Prince William's wedding
Jossgod
William's wedding, when he does have it, so where do you guess it will be held?
Do you think he would have enough balls to do a JFK jr. type of wedding?
Martha Tassi
"Jossgod" wrote in message ...
==============
Why wouldn't St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey work for William's wedding? As
he is the future king, I don't think he'll get away with sneaking off to a
remote village to get married.
-Martha
==============
Jossgod
His parents were married in St.Paul, and their marriage didn't exactly end up
the fairytale it was supposed to be, and he may have bad memories from
Westminster and his mother's funeral. As for consorts, lovers, and possible
brides, I doubt he's even met his future wife yet.
Jossgod
>Um, are you also suggesting that the Coronation be moved from
>Westminster Abbey, since Diana's funeral was held there?
>--
>Crone Princess
No, I didn't say that. The Coronation is a tradition I truly doubt William
could change if he wanted to. But he can choose where he gets married.
Martha Tassi
> >"Jossgod" wrote in message ...
> >
> >> It seems that neither St.Paul's, nor Westminster Abbey would be good
> >places for
> >> William's wedding, when he does have it, so where do you guess it will
be
> >held?
> >> Do you think he would have enough balls to do a JFK jr. type of
wedding?
> >
> >==============
> >Why wouldn't St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey work for William's wedding?
As
> >he is the future king, I don't think he'll get away with sneaking off to
a
> >remote village to get married.
> >
> >-Martha
>
> His parents were married in St.Paul, and their marriage didn't exactly end
up
> the fairytale it was supposed to be, and he may have bad memories from
> Westminster and his mother's funeral. As for consorts, lovers, and
possible
> brides, I doubt he's even met his future wife yet.
Jossgod
================
True, but he may wish to get married in St. Paul's and "break the curse" or
whatever. It really is a beautiful setting, and I can see him preferring
that over Westminster. Unless, of course, he attends other weddings at
Westminster and no longer sees it as an unhappy place.
-Martha
================
His Jadedness
>guests, security measures, transportation and accommodations for guests,
>etc as well as tradition will probably dictate a London wedding.
>
When was the last time the heir of the heir wasn't married in Westminster or
St. Paul's?
--
Norina - The Kitty Kelly of the Internet
Royal Reckoning -The National Enquirer of the Internet
PK/BZ - Sockpuppet Mistress of the Internet
Tara O.
news:oMt%6.9523$5Z5.2...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
>
> Why wouldn't St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey work for William's wedding? As
> he is the future king, I don't think he'll get away with sneaking off to a
> remote village to get married.
I wouldn't put it past him to try it though for a couple of reasons. First off,
he hates the press and I think he'd be willing to disappoint his nation in order
to avoid them intruding on this day which for him, would probably be more about
emotion than about pomp and circumstance. He does seem to be more feeling and
emotional than the rest of the royals which I'm assuming comes from his mother.
The press would ruin this day for him but would probably make his wife-to-be
feel very much like a princess out of a fairy tale.
Secondly, I think he has enough of Diana in him to intentionally cause a stir
and piss the press off. Diana, in her moments of spite (many deserved IMO),
could care less about whom she snubbed, especially the press as its well noted
that she used them and abused them whenever the whim struck her.
For all that William seems a fine young man, and I do believe he is, I think
he's got alot of Diana in him, especially her independent streak ;-)
--
Tara O.
Amie & Summer: http://www.geocities.com/tara29401/index.html
alt.tv.gilmore-girls FAQ:
http://www.geocities.com/tara29401/alt.tv.gilmore-girls_faq.htm
"Impatience is a very common failing I believe. By all that I have ever read,
I am convinced that it is very common indeed, that human nature is particularly
prone to it."
Mary, Pride & Prejudice
DeadeyeDev
(...) I can see him preferring
>that over Westminster. Unless, of course, he attends other weddings at
>Westminster and no longer sees it as an unhappy place.
>
>-Martha
>======
Have you held the funeral service for a family member in your local church;
and, if so, do you recoil at the idea of attending services there because it's
an unhappy place?
DeadeyeDev
(...)
>The press would ruin this day for him but would probably make his wife-to-be
>feel very much like a princess out of a fairy tale.
-------
In my quest to understand that which I'm told I can never understand, namely,
the mind of a woman (my goal this week, even if it involves reading a romance
novel); can someone explain to me 'feeling like a princess out of a fairy
tale' involves.
Is it the thrill of wearing glass slippers? Getting visits from a dwarf named
Ruplestiltskin? The belief that you can sleep for a hundred years and wake up,
having no wrinkles, after being kissed by a man eighty years your junior?
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> I wouldn't put it past him to try it though for a
> couple of reasons. First off, he hates the press
> and I think he'd be willing to disappoint his nation
> in order to avoid them intruding on this day which
> for him, would probably be more about emotion than
> about pomp and circumstance.
I don't think William will do any such thing. Kings,
future and otherwise, usually are not "willing to
disappoint [their] nation."
"The nation" (or at least a not-neglible portion of
its populace) "loves" this boy, and will rejoice
*with* him and *for* him when he takes a bride, just
as they did so for his father, his aunt and uncles,
and his grandparents. Yes, yes, some of those marriages
did not work out, but that is beside the point. The
people hoped for the best for all of those young
marrieds.
> He does seem to be more feeling and emotional than the
> rest of the royals which I'm assuming comes from his
> mother.
And this is a "feeling" that was cultivated by the
late Princess of Wales, who ran no monopoly on feelings,
though she did run a pretty good one on the *public
display*, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, of
feelings.
Like all humans, the Royal Family laughs and cries,
rejoices and mourns, plays and worries. Prick them,
and duly they will bleed, though, as with many people,
especially ones of their background, they will do
everything possible not to flinch. The Royal Family
has its virtues and vices, talents and short-comings
just like every one else. It must be maddening for
them that there are so many people who think they
"know" them and why they do what they do, how, when,
why and where.
> The press would ruin this day for him
I imagine as he would the public part of it as one
more function of his role in the life of a country.
As glorious as the celebrations will be, the public
will only be a small part of it, and if he's lucky,
the people privy to the private side will not dash
to tell their stories to the Press.
> but would probably make his wife-to-be feel very
> much like a princess out of a fairy tale.
Which, as Diana found out, has its wonderful moments,
and it's darker side.
The media is an insatiable, ravening beast, and the
Queen Mum has an excellent point when she says that
it's best left mistrusted and unfed.
> Secondly, I think he has enough of Diana in him to
> intentionally cause a stir and piss the press off.
And, much as I undoubtedly feel he loved his mother,
remembers many wonderful things about her and reveres
the better parts of her nature and her memory, I hope
he also learned the hard lessons of his mother's
experience and mistakes: play with fire, get burned.
This goes too, of course, from learning from his
father's mistakes.
Hopefully, William does NOT have "enough" of THAT
part of Diana in him: for it will only ensure he would
suffer the misery Diana did, some of which she caused
herself. I would hope that Diana would want William
to do no such thing - but to learn from her and
Charles' mistakes, not REPEAT them.
> Diana, in her moments of spite (many deserved IMO),
> could care less about whom she snubbed, especially the
> press as its well noted that she used them and abused
> them whenever the whim struck her.
And they "won" in the end. DIANA lost everything: her
marriage, her title, even her life. You can argue she
may have not "cared" about some of that. But her life
was often not what she wanted.
The media fed on her unhappiness, but it did not make
a *happy* difference in her life. Diana's unhappiness
sold newspapers and magazines. It didn't solve any of
her problems, and in fact, augmented them and even
created new ones.
> For all that William seems a fine young man, and I do
> believe he is, I think he's got alot of Diana in him,
> especially her independent streak ;-)
And "independence" can sometimes be seen as "selfishness."
It's often be said that sadly, whatever is "good" about
William will be seen as the influence of Diana, and whatever
is "bad" (or any unpopular decisions he makes, however
heartfelt) will be seen as Charles' influence. That is
unfair and really, a slight to the humanity of BOTH his
parents, neither of whom were/are saints.
God willing, the British monarchy will continue. And
William will play the part for which he was, and is being,
raised. People should wish him well in it, for really,
he has few other truly feasible choices. Diana would not
have wanted her eldest son to slink off for a nondescript
wedding in a country church or registrar's office. The
sadness comes in that she will not be there to enjoy the
pomp and circumstance WITH him. Undoubtedly, he will miss
her.
~ C.
--
- CEM-L-G
Personal Homepage: http://www.hom.net/~walkuere/
"Bis Ihre Lebensdauer beendet wird, haben Sie gerade genug
erlernt, es gut anzufangen." - Eleanore Marx
"Who can refute a sneer?" - William Paley (1743-1805):
Moral Philosophy. Vol. ii. Book v. Chap. 9.
"Se desiderassi sentire il vostro parere, Vi darei uno."
Italian common sense ;)
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> In my quest to understand that which I'm told I can
> never understand, namely, the mind of a woman (my
> goal this week, even if it involves reading a romance
> novel); can someone explain to me 'feeling like a
> princess out of a fairy tale' involves.
I think it involves the pervasive belief that if one has
fame and fortune, one therefore is less beholden to life's
rubs, tragedies, losses and unhappiness.
It doesn't take into account that while money and public
notice does usually make one very comfortable in life, it
also comes with its burdens.
Also, "fairy tales" usually end on an upbeat note:
"... and they lived happily EVER AFTER"; good triumphs,
the wicked are punished, etc usw. As I believe Oscar
Wilde said, "the truth is rather pure and never simple."
"Real life" is not as cut-and-dried as that and real
people are not cardboard caricatures drawn in black and
white.
Historically, women have been taught that Life happens
TO them, while men were taught that Life is what they
MADE it through their own hard work and intelligence.
It's a fairly recent innovation that women have been
encouraged to pursue their own dreams and be the masters
of their own destinies.
For many women, they see women such as Diana and sigh
that she never had to face what they did: squeezing
pennies from a slender budget, rocking a sick child all
night, "making do." The young Princess of Wales was
seen as glamourous - she could CHOOSE to clip her husband's
hair with her tapestry scissors (which she did) and
bathe her own babies (another thing she did) but she
didn't HAVE to. There was plenty of money for staff and
servants, and for all sorts of creature comforts. That
Diana had a CHOICE was something other women envied her
(in a nice way. ;)
And then it became known that the Princess of Wales faced
problems that many other women faced; women who lacked
glorious homes and huge bank accounts. There were
problems in her marriage. She felt unfulfilled in many
aspects. She was restless, bored, "seeking." Again,
there was identification: "she's just like me!" some
women thought. And in many ways, she was, but in many
other ways, she was not.
Fairy tales are almost unilaterally unrealistic. Though
some have "morals to the story" they usually are for
entertainment and the encouragement of dreams. Most
people understand that, and though they enjoy the story,
when the story ends, they go back to the business of
real life, inherent with its ups and downs. What's
seductive about fairy tales is the belief that "if only"
one had such money/fame/power/beauty/position/glamour
then all would be well, and always be well, there would
be unending, perfect, satisfying happiness.
Fairy tales end with "... and they lived happily ever
after." Real life is what begins AFTER the wedding
ceremony, however austere or glorious. "Real life" as
you know, is filled with all sorts of disappointments.
If one is lucky, the "trips to the higher places" will
outnumber the troubles and Life IS what one chooses to
make of it.
JMHO.
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
> > His Jadedness wrote:
> >
> > When was the last time the heir of the heir wasn't
> > married in Westminster or St. Paul's?
> Susan T. wrote:
>
> George V was married at the Chapel Royal, St James's
> Palace and Edward VII was married at St George's Chapel,
> Windsor Castle.
