psychologists.

Image from Postsecret.

Image from Postsecret.

It seems to me that lavish weddings are an irresistible incentive for people who have no business embarking on a lifelong emotional, sexual, reproductive, practical and financial partnership.

Imagine a world of marriages, but no weddings.

We would have been spared the whole Kim Kardashian/Kris Humphries fiasco: without the promise of a televised fairy-tale netting millions, these two probably would have forgotten the meaning of the word “marriage” altogether.

Picture it: no Katy Perry/Russell Brand shambles. The world was a grayer place when we all learned that two elephants on a red carpet at a luxe Indian resort does not a marriage make. No acres of tabloids speculating on the wedding of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, when they already have forty-two children together. No millions of pounds for security measures for the wedding of William and Kate when the rest of Europe is rioting over austerity measures.

True, if we abandoned big weddings, it’s not only the wedding industry that would suffer – advice columnists would see a 75% drop in their mail volume, as all those questions about bridesmaids who dare to get pregnant, guests who demand vegan dinners, and deplorably late thank-you cards would cease to exist.

But if, as the American Psychological Association says, 40-50% of all married couples in the US end up divorced, shouldn’t we consider de-incentivizing marriage itself?

My home church produces a pamphlet about the importance of marriage, and it irks me, because the picture on the cover is of a beautiful young couple in a wedding gown and a tux scampering away together on an idyllic beach.

To avoid giving the wrong impression to those who are selfish enough to believe that their future spouse should have no say in what his own wedding is like, I vote for a different wedding pamphlet image.

I could volunteer the image of my husband and me on the morning we had to get up together before dawn so that we could both go to the insurance-mandated mechanic to hand over our totaled car and sign for a supremely ugly rental before we had to be at work. Or the time my husband got raging tonsillitis while we were on our only vacation of the year. Or the time we bought a couch and then realized it wouldn’t fit in the narrow, angled stairwell to our second-floor apartment.

Sorry, you dewy-eyed lovers, but once the last dance is over, the last congealed canapé is scraped into the caterer’s trash bags, and that new Waterford crystal pitcher is stashed in the closet, that’s marriage.

Did I say I regret it? Of course not. I love my husband and we’ve had many good times. But as the years go by, from coping with grief together to disputes over household chores, marriage can be a mammoth challenge.

And I worry that legions of young people are getting duped into it because of lifelong bridal-gown fantasies.

from Postsecret.

from Postsecret.

I don’t want to you think that my own wedding wasn’t lovely. I argued with my mom about the live goldfish centerpieces, the outdoor July ceremony was wiltingly hot, and I didn’t have time to eat anything during the reception, but it was a wonderful day.

However, it seems that the only thing to match our culture’s divorce rate is our obsession with weddings. At what other time do we lavishly reward people for beginning what is meant to be a difficult lifelong endeavor? (Baby showers, maybe, but giving birth is an even bigger commitment than getting married – you can’t divorce your child and pick a new one.)

The problem with weddings is that they affirm the easiest part of your union (no, that consuming drama over what kind of shrimp you’ll serve or whose estranged aunt should be excluded from the list does not mark the most stressful time of your relationship). You’re young (for the most part – I do realize a greater number of folks are getting married later in life) and you may still be in the giddy infatuation phase of your relationship, when you just can’t get enough of each other. And this – when it all looks so simple and rosy – is when we launch websites to showcase our romance (and disseminate material wish-lists), and spend ourselves into oblivion so all our friends can bear witness to the fantasy.

Maybe we should clear away the sequined gowns, the cummerbunds, the towering cakes with their tasteless marzipan mortar, the lavish gift registries, and the rented parquet, and let marriage stand for what it truly is.

I know many folks from my own family’s church and maybe yours would protest that the beginning of a marriage should be marked with public celebrations, to uphold the value of marriage and help others aspire to it.

But it seems to me that the US at least is already rife with incentives to marry. In fact, countless government benefits bestowed on married couples are a major reason that American gays are still truly second-class citizens in a majority of states.

From taxes, immigration and insurance to inheritance and adoption proceedings, government, social and business policies often favor married couples and their children.

Do we really need fancy weddings, too?

I’m in my late twenties, so of course our fridge is dotted with save-the-date magnets, and I’m happy for my friends. But I’d love to go to a big party for a couple who married modestly and then successfully weathered ten, fifteen, or twenty-five years together. I’d like to toast their love, and, instead of listening to speeches about how much they will mean to each other all their lives (fingers crossed), applaud what the couple has actually achieved and the example they’ve set.

But the reality of marriage is not nearly as sexy and romantic as what we imagine over a new diamond ring. So I fear we’ll continue to wallow in weddings, and hope the rest works out.

Have you been to a wedding (or watched a marriage) that convinced you, one way or the other?

The Silent Airport: Base Camp, Shawarmas, and the Great Passport Freak-Out

January 21, 2013

Our flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to Doha, Qatar took off about an hour late.

“We’re going to miss our connection,” I announced to my husband, Lala, about six times between take-off and the fish and potato dinner.

He tells me every day that I need to stop stressing so much.

I did my best to sleep as we flew over Africa.

About an hour before we landed, the captain apologized to anyone who had a connecting flight in Doha.

I showed a flight attendant our connection’s boarding passes.

“I know it’s out of your control, but can you tell me if there’s any way we could possibly make this flight?”

In my experience, attendants on international flights have a polite and steely reserve born of the long hours and a certain invulnerability that comes with in-flight service. You know and they know that no matter how much of a ruckus you raise, at 30,000 feet, there’s nothing they can do.

“I’m sorry, I have no control over this,” she replied. “I really cannot help you.”

“I understand that and I know you can’t make any guarantees,” I said. “I’m just asking whether, in your experience, Qatar Airways will ever hold a flight for a few moments so customers can make a connection.”

She was about to depart with a final murmured protestation of helplessness, but when the young Turkish gentleman to my husband’s right roused himself and realized that he was about to miss his own flight, she could not ignore all three of us.

She sighed. “If you arrive within an hour of your flight, yes, maybe, they will wait. If it is three, four hours, then no. They will not wait.” She hurried away.

We disembarked into a sunny, blustery, chilly morning on the Persian Gulf and clambered into a pair of large buses which disgorged us at the airport ten minutes later.

Lala and I rushed optimistically to the US departures area – our flight was scheduled for 8:05am, and we had entered the airport at 8:10am.

But the gate was deserted. A staffer shook her head and pointed to a counter, where a silent man took our boarding passes and pecked at a keyboard for about fifteen seconds.

“Eight oh five tomorrow,” he said, handing us a new pair of boarding passes. “Please follow me to the hotel desk.” He took off while we were still spluttering.

There were few things I didn’t know about Doha International Airport.

1)      Qatar Airways is the only airline there.

2)      They seem to have only one departure per city per day.

The speed and dexterity with which the airport delivered us and a large crew of disheveled internationals (including our Turkish pal) to a huge “Booked Hotel Accommodation for Transfer Passengers” desk should have worried us. Apparently, late flights and overnight delays are par for the course in Doha.

A well-oiled machine.

A well-oiled machine.

We were assigned an establishment known as the “Doha Grand Hotel” and given vouchers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Perhaps I was tired from my flight, but for some reason the problem uppermost in my mind was that I had no deodorant for my upcoming day in Qatar.

Two information desks later and we were on a hotel shuttle.

Old Doha is a tan city. Businesses, offices, stores and hotels are all the same light, earthy shade. But the new Doha skyline, emerging on a small spit of land arching into the Persian Gulf, looks like a gaggle of vertiginous spaceships ready for lift-off. Most of the city is topped by a lattice of construction cranes.

Twenty minutes later, about fifteen of us trailed into the lobby of the Doha Grand Hotel, which was dotted with small leather chairs and smelled of cigarettes. We received a single key on a golden oval keychain, directions to take breakfast on the mezzanine, and notice of our 5:00am shuttle to the airport.

