Friday, October 17, 2008

Duchess of Devonshire, The Institution of Marriage, and Proposition 8

When Michael and I were in London at the beginning of September, we saw big posters of the movie “The Duchess” everywhere. I like period pieces in general, and I always love to see the vivacious and beautiful actress Keira Knightley. I made a decision then to see this movie when it comes out in the US, irrespective of the review.

So I finally did get to see the movie – I could tell that it is supposed to invoke the memory of the late Princess Diana to some extent, as after all, Lady Diana Spencer was a descendant of Duchess of Devonshire – Georgiana Spencer. She got married at the age of 17, to an older, cynical and insensitive Duke of Devonshire who wanted a male heir as a reason for the marriage, and who even fathered a girl before the marriage. She was highly intelligent, extremely attractive, and very fashionable, and she became quite the center of attention, especially for the Whigs Party, overshadowing her husband. It was said that the Duke was the only man in England that’s not in love with the Duchess. He had his affairs both before and during the marriage, and the Duchess put up with everything, especially since she had 2 daughters, a series of miscarriages and no son. When finally she gave birth to a son, she was able to get some silent agreement from the Duke that she could then spend her time as she wished and pursue an affair with Charles Grey, a young and aspiring politician who’s head over heels in love with her. Her friend, Lady Elizabeth Foster had already been the Duke’s live-in mistress for a long time by then, which greatly angered her first, but she also came to accept it, and felt that perhaps because of it she could get this deal from her husband and spend time with Charles Grey. However, when rumors started circulating about Georgiana and Charles Grey, the Duke threatened her that if she were to continue, she would be denied access to all her kids and Charles Grey’s political career would be destroyed. Georgiana gave in, sent the baby girl she had with Charles Grey to his family to raise, and went back to live with the Duke and Lady Elizabeth Foster, and continue to be a big influence of the Whigs Party. Charles Grey went on to become the Prime Minister as he had wanted – the Duke was not vengeful at all towards Grey once the Duchess decided to come back. Towards the end of the movie, even the Duke was demonstrating some feeling by saying that he too abhor this whole thing (i.e. marriage) and expressed a desire to live peacefully (if not happily or lovingly) together. It was then clear that the unfeeling Duke actually could love someone (i.e. Lady Elizabeth Foster). So I guess the point was that both the Duke and the Duchess were victims of this marriage, and whoever that’s to break it first legally would be condemned and punished.

Being a true believer in equality and a true advocate for reason and fairness, Michael’s comment was that the Duchess was bad at negotiating her position with the Duke, as she clearly got a rotten deal. However, considering the times she was in, perhaps it was the best she could have hoped for. Indeed while her husband could parade his live-in mistress, she could not do the same. And if she were to leave him, he felt that it would only be honorable for him (i.e. worthy of his title) to take those actions that he threatened, or else he would be ridiculed by society. While he had 2 kids with the mistress, since they were not born within the wedlock, they were not to inherit his title or name. Yes, perhaps one can see that he too was performing his duties unwillingly, and indeed was a victim of this institution called marriage.

It is perhaps forgotten or even unknown to most people how marriage as an institution came about. It was a mechanism to ensure inheritance of property by one’s true descendants. Since in the old days only men controlled and owned properties, it was important for them to know that they were transferring their properties/titles to their true descendants as opposed to someone else’s. Hence the mandate of “exclusivity and sanctity” of marriage. Of course men paid lip service to it for centuries by having mistresses and affairs – they had to make sure that their own wives were devoted, as only kids born to their wives were to inherit titles/properties. But they were not that concerned with whether the mistresses’ kids were their own or not. Women, on the other hand, due to their financial dependence, had to stay loyal to the husbands.

Back in the days of Duchess of Devonshire when women did not have the right to vote and certainly did not have a way to make an independent living, clearly things were blatantly unfair for women. Now in our age of “enlightenment”, most women can make an independent living. The frontier feminists have overall declared victory on making the “exclusivity” of marriage apply to men as well – or else the husbands face consequences which may include financial ones. Indeed Duchess of Devonshire – had she been alive today – would have been able to demand half of her husband’s fortune upon divorcing him and been able to freely marry the man of her love AND still see her kids, and perhaps even gaining custody of her kids!

