As has been mentioned elsewhere, “Funky Winkerbean” is dealing with the hazards of selling comics in an increasingly reactionary world. Interested parties are invited to check out the beginning of the storyline here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20050303
Idiots are invited to suggest the strip is due entirely to me being alarmist.
PAD
• 
I think I’m going to stop reading Funky for a while now. Not because of the CBLDF-ish plot, but because it’s yet another Evil Mother-In-Law (-to-be, in this case) story, and For Better Or For Worse used up ALL of my willingness to read that sort of storyline.
I was wondering where this strip was going with some of last weeks comics… and now I see. Sad thing is I know this actually happens. Very scary.
Maybe I need to read the newspaper more, but I just don’t get it.
As if I needed more reasons to grind my teeth. Dang, I can’t beleive that I’m reliving the 50s witch hunts all over again! Grrrr.
darrik, did you read the next couple of strips too, or just the one pointed to?
I really hate this country, these censorship religio-facists really need to be stopped…
Why couldn’t the PTC and their ilk have been housed in the World Trade Center instead of honest, hard-working people?
Wait, I have the incredible sense of deja vu…like I’ve seen something like this before.
Of course, the major difference here is that if the material was distributed to a miner, it wasn’t by the store owner, but by a parent/relative of the child. I don’t follow the strip at all, so I don’t know more than the 15 or so panels used to tell the current story.
Which brings up an interesting scenario: Would a parent, say a father, that gives his 14 year old son a Playboy be convicted under the same GA law the shop owner was arrested on? Or is nudity not obscenity when it’s presented by a parent?
It seems clear that this strip is making stories based on the events in GA and elsewhere. Combine this with the student getting disciplined because he wrote a zombie story using his school as a setting, and we’re really only a few steps away from employing Thought Police. And for those that say I’m siding with PAD in crying that the sky is falling, well, maybe I am, but only because it may indeed be falling. Every effort taken to restrict free speech brings us one step closer to in fact losing our ability to speak freely.
See the recent news stories of employees getting fired for saying things about their work on their own private blogs. I understand that there’s no free speech protections from private actions, but it shows a willingness in our society to admit that there really are very few protections of free speech. And those we have are shrinking (Bush’s use of “Free Speech Zones” during his run for re-election).
Those Chicken Littles are starting to sound less crazy.
And no, I’m NOT paranoid, and they ARE out to get me.
“darrik, did you read the next couple of strips too, or just the one pointed to?”
D’oh!Well now it makes sense.
That “whooshing” sound I just heard wasn’t Superman flying by…it was Bladestar heading headfirst into “missing the point” land.
Complaining about people trying to enforce censorship, and in the very next breath basically wishing those same people had died is taking hypocritical so many levels above normal hypocrisy that there should be a new word for it. Defend your right to free speech all you want, but unless someone is actually trying to kill you because of your ideas, there’s no reason at all why you should wish any harm to befall them for essentially engaging in their own right of free speech.
“(Bush’s use of “Free Speech Zones” during his run for election)”
hate to say it, but Kerry had the same thing
When did funky turn from a gag comic to a soap opera? Not that it was ever that funny, but I just read over a week of strips and not a single joke. And I understand the seriousness of the story, but how can you possibly take someone named “Funky” seriously? Next I bet we’ll see Funky Flashman teaching us about voter registration.
darrik, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to state that Kerry did the same thing. If you’re referring to the Boston DNC, the free speech zone was established by the city, not the DNC. And it was a block away. Not to mention, that was the Party’s convention, not a public gathering, and thus not something the general public should have been allowed to attend in the first place.
Bush, on the other hand, routinely used the Secret Service to require cities Bush campaigned in to set up free speech zones, and these often were miles away from where Bush was appearing.
Unless you have evidence that Kerry did something similar when he was out campaigning, and that he was the one pushing for it, then it’s nowhere near the same thing.
