I've been with Netflix for some seven years now. It's been a fun ride. I got tired of having to physically go to DVD stores for rental and returns; the late fees were even more tiresome. I guess they have to make their money somewhere.
Netflix has been reasonable. The delivery and processing are fast. If I time it right, I usually get new DVD in the mail every other day. Not bad, aye. Netflix has always been laser-focused on what their core competency is. I like it that they don't get distracted by all the social networking hype. Heck, they even got rid of their community feature which got alot of subscribers mad. But I don't mind it at all. Afterall, I keep my movie queues, and I find the movies and TV shows and documentaries I like. I have little care about anyone else. The recommendation engine by Netflix is decent. So, I can't complain. In fact, Netflix has been quite fair-minded. There were a few occasions in which the Netflix website was down, and I got refund even without prompting. I can tell you, that's a rarity in the corporate world. Try telling that to the big telco; my calls get dropped from time to time, and my complaints won't even get answered satisfactorily by their support, and you can very much forget about refund.
Not sure if you know the background of the recent spat of Netflix users. A little while back (it might have been a year or so ago), Netflix wants to jostle its way into online streaming. It aggressively expands its online streaming catalog, steadily improves the streaming quality. Any subscribers can get the online streaming for free. Netflix has become such a force to behold, that movie studios and cable companies must be trembling with fear.
So then, yesterday I got email notifications from Netflix, saying that they have decided to split the DVD rental service with online streaming. In short, no more free lunch. In the parlour of Google, no more beta version of the real thing. With it, comes price change. I've been on the cheapest plan, $9.99 a month for unlimited DVD, one DVD at a time. With the split, my DVD only plan would actually see price reduced to $7.99 a month. But for those people who want online streaming too - those who would scream "I WANT TO SEE IT NOW!" no doubt - they'll have to fork out another $7.99 a month for the streaming-only subscription.
To be sure, I've become a bit spoilt and pampered by Netflix with its free lunch. Granted that its DVD catalog and streaming catalog are quite different. As much as Netflix has tried to paint that picture, you can most likely find only old movies and TV shows on its streaming catalog. No doubt the movie studios will see to it, that Netflix doesn't get the streaming rights of the latest and greatest movies just hot off the theatre. For me, I like classics, old movies, and documentaries. So, the online streaming free lunch allows me to watch it on my laptop whenever I get bored from work. I'm a patient person; I can still wait for the DVD for latest movies in the mail. I have no problem with that.
Apparently, once something is given out for free, people take it for granted, like it's their birthright. Such is the case with the ferocious attacks to Netflix about its price change, or pseudo price hike of some 60%, as they see it, since they would have to pay double (for 2 plans, one for DVD, one for streaming) instead of just one plan.
I find it all rather amusing. For all the threats of defecting and cancelation of their Netflix subscription, I wonder how many of those would actually carry it through. Afterall, if they have been on the cheapest plan (like I do, paying $9.99 a month), the price change would mean ($7.99 x 2) - $9.99, which comes down to an extra $5.99 a month. If they truly love the streaming service, is $5.99 really that big a deal? Most people pay more than that to buy chips or snacks or even coffee. This is perhaps the biggest cheapskate in my most recent memory.
Price change or not, I'm actually rather secretly glad about this split of subscription plans. The DVD-only plan has worked quite well for me. It's delay gratification; in between the waiting time, I can truly focus on doing some real work (since watching movies is my main entertainment). The instant gratification from its Instant Viewing feature means that I spend more time watching movies than doing real work, which is...not good for me, and I know it. Imagine, instead of doing work or reading a book, I would watch 2-4 movies or documentaries every night. It's free afterall, and I almost feel some obligation to watch in order to get my money's worth (!!!). Twisted logic, isn't it. :)
For that very private reason of mine, I'm only too glad to oblige to Netflix, by telling Netflix that I don't really need online streaming. Yeah yeah, call me old-fashioned. I don't like or believe in social networking. And I don't really want online streaming that much afterall. As such, I change my subscription, and change it back to DVD-only, starting next month. For all that, I get price reduction (from $9.99 to $7.99 a month). All the more reason. :)
Now, I'm happy to have all my time at night again, for some work done, or a few books, or even more chitchats with family. It's a good decision for me. Thanks, Netflix. :)
PS - Granted that I'm in the top 0.001% of movie reviewer ranking on Netflix, I don't think I'll miss writing reviews too much.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
On merits and stigma of vocational school...
It's always refreshing whenever one reads articles or reporting that makes senses. The New York Times article on vocational school today is one of those.
I never understand why everyone's dead set on insisting 4-year college degree for all kids - and I mean, all kids. Have those in authority ever considered the fact that not all kids are cut out to take the college track? Granted that basic literacy is fundamental to all kids, that does not equate to pushing all kids down the college path. By talking up the value proposition of 4-year college, it's synonymous to talking down all other possible alternatives, vocation and trade schools being one of those. It's a huge disservice to kids who could feel like a failure, taking the trade school path, instead of the traditional path high school to college to Wall Street job.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This whole thing reminds me of this kid (who is now a middle-aged man) of a family friend. Some background of him is in order.
The family is solidly middle class. The father was a professional driver. Being the eldest among 5 siblings, the mother had high hopes on him. High hopes, in a sense that, she wanted him to soar from their blue collar root. She actually counseled this kid to not follow the path of trade school or vocational school, even though it's very clear all these times that he's not the academic type. She wanted him to have a white collar job, be in suit and tie, go to air-conditioned office and work without breaking a sweat. That's her ideal of the eldest son, their first-born.
In a way, I don't blame the mother. She had very little education or aspiration outside of the narrowest vision of what she saw on TV - yes, she found her inspirations for the son from TV soap opera. She did the best she could at the time.
My mom used to converse every now and then with this family. Although my mom came from similar humble roots, she's much more open-minded and pragmatic. What she saw in this kid is that, he's not the reading material, and it could be a lost cause trying to push him down the white collar path. From my mom's perspective, he could be much better off going to trade school or vocational school, acquiring a life skill that would set him to a very solid path in blue collar life. To my mom, there's no stigma in being blue collar. A good job is a good job, is a good job. I remember my mom even told his mom, "look, he could even have his own car repair shop or more!"
But his mom would have none of that for her son. In fact, there's a bit of a fall-out between the two mothers, because his mom saw my mom's counsel as nothing more than "putting his son in his place (a very blue collar one, no less)," while the children in our family are all on the path of regular college education. She wanted her son to do that too, and she saw my mom's advice (advice that was unasked for) to ill-serve her son.
