"The Royal Wedding is chick crack, ...."
So how many of you watched the royal wedding? (My guess is very few of you). Me, I'm still dealing with fallout from the storms that hit East Tennessee on Wednesday. My internet barely works and the cable has been out for days. I don't want to live in a world without technology, it's boring! Not boring enough for me to try to find a TV to watch the royal wedding however.
Anyway, John Hawkins at Right Wing News had this to say about the royal wedding: "The Royal Wedding is chick crack, precisely because it appeals to women’s instinctive fantasy of marrying into power, money, and opulence. It’s the ultimate woman’s dream — getting married to a fantastically rich, powerful leader in a lavish public ceremony."
Chick crack, that's an interesting way to put it. But given all the memorabilia and books
on the topic, I have to agree. Oh well, at least there is hope for some women:
Anyway, John Hawkins at Right Wing News had this to say about the royal wedding: "The Royal Wedding is chick crack, precisely because it appeals to women’s instinctive fantasy of marrying into power, money, and opulence. It’s the ultimate woman’s dream — getting married to a fantastically rich, powerful leader in a lavish public ceremony."
Chick crack, that's an interesting way to put it. But given all the memorabilia and books
on the topic, I have to agree. Oh well, at least there is hope for some women:
posted by Helen at 7:28 AM
79 Comments:
Well, he could have said it appeals to the deep inner fantasies that are revealed in Fairy Tales. Lots has been written about archetypes from the Jungian perspective and Bruno Bettleheim wrote a cool, kinda old book called The Uses of Enchantment and I think he was trained as a psychoanalyst. Those folks would say it is not avarice, but a drive for inner equipoise that underlies the female fascination with royalty.
I think in general it appeals to the inner queen, the executive archetype. And then some women just watch it for the clothes.
The male equivalent lies in movies or video games, the warrior king. This is similar to John's take, but a little less jaded and bit more kind. The harpies are not interested in it because nobody is getting hurt and they prefer blood sport.
Well, that is what I think before coffee. Sorry about your internet situation, I trust you guys made it through OK. Here in Nashvill we were fine, but the flooding warnings brought back a tad of PTSD!
Trey
So it's true then...........
I tuned in in time for the balcony view because I wanted to see the wedding gown (I like wedding fashions). Got my eyeful and checked out. Hope y'all aren't having too many troubles because of the tornados.
Chic crack is right; it's all about the fantasy come true. But few women have any idea of what that job - and, yes, it's a job, and a difficult one - really entails. I would name the late Diana Spencer among those.
I was busy with a project yesterday and forgot all about it. Frankly, I would like to see the viewership ratings on this event. It may not have been as popular as the media would like us all to think. My worst nightmare would be being that poor Kate woman. Her life is now inside a less-than-pleasant fishbowl.
I try to keep things in perspective but the MSM seems unable to do so.
About 6 weeks ago, an earthquake and tsunami in Japan killed over 20,000 people and they're still having trouble with those nuclear powerplants.
On Thursday, a series of tornadoes swept across the south killing over 300 people. About a million people (including my sister and mother) are without electricity and have no idea when it'll be back. Thousands of homes (like my niece's) and businesses were heavily damaged or totally destroyed.
Yesterday morning, all I could find on the news was coverage of a wedding in England.
Ah, priorities.
I wouldn't want to be in her shoes. Way too public; I would hate it. Marriage is hard enough without that kind of scrutiny and obligation.
Trey and Angela,
We were lucky with the storms, just mainly the internet and cable were out though the hail was the size of golf balls and we spent a lot of time in the basement the night it hit. Many cars here have hail damage and windshields were cracked but luckily, few people were hurt.
And to tie in the "chick crack" with state of American schooling, particularly for boys - My son's class (a class with extra help because they have a BUNCH of ADHD boys in it), watched the wedding in class, and have to write an essay on it for homework
I heard one commentator say "He looked OK, but remember, the wedding is all about HER"
My Comment "If she was marrying just about anyone else, you'd be lucky if you saw a 15 second blurb on some entertainment show. If HE was marrying someoneone else, it would be JUST as big a story - in this case, it is about HIM, like it or not"
Dr. Helen, I'm glad that you and the Insta-husband came out OK through the storms. The damage they've caused has been heartbreaking.
