Why This Thing Called Love Absolutely Makes No Sense
To start off, if you haven’t seen the movie: The Theory of Everything, you might want to read this with one eye closed — major spoiler alert.
The following post started off as a review of the movie The Theory of Everything and someway, somehow became a debate between two bloggers:
Simi:
I remember watching episodes of ‘The Big Bang Theory’ that guest starred the famed physicist, Stephen Hawking who always ended up taunting Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) and I wondered what was so fascinating about the man Stephen Hawking that made Sheldon think so highly of him. Well that was until I saw the movie ‘The Theory of Everything’ starring the wonderful Eddie Redmayne who plays Stephen Hawking in the biopic that illustrates the sheer genius of his mind, his triumphant and peculiar rise to stardom despite a rare early-onset slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease or Lou Gehrig’s disease, that gradually paralysed him over the decades, his book, A Brief History of Time which stayed on the British Sunday Times best-seller list for a record-breaking 237 weeks, and his rather complicated marital life.
Ok, if you were thinking this is a review on the movie, sorry to disappoint you. This is me being fascinated about a seemingly great man’s marriage and how much insight it gives to the male mindset especially about this thing called love.
You see, Stephen Hawking was married to Jane Hawking from 1965–1995. According to the movie, Jane met him a few years before he was diagnosed with ‘ALS’ and she fell for his odd and quirky character. However, during the course of the relationship, Stephen and Jane find out that a rare disease was going to plague their relationship. Jane in a strange leap of faith and ‘love’ decided to get married to him regardless.
Drama, platonic relationships with caregivers and years of perseverance later, Stephen Hawking, who at this point is a vegetable man speaking out of a machine albeit being one of the world’s brightest minds, develops warm and fuzzy feelings for his caregiver, Elaine Mason and ultimately divorces Jane to marry Elaine.
That right there has been a mind blower for me. Countless Nollywood movies have explored the premise of a down on luck man being dusted up and primed for great things by a nurturing woman and when the man becomes a ‘twinkle little star’, he trades nurturer for a dime piece, completely forgetting Ms. Nurturer. This over-flogged storyline goes both ways for men and women but as a result of the patriarchal system here, it leans towards the ‘forgotten female angle’.
Now, bring it home to the Stephen Hawking scenario, dude is not the best thing since sliced bread and he still wanted something better and he doesn’t stop there, when he marries Elaine, he declares ‘I have married the woman I love’. Really, Stephen, a woman who was with you for 30years and waiting on you hand and foot, bore your three children and contributed to your success is not the woman you love?
Why do men suddenly develop amnesia and forget their female nurturers when their circumstances change?
Toolsman:
Right before we jump into the dialogue, I will step in to speak for the guys. You see, what Simi conveniently skipped is her portion is this:
At the suggestion of her mother, Jane joins the church choir, where she meets Jonathan (Charlie Cox). She and Jonathan become close friends, and she employs him as a piano teacher for her son. Jonathan, a widower, soon becomes a friend of the entire family, helping Stephen with his illness, supporting Jane, and playing with the children. When Jane gives birth to another son, Stephen’s mother asks Jane if the baby is Jonathan’s. Jane and Jonathan later married and Jane and Stephen remain close friends to this day.
Via: Wikipedia
Ok, so I didn’t just tell you that as a way of balancing the argument (maybe I did), but the truth is, if we want to keep things real, no gender can escape criticism on this topic of trading nurturer for dime piece. The way I see it, as human beings, we can get quite sentimental about a lot of things. That belt you wore to your first job interview which is now tattered and torn but you refuse to throw out, or that goodluck pen you like to use for your exams — just like this, we also get quite sentimental about our relationships with people. This coupled with the emotional part of our minds and pressure from society doesn’t make a good cocktail as far as I am concerned.
It’s very easy to label people who dump their nurturers after they get better but I don’t think we should adopt a blanket approach when dealing with these cases. The simple truth is — people change. Things like money, life threatening diseases etc changes people. Not just the nurtured but the nurturer in this case. If a chic has been with a guy for 10 years while he was broke, truth is, he’ll never know how she’ll react to being rich. If that time comes and he discovers the kind of person she is around money isn’t the kind he wants to be around, should we fault him? Don’t bite me just yet, this thing works both ways, it’s just easier for all of us to label the nurturer the victim.
Instead of pointing fingers and blaming someone, I think what such stories should draw our attention to is the fact that what we think we know about this thing called love is a big sack of nada. In the past, I’ve written about how I think it’s not possible to be in love with more than one person at the same time. I have also written about why I think once you fall in love with someone, you can’t just fall out of love with them. Infact, it would take a grave sin to get you to fall out. You can love more than one at the same time but you can’t be in love with more than one person. If I am right, then it just means Professor Hawkins loved Jane from the start but he was never in love with her. Perhaps she was in love with him because only that kind of emotion would allow one make such a decision as getting married to someone with ALS but the moment he declared his love for caregiver, that love ceased to exist for Jane.
I have rambled on long enough, it’s time to get your thoughts on the subject. Why would anyone trade their long time nurturer for a dime piece? Do you agree with my theory on love or do you agree with Simi who believes men just suddenly develop amnesia when their circumstances change and forget their female nurturers? If you have seen the movie, you can use examples from it but be gentle with spoilers. Use the comment box to express you.