Fast forward another 10 years. All children in our family finished college. Myself and all siblings are in different fields, some of us even relocate to other western countries. That sets the jealousy of this mother in high gear. Now she not only wanted her son (and other younger kids too) to not only have white collar jobs, but be able to move to other western countries. To alot of Asian families, the ability to migrate to western countries like US or Canada or Australia is an ultimate goal. They view the western countries being superior in all respects, including living environment, salary level, wealth accumulation, and more. The rise of economic power in Asia, in particular, China, and the Great Recession in the US, might have tampered their expectations. But if you ask 100 families in Asia, you would very likely find that 99+ of them want to migrate to the west, or at least have their kids received a prized education in a western country.
Looking back, I must say, I feel sorry for this son. He had tried (and failed) to live up to his mother's expectation. He narrowly graduated from high school, and found a first job in a call center. When his mother broke the news to my mom on the phone, boosting that he's working in an AC office that requires him in white shirt and slack everyday, my mom couldn't help but shake her head. Still, my mom was graceful enough to congratulate her and the son. Perhaps that's truly what his mother considered as a remarkable accomplishment, rightly or not.
But, working in a call center doesn't really require that much skill. (Not as much as car repair or electrician or plumber anyways, all of such jobs cannot be outsourced or offshored.) He was subsequently downsized, tried to go back to school and learn PC repair. His mother called up my mom, telling her that he's now in the computer business. She wanted to keep up the appearances, and talked up the possibility because at the time, I was in software development in US earning six-figure salary. When my mom told me about it, I asked her how that mother knew I was earning a six-figure salary? My mom said, I told her. I admonished my mom for doing that, not least due to imaginary and real hint of boasting about the success (or simply, "making it") of one's child, thereby tacitly encouraging the comparison of different children. I hate that.
In any event, the son got his certificate in PC repair. It's unclear if he was ever able to get in computer repair. When the financial crisis hit Asia in '97, he was downsized once again. The middle-aged son now works as a security guard. Having not too much to boast about, the mother now focuses on the youngest daughter who marries a photographer and has migrated to California. When my mom told me about it, I told her I do not want her to keep talking about her kids (ie. us) and all the things we've done, because I don't want this mother to keep pushing or expecting her kids to mimic someone else's path in life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At times, when I look back on the paths that this son has chosen, we can say with higher confidence that, should he have gone to a trade or vocational school and acquired a life skill, he would not likely be bouncing from one job to another. Like the 19-year-old mentioned in the New York Times article, if anyone (like the Obama administration) uses him as a statistics, he would have been deemed as a failure. The reality is quite far from it. This kid is able to acquire a skill that he likes, which allows him to see a brighter future in life. Success breeds success, and now he can even see himself following further degree in college, because he now has some skills to build on, some skills that the society needs. Would a traditional four-year college degree have given him that kind of satisfaction and motivation in life? I highly doubt that.
In a way, if the now middle-aged man of the family friend had had that kind of encouragement, he would likely have followed a much more satisfying life than what he has now. And no, he's not married yet, because he can't afford to start a family. How sad.
And for those in authority, who continuously talks down the viability of vocational or trade school, I'd say, shame on you. Reinforce basic literacy (math and reading) in elementray school, but that is not mutually exclusive from vocational school. Not everyone is cut out to be a hedge fund manager or Wall St type that earns millions sitting in office contributing very little in real life except moving money around. (Yes, I'm being critical or exaggerate a bit here, but let's face it, alot of fund managers and traders, particularly mediocre ones, do exactly that.) Give the kids the choice, and don't deem them as failure, because they are far from it.
I never understand why everyone's dead set on insisting 4-year college degree for all kids - and I mean, all kids. Have those in authority ever considered the fact that not all kids are cut out to take the college track? Granted that basic literacy is fundamental to all kids, that does not equate to pushing all kids down the college path. By talking up the value proposition of 4-year college, it's synonymous to talking down all other possible alternatives, vocation and trade schools being one of those. It's a huge disservice to kids who could feel like a failure, taking the trade school path, instead of the traditional path high school to college to Wall Street job.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This whole thing reminds me of this kid (who is now a middle-aged man) of a family friend. Some background of him is in order.
The family is solidly middle class. The father was a professional driver. Being the eldest among 5 siblings, the mother had high hopes on him. High hopes, in a sense that, she wanted him to soar from their blue collar root. She actually counseled this kid to not follow the path of trade school or vocational school, even though it's very clear all these times that he's not the academic type. She wanted him to have a white collar job, be in suit and tie, go to air-conditioned office and work without breaking a sweat. That's her ideal of the eldest son, their first-born.
In a way, I don't blame the mother. She had very little education or aspiration outside of the narrowest vision of what she saw on TV - yes, she found her inspirations for the son from TV soap opera. She did the best she could at the time.
My mom used to converse every now and then with this family. Although my mom came from similar humble roots, she's much more open-minded and pragmatic. What she saw in this kid is that, he's not the reading material, and it could be a lost cause trying to push him down the white collar path. From my mom's perspective, he could be much better off going to trade school or vocational school, acquiring a life skill that would set him to a very solid path in blue collar life. To my mom, there's no stigma in being blue collar. A good job is a good job, is a good job. I remember my mom even told his mom, "look, he could even have his own car repair shop or more!"
But his mom would have none of that for her son. In fact, there's a bit of a fall-out between the two mothers, because his mom saw my mom's counsel as nothing more than "putting his son in his place (a very blue collar one, no less)," while the children in our family are all on the path of regular college education. She wanted her son to do that too, and she saw my mom's advice (advice that was unasked for) to ill-serve her son.
Fast forward another 10 years. All children in our family finished college. Myself and all siblings are in different fields, some of us even relocate to other western countries. That sets the jealousy of this mother in high gear. Now she not only wanted her son (and other younger kids too) to not only have white collar jobs, but be able to move to other western countries. To alot of Asian families, the ability to migrate to western countries like US or Canada or Australia is an ultimate goal. They view the western countries being superior in all respects, including living environment, salary level, wealth accumulation, and more. The rise of economic power in Asia, in particular, China, and the Great Recession in the US, might have tampered their expectations. But if you ask 100 families in Asia, you would very likely find that 99+ of them want to migrate to the west, or at least have their kids received a prized education in a western country.
