When I read not long ago that the divorce rate for people who got married after meeting on Match.com was at least as bad as the rate overall, I thought first of my Grandma Lena. She died of cancer two years ago, and undoubtedly would die again of embarrassment if she read what I’m about to tell you. Grandma Lena met the only man she would ever sleep with on a blind date. That was my Grandpa Hal. They both agreed it was “love at first sight.” They married two months later and consummated their love on the wedding night. They stayed married for 51 years till Grandpa Hal died. I didn’t know them the whole time, of course, but in the time I did know them, I hardly ever saw either of them without a big smile on their faces. Grandpa Hal called Grandma Lena “my bride” till his dying day. I mean that literally. On his deathbed he told my father to “please take care of my bride.” After he died, Grandma Lena continued to draw strength and comfort from their love until she herself died. I repeat, they met on a blind date, and got married two months later.
In contrast, my generation has every modern diagnostic advantage at its disposal. We take computerized compatibility tests; if we’re really over the top, we can order background checks and credit reports. We Google previous girlfriends to supplement our knowledge of the new man in our life. Though we’re way too sophisticated to talk seriously about “love at first sight,” we’re often having sex from that very first date (yes, girls, oral either way counts as sex). We have a base of other lovers to compare that experience to. We date for three years, live together for two more years, and then finally get married. Four years later we get divorced. Or, since neither party wants to just throw away something as sacred as a marriage, one or both of us start cheating. We don’t smile nearly as often as my grandparents. For all we know, we may be destined to repeat this cycle two or three times before we're done.
Am I missing something here? I think the answer is yes. I think maybe we are all missing something.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I've often said that a vivid narrative, well-framed and -told, can easily do the work of thousands of words' worth of abstract philosophizing and high-minded rhetoric. I can actually "see" your grandparents and feel the affection between them. Very nice, Alyssa. If this is any indication of what you plan for your blog, I hope you get a wide reading, because you'll deserve it.
I agree with Steve. The writing is wonderful, and the message even more so. Keep it up, Alyssa.
Wow, Alyssa - you are so, so, so, so right. We were created for better than what most of us settle for now. Sounds like your Grandma Lena and Grandpa Hal sent the gold standard for lasting love - hold out for it; it will come!
Thanks for posting this great love story :)
Sincere thanks to all who commented on the love story, including Rodger and Laura who found me on Yahoo because Blogger was in one of its moods and wouldn't take their comments. It's so nice of all of you to welcome me to the community with such kind words. I'm sure Steve would chastise me for saying this, but I'm hoping your positive thoughts will help me sustain that momentum!
This is a beautiful story with a lot of meaning. I don't know how many college kids and other young men and women you're going to get to pay attention to it. Their focus is elsewhere, like, in their pants. But they should listen and learn.
And what is it exactly that we should learn from this? You don't think young men and women from fifty years ago had their focus "like, in their pants"? Oh please. Don't romanticize the past. People were just as miserable and unsuccessful in their love lives as people are today. The only difference is that divorce was not as generally accepted many years ago.
So are we supposed to revere those that stayed together so long, due to that fact alone? Just because couples were less inclined to give up on marriage, doesn't mean that unhappiness and infidelity were any less common. In fact, I would think that both were more common because there was the ever-present societal pressure to stay together. Now, people are more likely to end a relationship that, if continued, could be emotionally destructive to both parties--keeping them in a perpetual state of misery and/or regret, and causing yet more pain as one or both individuals look elsewhere to fulfill their needs, or wistfully ponder what could have been if they weren't trapped in their current circumstances.
An increasing divorce rate does not mean that people are less capable of finding a meaningful relationship than those of yesteryear. All it means is that couples are willing to let go of an unhealthy relationship before it ultimately destroys them.
As for Grandpa Hal and Grandma Lena--if indeed their marriage was as successful as it seems, then they were the ones who beat the odds. However, my overriding point is that there is no real change between the success of relationships from decades ago as compared to today. In the past, couples were just better at keeping up appearances. Not that that's a good thing.
My, my, acd.
I am not denying that people in our parents generation thought with their pants too. Everybody thinks with their pants sometimes, the key word being "thinks." My grandparents generation was better at putting the stray thoughts or unproductive impulses aside and taking care of business. They kept their focus on what was really important in the end. I am convinced of that. There was more respect for family and honor.
Can you even argue that as many women today wait till their wedding night before losing their virginity? Every available survey disputes that. Are you seriously saying that as many women now go through their lives with just one or maybe two partners? (And both in marriage??) I'm not arguing necessarily that's a good thing to do. I'm saying that to deny the reality of it, that society has changed in its thinking, especially its relaxed attitude about the sanctity of marriage and sex is like refusing to acknowledge that manners have declined. You can go to the best restaurants now and hear people having regular conversations at normal volume where they use the F word every other sentence. Even families. We have lost the reverence for civility. We are rapidly losing the reverence for the sweet, and yes, for the value of fidelity. As a culture we simply do not have the morality we used to have as a guideline, that kept people in check and enabled them to beat temptation.