The notable features of our room were a perfectly egg-shaped toilet that sported a hanging nozzle (much like the one in your kitchen for rinsing large pots), an ancient box of a TV, an ashtray, springs poking aggressively beneath the thin mattress’s top, and a heavy smell of bath soap.

Mercifully, the Grand had wifi, so we immediately began to torture ourselves with scathing online reviews of the hotel from others who had been stranded by Qatar Airways.

There is nothing like a long flight to make you ravenous, so we stepped out of our room and wandered to the stairwell, where we met a shorts-wearing Afrikaner moving with unmistakable purpose.

“Breakfast?” he said.

“Yes.”

“Follow me.”

It was an eclectic buffet: pita and paratha, olives, masala, scrambled eggs and French toast, fried onion rings, yogurt and small brown items identified only as “chicken balls.”

The blogger in the Grand dining room.

The blogger in the Grand dining room.

After breakfast, Lala took a nap while I bitterly canceled my Thursday meetings, called our New York taxi service, and Googled Qatar.

Qatar is a chubby little peninsula jutting off of Saudi Arabia into the Persian Gulf. Its currency is the riyal, worth about a third of a dollar, and it’s an emirate currently enjoying a massive boom in oil and gas production as well as US military contracts.

Having argued avidly with my husband for several days about the pronunciation of “Qatar,” I learned that you simply slap a “q” instead of a “g” onto “guitar.”

That afternoon, we turned about 35 dollars into 105 riyals and clambered into the taxi of an Indian man named Simon.  We strolled along the turquoise Gulf on a graceful, palm-lined walkway knows as the Corniche.

High rollers.

High rollers.

Next, we explored the shopping center across the street from the hotel.

We appreciated the unfamiliar fruits and vegetables.

Ten points if you can tell me what the heck this is.

Ten points if you can tell me what the heck this is.

Looking for deodorant, I paused in the cosmetics section.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, white Americans are sun-burning themselves into fatal cancers for the sake of darker skin.

That night, we talked global politics with three beefy Afrikaners who agreed that our host should’ve been known simply as the Doha Hotel.

The next morning, we arrived back at Doha International Airport at about 5:40am. There was a brief but unpleasant scene in security, as the screeners refused to let us pass but didn’t have enough English to explain the problem.

“Cancel! Cancel!” a woman in a burqa kept shrieking. “I have not enough English! Cancel! Cancel!”

Finally, they confiscated a small keepsake of Lala’s: an empty bullet casing made into a keychain that he had saved from a boys’ trip to the shooting range.

We arrived outside security for American destinations by about 6:30am. The sun rose.

A round of recorded announcements played on the PA system in English and Arabic. No smoking outside the designated areas. Unattended baggage will be confiscated by airport security. Doha International Airport is a silent airport.

I wasn’t sure what that last one meant.

At about seven o’clock, a crowd began to shuffle into the US security line and we tried to join them.

No, this was the flight to Washington, DC. The New York flight? someone asked.

Oh, that one is delayed for one hour.

We fell back, and established base camp on the linoleum floor about twenty feet from the US security entrance.

Others bound for New York still clustered hopefully at the entrance. A Qatar Airways staffer stepped in among them and spoke quietly. Lala happened to be passing by on his way back from the restroom, and reported that the airline was offering us a free breakfast in the cafeteria because of the delay.

It sure was lucky at least one of us had been within natural earshot of the information about the delay and breakfast.

Is that what a “silent airport” means?

At about 7:30, our flight disappeared completely from every information board.

I sought solace from the lady guarding the security entrance. “There will be an announcement at eight o’clock,” she said.

“By ‘announcement,’ do you mean you will whisper the information to the four people who happen to be standing right here?” I asked.

“Yes, madam,” she smiled.

I returned to base camp in time to catch a volley of rage at the adjacent counter, for a flight that I believe was going to Vienna.

“That’s what you said yesterday!” an elderly Afrikaner screamed at the man behind the desk, followed by a string of profanities involving a missed flight and insufficient instructions. Someone convinced him to go to the cafeteria and wait for more information there.

“We will tell you, sir,” the staffer insisted.

I decided to have a look at the cafeteria myself, leaving Lala to listen for the eight o’clock announcement, but I was sidetracked as I passed another camp, taking no chances with a position ten feet from the US entrance.

A Mumbai-born American girl sat next to a white American man in a black felt fedora, black scarf, black sweater, shiny black denim pants, and pointy black shoes, orbited by a young Indian gentleman who was showing off his grasp of the English language by cursing with every other sentence.

“…technical difficulties,” Black Hat was saying.

“Do you know something about the New York flight that I don’t?” I interrupted.

“They said it was delayed because of technical difficulties,” he replied.

“But the flight’s not even on the board at all,” I said.

The whole thing was looking more ominous than the walled-off basement of a former funeral parlor.

In the next half hour, two more camps appeared on either side of us. On our left was a middle-aged man and woman with a teenage boy and girl. The girl was wearing pajama pants and Birkenstocks, and the boy was in a sweater that reminded me of my grandfather. They called the adults by their first names, and settled into a hyper-literate trivia game punctuated by a lot of happy laughter.

They had been touring India and Sri Lanka for six weeks. This delay was nothing. One of their trains in India had been delayed twelve hours.

On my left was a young Asian woman who offered to share her international plug converter with us, so we could charge our sputtering iPad.

I would rue her generosity in the hours to come.

Suddenly, the adjacent counter erupted in shouts once more. The Afrikaner was back.

“Then why the hell did you tell me to go over there?” he raged. “I tell you what, I have had nothing but lies and misinformation from you people since yesterday!” This time the swearing lasted a good five minutes.

When he disappeared once again, we were disappointed. While his plight did not bode well for us, he had enlivened the morning considerably and we were grateful.

Eight o’clock came and went. Then nine. The man at the gate stood in imperturbable silence.

A blessed silence.

“I have no information about that flight.”

I noticed Black Hat rise from the masses, and, now accompanied by a lovely young black woman with long dreadlocks, hitch up his luggage and stroll in the direction of the “Oryx Lounge” with a nonchalant finality that I envied intensely.

I wanted to follow, but I worried that I would miss pertinent announcements.

Then, in perhaps the worst development of the morning so far, the US security gate was completely abandoned by all staffers.

“Vienna boarding,” whispered a man at the nearby counter. Fifteen minutes later, he strolled about twenty feet in either direction of the counter.

“Vienna last call,” he murmured at a volume that would delight the strictest librarian. “Vienna last call.”

At about ten o’clock, when I could see a few attendants return to the counters beside the US flights entrance, I stood up and announced a scouting expedition.

“I’ll go with you,” the matriarch of the family on our left announced, leaving a discussion on the exploits of John Winthrop and invasive plants of eastern North America.

We learned that despite the total lack of any information about our flight, boarding was scheduled for 12pm.

I had a vague sense that one day in the future, I might find the ensuing conversation humorous, and I surreptitiously recorded it with my iPod. It went like this:

Alaina: Did you make any kind of announcement that it was changed until now?

Attendant: They feel that it is a silent airport. They don’t make any announcements.

Sri Lanka vacationer: I saw that sign. I just thought that meant people had to be quiet talking.

[Attendant laughs.]

Alaina: What’s the reason for a silent airport?

Attendant: They don’t want any announcements, it seems.

Alaina: So how do you know if your flight is delayed or if there’s a change?

Attendant: They make one announcement, to let the passengers know that it’s a silent airport.

A blaring PA announcement about designated smoking areas and unattended baggage completely drowned out the rest of the conversation.

I asked Lala to hold the fort while I figured out how to make a phone call to our taxi service in New York, delaying our pick-up yet again (Skype calls via our iPad only resulted in an irate receptionist saying “Hello? HELLO?” and slamming down the phone because he could not hear me).

As I passed Black Hat’s former companion, I noticed the Indian man had moved in and was now sharing the girl’s earbuds.

This is what all the public phones looked like.

We're not in Kansas anymore.