However, when people get married these days, it is mostly for the purpose of “sharing a life with the love of one’s life”, which was never the foundation for marriage as an institution. In fact, marriage is not required for two people in love to build a meaningful life together and to make each other better people for themselves as well as others. The true and original need for marriage – for a man, it is ensuring his fortune to be passed onto his legitimate heirs, and for a woman, it is ensuring her to be taken care of financially as long as she’s faithful to her husband and devoted herself to raising his kids – is almost irrelevant in today’s society.

The high divorce rate is not something to celebrate, but at least it indicates that some people are correcting early mistakes and getting out of wrong unions, which is something that neither the Duchess nor the Duke could do in their days, despite their lofty social status. Perhaps were it not for the social constraint, the Duke would have wanted to divorce Georgiana and marry Lady Elizabeth Foster (a previously married woman with 3 kids). Were it not for the financial dependence on the Duke and the need to see her kids grow up, Georgiana would have wanted to divorce the Duke to marry Charles Grey.

What is truly alarming is the even higher rate of unhappy marriages that never broke apart because of the presumed “sanctity” of marriage, without knowing that the basis for marriage was for something as base as money, with “sanctity” added as an afterthought to render it somewhat tasteful. This vow that “till death do us part” that one uttered as an adult has indeed forbidden many responsible men and women from doing what is most responsible – which is to acknowledge that even in one’s twenties or early thirties, one could still be stupid or naïve as one could be in his/her teens, and that it’s not too late to do the right thing.

Actually most unhappy marriages did start out and even continue for a long while as rather blissful unions that seem to be problem-free, partly due to the naivete that comes with youth and partly because it takes a few years for people to figure out about themselves vs others, and to identify what truly were the founding elements of a lasting union. However, many of these bad marriages would continue to the end, because a bad marriage is like a tumor, as the longer you let it grow, the harder it seems to part with it – even if you think you will, should, or may get better if you were to surgically remove it. No wonder Sam Mendes’ “American Beauty” was a wild success, and no wonder he’s following up with another one of the same theme “Revolutionary Road” – starring his wife Kate Winslet and Leonardo Dicaprio – Winslet’s co-star in the super sappy but hugely popular “Titanic”. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two movies by Winslet and Dicaprio says something about what people want and what they eventually get – they wish that they could have the same kind of romantic passion of Jack and Rose from “Titanic”, but they felt that were it not for the tragic death of Jack, the union of these two young people in love could result in “Revolutionary Road”, as it’s been the experience of many. From a less cynical and more positive perspective, one can argue that Jack and Rose never got married or talked of marriage (they only talked about living life to the fullest), and they were fanatically in love until the end; whereas the couple in “Revolutionary Road” seem to blame marriage as the reason for their falling apart and their lives becoming disappointments.

Therefore, one has to wonder, have the frontier feminists got a pyrrhic victory on their hands, by forcing men to be physically faithful who otherwise would not have stayed faithful to their wives so that everyone is now “equal”? If certain men would only stay faithful to their wives because of an institution, it either means they should not stay together any more (i.e. perhaps these men will have no problem staying faithful to other women), or these men should not be married to anyone at all. – surely the answer is not to use an institution to bind them.

Fundamentally, in today’s age when women can make an independent living instead of relying exclusively on their husbands’ support (which in turn was conditional upon them staying faithful and bearing them sons), there is no need for women to argue on behalf of the original “sanctity” of marriage as an institution. I have always believed in the sanctity of love and responsibility, which essentially have nothing to do with this institution. Institutions in general were created for some practical purpose of the people or the society, but as time goes on, these institutions often gain a life of their own in order to justify their existence and continuation. In the end, people end up serving the institutions as opposed to the other way around.

As a professional woman, I do not think that we live in a society where things are equally easy or fair for women. Yet at the same time, I strongly feel that the feminist movement that has been the most visible one in promoting women’s interest has perhaps done as much damage to the principles of fairness as the prejudices of male chauvinists. In fact, the most vocal feminists in professional or personal circles are the ones that have often turned otherwise open-minded men away from acknowledging problems/concerns facing women still in this society, and have rendered male chauvinists even more fanatical enemies of gender equality to the point that when bad things do happen to women, they are denied or dismissed.