Looking back, I must say, I feel sorry for this son. He had tried (and failed) to live up to his mother's expectation. He narrowly graduated from high school, and found a first job in a call center. When his mother broke the news to my mom on the phone, boosting that he's working in an AC office that requires him in white shirt and slack everyday, my mom couldn't help but shake her head. Still, my mom was graceful enough to congratulate her and the son. Perhaps that's truly what his mother considered as a remarkable accomplishment, rightly or not.
But, working in a call center doesn't really require that much skill. (Not as much as car repair or electrician or plumber anyways, all of such jobs cannot be outsourced or offshored.) He was subsequently downsized, tried to go back to school and learn PC repair. His mother called up my mom, telling her that he's now in the computer business. She wanted to keep up the appearances, and talked up the possibility because at the time, I was in software development in US earning six-figure salary. When my mom told me about it, I asked her how that mother knew I was earning a six-figure salary? My mom said, I told her. I admonished my mom for doing that, not least due to imaginary and real hint of boasting about the success (or simply, "making it") of one's child, thereby tacitly encouraging the comparison of different children. I hate that.
In any event, the son got his certificate in PC repair. It's unclear if he was ever able to get in computer repair. When the financial crisis hit Asia in '97, he was downsized once again. The middle-aged son now works as a security guard. Having not too much to boast about, the mother now focuses on the youngest daughter who marries a photographer and has migrated to California. When my mom told me about it, I told her I do not want her to keep talking about her kids (ie. us) and all the things we've done, because I don't want this mother to keep pushing or expecting her kids to mimic someone else's path in life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At times, when I look back on the paths that this son has chosen, we can say with higher confidence that, should he have gone to a trade or vocational school and acquired a life skill, he would not likely be bouncing from one job to another. Like the 19-year-old mentioned in the New York Times article, if anyone (like the Obama administration) uses him as a statistics, he would have been deemed as a failure. The reality is quite far from it. This kid is able to acquire a skill that he likes, which allows him to see a brighter future in life. Success breeds success, and now he can even see himself following further degree in college, because he now has some skills to build on, some skills that the society needs. Would a traditional four-year college degree have given him that kind of satisfaction and motivation in life? I highly doubt that.
In a way, if the now middle-aged man of the family friend had had that kind of encouragement, he would likely have followed a much more satisfying life than what he has now. And no, he's not married yet, because he can't afford to start a family. How sad.
And for those in authority, who continuously talks down the viability of vocational or trade school, I'd say, shame on you. Reinforce basic literacy (math and reading) in elementray school, but that is not mutually exclusive from vocational school. Not everyone is cut out to be a hedge fund manager or Wall St type that earns millions sitting in office contributing very little in real life except moving money around. (Yes, I'm being critical or exaggerate a bit here, but let's face it, alot of fund managers and traders, particularly mediocre ones, do exactly that.) Give the kids the choice, and don't deem them as failure, because they are far from it.
Friday, July 8, 2011
On what college degree (or life choice) one should make...
In this day and age, when economy is in doldrums, everyone feels crappy. Top that up with the uncertainty and high anxiety to whatever choice in college major, and how much a college degree costs (measured in terms of student loan that one has to carry for life), that's enough to make headline news in places like Yahoo Finance, like, The College Degrees That You Have Gotten, or The Top Paying Jobs In America.
For those who are to make the choice, or to try to get in a field that might pay off in the longer term, this must've sounded all so confusing. Everyone seems to have a different ticks on things. There are also those who proclaim that College Degree Is Useless.
Although my kids are not coming of age yet, I'm forever mindful of that. Afterall, I myself am still in this life journey. Granted that you could say I luck out. I chose a field (computer science) that I like which turns out to be in high demands for the past 15 years or so. The field was also highly transportable from one country to another, allowing me to relocate with ease. I've always wondered the what-ifs, should I have chosen law or journalism instead (which were the other two fields I was considering).
But one thing is quite clear. We have to start out with something that we like. My parents, being older generations from Asia, are forever mindful of money and the payoff. (In hindsight, that's not a sole phenomenon with Asian parents alone, if we consider the amount of attention and write-up in the news of the cost-effectiveness and comparison in America.) For them, the best paying jobs are the best jobs to be had. I remember one time, my mom told me how much so-and-so's daughter is making this-and-that much, as a therapist to disabled children. I remember, my first response to my mom was, I hope she enjoys her work and truly loves working with children and helping others. I told my mom, imagine how it's like, locked in a room, most likely windowless, 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week. Fat paycheck only comes once or twice a month, but she's doing that 40+ hours a week. She'd better enjoy it, otherwise it'd be torture, no matter how much it's paid. That response gave a 15-second pause to my mom; to that, she replied, "you're probably right." Mind you, my mother is a very strong-willed woman, and she doesn't admit error in judgment that easier. To her credit, she's also relatively open-minded, given her age.
I have no care about that Amy Chua's Tiger Mom thing. (And yes, I read her book, for good measure, in order to be sure I'm fair-minded to my critique about her so-called parenting which is ridiculous.) My guiding principle is that, kids need to have sufficient exposure to try different things. That way, they'll find their own interests, desire and passion, and then they follow it. When they settle on something, they'd better give their 120% to see it through. As a parent, I don't want to be making life choice for the kids (which they'll likely regret later on in life). I don't want them to make life choice based solely on immediate monetary rewards. Just ask Steve Jobs, as illustrated by his excellent 2005 commencement speech at Stanford.
But there are certain basic building blocks in life that, if not mastered early on in life, will become very hard (if at all) to be mastered as one gets older. Math proficiency is one. Science is another. Reading and writing skills are a must. Whether one follows through with a math/science degree is a different matter - that's a path that the kid makes for him/herself. But if kids don't master math/science when they're young, they basically shut out at least half of college majors that are available, and almost all the good-paying jobs these days (which is important for those who look at the salary charts to discover their path in life). The latter argument doesn't carry too much weight for me, as the former one, which is that, one has to keep all options open. In other words, be open-minded, and be prepared so that one can make whatever choice when one feels like it, without being hamstrung by the SAT.
Since my kids are still young, I really would have no clue what they would want to do. Apart from pushing them to discover their own interests (whatever that might be), do their best (and I expect the best out of them), master the basics (math/reading/writing/science), do at least one sport activity, and do at least one music. The rest they can choose.
Having said that, some kids might not find their calling early in life. Heck, some people never find their calling in their entire life (!). But I wouldn't want their life choice to be solely based on near-term monetary gains. That's just too shortsighted to me.
For those who are to make the choice, or to try to get in a field that might pay off in the longer term, this must've sounded all so confusing. Everyone seems to have a different ticks on things. There are also those who proclaim that College Degree Is Useless.