>
> I think Princess Patricia of Connaught was the first
> Royal in the 20th century to marry in Westminster Abbey
> (1919), followed by Princess Mary (1922), George VI
> (1923), Duke of Kent (1934.)
St. Paul's was seen as an unusual choice when the Prince
of Wales decided that it was there he wished to be married
in 1981. It had been thought he would marry in Westminister
Abbey, the "usual" location.
I could be wrong, but I think the only two Princes of Wales
to be married in St. Paul's were Arthur (1501) and Charles
(1981.) Both marriages ended tragically, so maybe people
will consider it an "unlucky" choice.
Karen Horn
: It seems that neither St.Paul's, nor Westminster Abbey would be good places for
: William's wedding, when he does have it, so where do you guess it will be held?
: Do you think he would have enough balls to do a JFK jr. type of wedding?
He _couldn't_.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: His parents were married in St.Paul, and their marriage didn't exactly end up
: the fairytale it was supposed to be, and he may have bad memories from
: Westminster and his mother's funeral. As for consorts, lovers, and possible
: brides, I doubt he's even met his future wife yet.
You do bring up an interesting point re: not-so-hot memories of both.
He can't do St. George's just because it's "too small" for who he
is. It wouldn't accomodate all the diplomatic corps, etc. that "has"
to be invited. St. Paul's may well be seen as "cursed." And Westminster
Abbey has had a bad run with the family in recent history.
The only thing to do is to go for disestablishmentarianism, change the
laws about Catholics succeeding to the throne, convert, and use
Westminster Cathedral.
Karen
[;-D --- for the clueless]
Martha Tassi
The church where we had mother's services burned to the ground within six
months of her funeral.
No, it wasn't me.
-Martha
=============
Tara O.
news:20010701002858...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
> >From: "Tara O.
> (...)
> >The press would ruin this day for him but would probably make his wife-to-be
> >feel very much like a princess out of a fairy tale.
>
> -------
> In my quest to understand that which I'm told I can never understand, namely,
> the mind of a woman (my goal this week, even if it involves reading a romance
> novel); can someone explain to me 'feeling like a princess out of a fairy
> tale' involves.
I used the word fairy tale as a description of most girls' dreams for her
wedding day. It is one of the single most important days in most girls' lives
and its supposed to be perfect, romantic, beautiful, something to sigh happily
over.
His Jadedness
>wedding day. It is one of the single most important days in most girls'
>lives
>and its supposed to be perfect, romantic, beautiful, something to sigh
>happily
>over.
And here Ladies and Gentlemen lies the root of the problem. Marriage, one of
the most important institutions in our lives, begins on a foundation of
unrealistic emotional expectations. Is it any wonder that the fairytale does
not continue?? !!
To invest so much emotional capital into one day, one ceremony, is tempting the
gods themselves to do their worst.... and they usually do!
felix
"His Jadedness" <agh...@aol.commoner.de> wrote in message
news:20010701112650...@ng-da1.aol.com...
snip
> And here Ladies and Gentlemen lies the root of the problem. Marriage, one
of
> the most important institutions in our lives, begins on a foundation of
> unrealistic emotional expectations. Is it any wonder that the fairytale
does
> not continue?? !!
>
> To invest so much emotional capital into one day, one ceremony, is
tempting the
> gods themselves to do their worst.... and they usually do!
>
Which is why I got married in the chapel at Christ Church Cathedral on
Broadway (Andy should know where that is!), with only immediate family
present, wearing a cream-coloured wool crepe suit. Eight weeks was the
absolute outside limit of my tolerance for being engaged, and that's exactly
how long I was. I wanted to be married, not to have a wedding. Many people
don't understand the difference, and there is a whole industry that preys on
those who don't.
Judy
(still happily married, 7 years on...)
Tara O.
news:tvN%6.27560$P5.81...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> Which is why I got married in the chapel at Christ Church Cathedral on
> Broadway (Andy should know where that is!), with only immediate family
> present, wearing a cream-coloured wool crepe suit. Eight weeks was the
> absolute outside limit of my tolerance for being engaged, and that's exactly
> how long I was. I wanted to be married, not to have a wedding. Many people
> don't understand the difference, and there is a whole industry that preys on
> those who don't.
Its not just the industry though. Before we're even old enough to see
commercials, tv weddings, and magazine ads, our mothers speak of this day as the
most special day next to giving birth. Girls are raised with this notion, the
outside influences & commercialism come into play much later on IMO.
FWIW, I got married by a justice of the peace, in a 10 minute ceremony, wearing
a borrowed dress with *none* of my family present. I went home afterwards with
my husband, who'd already been living with me, and took a nap, then went out to
dinner, then watched tv before going to sleep lol.
salyaly
Tara O. <tara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9hoj56$f966d$1...@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
His Jadedness
>Broadway (Andy should know where that is!),
I certainly do! A lovely building!
felix
"salyaly" <sal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TmQ%6.2538$A51.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
snip
> Am I awful because I want the dress, and the aisle?
Of course not! As long as one knows that the wedding is one day and the
marriage is (one hopes) the rest of one's life, then one is entitled to make
that day whatever one wants... and if the white dress and the aisle are part
of it, then that's the way it should be. We chose how we did it in part
because, try as I might, I just couldn't visualise myself in white tulle,
quite frankly we were feeling a little cheap (my parents are long gone so no
daddy to foot the bill) and it was just 6 months after my future
mother-in-law's death. I think we sort of used that as an excuse, but it
was certainly a reasonable one. We had a nice reception at my brother's
house, and another get-together the next day at my sister's. We're still
happy with the memories (which is good, since we have very few pictures, and
what we do have are family snaps) but of course I'm not saying that that's
the way everyone should do it. I love seeing a pretty bride in a beautiful
dress coming down the aisle, just could't see myself doing it!
Judy
felix
We've been in the 'don't go' mode for a couple of years, time to get back
into the 'go' phase....
Judy
"His Jadedness" <agh...@aol.commoner.de> wrote in message
news:20010701220409...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
Tara O.
news:TmQ%6.2538$A51.7...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
>
Nope, not IMO. I would've had a beautiful gown and an outdoor wedding in
downtown Charleston but both finances and my lack of family ties at the time
decided against that. In the end I just decided that it was only a day, nothing
worth spending thousands of dollars on if I didn't have to. If I'd waited for
that, I still wouldn't be married 8 years later lol.
Susan Cohen
Jossgod wrote:
> It seems that neither St.Paul's, nor Westminster Abbey would be good places for
> William's wedding, when he does have it,
Uh, why not?
SusanC
Susan Cohen
Susan T wrote:
> In article <20010630210656...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
> agh...@aol.commoner.de says...
> >To a certain extent. It will be a State Occasion and the number of
> >guests, security measures, transportation and accommodations for guests,
> >etc as well as tradition will probably dictate a London wedding.
> >
>
> When was the last time the heir of the heir wasn't married in Westminster or
> St. Paul's?
> --------------
> George V was married at the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace
Was he the heir when he was married?
I think his father was the heir then - but he was next in line....
SusanC
> and Edward
> VII was married at St George;s Chapel, Windsor Castle.
>
> I think Princess Patricia of Connaught was the first Royal in the 20th
> century to marry in Westminster Abbey (1919), followed by Princess Mary
> (1922), George VI (1923), Duke of Kent 1934
>
>
>
> --
> Crone Princess
>
> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
Susan Cohen
Sacha wrote:
> I'm sure you're right that it will be a London wedding but I do query
> the State Occasion thing. I'm tolerably sure that when Prince Charles
> and Diana got married, they chose St Paul's because their wedding was
> NOT considered to be a State Occasion - I seem to remember something
> being said about it at the time in several papers. Obviously, certain
> 'rules' of protocol had to be observed with regard to e.g. the
> invitation list but I seem to recall it being described as a private
> occasion, which is why it was held at the smaller venue.
> --
> Sacha
Really? I thought it was Andrew & Sarah's wedding that wasn't the State Occasion,
but that Charles & Diana's was - a Bank Holiday was declared & everything!
SusanC
Susan Cohen
salyaly wrote:
> Am I awful because I want the dress, and the aisle?
No. Just shoot your mother first.
With tranquilizer if that'll work, but shoot her first.
Trust me on this one.
SusanC
Inge Jones
(Tara O.) wrote:
>
> FWIW, I got married by a justice of the peace, in a 10 minute ceremony,
> wearing
> a borrowed dress with *none* of my family present. I went home
> afterwards with
> my husband, who'd already been living with me, and took a nap, then
> went out to
> dinner, then watched tv before going to sleep lol.
Well I didn't even wear a dress. I went in my normal jogging bottoms,
with only two witnesses (and the husband of course), and we chose the
words that just go "yes" and "yes". I think we went shopping for the
groceries after that.
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
> > His Jadedness wrote:
> >
> > To invest so much emotional capital into one day, one
> > ceremony, is tempting the gods themselves to do their
> > worst.... and they usually do!
> Judy wrote:
>
> Which is why I got married in the chapel at Christ Church
> Cathedral on Broadway (Andy should know where that is!),
*thrill of coincidence*
I was also married at Christ Church Cathedral...
... but, since you ref'd Andy, I presume your "Christ Church
Cathedral" and mentioned "Broadway" is in Memphis, while mine
is in Saint Louis, and is on "Locust Street" (which is not
far from "Broadway"! ;)
> with only immediate family present,
Mine was a bit different on this score.
> wearing a cream-coloured wool crepe suit.
Sounds very pretty - did you marry in Winter?
We did (11 January) and I wore ivory silk and Alençon lace.
My husband wore his "mess dress."
Did you carry any flowers?
> Eight weeks was the absolute outside limit of my tolerance
> for being engaged, and that's exactly how long I was.
Considering the brouhaha that went on prior to my wedding,
there is much wisdom in having a short engagement!
> I wanted to be married, not to have a wedding. Many people
> don't understand the difference, and there is a whole
> industry that preys on those who don't.
As well, IMHO, women who wish to be "brides," but not
necessarily "wives."
I had no problems with having a wedding, though planning a
large ceremony and reception had its problems.
> Judy
Another happy coincidence - my darling Mumsie's name! :)
> (still happily married, 7 years on...)
Congratulations. :) The site must be lucky; we're still
happily married, too, 9-1/2 years on!
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> Am I awful because I want the dress, and the aisle?
Absolutely not.
While I did not go into my marriage (or plan my wedding) with
any illusions that I was tripping off into a fairy tale in
which all things would be perfect or have any unrealistic
expectations, I too, wanted a wedding, complete with wedding
dress, Church ceremony, bridesmaids, a full choir, beautiful
music, uniforms...
The essential ingredient was the groom. I would have been
happy to marry him at high noon, in street clothes, at the
City Hall, if that was the only way. Happily, we had other
options, and chose them.
There is a lamentable tendency, as I mentioned in another
post, of some women to want to be *brides*, but not
necessarily *wives*. What I mean by that is that these
women want to be "Queen for a Day" and enjoy all the attention
showered on a new bride, but have little concept that after
the brouhaha (whether it be big or small) "real life" begins,
and real life does not entail a lot of fairy tale trappings.
While it *should* be a "labour of love," marriage, like
some of life's other milestones (parenthood, for example)
is work. A wedding, however small, intimate or austere or
grand and glorious, should be a *beginning*.
DeadeyeDev
>> DeadeyeDev wrote:
>>
>> In my quest to understand that which I'm told I can
>> never understand, namely, the mind of a woman (my
>> goal this week, even if it involves reading a romance
>> novel); can someone explain to me 'feeling like a
>> princess out of a fairy tale' involves.
>
>I think it involves the pervasive belief that if one has
>fame and fortune, one therefore is less beholden to life's
>rubs, tragedies, losses and unhappiness.
