The problem of Catherine Cambridge’s womb watchers

Started by Limabeany, July 31, 2014, 11:20:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HistoryGirl

#75
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.

That's it--can't make it any plainer! 

:hug:

So I'm devaluing myself?

Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 04:41:12 PM


That was an enlightening concept to grasp. But back on topic, I suppose a part of it is that the concept of being a princess is antiquated to a degree and will remain so, and with that notion, some of the things that come along with it will also appear antiquated; such as simply waiting to ask a woman if she's pregnant.

In All I Do

Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.

That's it--can't make it any plainer! 

:hug:

So I'm devaluing myself?

I think it's fair to say that it's generally accepted that self-labeling and imposed labeling are different. I don't think that's any less true with generally un-stigmatized terms than it is with the stigmatized ones.

FanDianaFancy

Sort of lost and jumping in after read back...many topics going on.

The baby  watch  for these women, many women in the media these days  is really boarding silly and a waste  of  magazine space. I think the the public  is  not concerned. I think the media outlets all want to be first on the story that one day  will be true.
Jennifer Anniston, per the media,  has been pregnant  every  month  for about 10 years, LOL!!
That is, obvious, something she  does not want  in her life and therefore , she has  not and even ending her marriage to  BP was part of that and that is ok for that is her choice for herself.

"Just a______"  does sou nd degrading of what one does  esepically when  another person says it.  She is just a wife. She  is jsut a Teacher's Aid. She  is just  a  commonor.

When somebody  says it  about him/herself, maybe it is different depending on context.  PK ,it seems, just  wants to be  firts a wfie and  mother and secondary    for her , it seems, is the duty  of  working in charities, etc.

YES, she  does the  BRF duties for her role, but it seems  to more sports, galas, tours,  and  fun things.  She does not seem to have a big calendar. Lots of off time.

Some of you say she does not. Fine.
The  BRF media that keeps track  of her work  days says  differently from you guys that are all things pro-PK.

She DOES  , IS  supported by the taxpayers in her country. No one, not even you guys  who are  of that country  knows how much, from what , where  , what percentage of   the money comes from where.  That   annual report   is  a  simple and   easy read  of  keeping the public at bay.
YES,PW  inherited  money from his mother....blah..PC  via the Duchy of C...blah....STILL  it is  all part  of the  taxpayers . Security ? Household staff of cooks, cleaning people,  building engineers,  nannies, drivers, office staff,  outdoor garden staff, doctors, shopping  , mani/pedi  salon visits,  indoor  floral /garden staff from  X company, the list  of staff is  endless, LOL? the Duchy is part  of the  British  land  so still....  Comforts  of  castles and palaces and  estates  uitlities are paid by?

THEREFOR as  PART  of the tradeoff of being BRF  in W and K's roles, their public expects them to seve their country as  ammbassdors sort of  in all things British and  serve their subkects in roles of supporting charities and causes.

If they were  living to  a great degree on the public dollars, then why bother.
Mrs. X, wife of  Mrs. X  , Rev. ,  Owner, or  CEO  or or Dr. does NOT have to do anything. If she chooses, fine.
I am only suing  a  female as an example because  K is a woman. Actually,. W  does not do too much either in his role.
THEY are not private cirtizens in which they owe no one nothing. I do not care how wealthy you are ON YOUR money, you owe no one nothing if you are a private citizen. Bill and Melinda Gates OWE the public , the world, $0.00. THEY CHOSE  to  want to  do somethings  for humanitarian causes  because of their wealth, knowledge , ablility, etc. Bono and his wife , Allison, OWE his fans $0.00. A  good show  per ticket is ALL he OWES to the public  . HE CHOOSES  to  give back to humanitarian causes.
The Gates and Hewsons(Bono) are private citizens in a sense, differnt from KnW.
KnW are NOT private  citizens.

DaisyMeRollin

Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Well, goodness, turn around what I was saying! I value the profession/work, of course I do, history girl. I can't make it any plainer than to say when you call yourself "just a" you devalue what you are doing. I would never call you "just a student" because being a student has value in itself.

That's it--can't make it any plainer! 

:hug:

So I'm devaluing myself?

Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 04:41:12 PM


That was an enlightening concept to grasp. But back on topic, I suppose a part of it is that the concept of being a princess is antiquated to a degree and will remain so, and with that notion, some of the things that come along with it will also appear antiquated; such as simply waiting to ask a woman if she's pregnant.

Don't worry about other people's interpretations of "just". Semantics arguments are silly. You're fine. If you want to go into etymology. "just" as in "merely" is a recent adaptation. "Just" by it's origins means that you're doing yourself justice by being honest with yourself. It's more a admission of humbleness if you want to get the bare bones of it.

Not sure why people are so offended by it either.
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

HistoryGirl

Thanks Daisy. Again, the emotional connection just doesn't come to me when analyzing something, certainly not enough to pay attention to such a simple word, but to each their own I suppose.


georgiana996

 :goodpost: daisy .
I personally dont agree with the devaluing argument , come on! People have to have thicker skin than that . And I'm not a fan of playing the victim card , no one can decide something like that for me , goes back to if your offended then its your issue .
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

In All I Do

Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 06:14:28 PM
Thanks Daisy. Again, the emotional connection just doesn't come to me when analyzing something, certainly not enough to pay attention to such a simple word, but to each their own I suppose.

