Skip to main content

check box mate

i am an unmarried woman who currently has a boyfriend.

i'd like you to take a few minutes to think about that because a lot of people, including the government of canada, seem to struggle to figure out what it means.

recently, i filled out the canadian census and was miffed to discover that there is no check box available for living with one's boyfriend. you are either married or you are "common law", meaning that if you're old enough to be living together it is generally assumed that you must have lapsed into a matrimonial state, because after the age of twenty, no one is comfortable with the idea that the relationship patterns you establish early on are more or less the same ones you have for the rest of your life. there is assumed to be something shameful about not being in a formally committed relationship.

my boss, for instance, struggles with what to call my boyfriend. he knows we're not married, so husband is incorrect, but he can't bring himself to use the correct term. so he calls him my fiance. when i point out that we are not ever getting married, he reverts to the endearing tag "your whatever you call him". b-o-y-f-r-i-e-n-d. it's not difficult, people.

i have nothing against the married. some of my best friends are married. i happen not to have followed that path. when i'm feeling confident, i believe that this is because i value my independence and i don't feel it necessary to make a formal commitment to anybody. when i'm wallowing in insecurity, i believe it is because i am unlikely to find someone who'd feel comfortable making that sort of formal commitment to me. (a keen observer would note that these are not mutually exclusive, but there's no need to engage in psychoanalysis here.)

whatever the reason, there is an almost tangible stigma to being single. in fact, people are so uncomfortable with those who choose to be single that they have difficulty referring to your relationship as anything but a marriage. apparently even the government gets edgy about it, because they won't let you choose the term that everyone has used since they were teenagers to refer to their significant other. if you're old enough to be filling out the census, you're too old for a boyfriend or girlfriend, apparently.

listen to me steve harper: no troops are going to die in afghanistan because you need more definition on my relationship. so quit giving me a set of little boxes with the words that make you comfortable. as a single person, no one is going to throw me a big party for not marrying the wrong guy. no one is going to remember to send me flowers on the anniversary of the date that i kicked a manipulative ex to the curb. the one advantage being unmarried affords you in today's society is that you are pretty much free to define or not define your relationships however you please. so next time you're writing up the census, i would like to suggest that you add another check box to your list of relationship definitions: none of your business.

Comments

Why dont they add two: "other" and "none of the above"?
Then again, I really like the "none of your damn business, narc". it just has a nice ring to it.
I got lucky and got to pick "single". I would have prefered "single, and looking"... or "Quagmire"...
DJ Tobias said…
Exactly - the census guy came to our door, and I encountered the same issue. Michelle and I are not married, and don't have plans to get married. Explaining that to the guy, and noting there wasn't a appropriate box on the form made him laugh, and he then mentioned that it wasn't the first time it had been pointed out.

... and by the way, you need to get yer arse onto slsk more often, ja?

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …