TIMPUL, 1940

WOMEN’S TIME and… Bachelors
 By Margareta Nicolau

On my most recent visit, I came with the intention of asking the lady editors about the issue of bachelors, stirred up by the text of the latest law. A burst of general laughter, a harmonious blend of voices, followed my question.

“Bachelors?” I was told. “We don’t know them! We don’t want to know them.”

I then turned to Mrs. Elena Dinu, whose response, cloaked in humor, I savored with great pleasure.

“They really are to be pitied, those poor bachelors, burdened as they are with so many troubles,” she said. “Without a doubt, those who still hesitated out of fear or shyness to throw themselves into a woman’s arms will finally make the leap thanks to the state’s initiative.”

The interesting question now is: what will men prefer? To marry, or to pay the tax?

What an offense if they choose to pay! In such cases, we might witness the rise of a new class of bachelors, proclaiming a new form of heroism, claiming they refuse the legal companionship of a woman just to increase state revenue.

Fortunately, with the help of spring—the season in which all life is reborn—women will prevail, and despite the excuse provided by the state itself, we will see the number of bachelors decreasing…

____________________________

REVISTA ECONOMICĂ, 1940

THE BACHELOR TAX

We have chosen to place the weight of certain fiscal duties on a specific category: bachelors. This represents a dual perspective of interests—both a failure to fulfill a matrimonial duty, and a deficiency in contributing to familial responsibilities.

And so, we said it would be fitting to impose a small tax—as a reminder—for those who display these characteristics, starting with the Minister of Finance himself, who happens to belong to this very category (applause).

Let this tax serve as a reminder of their unfulfilled marital duties.

____________________________

TIMPUL, 1943

WAR
 By Minerva

Men and women are engaged in a continuous war. A silent, hidden, dishonest war.

They can’t live without each other and seemingly coexist in perfect harmony, in mutual understanding—aside from the small or large quarrels, which, of course, are fleeting…

But if we were more attentive to what they say about one another—if we could listen to a conversation among men, or one among women, or even a mixed conversation—we’d see how harshly they judge one another, how many flaws they find, how deeply they disdain each other.

I’ve never heard a man—aside from the rare truly intelligent ones—speak kindly about women. Listening to them, you’d think they’d never gotten close to the “monster” that is woman, at least from their perspective.

And yet, they seek them out. They can’t live without them. But that’s a matter of another nature entirely.

The reality is they deeply despise each other—nearly hate each other.

What I’m saying is not merely an opinion. This hatred, this misunderstanding, this contempt for women can be observed everywhere—on the street, in trams, at the theatre—wherever selfishness is free to emerge from beneath the thin crust of good manners.

The explanation for this phenomenon is difficult to pinpoint, and we leave it to the scientists.

Still, I believe women must feel something strange when, trying to get on a tram, they receive a harsh shove from a very well-dressed gentleman who, under different circumstances, forgetting the incident, might just say to them: “I love you.”

Isn’t that bizarre?

____________________________

READERS’ CORRESPONDENCE

DORA, TIMIȘOARA:
 I’m seventeen and a student. I often dream and I’m afraid that the kind of love I’m looking for doesn’t really exist the way I imagine it. There are days when I truly feel discouraged. I’m not ugly, but I’m extremely (unreadable) and that frustrates me terribly. Still, I feel like I could love so beautifully.

ANSWER:
 When you’re seventeen, a girl who studies and enjoys dreaming, I’m afraid you’re doing so at the expense of an algebra problem or a philosophy assignment. This escape into the paradise of fantasies is either due to a dangerous lack of experience or to an imagination that’s empty and disconnected from reality.

At your age, there’s no need to go looking for love, because love does not remain indifferent to grace and youth. In any case, it is not during long hours of daydreaming that you will come to know it as it really is. If we usually imagine love as a charming young winged god, playful and lighthearted, in reality, it is something profoundly human—something better seen in the world around us than in our imaginations.

And don’t think the kind of love you imagine doesn’t exist. If it ever did, it was likely only in the novels you’ve read. Still, I have no doubt that you are capable of loving—because when you do meet love, you will forget the dream and see only the wonderful reality. And you will love not with your imagination, but with your heart.

Don’t be discouraged. Everything comes in its own time.

____________________________

MINERVA – Women Men Don’t Marry…

…Are often the very women they love the most. That may sound paradoxical, because when one loves, there’s usually only one desire: to make the beloved one’s own, completely and forever.

But men—despite appearances—know how to protect themselves. It’s said they are helpless in front of women, but at the last moment, they know how to defend themselves. Perhaps, like women, they have a secret code, a “sum” of experiences passed down from father to son—a kind of defensive weapon, to use a modern term—against their age-old enemy: woman.

We’re not here to say who’s better or worse—man or woman—but the truth is, both try to dominate the other.

Men might appear more vulnerable, but in reality, they are just as capable of self-protection. Their survival instinct may even be stronger than that of women.

This is clearest in their relationships with women—their feelings. It’s a known fact that, in most cases, men do not marry the women they love. They’ll do all kinds of crazy things for the woman they love—humble themselves, steal, or worse—declare they can’t live without her. But when it comes to marriage, they run away.

Some, driven by selfishness and bad manners, marry women they don’t even care for—just to “settle down”—while still hoping to maintain a relationship with the woman they truly love. How often do we hear, “I have to marry X, but I’ll love only you for the rest of my life”?

A great love is a form of defeat—it destroys the personality of the one who feels it. The person who loves like that becomes completely subject to the will and whims of the beloved, their entire life hanging on a single gesture or glance. And let’s admit: that’s not an appealing future.

Even for men, no matter how love-struck they seem, that prospect holds no appeal. And just when they seem most powerless, they protect themselves—by marrying women they like, or respect, or… who are wealthy.

Their instinct for self-preservation is stronger than the greatest love in the world.

____________________________

MINERVA – For the Jealous Ones

It’s commonly believed that jealousy is a sign of love. But it’s not. Jealousy is, in fact, the expression of the blindest and most limitless selfishness. It’s just as absurd as it is unjust—and especially useless—whether it has a reason or not. Because it is in vain that one tries to rekindle the love of someone who no longer loves them.

We do not love because we choose to. Nor do we make someone happy just because we want to. Love is a miraculous accident.

Indulgence—that is the great virtue of those who truly love. Don’t be the enemy of another’s happiness, especially since the chances for happiness in life are so few.

There comes a time when you look in the mirror and say, “I only have a few years left!”—that, that is terrifying. You begin to rush, take whatever you can get, and often make foolish choices. But it doesn’t matter.

If you’re jealous, you should hide—like lepers used to.

No one has the right to block someone else’s happiness. No one has the right to interfere with another person’s fleeting moments of joy—because those moments are not stolen from anyone.

Yes, when we’re jealous, just like when we’re in love, we may not be able to help it—it arrives uninvited. But precisely because of that, jealousy, even if we can’t stop it, should be kept to ourselves. Let’s not poison the lives of others with it.

Let’s try to understand the other person. Let’s put ourselves in their shoes. And above all, let’s be generous enough not to darken their brief flashes of happiness—because they are rare.

And if they are cruel, let’s remember that one day—when they least expect it—they too will suffer, just as we do.

Because love… love is the most fleeting of all feelings.

____________________________

MOLDOVA LIBERĂ, 1947

ETCHINGS
 “Marriage: 2 lei per word”

I usually follow the marriage announcements section that appears in nearly all the daily newspapers in Bucharest. Besides its civic interest, this section can also occasionally offer rare moments of amusement to humor enthusiasts.

Usually, this section serves as a pretext for all sorts of pranks, each more mischievous than the last.

A young playwright from Bucharest, who wanted a full house at his premiere, placed the following ad:
 “Exceptionally wealthy young man seeks marriage with an honest, sincere soul, preferably someone without wealth. Interested ladies are asked to attend the premiere of play X at theater Y, holding a volume by the author in hand.”