Hey Peter, I didn’t know you were ghost writing Funky Winkerbean. But you can’t fool me! Your agenda is all too clear! (Relax people. It’s called “being facetious”.)
Peter, if you’re an alarmist then I’m at the head of the line to be the next Pope(AKA cosmic improbibility #138).
Seriously, though, there are people out there that want to stir up the kind of trouble alluded to in the Winkerbean strip. As I’ve mentioned before I call them The Cult of the Child: The sycophants who will stoop to all manner of trickery and deceit to further their agenda of cleansing society.
They’ve been known to organize and operate under other names like The Parents Television Council and The Parents Music Resource Center. They all use phrases like “family friendly,” “for the children,” and “family values.”
Sure, the way I portray them comes off as me being the alarmist. I’m just fed up with them and their antics. They attack the First Amendment in the guise of saving young minds. The sad part is that many of them probably can’t see that they are attacking the FA because they are blinded by their zeal. Hëll, their ideas are even laudable if exercised only within their jurisdiction, that is to say their OWN homes. It’s when they cross that jurisdictional boundry that I call “Bûllšhìŧ,” throw a flag onto the field, and want to make them regret entering this lions den.
The source for their anger or frustration… whatever it is… comes from the same place that people use to judge me as evil incarnate. They have many excuses to do so. I smoke. I listen to Heavy Metal (the real stuff, not the self-absorbed crap we get on radio). I don’t believe in God. I own swords, knives and a gun. I wear a black trench coat. I shave my head. I wonder aloud why priests in the Church of Satan are never on the evening news for molesting a child.
And I’ve decided it’s not my place to force people to live by my rules in their homes. I have no jurisdiction in their homes. They can watch the Disney Channel 24/7 and worship Merle the head of lettuce for all I care. Just don’t try to convince me that the Power Rangers are too violent or that comics are just for kids or that my black trench coat is a sign that I’m up to no good.
Peter you’re not the alarmist. The alarmists are the people out there spreading fear to bury trust.
Not to hijack the discussion on Funky, but it’s not exactly a secret that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign was a lot tougher on “inappropriate” visitors than Kerry-Edwards 2004 was.
A case in point:
The experiment: A college professor wears a Kerry-Edwards shirt to a rally for President Bush, then a Bush for President shirt to a John Kerry rally.
Result: Bush people make the subject remove his shirt, then give him the boot. The Kerry people don’t make a peep.
There were numerous other stories along the same vein during the campaign, but few of them got enough attention to warrant major media coverage — certainly not enough to shake the Bush apologists out of their ennui…
–R.J.
Mitch Evans:The source for their anger or frustration… whatever it is… comes from the same place that people use to judge me as evil incarnate. They have many excuses to do so. I smoke. I listen to Heavy Metal (the real stuff, not the self-absorbed crap we get on radio). I don’t believe in God. I own swords, knives and a gun. I wear a black trench coat, I shave my head.
I’m not disagreeing with your politics, but based on that description, you do sound pretty scary dude.
Bûllšhìŧ Bobb.
Elimintating enemies of freedom is the stated goal of your beloved Bush… these censorship loving áššhølëš are ENEMIES of the USA!
But I bet Bush would make excuses to eliminate them…
Oh and bobb, talk about missing the point.
They are trying to force their ignorant beliefs on the entire country, I advocate letting everyone decide for themselves. They are the enemy of freedom.
What will you do when they start attacking things you like/approve of?
Didn’t think you’d have a real answer…
Should be “Bush wouldn’t make excuses to eliminate them.”
Evil must die, and those trying to take away our rights are evil. Pure and simple. Wait till they go after one of your sacred cows. Free speech is Number 1 in the Constitution for a reason…
“darrik, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to state that Kerry did the same thing. If you’re referring to the Boston DNC, the free speech zone was established by the city, not the DNC. And it was a block away. Not to mention, that was the Party’s convention, not a public gathering, and thus not something the general public should have been allowed to attend in the first place.”