On to Kate and Willy. Chick crack works. I would describe it as being more like chick heroin...
I strongly dislike this stuff because it feeds the princess fantasy and women's destructive notions of entitlement. I also have a distaste for people's fawning over celebrities in general. That's my take on it.
Didn't watch. Didn't watch last one.
And to tie in the "chick crack" with state of American schooling, particularly for boys - My son's class (a class with extra help because they have a BUNCH of ADHD boys in it), watched the wedding in class, and have to write an essay on it for homework.-KG2V
That's obvious sexual harassment. Consider making a complaint through official channels.
I heard one commentator say "He looked OK, but remember, the wedding is all about HER."
Exactly. Why do you think it's called "matrimony"?
My Comment "If she was marrying just about anyone else, you'd be lucky if you saw a 15 second blurb on some entertainment show. If HE was marrying someoneone else, it would be JUST as big a story - in this case, it is about HIM, like it or not."
I disagree. If he were marrying someone else, yes it would be just as big a story - one about a different "HER," but about her nonetheless.
Why do you think you call it matrimony?
I didn't watch it per se, but two female friends asked me to record it and make DVDs of six hours of CNN coverage, which I did. I guess I saw about 5 minutes total. If you believe the commentators, two billion people watched it.
Every time I see something like that, I recall the (drunken) friend who referred to Bill Gates' wife as "the world's most expensive prostitute". Will and Kate may be really nice people, but fundamentally she is at the same level.
Micha Elyi said:
Why do you think you call it matrimony?
Because from that point on, the groom gets walked all over like a mat?
I'm just glad it's over. Listening to the desperate, hyperventilated gasping of women as they watch a member of the biggest pack of talentless welfare bums get hitched on the public dime makes me heave.
Still, only royal weddings and horse races give you the chance to see English women put Gawd-knows-what on their heads.
[OT: Just got Esther Villar's "The Manipulated Man." It's hysterical!]
Zorro, is The Manipulated Man any good? I've though about ordering but have been on the fence about it.
And there remains hope for some men. That one fine woman believes that, even if life is boring without her technology, tracking down a functional way to view the royal wedding (tm) is not worth her time... gives pause to one man. Hmm, I am almost wondering if you would also not go screaming and running if you heard Jagger, or Elvis, or some other airheaded pop-cult star entered the building? Running, other then when there is unfriendly live fire, actual fire, or some other life threatening situation, has always seemed like an odd thing to me. Including jogging, actually. Swim, I say.
Hope indeed.
@ Dunk:
http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated_man.pdf
A PDF with 69 pages of the book.
Villar's view is that men who fall for women's blatantly obvious manipulation deserve what they get. Women are to money and power what pickup artists are to sex: masters at getting what they want via the opposite sex's Achilles heel.
I almost wonder if the shortest and best path to a sane society is not to eliminate feminism, but to eliminate the beta male mentality. "Dear Woman" probably causes more male suffering than the likes of Hillary Clinton. [But I'm not certain just yet.]
In a new introduction to the book 35 years after its initial publication, Villar reveals that she still routinely gets death threats from feminists.
When I read that, I bought the book.
While everyone loves to trash British royalty, Bill and Harry are England's best hopes.How Prince Charlie and the twit Diana produced such fine men is beyond me. It is a truly profound argument against abortion.
@ck:
Remind me which of those two retards dressed up as a Nazi at a costume party, sending their closet Musslim homo father into "an incandescent rage."
"Remind me which of those two retards dressed up as a Nazi at a costume party, sending their closet Musslim homo father into 'an incandescent rage.'"
That was Harry. It was also quite a while ago. Maybe he's matured since then. Do you think that's possible?