Of course, the theater was packed that night with marriage-minded women… all “disinterested,” of course.

We read in a morning paper:
 “Widower, 55 years old, property owner, elegant villa with heating and refrigerator, seeks marriage with a working woman, possibly a seamstress.”

The gentleman with the fridge would still like to be assured of two working arms! As for the refrigerator, perhaps that will help him better preserve his age inside it.

Another ad reads:
 “Seeking marriage for my daughter, high school graduate, 22 years old, dowry of 150,000 stabilized lei.”

Where once you paid that much for a theater ticket, today a wife can boast of a large dowry. In truth, the husband walks into a kind of theater where he’ll play the main role—alone—for 150,000 lei for life.

Dowries, which were once announced in gold coins, medals, or foreign currency, are now proudly declared in “stabilized lei.”

Thus, the husband who no longer receives “little roosters” (a Romanian euphemism for money) may now be expected to play the rooster himself… at home!

Another ad:
 “Retired and well-off, seeks marriage with a widowed lady with means, preferably with winter provisions.”

The prudence of pensioners.
 IGNOTUS

____________________________

STEAGUL ROȘU, 1957

Serial
 The Bachelor’s Troubles

Let’s skip any sort of introduction and get straight to the point: it’s not good to be a bachelor!
 You’re probably already familiar with the downsides of bachelor life, so I won’t bother listing them. I’ll focus on one particular aspect—housekeeping—which for a bachelor coincides with the chores of a housewife. Specifically, I’m talking about cooking.

I’ve seen many unmarried men who, once they get home, put on an apron, roll up their sleeves, and get to work making chicken stew. (Parenthetically, I should say there are married men too, who, due to “certain circumstances,” do these things—but that’s another matter!)

As I was saying, the bachelor—just like a housewife—is constantly on the hunt for new tricks that might help him better prepare his rice pudding or sautéed carrots. I have such a friend. He’s a decent guy, but due to his “principles,” he’s always hunting for goulash recipes or searching for a “miracle pot,” among other things.

One day, I ran into him on the street. He was carrying a package and looked positively radiant.

“Eureka, man!” he shouted.
 “Well done,” I said. “You found your dream woman?”
 “Cut it out,” he replied. “I found… the perfect machine. Leguma.” And he showed me the package he was holding: a machine for slicing and peeling fruits and vegetables.

“Don’t be mad,” I teased. “Does it also eat the vegetables for you?”
 “You’re not being serious! I’m sharing a joy with you, and you’re making jokes.”

I tried to change the subject:
 “You going to the match on Sunday?”
 “What match? On Sunday, I’m testing out the new machine. So far, I’ve got the slicer, and in a few days they promised I’ll be able to get the peeler attachment too. I’ll be busy. But if you want, come by before the match—I’ll serve you a homemade meal, just like Mom used to make.”
 “I don’t want to trouble you,” I said.
 “It’s no trouble; I’ll be cooking anyway…”

We said goodbye, and I watched him float off down the street, holding the machine like a trophy.

On Sunday, I took up his invitation. I wanted to see my friend’s culinary skills firsthand. He greeted me happily but looked a bit awkward.

“Maybe I’m disturbing you,” I offered.
 “Not at all,” he said. “Sit down. I just have to prepare the roux and then I’ll serve you.”

A few minutes later, he invited me to the table. First course: an oriental salad with potatoes, cucumbers, turnips, etc. Feeling obliged—like a polite houseguest—I complimented him:

“What beautiful presentation! Such finesse in slicing the vegetables!”

He puffed up with pride:
 “The Leguma machine, made by Metrom factory, does wonders!”

I started to eat. The salad tasted terrible. Bitter. Sour. I forced down a few bites and pushed the plate aside.

“You know, I’m not that hungry.”

Second course: roast with carrots. Inedible. The apple compote—also awful. Seeing that I barely touched anything, he felt compelled to explain:

“You see, that machine I mentioned—I went to buy the peeling attachment. They told me it’s only sold as a set with the slicer. I tried to explain I already had the slicer, but no luck. They only sell it as a combo. So I prepare the fruits and vegetables beautifully sliced—but unpeeled.”

I froze. Seeing the horrified look on my face, he asked:

“Could you tell?”

“Nooo!” I replied while grabbing my coat and bolting out the door.

Once on the street, I heard him shouting after me:

“The peels are full of vitamins!”

____________________________

ROMÂNIA LIBERĂ, 1958

MATRIMONIAL “SOLUTIONS”

Photogenic and sometimes romantic, spring – that consummate beautician – has begun to retouch nature’s wrinkles with the blush of apricot blossoms. But in recent days, her breeze has also been felt in the envelopes arriving at the editorial office. Among the many letters, we’ve found some dedicated to love and the proper arrangement of lasting marriages. People share their life problems with the newspaper as they would with a dear friend. And that’s good! But alas, sometimes these envelopes contain skewed words that reveal dubious opinions on significant matters.

We had just closed a letter from a reader in Sibiu named NIȚĂ PANDELE, who humbly and “sentimentally” confesses his desire to marry a girl with a “dowry,” when another envelope gave us pause… Our reader MARCEL BIRNBAUM, a “dental surgeon” by profession, sent us a letter (otherwise judicious in certain respects) in which – among other things – he “finds the solution” to “emotional instability.” “It would be good,” he writes, “to publish matrimonial ads. For example: ‘Comrade (or comrade) age (dot, dot, dot), owner of a fully furnished apartment, wishes to marry…’” And then perhaps physical characteristics (eye color, shoe size, etc.). The letter’s author then pathetically proclaims in prose: “How many solid marriages (more solid than those based on love) have resulted from acquaintances made through the CLASSIFIEDS?”

Is that so? Is this how two good friends, inspired by the same ideals, trustworthy companions in life’s storms and joys, establish a home? A mercantile view of life! To those interested in such matrimonial contracts, we suggest – to stay in tune – another ad, but phrased as follows: “Lost: conscience and a healthy attitude towards life. If found, please return them promptly.”litere.ucv.ro+2Scribd+2Wilson Center+2YUMPU+1Asociatia Alpha+1

That would indeed be a “solution”!

  1. TABACU

____________________________

FEMEIA, 1960

ON COMRADESHIP, FRIENDSHIP, LOVE

At a “Youth Thursday,” Talking with the Young Workers from the “Klement Gottwald” Factories

In addition to their concern for producing quality goods, the youth at the factory are also committed to continuously improving their skills, ideological and political levels, and to behaving in accordance with communist morals, both in public and personal life. This is evidenced by the way “Youth Thursdays” are organized at the factory club, where, alongside programs of songs and dances, competitions, lectures, and discussions on topics that concern our youth are highly successful.

Among the discussions held during such a “Thursday” was the one above. We thought it would be interesting for our readers to share some of the questions and answers that the young workers from the “Klement Gottwald” Factories received from university lecturer Vera Frimu-Popovici.

Q: How should a young man behave towards his female comrades at work?

A: With the trust, respect, and appreciation we owe to any person who contributes through honest and devoted work to building a better life for all—a just, socialist life. “It’s common sense,” one might say. Yet, things don’t always go that way. Let’s take an example:

In the prototype section, a girl and a boy work together on winding. A friend of the young man approaches. The night before, he had spent time with a woman. He had fun, so to speak, and now wants to boast to his friend about his success with women. He recounts a rather unpleasant scene in detail, using vulgar language. All this without considering that next to him is a young girl of 17-18 years, who is just beginning to understand life, and who should not learn about bourgeois morals—hypocrisy, fickleness, selfishness, vulgarity—but rather about what characterizes personal relationships in our society—civilized, delicate behavior, full of care and love for others, sincere and open.

In every girl, we must see a symbol of delicacy, a being who must be protected and esteemed for her virtues as a future wife and mother. This is, I believe, the reason why we stand up and offer her our seat on the tram or at a gathering; why we greet her first and don’t wait for her to greet the man; why we often feel the need to protect her.