Your sweeping implication that the longevity of yesterday's marriages can be explained in terms of the hopelessness and "sense of being trapped" that kept people (mostly women I assume) in the kinds of loveless/terrible unions that today's generation has enough good sense to leave... Wow. What a wonderful way of dismissing the combined role of morality, fidelity, a good upbringing, perseverance, the greater willingness to work toward a common goal, and above all, TRUE LOVE, in one fell swoop. I apologize again to my friends in women's studies, but acd gives us a perfect recitation of the feminist dogma that has done so much to put us in this mess in the first place!
The attitude of Everything is Disposable/Nothing is Irreplaceable also plays some role in the scary divorce rate. My generation is spoiled. We are used to getting our way. We have short attention spans and if something doesn't work for us right away and our "needs aren't getting met" we move on. Some of my female friends look at relationships the way most women think about shoes: When they start to pinch or go out of style, you get rid of them. Simple as that.
In one sense it's almost refreshing to find someone even more jaded than I am. I just hope you're someone of middle age who has been through the mill a few times, because if you are my age it is even sadder than I thought. You must have seen some pretty awful marriages.
Alyssa,
I agree with Steve, Connie, and Trish... you have wonderfully shared not only your grandparents' love story with us, you have reminded us (well, most of us) that there are still things worth hoping for and hanging on to.
While I have no doubt that societal pressures kept some people in relationships that were less than satisfying, I also know that those same collective expectations made it easier for most couples to endure challenges that often end relationships nowadays, and go on to have long, loving relationships. There's no old=good, new=bad formula which we can universally apply, but there have obviously been changes in the factors that inspired fidelity and committment, and we would do well to acknowledge those factors to see which of them might be worth saving, and which are better cast aside.
Sadly, reflecting upon a positive experience in such a public forum also opens the door to those who - for whatever reason - get some satisfaction from dismissing and denigrating an optimism so obviously absent from their own lives. Don't let it bother you. There will always be the dour, the doubters, and those whose own version of peace is challenged by anyone who does not share their pessimism. Just be glad that you have in your life the experiences and memories that can chase away your own shadows when they appear.
Namaste!
I apologize for not having been blessed with the positive examples you all have been in regards to successful marriages. We can only judge the world based on what we see and experience, and that is what I have done here. Believe me--I don't get any satisfaction out of pessimism. I sincerely wish I could see things the way the rest of you do, but I can't. If I could, it would certainly make life more worthwhile.
ACD, it's not about being blessed with a trouble-free life. I certainly wasn't... As a kid, my father beat me, my mother, and my sister on a regular basis, and eventually molested my sister. Plus, I was a little kid who got picked on a lot. So I had all the resources necessary to become pessimistic about life. I dealt with my fear through anger, and got into more fights than I could ever remember. When I got out of college and went to Vietnam, I lived in an environment where well-directed and disciplined rage was considered the highest form of life. And believe me, I was a truly "evolved" being.
Upon my return after 2 tours, I was fortunate enough to realize that my rage could only be fully manifest with me in prison or the grave, and I made a choice to look for something else, and ultimately, found it.
That doesn't mean I'm always a happy guy nowadays, but neither am I a danger to myself or anyone else, as I once was. And my "story" isn't any worse - or any better - than anyone else's. I offer it simply to show that each of us does have a choice, and that we aren't doomed to live under a cloud of dissatisfaction, and that there is ample joy in life, even for those of us who have lived in shadow.
An old Buddhist priest helped me, and there's someone out there who can take your hand and walk you through the dark places, if you will but seek them out, or at least accept them when they come to you. Who knows... it might be a sweet, perceptive young lady, just now stretching her literary wings - or an old curmudgeon who calls you on your stuff!
Good luck!
i have seen most of you on steve's sham blog and i think its funny that you all come down so hard on acd for doing the very thing you endorse on steve's blog- telling it like it is!! here you seem to want to stand up for blind faith and hoping against hope, while acd is the voice of reason and evidence. so whihc is it??
Anon, even acd admitted, in her/his latest post on this blog, that her/his perceptions are colored by her/his own experiences. And if some of us have "come down so hard" on acd on Steve's blog, it may be due as much to acd's frequent condescension as to the actual substance of what s/he writes. (I'm sorry about the awkward gender-inclusive pronoun usage, but I didn't want to make any assumptions. :-))
I happen to agree with acd on many matters, but I believe it is possible to express a realistic, pragmatic or even cynical p.o.v. without being condescending to others who are participating in the discussion.
Further, anon, I do not think that making an effort to make a relationship work (as Alyssa's grandparents certainly must have done) is "standing up for blind faith and hoping against hope." There's a lot about the "good old days" that I find loathesome, but I think we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater (pardon the cliche).
It should be noted that "telling it like it is" is always based in the teller's perspective of what "is" is (appropriate attribution to WJC here!). If one's perspective is borne of bitterness, and is expressed in such a way as to inflict that bitterness upon another, then I, for one, will generally jump in and call them on it. If you have regularly read Steve's blog, you'll see that we've gotten after him, as well - albeit for comments we felt were beneath him, and counterproductive.
I can only speak for myself, but I have little patience with those who would impede another person's emotional and spiritual progress, whether their motivations are financial, or a need to inflict their own sense of disillusionment on others. There's far too much negativity and deceit in the world already, without striving to perpetuate more.
Post a Comment