>
>It doesn't take into account that while money and public
>notice does usually make one very comfortable in life
(I understand that obscurity, like sobriety, is never appreciated while you
have it.)
_________
> it also comes with its burdens.
>Also, "fairy tales" usually end on an upbeat note:
>"... and they lived happily EVER AFTER"; good triumphs,
>the wicked are punished, etc usw.
As I believe Oscar
>Wilde said, "the truth is rather pure and never simple."
>"Real life" is not as cut-and-dried as that and real
>people are not cardboard caricatures drawn in black and
>white.
Eh, you do realize you're in essence describing your fellow women as illogical
and prone to childish fantasies, don't you?
___________
>Historically, women have been taught that Life happens
>TO them, while men were taught that Life is what they
>MADE it through their own hard work and intelligence.
No one had to teach me that life is what you make it; and I seriously doubt
women have been taught that life happens "to" them.
Frankly, it seems that many women simply prefer to take the passive role and
let life, love, financial rewards and all the rest come to them.
You might be interested to know that I did indeed read a typical romance novel
last night. (It seemed like just the thing after playing 18 holes like some
teenage girl who'd never seen a golf ball before!)
Actually, I only read 20 or 30 pages; but they were so repetitive that I'm
certain I'm not missing much by not finishing it.
What I learned from your Miss Jane Austin - in addition to the fact that women
of her time had no other goal besides finding a husband - is that while they
didnt actively pursue men, they acted much like a deer that wants very badly to
be caught and so puts itself in the path of the hunter.
It's hard, then, to swallow the line that "life happened 'to' them", when you
read how carefully they planned that it would happen to them.
It's also interesting to see how some women, perhaps all, truly enjoy
suffering. E.g.:
"They encouraged each other now in the violence of their affliction. The
agony of grief which overpowered tham at first, was voluntarily renewed, was
sought for, was created again and again. They gave themselves up wholly ot
their sorrow, seeking increase of wretchedness in every reflection that could
afford it, and resolved against ever admitting consolation in future."
This leads to the logical conclusion that many women loved Diana because they
loved her tragedy. And once they committed themselves wholeheartedly to
empathising and suffering with her, they were loath to give up the enjoyment of
it.
DeadeyeDev
>> In my quest to understand that which I'm told I can never understand,
>namely,
>> the mind of a woman (my goal this week, even if it involves reading a
>romance
>> novel); can someone explain to me 'feeling like a princess out of a fairy
>> tale' involves.
>
>I used the word fairy tale as a description of most girls' dreams for her
>wedding day. It is one of the single most important days in most girls'
>lives
>and its supposed to be perfect, romantic, beautiful, something to sigh happily
>over.
>--
>Tara O.
________
I can believe that. I took my niece to a bookstore, and even though she's no
more than 10, she wanted to buy a bridal magazine in order to pick out her
dress.
It strikes me, though, as bizarre and possibly dangerous to encourage that kind
of telescopic vision.
DeadeyeDev
>of
>the most important institutions in our lives, begins on a foundation of
>unrealistic emotional expectations. Is it any wonder that the fairytale
>does
>not continue?? !!
After the episode with my young niece wanting to choose a wedding dress, I
began to see the logic in those cotillion and debutante dances that give young
girls the chance to dress up in white and be the center of attention without
plighting their troth.
Deb balls are pretty much the same as weddings were in days past, anyhow. Most
girls lose their virginity that night. :)
loki
> No one had to teach me that life is what you make it; and I seriously
doubt
> women have been taught that life happens "to" them.
Depends. Yes, my generation was taught this. We were also taught how to
control it anyway.
> Frankly, it seems that many women simply prefer to take the passive role
and
> let life, love, financial rewards and all the rest come to them.
Many do. Many still subscribe to the Prince Charming/knight in white armor
myth.
> You might be interested to know that I did indeed read a typical romance
novel
> last night. (It seemed like just the thing after playing 18 holes like
some
> teenage girl who'd never seen a golf ball before!)
>
> Actually, I only read 20 or 30 pages; but they were so repetitive that I'm
> certain I'm not missing much by not finishing it.
Probably not. I've never gotten that far through one.
> What I learned from your Miss Jane Austin - in addition to the fact that
women
> of her time had no other goal besides finding a husband - is that while
they
> didnt actively pursue men, they acted much like a deer that wants very
badly to
> be caught and so puts itself in the path of the hunter.
<chuckle> They weren't subtle enough then. The idea is to let the man
chase you till you catch him. Works. The opposite works as well. If you
want rid of a man, chase him. <grin> Works every time.
Anne may or may not have been aware of it (and I'm very certain she was
acutely aware of it) when she denied Henry her favors for so long, but the
chase is often more important than the conquest. This is particularly true
of men who are accustomed to power. Becoming a prize he cannot quite have
is a way to insure that he will want you all the more. The trouble is that
eventually he has to catch you and then what? <sigh> My own approach in
that situation has always been to acquire a lover so that once again he does
not *quite* have you. Works. But then, charging large amounts of jewelry
to his account works and provides a more secure backup plan.
> It's hard, then, to swallow the line that "life happened 'to' them", when
you
> read how carefully they planned that it would happen to them.
It is the one who does not have control attempting to gain that control.
One who has control simply goes and gets what one wants. Women have had to
be very crafty indeed to get what they wanted in the past (and often today
as well).
> It's also interesting to see how some women, perhaps all, truly enjoy
> suffering. E.g.:
>
> "They encouraged each other now in the violence of their affliction.
The
> agony of grief which overpowered tham at first, was voluntarily renewed,
was
> sought for, was created again and again. They gave themselves up wholly
ot
> their sorrow, seeking increase of wretchedness in every reflection that
could
> afford it, and resolved against ever admitting consolation in future."
>
> This leads to the logical conclusion that many women loved Diana because
they
> loved her tragedy. And once they committed themselves wholeheartedly to
> empathising and suffering with her, they were loath to give up the
enjoyment of
> it.
Certainly we are not all that way, but you have just hit upon something that
seems to drive some women. It has always amazed and astounded me. I simply
do not understand it.
Loki
>
loki
> I can believe that. I took my niece to a bookstore, and even though she's
no
> more than 10, she wanted to buy a bridal magazine in order to pick out her
> dress.
>
> It strikes me, though, as bizarre and possibly dangerous to encourage that
kind
> of telescopic vision.
In my generation it led to women marrying for the wedding and then
discovering they didn't much like being married.
Sad. Very sad.
My own feelings of "fairy tale princess" mostly involve evening dresses,
limo's, expensive evenings out and torrid sex later on. <grin>
Ok, I'm spoiled.
Loki
loki
> After the episode with my young niece wanting to choose a wedding dress, I
> began to see the logic in those cotillion and debutante dances that give
young
> girls the chance to dress up in white and be the center of attention
without
> plighting their troth.
>
> Deb balls are pretty much the same as weddings were in days past, anyhow.
Most
> girls lose their virginity that night. :)
They wait that long these days???????
Loki
Norina
> >From: "Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
Snip
> This leads to the logical conclusion that many women loved Diana because they
> loved her tragedy. And once they committed themselves wholeheartedly to
> empathising and suffering with her, they were loath to give up the enjoyment of
> it.
Not bloody likely. Diana's 'story' is one of Triumph....triumph over
the man and woman in the street being neglected, triumph over
prejudice and hostility...the List of Triumphs are boundless. I
personally SHUN suffering. If I can help someone ELSE who is
suffering, lovely, otherwise..not productive!
Perhaps I should 'try' a romance novel....never read one...Mysteries
are my meat..the Colin Dexter-Ruth Rendell sort...and Historical epics
and bios.
Norina
salyaly
> >And here Ladies and Gentlemen lies the root of the problem. Marriage, one
> >of
> >the most important institutions in our lives, begins on a foundation of
> >unrealistic emotional expectations. Is it any wonder that the fairytale
> >does
> >not continue?? !!
> ________
> After the episode with my young niece wanting to choose a wedding dress, I
> began to see the logic in those cotillion and debutante dances that give
young
> girls the chance to dress up in white and be the center of attention
without
> plighting their troth
I understand what you are saying.....although I still wantthe big wedding,
etc., it is not so much a big deal anymore and if I have to have a small
wedding so be it, as long as I love the man. This is because, very simply,
I am always dressing up and I go to lots of balls. Back when I was younger,
when dressing up was a treast insteadof a normal occurrence, it seemed like
somuch more of a big deal. I still want a wedding dress though, and I don't
want skinny slinkty thing because I am always wearing skinny slinky
things.>
Paul J
Westminster or
> > St. Paul's?
> > --------------
> > George V was married at the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace
>
> Was he the heir when he was married?
> I think his father was the heir then - but he was next in line....
Yes - George was the heir of the heir, which is what the question asked
about.
Norina
Neither do I because it doesn't exist. The millions of men, women and
children who remain loyal to her memory are inspired by the Positive
side of life, her ability to spit in the eye of adversity and rise
above immense pressure to bring her down...Diana is only associated
with negativity by those who didn't care for her. She stands for Hope,
achievement, Charity, enthusiasm, laughter, cures for diseases,
compassion, Faith in one's self and a Supreme Being...all that is
uplifting.
Norina
truebrit
Sacha wrote in message <0lj3ktgofcf2pcof7...@4ax.com>...
>On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:53:12 +0100, "salyaly" <sal...@ukonline.co.uk>
>wrote:
>She's done several very posh American weddings - one recently on
>Martha's Vineyard which she said was just such a beautiful place.
>So give me a call when The Day is dawning. ;-) Oh, and you will get
>your shoes from that wonderful woman, Basia Something - used to be on
>the King's Road but I think she's moved. Fabulously beautiful, they
>really are.
>--
>Sacha
>S. Devon
>www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
>(remove spam-trap)
================
Basia (Barbara is Polish) Zarzycka now at 52 Sloane Square.
Mrs H
salyaly
Sacha <sa...@nospamgarden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0lj3ktgofcf2pcof7...@4ax.com...
> She's done several very posh American weddings - one recently on
> Martha's Vineyard which she said was just such a beautiful place.
> So give me a call when The Day is dawning. ;-) Oh, and you will get
> your shoes from that wonderful woman, Basia Something - used to be on
> the King's Road but I think she's moved. Fabulously beautiful, they
> really are.
>
I beleive she is on the side road besides Hyatt Carlton Towers, but not
sure...I know she is on one of the small roads that connect Knightsbridge to
Belgravia. She does allof these lovely pieces,accessories, etc.
salyaly
truebrit <true...@utah.isp.com> wrote in message
news:xTn07.3701$L4.5...@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net...
betwwen Belgravia and Knightsbridge!
Waldt...@webtv.net
is GREAT!!! The cost of my wedding? about $ 35.00. 5 dollars the ring in
a pawn shop,10.00 dress at Montgomery Wards $5.00 for flowers and 1.89
for a cakemix and icing.$5.00 each the license and the JP. Guess what we
had no debt afterwards ! 5 friends ( his family in Louisiana mine in
Austria and we in Kansas) At the Reception and Koolaid to drink! But
it worked!!! but i guess if all couples would thin like this there would
be a whole industry be going down the drain:))))
servus,tschuess,baba austrian by
chance, AMERICAN by CHOICE,
VIENNESE FOREVER
Livadia
>My wedding was nice my marriage is
>GREAT!!! The cost of my wedding?
>about $ 35.00. 5 dollars the ring in a
>pawn shop,10.00 dress at Montgomery
>Wards $5.00 for flowers and 1.89 for a
>cakemix and icing.$5.00 each the license
>and the JP. Guess what we had no debt
>afterwards ! 5 friends ( his family in
>Louisiana mine in Austria and we in
>Kansas) At the Reception and Koolaid to
>drink! But it worked!!! but i guess if all
>couples would thin like this there would
>be a whole industry be going down the
>drain:))))
Congratuluations, Waltraute, on such a wonderful milestone! I would
hazard a guess there are plenty brides who envy you -- regardless of the
size of the weddings they had.