Possible, but hardly relevant. When a teenager lives like a millionaire, snorting coke with celebrities on the public dime, it pretty much says what kind of environment he's born into. I'm sure that, like his father, he's only learned to keep his degeneracy out of public view.
Seriously. Royal families are a concept as backward as Sharia Law or astrology.
Dang, people, what a bunch of jerks some of you all are. Three generations of women watched at my house, and we enjoyed it with kippers and eggs. I don't think anyone over the age of 11 doesn't understand that being royal comes at a cost, and we took a few pains to explain to our seven-year-old what happened to Diana.
There was the most poignant moment when Catherine stepped out of the limousine and onto the red carpet. She froze there for a moment, all alone, and the people cheered from behind the barricade. After the moment of hesitation, it seemed like she had to make herself look at the crowd. And then she smiled, and after that, everything went just fine.
We liked the modest allure of her dress (sort of Grace Kelley-ish with an Elizabethan silhouette to the skirt), the beautiful English tulle veil edged in lace, the degree of informality of the wedding, the emphasis on English music and the use of much greenery as opposed to lots of flowers, particularly the large trees in cedar planters that were placed all down the nave of the Abbey.
You may go on with your royalty bashing and sneering at feminine sensibilities now.
These hopeless and lifeless comments are sad indeed, and reflect a total collapse of Christian culture in the US.
Laugh at me all you wish, but marriage -- all marriage -- is a picture of the relationship God seeks to have with his special creation, Man.
Ever wonder why marriage is an institution in every people, in all nations, for all of recorded time? Why purity is desirable? Why people enjoy weddings so? And especially why women look forward to their Day with such anticipation and joy, regardless of culture and mores?
I was disinterested in this Royal wedding and could not understand why so many were so intrigued with seeing a future king marry his princess. Then I saw it happen. In glorious high definition.
I realized even the English monarchy, with all its wealth, pomp and circumstance-- the magnificent cathedral, the dashing uniforms, the wonderful gowns, the choirs, the assembled guests, the hymns, the Scripture readings, the vows, the pastoral charge, the grand orchestras playing "Crown Imperial" for the recessional, the bells tolling, the carriage, the palace -- all of it -- can produce but a shadow of what is reserved for a quantum grander event Scripture calls "The Marriage Supper of the Lamb" where Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, will wed His Bride, the Church.
"For we are members of his body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:30-32) Our world is but a fallen image of what should be. Our institutions but representations of a larger Truth.
When millions upon millions stand before their Judge, helpless and without hope for rejecting His offer of eternal life, and say, "Lord, how were we to know what kind of relationship you wanted with us?" The Judge of all Flesh will need only say, "I instituted marriage for all peoples, in all nations, from the beginning of time."
This royal wedding was but a glimpse of what is to come. "Eye has not see, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for them who love Him."
Yes, it's "chick crack." Because women are built that way. We aren't simply freak accidents the Big Bang...random atoms assembling themselves into meaning. The longing women feel during a wedding like this speaks to the very heart of mankind...a longing to be reunited to his (and her) Creator as it was in the beginning.
Go ahead: mock the royal wedding.
It is but a picture of something greater. To miss its meaning is sad. Our education has truly failed us.
What happens after "happily ever after"?
"The Manipulated Man" is alarming. In general alarming-ness I'd rank it somewhere in the neighborhood of "Games People Play", though with a bit more blatant ranting.
I have a copy. I've never kept it under my pillow, but I have kept it.
Koblog, the folks at National Review had a lot of commentary similar to yours, although they may have poured it on a bit less thick. Nevertheless, you are correct, it was in the end about a marriage before God and everyone. It could even be a good one.
I couldn't watch the wedding live as I was working, but I did watch BBC whan I got home. You know, making fun of the whole thing is a bit tacky IMO. In the midst of all the dreadful news each and every hour, what's not to enjoy about a wedding between two people who truly love each other? Splendid setting, uplifting music, gorgeous bride, handsome groom, visions of history everywhere, love!