Although my kids are not coming of age yet, I'm forever mindful of that. Afterall, I myself am still in this life journey. Granted that you could say I luck out. I chose a field (computer science) that I like which turns out to be in high demands for the past 15 years or so. The field was also highly transportable from one country to another, allowing me to relocate with ease. I've always wondered the what-ifs, should I have chosen law or journalism instead (which were the other two fields I was considering).
But one thing is quite clear. We have to start out with something that we like. My parents, being older generations from Asia, are forever mindful of money and the payoff. (In hindsight, that's not a sole phenomenon with Asian parents alone, if we consider the amount of attention and write-up in the news of the cost-effectiveness and comparison in America.) For them, the best paying jobs are the best jobs to be had. I remember one time, my mom told me how much so-and-so's daughter is making this-and-that much, as a therapist to disabled children. I remember, my first response to my mom was, I hope she enjoys her work and truly loves working with children and helping others. I told my mom, imagine how it's like, locked in a room, most likely windowless, 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week. Fat paycheck only comes once or twice a month, but she's doing that 40+ hours a week. She'd better enjoy it, otherwise it'd be torture, no matter how much it's paid. That response gave a 15-second pause to my mom; to that, she replied, "you're probably right." Mind you, my mother is a very strong-willed woman, and she doesn't admit error in judgment that easier. To her credit, she's also relatively open-minded, given her age.
I have no care about that Amy Chua's Tiger Mom thing. (And yes, I read her book, for good measure, in order to be sure I'm fair-minded to my critique about her so-called parenting which is ridiculous.) My guiding principle is that, kids need to have sufficient exposure to try different things. That way, they'll find their own interests, desire and passion, and then they follow it. When they settle on something, they'd better give their 120% to see it through. As a parent, I don't want to be making life choice for the kids (which they'll likely regret later on in life). I don't want them to make life choice based solely on immediate monetary rewards. Just ask Steve Jobs, as illustrated by his excellent 2005 commencement speech at Stanford.
But there are certain basic building blocks in life that, if not mastered early on in life, will become very hard (if at all) to be mastered as one gets older. Math proficiency is one. Science is another. Reading and writing skills are a must. Whether one follows through with a math/science degree is a different matter - that's a path that the kid makes for him/herself. But if kids don't master math/science when they're young, they basically shut out at least half of college majors that are available, and almost all the good-paying jobs these days (which is important for those who look at the salary charts to discover their path in life). The latter argument doesn't carry too much weight for me, as the former one, which is that, one has to keep all options open. In other words, be open-minded, and be prepared so that one can make whatever choice when one feels like it, without being hamstrung by the SAT.
Since my kids are still young, I really would have no clue what they would want to do. Apart from pushing them to discover their own interests (whatever that might be), do their best (and I expect the best out of them), master the basics (math/reading/writing/science), do at least one sport activity, and do at least one music. The rest they can choose.
Having said that, some kids might not find their calling early in life. Heck, some people never find their calling in their entire life (!). But I wouldn't want their life choice to be solely based on near-term monetary gains. That's just too shortsighted to me.
On the death of wristwatches...or not.
Reading the New York Times article on resurgence of wristwatches among the younger generations today brings a not-so-surprising smile to me today. While the article focuses mainly on men, the same can be said of women to a large extent from that same generations. Afterall, even one of my sisters has ditched her wristwatch more than a decade ago, though for a rather different, if not cosmetic, reason. She doesn't want her arm to be tanned with a wristwatch shadow on it. No matter.
I've stuck by my watch all these times. With the flood of all-things-digital, alot of the gadgets have consolidated. The more utilitarian, commodity-type, functions like alarm clock and calculator were long gone, and have long been incorporated into the smartphones (and the PDA's before them), for all the good reasons. Less space, less bulky gadgets that we need to carry on the road, less battery required. And, who cares about what alarm clock or calculator others use anyways?
Ah, but, wristwatches are quite a different matter. Someone once said to me, if you want to see the taste and style of a man, you only need to look at the necktie they wear and the watch on their wrist. Of course there were other discerning factors, a well-tailored suit, for example. But you can go easily go out to a tailor shop and get a tailor-made suite. Neckties and wristwatches are a different matter. They require you to go out and choose, that in and of itself show the taste and style of the man.
Times have changed. Cool jobs for men don't often require formal wear, so there goes the necktie thing. Men's fashion has become one big sloppy affair, with men dressing more and more like women (men in skinny jeans! men going to facial treatment!). As the article has rightly noted, most younger men in their 20s and even 30s grow up with electronic gadgets. They might not care much about wristwatches since all they need (games, music, phone, clock, alarms, calculator, notebook, phonebook, browser, and more) come in one tinny-tiny gadget. The logic goes, that they would never need to look back to the bygone days for things like vinyl record players, walkman, and some such. It was due time to declare death of wristwatches.
Call me old-fashioned. I like wristwatches. I always have. While I can't think in the men's shoes, I can't say I would give up my wristwatch for my smartphone. True, strictly speaking, I don't need my watch since I won't leave home without my smartphone. But my watch is much much more than just for telling time. My watch is about the only thing that truly follows me since it's worn on my wrist (technically, so are my ring and earrings). I can't say the same about my phone. (Yes, I've lost my phone before, and it's a royal pain.) And I have always believed that my watch represents part of who I am. One other thing is, I truly enjoy the craftsmanship and beauty of a good watch. Vintage is even better.
As such, I like Patek Philippe and Rolex. I reserve the Patek for more special occasion, and Rolex and Cartier are for everyday use. My Breguet is even more special to me than Patek, and it sits mostly in my collection for my private appreciation. No cool gadget is going to beat that. They are like old friends that stay with me. You can't say the same about your iPhone or drod phone that you'll likely ditch or upgrade in less than a couple of years.
As the article has attested to it, these men in the younger generations are now coming to rediscover the coolness in wristwatches, it being a fashion in its own right. It's about time. My only question to these men is, what takes them so long to rediscover the coolness of wristwatch, dude?
I've stuck by my watch all these times. With the flood of all-things-digital, alot of the gadgets have consolidated. The more utilitarian, commodity-type, functions like alarm clock and calculator were long gone, and have long been incorporated into the smartphones (and the PDA's before them), for all the good reasons. Less space, less bulky gadgets that we need to carry on the road, less battery required. And, who cares about what alarm clock or calculator others use anyways?
