Tuesday, November 13, 2007

This is all Craig MacTavish's fault

His glasses say it all.

When I see the Edmonton Oilers' head coach, Craig MacTavish, on television, I become mesmerized by his eye glasses. They're so simple, and yet they add sophistication to his look. I love them. Even if I didn't know who he was when passing him on the street, I would still think to myself, "Wow, now that is a sharp-looking man. He's got it together."


Now let's rewind today's clock to about three hours ago when I accompanied my husband to his first eye exam in nearly five years. In under two years' time, once his university education is complete, my husband will embark on a new profession and, like it or not, how he looks and how he carries himself will affect his level of success. And I basically decided for him that it was time for some new eye glasses.

Naturally, an argument ensued.

Okay, so maybe it wasn't fair of me to go into this with a preconceived image of what perfection should look like. And maybe it wasn't fair of me to impose on him my opinion of what it means to look sophisticated. But I maintain that my argument is sound.

There is nothing wrong with the glasses my husband is currently wearing, and there is nothing wrong with the pair he ended up choosing today. They're fine. They're adequate. They're ordinary. But if you're going to invest that kind of money on a new pair of eye glasses that you will be wearing for every waking hour of every day, why would you settle for ordinary when you could have sophisticated?

"But those sophisticated-looking frames are too tight at my temples."

(You'll be fine once you break them in. It'll be like having a new pair of boots.)

"I'll end up suffering with headaches everyday."

(We have aspirin at home, dear.)

"If I have to wear them everyday, my first priority is that the frames at least be comfortable."

(Yes, but what about me? I'm the one who has to look at them everyday, dear.)

Okay, okay. So maybe my argument isn't entirely sound afterall. Comfort and safety really should be my husband's first concern. But if Clinton and Stacy from TLC's What Not To Wear were here, they would agree that it's not always necessary to sacrifice image for comfort; the two should actually go hand-in-hand.

But I digress. What's done is done, and my husband opted for comfort over image. Again, the new glasses aren't totally bad; they're just a little too big for my liking. Not like 1980s-big, but big nonetheless.

And not that it matters, but I don't think Craig MacTavish's wife would approve of them either.

-------------------------------

*** UPDATE ***

November 18, 2007

How timely that in today's Edmonton Journal appeared a commentary from another woman facing similar obstacles. I sympathize with her, and, naturally, my husband feels sorry for her other half.

I don't want to get into any gender wars here, but I can almost guarantee that if her husband said to her, "That dress really doesn't flatter your figure at all," she would probably never wear that dress again. And yet he, like my husband, sees nothing wrong with ignoring the opinion of his wife.

I guess some men just don't mind being stuck in previous decades.

(Oooohhhh.... hitting them where it hurts....). Haha.

Okay, that's all I'm going to say on this issue. You can decide for yourself by checking out Debby Waldman's article, "Applying 20-20 vision to a husband's fashion image: How to get her guy to change his frames."

No comments:

Post a Comment