A welcome respite from the usual grim reality. Much needed and appreciated.
Koblog
A wonderful and true post.
Thank you.
I was displeased to hear that my daughter's AP teacher, who had been up since 4 am watching, made the students watch during class instead of working on the material they have not covered yet. She complains about losing 5 days of class due to snow/ice on a regular basis.
I was pleased to hear my daughter voiced her disapproval of using class time this way, of monarchy, and of celebrity groupies in general.
I didn't watch, but I did read about it later. I am not married, and have been closely involved with enough weddings that my advice is to elope, but I enjoyed the bit of coverage I did see.
Its more than just a wedding. Its also a celebration of an institution (British monarchy) almost 1000 yrs old. Only its old nemesis the Catholic Church is older. It was a celebration of what is is to be British as well. Its also important to those countries who also have the English monarch as their monarch/head of state (Australia, Canada New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India, Nigeria - and so on- 54 countries in all). This bloke, one day, will be their Head Of State (King) and his wife will be their Queen. It was a major event in world politics and governance. That's why all the Prime ministers of those countries attended, and the Obama's weren't invited. No wonder they all got dressed up.
I thought is was a magnificent spectacle that gives a glimpse into antiquity. Only the election and installation of popes is on a similar scale of significance.
As a sixty year old, divorced man, I understand, but strongly disagree with the negative comments. Such hostility about people who have never harmed you is unseemly. Likewise silly are the comments about the timing. A wedding, royal or not, takes a lot of planning. And somehow, I doubt the recovery efforts in Japan were much affected.
I watched the ceremony and enjoyed it. I was even moved by the reading and sermon. The whole exercise was beautiful and rang with echoes of past grandeur. The principals seemed like decent people, happy and sincerely going about their business which, in this case, was a wedding. Those over-burdened with a relentless sense of relevance can take their disdain and stuff it.
@Trashhauler: Well said and I couldn't agree more.
I don't even attend friends' weddings. I do, however, offer the groom a case of beer and a one way bus ticket to Seattle. It takes four days by bus to reach Seattle from the coast of Virginia. A six pack a day to think it through while gazing out the window. If he still wants to marry at the end of the bus ride, well he has to pay his own way back.
That's what friends are for.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am an American living in London. I did watch it, and my wife and some friends even went down to the Mall to watch the processions. For the people here, yes there was a little of the fantasy element (after the wedding, I walked down Regent Street (which was covered in flags) and saw some women wearing "I'll marry Harry" tee shirts.
But for most here, it is a celebration of being British. My wife said that when the hymn Jerusalem was sung, everyone on the Mall started waving their falgs and singing. It gave her chills (and like me, she is American).
"Such hostility about people who have never harmed you is unseemly."
______
Kind of like that video on YouTube "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" ?
I think the "Royals" are a bit silly and I think weddings are silly as it is. They ARE chick crack.
I don't understand why anyone would want to watch that, but I guess I don't have to understand.
The Royals were cooler back when the Queen could just say, "Off with his head".
Last point: If you have to worship someone, worship someone who has DONE something. Worship someone who is worth respecting.
Worshiping people who haven't done anything to get their status or position or wealth is moronic. But Paris Hilton will always be a bigger draw than a cancer researcher. The Royals will always be a bigger draw than physicists.
Since the princess' primary job is to produce male heirs, the wedding is interesting in the much the same way that breeding dalmatians can be interesting. Just substitute humans for dogs.
NYT Diana's Death Resonates with Women in Therapy ,Jane Gross, Sept 13, 1997.
Too much hostility and miscomprehension above. So Trashhauler speaks well for me. I was moved.
I have studied in England and it is a reach for American's to respect different fundamental political traditions. This marriage was about the British nation as if it were a family. And we do it too.
Although, instead of hereditary Monarchy, we make do with Independence Day and scheduled election's as our national day's of celebration and re-founding. But Brit's too celebrate continuity their foundations - unscheduled elections and a monarchical head of state, for instance - and this wedding introduced the world to these future head's of state.