Have you ever considered sending your story to Ann Landers? She'd
probably get a kick out of it. Her "how we met and married" stories are
among her most popular.
Koolaid, I love it! While you're at it, maybe the folks at Koolaid
would enjoy your story, too.
Who knows, it might just end up the centerpiece of their next ad
campaign -- and then you will have boosted another industry, afterall!
;D
All the best,
Liv...@webtv.net
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
> > Candace wrote:
> >
> > Also, "fairy tales" usually end on an upbeat note:
> > "... and they lived happily EVER AFTER"; good triumphs,
> > the wicked are punished, etc usw. As I believe Oscar
> > "Real life" is not as cut-and-dried as that and real
> > people are not cardboard caricatures drawn in black and
> > white.
> Dev wrote:
>
> Eh, you do realize you're in essence describing your fellow
> women as illogical and prone to childish fantasies, don't you?
And some are, and it's not a monopoly. Some men do, too.
I've known plenty of people who have expressed shock that
Life is not an exercise in which people are not "all good"
or "all bad."
Too many people, often and historically female, have been
taught that fairy tales can happen. Historically, when a
MAN overcomes poverty, a lack of education, or whatever
trouble, he is praised for doing so through the dint of
vision and his own hard work.
Evita Perón is depicted in "Evita" singing that her "story"
is not unusual, "local girl makes good / Weds famous man..."
A massive oversimplication and at once all of the story
and none of it.
> > Historically, women have been taught that Life happens
> > TO them, while men were taught that Life is what they
> > MADE it through their own hard work and intelligence.
> No one had to teach me that life is what you make it; and
> I seriously doubt women have been taught that life happens
> "to" them.
I said "historically."
Example: my mother-in-law wanted to be an engineer. It was
her natural inclination. However, she was born in a time
and place where such an aspiration was considered "unusual"
to say the least. She was actively discouraged from such a
"male" pursuit and encouraged to develop an interest in
something seen as "more feminine." It didn't especially
matter that she could have been a very good engineer.
> Frankly, it seems that many women simply prefer to take
> the passive role and let life, love, financial rewards
> and all the rest come to them.
True, some do. And "historically," that what's women were
"taught." I am not saying, necessarily, that this was a
classroom exercise, but what was believed, and enforced by
what females were traditionally exposed to - in the 1950s,
in the US, many girls in high school had classes in "Home
Economics" while boys had classes in "economics" or "shop"
(and "shop" didn't mean "shopping," but such things as
car maintenance, carpentry, etc usw.) Males were the
"breadwinners" and females the "breadbakers."
It was seen as "unfeminine" and "aggressive" for girls to
take an interest in things seen as traditionally "male"
interests, whether they be politics or motorcycle maintenance.
Have women always been in politics? Sure. But they were
viewed as "anomalies." Aliaenor d'Aquitaine, Elizabeth I,
Catherine the Great, Boudicea... many more... were all seen
as "unusual" at the kindest. Sometimes, a powerful woman's
actions were tolerated in a crisis, but then it was expected
that once the crisis passed, she return to the "natural
state" and more feminine interests. "Put the battle axe,
down, Boudicea, and go back to raising your daughters..."
"Put down the rivet gun, Rosie, and tend to the wax build-up
on your floor; have a cold martini ready and a pot roast
warming in the oven for when you husband gets home from the
office..."
> You might be interested to know that I did indeed read a
> typical romance novel last night.
Congratulations. You've now done something for which I
have no interest or patience. ;)
> Actually, I only read 20 or 30 pages; but they were so
> repetitive that I'm certain I'm not missing much by not
> finishing it.
By and large, romance novels are "escapist." Problems
arise when people who love them (whether they be female
or male) try to *live* them. The same argument can be
made for other novels, such as the very popular series by
Tom Clancy. The novels are meant as entertainment, but
then there are those who enjoy them so much that they
begin to incorporate them into lives that that the readers
find perhaps dull in comparison.
Hence why many men have tell tall tales such as they are
in the CIA or FBI, that they're spies and privy to secrets
and clandestine dealings. As someone who has studied
criminology, I've lost count of how many men tricked others
into believing that they led these incredible, "secret"
lives and had all sorts of bizarre professions.
There was a phenomena were many men swore they'd fought in
Vietnam and seen heavy action. It was often revealed
they'd done no such thing - some had never even served
in the military, much less fought hand-to-hand with the
Viet Cong.
*snippage of Jane Austen*
> It's hard, then, to swallow the line that "life happened
> 'to' them", when you read how carefully they planned that
> it would happen to them.
But women were encouraged to take this "passive-aggressive"
route, because "nice" girls were not supposed to be direct.
That would be "forward," "aggressive," etc usw.
So, there's a lot of game playing and maneuvering.
It's like the old saw: a man can have many relationships,
sleep with whom he likes... and he will generally be seen
as a "stud." A woman who does it is a "whore."
Example of passive-aggression: in many Roman Catholic
schools, there is a weird dichotomy taught in regards to
sexual behaviour. Of course, absolute abstinence is the
ideal. But a girl who "plans ahead" and takes the Pill
or has condoms in her purse? Well, that's seen as "planning
for sin." How much "better" that she is just "overwhelmed"
by a situation. Then she hasn't "planned," it's just
"happened" which is "more forgivable." That's not what is
SAID (or taught) but that's the IMPLICATION.
"Nice girls" get pregnant "by mistake." "Sluts" are
the women who enjoy sexual commerce but have taken
pro-active contraception.
> It's also interesting to see how some women, perhaps all,
> truly enjoy suffering.
That's unfortunately true that SOME do. Not ALL.
"Suffering" is ennobled. Many of the "examples" shown to
young girls are of how suffering has its "rewards" and
not necessarily in the way of: "if you want to be a
lawyer or doctor, you will have to study and work very
hard. But the reward will be worth it."
Many, many women have been "counseled," for example, by
society, by their Church, to put up with an abusive spouse.
It was considered "their job" to be patient, understanding
and supportive, even if he was a lout who beat them near
senseless. Their suffering was ennobled, "necessary" so
"they" did not break up the family, or further "hurt" the
man by drawing attention to his shortcomings and thereby
further provoking him or making his life "harder."
> This leads to the logical conclusion that many women
> loved Diana because they loved her tragedy.
Again, this has some validity. For some, this is attractive,
the portrait of the beautiful, tragic, suffering heroine,
for whom people can "root" for her to "overcome" her
unhappy situation, like Cinderella, and "be taken away from
all that."
But again, there's the passive-aggression: Cinderella
didn't say "that's enough of THAT, clean your own hearth,
I'm going to medical school!" There was the "magical
intercession" of a fairy godmother. After a make-over,
she went to a ball and was "rescued" by a "perfect" man
after she "proved" her worthiness - she attracted him not
by her intelligence, or her wit or personality, but by
her mute beauty, and then she fit the slipper.
There are no fairy tales about little boys who are
transformed by fairy godfathers and then "rescued" by
women who "take them away." There are plenty of stories
of young men who are helped by magical intercession (the
Greek and Roman myths come to mind) but then they "prove"
themselves with heroic deeds and "earn" their glory.
Often, they were rewarded with the hand of the King's
daughter or they rescued a damsel in distress.
> And once they committed themselves wholeheartedly to
> empathising and suffering with her, they were loath to
> give up the enjoyment of it.
No argument, there, Dev. Some people really do groove
on tragedy and suffering. Many girls go through a period
where they find suffering very attractive. It's "supported"
by a lot of literature and the way it was written. In
the "old days" illnesses were not written as they were:
manic-depression, for example, was couched in such
"attractive" phrases as "sensitivity," "passionate"...
sufferers were not moody, they were "mercurial," and
"highly-strung" or "prone to melancholia." It was often
"acceptable" if someone was somehow desirable, often by
also having some kind of talent or even an attractive
social status and/or position.
But, there were plenty of artists and people of noble
birth who were just plan pain-in-the-behinds.
Recent example: Robert Downey Jr is a drug addict. He has
a criminal record longer than my arm. Plenty of arrests
for things such as unlawful possession and transportation
of a firearm, breaking and entering, drug possession,
driving under the influence. But, many articles sigh,
he's soooooooo talented! He's sick!
"Sick," he undoubtedly is, and also talented. However,
if he hadn't been a famous actor, he'd simply be a drug
addict in violation of parole, and that would be that.
He is seen as attractive and many people have fallen in
love, not with HIM, but with some of the characters which
he's played in plays and movies. He's been given more
"chances" than the average Joe, which can be argued as
an indictment of how drug addiction is viewed and "should"
by handled, that "regular addicts" should be treated as
gently as he has (i.e., been given as much understanding
and "chances" to change.)
aMAZon
Sacha wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2001 01:03:53 GMT, Susan T
> <cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <20010630204822...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
> >jos...@aol.com says...
> > > >"Jossgod" wrote in message ...
> > > >
> > > >> It seems that neither St.Paul's, nor Westminster Abbey would be good
> > > >places for
> > > >> William's wedding, when he does have it, so where do you guess it will be
> > > >held?
> > > >> Do you think he would have enough balls to do a JFK jr. type of wedding?
> > > >
> > > >==============
> > > >Why wouldn't St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey work for William's wedding?
> > >As
> > > >he is the future king, I don't think he'll get away with sneaking off to a
> > > >remote village to get married.
> > > >
> > > >-Martha
> > >
> > > His parents were married in St.Paul, and their marriage didn't exactly end
> > >up
> > > the fairytale it was supposed to be, and he may have bad memories from
> > > Westminster and his mother's funeral. As for consorts, lovers, and possible
> > > brides, I doubt he's even met his future wife yet.
> > >
> > >===============
> > >Um, are you also suggesting that the Coronation be moved from
> > >Westminster Abbey, since Diana's funeral was held there?
> > >--
> > >Crone Princess
> >
> > No, I didn't say that. The Coronation is a tradition I truly doubt William
> > could change if he wanted to. But he can choose where he gets married.
> >==================
> >To a certain extent. It will be a State Occasion and the number of
> >guests, security measures, transportation and accommodations for guests,
> >etc as well as tradition will probably dictate a London wedding.
> >
>
> I'm sure you're right that it will be a London wedding but I do query
> the State Occasion thing. I'm tolerably sure that when Prince Charles
> and Diana got married, they chose St Paul's because their wedding was
> NOT considered to be a State Occasion - I seem to remember something
> being said about it at the time in several papers. Obviously, certain
> 'rules' of protocol had to be observed with regard to e.g. the
> invitation list but I seem to recall it being described as a private
> occasion, which is why it was held at the smaller venue.
> --
> Sacha
> S. Devon
> www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
> (remove spam-trap)
And here I thought it had something to do with the absence
of that screen thing. What I dimly remember about the
explanation for the choice of St. Paul's was that it would
be better for the TV cameras.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
aMAZon
felix wrote:
>
> "His Jadedness" <agh...@aol.commoner.de> wrote in message
> news:20010701112650...@ng-da1.aol.com...
>
> snip
>
> > And here Ladies and Gentlemen lies the root of the problem. Marriage, one
> of
> > the most important institutions in our lives, begins on a foundation of
> > unrealistic emotional expectations. Is it any wonder that the fairytale
> does
> > not continue?? !!
> >
> > To invest so much emotional capital into one day, one ceremony, is
> tempting the
> > gods themselves to do their worst.... and they usually do!