However, it’s not enough to have just an attentive and delicate attitude towards girls. We need to spare them, as much as possible, from physical efforts that are too great for their strength. It’s crude and simplistic to argue, as some young men do, that since women have equal rights with men, they should, for example, lift loads just as heavy as men. Thousands of women in our country have worked hard in the past, fulfilling their duties as mothers and wives. The best and bravest among them have suffered in prisons for daring to fight against the capitalist regime. When needed, they didn’t hesitate to fight on the front lines, shoulder to shoulder with men.

Q: Must love between two young people necessarily lead to marriage?

A: Communist morality does not view love as an isolated phenomenon but as closely linked to the role and place that the socialist family must have in our state. Marriage needs to be based on love so that a person’s personal life is better, happier, so that the family lives a normal life based on mutual respect and understanding between spouses, and within it, children find a healthy, principled, harmonious moral environment to develop properly.

Whoever asked this question seems to consider “love” as a fleeting physical attraction, a mere amusement.

Friedrich Engels said that if a person feels the need for a new love every two years, such a nature must be overcome to avoid entangling oneself and others in endless tragic conflicts.

Love is a deep and lasting feeling. Those who love want to always be together, to solve life’s problems together. Therefore, love is accompanied by friendship. And who are those good friends who wish to be friends only until a certain date?

Love that does not aspire to be long-lasting, unique, and to result in cohabitation is not love.

Moreover, love is not a feeling experienced alone. It involves two people, deliberately and consciously. And it results in a third. We need to consider the consequences of our actions on others. We are each responsible for how we raise our future citizens. Free love—a sad remnant of petty-bourgeois anarchism—actually means a relationship that allows one to be “free,” freed from any obligations towards the loved one and society.

Avoiding responsibility, lack of seriousness and moral restraint, weakness of character are traits that characterize those who favor free love. Communist morality does not allow us to separate personal interests from collective ones. Our collective has every interest in establishing such morality, to build families in which the people who compose them live in a healthy climate of peace and satisfaction, where they can restore their working strength. “To know how to control oneself,” said Lenin, “to discipline one’s actions, this is not slavery. This is equally necessary in love.”

Without claiming to give recipes, I believe it’s not boring when colleagues marry each other. People who have spent a lot of time together have had the chance to thoroughly test their feelings, know what to expect from each other, what flaws and qualities they have, and unpleasant surprises after marriage can be fewer. I don’t think, comrade engineer, that it’s a source of boredom if your future wife has the same profession as you. Did the Curies get bored together? They had the same profession. Does it say anywhere in Lucia Sturdza Bulandra’s memoirs that she got bored with her husband, Tony Bulandra, also an artist? On the contrary, I believe that people who have the same profession have much to discuss together and, with united efforts, can bring many innovations to the field in which they work.

(…)

“Communism,” rightly said Vladimir Mayakovsky, “is not only found in the fields, in factories, where you work. It is also at home, at the table, in relationships, in the family, in intimate life.”

VERA FRIMU-POPOVICI

____________________________

FEMEIA, 1968 – Investigation by MIHAI STOIAN

Is the Human Soul a Mechanism with Gears?

“I wouldn’t have written to you if I didn’t have an issue that, while personal, I believe is also relevant to other young women my age. I’m 23 years old, an only child (and I now realize that’s not ideal). I finished high school, failed the university entrance exam, and, following my father’s advice, enrolled in a statistics program. I lasted only four months before he advised me to quit, claiming the work was too dehumanizing and that, in his words, ‘a girl should be like a flower, always fresh.’ So, as always, I listened to him. I turned to reading and haven’t missed a literary release since. I’ve also attended every theater tour and concert. This routine brought me balance, and I truly believe I’m not wasting my time.

However, this carefully cultivated atmosphere was disrupted by a young man I met through a friend. He’s an engineer. Initially, he struck me as extremely serious, which, I admit, I found appealing. He’s also handsome, but there’s something more about him that captivated me from the start. Over time, I realized he doesn’t fully enjoy life; he analyzes everything down to the last detail, turning every experience into a logical explanation or technical interpretation. For him, Art (with a capital ‘A’) is merely entertainment, something optional. He often tells me I should find a profession, discover my dominant personality trait (if I have one!), and pursue a career accordingly. When I mention art exhibitions or performances, he simply laughs, claiming he has no time for such things.

I’ve asked him, ‘Is the human soul just a mechanism with gears?’ He laughed, just as he did when I took him to an art exhibition; he mocked each painting, commenting loudly, and I don’t think he understood much. Clearly, he hasn’t been educated to appreciate art or literature. He insists that to excel in a profession, one must focus solely on it, avoiding distractions from other fields, lest one becomes ‘diluted.

I don’t seek a direct answer, as it’s impossible to convey all the nuances of a relationship in these lines. But I would genuinely like to know: is it possible to love someone who is so different from oneself?”

With friendship, DOINA C…

____________________________

SCINTEIA TINERETULUI, 1969

DE LA OM LA OM

By ION BĂIEȘU

I have over a hundred letters addressed to Cornel Paraschiv, all opposing the reintroduction of matrimonial ads in our press, considering them, rightly so, ridiculous, foolish, and inconsistent with socialist decency and moral standards.

Cornel Paraschiv visited our editorial office multiple times, expressing his strong dissatisfaction with both my reaction and that of the readers. He declared he would continue to fight for the ‘sacred cause’ of matrimonial ads, even threatening to marry a… deaf-mute in protest if unsuccessful. Wishing him success and happiness, I parted ways with him after thoroughly enjoying reading his ‘Family Code,’ which comprised 87 stringent and severe conditions and rules.

Starting next Saturday, our column returns to normal:

Sabina A. – Bucharest:
 “I’m 38 years old, though I don’t look it. I’m of standard dimensions (1.63 m, 60 kg, well-proportioned), have a very good financial situation (engineer, own an apartment, savings for a car), yet I’m alone. At work, I sit at my desk for 9 hours a day in a design office with 40 married men or those at least ten years younger than me. After work, I go home, maintaining a dignified demeanor on the street that doesn’t invite one-day adventures. At home, there’s no one to introduce me to potential partners; my family consists of an elderly mother suffering from a relentless illness, and I have no other relatives. In my apartment building, everyone is married, and no wife wants to bring into her home a pleasant, well-situated, and thus potentially threatening woman.

Tell me, dear comrade Băieșu, what would you do in my place? How would you meet someone willing to marry you, and if you did, what are the chances that person would meet the minimum conditions for a shared life? Doesn’t it seem logical to create a ‘market,’ as you call it, where people can meet and choose based on individual needs and characteristics? Why is it acceptable for someone to choose a career or a home but not a life partner? Choosing implies having options, not just one. But where and how can this field of research, acquaintance, and selection be realized if not through a public information medium used in all other forms of activity?

If ‘informational bombardment’ is constant in our professions, why is there such a lack of information in our personal lives? Even if some unserious ads appear in a potential matrimonial column, what harm could they do? No one can force us to the civil registry, nor prevent us from ending any relationship with someone who proves untrustworthy. At the very least, having the opportunity to correspond would give us the illusion of escaping the loneliness to which some of us are condemned, prompting me to write to you, taking up your valuable time, instead of reaching out to those who might be interested but whom I have no way of finding.

So, I personally ask you not to send me addresses of those seeking a house and car but a general solution: what would you do in my place to find a suitable partner when there’s no way to make any acquaintances? Don’t you think it’s imperative to have an information column regarding ‘market availability’ and to prospect ‘offerings’ in the matrimonial field, given the isolation and time constraints characteristic of our era?”

Here is the full English translation of the original Romanian text:

Răzvan Angelescu, Bucharest:
“…It seems that this Corneliu Paraschiv is consumed by the search for the absolute, like the heroes of Camil Petrescu: not even literature has created such heroines, almost perfect, who truly live. For example, Madame T from The Bed of Procrustes, about whom many literary historians and critics, including George Călinescu, have pointed out that she is a character who does not live.
I want to point out some contradictions in the conditions listed by C.P., who, I presume, sees himself as the male counterpart of the ideal woman he has described. Moreover, these contradictions are not formal, but rather concern this supposed bundle of qualities, devoid of flaws, that he claims to possess.

