Friday, February 10, 2006

Valentines' for the Girls

I love that the celebration of St. Valentine matriculated into a celebration of love after the concept of romantic love was "conceived" during the Middle Ages. Because we clearly need a day set aside from all other days to express this new fangled thing called romantic love. Because it would just be unreasonable to strive to demonstrate that love every day. Inconceivable!

I don't mind the commercialism of Valentine's Day. I'll never succumb to it, so it doesn't bother me.



What does bother me is the focus on men as those instigating demonstrations of love on the 14th of February. There is such a focus on men throughout our culture, yet it seems to reach a high point of scrutiny during this day. Gender expectation is a reasonable description of such things.

As a man, I'm generally fine with such expectations. And as a romantic, I know full well that it'll typically be me who'll organize a trip for my presently unknown but spectulated future wife and I to London and propose to her in the heart of Trafalgar Square as friends and family surround us. (I really love that ...what was it, Mastercard?...commercial.) Yet the intense scrunity on men to "perform" in heterosexual relationships (I know not enough about the dynamics with gay couples though I sincerely doubt it's too different to avoid exclamations of: "You never remember anything!") just ticks me off.

Perhaps men as a collective deserve the scrutiny as emotionally shallow and unavailable creatures who want to fuck, grunt, eat, and sleep. (The grunting thing just weirds me out.) Because, of course, all women are emotionally deep and completely available. These are such sweeping terms which is likely a disservice to the trifling point I'm attempting to make.

Regardless, here it is. I'd love for a man and a woman to be together, both of whom are romantics in the sense that they show their love. [Man and Man, Woman and Woman, what have you] I'd love for a wife to wake up her husband with a day planned with some wicked cool stuff. Not just on Valentine's day. Preferably not, actually. And the guy too.

This seems pointless.

I think it sucks that men are required on this day to demonstrate their love.

I think it sucks that most men do actually need to be required.

I think it sucks that the relationships of today's world are so fucked that we have days set aside for couples to concentrate on themselves.

Every day should be that, eh?

Or at least every night, when two people share a bed of rest and peace. Where's the true love?

*Yes, I quoted Hanson.

**I thought to post this on Valentine's Day. But what the hell.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah, PS, you are such a funny little metrosexual. The reason that the burden of gift-buying is placed on the men is because women are not allowed to drive or to leave the house without a male escort. They are to fragile to do things by themselves, and they lack the willpower necassary to do their own shopping.

Lita said...

Andrew the Great has spoken.

but love of mine, haven't you read GIRLTALK????????????????? (that was to PS, not AtG...but andrew, you'd prolly get a kick out of it too)

-- the presently unknown but speculated.

I am PS: said...

I'm much more blatant in my condescension than that. Rather, I was making fun of the general idea. Though there's likely not a difference.

AtG, hail my non-humble one! And, "Oh, yeah, I forgot."

My dearest PUBS (even more insulted now?), Girl Talk did well but I wanted something further.

Anonymous said...

you should check out the positively inspiring contest going on at the 'married life blog' (linked on girltalk)....apparently none of the men in that church can cook...which of course doesnt surprise us. but in order to 'cook' a romantic meal at home for your wife, i guess you have to get take away from olive garden....this grosses me out. and for the record..i am leaving my husband for two other women on valentines day....

but the thing that makes no sense to me is why we celebrate 'romantic love' on a day named after a dog...

eh.