> >
>
> Which is why I got married in the chapel at Christ Church Cathedral on
> Broadway (Andy should know where that is!), with only immediate family
> present, wearing a cream-coloured wool crepe suit. Eight weeks was the
> absolute outside limit of my tolerance for being engaged, and that's exactly
> how long I was. I wanted to be married, not to have a wedding. Many people
> don't understand the difference, and there is a whole industry that preys on
> those who don't.
>
> Judy
>
> (still happily married, 7 years on...)
Hey, there are whole newsgroups devoted to the topic of wedding
planning.
For some women, the wedding day is THE one chance to star,
to wear fantasy clothing, to be "treated like a princess".
There's a very funny book, if you can find a copy, called
"The Eternal Bliss Machine: America's Way of Wedding"
by Marcia Seligson, that details some of the obsession
of weddings.
One piece of oft-repeated advice is "concentrate on the relationship.
The rest of the stuff is icing on the wedding cake."
My own wedding was planned some time in advance (we had a lot
going on to coordinate). The pre-marriage stuff with the
celebrant (i.e., "pre-Cana") was problematic, but that had
more to do with the fact of my orphanage than anything else
(details provided upon request, privately). The upshot
of the day? We're still committed to each other,
and happy, over 11 years out.
The most "fairy tale" aspect about my wedding? That
I actually found the guy with whom I can live my life
happily. The fairy tales make it seem that it will
just happen, automatically. We knew, going into it,
that it would take work. The rewards are worth it, however!
aMAZon
"Tara O." wrote:
>
> "felix" <felix.at....@home.dotcom> wrote in message
> news:tvN%6.27560$P5.81...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > Which is why I got married in the chapel at Christ Church Cathedral on
> > Broadway (Andy should know where that is!), with only immediate family
> > present, wearing a cream-coloured wool crepe suit. Eight weeks was the
> > absolute outside limit of my tolerance for being engaged, and that's exactly
> > how long I was. I wanted to be married, not to have a wedding. Many people
> > don't understand the difference, and there is a whole industry that preys on
> > those who don't.
>
> Its not just the industry though. Before we're even old enough to see
> commercials, tv weddings, and magazine ads, our mothers speak of this day as the
> most special day next to giving birth. Girls are raised with this notion, the
> outside influences & commercialism come into play much later on IMO.
Funny, I thought the day I graduated college was right up there
with those other two events!
aMAZon
The responses in this thread have been great!
C's post here is exceptionally good, and ought to be
reposted over in the wedding planning newsgroups.
Particularly the paragraph about "The essential ingredient..."
While we were on our honeymoon, we met an elderly couple.
They asked what we were doing; we said honeymooning.
They said they were, too...still...and had been for
the previous 51 years.
We'd like to do the same.
DeadeyeDev
>
>~ C.
____________
I don't know a single woman who doesn't claim to be a fervant admirer of Jane
Austen, yet here on a.g.r. not one of you will admit to reading her! Or the
work of any other romance novelist?! How gullible do you think I am?
The posts that gush with overwrought melodrama -- those "unfulfilled dreams of
Charles & Diana", "a flower mown down in its dewy youth", "...no hope, no
chance to mend fences, to learn from terrible mistakes, to back down from
actions taken in pride, hurt and anger by two people who had so much going for
them" -- these are inspired by crime & detective novels?!
You apparently take me for the same caliber of idiot -- that you seem to know
so many of -- who expresses shock when they learn people aren't "all good or
all bad"!
On the same tack, I don't need it explained to me that people read for
entertainment or what the nature of home economics is.
Despite this youthful appearance and vigor, I am, some might say, approaching
middle age, so moreover I've heard most cliche's regarding women's evolving
role in society. You can save yourself some writing in that regard too.
(We're aiming for responses of 200 words or less.)
BTW, isn't there one among you who realizes that the labels of "stud" and
"whore" as applied to third parties -- not in the course of an argument -- are
used almost exclusively by women? How many men do you hear calling Camilla
P.B. a whore? Or men referring to JFK as a stud? (To most of us, a woman who
sleeps around is seen as a GOOD thing, not something to cast aspersions on! )
The double standard that outrages so many women is primarily their own
creation.
Who disapproves the most of women repairing motorcycles or behaving in a manner
that unfeminine or aggressive? Your great aunt Sally, that's who!
Perhaps I'm merely enlightened, but however grubby or masculine a woman's job
may be makes no difference in the way I view her. IMO, the most traditional of
all jobs for a woman -- that of a mother to an infant -- involves possibly the
worst of all messes, several times a day.
With regard to the characterization of women in the corporate structure as
bitches while the men are called assertive, understand that everybody's
jockeying for position in that sort of environment. If a woman can be
side-lined, crestfallen, by being called a bitch, all the better, as far as
some of the men (or women) are concerned. If she were a man, she might be
called a fucking moron at some point, should it prove effective at getting him
(her) to give in or back down on an issue.
I certainly don't condone childish name calling at the workplace. The place
for that, we all know, is AGR! But I do think that more women should put
things into perspective and see that often epithets aren't directed at them
because they're female but because they're, so to speak, the competition for
advancement.
DeadeyeDev
>Austen
_____
should be 'fervent' sorry
His Jadedness
Excellent post!
Women's place in society was what it was because they allowed others to define
what their place was to be. They really shouldn't complain if they are unhappy
with the choice they allowed others to make for them.
--
Norina - The Kitty Kelly of the Internet
Royal Reckoning -The National Enquirer of the Internet
PK/BZ - Sockpuppet Mistress of the Internet
Norina
X-No-archive:yes
True, his older brother, Princess May's former fiancee, had died
leaving May to marry the next in line...the One she really loved, of
course.
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> I don't know a single woman who doesn't claim to
> be a fervant admirer of Jane Austen
Wow...
You accuse me of speaking in generalizations, and
knowing so many "idiots," yet you "don't know a
single woman who doesn't claim to be a fervent
admirer of Jane Austen"?
> ... yet here on a.g.r. not one of you will admit
> to reading her!
I never thought of Austen as a "romance novelist," but
more as a novelist of the Regency period, who worked
into her books the social environment of that time.
I guess she could be called a "romance novelist" in
a general sense, though I imagine she wrote better
than many of the bodice-rippers which seem to be
staples on supermarket store shelves.
> Or the work of any other romance novelist?! How
> gullible do you think I am?
I can honestly say I never read any novels written by
Jane Austen, though I have seen adaptations of her work.
I read Charlotte Brontė's "Jane Eyre," as an assignment
in high school, does that count? And, for the record,
I don't think Sr. Denis assigned Brontė for the romantic
elements, but as a representative of that period's
writing style.
I cast no aspersions against Austen's work, nor the
people who enjoy them. It just simply has never
interested me.
> The posts that gush with overwrought melodrama -- those
> "unfulfilled dreams of Charles & Diana", "a flower mown
> down in its dewy youth", "...no hope, no chance to mend
> fences, to learn from terrible mistakes, to back down from
> actions taken in pride, hurt and anger by two people who
> had so much going for them" -- these are inspired by crime
> & detective novels?!
First of all, I've never read any "crime and detective novels"
either. I hardly think "Practical Homicide Investigation:
Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques" qualifies. Just
to make certain, I checked the index for you, and there were
no references to "romance."
I have read scores of books that *could* fit under a popular
genre called "true crime," but I dislike flowery explanations
of crime. I tend towards more cases histories on that score.
You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but it's the
truth. I never entertained any visions of standing over a
dead body and reciting Shakespeare.
You don't like the way I write. You have made that abundantly
clear. That is your right, and your opinion. I have no
regrets on the above description that is mine (the one
beginning "... no hope, no chance..." - they all could be
mine, but I definitely recognize the last.)
> You apparently take me for the same caliber of idiot --
> that you seem to know so many of --
That was gratuitous, argumentative and nasty, Dev. I am
sure even the smartest people here have encountered other
smart people who have expressed such shock. One poster told
me of their very educated and worldly children's surprise
over the discovery that there is "no such thing as an a**hole-
free zone." While more to the point than "all good/all bad"
it's a not uncommon realization.
> ... who expresses shock when they learn people aren't
> "all good or all bad"!
Unless one is an absolute, hardened cynic, it could very
well come as a surprise that a nice coworker with whom one
has had pleasant dealings is discovered to be a secret
competitor with Machiavellian leanings, for example.
> On the same tack, I don't need it explained to me that
> people read for entertainment or what the nature of home
> economics is.
You asked a question, Dev. I don't know you or what you know.
Not ALL people read for entertainment. I know several who
don't. (And not all, for the record, are "idiots." One is a
highly-educated engineer - a woman - who would rather be
running a boundary-layer analysis on the wings of a Boeing 777
than reading Jane Austen.)
As for the nature of "home economics," these posts appear on
a public forum. Not everyone here is an American. I don't
know if other countries had - or have - classes that usually
run indigenous to gender. I know many countries have what
are called "finishing schools," but those schools, like home
economics classes, appear to be on the wane.
> Despite this youthful appearance and vigor, I am, some might
> say, approaching middle age, so moreover I've heard most
> cliche's regarding women's evolving role in society. You can
> save yourself some writing in that regard too.
> (We're aiming for responses of 200 words or less.)
For the record, Dev, YOUR response ran to 506 words.
You're not my editor, nor the moderator of this group. You
asked a question, and I treated it as seriously as I treat
the posts of others who ask sincere questions. I thought
you really wanted an answer. You disparage my style of
answering, but I truly thought you were interested in a
view of the world that you, as a man, cannot have.
> BTW, isn't there one among you who realizes that the labels
> of "stud" and "whore" as applied to third parties -- not in
> the course of an argument -- are used almost exclusively
> by women?
Hardly "almost exclusively." The adjectives used may be
different, but the meanings remain the same. Many men
admire another man who has a lengthy sexual history, while
a woman with the same history is seen as "easy," a "slut,"
who "sleeps around."
> How many men do you hear calling Camilla P.B. a whore?
Many male friends/supporters/admirers of Diana certainly have
voiced that opinion, if perhaps not always in those exact
words.
> Or men referring to JFK as a stud?
Okay, I grant you that the word "stud" was not necessarily
used, but most of the men around JFK *admired* his ability to
bed almost any women he chose, which he certainly did.
However, if Jacqueline was doing the same, these SAME men
would not have been kind in the way they thought or spoke of
her.
> (To most of us, a woman who sleeps around is seen as a GOOD
> thing, not something to cast aspersions on! )
Congratulations.
> The double standard that outrages so many women is primarily
> their own creation.
It is hardly "their own creation" though I grant you, many
of the women who protest the "double standard" the loudest
are the same who apply it to others. There is much truth
to the statement that women are more critical of other women
than men, unfortunately.
> Who disapproves the most of women repairing motorcycles or
> behaving in a manner that unfeminine or aggressive? Your
> great aunt Sally, that's who!
I wasn't aware that any of my great aunts ran most of the
world's militaries. While women are now welcomed into the
ranks, there is still the pervasive feeling that what is
okay for a man is still "unusual" (and that's being kind) for
a woman. How many people actually encourage a daughter who
says "I want to grow up and drive a tank!" or "I want to be
a welder and work on skyscrapers!" Sure, women do ALL of
that, but it's seen as "uncommon."
Besides, you're the one who said "I don't know a single
woman who doesn't claim to be a fervant admirer of Jane
Austen..." which implies that gender and a liking of
Jane Austen/romance novels are synonymous.
> Perhaps I'm merely enlightened, but however grubby or
> masculine a woman's job may be makes no difference in the
> way I view her.
It is rather enlightened of you.
And you wouldn't be honest if you said that there are
unfortunately too many people who greet the information
that Aunt Sally drives eighteen-wheelers with the
assumption that Aunt Sally is also a lesbian.
> IMO, the most traditional of all jobs for a woman --
> that of a mother to an infant -- involves possibly the
> worst of all messes, several times a day.