Condition no. 5: to have a job – she, the ideal woman. In relation to what? The purity of romantic ideals? I find it hard to believe that money, regardless of its honest origin, could contribute to the elevation, on an emotional-spiritual level, of love.

There are more contradictions. Readers surely have discovered them by now. I just want to draw the attention of the young rebel to two issues:

  1. Women too seek an ideal man and, let’s be honest, rarely find him. And they shouldn’t have to – see why Saint Sisoe from Topârceanu’s writings was bored in Heaven.
  2. Among all the 18 conditions, the words ‘love,’ ‘affection,’ or anything similar never appear. But isn’t love the foundation of a successful marriage?

As for the proposal of a matrimonial column, it might serve to replace the old matchmakers (dealers of aging grooms and withered brides), deceptive and grasping. But what young person would turn to such matrimonial services? Everyone knows that youth, in matters of the heart, finds its own path – and does so quite well.”

P. – Plopeni:
“…I am 25 years old, unmarried, and by profession an engineer. I mention this to justify the tone of my open-letter-article to Cornel Paraschiv. So:

Mr. Paraschiv,

The hydrostatic paradox is merely a drawing-room dilemma in the face of the mythical test that I could only follow to the end in a moment of spontaneous enthusiasm. The ideal woman (if she existed) would tremble and pale with emotion at the very thought that one day (evening or morning), she might stand before you. Through such a filter, any woman would emerge at the other end as nothing more than a weary molecule longing for passive rest.

In fact, each of us builds, before or after marriage, a life catalog with unstandardized and flexible rules (even space programs, as we’ve seen, are not strictly followed). We feverishly search for the woman who is young but mature in thinking, beautiful and attractive, intelligent and domestically skilled, prepared for life. Some of us are more or less fond of material and moral comfort; others have even more questionable ideas. But compiling an unofficial ranking of demanding men, you would indisputably take first place.

And if, who knows, among the five million young women, there is even one who accepts or meets these conditions – this quasi-mathematical program – I’m convinced that the second filter, reading and especially adhering to My Family Code, will transform the poor molecule into an electron eager to leave its orbit and abandon any atomic system.

I do not wish to entirely discredit what you have said. Many of the 18 conditions are sound life principles and in accordance with our socialist ethics. But we must admit that achieving perfect harmony from the very beginning is difficult. Only time is the true factor that will cement and polish the rough edges and irregularities of each component, eventually leading to a harmonious and lasting marriage.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that setting conditions before or after marriage reveals a hidden fear of the future – a future that brings new, never-before-seen challenges, in front of which we must not despair. Preparing for life does not mean armoring oneself with two dozen dogmas and principles to later avoid possible incidents.”

Vivi V. – Bihor:
“…Under no circumstances would I want this highly interesting column to turn into a marriage proposal section. It would be a pity if this happened, because I wouldn’t even be surprised if some started writing that they want to sell their car, their house – and why not? – even themselves…

I’m from Bihor, from a locality near Mount Găina, where there once was a girls’ fair. Do we really need to re-establish a market like the one that once existed on this mountain? I believe not, because that tradition was primitive and humiliating for women…”

____________________________

FEMEIA, 1969

“IF YOU WERE A MAN, HOW WOULD YOU TREAT WOMEN?”

I must be careful that this article doesn’t come off as grumpy. It shouldn’t have, even in disguise, a demanding tone, nor should it acquire a hint of feminine nagging; because I feel that danger lurking somewhere. Its intention was as innocent as possible and— I swear— far from any moralizing tendency. It even seemed to me that such a question as the one in the title could incite the sense of humor in my female interlocutors and, for a moment, the satisfaction of feeling themselves in the well-established positions of the stronger sex. And yet, it wasn’t so; the survey elicited only, “in order of appearance,” the following reactions:

  • a deep sigh;
  • a dreamy state;
  • a small surge of revolt; and,
  • especially, an angelic disposition.

Suddenly, I realized that if women had been men, the latter would have worn little wings on their shoulders, a golden halo on their heads, and a long, starched shirt.

“If I were a man, I would know how to say a delicate word exactly when it’s needed,” “I wouldn’t let my wife do all the housework alone,” “I would be attentive,” “I would at least help with the shopping,” “I would procure, even just once a month, tickets to a show,” “I would take care of the child’s homework,” etc., etc…

In a word, men would have been angels: without worldly sins, only smiles on their faces and honey on their lips, archangels educated in finishing schools and with a very healthy vocation for household chores. But, as is well known, men are not angels at all, finishing schools are no longer part of the modern concept of education, and women, unfortunately, cannot transform into men. So…

Something still makes me suppose that if this survey had been conducted in reverse, that is, if we had been curious to find out how men would behave in feminine roles, we would have reached a similar conclusion: the aspiration towards angelic women. Which, let’s admit, would have been disastrous for the future of humanity: it’s known that angels did not ensure the globe’s most intense demographic development…

Since we’ve proposed this game, let’s still see how it would be if…

Precisely, the male population would have been divided into three major categories, in the following preferential order:

CATEGORY I: The Sensitive Ones. Tender, delicate, attentive men who never forget their wife’s birthday. Who don’t read newspapers at home, at the table. Who remember that sweet words and compliments are said even after engagement. Who don’t consider that the March 1st trinket is a pagan-origin prejudice and that March 8th has become outdated. Who don’t think that carrying a bouquet of flowers on the street (towards home!) is something compromising. Who know they must get off the tram first to be able to extend a hand and thus help their wife. Who don’t believe they are the center of the universe and that everything revolves around their shining person…

CATEGORY II: The Housekeepers. Men who know how to shop well, cheaply, and quickly. Who have understood that heavier chores prematurely alter feminine beauty (and, consequently, they perform them). Who know enough math to help their sixth-grade son solve problems for the next day. Who don’t think that the only thing worth saving for must bear the brand “Fiat” or “Renault.” Who don’t have a passion for daily soups and are content, every two days, with fried eggs and green salad. Who bring the paycheck envelope intact. Who repair the iron and television themselves. Who hate football and consider it a remnant of barbaric pleasures…

CATEGORY III: Sensitive and Housekeepers at the Same Time. An ideal category, therefore nonexistent. Summing up 99% of women’s— of course, futile— votes.

1% of the surveyed female companions confessed, with a bit of self-critical and self-ironic sense, that in the role of men:

  • they would learn the art of flattery— women believe so much in beautiful words (even if empty!);
  • they wouldn’t show their weaknesses: women feel so tempted to exploit them!;
  • they would always agree with them, even if just for form; women care so much about having the last word.

It seems to me that this 1% is the most right. Think that the men of the earth would be part of the three categories mentioned and dreamed of above: don’t you think it would be a great boredom on the surface of the old Earth?

SANDA FAUR

____________________________

DRUM NOU, 1970

Do You Have a Personal Problem? Let’s Seek the Answer Together… by R. PORTER

Our correspondent proposes the re-establishment of those pitiful announcements of yesteryear where a few would display their wealth, age, and physical condition, akin to consignment goods, always avoided by buyers. But between acquiring a gas cylinder and contracting a marriage, it seems to me… there’s a big difference. Could this be the desire of today’s youth, candidates for marital happiness? I doubt it. I recall, I don’t know why, the image of a horse fair near the Danube. I once attended out of curiosity the sale of a horse. It was a horse like any other, but the owner would lift its lip, showing everyone “teeth never seen before,” slap its thighs, praising its “steel muscles,” even speaking of a special intelligence acquired by the animal in his yard. I mention this because I. R. Paraschinoiu probably forgot to include in the desired characterological sheet some sections containing details about… past and present illnesses and ailments.