Analyzing the emotional reaction of people to circumstances is just as much analysis as analyzing facts.

BTW, from your response, I get the feeling I wasn't clear earlier; when I said that self-labeling and imposed labeling are different, I was pointing out that it's perfectly reasonable for you to label yourself as "just a student" while someone else is reluctant to label you so. Your self-labeling does not have to be affected by others labels, but nor should other people feel compelled to label you as "just a student" because you self-label that way. TL:DR: The answer to "So I'm devaluing myself?" is "No, you're not, but that doesn't mean other people can't feel that they would be devaluing you."

HistoryGirl

I responded to the post that stated that by saying i was "just" a student, I was devaluing myself; not that someone else doing it was devauling myself. Gauging emotions perhaps might be analyzing, but reacting emotionally to a clear cut factual analysis is not the same either.

In All I Do

Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 01, 2014, 08:00:36 PM
I responded to the post that stated that by saying i was "just" a student, I was devaluing myself; not that someone else doing it was devauling myself. Gauging emotions perhaps might be analyzing, but reacting emotionally to a clear cut factual analysis is not the same either.

Frankly, this isn't physics or math; whenever you get people involved and get out of the realm of numbers and measurable data, the concept of "clear cut factual analysis" gets very, very dodgy indeed. Which is to say that, in both my experience and according to the training I received, it's more important to understand one's own biases than to try to eliminate them, or pretend that one has.

HistoryGirl

History is all about people...people and the things people do...so um yeah, I know that people have emotions. however, that does not mean that it is beneficial to insert oneself into the analysis. Yes, you're right, it's imperative to understand your biases, but not to implant them into the argument, but to limit it as much as possible to try to get as clear cut as possible since that is what the end product should be in order to present a picture for the public to then analyze themselves.

The difference I then pointed to was that the topic was the press "watching Kate's womb". People then mentioned the *theory* that it was perhaps because she was just a housewife and perhaps if she were more involved in other things that would distract the press some. That then became a disagreement over the word "just". What started as a logical attempt to explain why the press pays so much attention to Kate and her possible pregnancies became one of the emotional reaction one might feel when reading the word "just".

That would be an intriguing poll to implement to then try to gauge how much the public care about the semantics and the theories behind why the word just has evolved over time, but that wasnt was the original debate was. Which was why I said there was a distinction between a) an analysis of a particular emotion to a word and b) an emotional reaction to an argument. The former is perfectly fine and ive oftentimes had to do it in order to profile individual in history; the latter is an attempt to deviate a debate elsewhere. Now if that is what is desired, it is perfectly fine since this is a forum, but perhaps that could be the beginning of another thread.

Rebound

A little bit of advice---Don't ever say in a job interview that you are "just a..." student, bartender, forester, whatever.  You won't get the job. A ton of people interpret that exactly the same way I do. They will think you don't value what you do if you say you are "just a".

cate1949

the study of history teaches - or it should - critical intelligence.  The world could use a lot more of that!  So study history!

Re: the pregnancy watch - it is ultimately sexist and just goes to show how little real progress women have made that these media outlets think it is okay to go here.  But it is also about the fact that there are 5 zillion cable channels and 5 zillion gossip websites so they constantly need to find stories - even made up stories just like we get so much garbage programming on the 5 zillion cable channels.

Limabeany

The fact that a woman is famous only for marrying up is sexist as well...  :happy15: Kate Middleton's fame is the embodiment of sexism...  :wink:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Canuck

I disagree, limabeany.  Philip is only famous for who he married as well.  Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.

HistoryGirl

Quote from: Rebound on August 01, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
A little bit of advice---Don't ever say in a job interview that you are "just a..." student, bartender, forester, whatever.  You won't get the job. A ton of people interpret that exactly the same way I do. They will think you don't value what you do if you say you are "just a".

Got it. I'll be sure to hide my shame at how much I devalue myself; I can only hope they can be fooled...


Re: Lima and Canuck: I've wondered how Philip feels about his public position. I mean traditionally it has the man that has been seen as the dominant partner, but with him it's not the case when it comes to his public title. But pertaining to the baby question, William gets that too. Maybe the press are just dying for baby fever.

Lady Adams

I like that Prince Philip seems to take his duties seriously-- even in his 90s!-- and seems very involved with his family (in fact, I believe I read that the Queen has made sure Philip is in charge of their family, even if she's in charge of the Firm).

PS: HG, I've interviewed plenty of college students. "I'm just a student now, but I hope to..." is a perfectly acceptable phrase and, in fact, I like seeing a bit of humility and ambition. We can't all be perpetual students!  :wink:
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

DaisyMeRollin

Well, I guess the question that pops into my mind is, is it Kate, herself, that cultivated a sexist image of herself? Is it the media? Is it the public? For God's sake, we're talking about sexism and there's a thread devoted to Kate's hair and "stuff" on here.