I’m not very good with facts, am I?
Um…………I don’t get it. What, pardon my nearsightedness, is in that strip that I’m missing?
A co-worker told me that her sister believed John Kerry to be Evil and that, if he were elected President, that the Bible would be outlawed and banned. I find this viewpoint to be utterly psychotic and so removed from reality that is frighteningly silly. I find it difficult to believe rational adults would believe such tripe. Yet, people in that very same camp see nothing wrong with trying to force other material to be deleted from the public circle. For me, there is no difference between banning the bible and banning a comic book. Trying to shut down a comic book store is no different from trying to shut down a Christian Book Store, both acts are wrong.
Luigi, the Mom figure finds something in a bin called Manga XXX, and thinks it’s an “adult comic.”
What I need to do is go back and see if it’s in an “adult’s only” section.
Bladestar, so much to respond to….
First, if your view is that those trying to get the government to engage in consorship are evil, then I retract my statements. Kind of. If you see them as the enemy, then your statements are more or less consistant. Although I’d imagine you’d want to do the deed yourself rather than have fortune or fate step in and remove your enemies for you.
Second, I voted for the “other” guy. Bush is in on way “my” Bush, nor would I want him to be. I just don’t see him as the enemy. A rather skilled diplomat capable of leading and motivating the blindly loyal on a religous basis, yes, but not someone I’d want dead.
However, I would support a UN lead investigation into whether he should be tried as a war criminal for his actions against Iraq.
darrik, I hope you take this in good humor…
You’re about as good with facts as Foxnews is.
ba-DUM-bum….
low blow, cheap cheap shot, thank you thank you, tip your waitress….
I dunno about y’all, but I can never get into 3 pannel drama comics, good intentions of the artists or not. Its too burned into my brain that 3 pannels = some attempt at humor.
Some points about Funky in general;
It’s been a soap strip with occasional jokes for several years now, ever since Batuik did a Doonesbury and jumped the strip ahead such that the primary high school cast had now graduated from college or otherwise lived four years off-camera.
Tom Batuik is friends with both local-to-him Tony Isabella and John Byrne (who did a six week run on the art a year or so back). It’s pretty reasonable he’d be aware of CBLDF style issues.
Finally, he apparently is months ahead on art and storylines, based on various past comments. This story is almost certainly not directly inspired by the GA case, although he might be making some modifications based on it (I don’t know if he does such or not, but I’d assume it’s possible).
“You’re about as good with facts as Foxnews is.”
lol! finally, something involving comic strips that’s funny.
hmm, on a more serious note, I could probably get a well-paying job there.
Bush, on the other hand, routinely used the Secret Service to require cities Bush campaigned in to set up free speech zones, and these often were miles away from where Bush was appearing.
I attended a Bush rally in Cedar Rapids, IA. the “free speech zone” was about 100 feet from where everyone had to enter and leave, not a mile away. Most of the protesters were vocal while staying polite, but there were definitely a few that were both obscene and threatening.
When it comes to a sitting president of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, there is a Grand Canyon of difference when it comes to security issues compared to his opponent. While it is possible that this fact can be abused, the reality is the President is very much a target. And in a post 9/11 world, it is beyond stupid to pretend otherwise. The fact that a protester cannot physically get close to the President is rather beside the point. With modern media, a group of 10 or 10,000 can equally be heard.
That’s my 2 cents worth.
Iowa Jim
Since moving to Iowa, my local paper does not get Funky, so I was unaware of the strip. In the past, I have enjoyed the comic strip even though it is a soap opera. It has dealt with a wide range of issues.
(For those who don’t get it, PAD put you at the start of the story. You have to use the navigation strip and advance the date a day at a time to read the next segment. These strips have to be read as a whole to be understood.)
