Contrary to popular belief, both women and men were into the (magical!) royal wedding. According to a study that looked at social media activity among 100 million people, women made up 57% of those planning events to watch the wedding on TV, not the 99% you chauvinist pigs probably assumed it would have been. But apparently women and men watched the wedding for totally different reasons. Can you guess what they are? Duh: Women watched for the “romance,” men watched because of its importance as a historical event.
Here’s an irritating quote given to the Christian Science Monitor:
“The royal wedding is not as emotionally salient to men as it is to women,” says Terri Orbuch, a Detroit-based social psychologist and author, who adds, “women are far more invested in the relationships and connections around weddings than men in general.”
Remember, girls, the most important thing is weddings. Not even marriage (although that’s important too, you have to get married right away!) — just weddings. Weddings all the time.
The most bothersome thing about this story is that it uses the royal wedding to perpetuate the myth of an unbridgeable “head/heart split between men and women” without any actual reporting to back it up.They talked to like two guys who are British history nerds and toss in some hackneyed pop psych about Disney movies and fairy tales making girls grow up into romance-obsessed women.
What’s the point? This is just as annoying as when Amanda Hess wrote about how the royal wedding was like the Super Bowl for women (although a lot of what she had to say about “feminine” events being devalued in our culture was spot on, in fairness). No. The Super Bowl was the Super Bowl for women. We do not need a ghettoized girly version of the Super Bowl. Sometimes, women like sports, and even have an interest in history! Sometimes, men like weddings.
This article from the Village Voice Archive was posted on April 30, 2011