As the mother of an infant, I can assure you that your
thoughts on that are correct. ;)
> With regard to the characterization of women in the
> corporate structure as bitches while the men are called
> assertive, understand that everybody's jockeying for
> position in that sort of environment. If a woman can
> be side-lined, crestfallen, by being called a bitch, all
> the better, as far as some of the men (or women) are
> concerned. If she were a man, she might be called a
> fucking moron at some point, should it prove effective
> at getting him (her) to give in or back down on an issue.
But, Dev, what you have written above gives the impression
that you have no idea what it is like to have an immediate
assumption made of you based SOLELY on your gender. That's
something far too many women face every day.
For a similar experience, stroll into your local knitting
or crocheting club. Odds are, you will be the only man
there. You can't tell me that your mates down at the pub
wouldn't greet the news that Dev has discovered a sudden
passion for knitting without guffaws or comments about your
sexual orientation.
You may or may not care what other people think. But it's
a bit tougher than you say to have "swim upstream" every
day of one's working life, having to "prove" one's self
over and over and over again, based on having a Y chromosome
or not.
> I certainly don't condone childish name calling at the
> workplace. The place for that, we all know, is AGR!
> But I do think that more women should put things into
> perspective and see that often epithets aren't directed
> at them because they're female but because they're, so
> to speak, the competition for advancement.
There is always an element of competition, but one's
"fitness" or "worthiness" as a competitor is often
based on gender.
aMAZon
It doesn't stop at dresses, I'm afraid. There's also "Your Prom",
which has many of the same elements...and pricetags!
It's a pity that they don't have the same kind of glossy magazines
promoting, say, college and careers.
Kendra
appologize either. There are many different styles and series to choose
from. They are a quick and sastifying read. You may have found some older
ones that were, quite frankly stupid but newer ones are fun.
I've been a romance reader since Sweet Valley High and Sweet Dreams in my
early teens.
The style I prefer are mid-20's to early 30's for both and "unencombered"
(no ex's or kids). My perogitive. My series are Duet, Tempation and Blaze (I
hate the nanny/daddy story lines. Firstly I was a nanny for a while and it's
totally icky, though my parents were always couples and secondly, the kids
are either writen way to old developmently or way to young.
I post on a romance message board and we have fun with them. Diana Palmer
hero's with the enormous "appendages" than have cause them nothing but
trauma with women in the past until this simering virgin comes along and
kisses it all better. Whatever.
I do have to say I like Julie Garwood and older Jude Deveraux (her last one,
Temptation though was a real cop out, I think frankly she drug out the 1000
monkeys and their typewriters for the ending)
I have never read Jane Austin. I have tried, Lord know's I've tried but
could not get into her (and I'm the type gererally if I start a book, I stay
with it till the bitter end no matter what)
Someone once said to insult me while I was reading that romance novels were
the Big Mac of the literary world well, look how good McDonalds is doing?
Everyone needs a Big Mac sometime.
Kendra
Martha Tassi
--------------snipped for brevity --------------
> What I learned from your Miss Jane Austin - in addition to the fact that
women
> of her time had no other goal besides finding a husband - is that while
they
> didnt actively pursue men, they acted much like a deer that wants very
badly to
> be caught and so puts itself in the path of the hunter.
========
Now, Dev, it's always been known that a man picks a wife like an apple picks
a tree. Just because you happened to be targeted by a rotten one doesn't
mean the rest of us aren't sweet, not to mention firm, crisp and juicy.
-Martha
========
>
> It's hard, then, to swallow the line that "life happened 'to' them", when
you
> read how carefully they planned that it would happen to them.
>
> It's also interesting to see how some women, perhaps all, truly enjoy
> suffering. E.g.:
>
> "They encouraged each other now in the violence of their affliction.
The
> agony of grief which overpowered tham at first, was voluntarily renewed,
was
> sought for, was created again and again. They gave themselves up wholly
ot
> their sorrow, seeking increase of wretchedness in every reflection that
could
> afford it, and resolved against ever admitting consolation in future."
>
==========
This is called a "pity party". Some people like to attend, those of us with
lives avoid them.
-Martha
==========
> This leads to the logical conclusion that many women loved Diana because
they
> loved her tragedy. And once they committed themselves wholeheartedly to
> empathising and suffering with her, they were loath to give up the
enjoyment of
> it.
>
=========
Diana was popular because she was easy for us to like. We watched her grow
up, we shared her milestones and her disappointments. She dressed the way
we wanted to if we had the money and the figure. She championed causes we
believed in. And she made the same stupid mistakes many women have made.
She didn't feel like a remote icon, she seemed very much like one of the
girls. That was her strength and her downfall.
-Martha
=========
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> The responses in this thread have been great!
> C's post here is exceptionally good, and ought to be
> reposted over in the wedding planning newsgroups.
> Particularly the paragraph about "The essential
> ingredient..."
Thank you. :)
I actually know a woman who had a very grand wedding,
complete with a designer gown, the hottest florist-of-
the-moment, splendid reception, the works.
And she said to her father, as he took her arm to walk
down the aisle, "well, if this doesn't work out, I can
always get a divorce..."
Given enough money, one can make one's wedding as
splendiferous as one likes. However, I stand by my
statement that, while all that is lovely, the essential
ingredients are: bride, groom, love, honesty, commitment,
loyalty and hard work.
I happened to have had a very large wedding, the planning
of which had its moments (truth be told, treaties have
been hashed out with less problems ;) My sole focus was
on the rather dashing, if I may say so, figure in the
"mess dress" and "butter bars" that was meeting me at the
altar. While the rest was quite lovely and appreciated,
it was incidental.
> While we were on our honeymoon, we met an elderly couple.
> They asked what we were doing; we said honeymooning.
> They said they were, too...still...and had been for
> the previous 51 years.
>
> We'd like to do the same.
I think the key ingredient is the ability to laugh and have
a sense of humour. A Southern writer once depicted "laughter
is the only thing that can cut trouble down to a size where
you can talk to it."
As the veteran of eight AF moves in six years, a nine
year battle to reinstate my husband's UPT slot, kidney
stones, renal colic, an endocrine disorder, the death of
a beloved parent when one is 1,000 miles away and the
probability that anything can go wrong and most will
when one's husband is TDY, I can see the wisdom in that.
;)
DeadeyeDev
>
>> DeadeyeDev wrote:
>>
>> I don't know a single woman who doesn't claim to
>> be a fervant admirer of Jane Austen
>
>Wow...
>
>You accuse me of speaking in generalizations, and
>knowing so many "idiots," yet you "don't know a
>single woman who doesn't claim to be a fervent
>admirer of Jane Austen"?
>> ... yet here on a.g.r. not one of you will admit
>> to reading her!
>
>I never thought of Austen as a "romance novelist," but
>more as a novelist of the Regency period, who worked
>into her books the social environment of that time.
>I guess she could be called a "romance novelist" in
>a general sense, though I imagine she wrote better
>than many of the bodice-rippers which seem to be
>staples on supermarket store shelves.
>
>> Or the work of any other romance novelist?! How
>> gullible do you think I am?
>
>I can honestly say I never read any novels written by
>Jane Austen, though I have seen adaptations of her work.
>I read Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre," as an assignment
>in high school, does that count? And, for the record,
>I don't think Sr. Denis assigned Brontë for the romantic
_______
I can't believe that I'm sitting here alone on a sultry afternoon, not a
double-X chromosome around for miles, and STILL find myself being beaten about
the ears by a woman! <g>
In defense:
(No need to count the number of words; you dished up a lot for me to respond
to.)
1. I don't claim to have taken a poll of women on the street concerning
J.Austen.
By coincidence I happen to know many women who read her books. For all I know
SC is the world headquarters for Jane Austen fans.
2. Except for your infernal use of "etc usw." (which, at this point, I
suspect you include in your posts just to annoy me) I don't disliked your
writing... at least I don't recall saying so!
You do, however, tend to use many words when a few would suffice IMO. (The
same can be said of J.Austen. Are you SURE you don't read her when nobody's
looking?) You tend to write about matters that don't interest me inordinately.
And your previous pedagogic comments, directed to me in this thread, were
characterized by a pungence that was far from appealing!
Aside from that, I like you fine. I find your enthusiasm, ebullience and even
your flowery imagery to be quite amusing at times.
3. I AM an absolute, hardened cynic, in case you hadn't noticed.
Argumentative and nasty have also been used previously to describe me...
especially by woman, and especially when I question their comfortable views of
the world and themselves.
But I'm sure if you tried, you could come up with a wholly original isult.
Karen Horn has, so it can be done!
4. There's no need to answer questions seriously on my account.
5. You don't really know that the "SAME men...who *admired* JFK for his
ability to bed almost any woman" would have been less kind to his wife if she'd
done the same. You have to admit that much!
You've got no more insight into the motives and perspectives of the average
male than I am of understanding the average female.
6. If you get flak at your job in the military, perhaps they're trying to
toughen you up. I've heard such things occur in the armed forces.
7. Re:
>Dev, what you have written above gives the impression
>that you have no idea what it is like to have an immediate
>assumption made of you based SOLELY on your gender.
You made the assumption that I didn't know what home economics was, based on my
eye color perhaps?.
8. Re:
>There is always an element of competition, but one's
>"fitness" or "worthiness" as a competitor is often
>based on gender.
Why is it that if your worthiness as a competitor has been questioned, you
think it's gender-based?
Maybe it's appearance-based? (Are you blonde?)
Think of it as you would taunts of "He's no batter! He's no batter!" when
you're up at plate in a baseball game in the park.
Blow it off. It's done to unnerve you.
Worthwhile advice from someone you didn't think even likes you! ;-)
Better now?
P.S. Happy Forth! Hope you get to see fireworks tonight!
DeadeyeDev
>BTW, do you read "action adventure" novels like Moby Dick? Or do you
>consider that "literature" since it was written by a man?
________
Ah! There is one reasonable woman among you all!
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> The most "fairy tale" aspect about my wedding? That
> I actually found the guy with whom I can live my life
> happily. The fairy tales make it seem that it will
> just happen, automatically. We knew, going into it,
> that it would take work. The rewards are worth it,
> however!
Agreed! One of my high school priests used to say "Love
doesn't matter the world go round, it only makes the ride
worthwhile."
Some of the funnier parts of my wedding:
* The organist forgot to warm/oil the stops of the
massive cathedral organ. Thus, when he struck up
with the "Ave Maria" (played in honour of my Roman
Catholic father) before the wedding, the screeches
could be heard for miles and originally sounded like
rifle fire. My father commented wryly that he
thought that the warring families may have "gone
for each other."
* My wedding was attended by scores of policemen
who had known me since birth. When I rounded the
corner and came into view, many of these men who
had "seen everything" began to sob. This set me
to crying, and my father sang "If I Were A Rich
Man" all the way down the aisle to me.
* The friend we chose to do some of the readings
got so into it that he "misread" a verse from the
Book of Psalms. It was SUPPOSED to be "Gird thy
sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory
and thy majesty..." Our reader "read": "Strap
your sword unto your mighty THING, oh mighty warrior!"
(The mirth of my husband's brother/best man knew no
bounds. I soon discovered why my mother-in-law
habitually separated them during Church services. ;)
* The priest told me "please take Scott's hand."
Scott is my husband's older brother. I didn't
want to marry him. ;)
* I had long joked that I wanted a "revision" of
the wedding vows, that instead of "for better, for
worse, for richer, for poorer..." I wanted "for
better and better, for richer and richer..." When
it came time for the vows, I chose that moment to
pretend to consider the consequences... poorer?