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

I tried swiping my credit card to no avail.

I asked a man at the adjacent security desk how to use the phone.

He told me to buy a phone card for 30 riyals (about $10) at one of the upstairs cafeterias.

I spoke to three different cashiers before one told me to I must buy the phone card at the coffee shop downstairs.

I found an escalator and was immediately lost in a bright wasteland of toys and candy.

I found the coffee shop with the help of two different staffers.

The man at the counter told me that I must buy phone cards at the cafeteria upstairs.

“They sent me down to buy from you,” I said.

“Hmm,” he said. Then he told me that they were all out of phone cards, anyway. “Try back at the cafeteria upstairs in half an hour.”

“Well at least you got some exercise,” the man from the unflappable family on our left chuckled when I told the story.

The young woman on our right missed the epic telling completely – she had asked Lala to watch her baggage about an hour ago, and disappeared.

I suddenly realized that if Qatar Airways owed me anything, it was a free phone call to New York. I marched back to the US desk.

Could they give me a phone card? Could they direct me to a phone I could use?

“We cannot help you, madam,” two young women told me.

Being an American who was completely out of patience, I repeated all of my questions at a slightly higher volume.

They changed tactics: “We must wait for the senior,” they cried. Then, they asked me if I had tried the “Transfer Desk”: “it’s opposite Gate 11.”

Just then, a small African man dodged between us, heading for the nearest gate.

“Excuse me sir, where are you going?!” the attendants cried.

“Home!” he said.

“But where is your boarding pass?”

I suddenly remembered a short story by Stephen King that is about a ragged bunch of travelers in a mysterious train station they cannot seem to leave. They gradually realize that they are ghosts.

God, why do I read that stuff?

I walked away and followed a highly inauspicious sign announcing “Gates 9-11.”

I got in line at the Transfer Desk, and after waiting for about ten minutes with absolutely no movement, I began to feel that asking anyone else for help would transcend fruitlessness – surely it would be a kind of absurdity.

I realized that I had had nothing but a few handfuls of trail mix since yesterday. I ducked out of line and returned to camp. On the way, I got intelligence from a Qatari native flying back to his home in the US that our plane would be boarding in 30 minutes.

But God knows what that actually means in Doha.

Just to be safe, Lala and I agreed that we’d take turns at the cafeteria.

As I sat down by our bags with a couple of croissants and Lala departed, I wondered where our neighbor was. We must have looked trustworthy, because she’d left her bags at least ninety minutes ago.

As soon as I lost sight of Lala in the crowd, a man appeared at the US security gate.

“Boarding New York,” he muttered, like a fifth-grade boy who resents his role in the school recital.

But the result was electric – perhaps the hours of silent uncertainty had sharpened our ears. Everyone in a thirty-foot radius moved at once.

Lala had no way of knowing that our flight was boarding.

And what the hell was I going to do with this woman’s bags?

“Don’t worry, that line will take forever,” the family next door said contentedly. Then they celebrated with a plate of shawarmas and fries.

Perhaps after some type of divine warning, our free-spirited neighbor appeared in the crowd about five minutes after Lala did.

Have you ever been white-water rafting?

There might be calm stretches, but you never know what’s around the bend.

Such is US flight security in Doha. My nerves had settled by the time we reached the head of a long line and handed our passports to a security person. She separated us, sending Lala to a separate screening area for men.

And then, the rapids.

Baggage x-ray was staffed by about seven men who moved as if they were loading the last lifeboat of a sinking cruise-liner carrying every president on earth. One took my bag, sneakers, iPad, purse and jacket. Then he yanked my passport and boarding pass out of my hand, threw them into a plastic bucket and shoved it into the machine’s maw.

I stumbled through the metal detector and fell on the emerging buckets, which were flying into the crowd with the help of about four or five men. I snatched my belongings out of the chaos.

My heart fluttered with relief when I saw a US passport clasping a boarding pass. But when I opened it, it wasn’t my name. Another woman snatched it out of my hand. I scrambled among the nearby baskets like a mother grasping for a drowning child.

My passport was gone.

Perhaps it’s important to tell you that I have a bona fide anxiety disorder. I’m mostly free of visible compulsive behaviors, but if I have one, it’s that when traveling internationally, I check for my passport every two minutes.

I had never had an all-out public tantrum before.

Lala appeared at my elbow.

“Ready, babe?”

“My passport is gone,” I gasped.

“What?”

“My passport and my boarding pass are gone. Someone took them and put them in a fucking bucket and now they’re gone.”

“Gone?!”

We searched the buckets – others were grabbing their coats out of my hands as I picked them up to search for my passport underneath.

“My passport is gone!” I shouted at the men working the line. “Excuse me, my passport is gone! It went into the machine, and it didn’t come out!”

No-one replied. None of them even made eye contact. They just kept shoving buckets of stuff at the crowd surging around us.

I approached the woman working the metal detector.

“My passport disappeared,” I shrieked. She looked away, nodded, turned me around with her hands, and pushed me back towards the machine.

“Do you understand what I’m saying? My passport is gone!”

She turned her back and continued directing more people through the metal detector.

I ran back to the men at the machine.

“Excuse me. EXCUSE ME. HEY! Do you understand what I am saying? Hello! MY PASSPORT AND MY BOARDING PASS ARE GONE!”

They gave no sign that they heard me.

Finally, a uniformed man, still refusing to meet my eyes, took my purse out of my hand and began to search through all the pockets. Panic began to drown me as the plastic baskets continued to clatter around us.

I re-searched all of my bags’ pockets again. That’s when I realized that my iPad was also missing.

Suddenly, among the turmoil, I glimpsed a black leather case lying in a security bucket. I flew to it and picked up my iPad.

My passport was hidden under it.

I nearly collapsed. As Lala patted my arm and I put my belongings back together, a burly uniformed man clapped a hand on my shoulder.

“Go now,” he said.

“Thank you, I am,” I answered.

“No. Now. You go now,” he said, pointing at my face. “You. GO.”

What would you guess the purpose was of hustling us through security so fast that we couldn’t even keep track of our own passports?

Apparently, it was to wait for another forty minutes in this line.

See the line around the edge of the room.

See the line around the edge of the room.

Black Hat and his companion were there, but I was not surprised to see that he was too cool to wait with the rest of us – they were watching the line comfortably from the chairs.

Finally, we passed yet another counter (where some kind of badge-flashing marshal was having a serious tête-à-tête with a young man) and traveled a long, slanting passage…into another bus.

“Maybe they are driving us to Dubai,” the elderly gentleman beside me sighed during the packed and rattling fifteen-minute ride across the tarmac.

I shall not pretend to miss you, Doha.

I shall not pretend to miss you, Doha.

Seven or eight hours later, somewhere over Europe, I pulled up the window shade (the flight crew kept us in the dark, like canaries with a towel over our cage) and had absolutely no idea if I was looking at dusk or dawn.

In an hour-long US citizens’ line at passport control in New York, Black Hat was smiling to himself. His pants were a bit more baggy than they’d been in Qatar, but he was otherwise no worse for wear. The family who’d camped next to us in Doha was still laughing out loud. The girl had put socks on under her Birkenstocks.

At baggage claim, Black Hat wrote something down on a scrap of paper, which he handed to the woman with the dreadlocks.

After leaving our family’s Johannesburg home early Tuesday evening, we stumbled into our Philadelphia apartment at midnight on Friday.

“Nothing bad ever happens to writers,” read a Facebook placard I noticed a few months ago. “It’s all material.”

What do you think?

Respect the Husband, Love the Wife: Methods of Ending Marital Strife

December 7, 2012

Because I am a solitary wife this month, with he of the dreadlocks away for awhile in Johannesburg, I thought I’d dedicate this week’s post to the vagaries of marriage – or rather, marriage advice.