Haven’t we witnessed in real life or on TV the following scenes too often? – A man who inevitably says “you are lucky” to a single man goes home to a wife who does little housework or does it reluctantly or resentfully (because modern women are not supposed to serve men at home any more), who insists on getting her way on everything petty/trivial at home as otherwise it would be a sign of female subordination, who constantly feels under-appreciated by others despite their often worse abilities and efforts, and who uses the institution known as marriage to keep an otherwise unhappy husband tied to her. No wonder this man would have a worse opinion for women when he shows up at work. Ironically, one can almost see a parallel between the Duchess of Devonshire and the responsible modern men (those suckers), as opposed to one between the Duchess of Devonshire and the modern “feminist” women. If one has married wisely, all is well. If the marriage has been a mistake, which is often the case if it happened when both were still fairly immature, the one that wants to get out of this institution faces the worst consequences – losing access to one’s kids, losing one’s fortune, and of course incurring the negative public opinion that “one should have honored one’s commitment” to the point of losing more on all fronts, as Georgiana faced. Georgiana never would have guessed that she would be sympathizing with today’s enlightened men, as opposed to today’s feminist women.

Therefore, had the Duchess of Devonshire been alive today, I wonder what she would have done. For all her independent spirit and love of life, I doubt that she would have joined many other contemporary women in demanding her husband’s sole attention – which would seem like a prize that’s immediately worthless when she got it. She is too smart for that. She would have recognized the pointlessness of keeping her husband to herself against his natural will. She would have let him free, and let herself free, but she would have negotiated to have perhaps part of his fortune ( since she needed the money as she could not make a living herself) and gone on to marry Charles Grey, to be the wife of the future Prime Minster of Britain, and remain good friends with the Duke and Lady Elizabeth Foster. She would have focused on what ultimately is what she needs and what makes her happy, as opposed to what she is SUPPOSED to want according to an arbitrary institution. Perhaps outside of marriage, she would have found the Duke a much better friend - although a bad husband for her, he could be a great one for Lady Foster. The Duke, on the other hand, perhaps would have appreciated Georgiana much more – while a mismatch for him, she could make a great wife for Charles Grey.

Michael reminded me that more than 10 years ago he had already pointed out that marriage was not necessary for people who want to be together. In fact, marriage per se has added nothing to the happiness of people who were happy together before marriage, but it has added utter misery to the lives of people who eventually find their marriages deficient. They find their marriages deficient because they assumed that they were supposed to be completely happy and satisfied within this exclusive institution. If they realized that the purpose of the marriage institution was legalized sex that results in undisputed descendants, perhaps they would not have held this institution so high and lofty above their own happiness and dignity. In fact, most people who are in unhappy marriages do not realize that it’s their understanding and expectation of this institution that’s the problem. They either should get out, or should find what’s missing elsewhere, in an honest and responsible way. But marriage as an institution is powerful today not only for women but also for men.

I was not nearly as wise as Michael, and as usual I have come to understand his seemingly avant-garde position only a few years later. We did get married and had a big wedding, as I am now ashamed to admit. As a human being, I too tend to rationalize a decision made previously that contradicts today’s reasoning. So what is my defensive argument? - I love parties (hence 100 guests at my wedding), I love to look pretty (hence my $2500 wedding gown from Priscilla of Boston during my impoverished graduate student days). Besides, what’s the harm of conforming to an arbitrary institution that we do not believe in, if we were not hurting anyone ourselves? And lastly, it would be presumptuous to think that by not getting married, that would be a meaningful statement that could make any difference.

While I am writing this, we are in the midst of US elections. On the California ballot, there is a proposition 8 that has to do with whether to allow gays and lesbians to marry. I must admit that my feeling regarding this proposition is utter exasperation – it is a topic that I believe should not have been raised one way or the other. To those who are adamantly against gays marrying, I want to say “why do you care how others live anyways, as long as they are not interfering with your life? It’s none of your business.”