It's foreign, but it also works. But it could not for us, since we have never had hereditary privlidge.
Hereditary privilege. What a ghastly concept.
You can f*cking have it. And enjoy Sharia law, since you seem to enjoy your submission to terrorist oppression.
Here's a question for the supporters of the Monarchy (I'm serious interested in answers): Why would you think that those people are any better than the "commoners"? Why would you think that just because they inherited their position that they are better able to lead the people than commoners who have shown merit to do so?
The only answers I can think of involve things like God deciding that the King is the best or other mystical answers that I just don't buy.
Countries that have renounced monarchies don't seem to be all the worse for it.
I have read that through out history, more people have had more freedom and rights under hereditary monarchy than any other form of government.
Why would anyone give a damn about people who live better than 99% of you and parade it around?
"Those over-burdened with a relentless sense of reverence can take their disdain and stuff it."
Fixed that for you.
What I enjoyed most was the liturgical music, from John Wesley to the contemporaneous (and de rigeur) John Rutter. The most astonishing piece was by a man named Mealor, who wrote a stirring "Ubi Caritas Te Amor." Based on this work alone, I'd put him up there with John Tavenner. The fact that the royal couple chose the music tells me they do take some things seriously. Also, the performances by the choir of boys and men plus full orchestra were impeccable. It's not often one gets to hear such grand performances in such a grand setting.
In other words, perfect. Like hearing Gabrieli in St. Mark's.
It is not really interesting to me, but then, neither is NASCAR. I see nothing wrong with either, I would just rather listen to music than watch those events.
I can see how that would be different if I were British, it would be a part of my history. Now it is just a part of history that we Americans rejected, and I am informed by American culture. Well, the parts unrelated to NASCAR.
I must say I love British music though.
To each his or her own, I see nothing wrong with enjoying and appreciating it.
Trey
The only part I loved was the the service since I have and use a 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
I think the reason guys are so down on this is that it feeds into a fantasy that starts the "its all about me" dynamic in a marriage. Why is the day all about her when two people make up a marriage? It is not MY day it is OUR day. We find out how much the teamwork dynamic is going on when economic times get tough. No wonder divorces skyrocket when the economy turns down. "In sickness and in health", for richer or poorer." Um, yeah.
I didn't watch the wedding itself, but I have to admit, I checked out the highlights (they ran nonstop for two days). Rather than seeing it as a "fairy tale", I was impressed by the pageantry precisely because it demonstrated a history going back a thousand years and more. Not the royal family so much as the whole British people celebrating their traditions, and me feeling that it was all kind of my ancestral history too, though I'm removed from it by a couple of hundred years.
I heard one commentator say "He looked OK, but remember, the wedding is all about HER"
no, weddings are about partnership and committment and love, not female narcissism.
The wedding was fine and beautiful.
What was ugly was the media slobbering all over it.
the exact male equivalent would be the pamela anderson sex tape. i'm (half) kidding
ItWorksInTheory snarked:
"'Those over-burdened with a relentless sense of reverence [vice the original "relevance"] can take their disdain and stuff it.'
Fixed that for you."
I suppose that tired substitution mechanism is bound to remain popular with some, no matter how old it gets. It appears to be the snarker's version of "pull my finger."
Sgt Ted said: no, weddings are about partnership and committment and love, not female narcissism.
That's what they're supposed to be about, but by and large it's quite the opposite - as is marriage, sadly.
Didn't watch it, don't care about it. It has no impact whatsoever in my life.
"I must say I love British music though." --Trey
I detest monarchy, have long recognized English self-absorption as a global cancer, and have no more use for the BBC (Burning Bush Channel) than I do for Pravda...
...but
LED ZEPPELIN RULES!
Yes, Minister is Awesomeness, and
Francis Urquhart is a breathtaking bastard.
Don't get me started on P.G. Wodehouse.
But the royals are a whorefest, tunneling at rocket speed to the core of Planet Stupid.
