Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, first line
I adore Jane Austen's work, and I acknowledge that the social constraints of early nineteenth century England and those of the West today will allow for a broad discrepancy of opinion regarding her beliefs as put to paper. Yet, even in the early eighteen hundred's Austen surely new that her opening line (above) to Pride & Prejudice would be met with raucous laughter by most men and the enthusiastic, if inaccurate, affirmation of her primary audience: women.
I have many fine friends who are women. (and Black and Gay and et-cetera - yes that's the deliberate barb I'm making) I hold nothing against them, they are after all more than one half the world's populace. Yet, the woman who believes that the first thing a man needs, even one of highly moral attributes, is a wife, is a laughable creature. I would in particular point out that a man of fortune, whether two hundred years ago or yesterday, is highly unlikely to "want" (in either definition of the word) marriage. Not before some expenditures which have little to do with hearth and home!
It is, therefore, humorous to find so many women opposed to same sex marriage. The promotion of marriage between any two persons supports marriage as a viable social contract which, with it's financial and emotional benefits particularly advantageous (especially and traditionally) for women, is seemingly a rather important endorsement for the struggling institution.
I have pondered then, longer than it is surely worth, why so many women are so extremely hostile to same sex marriage, especially between men. (The omnipotent hatred directed at me when the subject has arisen is frightening!) My conclusions are hardly scientific, and are also less than kind, be warned; yet, being formed more or less directly from Austen's own statement they do bear a certain weight of authenticity. Money. It is MONEY. Women loathe that any man, let alone two, should possess a fortune which could certainly be comprehensively allocated to women through marriage. Austen's very premise suggests that it is the money, not the man, which is foremost of importance. Further, by suggesting it is the men who need the marriage, women, who may not be overly enamored of the bearer of the wealth, eliminate their plight of seeming to be, uh-mm, grasping!
There are women in my acquaintance whom have never fallen into this less than attractive portrait of the 'fairer' sex. They will know whom they are! Yet, the majority of women I have met and known still speak of finding a man to marry for the sake of security primarily; even joking that their second marriage may then be for love. (And more money...)
Seemingly, it is not only women of wifely intent whom are prone to the belief that a man needs relieving of his fortunes. I've found that women with alternate relationships to these men also believe that his money should not leave them unattended! I suppose, as financial security is a worthwhile goal, that much may be forgiven seeking it out wherever it may be found. It is the commonly indiscreet acknowledgment by these creatures that the gentleman in question has no importance to them other than for their profit which is painful. Additionally, it is most horrifically brutal when the woman is by birth or court papers related to the poor fellow!
As an anecdote let me present to you 'YC'. The crowning achievement of this woman was her dogged determination to follow for years her former spouse, 'N', and his male partner, 'W'. Hugely resenting his leaving her for another, (and a man at that!), and using guilt over the child of their former union as her primary weapon of extortion, 'YC' soaked 'N' for thousands. It began in a flourish when, arriving for a 'visit', she appeared in the morning in a flowing pink negligee assuming that her ponderous mammary glands, sprouting forth from the flourecsecent nylon would titillate and entice. The desired impact not effectively achieved, ('N' really preferred a rather different set of globes belonging to the new spouse, 'W'.) she eventually flung herself to the floor, writhing in a magnificent display of emotional torment, pleading and begging that he come home to her. I don't know for certain, but I believe the first large sum was then paid simply to have the woman clothed, packed and on her way again! Only years later, when the custody of the child was removed as a viable threat, was 'YC' successfully, for the most part, shut out of the checkbook of 'N' and 'W'. Even then, however, using the child to gain empathy and sympathy, 'YC' managed to wring a few thousand dollars more, here and there.
Austen knew the lie of her character's remark, and was as surely amused by the number of her female readers who would assert the 'truth' of her character's supposition. Deliberate and astute in her humor Austen was not the sort of woman of whom here she wrote!
P.S. I note that this behavior is not solely the territory of women. Men, too, gay and straight have been known. I do assert, however, that women hold the gold, shall we say, for this sport!
I have many fine friends who are women. (and Black and Gay and et-cetera - yes that's the deliberate barb I'm making) I hold nothing against them, they are after all more than one half the world's populace. Yet, the woman who believes that the first thing a man needs, even one of highly moral attributes, is a wife, is a laughable creature. I would in particular point out that a man of fortune, whether two hundred years ago or yesterday, is highly unlikely to "want" (in either definition of the word) marriage. Not before some expenditures which have little to do with hearth and home!
It is, therefore, humorous to find so many women opposed to same sex marriage. The promotion of marriage between any two persons supports marriage as a viable social contract which, with it's financial and emotional benefits particularly advantageous (especially and traditionally) for women, is seemingly a rather important endorsement for the struggling institution.
I have pondered then, longer than it is surely worth, why so many women are so extremely hostile to same sex marriage, especially between men. (The omnipotent hatred directed at me when the subject has arisen is frightening!) My conclusions are hardly scientific, and are also less than kind, be warned; yet, being formed more or less directly from Austen's own statement they do bear a certain weight of authenticity. Money. It is MONEY. Women loathe that any man, let alone two, should possess a fortune which could certainly be comprehensively allocated to women through marriage. Austen's very premise suggests that it is the money, not the man, which is foremost of importance. Further, by suggesting it is the men who need the marriage, women, who may not be overly enamored of the bearer of the wealth, eliminate their plight of seeming to be, uh-mm, grasping!
There are women in my acquaintance whom have never fallen into this less than attractive portrait of the 'fairer' sex. They will know whom they are! Yet, the majority of women I have met and known still speak of finding a man to marry for the sake of security primarily; even joking that their second marriage may then be for love. (And more money...)
Seemingly, it is not only women of wifely intent whom are prone to the belief that a man needs relieving of his fortunes. I've found that women with alternate relationships to these men also believe that his money should not leave them unattended! I suppose, as financial security is a worthwhile goal, that much may be forgiven seeking it out wherever it may be found. It is the commonly indiscreet acknowledgment by these creatures that the gentleman in question has no importance to them other than for their profit which is painful. Additionally, it is most horrifically brutal when the woman is by birth or court papers related to the poor fellow!
As an anecdote let me present to you 'YC'. The crowning achievement of this woman was her dogged determination to follow for years her former spouse, 'N', and his male partner, 'W'. Hugely resenting his leaving her for another, (and a man at that!), and using guilt over the child of their former union as her primary weapon of extortion, 'YC' soaked 'N' for thousands. It began in a flourish when, arriving for a 'visit', she appeared in the morning in a flowing pink negligee assuming that her ponderous mammary glands, sprouting forth from the flourecsecent nylon would titillate and entice. The desired impact not effectively achieved, ('N' really preferred a rather different set of globes belonging to the new spouse, 'W'.) she eventually flung herself to the floor, writhing in a magnificent display of emotional torment, pleading and begging that he come home to her. I don't know for certain, but I believe the first large sum was then paid simply to have the woman clothed, packed and on her way again! Only years later, when the custody of the child was removed as a viable threat, was 'YC' successfully, for the most part, shut out of the checkbook of 'N' and 'W'. Even then, however, using the child to gain empathy and sympathy, 'YC' managed to wring a few thousand dollars more, here and there.
Austen knew the lie of her character's remark, and was as surely amused by the number of her female readers who would assert the 'truth' of her character's supposition. Deliberate and astute in her humor Austen was not the sort of woman of whom here she wrote!
P.S. I note that this behavior is not solely the territory of women. Men, too, gay and straight have been known. I do assert, however, that women hold the gold, shall we say, for this sport!
No comments:
Post a Comment