joreth: (Polydragon)
Well, OK, that's an oversimplification, but it still sucks.

We (as a culture) have a really fucked up view of relationships.  And it's only perpetuated by our popular media.  I have my TV on in the background, as I often do, and the Cosby show just came on.  I remember watching it as a kid, it doesn't annoy me, so I left it on and continued reading my book.

But then the plot caught my attention.

Sandra and Elvin (the oldest daughter and her husband) had plans to go to dinner with an old college friend of Elvin's.  The catch?  The friend is female.  Another catch?  She's bringing her younger sister.  The Cosby siblings take Elvin aside and berate him for even suggesting having dinner with an old "girlfriend".  Elvin insists they were just study partners and had no relationship and that Sandra doesn't have any problem with it.

Then, Sandra comes out and insists that she stay home to finish her law school application essay, but for Elvin to go ahead and have a good time.  Elvin offers 3 times to stay home with Sandra and 3 times she refuses.  So, assured that she approves, Elvin goes to dinner.  At a public place.  With witnesses.  And his wife's permission.  In front of witnesses.

So, with a promise to return by 9:30 to drive the younger siblings home, he leaves and the younger Cosby siblings turn on Sandra, shocked that she would allow this.  Sandra appears unconcerned.

OK, first problem I have with this scenario.  That everyone is immediately suspicious of Elvin's intentions and of Sandra's acceptance of the situation.  Because, clearly, a woman should not trust her husband to go out to a public place with anyone who happens to have the same gender as his life-partner.  This is obviously a dangerous situation.  I mean, he is voluntarily exposing himself to women!  Who knows what might happen?!?  He couldn't possibly be trustworthy enough to honor the promises he made to his young and beautiful wife with such temptation as the mere presence of another female!  And the other female, of course, will have absolutely no integrity and will try to seduce him just on principle!  After all, they have a history together.  All that sexual tension built up over the last 10 years from not acting on it back when they were college kids!  And who really believes they were platonic study-mates anyway?  Everyone knows men and women can't be friends because the sex thing is already out there!  (Yes, I'm quoting yet another movie about stupid gender and relationship roles).  And Sandra!  Allowing her husband to have any kind of enjoyable time without her present to oversee him!  What is she thinking!  She's a fool, being duped by the malicious intentions of a cheating husband.

So, OK, back to the plot.  Elvin gets explicit permission to go and Sandra gives permission in words and in tone.  This seems like a healthy relationship to me.  He is without guile and she trusts her husband.  I see no problem with their relationship, but everyone around them thinks this is problematic.  So, 9:30 comes around and Elvin realizes he got caught up in the talking and calls his wife to let her know he's running late.  She says, again explicitly, "Honey, don't worry about it.  Go on and have a good time".  He gets reassurance and then takes her at her word that she's OK and goes back to his dinner.  At 11:00 PM, he comes home.  He brings his friend and her sister back with him so that Sandra can meet them.

Up to this point, I am finding absolutely nothing wrong with Elvin.  Sandra was invited to the dinner initially and it was *she* who declined and then insisted he go.  He lost track of time, as sometimes happens, and immediately called his wife who again insisted he stay and have a good time.  Then, at the end of the evening, he brought his friend back with him so that his wife could meet her.  He is keeping no secrets, he keeps attempting to include his wife in the activities, he keeps asking for permission.  This sounds totally reasonable.

So, he goes into the bedroom to invite his wife out to meet the guests.  She's pissed.  Understandably, Elvin is confused.  He asks her why she's mad and Sandra explains that she had to stop working on her essay to drive the siblings home, then spend half an hour trying to get her babies back to sleep after the excitement of the trip across town, then another half an hour trying to calm herself down from the aggravation so she could get back to her essay.  Elvin immediately apologizes and says he would have stayed home if he had known she would be upset.  He then asks her to come out and meet their guests, to which Sandra refuses.

So Elvin goes back into the living room to apologize and makes up a lie about Sandra being asleep.  The guests offer to leave and Elvin shows them to the door.  Then Sandra comes out and is very gracious and welcoming to the guests.  The old friend extends her offer of dinner for all of them the next time she's in town, after apologizing for keeping Elvin out late and after showing concern to Elvin earlier in the evening that his wife might be upset.  They leave and Elvin thanks Sandra for expressing her anger in privacy and being polite to their guests.  He tells her how wonderful she is and how much he loves her.  She slams the bedroom door in his face and locks him out.