"Listening to the desperate, hyperventilated gasping of women as they watch a member of the biggest pack of talentless welfare bums get hitched on the public dime makes me heave."
ZorroPrimo, don't be such a bloody peasant. In the first place, the young couple didn't "get hitched on the public dime" -- the bride's parents paid nearly half a million dollars for it. Secondly, they ARE the Royal family, still supported by a huge majority of the British people, and while the Queen is supported by the British people's taxes, she's still more popular by far than any of the UK's ghastly politicians.
You may have a bee in your bonnet about hereditary power; but as a British friend of mine pointed out, while the system of heredity has created a few stinkers as rulers, it has also managed to turn out many decent ones too -- in greater proportion than the elected class.
To my mind, the Royal wedding had two things going for it: 1.) it united the British people behind the monarchy, and 2.) the guest list didn't include the classless current occupant of the White House and his harridan wife.
And one last thing: the Royal Family isn't "talentless" -- among its members, it has several decorated war heroes (including the best man, who has seen actual combat in Afghanistan), which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the horrible British government (of either party).
All that said: I do agree with the "chich crack" snark, even if I have few problems with the wedding itself.
"bloody peasant"
English snobbery defined.
Small wonder it was the Brits who invented the concentration camp.
"Oo! Did you hear that?! What a giveaway. Did you hear how he was oppressing me? You saw that, didn't you?!"
Koblog---
The truth cannot be stated too often or too thick.
Tks for the post
I thought Kim was an American. Is he now joining the ranks of Americans taking on fake British accents?
Like Madonna who can be heard on tape with her fake British accent a few years ago - until they didn't fix the air-conditioning for several hours. Then you heard a burst of profanity in good old Detroit/Flint Gutter-Cunt Dialect.
So many affectations to take on, so little time.
And to the evangelists pushing Christianity here: I don't need to hear it any more than I want to hear a lecture on Islam or how I'm a heathen if I'm not a Muslim.
Keep private issues private. Maybe you don't personally know the ultimate truth about the universe like you think you do. But if you do, keep it to yourself in smug arrogance. Please.
Ditto that.
ken in sc,
I don't suppose you've read much American history, then.
Kim sez: "... but as a British friend of mine pointed out, while the system of heredity has created a few stinkers as rulers, it has also managed to turn out many decent ones too -- in greater proportion than the elected class."
----
They aren't "rulers" anymore. As I suggested above, the Queen isn't able to say "Off with his head" anymore - in any case not with any tangible result.
They don't really do anything. If you told them the Monarchy had no more power because of a new law eliminating them (like happened in Germany) - off you go - there would not be any perceptible difference in society.
To support the Monarchy, you have to have a reverence for them from some source. What is that source for you Loyal Subjects? I asked that question in a different form above, and no one gave a convincing answer.
Seeing reality is scary, isn't it.
Kim sez: "... the young couple didn't 'get hitched on the public dime' "
____________
Yeah, maybe. I know that security at taxpayer expense costed a fortune. As to the rest, unless you're the Exchequer Esquire in Royal Control of Black Government Purse, you don't know the details of further payments (on top of security) and neither do I. You are just saying that without evidence because you want to support the Monarchy. For whatever bizarre reason.
To the people who were dazzled by the "pomp and circumstance":
You are the people that advertising executives refer to as "naive sheep".
As long as there are flashing lights and the appearance of something cool, you will buy the product.
All appearance, no substance.
Do you really appreciate appearance above substance? If so, I would probably keep it to myself.
@ZorroPrimero
The Manipulated Man is a hilarious artifact. I’m so pleased you pointed it out (it’s available on the internet in pdf, no need to purchase).
It’s rather painful at points, one can’t escape the feeling that there was an Oedipal dynamic in Villars’ family and this book is actually a diatribe against her mother, but the spectacle of the author’s argument is too amusing to turn away from.