Ah, but, wristwatches are quite a different matter. Someone once said to me, if you want to see the taste and style of a man, you only need to look at the necktie they wear and the watch on their wrist. Of course there were other discerning factors, a well-tailored suit, for example. But you can go easily go out to a tailor shop and get a tailor-made suite. Neckties and wristwatches are a different matter. They require you to go out and choose, that in and of itself show the taste and style of the man.
Times have changed. Cool jobs for men don't often require formal wear, so there goes the necktie thing. Men's fashion has become one big sloppy affair, with men dressing more and more like women (men in skinny jeans! men going to facial treatment!). As the article has rightly noted, most younger men in their 20s and even 30s grow up with electronic gadgets. They might not care much about wristwatches since all they need (games, music, phone, clock, alarms, calculator, notebook, phonebook, browser, and more) come in one tinny-tiny gadget. The logic goes, that they would never need to look back to the bygone days for things like vinyl record players, walkman, and some such. It was due time to declare death of wristwatches.
Call me old-fashioned. I like wristwatches. I always have. While I can't think in the men's shoes, I can't say I would give up my wristwatch for my smartphone. True, strictly speaking, I don't need my watch since I won't leave home without my smartphone. But my watch is much much more than just for telling time. My watch is about the only thing that truly follows me since it's worn on my wrist (technically, so are my ring and earrings). I can't say the same about my phone. (Yes, I've lost my phone before, and it's a royal pain.) And I have always believed that my watch represents part of who I am. One other thing is, I truly enjoy the craftsmanship and beauty of a good watch. Vintage is even better.
As such, I like Patek Philippe and Rolex. I reserve the Patek for more special occasion, and Rolex and Cartier are for everyday use. My Breguet is even more special to me than Patek, and it sits mostly in my collection for my private appreciation. No cool gadget is going to beat that. They are like old friends that stay with me. You can't say the same about your iPhone or drod phone that you'll likely ditch or upgrade in less than a couple of years.
As the article has attested to it, these men in the younger generations are now coming to rediscover the coolness in wristwatches, it being a fashion in its own right. It's about time. My only question to these men is, what takes them so long to rediscover the coolness of wristwatch, dude?
Friday, June 24, 2011
On the loss of appeal of divorce...
I read the other day an interesting article on NYTimes, on the loss of appeal in divorce by the recent generations.
Amid the observation, that the divorce rate among well-educated couples are going down, even though it's relatively easy to get divorce these days. There's so much psycho-analysis on what went through the women's mind, when they come to the conclusion that they want out. But a few points stand out to me.
I read this with personal interest because I've gone through some of the same internal thought process in the past myself, when my marriage hits some low points.
Here, we're talking about women with means, oftentimes women with career. In any case, alimony from a well-to-do ex-husband could have sustained these women and their kids, should they go down the path of divorce. So, let's jump to the assumption that financial concerns are not the major factor in the discussions.
Much was said about these women, and men, who want to keep the family intact, for the sake of the children, are actually very true. At least the same thing has gone through the minds of myself and my husband. We want to do the best for the kids. While much was also said, that if the divorced parents hold up the family traditions together, be civic and what not, it won't impact much to the kids, this argument/suggestion is so half-hearted and lame. It's almost like, saying out loud the half truth enough times might make it a reality. I personally feel that it's never the same when the kids see the parents separate, particularly when they're younger than teen years. So, let's face it, to say that it won't impact the kids, and the adults do whatever they see fit and convenient, is more for the adults. It's really just a justification for the actions (divorce) that the adults take, in order to make themselves feel better (that divorce has no impact to kids as long as the parents spend holidays together, for example).
Childrearing is hard. Even if money is not the issue, and we (the mothers) can get outside help on looking after the kids, it's not the same as sharing the duties and concerns and worries with our spouse/partner. The fact and value that we have a partner to share the pain and pleasure with cannot be underestimated at all. That's why I have tremendous respect for single mothers, because I can appreciate how hard it must be, to make it work.
On another side of the coin, I'm not so sure about the stigma of divorce on women, particularly in this day and age. I have no doubt that in some society and community, the stigma that they fail somehow in making the marriage work, can be high. Personally, that's probably the least of my concerns when I was contemplating the idea of divorce during the low points of my marriage. I thought the peer pressure thing would work mostly in teenage years, not women with established life and career in their 30s and 40s. If those women (and mothers) let the others, their peers in the park, babies in tow, influence them that greatly, one way or another, then they're really quite weak. I have very little patience for weak-minded people, albeit politically incorrect to utter it out loud.
And then, the article mentions this notion that women tend to feel the "freedom" (You go, girl!) when they become divorced, going back to the singles dating scene. I'm, like, really? seriously? That would probably the last thing I want, to go back to the singles dating scene. Do women really see more success in Jennifer Aniston (the gorgeous, single, childless 40-year-old who serial dates but never has a steady relationship for longer than a few year since the implosion of her Brad-Pitt thing?), or Angelina Jolie (the equally gorgeous, married, 30+ year old who have big families, alot of kids, and a loving husband whom she shares joy and sorrow with)?
I know, I know. this is such a hot topic, the Aniston-Jolie feud. Then again, Aniston should have been over with and moved on from her break-up with Pitt. Afterall, it's been, what, more than 6 years ago, for goodness sake. But as much as Aniston tried to diffuse the subject, blaming Pitt as philanderer and Jolie as a homewrecker, there's more than an ounce of truth, that kids and extended families can help gel a couple's relationship, which invariably will move through stages in life, from love and passion, to becoming life partners. Personally, however gorgeous I might still look, I'm not sure if I want to drag my 40-year-old body out there every night partying and bar-hopping to find another partner.
I don't want to disparage Aniston or anyone who goes through divorce. I honestly don't. Afterall, everyone's situation is unique, and I'd want to avoid casting the first stone. It would, however, be tremendously helpful to other women, if we, for one, are honest to ourselves, about what works and what doesn't, and the motivation that drives us one way or the other.
As to my own marriage, most of those arguments during the low point of our marriage came from difference in opinion in childrearing. Interestingly, as time goes on, and as the kids get bigger, we have come to see that we have more similarities than differences in our approaches (eg. a stricter versus more relaxed parenting style). If one comes to appreciate the pros and cons of different appraoches, while keeping an open mind, it could go a long way.
I know, I know. It takes two to tango too. Oftentimes, divorce has nothing to do with the women, but the men have simply drifted apart/away. In those cases, hey, you do what you need to do. If divorce is what it comes down to, so be it.
Amid the observation, that the divorce rate among well-educated couples are going down, even though it's relatively easy to get divorce these days. There's so much psycho-analysis on what went through the women's mind, when they come to the conclusion that they want out. But a few points stand out to me.