WTF?  So far I can not find any point in the story where Elvin did anything I would suggest he change doing if the situation comes up again.  Sandra was a fairly good model too, except for getting pissed in the first place.  But, up until she got pissed, she was reasonable and trusting.  After getting pissed, she kept her tantrum private and did not cause a scene in front of the guests.  I find this also very reasonable.  I understand we can get surprised by an emotional reaction we weren't expecting, so although I think she was in the wrong for being upset, I do think she handled the guest-situation well.  But getting pissed was wrong and, since we can't always control when we get pissed, what she did about her anger was wrong.  She shut down communication entirely.

Now, this isn't even the worst part about this show.  This is just the situation, and it's a situation any of us can find ourselves in, poly and mono people alike.  Here comes the worst part.  The moral lesson offered by Bill Cosby and his wife.

So, the next day, Elvin, Sandra and their kids go visit mom and dad.  Sandra ignores Elvin the entire time, refusing to even acknowledge his presence.  After dinner, Elvin offers to do the dishes and Sandra steals her mother away for a private chat.  Elvin takes this opportunity to get advice from his father-in-law.  I'll get back to this in a minute.

Sandra relates her side of the story to her mother, complete with a run down of the 30 minute incriments that ruined her night and justified her anger.  Claire says "Congratulations, you're going to make a great attorney.  You have successfully argued an air-tight case and any jury would convict him".  Sandra says "I'm glad you agree with me".  Here's the one saving grace of the whole show.  Claire says "I didn't say I agree with you".  She goes on to deconstruct Sandra's argument and forces her to accept blame by insisting Elvin go in the first place when she had a problem with him going from the beginning.  She claims that Sandra was bothered by Elvin going to dinner alone and when he accepted her insistence, that got her mad, and when she saw how pretty the women were, she got angry and reacted out of turn.  Claire accuses Sandra of not being honest with Elvin and with not being honest with herself.  She says "before you get into a war with your husband, you better be willing to look at what part you had in starting that war".  Sandra is forced to accept responsibility for her part.  She stands up, ready to apologize and help with the dishes. 

And here is where the saving grace gets dashed with more pettiness.  Claire stops her by saying Elvin deserves the punishment of doing the dishes for coming home late.  Sandra then confides that Elvin paid for the dinner and Claire sends a dirty look in the direction of the kitchen and declares that, for that added infraction, he will have to clean the pots and pans too.

And now, the one scene that made me angry enough to bother posting...

Back in the kitchen (technically, this scene aired before the mother-daughter talk, but I tell it in this order because I don't want the "saving grace" scene to overshadow what a truly horrible moral this show actually pushes), Elvin tells Bill his side of the story.  He reminds him that he asked permission 3 times before even leaving the apartment.

Bill Cosby declares that Elvin was completely in the wrong for leaving at all.  Elvin doesn't understand why because Sandra said he could go.  Bill's arguments consist mainly of two words, said several times and with varying degrees of emphasis: "two women".  Apparently, the act of going to dinner with two women, no matter who they are, is a punishable offense, even if the wife is included, even if the wife gives permission to go alone, and especially when the two women are invited back to the apartment to met the wife.  Apparently, Sandra has every reason to be upset simply because there were two women there.  The fact that they were attractive only compounds the issue.  I am unclear if the two women were ugly, would that make it forgiveable or just less-punishable, sort of like first and second degree murder?  

Bill says that when women say "yes", it often means "no" and gives the advice that it is the husband's job to always know when "yes" means "no".  Elvin actually says "but, in order to do that, I'd have to be psychic!"  Bill does one of his famous Bill Cosby spasmodic moves that involves a point and a strange facial expression that indicates "By George, I think he's got it!"  Elvin is still confused.  Bill says "Try this.  Let's say a year from now, a woman with whom you used to have coffee together calls you up and asks you out to dinner and your wife says 'yes'.  What do you do?"  Elvin says "I become psychic" and Bill does a repeat maneuver "You got it!"