In this particular case, there is clearly a setup. I will wait and see where it goes from now. The way the mom reacts to her daughter “living in sin” is an over the top stereotype, as will be her reaction to adult comics. I have no problem with the author using the strip to bring up the debate, but this portrayal is not even close to accurate of how many conservatives, such as myself, think or act on these issues. The exaggerated “sraw man” being erected will be easy to knock down without dealing with legitimate issues. My hope is that the author will not take the easy route, but in a daily comic strip, you have very limited space to develop an idea, so we will see.
As someone else noted, comic strip writers are often months ahead of the game. It is possible he could have adapted what he was doing due to the GA case. I would be curious to find out if that is what happened.
Iowa Jim
A Greene:
Mitch Evans:The source for their anger or frustration… whatever it is… comes from the same place that people use to judge me as evil incarnate. They have many excuses to do so. I smoke. I listen to Heavy Metal (the real stuff, not the self-absorbed crap we get on radio). I don’t believe in God. I own swords, knives and a gun. I wear a black trench coat, I shave my head.
“I’m not disagreeing with your politics, but based on that description, you do sound pretty scary dude.”
Hi A Greene,
Well, it’s not as though I wear, wield, inhale, or otherwise use all of these every minute of every day. That would be exhausting! 😉
My point is that the alarmist mentality tends to look more at what we do than what we don’t do. For example I wouldn’t come to your home and light up a cigarette without your ok. In fact I don’t smoke in my car, even when alone, because others might be bothered by it at other times.
Two Points for the Record:
1. My sources tell me that, with the trench coat and shaved head, all I need is a goatee to put in my bid for taking over the world.
2. My sense of humor make me more goofy than intimidating. A former co-worker used to ask me what my “Big Plans” for the weekend were. I’d respond with “The same thing I do every weekend, Pinky… Try to take over the world!” He never got the joke, but I’m reasonably sure he wasn’t intimidated.
The Usenet Group rec.arts.comics.strips (hi David!) has an on-going love/hate relationship with the plot-driven story arc strips, especially Funky.
It’s funny timing that I picked up on Funky again just today due to the traffic in the newsgroup.
I’m waiting for The Comics Curmudgeon to weigh in on the issue,
Ok, if I was as paranoid as PAD 🙂 I would be worried about posting the following link to a Calvin & Hobbes site since it has the title figure taking off his pants. Surely the authorities in GA will now go rushing to every Barnes & Noble to take all copies of Calvin & Hobbes collections off of the shelves!!
http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1994/03/02/
Kidding aside, the fact that some over react to an issue does not make the core value involved incorrect.
Iowa Jim
The strip seems to me to be inspired by the case of Jesus Castillo, a clerk at Keith’s Comics in Dallas, who was arrested and convicted of selling an obscene comicbook to an adult. See http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/3270.html
“A co-worker told me that her sister believed John Kerry to be Evil and that, if he were elected President, that the Bible would be outlawed and banned. I find this viewpoint to be utterly psychotic and so removed from reality that is frighteningly silly.”
Sure, but it didn’t stop the Republican Party from promoting it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/politics/main645393.shtml
And proving that you can’t keep a good smear down, here’s the 2005 version:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-27-soc-security-aarp_x.htm
–R.J.
There are many references to the Georgia case here, but the strip more resembles past cases where an adult buys an “adult” comic and calls the police who then arrest said shop-owner.
This is like the Castillo case in Texas. See link:
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/001213-texas-overturned.shtml
If I recall, the Georgia case stems from a minor inadvertantly being given a mature readers comic.
Mitch, don’t forget yoor monocle and white Persian cat when you make you bid for world domination…
Mitch Evans:1. My sources tell me that, with the trench coat and shaved head, all I need is a goatee to put in my bid for taking over the world.
That’s cool, though if you gave up smoking for lollipos and started saying “who loves ya baby” you could go around solving crime, but I think that of almost all guys with shaved heads.
See the recent news stories of employees getting fired for saying things about their work on their own private blogs.
Or the fork lift driver who was fired from Miller for being caught drinking a can of Bud.
