Escaping the Echo Chamber

[elengil]

Back OT, I was thinking of this list in relation to the infamous Mr. Darcy's list from Pride and Prejudice. Not defining beauty, but defining 'accomplishment' (or rather, Miss Bingley's list, to which Mr. Darcy agrees and adds-to):

“A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, all the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address, and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved.”
(Jane Austen, Vol. I, Ch.

...Darcy’s addition to the already long list... “all this she must possess…and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading”

http://randombitsoffascination.com/2014 ... shed-lady/

So on one hand we have someone defining, let's get to the heart of it, desirability as:

Be thin
Be able to cook
Have long hair
Wear make-up
Be feminine
Be graceful
Be sensual
Shave (should without saying)
Be fashionable
Wear pink and feminine colors
Love men
Listen to men

Which lists 6 physical attributes, 5 character attributes, and only one actual ability, none of which have anything to do with education, intelligence, or understanding of the world. What this man wants is an image, not a person.

Contrasted with:

thorough knowledge of music
singing
drawing
dancing
all the modern languages
a certain something in her air
and manner of walking
the tone of her voice,
her address, and expressions
the improvement of her mind by extensive reading

There is arguably 1 that deals with her actual physical attributes which would be the 'manner of walking', 6 which deal with education and knowledge, and 3 which could be grouped into personality or charisma. What Darcy wants is Super Woman, not just any of those ordinary normal women who aren't thoroughly knowledgeable in all these areas.

But where both of these lists seem identical to me is that they put ridiculously high and exacting standards on women, the first one saying if you are not all of these, you are not desirable! (Don't like pink? You ugly!) The second being a ridiculously long list of requirements for a woman to achieve, but Darcy had to go and one-up it by saying it isn't the knowledge of music, singing, dancing, drawing, and all the modern languages which are enough, you have to improve your mind even more than that! (Don't sing or draw? You suck at being a woman!)

What's funny is his aunt didn't even live up to this list! I wonder what Darcy's ideal man would have been...

[Frelga]

Elengil, yes, Darcy's aunt didn't need to be accomplished. Her family fortune was not entailed on a male heir and she did not need to rely on a man to support her.

Darcy had a fortune and a gorgeous estate, he didn't need to be accomplished, either.

PS: Darcy's ideal man is Darcy, of course.

[elengil]

PS: Darcy's ideal man is Darcy, of course.

Exactly!

[Faramond]

Regarding this strange list, my first thought was where did this come from, and I found a story ( among many ) about it, and here it is:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... woman.html

This is not news, of course, in any meaningful sense, but then again the Daily Mail isn't exactly a source of news, in any meaningful sense. This story is filed under the section "femail", by the way. Some of the subheads of the "femail" section include gardening, shopping, fashion, and food.

As you can see if you read that "article", this person wrote some even worse stuff than what is on the list Frelga posted. Way worse, really. It kind of just goes on and on.

I am quite taken by the item about shaving. Here is the exact quote: Shave (should without saying)

It seems to me that this person had a girlfriend who would shave and constantly tell him about it. "I'm shaving my legs now," or "I'm shaving my pits now!" or "I'm shaving my <blank> now!" I guess he really doesn't want to hear about it. He just wants it done, quietly.

In summary, everything is horrible because people like this exist and publications like the dailymail exist. The end.

[elengil]

I am quite taken by the item about shaving. Here is the exact quote: Shave (should without saying)

It seems to me that this person had a girlfriend who would shave and constantly tell him about it. "I'm shaving my legs now," or "I'm shaving my pits now!" or "I'm shaving my <blank> now!" I guess he really doesn't want to hear about it. He just wants it done, quietly.

Oh, see again, I read that completely differently. Not that shaving should be done quietly (without comment) but that shaving should be so self-evident as to not even need to be listed to be done (should go without saying - he missed a word there) but that he included it anyway because beautiful women blah blah.

'only a man can tell a woman how to act.'

women who believe that simply because they exist, they are "valuable" despite being b**hy & horrifying

[Faramond]

women who believe that simply because they exist, they are "valuable" despite being b**hy & horrifying

Oh, this is really interesting, because -- when I read that, I ask myself, is this really wrong? Oh, certainly the way he means it, it's wrong. I would not trust his judgement on who was "bitchy and horrifying", or necessarily that this was the proper scale on which to judge people. However, there is something very true here trying to get out, I think.

Here is the full quote, just for context: What you'll observe here is the peak of Delusional feminism, women who believe that simply because they exist, they are "valuable" despite being b**hy & horrifying.

I'm going to rewrite this and take out the misogyny and make it less specific:

Under the influence of delusional <ideology>, there are <subset of people> who believe that simply because they exist, they are admirable and remarkable despite behaving in horrifying ways.

I bet most people reading this could come up with some fill-ins for <ideology> and <subset of people> where they might agree that this statement describes a real problem.

I will rewrite it further:

There are people who believe that simply because they exist as a member of a particular racial and sexual identity group, they are admirable and remarkable despite behaving in horrifying ways.

This is close to the original quote, and yet I think it is true and I also think it describes a very real problem in the world.

[River]

I will rewrite it further:

There are people who believe that simply because they exist as a member of a particular racial and sexual identity group, they are admirable and remarkable despite behaving in horrifying ways.

This is close to the original quote, and yet I think it is true and I also think it describes a very real problem in the world.

I think you need to condense that down even further to "There are people who believe that simply because they exist they are admirable and remarkable despite behaving in horrifying ways." These sorts of people might use their identity as a member of a particular group to justify their belief, but self-entitled a-holes are everywhere.