A recent Huffpost article titled “It’s the Intimacy, Stupid: 6 Steps for Women to Stamp Out Divorce” cropped up in my Facebook feed last week. In it, marriage help empire-builder Laura Doyle has good tips like adequate self-care, relinquishing controlling tendencies, being vulnerable and practicing gratitude. Unfortunately, she also tills that bizarre ground of so-called “submissive wives” who advocate Bible-based obedience to their 21st-century husbands.

From an earlier post called “How To Stop Your Wife from Having Tantrums at Costco, and Other Christian Marriage Tips.”

“Lack of respect causes more divorces than cheating does because for men, respect is like oxygen. They need it more than sex,” Doyle announces.

This is right in line with “submissive” wives and their pastors who claim that women need love, but men need respect.

Here’s a novel idea. Quit looking at your spouse as another species. Some things I read about man/woman differences make me feel like I’m watching an over-produced Animal Planet special about monkeys of the world.

In my opinion, manuals telling us how to navigate the differences between men and woman have everything to do with what society trains us to think and do, and little to do with the messy work of being humans who share the same duvet.

I think many of my friends are happy  with the view that catering to, or, as my friend put it, “leverag[ing]” gender differences is key to happy marriages.

They posted comments on the Doyle article link like “chances are good that husbands will be better served by ‘I’m proud/impressed at how you dealt with…’ and wives will be better served by ‘you make my world go round.’” Another friend, the author of the worthwhile book Marriage Moats, added that studies have proven 80% of women value love over respect, while 80% of men value respect over love.

For my part, beyond the questionable wisdom of stereotyping people by gender, I wonder what use there could possibly be in separating the practice of love from the practice of respect in a marriage. And how do you quantify such emotional terms into gender-defining statistics? And how do you know that two individuals wouldn’t view the same act, and one call it a gesture of love, and other call it a sign of respect? And even if most men do value respect over love, and most women would do without an equal measure of respect if they could just get some love, does that mean this preference is innate to men and women, or is it a pressure of cultural expectation?

And, as Doyle suggests, can most husbands really shrug off infidelity by thinking “well, at least she’s respectful”?

To me, the dogma that says respect your man but love your woman is just another way to reinforce active roles for men and passive roles for women: men get acclaim for what they do, while women are valued for their lovey-dovey state of being.

Don’t respect your husband because men need respect. Respect him because your husband is a person, and people need respect. Of course the same goes for respecting your wife. Try listening carefully to her opinion or complimenting her work ethic, and see if she doesn’t appreciate it as much as a kiss.

Or deride her expertise and ignore her hard work, and then get her to believe it when you say you love her.

Maybe if my marriage matched the stereotypes, I’d enjoy waving man/woman distinctions like 16th-century peace treaties sealed by royal betrothals.

But between my husband and I, one of us loves shopping and babies and the unrestrained verbal airing of daily events. The other is an emotionally bottled workaholic who can sit for hours in silence and abhors the mall. Guess who is who?

Devotees of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus would probably guess wrong.

Whatever self-help books and seminar leaders would have you believe, there’s no doctrine, statistic or gender-gap road map that ensures marital bliss, and one marriage should never be used as the metric for another. That might be the kind of secular millennial relativism that makes older generations’ hair stand on end, but with a grand total of five years of married life, and zero New York Times Bestselling relationship books to my name, my advice on marriage is this:

Think about what makes you feel loved and respected as a human being. Then, every day, imagine your spouse as a human being, too.

 

The White Girl’s Guide to African Dreadlocks

November 14, 2012

Let’s spend a little more time getting in each other’s hair.

One night a few weeks ago, my husband and I succumbed to the International House of Pancakes down the road. There were two people in the restaurant waiting area: a young black woman with a pierced nasal septum and dirty pajama pants grooming her black male companion’s luxuriant head of hair.

They weren’t waiting for a table. They were just doing some hair in the IHOP lobby at seven in the evening.

“Why are you guys doing that here?” My husband Lala asked them. They shrugged.

“Nice dreadlocks,” the man said to Lala.

“Thanks man,” Lala replied. From behind him, I pointed to myself. “I did them,” I gloated.

The man’s mouth fell open. “You? No!” he said.

Because a white girl who does a black man’s dreadlocks is way more strange than doing your hair in a suburban restaurant during dinner hours.

But whatever anyone thinks, I’m a very lucky woman. Everyone’s got their “type.” For my mom, it was 90′s-era Ricky Schroder, with his blond hair and blue eyes. But I went the opposite direction.

Ever since I was a teenager, black men with dreadlocks turned my head. It may have started with Harold Perrineau in Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo and Juliet.  Who needed Leonardo DiCaprio?

“A plague on both your houses!”

Let’s just say that my future husband, a South Africa native, fit the bill. We met when I was barely nineteen and his hair, from the soccer field to the dining hall, was glorious.

My grandmother said it looked like worms were growing out of his head. For years, my mother would gently ask me if Lala had any plans to cut them. Even Lala considered chopping them off occasionally, and shortly after we were married, he actually went a year or so with his hair shaved smooth and close – a sad era for me, but valuable in that I discovered once and for all that I loved my husband with or without the locks.

I find that a lot of white people are a bit mystified by dreadlocks. Many years ago, I, too did not have the slightest idea how anyone got them. The closest I’d come to any dreadlocks-in-progress was in Christian boarding school during my junior year, when a Caucasian classmate down the hall decided she wanted dreadlocks and simply stopped brushing her hair.

As her hair matted into dreadful clumps over the subsequent weeks, school officials noticed and forced her to comb it out, citing a dress-code violation. She was furious. All that not-brushing for nothing.

Some people seem to think that dreadlocks like my husband’s grow naturally, like some people of African descent are born with the style (though, to be fair, we’re all of African descent), or perhaps will their hair to grow that way. “How do you do those?” people ask my husband. Then they are surprised to learn that dreadlocks, like any chosen hairstyle, require meticulous maintenance.

I was surprised when I was pressed into service. Despite having my own head of thick, shiny, naturally golden hair, I was never interested in styling it. The first thing I always tell hairdressers is to do something that I don’t have to mousse, spray, blow-dry or clip. I never learned how to braid my hair or anyone else’s.

But those dreadlocks called my name.

Since so many people seem to be shyly curious about dreadlocks, and I believe my country could do with a little interracial harmony right now, I’m going to tell you the secrets of my husband’s hair, and show you how I take care of it.

The early, gravity-defying phase.

In this photo, Lala’s locks are perhaps a year or two old. I didn’t start them, because my skills aren’t quite there yet. I think it was his younger sister who did the honors. She divided his hair, only about an inch or so long, into dozens of small, roughly square segments, marching in approximately horizontal lines from the nape of his neck to his hairline. She fastened each segment with a tiny rubber band. Then Lala used the crochet-hook method to build his new, short dreadlocks. You take the tiniest crochet-hook head on the market, and pass it quickly back and forth, over and over, through the section of hair. The crochet’s hook tangles the hair so carefully that it becomes a small lock, right in your hand.  It’s time-consuming, but effective when done right.

The next phase, perhaps a year or so after the beach picture above. Even the very top locks are now subject to gravity.

Another year or so later – they’re coming along nicely by our fourth wedding anniversary.

And another year later, this is what the locks look like now.

Once they’ve gotten started, well-groomed dreadlocks need to be twisted every so often. We try to do it every few weeks (occasionally, Lala’s sister does the honors). There are a thousand products you can use for dreadlocks and we’ve tried many over the years, but we prefer natural products. First, Lala soaks his hair briefly in a big bowl of diluted apple cider vinegar and salt. He rinses it, and then washes it first with tea tree shampoo, and then unscented castile soup. The hair, so brown it’s nearly black, is springy and glistening clean at the puffy roots of the locks – the hair that will be incorporated into today’s twists.

Here’s what the dreadlocks look like when they’re ready to be twisted.

We prefer starting with the very back row of hair, and working toward the hairline.

Getting started.

Instead of using a purchased hair product, Lala mixes his own fragrant locking solution of olive oil, jojoba oil, castor oil, sweet almond oil, avocado oil and Vitamin E shaken up with a bit of warm water in a spray bottle. The oils are expensive, but they last a long time and keep the hair in good shape without unwanted scents or residues.