Or the fork lift driver who was fired from Miller for being caught drinking a can of Bud.
Reminds me of a relative who worked for General Motors back in the early 80’s. They made anyone who drove a non-GM car, and especially a foreign car, park in the back lot so you couldn’t see the cars while you drove by. Of course, those same employees driving foreign cars were then put out of work when GM shut down the plant because no one was buying their cars! (Not saying you should buy GM if it is not a quality product, but if you can’t buy what your own company is making, you can’t expect others to as well!)
Iowa Jim
Luigi and others: The March 3rd strip is where the story starts, but it doesn’t really become clear where it’s going until you get to the strips of March 6th & 7th.
SPOILER: The shop owner is being arrested for selling an “adult” comic to an adult.
Jim, growing up in Michigan, I always looked for imports in the Ford and GM employee lots. There weren’t any. And I don’t really have any problems with that. I do think the fork lift driver that was canned is way off base, and I’ve stopped drinking Miller as a result. Not that I was drinking Miller before, but it’s the thought that counts. The story I read about the forklift driver didn’t say if the picture of him showed him wearing his Miller nametag or uniform or whatever forklift drivers wear, but I guess if he had been identifiable as a Miller employee, I’d understand Miller’s actions some. But unless forklift driver is a really presitgous position in his town, I’m guessing that not one person that saw that image said “look, the Miller forklift driver drinks Bud! Miller must SUCK!”
Jim, your experience with FSZs in Iowa might not represent the norm. I agree that there are plenty of nut-jobs that shouldn’t be allowed within miles of any sitting president, and it’s the secret service’s job to make sure they don’t. The problem is that they didn’t create “people that want to kill the President” zones. They created “people that want to voice disagreement with the President” zones, and then forced people into those areas not based on security reason, but on ideological reasons, on the pretense of safety. If some crazy had shown up in a “4 More Years” t-shirt and a gun, and could have hidden the gun, he’d have been allowed access to the rally.
Iowa Jim writes:
> When it comes to a sitting president of the
> United States, whether Democrat or
> Republican, there is a Grand Canyon of
> difference when it comes to security issues
> compared to his opponent.
I’d love to see you try to say that to Ethel Kennedy.
> While it is possible that this fact can be
> abused, the reality is the President is very
> much a target. And in a post 9/11 world, it is
> beyond stupid to pretend otherwise.
The day after an assassination attempt President Harry Truman took his customary morning walk through the streets of Washington as usual. Whan asked about possible danger, he said “It comes with the job.”
(The differences in character between Truman, who came under enemy fire in World War I, and George W. Bush, who…well, I leave it as an exercise for the reader.)
> The fact that a protester cannot physically
> get close to the President is rather beside
> the point. With modern media, a group of 10
> or 10,000 can equally be heard.
I’m not trying to attack you personally, but this statement leaves me floored. I ask you honestly, are you truly this naive, or is this an simulation of such for rhetorical reason?
Iowa Jim writes:
> The way the mom reacts to her daughter
> “living in sin” is an over the top stereotype,
> as will be her reaction to adult comics.
On the contrary, it’s quite common, including my own parents’-in-law attitude toward my relationship with my now-wife during our engagement. If anything, the mother-in-law in the strip was restrained, limiting herself to the one little snipe at her “sin-in-law”. In reality, in my direct observation and experience, nobody of that persuasion limits her/himself to one snide remark and then proceeds to behave more-or-less politely, ever.
Jim, growing up in Michigan, I always looked for imports in the Ford and GM employee lots. There weren’t any.
My relative worked at the South Gate Plant in Southern California, which closed in 1982. He later worked at a plant in Michigan. While there was far less imports, they most certainly did exist! The fact that you didn’t see them was most likely because they were forced to park in a more hidden location.
That being said, I was not trying to defend the firing, just noting how another company handled a similar issue.
Jim, your experience with FSZs in Iowa might not represent the norm.