The book’s an expose of the Vast Female Conspiracy: Women are a master sex of robotic, hyper-rational golddiggers who have made men their unwitting slaves. The prose is very much in the conspiricist style, so strewn with astonishing bizarro-world pronouncements such as this:
"A woman may, in fact, be compared to a firm in a number of ways. After all, a firm is only an impersonal system aimed at achieving a maximum profit. And what else does a woman do? Without any emotion - love, hate, or malice - she is bound to the man who works for her. Feelings become involved only if he threatens to leave her. Then her livelihood is at stake. As this is a rational reaction with a rational cause, it can be rationally dealt with and adjusted to. She can always place another man under contract. How different is her reaction from those of a man who finds himself in a similar position. He is racked by jealousy, humiliation and self-pity - but she is emotionless.
"A woman would hardly ever feel jealous in such a situation, since the man is leaving her only for another woman and not in order to be free. In her eyes he is not improving his position in any way. The adventure of a man's love for a new woman is nothing more than a nuisance. She is seeing it all from the angle of the entrepreneur who loses his best worker to a competitor. As far as a woman is concerned, the heartache involved is nothing more than a reaction to letting good business go elsewhere.
Only a woman could write something this preposterous. Men have insufficient imagination.
Thanks ever so much, but it's ZorroPrimo, not ZorroPrimero, and not even ZorroPrimavera.
Jeez.
PS: Try not to distract me when I'm watching an episode of Archer.
Seriously. Archer is, like, totally AWESOME sexy coolness, and you're making a point that's less meaningless than the chocolate that covers a rat's ass.
Oh dear! Well I’ll have to take your word for that, ZoroPrimito. I’ve never inspected a rat’s ass and therefore have no basis for comparison.
Goddigger:
Esther Vilar sometimes has a tongue-in-cheek writing style in "The Manipulated Man", but she is absolutely pointing out reality.
It applied at her time, and it applies today with the irrelevant caveat that women today aren't so *obvious* about using men to live off of. I saw a study that even ostensibly high-powered women in law and medicine etc. at Ivy League schools are sitting at home ten years later - being supported by a willing dupe, I mean a husband.
The idea today is to go to college and get a good-sounding title. I'm a doctor. I'm a lawyer. I'm a Candlestick-maker. And then conveniently forget to mention that you don't do much work in that area - or any - and Hubby does the heavy lifting with regard to money.
Same old stuff. And she is still getting death threats, so something about her bothers other women.
Here's an article to read on this:
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/gold-diggers-are-alive-and-well-in-2006_id1222
ZorroPrimo said...
"Oo! Did you hear that?! What a giveaway. Did you hear how he was oppressing me? You saw that, didn't you?!"
Come see the violence inherent in the system!! Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!
Osama bin Laden is DEAD.
Fucking finally!
Didn't see it. I don't exist at that time of day, and didn't bother recording it. However, I have seen highlights afterward, and while I don't generally give a rip about such things, I have to say it was a beautiful pageant, and I understand (if not quite share) the interest.
The bride was gorgeous, the Prince was the picture of what a prince should be, the kids were just dang cute, the flyover was sweet in ways many won't understand, Pippa is frankly hot, the hats were as hilarious as ever, the setting was stunning as always, and the music... ah, the music! That new Ubi Caritas is entirely wonderful!
Yeah, I get it. I'm glad I picked out the good parts afterward, but really, I get it. And the whiners above can go pout in the corner.
on the one hand , the thought of watching a programming session for a new generation of narssisstic predators disgusted me, but on the other hand i do so much miss england....the way it used to be.
and the monarchy has certainly tempered the "divine right" bit substantially, otherewise england would be...like it used to be.
and the american president wasn`t invited?
that`s funny.
and trey, your analysis seems about right....higher purpose and all that.
my belief is that we can access that point occasionally and excel at things, and so a royal wedding can rally the troops, if enough people understand.
one thing americans do so well is get behind the flag, and just get things done. i`ve always admired that.
and my step-daughter has recently been working with tigers, and it has deeply moved her. she cried last night as her co-op work is now over and she won`t likely be able to go back as an employee.
that was her brush with majesty.
Post a Comment
<< Home