I deal with about three locks at a time, spraying their roots well with the oil solution, and then twisting them so they’re tight enough to keep their twist when they’re dry, but not so tight that they hurt Lala’s scalp.

I shift the hair around freely to reach the section I’m working on.

I used to use metal hair clips to pin the finished locks down, keeping them from untwisting before the hair could dry, which takes several hours without a dryer. But now we use a simpler method where the twists are given a little up-and-over finish, so the root of the lock loops tightly back on itself in a little spiral, like this:

Here’s what the freshly twisted locks should look like.

As I twist, I’m maintaining not only the growing length of the locks, but their tidy shape as well by refreshing the boundaries between each segment of hair.

It’s good to laugh about something along the way.

The locks at the hairline are the trickiest – I have to be extra careful not to pull too hard, and the look of the hair segments in this row should be as tight, clean and even as possible, because they frame the face.

The process used to take me hours. Sometimes we’d have to undo whole sections or even the whole head and start over because my lackluster twists unraveled or didn’t lie in the right direction. But with years of practice, I can now do Lala’s whole head in about thirty minutes.

I’m sure not many husbands wake up on Saturday mornings and say to their wives, “will you do my hair?”

Finished.

Dreadlocks still turn my head wherever I go – but partly because I like to judge if they’re as nice as my husband’s. Sometimes Lala wonders if it’s time to cut them. I say that of course, it’s his head, but please please don’t.

This is certainly not an expert’s guide, or the end-all, be-all in dreadlocks instruction. There’s so much more to learn about the culture, method and styles of this art form, but for those who may have been curious about how this gorgeous hairstyle is created, I hope this has been a fun glimpse.

Do you do something special for your own partner that you never expected you’d learn how to do?

How to Stop Your Wife from Having Tantrums at Costco, and Other Christian Marriage Tips

July 2, 2012

I recently stumbled across a marriage-themed Christian blog that hijacked my thoughts for days. Sometimes, when I go on the internet, I wish there was a TSA for my mind, patting down ideas and limiting the contents of their personal baggage.

So it was that I encountered Peacefulwife’s Blog, with the tagline “The Joy of God’s Design for Wives and Marriage”. I should have cried “to each her own!”, and found some mischievous cat videos instead. But Peacefulwife touched a place in my mind that chitters like the lid of a stainless steel pot when the rice boils over.

What caught my eye was a guest post by Christian marriage writer Daniel Robertson, titled “5 Ways Wives Unwittingly Disrespect Their Husbands”.

My five-year wedding anniversary is coming up this week, and I’m all for learning about ways to improve my marriage. Robertson begins with a true-life anecdote:

“One day my wife and I went shopping at Costco. I began to lead her in one direction fully expecting her to come along with me, but instead she seemed upset and asked me where I was going. Being the boneheaded man that I am, I didn’t tell her, but instead just motioned for her to follow me.”

The Costco trip, far from being a utopia of bathtub-sized ketchup crocks and toothbrush ten-packs, did not turn out well. The wife “stormed off in the other direction” and they did their shopping separately.

“I was floored,” Robertson writes. “Why couldn’t she just follow my lead, I thought. Did I really need to explain to her that I just wanted to grab some bread?”

I already knew the moral of this story. I have lived it countless times in my own marriage, when I kept my mouth shut about what I wanted and then resented my spouse for not being psychic. Surely God and therapists alike are behind the notion of good communication.

But I was wrong.

“The point of the story is that I felt completely disrespected,” Roberston continues. “All I wanted was for my wife to follow my lead through the store and not question what direction I was taking her.”

Uh-oh.

“Ladies, your husband thrives on respect,” Robertson advises. “It is just as important to him as feeling loved is to you.”

Looking through some of Peacefulwife’s own posts, in which she refers to her own spouse as “Respected Husband”, I can see why she invited Robertson to her blog.

A pharmacist, mother of two, stanch Christian and self-confessed former control freak, Peacefulwife now devotes herself to the pursuit of a Bible-based marriage ideal of female submission, and blogs to exhort other women to do the same.

In marriage, she writes, women need love and men need respect. To her (and, presumably, her church-based counselors), this means relinquishing all important decisions to her husband, as God decrees she should.

“If only Eve had known what I am going to tell you!” she begins in a post titled “Let Me Check with My Husband and Get Back with You”.

Peacefulwife has a ready response for any salesperson, neighbor, fellow worshipper, friend or “cult missionary” who asks her for something.

“I need to talk to my husband about that,” she says. Or, “I’ll ask my husband.”

“Imagine if Eve had used one of these phrases when Satan was giving her the offer of a lifetime in the Garden? Wow!”

It’s an interesting take on Original Sin. Instead of disobeying God, Eve just failed to check with Adam.

I want to be fair to Peacefulwife. A reader recently wrote me to say that I lack humility, and that I have a “huge” chip on my shoulder: I hold my opponents in contempt, and my angry tone subverts my message.

So I should clarify that I, too, fully advocate asking your husband. Situations in which I ask my husband include any time a mechanic claims my car needs work, any time someone invites me to do something I really don’t want to do, and any time someone inquires after my husband’s opinions.

Otherwise, my husband and I view decisions as mutual discussions.

“God gave him wisdom that He did not give to me,” Peacefulwife explains of why the husband must be the ultimate household arbiter, and while she does say that her husband values her perspective on his own choices, she is “THANKFUL for God’s wisdom in setting this authority structure into place in our marriage.”

There is something a little seductive about Peacefulwife’s way of life, which leaves all decisions to the husband. It sounds like retirement, or going on vacation without any pets to worry about. I would probably enjoy it for about two days.

But even though I don’t ask for his permission to join a board of directors or change jobs, I do plan to spend a lifetime respecting my spouse. So I read with interest Daniel Robertson’s advice on properly respecting your husband.

Some of his advice really resonates with me. He urges wives not to answer questions that someone else directs at your husband. I think this rule should apply to everyone, not just spouses: don’t speak for other people when it’s their turn to pipe up. Robertson also chides wives who don’t consult their husbands on major decisions, like where to go on vacation or how to spend a tax return.

But given the whole Costco follow-my-lead fiasco, I suspect Robertson doesn’t offer any primers urging husbands not to interrupt their wives, or to consult their wives on important decisions.

His other tips for ensuring wifely respect are even more worrying.

First, he believes that acting like your husband’s “mommy” (setting out his clothes, wiping food off his face, or reminding him to brush his teeth) is “a common mistake that almost every wife makes.” Who knew marriages were crumbling because wives were helping husbands dress or advocating good hygiene?

“Guess what?” Robertson asks. “Your husband didn’t marry you to get a new mommy, he married you to get a partner.”

But according to Robertson’s next piece of advice, a partner is not what your husband really wants at all.

“You tell your husband you want him to lead, but every time he tries you end up questioning him or going against him,” Robertson warns. “He sets his foot down but you find sneaky ways to get around it. He doesn’t want a certain TV show on in his house but you argue about how it’s not so bad and watch it anyway. Let your husband lead already!”

As if to reinforce his ideal wife’s childlike position in the home, his next piece of advice warns wives against “tak[ing] over with the kids”.

“Your husband is trying to discipline or instruct the kids and you just have to step in and take over,” he writes. “There is no need for this. He is perfectly capable of handling them.”

As he is also perfectly capable of handling you, even down to which TV shows you may watch.

I respect every couple’s right to fashion their own lives within the law (or, in the case of homosexual couples in many US states, outside of it). Some couples have an open marriage, some have dogs for ring-bearers, some go to a house of worship every week, some live apart and some never stir a step unless they’re together.

So what really troubles me in Robertson’s case isn’t that his vision of marriage galls me. Rather, it’s that I find his advice on being a good “partner” highly disingenuous. The relationship he advocates (in which one party “sets his foot down” and the other unquestioningly obeys) may be a version of marriage, but it is not a partnership. It is the relationship of an adult and his unruly child.