I read this with personal interest because I've gone through some of the same internal thought process in the past myself, when my marriage hits some low points.
Here, we're talking about women with means, oftentimes women with career. In any case, alimony from a well-to-do ex-husband could have sustained these women and their kids, should they go down the path of divorce. So, let's jump to the assumption that financial concerns are not the major factor in the discussions.
Much was said about these women, and men, who want to keep the family intact, for the sake of the children, are actually very true. At least the same thing has gone through the minds of myself and my husband. We want to do the best for the kids. While much was also said, that if the divorced parents hold up the family traditions together, be civic and what not, it won't impact much to the kids, this argument/suggestion is so half-hearted and lame. It's almost like, saying out loud the half truth enough times might make it a reality. I personally feel that it's never the same when the kids see the parents separate, particularly when they're younger than teen years. So, let's face it, to say that it won't impact the kids, and the adults do whatever they see fit and convenient, is more for the adults. It's really just a justification for the actions (divorce) that the adults take, in order to make themselves feel better (that divorce has no impact to kids as long as the parents spend holidays together, for example).
Childrearing is hard. Even if money is not the issue, and we (the mothers) can get outside help on looking after the kids, it's not the same as sharing the duties and concerns and worries with our spouse/partner. The fact and value that we have a partner to share the pain and pleasure with cannot be underestimated at all. That's why I have tremendous respect for single mothers, because I can appreciate how hard it must be, to make it work.
On another side of the coin, I'm not so sure about the stigma of divorce on women, particularly in this day and age. I have no doubt that in some society and community, the stigma that they fail somehow in making the marriage work, can be high. Personally, that's probably the least of my concerns when I was contemplating the idea of divorce during the low points of my marriage. I thought the peer pressure thing would work mostly in teenage years, not women with established life and career in their 30s and 40s. If those women (and mothers) let the others, their peers in the park, babies in tow, influence them that greatly, one way or another, then they're really quite weak. I have very little patience for weak-minded people, albeit politically incorrect to utter it out loud.
And then, the article mentions this notion that women tend to feel the "freedom" (You go, girl!) when they become divorced, going back to the singles dating scene. I'm, like, really? seriously? That would probably the last thing I want, to go back to the singles dating scene. Do women really see more success in Jennifer Aniston (the gorgeous, single, childless 40-year-old who serial dates but never has a steady relationship for longer than a few year since the implosion of her Brad-Pitt thing?), or Angelina Jolie (the equally gorgeous, married, 30+ year old who have big families, alot of kids, and a loving husband whom she shares joy and sorrow with)?
I know, I know. this is such a hot topic, the Aniston-Jolie feud. Then again, Aniston should have been over with and moved on from her break-up with Pitt. Afterall, it's been, what, more than 6 years ago, for goodness sake. But as much as Aniston tried to diffuse the subject, blaming Pitt as philanderer and Jolie as a homewrecker, there's more than an ounce of truth, that kids and extended families can help gel a couple's relationship, which invariably will move through stages in life, from love and passion, to becoming life partners. Personally, however gorgeous I might still look, I'm not sure if I want to drag my 40-year-old body out there every night partying and bar-hopping to find another partner.
I don't want to disparage Aniston or anyone who goes through divorce. I honestly don't. Afterall, everyone's situation is unique, and I'd want to avoid casting the first stone. It would, however, be tremendously helpful to other women, if we, for one, are honest to ourselves, about what works and what doesn't, and the motivation that drives us one way or the other.
As to my own marriage, most of those arguments during the low point of our marriage came from difference in opinion in childrearing. Interestingly, as time goes on, and as the kids get bigger, we have come to see that we have more similarities than differences in our approaches (eg. a stricter versus more relaxed parenting style). If one comes to appreciate the pros and cons of different appraoches, while keeping an open mind, it could go a long way.
I know, I know. It takes two to tango too. Oftentimes, divorce has nothing to do with the women, but the men have simply drifted apart/away. In those cases, hey, you do what you need to do. If divorce is what it comes down to, so be it.
On the sovereign debt woes of Greece...
Looking at the deteriorating sovereign debt situation in Europe, in particular, Greece, is like watching a train wreck in slo-mo.
I've always wondered how Euro could have worked, with countries having a garden variety of economies and state of affairs coming together to join in hip by only their currency (thereby fiscal policy), and nothing much else. Back in late 1990s when one of my projects in a big bank was to convert all transactions and contracts from various European currencies into euros, I've always wondered to myself how this could have worked. I have my doubts because I don't see how it could work. Then again, I'm not economics type. I thought the economists and all the talking heads knew better (or knew something that I didn't), since everyone was so gungho and excited about this whole euro thing. I let that idea/doubt go. My project went through with flying colors, and that's what happened to me then. I still miss some of the currencies (like DEM, FRF, and more). At least GBP is still around, so I'm good.
And then, the worldwide economic recessions that started in US in 2008 - the Great Recession, as some call it - put everything under harsher spotlight, in particular, the PIIGS economies, Greece being one of them.
The first bailout of Greece came in 2010, now they're talking about the second bailout. It's such a big white elephant in the room. Everyone knows it's going to fail. Everyone knows Greece won't make it. But no one wants to admit it. No one wants to call the default, a default, which is what Greece is. The idea of "buying Greece some time" to sort things out, to clean up the house, whatever the actions might require, is so weak. Don't get me wrong, I would not want to see a whole country fail, thereby pushing the Greek livelihood over the edge of the cliff. The fact that big brothers, like Germany and France, who want to keep Greece in the fold of euro, yet are reluctant to embrace full rescue, both fiscally and monetarily, are simply self-defeating.
But we all know, Greece is like another Lehman (that collapsed in 2008), except that, unlike Lehman, Greece is another "too big to fail" basket case. No one wants to see a repeat of Lehman - just ask Hank Paulson - particularly given that Greece is considered the birthplace of western philosophy and democracy, and its failure would have not only financial, but symbolic, significance.
So, what do we do?
The US is too busy trying to rescue itself. Europeans are in the I-don't-want-to-help-but-maybe-I-need-to-do-something mode. Everyone knows that ECB and other European countries will step in, one way or another. However much the haircut the bondholders are going to take, they're going to come out whole, one way or another. So, emerging big brothers like China are going to step in the void and scoop up whatever resources and assets and bonds that Europeans and PIIGS are selling. In a decade or two, everyone will be working for the Chinese to pay off their debts; so, everyone is looking up to the new master (China) now already. Learning mandarin is only the first step.