So, the moral of the story is this:

All women will react irrationally with negative emotions resulting in punishment for their husbands.  They will pretend to be understanding and trusting, but in reality they do not trust you and are setting you up to fail no matter what you do.  This is not wrong of them because you *are* untrustworthy and incapable of resisting your animalistic urges, and deceit and manipulation is the proper method for dealing with you.  Women are completely in the right for being dishonest and making you have to guess what they're thinking and for making you responsible for their emotional state at any given time.  Creating an emotional minefield and throwing away the map is an entirely appropriate relationship technique.

All men must learn that your duty to anticipate this and do everything in your power to accomodate these irrational behaviours and insecurities by ignoring your own desires and your own free will and bow to the women in all things.  And you are required to develop impossible supernatural powers to be able to discern when "bow to them" means "follow my orders to the letter" or "do exactly the opposite of what I say".  And you have no hope of ever getting it right.

The idea that women should take responsibility for the explosion when a man steps on the woman's hidden emotional mine?  Hogwash.  The idea that she should be honest and communicate her thoughts and feelings with her husband so that he has some understanding and ability to avoid hurting her feelings?  Pshaw.  The idea that men should be allowed to have an enjoyable time that does not involve any breaking or bending of the pre-existing agreements with his spouse even when that spouse is not present to supervise?  Please!  The idea that men should have some measure of control of their own lives and that they should expect their wives to behave like responsible adults and actually share equally in the setup of their relationship structure?  Humbug.  

In short, women are dishonest and cruel and this is right, and men are subservient pigs and always wrong.

In the famous words of Penn and Teller ... Bullshit.

Date: 1/2/08 10:44 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] mosthings1z.livejournal.com
Amen. And the Cosby's are supposed to be a fair model of how to act? Bleh... You did hit the nail on the head, though. I am unsure why this behavior is acceptable. I think it is childish and non-productive.

Date: 1/2/08 11:37 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] starchy.livejournal.com
On a largely unrelated note, this made me laugh, then think of you:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/01/alttext_0102

Date: 1/3/08 12:52 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] may-dryad.livejournal.com
That is an absolutely horrifying and totally socially acceptable way of conducting a relationship. I mean, whose idea was it that relationships should be battles instead of negotiations? It probably has something to do with power, which is exercised more in war than in diplomacy.

I disagree though, that women are portrayed in a more positive light than men. First, Claire does point out to Sandra that she's behaving like an idiot, which Sandra admits. Second, the whole men must be psychic thing means that women are irrational and crazy and that men must use their superior powers to understand them. The relationship itself may be better for the woman than for the man, but we're certainly more sympathetic towards the considerate, rational man than the crazy, lying woman. And really , this relationship model doesn't do women in general any favors. Sandra's insecurity is based on the notion that sex is a woman's most precious commodity, the thing that she trades to her husband in exchange for his continued support. It's particularly obnoxious that a character who's training to be a lawyer, and who therefore has many valuable things to offer aside from sex and who will soon be able to support herself perfectly well, is still portrayed as so terrified of the threat that another woman might offer that prime commodity, sex, to her man at a much cheaper rate than that of a committed relationship, thereby causing the man to take the better deal, er, woman. Marriage is fucked up.

Date: 1/3/08 02:53 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] catherinew.livejournal.com
Shouldn't it be, This is what was wrong with the 80s?

God help those looking for rational, respectful, loving relationships in a sitcom.

Date: 1/3/08 09:58 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] james-the-evil1.livejournal.com
More of the "mindset of monogamy" I always rail against.
I can't stand MOST family sitcoms, including ones I fond amusing when I was younger, due to their negative stereotyping of mean (with most of the really vicious humor at males' expenses) and reinforcing of ugly relationship paradigms as worth looking up to.

Date: 1/6/08 11:05 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
*sighs* I was talking to madmanatw recently and for some reason was thinking about how annoying I find it when people don't tell someone that something is a problem for them and then blame other people for doing it. He asked if I'd read your post about it, but I hadn't yet, as I'd been offline for a while. So, now I have. Needless to say (but I'm saying it anyway, because I'm talkative), I agree with this post.

Banners