Even worse is Robertson’s phrase, “All I wanted was for my wife to follow my lead through the store and not question what direction I was taking her.” It’s as if asking a person to silently negate her own needs and questions on a daily basis is a modest and painless request.

Since Robertson had his say, I’ll feel free to throw my own take out there.

Godly or not, the waters of his own marriage are indisputably troubled if his wife “storms off” in public with no more provocation than a simple wordless gesture. Perhaps pent-up misery at her own lack of agency in the marriage has left her with a hair-trigger sensibility that can’t even handle a joint trip to the store.

Why can’t I just leave religious folks to their own sphere?

Because maybe, among Peacefulwife’s devotees, there is a woman who silently grieves at abdicating responsibility, instead of sharing it before her God.

Another Peacefulwife’s Blog guest post by Being June titled “A letter to my newlywed self” exhorts women to memorize and live by this sequence of priorities: “God, husband, children, work, self.” Maybe there’s a wife out there who secretly questions the lesson that she comes last, while her spouse gets a pedestal second only to God. Would God tell you to go to the office every day without breakfast? If you can’t work on an empty stomach, what can a perpetually hungry, marginalized self bring to a marriage?

It’s telling that this sequence does not even allow a woman to put herself above her employment. Why can’t a woman aim for an integrated self that balances many needs (just as she loves multiple children equally well), instead of dissecting the elements of her life into a rigid hierarchy?

I understand what it’s like to absorb that hierarchy. As a child, I assimilated religion-lesson diagrams that illustrated a man’s wisdom versus a woman’s emotional nature, and why this distinguished men as spiritual and practical leaders. I have listened to sermons and read books that urged women to “keep quiet” and leave important decisions to others.

Speaking of traditional religious scholarship, I would suggest that Peacefulwife’s fans think about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I had the privilege of seeing this week in a Philadelphia exhibit.

It’s highly unlikely that any women were clutching the quill when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. Hardly anyone knew how to read and write at all, except religious scholars, who were male.

I suppose I could twist this into an argument for Peacefulwife to stay silent, like the traditional wives she claims to emulate. You can’t be a true submissive AND yammer your opinions on the internet to guide other people.  Surely biblical wives did not write down marriage advice and post it in public.

But I have my blog and Peacefulwife is entitled to hers. Write on, sister in online discourse.

Meanwhile, I think that women who tout hearkening back to biblical-era tenets of “submissive” wives should remember that few, if any, of those wives were writing or leading public discourse. But nowadays, Peacefulwife and many of her peers enjoy Christian accolades for launching successful blogs.

If God smiles on the work of Peacefulwife, perhaps a lack of female writers isn’t the only thing about women’s lives that can properly change over time.

The Anti-Bridezilla

June 28, 2012

If you’re in your twenties, April, May and June could be combined into one 91-day month and renamed “Wedding Blitz”.  If it’s not your own or your friends’ weddings, your friends are giddily departing for bridal-party weekends. There’s hardly any room left for the smug and bubbly “my hubby is the best in the world!” anniversary posts from the girls who had their wedding a few years ago.

As every advice-column reader knows, weddings are ripe territory for everything that is wrong with humanity. The bride senses any disappointment that could tarnish Her Special Day faster than the Hubble Telescope can spot the moon. The wedding party is secretly smoldering about the amount of time and money they were forced to invest in useless satiny get-ups and shoes that will never, ever match any other outfit. And that’s not even counting all the people who aren’t even there, but who are offended because they weren’t invited. Finally, all the happy guests are waiting for the interval after which they may begin to feel resentful for the delayed, insufficient or non-existent thanks that accompanied their wedding gift.

I felt a lot of pressure on this point. I had two bridal showers, one a surprise. The day after the wedding, my husband and I sat down and opened wedding gifts for about two hours straight. I was exhausted before I even began the thank-you notes.

My worst thank-you note moment occurred the first time I used a gorgeous, expensive blender we’d received on our wedding day and it struck me that I didn’t remember thanking anyone for it. I got out my master list of gifts and givers and desperately scanned it. There was no blender on it. I searched the box the blender came in for a note or a tag but came up empty.

Please, please, if the giver of this blender reads my blog, identify yourself and I will dispatch a thank-you note, five years late.

But what I really want to share with you today, friends, is proof that wedding mania hasn’t pushed the human race to the brink of hell. Sometimes, a thank-you note is not a source of stress, errors and resentment.

Observe.

In April, my husband and I attended the out-of-town wedding of one of my former co-workers who has remained a friend.

I was feeling guilty, because after I paid for our accommodations, our budget was so tight that month that I didn’t have money left over for a decent wedding gift.  So I wrote a nice message in a card for the bride and groom. There wasn’t even a gift card in the envelope. Just my well-wishes.

But several weeks later, this is the note I got in the mail:

Take note, brides.

I’m sharing it as an antidote to everything that’s wrong with the world.  Despite last week’s controversial interview, I haven’t given up on marriage. But my friend just restored my faith in weddings, too.

The Ultrasound Wars, a Better Use for McMansions, and the Surprising Truth About Group Sex: an Interview with Christopher Ryan, co-author of “Sex at Dawn”.

June 21, 2012

The first thing Christopher Ryan, Ph.D., co-author of the New York Times bestselling book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, wants you to know is that he hates being called Dr. Ryan. Secondly, he’ll let you know that everything you thought about human sexuality is probably wrong.

The authors in Cambodia, 2003. Courtesy of SexatDawn.com.

Ryan and his wife, Dr. Cacilda Jethá, published Sex at Dawn in 2010. In it, they argue that even though my Facebook feed is all weddings, all the time, monogamy is not natural to Homo Sapiens. Based on a host of evolutionary, physiological, anthropological and sociological scholarship, Ryan and Jethá maintain that we evolved in large social groups that shared shelter, food, child-rearing, and yes, sex, for millions of years. The monogamous family unit of a husband, wife and their children trumpeted in western society today is no more than an invention of the last few thousand years, when the advent of agriculture led to new economic patterns that emphasized social hierarchies, paternalism, and possessions over cooperation and sexual freedom. Now, the invention of marriage is failing us.

It’s a challenging topic, to say the least. Best of all, Ryan and Jethá do not presume to give advice to their readers about how they should live their lives in light of this information.

Recently, Christopher Ryan was kind enough to have an in-depth chat with me via Skype about his book’s themes.

Alaina Mabaso: Your book is challenging some cherished notions of modern marriage. Do you think being husband and wife co-authors affects acceptance of your research? Does working with your spouse mean it’s easier for people to give credence to your joint conclusions? Or does presenting this thesis as a married couple make for a bigger challenge in getting your message across?

Christopher Ryan: I think it’s probably been helpful in making people willing to open the book. Whether or not we were married, having both a man’s and a woman’s perspective incorporated into the book at least makes people more willing to take a look at it. Once they get into the book, it doesn’t matter who wrote it. But that initial acceptance is affected by the fact that we co-authored it.

AM: One of your book’s core messages is that attitudes about sexual monogamy did not evolve in early human beings, but that they’re the result of changes in our society over the last few thousand years versus the last few million years of our evolution. Do you think we would be able to incorporate what you call “a more flexible approach to sexual fidelity” into modern life without changing the economic factors that give rise to the modern nuclear family in the first place?

CR: Yeah, I think so, without changing modern life fundamentally, but maybe just changing it around the edges a little bit. For example, Portland Oregon is still very much part of the capitalist western world, but there’s a much higher rate of polyamory and other unconventional types of romantic configurations. You can see the same sort of thing in places like Sweden, where it’s a socialist government, but still part of the western capitalistic money-based world. In Sweden, Holland and Scandinavian countries, you have much higher levels of non-typical marital structures.  Single women are more willing to face motherhood knowing that they’re getting economic assistance from the state, as opposed to getting a man to commit to providing that assistance. So I think there are very minor adjustments we can make in the economic system that make these more convergent family structures possible.