Surprisingly (or not), the credit agencies, who were accused to have been sleeping on their watch during the subprime meltdown in US, are the watchdogs that everyone is looking up to again, without any meaningful reforms whatsoever on how to avoid their conflicts of interests they committed during the subprime mess. Some things in life never change. Sad...
Nothing of these is news to anyone anyways. Ireland will tough it out. The Irish people have the kind of fortitude and resolve to tough it out, but the Greeks don't. The celtic tiger is going to come out from this mess roaring again, but the continental peers like Greece and Portugal and Spain are going to continue dragging their feet.
I would be very interested to see what's going to happen to the small eastern European cohorts who newly join euro.
Then again, as I said, I'm not an economics type. I hope I'm wrong (I really do), but I have this nagging feelings that something seriously wrong is in this whole picture. Everyone wants to see the rosy colors, but no one wants to consider the worst-case scenarios. The future generations around the world are going to be paying for the sins and mistakes that this generation commits. Very sad...
I've always wondered how Euro could have worked, with countries having a garden variety of economies and state of affairs coming together to join in hip by only their currency (thereby fiscal policy), and nothing much else. Back in late 1990s when one of my projects in a big bank was to convert all transactions and contracts from various European currencies into euros, I've always wondered to myself how this could have worked. I have my doubts because I don't see how it could work. Then again, I'm not economics type. I thought the economists and all the talking heads knew better (or knew something that I didn't), since everyone was so gungho and excited about this whole euro thing. I let that idea/doubt go. My project went through with flying colors, and that's what happened to me then. I still miss some of the currencies (like DEM, FRF, and more). At least GBP is still around, so I'm good.
And then, the worldwide economic recessions that started in US in 2008 - the Great Recession, as some call it - put everything under harsher spotlight, in particular, the PIIGS economies, Greece being one of them.
The first bailout of Greece came in 2010, now they're talking about the second bailout. It's such a big white elephant in the room. Everyone knows it's going to fail. Everyone knows Greece won't make it. But no one wants to admit it. No one wants to call the default, a default, which is what Greece is. The idea of "buying Greece some time" to sort things out, to clean up the house, whatever the actions might require, is so weak. Don't get me wrong, I would not want to see a whole country fail, thereby pushing the Greek livelihood over the edge of the cliff. The fact that big brothers, like Germany and France, who want to keep Greece in the fold of euro, yet are reluctant to embrace full rescue, both fiscally and monetarily, are simply self-defeating.
But we all know, Greece is like another Lehman (that collapsed in 2008), except that, unlike Lehman, Greece is another "too big to fail" basket case. No one wants to see a repeat of Lehman - just ask Hank Paulson - particularly given that Greece is considered the birthplace of western philosophy and democracy, and its failure would have not only financial, but symbolic, significance.
So, what do we do?
The US is too busy trying to rescue itself. Europeans are in the I-don't-want-to-help-but-maybe-I-need-to-do-something mode. Everyone knows that ECB and other European countries will step in, one way or another. However much the haircut the bondholders are going to take, they're going to come out whole, one way or another. So, emerging big brothers like China are going to step in the void and scoop up whatever resources and assets and bonds that Europeans and PIIGS are selling. In a decade or two, everyone will be working for the Chinese to pay off their debts; so, everyone is looking up to the new master (China) now already. Learning mandarin is only the first step.
Surprisingly (or not), the credit agencies, who were accused to have been sleeping on their watch during the subprime meltdown in US, are the watchdogs that everyone is looking up to again, without any meaningful reforms whatsoever on how to avoid their conflicts of interests they committed during the subprime mess. Some things in life never change. Sad...
Nothing of these is news to anyone anyways. Ireland will tough it out. The Irish people have the kind of fortitude and resolve to tough it out, but the Greeks don't. The celtic tiger is going to come out from this mess roaring again, but the continental peers like Greece and Portugal and Spain are going to continue dragging their feet.
I would be very interested to see what's going to happen to the small eastern European cohorts who newly join euro.
Then again, as I said, I'm not an economics type. I hope I'm wrong (I really do), but I have this nagging feelings that something seriously wrong is in this whole picture. Everyone wants to see the rosy colors, but no one wants to consider the worst-case scenarios. The future generations around the world are going to be paying for the sins and mistakes that this generation commits. Very sad...
Friday, May 27, 2011
On marriage back-up plan...
I can't believe I haven't had the time to jog down my random thoughts for the past month or so. I've saved so many articles and links and collection of thoughts in the browser bookmarks that I don't even want to scroll down the list to see what I want to write, and what to discard as too random a thought.
But here it is, fresh off from today's reading, which should be a good (re)start -
I like reading Sydney Morning Herald because they have more interesting thoughts and columns that the rather bland and generic American and even British main media. (There's an interesting article the other day on The Guardian about spotting psychopath though, but it'll have to wait for another time...)
So then, there's this article today, about marriage back-up plan. Presumably, it's for the young folks that are comfortable with each other enough to enter in informal pact to get married, should they remain single when they get to their 40s. The main motivation is that, these men and women do not want to grow old alone. Presumably too, that they like each other's company enough to commit to a lifelong arrangement two decades later.
I didn't think much of it, on first thought. In retrospect, there's a bit more to it.
I'd imagine, these men and women like each other as companion, but are not madly in love, to the extent that they want to become married in their 20s. The assumption behind it, is that, there are bigger fish to catch; bigger wild parties to roam. Companionship is not high on the list, but certainly at the back of their mind.
One has to ask, is marriage really just that (about companionship)? Is there nothing more to it, but that? Would we value our partners/spouse, if we forever label each other as the back-up option, since nothing else pans out in 20 odd years, tacitly acknowledging that they are both losers in the dating/mating game? Is this (marriage back-up plan) a better arrangement, than the let's-get-married-and-consider-divorce-later deal in the conventional world? Or, is this all borne out of the commitment phobia in the younger generations?
I should be the first to admit, that I would never have considered such a notion. If I'm comfortable with someone enough, and if he's comfortable enough with me, so that we want to spend the rest of our lives together, we should commit. If not for love, it should be for the benefits of the kids (that can quite likely and happily happen); for the ease of financial arrangement. While all of my family is religious, I'm not die-hard religious. But one could argue that, the union of a man and woman would be deemed appropriate, in the eyes of God.
Explicit in the pact, is the worry that people don't want to grow old as old maid (or male). When the libido subsides, the companionship takes on a whole new meaning. Looking back, I don't think this is the motivation for me and my husband to get married. But I have to admit, that it's never too far from the surface, that yearning for a conventional family, a loving husband, happy kids, all of which form great foundation for looking into the future with hope and joy, and not with dread.