A small town is often different than a big city, so I am quite sure that is the case.
I agree that there are plenty of nut-jobs that shouldn’t be allowed within miles of any sitting president, and it’s the secret service’s job to make sure they don’t. The problem is that they didn’t create “people that want to kill the President” zones. They created “people that want to voice disagreement with the President” zones, and then forced people into those areas not based on security reason, but on ideological reasons, on the pretense of safety.
I have two problems with your response. First, I do believe in free speech, but I am not sure that guarantees an indiviudal that they have to be able to get physically close to the person they want to talk to. In other words, any attempt to stop someone from disagreeing with the President is wrong. But please explain why that requires the President be close enough to listen? If they are keeping the protesters in a place where the media can’t cover their existence, than you may have a point. But I don’t see a guaranteed right that they have to be where the President can hear them personally. Sure, it could be idealogical. So what? I didn’t agree with everything Pres. Clinton did, but I don’t believe I personally have the right to get in his face a tell him so. And he does not have any obligation to listen to me. The same for those who have a problem with Bush.
Iowa Jim
> When it comes to a sitting president of the
> United States, whether Democrat or
> Republican, there is a Grand Canyon of
> difference when it comes to security issues
> compared to his opponent.
I’d love to see you try to say that to Ethel Kennedy.
The exception does not make the rule. John F. Kennedy was also assasinated. The reality is, there have been far more attempts on a president than on a candidate, and far more actual assasinations. I don’t in any way deny security to the candidate, but there is a far higher victory (especially in the current day of terrorism) in killing a sitting President who is fighting terrorism than in killing his opponent (regardless of who that might be).
> The fact that a protester cannot physically
> get close to the President is rather beside
> the point. With modern media, a group of 10
> or 10,000 can equally be heard.
I’m not trying to attack you personally, but this statement leaves me floored. I ask you honestly, are you truly this naive, or is this an simulation of such for rhetorical reason?
In what way am I naive? How, exactly, does it make a difference if protestors are forced to protest at a greater distance if they are still allowed to protest and if they are still covered by the media? Or do you think Bush is really so easily swayed by public opinion that seeing a protestor will suddenly change his mind? Should Bush be forced to stop and listen to each protestor?
Obviously, if any leader keeps him or herself so insulated from knowing the public that they have no idea people are upset, that leader will lose any effectiveness as a leader. I am not saying Bush shouldn’t know there are protestors. But forcing any leader to face protestors is just absurd.
The double standard on this issue is quite amazing. Federal judges have ruled that protestors may stay away from the doors of abortion clinics. They are greatly hindered in what they can do to protest what they see as the murder of an innocent life.
In both cases, I think the protestors should be allowed to be there, but not in such a way where the person being protested is forced to listen. It doesn’t accomplish much anyways.
In the bigger picture, protest is not just for the person involved, it is for the community. And it is on that level that protests should not be hindered. Protestors should be able to make their case for or against Bush, for or against abortion, etc. That is the best way for our democracy to flourish. By letting people be informed and allowed to make choices, but within the boundaries of respecting the rights of each individual.
Iowa Jim
> The way the mom reacts to her daughter
> “living in sin” is an over the top stereotype,
> as will be her reaction to adult comics.
On the contrary, it’s quite common, including my own parents’-in-law attitude toward my relationship with my now-wife during our engagement. If anything, the mother-in-law in the strip was restrained, limiting herself to the one little snipe at her “sin-in-law”. In reality, in my direct observation and experience, nobody of that persuasion limits her/himself to one snide remark and then proceeds to behave more-or-less politely, ever.
My point is not that such people do not exist, but that they are not the norm. Nor do they represent how everyone who believes it is a poor choice to live together before marriage would handle a person who makes such a choice.
I do agree that if someone makes snide remarks, that it does not stop there. The remarks reveal what is beneath the surface. I have seen the same thing happen the other way around where relatives have made snide remarks about my religious beliefs and have made life miserable for my wife because of their liberal beliefs.