Regarding the “club of marriage candidates over 28 years old,” I can only smile. Materializing this idea would be nothing but a ridiculous laboratory experiment, because youth, with all its attributes of vitality and exuberance, cannot be confined “one day a week” in a test tube sterilized against the tumult of life. As for the qualities you demand from your future wife, I hardly believe you’ll find the mold in real life. To what extent can you yourself meet the requirements demanded of the beloved woman? Let’s wait, however, for the readers’ opinions. The discussion could be fruitful starting precisely from the published letter:

“I am still quite young (only 32 years old), and if I support what you will read, I do so not so much for myself but for many others who think like me. Getting straight to the point, I would ask you how a young woman or a more ‘mature’ young man (let’s say around 30 years old) who hasn’t had the luck to find the beloved being to tie their life to forever should proceed? With a bit of irony, you might answer: ‘simple, to look for the beloved being.’ But I ask again, where? At this age, the opportunity for an acquaintance is much harder. You can’t roam (like at 20…) through cafes, at gatherings or balls, you can no longer try your luck with a street acquaintance, etc., because age no longer allows you to wander, like any youngster, through noisy and crowded places, where friendships are so easily formed. One reason might also be that you simply don’t adapt, you’re not integrated, you’re not accepted in the end. But at this age, the need for a home, a family is fully felt, and, to be honest, it’s hard to find a suitable wife in terms of age, profession, or at least morally. I am also young, I’ve lived life to the fullest and I know the worth of some girls today. For me, a future wife must be chaste, have at least finished high school, have a job, be beautiful, intelligent, modest in all, without absurd pretensions, sincere, honest, fair, demanding, proud of herself and me, serious and dignified, have a refined education, wish for marriage and know why she’s doing it. I don’t necessarily insist on her having wealth, but neither should she be penniless. I only want the spiritual dowry that makes the beloved woman that altar of marriage where you can soothe your sufferings, taste joys, overcome troubles, to be her master and for her to be mine…

But I ask you—how can I find such a woman?
 Because my material, moral, and physical standing allows me to choose her only based on the criteria listed above.
 I’ve proposed to several magazines and newspapers the creation of a matrimonial announcements section.
 If I could, I would write an ad like this:

“Young, intellectual, presentable—indeed, handsome—with financial stability, 1.78 m tall, dark-haired, black eyes, slim, intelligent, idealistic in the pursuit of pure love, longing for sincerity and truth, seeking a woman for marriage who meets the above-mentioned expectations.”

I am sure there are still girls in this world who match me.
 But how can I find them?

Would it not be possible, for example, that clubs or cultural centers reserve one day a week exclusively for people over 28 years old—serious individuals genuinely interested in marriage?
 In an appropriate setting, protected by the necessary discretion, with soft, pleasant music, these young people could form real, meaningful connections—free from the brutal interruption of loud guitars and drums, and without the intrusion of the so-called “cheerful youth” who take everything too lightly.

They could play rummy, chess, or other two-person games that offer the opportunity to get to know one another.

Don’t you think my proposal is well founded?
 How many marriages falter simply because the two partners didn’t know each other well enough beforehand?

For the more timid ones, a matrimonial ads section would at least allow them to start corresponding by letter—until they work up the courage to meet in person.

____________________________

FEMEIA, 1970

Ilie Constantin

____________________________

FEMEIA, 1971

CONFESSIONS OF A BOY

Maybe I’m wrong, but I imagine that girls too, before any experience, create for themselves some kind of ideal boy (from movies or books, from stories or who knows how—but I believe they piece something like that together). He has to resemble Belmondo or Delon, maybe Florin Piersic, and be either smart or blond, brave or cultured. That’s what I think.

In any case, I swear to you that boys have a very clear idea or ideal about her long before they actually meet her. I don’t know a single boy who doesn’t know in the smallest details how the girl he dreams of is supposed to look (necessarily!—there are no compromises here).

Let me tell you, for example, what I dream of. I, for instance, think she should be blonde (a metallic kind of blonde, cool and shiny). She should have blue eyes (enhanced by huge, natural lashes), with some greenish glimmers—how should I explain—like little stars that sparkle beautifully when she’s happy or just cheerful. As for lips, I’d like shade 27 Revlon, obviously without the Revlon.

She shouldn’t be too tall, but should move like a ballerina—or better, like a vine… no… Actually, I can’t describe this exactly, but I know she moves gracefully, glides, barely touches the soft carpet, and in any case, silk should sound underfoot.

That’s what she should be like. Or rather, should have been.
 Until… Until!

Now let’s talk honestly, as friends—like (let’s say) between guys. Let me describe what she actually looks like. She’s brunette, has brown, small almond-shaped eyes (like a Japanese girl’s) and no stars in them. She’s very tall. As for gliding or floating, she walks very straight and I think it’s enough to tell you she’s a professional athlete: a discus thrower. I’m not joking at all.

I can assure you that most of my friends have ended up with similar harmonies between ideal and reality. Curiously, none of us feel we’ve betrayed our ideal. I’ve thought a lot about this oddity and I think I’ve come to some conclusions.

I recently read the results of a survey conducted in France by Marie Claire and in West Germany by the magazine Quick. To the question: “What is the most essential quality you want in a girl?”, with the suggested answers being: 1. Beauty; 2. Femininity; 3. Intelligence; 4. Culture; 5. Personality—the results from over 5,000 boys were:

France:
 32% femininity
 28% personality
 15% intelligence
 15% culture
 10% beauty

West Germany:
 35% personality
 30% femininity
 18% culture
 10% beauty
 7% intelligence

I believe (and everything I say from here on is just my personal opinion) that the percentages are very true for us too. Even though all boys project an ideal starting from physical appearance, when it comes to actually having a girlfriend, they are impressed by completely different qualities than beauty. I don’t know a single boy who would admit, even in words, that he wants to be friends with a girl, forgive me, who is silly just because she’s beautiful.

(That it happens in real life anyway is another story—there are still many things unexplained scientifically in this delicate area.)

But the results of the survey and the observation that beauty doesn’t come first don’t explain much.

WHAT IS, AFTER ALL, PERSONALITY?

Again, these are just my thoughts.

I believe the most important thing remains personality—the sum of qualities through which you define yourself in relation to others, the set of traits that make you different from everyone else. I think those who truly have personality are those who succeed in fully and coherently developing their natural qualities. In other words, I believe personality is a matter of willpower and education. For boys just as much as for girls.

Here I disagree with the way the survey split the answers, because intelligence and culture—among other things—define personality. A girl who sits silently in an interesting conversation or who joins in only to miss another opportunity to remain silent isn’t exactly pleasant company. Of course, not everyone knows everything, and there are situations where it’s better to listen. But I believe listening is often a matter of tact, and tact is a great quality.

Some girls think having personality means constantly contradicting, which is extremely annoying. You can be sure, in such a case, that she will automatically say “no” just as there are dull and bland people who always say “yes.” In a conversation, I’d like to feel that a “yes” or “no” expresses a thoughtful opinion, maybe advice—not just a whim or a strategy to seem “interesting.”

“Interesting” (in quotes) isn’t really interesting at all. Everyone senses that it can be achieved easily, without imagination.

I think that’s a rich source of confusion. To have personality means to affirm your individual mark, to stand out in some way. But standing out isn’t the same as being different. Nothing easier than being different from others: just dress strangely, exaggerate your makeup, dye your hair an impossible color. And many, boys and girls alike, believe they are “creating” a personality this way.

But the failure of such a concept becomes clear when you realize that those who want to “stand out” look so much alike that you can’t even tell them apart.

To stand out means to exist with modesty, to be noticed for elegance even in the most ordinary dress, to be intelligently silent. There are few people (or fewer) who can stand up to the opinions of others without showiness and without the help of superficial tricks. But only someone truly confident in their inner strength—someone with personality—can afford to do that.