I wasn't so sure about THAT. ;)
* I had a fifteen foot long train, made of heavy
ivory silk and trimmed with Alençon lace. The people
in the "sabre arch" feared I wouldn't be able to
"appreciate" the obligatory and symbolic smack across
the backside as we passed beneath the arch and hearty
"Welcome to the United States Air Force!," so the
Captain imitated Babe Ruth and nearly knocked me off
my feet.
* My late father was terribly hard of hearing.
During the father/daughter dance, he told me to give
him "a little shove when the song is over." As the
song droned on and on (and the singer was milked it)
my father muttered, as we glided past the tables full
of guests, "JESUS CHRIST! How LONG is this song?!"
He was overheard by most of the people at those
tables.
DeadeyeDev
>how to post on here. I'm sorry you've had a rough time but take your
>anger with women and put it somewhere more appropriate but don't take
>it out on Candace who had the good manners to take the time to answer
>you politely. If you're rude to someone like Candace, who is
>*unfailingly* polite to everyone - even the idiots you so rudely
>accuse her of consorting with - then you don't deserve courtesy from
>anyone, IMO. Think on.
>
><snip>
>--
>Sacha
________
I don't think polite's synonymous with pedantic and pretentious, which that
post was.
Still, Candace isn't usually like that, so this is no sweeping condemnation of
her as a human being, or as a poster. She must have had a bad day. Everyone
has them.
You assume too much when you say I have a general anger directed at women,
however.
I just dislike being spoken to as though I were some undergraduate who doesn't
shave yet, and needs his mother to interpret and direct his life.
Since you resent my calling anyone who thinks life is all good or all bad
idiotic (not directed at Candace BTW), tell me, what's the correct PC term?
Immature? Mentally challenged?
Whatever term's choosen to describe what Candace seemed to imply I was (given
her lengthy explanation for my benefit) -- ironically, if the tables were
turned and she'd been a man and I a woman, some might accuse of insulting my
capacity to reason based on gender! <g>
In which case, many women might be consoling me right now!
DeadeyeDev
_______
Ah! The refreshing breeze of forthrightness!
Careful, Kendra. Some people around here don't like having the windows open!
aMAZon
DeadeyeDev wrote:
> Since you resent my calling anyone who thinks life is all good or all bad
> idiotic (not directed at Candace BTW), tell me, what's the correct PC term?
> Immature? Mentally challenged?
Inexperienced? Pollyanna?
Hopeful for the future?
Sometimes folks try to see the best side of life, and work to
make the incidence of the best outnumber the incidence of the
worst. Remember that the only actions you have control
over are your own, and that includes your own reactions
to situations.
Is the glass half-empty or half-full?
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> 2. Except for your infernal use of "etc usw." (which,
> at this point, I suspect you include in your posts
> just to annoy me)
Sorry, Dev, it has nothing at all to do with you. Sheer
habit. I write just as I speak, and I often say "etcetera
und so weiter."
> You do, however, tend to use many words when a few would
> suffice IMO. (The same can be said of J.Austen. Are you
> SURE you don't read her when nobody's looking?) You tend
> to write about matters that don't interest me inordinately.
> And your previous pedagogic comments, directed to me in
> this thread, were characterized by a pungence that was far
> from appealing!
Pot, kettle, black, Dev.
I "tend to use many words when a few would suffice"? This
from a man who wrote "And your previous pedagogic comments,
directed to me in this thread, were characterized by a
pungence that was far from appealing!"? Wouldn't THAT be
more simply said by "I feel you lectured me and it stinks
and I don't like it"?
;)
> 3. I AM an absolute, hardened cynic, in case you hadn't
> noticed. Argumentative and nasty have also been used
> previously to describe me... especially by woman, and
> especially when I question their comfortable views of
> the world and themselves.
And are you certain that your "hardened cynicism" is not
coloured, not by your questioning of your perceptions of
other's "comfortable views of the world and themselves"
but by prior unpleasant occurrences? Sure, most people
WILL be offended if you challenge them on their views,
based not on a difference of opinion, but on your
perception that they are idiotic and cosseted in
unrealistic views of themselves and the world? You seem
quick to believe that I was lecturing you (I wasn't)
and perhaps others may feel that you were not wanting
to discuss differing views, but lecture them on how
stupid and "unseeing" they are?
> But I'm sure if you tried, you could come up with a
> wholly original isult. Karen Horn has, so it can be done!
Trust me on this Dev, if I wanted to, I could find several
ways of being "original" in insults. I have no desire to
insult you. I thought you might appreciate courtesy and
an exchange of ideas and information. I have never implied,
nor believe, that you are stupid. Disingenuous perhaps,
inflammatory, occasionally, but never stupid.
> 4. There's no need to answer questions seriously on my
> account.
Foolish me, I thought you were asking a question in
a sincere desire to know the answer, or at least the
opinion of someone who could tell you a view of the
world you may have never experienced. Is this directed
at me, or everyone on AGR?
> 5. You don't really know that the "SAME men...who
> *admired* JFK for his ability to bed almost any woman"
> would have been less kind to his wife if she'd done the
> same. You have to admit that much!
True.
However, I must say that I still feel I am, statistically,
on safe ground. While ALL might not, MOST would. After
all, it was the late 1950's and early 1960's.
I can tell you that Joe and Rose Kennedy had an absolute
dichotomy vis-a-vis their children. The boys were
encouraged, by their father, to pursue and enjoy women.
There were the women they bedded, and they women they
married. Two different ideas about those two different
stations. Joe Kennedy had sex with many women, from
hat check girls to Hollywood actresses. He *married*
the daughter of Boston's mayor, and had a fit whenever
his sons became "too serious" about any girl he thought
"unworthy" of becoming a Kennedy daughter-in-law, a
"consort" "unfit" for their political careers. He had
one boozy midnight marriage annulled.
Jack Kennedy himself admitted to what amounted to the
"Madonna/whore complex." The Kennedy daughters were
taught that "nice girls" did not pursue sexual
relationships, nor show interest in "the thing the
priests and nuns tell you you shouldn't do." (That
last was a quote from Kathleen Kennedy.)
> You've got no more insight into the motives and perspectives
> of the average male than I am of understanding the average
> female.
I do have many male friends. Always have. In fact, have
always had more male friends than female friends. We used
to spend a lot of time talking about these very things.
> 6. If you get flak at your job in the military, perhaps
> they're trying to toughen you up. I've heard such things
> occur in the armed forces.
I don't need much "toughening up." ;) And for the record,
I am not a member of the Armed Forces. My husband is. Thus
I am in the position of hearing the perspectives of both
women and men who serve in the military and what they think
of one another.
> 7. Re:
> > Dev, what you have written above gives the impression
> > that you have no idea what it is like to have an immediate
> > assumption made of you based SOLELY on your gender.
> You made the assumption that I didn't know what home economics
> was, based on my eye color perhaps?.
I never said YOU didn't know what "home economics" was, but
even said in my answer that there are OTHERS who are reading
this exchange on this board who may not.
> 8. Re:
> > There is always an element of competition, but one's
> > "fitness" or "worthiness" as a competitor is often
> > based on gender.
> Why is it that if your worthiness as a competitor has
> been questioned, you think it's gender-based?
Because I've heard comments like, "it's a quota thing. They
HAVE to have a certain amount of female pilots, and that's
why SHE passed!" (Not from my husband, I state for the record,
he couldn't care less the gender of a pilot, as long as
whomever it is can fly WELL. He will be the first to tell
you that competency in an aircraft has little to do with
gender.)
> Maybe it's appearance-based? (Are you blonde?)
Yep to the "are you blonde" question. You can even see so,
on my website. ;)
> Think of it as you would taunts of "He's no batter! He's
> no batter!" when you're up at plate in a baseball game
> in the park. Blow it off. It's done to unnerve you.
For my part, I have always taken a certain satisfaction
in being able to do what it's been thought I could not
because I am female. It was hoped that, "like a girl,"
I'd become sick at seeing some crime scene pictures.
Pictures usually don't unnerve me, but I have to admit
that certain smells, like that of formaldehyde or a
"floater," DO.
For all that, there are certain things that effect everyone.
I know plenty of pilots and navs, male AND female, who spent
a lot of time during training upchucking all over their
instruments. Some of the guys sniffed that it was a "girl
thing" but there were plenty of guys with flight suits full
of saltine crackers. Most, determined to graduate and get
their wings, overcame it.
One person - a guy for the record - said "life is too
short to get THIS sick!" and quit.
> Worthwhile advice from someone you didn't think even likes
> you! ;-) Better now?
You fight it, but deep down, Dev, you're actually a nice
guy.
> P.S. Happy Forth! Hope you get to see fireworks tonight!
The Base will undoubtedly set some off. I hope I will be
able to see them from home. As my son is not feeling well,
I doubt we will strap him into a car seat and drive him to
Base. But thanks for the lovely thoughts. Enjoy any you
happen to see for me.
loki
> For my part, I have always taken a certain satisfaction
> in being able to do what it's been thought I could not
> because I am female. It was hoped that, "like a girl,"
> I'd become sick at seeing some crime scene pictures.
> Pictures usually don't unnerve me, but I have to admit
> that certain smells, like that of formaldehyde or a
> "floater," DO.
Ugh. Floaters. Ugh. Yeah, they'll do me in but fortunately
they're sealed in body bags by the time I'm anywhere near them.
I started my career working in a small ER in a small town.
One would think that it wouldn't be all that exciting, but
I have found that spending time there I saw everything that
is seen in a big city ER but just less of it. These days I
am not often in the ER but rather spend my time in the OR.
Interesting place. <grin>
I can safely say that in real life I can cope with just about
anything. I cannot bear to watch such things on TV or in
a movie, however. Somehow it's more graphic, more
detailed and far, far slower in those mediums. Photographs
don't move me much.
I hang with a retired cops (at my age they are all retired) and
I always find it very funny that they think women will automatically
react badly to some things, completely forgetting that many
of the rescue personnel and the majority of the medical personnel
who deal with the same situations are female.
> The Base will undoubtedly set some off. I hope I will be
> able to see them from home. As my son is not feeling well,
> I doubt we will strap him into a car seat and drive him to
> Base. But thanks for the lovely thoughts. Enjoy any you
> happen to see for me.
I'm sorry to hear he isn't feeling well. I do hope he is better soon.
Loki - no, I'm not going downtown for the fireworks tonight as I
hate going alone
Martha Tassi
Jane
> Austen, yet here on a.g.r. not one of you will admit to reading her! Or
the
> work of any other romance novelist?! How gullible do you think I am?
> =================
>
> You didn't ask who has read Jane Austen, you asked who had read a
> romance novel. I do not equate Jane Austen's work with those dreadful
> Harlequin Romance paperbacks or those historical fiction bodice rippers
> with pictures of Fabio on the cover.
>
> So here you go: I HAVE READ JANE AUSTEN. More than once. And I'll be
> glad to admit to reading other "romance novelists" if you will provide a
> list of them.
>
> BTW, do you read "action adventure" novels like Moby Dick? Or do you
> consider that "literature" since it was written by a man?
>
> Crone Princess
>
==========
Count me in on Jane Austen. I have also read a bodice ripper and it bored
me senseless.
You had no reason to be so rude to Candace. Show us some of that southern
charm and appologize to her.
-Martha
==========
Martha Tassi
<Waldt...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10077-3B4...@storefull-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
=========
Happy anniversary, Waldtraute! Many more to you!
-Martha
=========
>
Martha Tassi
"Paul J" <pa...@jpjnet.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9hsm94$f8i64$1...@ID-43709.news.dfncis.de...
> > > When was the last time the heir of the heir wasn't married in
> Westminster or
> > > St. Paul's?
> > > --------------
> > > George V was married at the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace
> >
> > Was he the heir when he was married?
> > I think his father was the heir then - but he was next in line....