Being rude, harsh, snide, and demeaning comes from someone being insecure in their own beliefs and wanting to cut others down, not from whether their beliefs are “conservative” or “liberal.” My point is that the comic strip is playing on the stereotype that conservatives have to treat others like this because of their values, not because of a moral weakness that has nothing to do with their political/philosophical/religious values (and, in fact, runs counter to those very same values).
Iowa Jim
RE: Poor choice to live together before marriage.
This belief obviously comes in part from my religious convictions. But it also comes from an enormous amount of surveys and observation. Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not. Those who live together before marriage are generally less satisfied in their marriage than those who did not. You may disagree with me on why those statistics are true, but the data sure suggests that living together before marriage is not the best option.
That being said, I can make plenty of other poor options myself in other areas of my life. I could be 50 pounds overweight due to binge eating and have $50,000 of credit card debt. (Neither is true, but you get the point.) There is no place for being rude or snide to people who make poor choices. The loving thing to do is to respect them as individuals, and if they are interested in help, offering it to them to overcome their poor choice. In the case of my many friends who live together, it is a non issue. They know my belief on the matter, but they also know I respect their personhood.
Bottom line, you can have a moral belief and still respect those who disagree with you, whether you are conservative or liberal.
Iowa Jim
Bladestar:
“Mitch, don’t forget yoor monocle and white Persian cat when you make you bid for world domination…”
The monocle could work. It might even be ‘retro’ enough to give me some notice in the fashion world. Persian cat? I don’t know… I’m single and single guys with cats… It just seems wrong somehow.
A Greene:
Mitch Evans:1. My sources tell me that, with the trench coat and shaved head, all I need is a goatee to put in my bid for taking over the world.
“That’s cool, though if you gave up smoking for lollipos and started saying “who loves ya baby” you could go around solving crime, but I think that of almost all guys with shaved heads.”
Hi A Greene,
You know, I thought about that until I saw the difference in pay scales…
“Reminds me of a relative who worked for General Motors back in the early 80’s. They made anyone who drove a non-GM car, and especially a foreign car, park in the back lot so you couldn’t see the cars while you drove by.”
I’ve heard similar things said about Coca-Cola/Pepsi employees. Stuff like, if you were a truck driver and delivering Coca-Cola, having lunch at a Pepsico-owned restaurant (KFC, Taco Bell, etc.) was enough to get you fired.
–R.J.
Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not. Those who live together before marriage are generally less satisfied in their marriage than those who did not.
And then there are those who lived together, decided it wasn’t going to work out, didn’t get married and therefore never got divorced, but were not included in said studies.
I wonder how much that would skew the results.
I once had a discussion with an acquaintance about the living together before marriage issue. A mutual friend of ours was getting married after living together with his girlfried for six or so years. I quipped that the marriage would probably last in months the number of years that they had been together – to my dismay it did. My friend, who had scoffed at my prediction and was stunned by the sudden ending of the relationshoip, later told me about how his brother, who had been living with his girlfriend for years before getting married, encountered similar problems. Evidently the relationship became very rocky after it became a marriage and it took counseling to salvage it. He could not understand why. I told him about how a friend of my mother and father’s had gone through the same thing, but the marriage ended in divorce. Why? My mother told me that, after they got married, the man told his now wife, “Well, you’re my wife now, so you should make my lunch.” She could not grasp how, after making his own lunch for years, he was suddenly insisting that she make it for him simply because they were married. He felt it was her wifely duty, or some such nonsense.
I think it all boils down to marriage changing the dynamics of the relationship. Behavior that might be tolerated in a dating relationship can be considered completely unacceptable for a spouse. I won’t pretend that it boils down to the difference between “playing marriage” and “being married”, but the alteration in viewpoint does change the relationship – and sometime not for the better, no matter what your politics or religious belief. I think it has more to do with how you see your parents interacting that “educates” you about how married people are supposed to “act”.