Who is really doing the "devaluing"? Is it a combination?
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

HistoryGirl

#92
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 01, 2014, 11:40:16 PM
I like that Prince Philip seems to take his duties seriously-- even in his 90s!-- and seems very involved with his family (in fact, I believe I read that the Queen has made sure Philip is in charge of their family, even if she's in charge of the Firm).

PS: HG, I've interviewed plenty of college students. "I'm just a student now, but I hope to..." is a perfectly acceptable phrase and, in fact, I like seeing a bit of humility and ambition. We can't all be perpetual students!  :wink:

Thanks Lady Adams :)

Double post auto-merged: August 01, 2014, 11:58:58 PM


Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on August 01, 2014, 11:50:58 PM
Well, I guess the question that pops into my mind is, is it Kate, herself, that cultivated a sexist image of herself? Is it the media? Is it the public? For God's sake, we're talking about sexism and there's a thread devoted to Kate's hair and "stuff" on here.

Who is really doing the "devaluing"? Is it a combination?

Fantastic point, Daisy. My first inclination would be to say it's a combination. Kate has always clearly focused mainly on being reliant on William and their relationship while paying a great deal of attention to how she dresses, does her hair, and make up. But at the same time, that's the main thing the press discusses about her. Yet on top of that, the media wouldn't be publishing it if the public didn't eat it up.

DaisyMeRollin

#93
^^^ Exactly the Gordian Knot of a situation, as I perceive it.^^^

Or like a boa constrictor or python mistakenly choking on itself inch-by-inch. (Weird analogy, admittedly.)
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

HistoryGirl

In my opinion, nothing proves that more than when Hilary Mantel made her comments about royal women. The backlash was somewhat shocking at first, but then I thought it through and realized that the issue is complex. You would think that the public that claims to uphold strong, independent women would see her argument, but in reality the "sexist" mentality still remains with many (perhaps all of us; of course, some to a much smaller degree)

Trudie

Quote from: Canuck on August 01, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
I disagree, limabeany.  Philip is only famous for who he married as well.  Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.

Actually Phillip isn't just famous for who he married as well Phillip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was a war hero before his marriage to Elizabeth. When he married it was thought he had to give up his titles and citizenship however it was proven in the 70's that wasn't so since he was also descended from Sophia the Electress.



DaisyMeRollin

#96
Quote from: Trudie on August 02, 2014, 12:39:07 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 01, 2014, 10:47:57 PM
I disagree, limabeany.  Philip is only famous for who he married as well.  Will is a man and married a woman, so Kate's fame comes from being a wife -- but if Will had instead been a girl he would (in all likelihood) have married a man, and then that man would be famous for his marriage just like Kate is.

Actually Phillip isn't just famous for who he married as well Phillip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was a war hero before his marriage to Elizabeth. When he married it was thought he had to give up his titles and citizenship however it was proven in the 70's that wasn't so since he was also descended from Sophia the Electress.

Not only that, but one of his older sisters that took him in during his mother's "exit" was married to the Landgrave of Hessen, who died along with her husband and family in a plane crash during WWII. Phillip was royalty before Elizabeth.

Do people not know where Elizabeth, the Queen Mother's, "Hun" comments came from, despite her marrying into a German family?

Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 02, 2014, 12:19:02 AM
In my opinion, nothing proves that more than when Hilary Mantel made her comments about royal women. The backlash was somewhat shocking at first, but then I thought it through and realized that the issue is complex. You would think that the public that claims to uphold strong, independent women would see her argument, but in reality the "sexist" mentality still remains with many (perhaps all of us; of course, some to a much smaller degree)

What I initially drew the most from Mantel's commentary was when a public figure, male or female, is upheld as an "idol" of sorts, they will inevitably lose credibility. It becomes more about celebrity culture, which I thought was the crux of Mantel's argument.

To bring this back to what Trudie mentioned, maybe it's just a matter of modern public misunderstanding of what monarchy is suppose to encompass and a lack of information on what monarchy was, that makes it easier to legitimize or comfort their perception of what it is in the modern context?
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

HistoryGirl

Yes, however I was more pointing to the backlash of the public of misunderstanding Mantel's argument and immediately calling her jealous and ugly compared to Kate. Her criticism was toward the media and their painting of Kate, but the looks were what was upheld with Kate instead of her education which could perhaps point to what ppl view Kate Middleton as first and foremost: a pretty girl.

DaisyMeRollin

Totally agree with you on that, but it was increasingly obvious in the DM commentary section that people didn't actually read what Mantel's full analysis of Kate. The source link eludes some people, and like you mentioned earlier, people react on initial impulse. Snippets from the DM makes for good click-bait, ad revenue, etc.

What people said about Mantel, in turn, was absolutely repulsive. I stopped reading commentary shortly after that, but not for that specific reason.

"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

HistoryGirl

It's particularly annoying to me when some ppl don't bother to read an entire argument (of anything) and then pass judgment on the tid bit that they read. Yet something came to mind when that happened, if the same misunderstanding had occurred, but the comments were aimed at someone like Letizia of Spain or Crown Princess Victoria would the comments on their defense have focused mostly on their looks or their personal accomplishments?