AM: This reminds me of how some Republican politicians say that the root of our economic problem in this country is single mothers – that’s why we have poverty. Sounds like you’d say they’re off-track.

CR: Well, I think they’ve got the causality backwards. I think that you’re going to have single mothers in pretty much every society. I don’t think that per capita there are more single mothers in Sweden, but what I mean to say is that single mothers don’t face the same sorts of economic challenges they face in the US. The US has a much higher rate of teen pregnancy and single motherhood, but also we have a much higher rate of children living in poverty. I think what when you force mothers into a situation where they have to fend for themselves economically, or where they try to fend for themselves by getting an economic commitment from a man, that falls through a lot of the time. So you end up with a lot of single mothers living in poverty. If you provide a safety net, I don’t think you’ll end up with more single mothers. You’ll just end up with far fewer single mothers living in poverty.

It’s like people on the Right arguing that tolerance of gay rights makes more gay people. That’s ridiculous.

AM: I was looking through the reader comments on your website, and one in particular caught my eye. It reads, “I suspect there is an element of evolutional change occurring in women directly related to the social norms that enforce monogamy and denial of the female sex drive.” I was really interested in the part of your book that posits declining sperm counts in modern man could be because human testicles didn’t evolve for monogamy, so in your opinion, are women affected in any measurable physiological way by modern mores that regard them as male property? Could this evolution in sexual practice ultimately be physical as well as social and economic?

CR: That’s an interesting possibility. I don’t think there’s any way to measure that at this point. If there are physiological changes taking place, it’d happen very slowly, so they would barely perceptible at this point. The thing about the testicular change is that the DNA controlling testicular tissue is the fastest-reacting DNA in the body to evolutionary pressures.

As far as female reproduction, I could imagine that there would be changes in the bacterial content of the reproductive tract for a woman who only has sex with one man as opposed to several. In fact – and I’m just talking off the top of my head right now – it would be interesting to know if that has any affect on susceptibility to STDs. Because there is some evidence showing that the immunological response against STDs in promiscuous primates is much stronger than it is in monogamous or polygamous primates. What I’m basically doing is extrapolating from the hygiene hypothesis, which says that the reason more kids have asthma and allergies and things is that they’re not exposed to as many pathogens when they’re babies. They don’t develop the immune response: it’s compromised by the cleanliness of the modern world.

AM: All the hand sanitizer.

CR: Exactly. So applying that to sexuality, we could say, well, if women evolved to have several ongoing sexual partners throughout their lives, and in fact they only have one, maybe they’re not being exposed to certain bacteria and other foreign bodies that they really need, that confer immunological benefits on their children.

AM:  Are you familiar with this study that just came out of the University of Tennessee last month? From the article on their website, it’s asking, “Why did we stop being promiscuous and decide to settle down and start families?”

[This study has used a “mathematical model” to posit that monogamous human families evolved when females began choosing low-status males that were good providers instead of high-status males who were always fighting to keep their harems.]

CR: Is this the mathematical model about the low-status males?

AM: Yes, the media has branded it as this sort of evolutionary triumph of the nerd.

CR: You know, Time Magazine sent that article to me a few days before it was published, asking me for comment, and I took a look and wrote back to them and said, I’m not going to have any comment on this; it seems like pure bullshit to me. To me, when you end up with these “mathematical models” that have no basis whatsoever in any sort of observed behavior, my eyes just glaze over. And as I said to Time, I’m not enough of a statistician to be able to comment on the methodology.

AM: I watched your interview on The Point in March about the whole Rush Limbaugh slut-shaming brouhaha and the current political movement to restrict access to contraceptives. And you said, “Some idiots are proclaiming it, and the rest of us are shaking our heads in disbelief.” You also say on that program that these debates are the “last gasp” of the religious Right before they “go over the waterfall”. But I feel like I’m not so sure about that. It seems like things are getting more intense. And I liked what your co-panelist, Ana Kasparian, had to say. She points out that American women are being arrested and prosecuted for miscarriages. This doesn’t feel like a declining last gasp for me. So what makes you so sure this is on the wane and not getting worse?

CR: Well, first of all I’m not sure about anything, so I don’t want to come across like I know what the future holds. But the basis for my statement is that I think what’s happening in the United States is clearly happening on two opposing tracks. On the one side you’ve got these Republicans in Virginia that have the state mandate for the vaginal probe for women who want to have an abortion and all sorts of ridiculous things.

[The illustration above is from my November post, Mississippi's Amendment #26: Personhood for All (Unless You're Female).]

 CR: But at the same time, you have people like Dan Savage becoming main-stream. Dan hasn’t changed. The stream has changed. You’ve got acceptance for the right of same-sex marriage swinging 15 points in ten years or less. So the reason I think it’s the last gasp is that people who really get excited about that stuff are old white people. And they’re going to be gone soon. And the country is going to be much less white. As the current under-30 crowd takes positions of power, we’re going to find that these sorts of things aren’t interesting to them. They don’t give a damn. They’re not that concerned with these reactionary ideals.

Also I think people from your generation are going to have a lot of serious shit to deal with, and they’re not going to have the luxury to get upset about this stuff.

AM: No kidding. If we’re dealing with a climate meltdown and the end of social security, we’ll have a lot on our plates.

CR: Exactly. A lot of these social issues are the result of people having too much time and money on their hands.

AM: But don’t you think that, in general, when you look back at our history, that these things are pendulum swings? Even if my generation is much more socially progressive and not so concerned with those ideas, do you think there could be a swing back again?

CR: It does happen. But I think the pendulum is swinging more toward acceptance and sexual freedom at this point. Here we are, two years after this book came out, and I’m still doing two or three interviews every day. But I’m not famous. I don’t have a TV show. Whatever’s holding the interest is just the idea of the book. To me, that’s a pretty strong indication that there’s a lot of hunger; people know the current model doesn’t work. So they’re looking for a replacement. So to me, that’s evidence that changes happen very quickly in the US on these issues. And I think that the more failure that there is of the current paradigm, the more willing people are to look at other paradigms or other systems. Which can be extremely dangerous – I’m not saying that’s always a good thing – that’s how the Nazis came to power in Germany. The current system breaks down, and then the options are considered. That’s when we have to be really careful. I do think we’re in that kind of a period now.

AM: Obviously you’re hoping to shift people’s perceptions and knowledge in a major way with this book. So what I’m curious about is if there’s a particular fact or point of view you uncovered in your research that was especially challenging to you, or that made for a major shift in your own thinking?

CR: Ok…The first time I was ever in a group sex situation, it was completely unlike what I was expecting. It was with a woman and a friend. The woman wanted to be with two men. I talked to my friend, and he said, ok, why not, and the three of us ended up in this situation. And at one point I went over to change the music…I think it was so long ago I was turning over a cassette – can you believe that?

AM: I’ve heard that those existed.

CR: It may even have been an 8-track. But anyway, they were having sex and I was messing with the music, and I poured myself a glass of wine, and I remember thinking, this is nothing like what I thought. I thought it’d be like this super-porn situation. Like really wild and hot. But I was just sitting there, and they were having sex right in front of me, and it just felt like they really trusted me. And I’m sitting there naked, drinking wine, and I trusted them. The sense of friendship was overwhelming to me. And that made me stop and rethink everything.

I guess in a lot of ways, that’s what the book is about: that for human beings, sex isn’t about reproduction. Reproduction is a byproduct. It’s really about establishing trust, and intimacy, and friendship, and maintaining these complex social networks where you really have to trust one another, where survival is based on sharing. So if you can share your sexual partners and you can share these erotic experiences, it’s a hell of a lot easier to share food and to take care of the kids together and to share a big shelter together, which is the way our ancestors lived.

AM: It strikes me again, listening to you now, how much it seems like sexuality has been sequestered off from everything else in our lives, and it’s so interesting to think about sex as something that was a resource that everyone shared, allowing for friendship and social bonds other than that romantic bond that we’ve wedged it into nowadays.