>
> Yes - George was the heir of the heir, which is what the question asked
> about.
>
=========
Welcome to AGR, Paul. I hope you keep posting.
-Martha
=========
>
brit
> I have NEVER read Jane Austen thank you very much!!
brit
Martha Tassi
That's fine, brit. Austen is not required reading around here. And you're
very welcome.
-Martha
==========
Susan Cohen
"Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring" wrote:
> I never thought of Austen as a "romance novelist," but
> more as a novelist of the Regency period, who worked
> into her books the social environment of that time.
> I guess she could be called a "romance novelist" in
> a general sense, though I imagine she wrote better
> than many of the bodice-rippers which seem to be
> staples on supermarket store shelves.
Jane Austen is social commentary. Witty & on-target.
I have read everything she's ever written, and admire her
very much. She is *not* a romance novelist, tho' most
people who attempt to write Regency Romance try to
ape her style.
SusanC
OwnedByCats
An excellent characterization. I think of her as the Edith Wharton of the
Regency period.
Susan Cohen
Waldt...@webtv.net wrote:
> To day is my 37 wedding anniversary !!! My wedding was nice my marriage
> is GREAT!!! The cost of my wedding? about $ 35.00. 5 dollars the ring in
> a pawn shop,10.00 dress at Montgomery Wards $5.00 for flowers and 1.89
> for a cakemix and icing.$5.00 each the license and the JP. Guess what we
> had no debt afterwards ! 5 friends ( his family in Louisiana mine in
> Austria and we in Kansas) At the Reception and Koolaid to drink! But
> it worked!!! but i guess if all couples would thin like this there would
> be a whole industry be going down the drain:))))
>
> servus,tschuess,baba austrian by
> chance, AMERICAN by CHOICE,
> VIENNESE FOREVER
I hereby relinquish, now & forever, my title of
Queen of the Bargain Hunters, to you. You got
a priceless treasure for a pittance - and your
treasure is an immortal, enduring one.
SusanC
Martha Tassi
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3B44BE0A...@his.com...
========
And make monkeys of themselves in doing so.
-Martha
========
Susan Cohen
aMAZon wrote:
> There's also "Your Prom",
> which has many of the same elements...and pricetags!
>
> It's a pity that they don't have the same kind of glossy magazines
> promoting, say, college and careers.
>
> --
> aMAZon
My mother ended up making my dress because we hated
everything we saw - it was either "country wedding" or "sleaze" -
nothing in between! (The 70's).
In the end, my junior prom was so boring that I skipped my
senior prom. I didn't need to spend all that money to be with
a huge crowd of people I normally tried to avoid. My friends
and I had a party instead - lots cheaper & loads more fun!!
SusanC
Waldt...@webtv.net
DeadeyeDev
>Now, Dev, it's always been known that a man picks a wife like an apple picks
>a tree. Just because you happened to be targeted by a rotten one doesn't
>mean the rest of us aren't sweet, not to mention firm, crisp and juicy.
___________
In the past that remark would have gotten me aroused. These days it just makes
me hungry.
Yikes, but this aging is a slippery slope! I was told more than once that
forty is over-the-hill; but I never expected to be sliding downhill on my butt
quite so fast afterwards!
___________
>Diana was popular because she was easy for us to like. We watched her grow
>up, we shared her milestones and her disappointments. She dressed the way
>we wanted to if we had the money and the figure. She championed causes
>we
>believed in. And she made the same stupid mistakes many women have made.
>She didn't feel like a remote icon, she seemed very much like one of the
>girls. That was her strength and her downfall.
>
>-Martha
___________
Can I assume, then, you dismiss the theory that young women watched Diana
because they too wanted to be plucked from obscurity and made a princess, and,
in this regard, she seemed like a good example to follow?
DeadeyeDev
>Jane Austen is social commentary. Witty & on-target.
>I have read everything she's ever written, and admire her
>very much. She is *not* a romance novelist, tho' most
>people who attempt to write Regency Romance try to
>ape her style.
___________
Well, Sue-C, why don't you tell me what the social commentary is in Sense and
Sensibility? Let's see your stuff!
DeadeyeDev
>I "tend to use many words when a few would suffice"? This
>from a man who wrote "And your previous pedagogic comments,
>directed to me in this thread, were characterized by a
>pungence that was far from appealing!"? Wouldn't THAT be
>more simply said by "I feel you lectured me and it stinks
>and I don't like it"?
>
>;)
_____________
I still prefer my version. What graceful alliteration! What Faulknerian
vagueness! I truly think I'm an artist of the written word!
_____________
[...]
>> Why is it that if your worthiness as a competitor has
>> been questioned, you think it's gender-based?
>
>Because I've heard comments like, "it's a quota thing. They
>HAVE to have a certain amount of female pilots, and that's
>why SHE passed!"
_____________
Come, come! And try to recognize those comments for what they are.
In the 21st century, if Aesop's fox, exhausted from his efforts, gave up trying
to reach the grapes hanging over his head, he'd say, "I'm sure those grapes
were sour anyhow and female and it's a quota thing!"
_____________
>Yep to the "are you blonde" question. You can even see so,
>on my website. ;)
_____________
I've visited your website, but didn't make the connection. I suppose that's
because if I ever decided to put together a website, I'd make sure that I had a
picture of a smiling, pretty girl on the front page to, sort of, get people's
attention.
_____________
>You fight it, but deep down, Dev, you're actually a nice
>guy.
_____________
Yahoo!!!! I've won the argument!
Don't you know my past? or how many women I've been with? (If you do, let me
know because I've lost count!) And YET you want to think of me as actually a
nice guy! Not as a 'slut'!
Don't be ashamed, dear. You've only shown that women for the most part have a
much more forgiving nature! And higher standards for yourself and your kind.
In some cases there's a double standard, but it's not of men's making. It's of
women's.
(Q.E.D.!!)
P.S. If you intentionally allowed me win to that argument, thanks. I haven't
won one against a woman in years!
DeadeyeDev
>You have my warmest and best wishes, Dev. I mean that.
_______
Thank you very much, and I hope you won't rescind these wishes now that I've
won the argument against Candace! ;-)
His Jadedness
>forty is over-the-hill; but I never expected to be sliding downhill on my
>butt
>quite so fast afterwards!
You were told wrong!
Anything before 35 is just practice for Real Life. I'm quickly approaching
three score and have yet to hit my prime- let alone middle age! {and I can give
several publc walls with testimonials as references]
;)
--
Norina - The Kitty Kelly of the Internet
Royal Reckoning -The National Enquirer of the Internet
PK/BZ - Sockpuppet Mistress of the Internet
Martha Tassi
>
> >Now, Dev, it's always been known that a man picks a wife like an apple
picks
> >a tree. Just because you happened to be targeted by a rotten one doesn't
> >mean the rest of us aren't sweet, not to mention firm, crisp and juicy.
>
> ___________
> In the past that remark would have gotten me aroused. These days it just
makes
> me hungry.
>
> Yikes, but this aging is a slippery slope! I was told more than once that
> forty is over-the-hill; but I never expected to be sliding downhill on my
butt
> quite so fast afterwards!
> ___________
I am not participating in the aging process.
-Martha
===========
>
> >Diana was popular because she was easy for us to like. We watched her
grow
> >up, we shared her milestones and her disappointments. She dressed the
way
> >we wanted to if we had the money and the figure. She championed causes
> >we
> >believed in. And she made the same stupid mistakes many women have made.
> >She didn't feel like a remote icon, she seemed very much like one of the
> >girls. That was her strength and her downfall.
> >
> >-Martha
>
> ___________
> Can I assume, then, you dismiss the theory that young women watched Diana
> because they too wanted to be plucked from obscurity and made a princess,
and,
> in this regard, she seemed like a good example to follow?
========
She just seemed to hit all the right nerves with the public. She went
through the same things the rest of us did yet had this grand royal life and
was Queen-to-be. She seemed to be spiraling up, with everything going well
and people rooted for her.
-Martha
========
NewNom
>Jane Austen is social commentary. Witty & on-target.
>I have read everything she's ever written, and admire her
>very much. She is *not* a romance novelist, tho' most
>people who attempt to write Regency Romance try to
>ape her style.
>
>SusanC
I think most of them are actually aping Georgette Heyer, who did write romance
novels. Very enjoyable romance novels, BTW.
It galls me when Austen is relegated to a genre just because her subject was
society, and she confined herself to her own, that is, the woman's viewpoint.
She is a novelist, period, and a very fine one. That BBC version of Pride and
Prejudice has a lot to answer for. Fun to watch, but definitely Austen Lite.
Peggy
NewNom
>I have read every single one of Austen's books more than once,
>including the unfinished one - can't remember the name of the modern
>author who did finish it.
IIRC, it was Fay Weldon who completed the unfinished Sanditon.
Peggy
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> P.S. If you intentionally allowed me win to that
> argument, thanks. I haven't won one against a
> woman in years!
Two words for you, Dev darlin': pyrrhic victory.
;)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen (etc usw ;)
Susan Cohen
NewNom wrote:
> That BBC version of Pride and
> Prejudice has a lot to answer for. Fun to watch, but definitely Austen Lite.
You mean the miniseries with Elizabeth Garvie & David Rintoul -
or the co-production with A&E w/Colin Firth (& whoever else)?
SusanC
HOCKIBABE
>define
>what their place was to be. They really shouldn't complain if they are
>unhappy
>with the choice they allowed others to make for them.
Hmmm...this sounds so much like the self pitying Prince Charles. He stated in
his "poor me" bio that his bully of a father pushed him into marrying Diana. He
really shouldn't complain if he was unhappy. Why did HE complain with a choice
HE ALLOWED others to make for him? Oh yeah, he's really gonna make a STRONG
King. He doesn't HAVE to be King...it's HIS desire to be King. Where does it
state that he HAS to be King? He's shown he's everything BUT a leader of moral
faction. Of course the only CoE rules are what the Monarch dictates them too
be; looking for that "loophole" to support their adulterous behavior.
Norina
X-No-archive-yes
Too right! Prince Phil denied he pushed his son into marriage with
Diana and after reading the contents of the actual latter...published
in the Telegraph, I think it was, Charlie's claim is too silly by
half. A marriage to Diana or anyone else for that matter wasn't even
vaguely eluded to in his Father's letter. He mentioned Diana in
another context ALTOGETHER!! [Charles's lack of 'moral faction']
It was Parker Bowles who forced him to marry Diana after she vetted
her...
Verdict:- Camilla: She won't interfere with Us Dahling...she can't
ride, she's a mouse and ridiculous.
How accurate you are! He not only doesn't 'HAVE' to be King, he's NOT
Kingish!!
Karen Horn
: I don't know a single woman who doesn't claim to be a fervant admirer of Jane
: Austen, yet here on a.g.r. not one of you will admit to reading her! Or the
: work of any other romance novelist?! How gullible do you think I am?
I can't stand romance novels as a genre. They make me puke because
they are so damn boring. "how woman X gets man Y." Boooooorrrrrrrriiiinnnng.
All about how phoney she will be to "catch her man."
The ONLY novel remotely near that genre I adore is Gone with the Wind.
And that's not so much a love story, but a story about survivors.
REAL people's bios are much more interesting to me. Not at all the
shallow one dimensional characters dreamed up by the romance hacks.
:Who disapproves the most of women repairing motorcycles or behaving in a manner
: that unfeminine or aggressive? Your great aunt Sally, that's who!
Now here I often agree. Not always the case, but not at all surprising.
Great aunt sally wasn't allowed to do what SHE wanted, so she's damn
well going to make sure if some other woman does it she'll "pay" for it
through ridicule, etc.
Karen
Wull
You sound as if you would make a very good *Dragonrider of Pern*, :-)
Regards
Wull