And to the gays and lesbians that are advocating for this sacred “right” to marry – I want to say “if you know the original rationale for marriage, you would realize that it totally does not apply to you. Plus haven’t you seen enough miserable heterosexual relationships that would otherwise not have been miserable were it not for the marriage institution? Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.”

But hey, we are living in a democracy. I guess we should spread the misery around - why shouldn’t the gays and lesbians participate in it as well?

Friday, October 3, 2008

Weekends

I do not remember when I have come to regard weekends as truly different from weekdays. When I was in school, which felt like an eternity, weekends were simply shorter work days plus a movie or two, or a dinner out. Perhaps it is a sign of getting old – without all that youthful energy, I do need weekends!

One would think that a change from not having weekends to having weekends could only lead to more relaxation and less stress. – Except that in my case the transition has not been that smooth, which may be akin to how people transition from working full-time to retirement. Now that I have these precious weekends at my disposal, I feel compelled to make the most of them. As a result, having my weekends has resulted in more work and perhaps more stress, because I have to do more planning in order to have “interesting” weekends. Parties need to be planned in advance, dinners need to be arranged with friends, errands need to be ran at certain hours, and housework needs to be carried out timely. I occasionally wonder if I have become slave to my own definition of a “fulfilling” life.

And God forbid if I had spent a weekend doing very little, seeing no friends, hosting no parties and attending no parties! – I would end up feeling like a failure! J During this past summer for various reasons, I went through a few rather low-key and melancholy weekends, when I stayed home most of the time, watching classics on DVD, not knowing exactly what I was hoping to get out of “Pride and Prejudice” or “War and Peace”. I even went swimming in our swimming pool a few times, hoping that I would get enjoyment out of a “relaxing” weekend. I felt quite awful after those weekends were over, as I felt that I had done nothing exciting, enlightening, educational or even entertaining!

It is amazing how sometimes we distinctively remember a particular day as a perfect day. What is a perfect day on a weekend then?

One of them happened when I was in graduate school at MIT – I remember it so distinctively probably because it was such a huge contrast to all the other long (and painful) days and nights at MIT. It was a very beautiful Saturday in the early summer. Michael and I got up early in the morning, and we drove around to visit those beautiful colleges near Boston area, including Amherst, Smith and Mount Holyoke. To this day, I have a fondness for visiting old and elegant college campuses, as they often strike me as much more interesting than some state or national parks. Perhaps it is because they combine the elements I like about a place – pristine and natural scenery, great architecture, interesting history and an aura of higher learning. Afterwards, we went to the Museum of Fine Arts to watch a movie by the very independently spirited filmmaker Sylvia Chang from Taiwan – “Tonight Nobody Goes Home”. There is something special about watching a movie in a great museum. It feels so much more rarefied than watching it in a generic movie theater that smells like buttery popcorn all the time. After the movie, we had dinner with another couple – and it was at my favorite Indian restaurant in Harvard Square, which is one of my favorite places in the world. A perfect day on a weekend combines everything that one would associate with a day off: physical exercise, sight-seeing, cultural or educational activities and of course fun parties or dinners!

So what am I going to do this weekend? Having lived in San Diego for over 6 years, I have never gone to a Miramar Air Show – presumably the world’s best military air show. That’s why Michael and I are going to see it this Saturday afternoon at a friend’s place that’s overlooking the airbase, thereby avoiding the crowds and the noises. Another friend and her husband are coming from LA to stay with us on Saturday night. Besides the two of them, I will have another two local guests over for dinner on Saturday night, which is why I am cooking a big feast. On Sunday we will probably have brunch in Del Mar by the coast – I love eating lunch at one of those restaurants overlooking the aqua-blue ocean under a bright sky. While I will spend Sunday afternoon attending the board meeting of a non-profit organization, Michael will be off to work and my LA friends will be off to see the airshow. Maybe we will finish off the weekend by watching a Merchant Ivory film “Before the Rains”. I find myself going over the plan and asking myself, “ is there anything else I can do? And have I got enough time to do all the housework and ran all the errands?” Perhaps I am one of the the unwitting products of modern-day’s overprogrammed lifestyle. There is no time for spontaneity in our age of PDAs….