You need to be truly educated and confident in your knowledge to avoid showing off, to trust in your human quality and its real value rather than thinking it can be replaced with trousers covered in flowers no one else has.

True personality takes longer to form, and is certainly less flashy than a dramatic outfit or bold hair color. A flashy dress costs a few hundred lei; a modest, high-quality, deeply personal presence takes years of willpower, taste, reading, and thinking about what you read.

But I swear to you, believe me: beyond survey results, every boy dreams of a girl in whom he can discover, under ever-changing appearances, intelligence, will, character, tact, gentleness, intransigence, culture, lyricism, kindness, camaraderie, understanding, unrest, calm…

Even the boys who (10%) voted for beauty.

CE ÎNSEAMNĂ, ÎN DEFINITIV, PERSONALITATE?

Here is the English translation of your text:

“I repeat that everything that follows is just my opinion, nothing more.”

I think the most important thing remains, after all, personality—the sum of qualities through which you define yourself in relation to others, the set of personal traits that make you different from everyone else. I believe that people who manage to fully and harmoniously develop their natural abilities truly possess personality. In other words, I believe personality is a matter of willpower and education. For boys as well as for girls.

Here, I don’t quite agree with the suggested answers to the survey I mentioned earlier, because intelligence and culture—among other things—define a personality and are part of that sum of qualities that make someone stand out. A girl who silently witnesses an interesting conversation, or who intervenes only to waste another good opportunity to stay quiet, is in any case not a pleasant thing. Of course, not everyone knows everything about everything, and there are many situations where it’s better to listen. But I believe listening is often a matter of tact, and tact is a very great quality.

Some girls seem to think having personality means constantly contradicting everything—which is extremely annoying. You can be sure, when dealing with such a case, that she will automatically say “no” just like some dull, bland people always say “yes.” In a conversation, I’d love to feel that a “yes” or a “no” expresses a thought-out opinion, that it represents an actual point of view or even advice—and especially that it isn’t just a whim or a strategy for seeming “interesting.” “Interesting” (in quotation marks)—besides the fact that there’s nothing truly interesting in that—everyone knows can be achieved effortlessly and without any imagination.

This, I believe, is a rich source of confusion. To have personality means to assert your personal note, to distinguish yourself through something. To distinguish yourself is not the same as to be different. Nothing is easier than being different from others. Just wear very strange clothes, overdo your eye makeup, or dye your hair an impossible color (and there are many boys and girls who believe they’re “creating” a personality this way). But the failure of such a concept becomes very clear when you realize that those who try to “be different” end up looking so much like each other that you can’t tell them apart anymore.

To distinguish yourself means to exist modestly, to be noticed through elegance even in the most ordinary dress, and even to be intelligent while silent. There are few people (or fewer) who can stand up to the opinions of others without being showy and without relying on external gimmicks. But only someone confident in their inner strength—that is, someone with personality—can afford the luxury of doing so. You must be truly educated and secure in your knowledge not to show off your culture. You must believe in your human quality and its true value to avoid thinking it can be replaced by a pair of pants with some flowers no one else has.

True personality shapes and asserts itself more slowly, and is, of course, less flashy than an exaggerated outfit or a loud color. A garish dress costs a few hundred lei, while a modest, high-quality, deeply personal presence costs a few years of willpower training, taste education, reading, and thinking deeply about what you read.

But I swear to you—believe me—aside from the survey results, every boy dreams of a girl in whom he can discover, under ever-changing appearances, intelligence, will, character, tact, gentleness, firmness, culture, lyricism, kindness, camaraderie, understanding, inner struggle, peace…

Every one of the boys—even those (10%) who voted for beauty.

And femininity?

And here, again, I believe a second mistake should be corrected—one that slipped into the survey questions. What I said about personality applies, in a way, to both girls and boys, in almost equal measure. But in the personality of a girl, there must also be a note of femininity. I, for one—and I don’t think I’m alone—would by no means separate femininity from a girl’s personality.

I believe my male friends—whom I choose based on my own criteria, whether we get along or not, whether we share interests or not—give me enough camaraderie and satisfaction. That doesn’t mean, however, that the girl I want (to speak like in a pop song) shouldn’t also be a good comrade; in fact, I’d like her to be the best comrade. But different from any of the boys.

And, after all, why must we confuse “camaraderie” with boyish gestures or language? I, for one, don’t like boys who shove each other, spit on the street, talk sarcastically, or behave crudely.

The camaraderie of a girl should contain a note of gentleness, kindness, warmth, lyricism, and understanding—qualities that a friendship with a boy either lacks, or has in a lesser or different way. You can believe me or not, but deliberately boyish gestures, addressing people by first name or with too much familiarity from the very first minutes of a random meeting, the affected camaraderie (because in any form, it remains affected) are just as unappealing to boys as a deliberately aloof attitude, ostentatious distance, the display of “refinement” or snobbery.

Being open, loyal, fair, approachable, and devoted—these, I think, are the traits of camaraderie. But all of them are emphasized and enhanced by a civilized attitude—meaning a truly cultured one, understood in its deep workings. And in a girl, I would expect, in addition, a certain discretion—in gesture, in thought, in feeling—that gives her relationships a certain poetic air and (I’m not ashamed to say it, unlike many boys who act tough but deep down believe the same) a touch of romanticism. Yes, romanticism.

All boys, I assure you, want to meet a romantic girl, one who is open to dreams, poetry, music, and all the beautiful things that we, because it seems more dignified that way, keep a little more hidden inside ourselves. But that’s what we dream of: a girl who, not through words but especially through attitude, makes us discover our true selves.

You realize, of course, that any boy would respect such a girl, love her, and feel lucky to meet her. And not just because there’s a song that says “the boys are to blame”—but please, don’t be offended—often the girls are to blame, too. I’ll confess: it’s happened to me, too, to “pick up” a girl on the street, and yes, it “worked.” But do you really think I could respect her?

Or do you think that when I once told a girl, “Wow, you look so lovely today,” I didn’t notice her shoes were dusty and her tights had two runs? Or, on the contrary, don’t you think I felt embarrassed and then deeply touched when, just before entering the cinema, she paused to fix my tie and pick a bit of lint off my jacket?

I don’t know how to define femininity like in a school essay. But I believe that all the answers implied in the questions above come close to defining it. Often, a small gesture, a seemingly insignificant detail, reveals it in the most ordinary moment; other times, femininity disappears or is simply absent, even when it’s loudly declared.

And here I think we’re talking—indeed, much more so—about an education of gesture and attitude, about a desire to act beautifully and in harmony with one’s nature. Because a girl who is overly made-up, or unkempt, or has chipped nail polish doesn’t necessarily lose anything from her personality or intrinsic value. But don’t these details betray a serious lack of education or self-education? And aren’t they, by definition, anti-feminine?

Because surely there are certain rules of behavior which, though valid for everyone, are especially important for girls.

And regarding such things, try to form a very firm, personal point of view—and don’t rely too much on what boys say.

Because you should know that boys often say something other than what they truly believe—sometimes to show off, other times simply because they don’t feel like being honest. But now that I hope we’ve become at least somewhat friends, believe me when I say that, beyond all the answers in all those surveys, what we truly dream of is this: a girl with a strong personality, with a touch of femininity, intelligent and cultured.

I think the 10% who voted for beauty were right, because in fact, the real beauty might be this inner beauty. And so the contradiction between ideal and reality that I mentioned at the beginning is no longer really a contradiction at all.

____________________________

THE WOMAN, 1972

Would you marry a man shorter than yourself?

Sociologists and psychologists—or both—have recently pointed out a new form of segregation. The victims: short men. A complex of inferiority, undoubtedly unspoken, yet real.
 How does the short man react? Often, by elevating himself through his efforts and talents, through his character—thus creating a dominant position. If Napoleon had been 6 feet tall, would history have been different? If Aznavour were taller than 5’7″, would “amour” still rhyme with “toujours”? And yet…

Out of 10 women (aged between 20 and 30) asked this question, 8 answered “no”, because:
 “It’s ridiculous”;
 “I need to feel dominated”;
 “I feel safer with taller men.”
 Two of the ten weren’t opposed to a shorter partner. The first said: “Shorter men are often more affectionate or have a greater need for you.”
 The second replied: “True love doesn’t care about centimeters.”

