princesses of formalia

just a little incident from my surroundings, that still did get me thinking... 

some days ago some people around me where talking about marriage proposals - how it's kind of uncomfortable to be asked in front of a group, because it almost makes it impossible to say no. but then one of the women said: "it's still better than just being asked like >can you pass me the salt? what about getting married?<". 

i was a bit piqued because hubbs had asked me kind of like that - in between cooking dinner on the first day of the year 2006, he had asked me if we shouldn't get married that year. i explained this and the woman looked at me and squeeked: "but you didn't say yes, did you?"

of course i did! we had discussed getting married before, this was just settling to really do it. so i asked: "why shouldn't i have?", and she set out that it would at least need an invitation to a nice restaurant, some flowers and the presenting of the ring. the whole hollywood shebang.

this is one of the things that make me go "argh". i kept my mouth shut then - no use argueing - but i wondered if it's not a beautiful thing in itself that the man loves you so much he puts himself out there to ask you. i muttered that he might not have asked again if i had said no then, which i don't even believe - it just wouldn't have occurred to me to reject him just because the setting wasn't right. hubbs was the one who felt bad he didn't "really" propose to me, but it had never been a question for me that we would get married anyway, so what do i need a man on his knees for? he made it clear that he wanted to and soon, manifesting that he had no doubts about spending the rest of his life with me. the implications of the question are romantic enough in itself, i feel. 

what i am about is the schizophrenia of modern women in their expectation towards modern men. one moment we want to be their equal, earn our own money and share responsiblities; we expect them to treat us with respect, admiration even, to trust us with cars, money, politics and sports and be as good as their buddies in just about every way.

and the next moment we beam ourselves up in rapunzel's tower, unattainable and without a speck of profanity on our virginal skin. suddenly we expect them to be the notorious prince on the horse, preferrably white, who has to go through all kinds of difficulties to make us his own.

no wonder men are confused about the right thing to do. and no wonder we end up with not quite the respect and equality we would wish for. it's called inconsequence. 

it's not that i despise this concept of romance completely - it's not mine, but that's alright. i just wonder if it doesn't hold a potential for sorrow for the ones that enslave themselves to it. 

to stick to the image: if we are the princess in the tower from which we need to be saved, it implies that a) we haven't had a life but have spend our time waiting and prepairing for the one that will come, b) he is the one who knows his way in the world and will guide us for the rest of our time in it. to put it less anachronistic: either we are equal, then marriage should be an agreement between two caring partners who pay into and take out of a relationship their share of rights and responsibilities. or the woman is a passive object with no more discretionary than a binary yes-or-no-mode, and the man is the active subject who has only to push the right buttons to receive the right answer. 

again: if this two-faced masquerade works for your relationship, that's fine. just don't expect others to play along. if we want to live modern lives as modern women, we cannot demand from our modern men to follow an archaic etiquette. they are likely to apply it to other aspects of life as well, and we wouldn't want that, would we.