Thanks, Blue Girl!

Blue Girl (BG) left an excellent comment and question in the "Dual Bag" post below. As such, let's discuss it:

Geez. I *just* noticed the label on this post! LOL. Sorry.

This comment thread may be dead, dead, dead. And no one's gonna read this, but I do have a question just in case.

And I mean no disrespect here nor am I on an attack of any kind. I am just curious.

Must everything be viewed through a political angle? Aren't there times when something can be funny just because it is? It just seems like, all the joy just gets sucked out of everything right off the bat because we have to attach some kind of *meaning* to it politically.

I totally understand the whole "sexist" angle of this spot. I've also seen others say that they hated it simply because it was "advertising." You know, our Corporate Lords and all that.

Do we not give ourselves credit to know that already? Don't we have a choice whether or not we want to participate in something like "diamond rings" out of tradition or just because we want to?

And if we do give ourselves that much credit, is it that we don't give other people credit for being as smart as we are?

Like I said above, I'm not on the attack. Might sound like I am. But, I'm not.

If anyone's open to discussing this -- I'm all for it.

This is an excellent question and thanks to BG for asking it and sorry for not posting this sooner. Full disclosure: AG was trained in the classical second wave feminism movement. Second wave feminism follows the first wave that ended in 1963. 2nd wave ran until the late 1970s. One of AG's UGrad degrees is in gender studies and she has spent most of her academic career looking at second wave feminism and how society has responded to the less visible women's movement since that time.

BG is correct that not everything has to be polticial or is political. However, the blog community to some extent has been political. Afterall, BG's blog name suggests a political bent. Given such, I don't think anyone here wouldn't say that the ad was not funny to some degree. However, much like rape and the Holocaust, there are topics that are not funny to AG. These kinds of topics for AG only serve to continue hatred in society and since AG rarely can talk about these with the majority of her friends who do not want to go there, she likes going there with this educated, fun loving, and very respectful of each other's views, community.

Having said that, I think it is important to discuss the whole "expectations" of men and what happens when they don't buy jewelery. After all, virginity is no longer a prerequisite for marriage, nor do the majority of women consider marriageability their prime asset. Many women wish for marriage in which housework, child-rearing, and breadwinning are equitably divided. An engagement ring doesn't fit into this intellectual framework. Rather, its presence on a woman's finger suggests that she needs to trap a man into "commitment" or be damaged if he leaves. (In most states today, if a groom abandons a bride, she is entitled to keep the ring, whereas if she leaves him, she must give it back.) Nor is it exactly "equitable" to demand that a partner shell out a sixth of a year's salary, demonstrating that he can "provide" for you and a future family, before you agree to marry him. Thus, the only way to get out of the proverbial doghouse? Buy your wife jewelry, of course.

Adding an element of real-life public humiliation to the mix, JcPenney elected to offer women the option of putting their significant others in the doghouse, via a Web site that sent your partner an e-mail -- and then post his name and, if you choose, picture, on the company’s public Web site. Yeah, because that's acceptable in dating and mating. For goodness sakes! As I recently said to the most wonderful boy in the world, "I don't want to fight." Why do others?

Why I labeled that post the way I did is because the ad incensed me to no end. As such, I decided to "go there" instead of laugh it off with my co-workers who originally sent it to me. I think I was most annoyed because who should be more offended? Men, who are painted as sexist, clueless dolts, or women, who are shown as mean-spirited and materialistic, who think men should suffer until token bling bling is offered. As I said at the Sixers game last night, why in 2009 do I still have to watch cheerleaders shake their money makers at half time? Sports are not about T&A and giving men what they want is not about empowerement for women. It's simply not. No matter how much you want to spin it.

I am certainly not without humor or saying that the sexes don't have their share of differences, especially when it comes to the idea of the perfect gesture at Channukah. It is my contention that there are better ways to play up these differences than turning a diamond into a girl's best friend and a guy into a dual bag, a misogynistic reference to "douche bag" BTW.

For what it's worth...I no longer want a ring. I want happiness. Happiness comes in Jewish PhDs (Or Jewish lawyers that are TTT. (LoL) AG is not saying one word. Not one word.) and that is enough for me. Enough. In fact, it was always enough for me. Though, a red velvet cupcake and a Bose CD player wouldn't be bad gestures this Valentine's Day too.