The first wish expressed by women who seek marriage counseling from the French Marriage Guidance Institute concerns the height of their future spouse. Most of them, says Jean-Louis Jentel, director of the Institute, prefer him to be taller than they are. Prince Charming, it seems, can only truly be charming if he’s at least a head taller. (Remember those old films where short suitors had to step on a stool for a kiss?)

Of course, the time for compromises comes. Since there are only a limited number of supermen and a large number of marriage-seeking women, they are inevitably compelled to settle for a fiancé of average or even lesser height. This compromise becomes easier when she discovers shared interests and—especially—when the inevitable “character touch-ups” can be made over time.

____________________________

FOAIA ROMÂNEASCĂ, 1973

VARIETY
 Marriage by computer?

____________________________

THE WOMAN, 1974

Have you ever thought about how many prejudices we have about boys?

How often we turn their natural qualities or flaws, their usual attitudes toward us girls, into either guilt or virtue! If boys are rude, if they insult us through words or behavior—it’s their fault. If they impress us with their good manners and chivalry—it’s their merit.

If we suffer from someone’s indifference—it’s his fault for ignoring us. If he suffers because we’re indifferent—it’s also his fault for giving us too much attention.

We, always innocent, always ready to assign them full responsibility—good or bad. We are never to blame, not when we attract their affection, nor when we repel them; not when they love us, nor when they don’t; not when they’re rude and poorly behaved, nor when they’re polite and courteous.

But where do we find ourselves in these relationships?

No, I don’t want to philosophically unpack the song lyric “Only the boys are to blame”, although it’s not impossible the songwriter jokingly stumbled on a serious truth. But let’s admit it: from small daily gestures to innocent friendships or affections with classmates, we girls rarely take real responsibility.

Don’t we secretly, obviously, expect them to discover the affection we feel and make the first move? Don’t we often, even domineeringly, expect them to behave a certain way with us? Of course—“that’s tradition”—and it’s hard to imagine one of us walking up to a boy and saying, “Hey, I like you. Want to be friends?” Or proposing marriage? That sounds absurd, despite our claim to be equal.

But if tradition dictates it… If those are the prejudices…

And still, what responsibility do we, the girls—who’ve long been the “weaker,” more sensitive, protected, coddled, discriminated-against sex—take in this vital relationship that begins in our adolescence?

I’ve often seen uncomfortable situations where girls saw themselves as victims—girls (or their parents) coming before courts accusing boys of assault or misconduct. She met him one day, they became friends the next, declared their love shortly after… and then, he is suddenly guilty of being too forward, deceptive, or dishonest.

As if this relationship developed without both of them being equally involved. As if the girl had no clue what might happen by accepting certain gestures or words. But usually, the boy is blamed—perhaps due to tradition, or an exaggerated gratitude toward girls.

Rarely have I seen a girl ask, “But what did I do wrong?”—truly trying to reflect on her part in the events.

If we accept that friendship and love are relationships, then we can’t pretend that we girls aren’t just as responsible as the boys.

In Mihai Stoian’s book “Girls About Boys, Boys About Girls”, there’s a series of complaints boys make about girls. And that makes sense: if they’re building a romantic or friendly connection with us, they’ll have expectations—just like we do.

We want them courteous and well-mannered—they want us to give them the space to behave that way.
 We want them respectful and decent—but that’s pointless if our attitude pushes them to be rude or crude.

Their ideal of us is no less lovely or charming than our ideal of them.

If we maturely and intelligently take responsibility for our relationships, we must start with strong selection criteria. These aren’t irrelevant in choosing a friend or lover, even if people say “feelings don’t choose” or “love is blind.” A foolish and even inhumane idea, outdated in today’s clear-headed world.

I’d argue that, since feelings are meant to last, they should be wiser and more discerning in whom they choose.

Of course, in adolescence, we choose our friends based on emotional resonance—or what we hope is emotional resonance. But I’ve never met a girl who actually wants a deeply flawed boy by her side—even if she herself doesn’t have amazing virtues.

I’ll always believe that the first step in forming a friendship should be made by the boy—not because girls don’t have equal rights, but because modesty, reserve, and delicacy are more on our side. It suits a boy to court a girl; it doesn’t suit a girl to be overly insistent or confront rejection boldly.

That’s just how things have always been. No kind of “liberation” will change that natural order.

Our right—or better yet, our responsibility—is to keep our eyes wide open, not to be swept away by pretty words, physical beauty, or superficial charms.

You’ll tell me this is a tough problem—that’s true. Theoretically it makes sense, but at 16–17 years old, when the desire to have a boyfriend is stronger than the fear of risk, how can we apply such selection criteria?

But maybe you’ve noticed: the mindset behind our first friendship shapes all our later relationships. Too naive and trusting early on, and we risk painful disappointments. Too suspicious or closed off, and we might end up isolated and alone…

Let’s find that wonderful middle line.

In reality, it all happens more simply: we make friends, switch between liking and disliking, think it’s either fleeting or eternal, get our hopes up, then crushed…

And if only we could go through all that simply, naturally, and humanely—embracing both joy and risk, sorrow and hope, disappointment and fulfillment.

But often we don’t—because we’re too young, too uncertain, too trusting. Yet each of these experiences leaves a trace in our minds, principles, and emotional development. Each distorted friendship leaves a mark—even when that distortion is our fault.

That’s why, I believe, every interaction is a responsibility. Every thought, feeling, or attitude we send into the world is a personal act that represents us.

Maybe girls bear greater responsibility—because our gestures, words, and actions carry more meaning. Because people watch and judge us more harshly. Because more is expected of us—whether that’s due to outdated biases or the idea of balance and beauty we’re seen to represent.

Much more than boys, we’re not allowed “accidental behavior”—because such actions risk becoming our stamp, or triggering unintended reactions in others.

No one can expect a traffic-code-level manual for love and friendship. But to the best of our ability, we can take personal responsibility for foresight—even for the dignity with which we face disappointment.

For those moments of confusion, mistrust, or realization that we, we made a mistake. That, too, is responsibility—to admit that in the joys and heartbreaks we go through, we share blame. Equal to the person we’re so quick to accuse.

Even if our teenage feelings are more intense, even if every event feels unique, every thought final, every joy endless, every disappointment eternal—we must own our role in it all. The dignity to live it beautifully and truthfully.

To believe that we, through our own development, can influence how others behave—and what they feel.

Boys are what they are: some polite, some impertinent, some well-mannered, others rude, some better, some worse… just like we girls are.

____________________________

FLACĂRA, 1978

PARADOXES OF SUPERCIVILIZATION – Fates for Sale
 By Radu Budeanu

The classifieds section in major magazines irresistibly attracts me because of the huge amount of comedy per square inch. Matrimonial ads are the juiciest. In a French-language magazine, I found a cheerful and typically Gallic ad, though with some vaguely strict requirements for the fair sex:

“If you are between 20 and 25 and madly love life, sunshine, flowers, love, laughter, and purebred puppies; if a mature man with blue eyes, an adult daughter, a big villa, and a pleasure yacht interests you, write to P.O. box no. 71 790. Photo required.”

It’s clear that the ad’s author has shrewdly arranged his offer, placing more emphasis on certain “conditions” than others—hence the order in which the “essential” qualities are listed, as indispensable as the required photo.

Other ads are paradoxical and, as such, delightfully cynical:

“38-year-old woman, single but not sad, poetic soul, loves generosity and the toughness of a man who frequently travels.”

A closer reading of the classifieds shows that young and old, with or without quirks, with well-rounded incomes, cultured or not, athletic or sedentary—all throw themselves into the whirlwind of matrimonial adventure with blind confidence, believing that if certain conditions are met, their partner will deliver happiness in large parcels.