As for the list-maker, having now seen a picture of him I get the long-haired requirement as that is clearly an attribute he values.

[elengil]

There are people who believe that simply because they exist as a member of a particular racial and sexual identity group, they are admirable and remarkable despite behaving in horrifying ways.

This is close to the original quote, and yet I think it is true and I also think it describes a very real problem in the world.

But is that really the spirit of his quote? Admirable and remarkable is different than being valued as a human person.

People exist, and they have value because of that. We believe this as a society because we even give trials and appeal hearings to some of the most horrible people society can churn out, but we still put value on human life, no matter how repugnant the actions a person has done with it.

So yes, from the most innocent babe to the most horrific criminal we can produce, our society does value human life, even if individuals do not.

"People believe they have value just because they exist" is, in fact, true.

[Frelga]

No, you can't substitute "admirable" for "valuable", unless you are truly questioning the self-evident value of human life (which, for the record, I don't think you do). This is not a generic statement, it is a very particular ideology that insists that women, specifically, should only exit with the approval of men, and only qualifying men at that.

[yovargas]

This is close to the original quote, and yet I think it is true and I also think it describes a very real problem in the world.

In a superficial way the two quotes are similar but, hooboy, philosophically there is a vast chasm between the two.

[Cerin]

That tweet is the very essence of misogyny. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as offensive on this board. (Not criticizing the posting of it for consideration in this thread, just observing.)

[Inanna]

has to look it up because totally clueless and ZOMG WOW that dress is something else!!

https://twentytwowords.com/billy-porter ... ux-oscars/

I was clueless too! Holy cow! That’s awesome.

[Túrin Turambar]

Racist balloon banned from Canberra balloon festival

On one hand, the balloon does resemble a golliwog. On the other, it has flown at the festival for 20 years, no-one has complained, and on the scale of things which look like golliwogs I think it's fairly low. I personally wouldn't want to be associated with the balloon, but I doubt I'd make the decision to ban it.

[Impenitent]

I wouldn't have made the connection had you not articulated it.
The facts given in the article do damn it though.

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[Frelga]

What's a golliwog?

Stephen and Tabitha King are ticked off by a sexist headline.

My wife is rightly pissed by headlines like this: “Stephen King and his wife donate $1.25M to New England Historic Genealogical Society.” The gift was her original idea, and she has a name: TABITHA KING. Her response follows.

Dear Editors (married to a wife or a husband):

In recent media coverage of a gift that my husband (ironic usage) and I made to the New England Historical and Genealogical Society, we became Stephen King and his wife.
Wife is a relationship or status. It is not an identity.

You could have made other choices. You could have referred to me as OfStephen. Or His Old Lady. Or His-Ball-And-Chain.
I have sons. You could have referred to me as Mother-of-Novelists. I have a daughter but wouldn’t it be just silly to refer to me as Mother-of-Clergy?

I’m seventy. I thought I would give you permission, if “OfTabitha” predeceases me, to title my obituary, Relick of Stephen King.
In the meantime, you might consider the unconscious condescension in your style book, and give women their names.

[yovargas]

Hmmm. But then the question becomes, does that also happen to the non-famous husbands of very famous women? Like, I dunno, if JK Rowling's husband did a notable thing, don't you think the headline would be "JK Rowling's husband did a notable thing"?

[Frelga]

Neil Murray, husband of JK Rowling, did a thing.


Eta: even Amal Clooney, lawyer to the important and the notorious, and a human rights activist, was referred to as George Clooney's wife. I am yet to see George to be referred to as "the graying actor, husband of Amal."

[Alatar]

I think unless you're Brangelina, the lesser famous will always be referred to by their relation to the more famous. Even in famous power couples you'll hear things like "Pamela Stephenson, Comedienne and wife of Billy Connolly" or "David Beckham, retired footballer and husband of style icon and musician Victoria Beckham". People like to connect the dots. But that's no excuse for the case above where her name isn't even mentioned.

[Túrin Turambar]

What's a golliwog?

A hugely-popular early twentieth century soft toy which is a caricature of a black person. Today Golliwogs are associated with negative stereotypes of black people and are extremely controversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog

Until I read that Wikipedia article I didn't realise they were more of a British and Australian than American thing, so there you go (one of the interesting things about posting on the internet).

Golliwogs are actually an interesting topic in their own right. I once listened to a talk by a former Premier of Victoria who had a collection of Golliwogs which his grandparents had given him when he was a small child (it was Jeff Kennett - more for Impy than anyone else). He recently took on a new role as the chair of a body established to reduce the massive over-representation of Aboriginal people in Victorian prisons (prisons in the State of Victoria, not nineteenth-century prisons, just to be clear). He described going through a bit of a journey, guided by the Aboriginal people he was working with, where he came to understand that displaying Golliwogs in his house wasn't really compatible with the role and mission of the organisation and put them away in a box.

From the article it also seems that most of the recent Australian controversies surrounding Golliwogs have come out of Toowoomba, Queensland. For example, the unfortunate incident where a Terry White pharmacy put out a display of Golliwogs for sale under the sign "Have a White Christmas!" (this wasn't intentional). The city has had other PR issues around race, like the fact that a grandstand at the sports stadium had the N-word in its name until 2009.

[yovargas]

For example, the unfortunate incident where a Terry White pharmacy put out a display of Golliwogs for sale under the sign "Have a White Christmas!" (this wasn't intentional).

Yiiiiikes!