One of my sisters is a self-made, self-reliant woman. She's highly educated, got to senior managerial rank in big organization, but yet harbors insecurity, deep down. She's conscious of her age (even when she's just in her 20s!!), the consciousness of which has only grown over the years. She's religious in a conventional Christian/Catholic sense, and has this romantic notion of the role of a woman in a household, that the man should be the head of the household, bring home the bacon, and the woman should just stay home and take care of the kids. She also has this streak to want to be different. She rejects all the eligible suitors in her own race, and chooses a gwei-lo instead. Not that race has anything to do with it, but this gwei-lo turns out to be a pseudo bum (ie. all talks about starting his own business and can never quite get it off the ground; big on spending money when he leaves the money worries to my sister to tend to; never help much with household chores or child-rearing; etc etc). Since this guy didn't have the money, she paid for everything in the wedding, including the wedding dress, and the rings.
After the marriage, she even gave up her promising career to stay home to try to have kids, while pouring her financial resources to help the guy to start his business. The kids turn out to be a handful. The guy's business goes nowhere in 10 years, and s/he still wouldn't give up. And, he's always busy with business stuffs, and lets her deal with the kids, the worries in finances, and the whole nine yards.
I respect my sister and her choice, but it pains me to see her keeping up appearances of one happy family, when it's clear that he's been dragging her along for the ride. The only contribution that he's had is probably the sperms that brought the kids about. And she gets to go out and be the Mrs so-and-so.
Sometimes, in the quiet of night, I wonder out loud, does it really worth it? Does she have any regrets? Was my sister really that desperate to be married, and be seen as married? (Here, I don't even add the kids in the picture, because there are so many single successful career women who acquire sperms or adopt, to become mothers that way. So, his contribution of the sperms are mute.)
These are questions that I can never answer, on my sister's behalf. It all depends on how strong her desires were, at the time, although I'm not sure if I would go through everything that she's gone through, just to become a married woman with a guy.
So, although on first thought, I find the notion of marriage back-up plan to be rather silly, I should not be the first to pass judgment, on second thought. If I can judge it, in my sister's shoes, I should extend that courtesy to others who go down the non-traditional route....
But here it is, fresh off from today's reading, which should be a good (re)start -
I like reading Sydney Morning Herald because they have more interesting thoughts and columns that the rather bland and generic American and even British main media. (There's an interesting article the other day on The Guardian about spotting psychopath though, but it'll have to wait for another time...)
So then, there's this article today, about marriage back-up plan. Presumably, it's for the young folks that are comfortable with each other enough to enter in informal pact to get married, should they remain single when they get to their 40s. The main motivation is that, these men and women do not want to grow old alone. Presumably too, that they like each other's company enough to commit to a lifelong arrangement two decades later.
I didn't think much of it, on first thought. In retrospect, there's a bit more to it.
I'd imagine, these men and women like each other as companion, but are not madly in love, to the extent that they want to become married in their 20s. The assumption behind it, is that, there are bigger fish to catch; bigger wild parties to roam. Companionship is not high on the list, but certainly at the back of their mind.
One has to ask, is marriage really just that (about companionship)? Is there nothing more to it, but that? Would we value our partners/spouse, if we forever label each other as the back-up option, since nothing else pans out in 20 odd years, tacitly acknowledging that they are both losers in the dating/mating game? Is this (marriage back-up plan) a better arrangement, than the let's-get-married-and-consider-divorce-later deal in the conventional world? Or, is this all borne out of the commitment phobia in the younger generations?
I should be the first to admit, that I would never have considered such a notion. If I'm comfortable with someone enough, and if he's comfortable enough with me, so that we want to spend the rest of our lives together, we should commit. If not for love, it should be for the benefits of the kids (that can quite likely and happily happen); for the ease of financial arrangement. While all of my family is religious, I'm not die-hard religious. But one could argue that, the union of a man and woman would be deemed appropriate, in the eyes of God.
Explicit in the pact, is the worry that people don't want to grow old as old maid (or male). When the libido subsides, the companionship takes on a whole new meaning. Looking back, I don't think this is the motivation for me and my husband to get married. But I have to admit, that it's never too far from the surface, that yearning for a conventional family, a loving husband, happy kids, all of which form great foundation for looking into the future with hope and joy, and not with dread.
One of my sisters is a self-made, self-reliant woman. She's highly educated, got to senior managerial rank in big organization, but yet harbors insecurity, deep down. She's conscious of her age (even when she's just in her 20s!!), the consciousness of which has only grown over the years. She's religious in a conventional Christian/Catholic sense, and has this romantic notion of the role of a woman in a household, that the man should be the head of the household, bring home the bacon, and the woman should just stay home and take care of the kids. She also has this streak to want to be different. She rejects all the eligible suitors in her own race, and chooses a gwei-lo instead. Not that race has anything to do with it, but this gwei-lo turns out to be a pseudo bum (ie. all talks about starting his own business and can never quite get it off the ground; big on spending money when he leaves the money worries to my sister to tend to; never help much with household chores or child-rearing; etc etc). Since this guy didn't have the money, she paid for everything in the wedding, including the wedding dress, and the rings.
After the marriage, she even gave up her promising career to stay home to try to have kids, while pouring her financial resources to help the guy to start his business. The kids turn out to be a handful. The guy's business goes nowhere in 10 years, and s/he still wouldn't give up. And, he's always busy with business stuffs, and lets her deal with the kids, the worries in finances, and the whole nine yards.
I respect my sister and her choice, but it pains me to see her keeping up appearances of one happy family, when it's clear that he's been dragging her along for the ride. The only contribution that he's had is probably the sperms that brought the kids about. And she gets to go out and be the Mrs so-and-so.
Sometimes, in the quiet of night, I wonder out loud, does it really worth it? Does she have any regrets? Was my sister really that desperate to be married, and be seen as married? (Here, I don't even add the kids in the picture, because there are so many single successful career women who acquire sperms or adopt, to become mothers that way. So, his contribution of the sperms are mute.)
These are questions that I can never answer, on my sister's behalf. It all depends on how strong her desires were, at the time, although I'm not sure if I would go through everything that she's gone through, just to become a married woman with a guy.
So, although on first thought, I find the notion of marriage back-up plan to be rather silly, I should not be the first to pass judgment, on second thought. If I can judge it, in my sister's shoes, I should extend that courtesy to others who go down the non-traditional route....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)