CR: It makes sense because nowadays just about everything is sequestered. We have our own kids and our own house and our own washing machine, so it’s all about individual ownership, and breaking our social unit down to the smallest possible size. You could look at it as a consumerism conspiracy, so we’ll all buy our own stuff. Or it could be an unintended consequence of the way we live. I read recently that there are more people living alone in the US right now than ever before, as a percentage of the population. Which is strange and unnatural for our species.

AM: The thing that strikes me too, in all our recent economic woes, is that you hear all these reports about how many adult kids are living with their parents, or how many elderly parents are living with their children, as if it’s a current ill of our society, a result of terrible economics, that we’re having these multigenerational families. And part of me is saying, shouldn’t that be more like the model that is more natural to us? That families would naturally congregate that way?

CR: Yeah, sometimes people ask me if I see ways that these ideas [from Sex at Dawn] could play out in the future. And one of the things I often think about are these McMansions – big houses in the suburbs that are sitting empty and probably going to get torn down. Yes, wanting to live apart from your parents is an important psychological state. But think about how cool it would be, in these big houses with five bedrooms and four-car garages, if several different women got together with their kids and the men they’re involved with, and all lived together in the house, and shared the washing machine and shared a few cars. It would be economically much better for them – take care of each other’s kids, cooperate. So I think you’re right that sometimes bad economics push us into taking care of each other in ways that leave us feeling much happier than we would have been if everyone had plenty of money and we could isolate ourselves.

AM: A lot of my readers are writers themselves, and one thing that struck me so much about your book is how wonderfully it’s written. I read a lot of nonfiction, and a lot of it is dry, dry, dry. So do you have any advice for other science or nonfiction writers on how to make their prose engaging?

CR: Well, thank you. First of all, not everyone would agree with you about the writing style. I would say, of the negative responses to the book, one of the major themes is that a lot of people don’t like the style because they think it’s too conversational. A lot of people, particularly in science, think that serious ideas can only be discussed in a serious tone. And I personally believe that’s bullshit.

AM: it’s like when scholars would write in Latin so regular folks couldn’t read their stuff.

CR: Exactly. They want to be able to look down their nose at everybody. I think for me, good writing sounds like someone talking. It sounds conversational. I’m in a somewhat different situation than most nonfiction writers, and particularly science writers, because most science writers are scientists who decided to write. And I’m a writer who decided to study science.

AM: You have a BA in English.

CR: Yeah. I was a writer long before I was interested in sexuality. But as far as advice for writers, the problem is that a lot of people who are doing this are worried about what their colleagues are thinking. I’ve got the luxury of not worrying about any of that. So that makes it easier to just write whatever the hell I want to.

AM: I think obviously the subject matter of your book really grabs people, because human beings are obsessed with sex no matter who we are, but I think part of your book’s popularity really is owed to the style of your writing. Have you received any responses to the book that were particularly surprising to you? Anything you would not expect?

CR: The positive responses I didn’t expect. I expected a lot more anger and rejection. First of all, I didn’t even expect anything. I didn’t expect it to be published. The whole thing was a big surprise. But once it became clear that it was going to be published, I expected a lot more angry responses from conservative sources, but I haven’t heard anything much from them.

AM: Maybe they haven’t read it.

CR: Part of it is that they haven’t read it, and part of it is that the Christian Right has been completely discredited in their statements about sexuality from their ongoing scandals, from priests’ sex-abuse cases to various right-wing politicians being caught in all sorts of strange situations.

The overwhelmingly positive response to the book has been a surprise. I’m surprised that it won two awards from organizations of sex therapists and relationship counselors. I was really happy to see them embrace the book rather than feel defensive, because we do criticize the marital-industrial complex. Some of the most touching reviews I read have been from sex therapists who said, Wow, this explains what I’ve been seeing for twenty years. Now it all makes sense. It’s been wonderful.

AM: Are there any more books in your future?

CR: I’ve got a contract to publish another book which is going to be more of a holistic examination of some of the difficulties of modern life in the context of evolution – examining the questions of how biology and culture are in conflict. That will be out in 2013. And we’re putting together a community website for people who are interested in these ideas to meet each other and discuss, and there is a dating component to it as well.

AM: well, with all that, huge thanks for taking the time to chat with us.

CR: It’s my pleasure.

Further reading: Christopher Ryan recommends A Primate’s Memoir: A Neuroscientist’s Unconventional Life Among the BaboonsBy Robert Sapolsky.

For another helping of scintillating nonfiction interview action, check out my chat with author Mary Roach. 

Find me on Twitter @AlainaMabaso.


Pizza, Eh?

January 14, 2012

I meant to write a new blog post this week, but got distracted by my stories. So hello from Canada! I’m tapping this out in a hotel room in Niagara Falls, on a magazine assignment this weekend.

I had a chance to bring my husband along for this one, and we drove from Philadelphia to Niagara today.

I packed for the weekend, including the parts of all the electronic devices we can’t stir a step without. If I tied the charger cords for our phones, computers, iPod, iPad and GPS together, it would form a cord long enough to wrap around planet Earth at the Equator.

I packed them all while my husband voiced his acute disappointment with the white Hyundai Accent furnished by Enterprise Rent-A-Car. I pointed out that since the rental was on the magazine and wasn’t costing us anything, there was no need to complain so strenuously, but he cared little for such technicalities.

Winter decided to begin in New York State today, by the way. For six hours every snowflake in the northeast flew at our windshield while winds buffeted the car. We passed at least three serious accidents, each one leaving us to wonder how the crashed vehicles had possibly ended up oriented that way.

I’m ill-accustomed to long car trips. My husband dwelt happily on his impending first-ever jaunt over the Canadian border. He asked me if we were going to see lots of French Canadians. I explained that the falls weren’t exactly a hotbed of French Canadian culture, and he was  deeply disappointed.

Later, as the weather worsened, I apologized for the timing of my assignment. 

“I didn’t know there was going to be such a bad snowstorm, Babe,” I said.

“I did,” he said matter-of-factly. 

“Really? You saw a detailed forecast?”

“No. It’s Canada. Of course there was going to be lots of snow.” I was glad that not all of his Canadian expectations had been dashed, especially since it meant he was totally unfazed by the hellish roads.

We scanned for NPR stations through most of Pennsylvania and New York, but lost out for a stretch near Scranton and tried Rush Limbaugh instead. We learned that Newt Gingrich was a deplorable candidate because of his ill-concealed belief in manmade global warming, and that Conservatism is about ideas. 

Later we tried a local pop station which announced its “stupid fact of the day”. 

“Did you know that the first grilled cheese sandwiches were served in the 1920′s, and that they were served with the cheese toasted over a single piece of bread?”

After so many hours in the car, somehow, it was the last straw for me. 

“That’s the most inane thing I ever heard!” I cried in a sudden rage. “Who could possibly even want to know that?! And if the first grilled cheese was really just cheese toasted over bread, then the first grilled cheese was a pizza.”

My husband looked benignly at me from the driver’s seat. “They said it was a stupid fact, Babe.” 

We found a rest stop and had the joy of choosing between Roy Rogers and Dunkin Donuts for dinner. On the way out I became engrossed in a wall of text about the founding of the Mormon Church and the history of western New York’s 19th century towns, until Lala grew impatient. Of course highway driving at dusk in a snowstorm is far preferable to reading a historical placard, even for an instant.

I was interested to see that the Texas Roadhouse steakhouse chain persists right up to within a few miles of the Canadian border, and then we were across. We made it to our motel and ordered a pizza while I learned that I had somehow failed to pack my own computer’s power-cord.

Driven by the need to publish something before I sleep, I picked up the iPad in bed while my husband watched TV. Suddenly a French newscast filled the room and the remote control prodded my knee.

 ”Hey,” my husband said happily. “French Canadians!”

I can only hope our next day across the border will be as satisfying as this one.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers