Total Pageviews

Friday, May 18, 2018

Rant #2,146: It Doesn't Matter


Today is Friday, May 18.

We are slowly creeping toward Memorial Day and the coming of summer.

My allergies are killing me.

I cannot find a new job.

Blah, blah, blah.

But you know what else is coming ...

Tomorrow, the royal wedding between Prince Harry and commoner American Meaghan Markle, a marriage that is a made in heaven affair for the times.

They are young, good looking, and she is of mixed race, all to satisfy current trends that the media loves to jump on.

But really, what is the fascination with royal nuptials on this side of the Atlantic?

Really, I have no idea, I can just theorize.

We could have had our own royalty, but George Washington, as legend has it, did not want to be called "King."

If that is actually true, good for him.

I guess his action has made many of us yearn for a real American king and queen in a bizarre sort of way.

And when I say "many of us," I really mean the female part of the equation.

They seem to be the only ones of us who are obsessed with what is going on in England right now, they were the only ones obsessed with the goings on of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, and while I won't say that every woman is so obsessed, do you honestly know a single male who cares about this stuff at all?

No, and here we have another reason that men and women are different, and this time, it has nothing to do with anatomy.

From infancy, little girls are generally brought up to believe that their own prince will one day come, whisk them away and they will have a storybook pairing with their own Prince Charming.

Even though the reality does hit them later that nothing is as described in fairy tales, they still retain that ethic, that adoration for what could be.

Boys are not brought up this way at all.

I am not even saying that it is a conscious thing, that parents bring this kids up like this on purpose.

But this sort of "Cinderella Theory" does exist, even if it isn't out in the open.

This gives women a reason to be so interested in the marital affairs of the royals, an event that has absolutely nothing to do with anything over here.

We have had our Presidents who have had marrying age children get hitched while they are in office, but it just isn't the same.

And with today's with-it women, who supposedly want to do it all--career, marriage, motherhood, etc.--what are women so fascinated with when looking at the royals?

Their unions are so old-fashioned, you cannot believe that so many women actually buy into this stuff.

The royals get married, and the new princess--or whatever they are now called--are expected to do one thing while married, and one thing only:

Have babies.

And not only have babies, but have male babies.

If this doesn't go against the current female ethic, the current feminist credo, well, I don't know what does.

Look at Harry's brother, Prince William, and Kate Middleton--she seems to be a baby factory, and every kid she has puts Prince Harry further back in the chain of command. Harry is now sixth in line for the throne, but who knows, before you know it, the way Middleton spews out kids, he could be seventh, eighth and ninth before you can blink an eye.

And that is another reason that I cannot understand this fascination that so many women have with the royals and their weddings.

They are so old fashioned, so retro, so backward in their thinking about why women were put on this earth, that I have to think that so many of the women obsessed with this actually want to harken back to those days, even though most of them wouldn't admit it.

They would be very happy to have babies, stay at home, and run their own households, but the reality of it is that due to economic and other reasons, the can't do it--but their obsession with such goings on allows them to dream.

So there, I have said it, I have said what nobody else would--many of these women are as old fashioned as can be, but because of current mores, they can't voice that opinion ... but they can at least dream about it when they see a royal wedding.

So good luck to Prince Harry and the beautiful Markle--she is a nice looking lady, guys--and I hope they have a long-lasting marriage, and yes, have many, many kids.

Me, I will be watching the New York Yankees this weekend--baseball royalty if you will--and hoping they can get their games in after a rain-splattered week of no baseball.

And who do they play?

The Kansas City Royals, of course!

Have a nice weekend. Speak to you again on Monday.