This implies a strong faith in the literal meaning of adjectives compressed into tiny ad boxes. Generally, they (regardless of age) overflow with vitality, adore children, cozy interiors, and have a sense of economy and poetry—in short, they’re charming. They (the men, any age) have solid savings, are full of vitality, value family, want children, and don’t have expensive hobbies. All boxes are ticked. Life alone is rosy, and with a partner, even rosier.

At the bottom of this destiny-matching page, a discreet ad informs all hopefuls that Company X, specialized in matrimonial arrangements, offers advice and documentation for a reasonable fee. You may even visit the office, where highly trusted consultants, for a suitable price, will distill your personality into five to eight very attractive adjectives.

For a full package, you can consult the firm’s astrologer, who, for a modest fee (especially when compared to the music of the spheres), will decode the unclear paths of your future and that of your partner. Leos and Scorpios, Geminis and Tauruses, Libras and Sagittariuses are brought together to align the stars of your potential couple.

The firm doesn’t stop at facilitating correspondence complete with photos and bank account info.

To seal the deal, paid hourly sessions are organized, during which overburdened but altruistic psychologists try to reconcile opposites, giving lectures to clients slow to acclimate.

The same firm also offers—without a subscription—private detective services for couples who start spying on each other out of excessive love, and lawyers to streamline divorces and draft the formal “insult letters” without which the process cannot be officially stamped.

RADU BUDEANU

____________________________

FEMEIA, 1986

LOVE DECLARATIONS

In Thailand, there’s a tradition where girls declare love to the one they choose—but being particularly shy, they can’t do it out loud. Thankfully, there’s a custom that helps: a game similar to marbles.

On the sand in front of a bench where several young men sit, a few discs are placed. A boy walks in front of a disc and waits… If one of the lovely girls likes him, she grabs a ball and tries to knock down the disc in front of the one she desires.

If she hits the target, the young man must sing a song or perform a dance to express his answer to the girl’s declaration. If the girl misses, she doesn’t give up—instead, she performs a small dance for him right there.

What’s unclear, however, is how the boy handles things if multiple girls aim for his disc—especially considering the reply must be immediate and personal.

____________________________

ALMANAH, 1987 

ALMANAH, 1987

Youth Visions of the Year 2000

The National Youth Research Center conducted a large-scale study on how young people imagine life in the new millennium. Based on “projective autobiographies” titled “Me and My Generation in the Year 2000,” the research covered 400 young people (workers, peasants, students, intellectuals, and others) of both genders from 11 counties across the country.

Let’s highlight some important themes that emerged regarding the family of the third millennium, as envisioned by the participants.

It was clear that every young person—whether already married or not—referred to themselves as active members of the year 2000 family. Unlike the often-fantastical visions they had for careers or leisure, the family was portrayed with surprising realism.

Whether stated directly or implied, most participants expressed a healthy view of family and its role as the “basic cell of society”—some even calling it the “central nucleus.”

Concerning the relationship between spouses, it is clearly based on complete equality. There’s no mention of financial dependency between partners; their projected careers are of equal status and, accordingly, so are their incomes.

Family life, often explicitly stated, is predominantly cultural. For most, spiritual compatibility is the main source of intimacy between partners. Add shared professional interests, and the bond becomes “perfect or nearly perfect.”

Chosen freely and maintained through mutual commitment (raising and educating children, shopping, cleaning—even in the era of automated housework), the family of the future is envisioned as stronger and more important than ever.

According to those surveyed, the family in the third millennium is not an economic arrangement or a formal partnership—but a communion of ideas, emotions, and values. Marriage is grounded in mutual respect and sincere love, unspoiled by material interests or ambition. A cultural dimension is also prominent—most young people imagine a shared aesthetic taste between spouses.

Aside from the often-mentioned threat of global war, young people expressed no significant concerns for themselves or their future children. On the contrary, they voiced hope and gratitude for the “wonderful conditions” created by our party and state, which they believe will continue to improve and expand their opportunities in every area of life.

This speaks indirectly to the comforting nature of today’s social climate and the sense of security instilled by the wise political leadership—especially in relation to family life.

When describing the future family, boys were typically brief. In contrast, girls gave detailed descriptions of their family roles and their husband’s contributions. Almost without exception, they expressed the desire to become mothers of both boys and girls, while also continuing their professional careers.

At the same time, the robotization of household chores (more frequently projected by boys than by girls), by simplifying or minimizing the wife’s physical effort, is seen as making her more available—on the one hand, for raising and educating the children, and on the other, for organizing and enjoying family leisure time (which is generally envisioned as being spent together, with a circle of friends).

It is interesting to note that when it comes to solving domestic tasks, traditional roles and functions are still maintained within the family structure. In general, young people aim to equip their homes with state-of-the-art appliances and systems. Some even offer, at least in theory, to contribute to family tasks in order to lighten their partner’s load. Without a doubt, these cases reflect the reproduction of a traditional, essentially positive model, inherited from their parents or other members of today’s society.

Girls especially emphasize that they will ensure a warm, affectionate atmosphere in their home, surrounding their husbands and children with love and care, and striving to maintain harmony in their family.

(…)

In their vision of the family, young people also include habits common today: reading the newspaper in an armchair (especially by husbands), crocheting by wives, and car maintenance, particularly handled by husbands. The fact that entertaining children is more often seen as the husband’s responsibility suggests that a certain division of labor in the household will persist—wives remaining primarily responsible for traditional domestic duties.

At the same time, the robotization of household chores (more frequently projected by boys than by girls), by simplifying or minimizing the wife’s physical effort, is seen as making her more available—on the one hand, for raising and educating the children, and on the other, for organizing and enjoying family leisure time (which is generally envisioned as being spent together, with a circle of friends).

It is interesting to note that when it comes to solving domestic tasks, traditional roles and functions are still maintained within the family structure. In general, young people aim to equip their homes with state-of-the-art appliances and systems. Some even offer, at least in theory, to contribute to family tasks in order to lighten their partner’s load. Without a doubt, these cases reflect the reproduction of a traditional, essentially positive model, inherited from their parents or other members of today’s society.

Girls especially emphasize that they will ensure a warm, affectionate atmosphere in their home, surrounding their husbands and children with love and care, and striving to maintain harmony in their family.

(…)

In their vision of the family, young people also include habits common today: reading the newspaper in an armchair (especially by husbands), crocheting by wives, and car maintenance, particularly handled by husbands. The fact that entertaining children is more often seen as the husband’s responsibility suggests that a certain division of labor in the household will persist—wives remaining primarily responsible for traditional domestic duties.

At the same time, the study recorded a notable proportion of husbands, real or hypothetical, who—at least in intention—take on the task of cleaning the home. As previously noted, this task will be greatly eased by the substantial robotization of housekeeping.

(…)

Many young people envision attending theatre performances or films together with their spouse.

There has been frequent discussion around the idea that, due to anticipated modernizations, automation, and robotization in professional activities and workplaces, partners will be able to dedicate themselves entirely (“with their whole being”) to family life. According to most young people, this would be an essential condition for strengthening intra-family relationships. Even so, attention to maintaining professional responsibilities remains present in the imagined family atmosphere.

On the other hand, starting with the alarm clock—which will undoubtedly be electronic—, some young people plan to equip their apartments with home gym machines and air conditioning units, while others express the desire to spend more time in nature, deliberately disconnecting from the color television, which—naturally—remains a staple in every home.

The conclusions drawn from this valuable and comprehensive initiative—of which we have only covered one fundamental aspect: the family of the third millennium—allow us to state with confidence that our youth are robust and healthy, grounded in strong life principles, and ready to meet the threshold of the new millennium with optimism and trust in the benefits of the most humane system: socialism.

Dr. DUMITRU BAZAC
 Senior Scientific Researcher at the Youth Research Center