12 comments:

  1. Do you have any clue at all how demeaning to women your comments really are?

    ReplyDelete
  2. How is what I said demeaning? It isn't demeaning, it's true. Or perhaps you just can't take it because you are as interested in this stuff as many women are. And the question is: Why?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And by the way, Ms. Lawyer, I received a nice number of looks at this post, and I also received likes on Facebook, so as usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. And how about dropping the anonymous tag already? Be true to your opinions and let the world know who you are! I mean, I do Robin, so why should you have to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here’s the thing. I’ve been listening to Scott Shannon on the radio all week, he sent Brad Blanks to cover the wedding, and the jingle he used to introduce Brad’s reports included the lyric ‘Why do we care?” So you’re not alone.

    I bet, when you were nine or ten, you fantasized about playing for the Yankees, about donning those pinstripes and hearing Bob Shepard announce “Now batting for the Yankees, number 69, Larry Lapka.” It’s how boys of our generation were raised. You still watch the Yankees play. You even go to the games. But if the Devil showed up tomorrow and gave you the chance to play for the Yankees, to abandon your wife and become a young and athletic man capable of taking the Yankees to the pennant ...

    Yeah, that is a fantasy, a movie musical starring Gwen Verdon. And you recognize it as such.

    Yeah, girls have princess fantasies. My younger daughter describes herself on Twitter as a “Disney Princess”. But you know Becca, can you imagine that girl staying home and raising babies?

    That’s what was so demeaning. Some of the biggest “Royal Wedding” fans are professional women who harbor no secret desires to stay home and have babies. I would not have been a stay at home mother even if it were economically feasible. Most of my friends who are professional women agree with me. Others chose to stay home when their children were very young, but chose to return to the work force when their children got older. And yes, there are some among us who are perfectly content being stay at home moms, and others who would choose that path if they could.

    But to presume to know what women secretly thing...who are you, Mel Gibson. ;-)

    And in case you’ve forgotten, I’m pretty sure you blocked by “songbird” log in .

    I’ll stay home and have babies when you play shortstop for the Yankees.

    ROBIN

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and FYI, the Duchess of Cambridge is a working mom, or do you not know what her Royal duties entail? https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/869854/Queen-Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-Prince-Harry-Duchess-of-Cambridge-Prince-George

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, and she is also there to produce a male heir. She won't lose her head like Anne Boleyn did if she does not fulfill that goal, but that is part of her "job" too. I wish them both much happiness

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, she’s there to produce an heir, male of female. The line of succession is Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis and then Harry. The monarchy has entered the 21st century. And if you read the article, you’d understand what I meant by by “working mother”. Kate has an enormous list of Royal duties separate and apart from her role as mother to the heir. Diana often complained that William and Harry were being raised by nannies. That wasn’t true, of course, but Diana found it hard to balance work and motherhood.

    And why did you publish only one of the two comments I wrote?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I published several of your comments; did I miss one? And while she may have other duties, she is also there to have kids, as many as possible, a la her sister in law, who appears to be something of a baby factory. We don't have that over here with our keaders, thank goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Selective editing, Larry?

    I’ll sum it up. Girls may fantasize about being a princess the same way boys may fantasize about playing for the Yankees. Doesn’t mean we secretly want to stay home and make babies. Your comment was so demeaning.


    And I post anonymously because you blocked my songbird persona.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No selective editing here. If I did not post something you wrote, it is because I never received it. I went through my email and everything I received I posted, although I am not bound to post everything you write. And I never said that women want to stay home and make babies and that is it, although I will bet many would love to do that. They fantasize about a prince lifting them off their feet and having a storybook marriage. I actually know someone who visited England during this period, and she said that while she does know a few men who had some interest in this event, yes, it was women who really where the majority of the interest came from. We may fantasize about playing for the Yankees when we are 10 years old, but the fantasy leaves us soon after that. With women, the royal fantasy continues throughout their lives ... and you know what? There is nothing wrong with that at all. The only reason you think it is demeaning to women is that it is probably your fantasy too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I also said that I would not post anonymous comments, but I went against myself with that decision. If you really believed everything you say, you would use your name, not personas.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I found the errant post of yours in my spam folder. Maybe Yahoo Mail knows more about characterizing this post than I do ... but that is where it was, and thus, I never saw it until a few moments ago.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.