As I scroll down the blogroll of the blogs I follow, I see half a dozen of posts that are based on the following template:
Of course, I don't care about the stupid royal wedding. I'm a feminist and I just simply have better things to do that to notice, like other people who are less feminist and progressive than I am, that the bride's dress is [a long description] and her hair is [another long description.] How the hell does she manage do keep that hair so damn shiny, anyways? Although, I, for one, couldn't care less how that is done. And the entire ceremony is [an extremely long description.] But it's not like I'd waste a second of my precious time watching that stupid ceremony along with some silly fans of meaningless royalty.
Based on how many posts people have published about the royal wedding today, they must really and truly not care about it.
12 comments:
I have a lot of Canadian friends who are Quebecois, the very last group I would expect to care about the wedding, and they're pressuring me to join them for a royal wedding party where they will get up at 5 AM to watch it live and eat snacks with royal icing (get it, yuk yuk!) Swedish princess cake, King Crab and Dairy Queen.
So, I care about it because it means being surrounded by my friends and consuming sugar. Does that count as "not caring", or am I not trying hard enough?
If there was a party offering sausage, I'd go irrespectively of what was being celebrated, so who am I to say anything? :-)
Did I mention I always serve kielbasa at my birthday party? I highly respect the power of sausage to bring people together.
Got any ideas as to how I could incorporate kielbasa into this royal wedding party? I'm thinking sausage cut into the shape of crowns.
That sounds like a fantastic birthday party.
Of course, you could also carve little royal faces onto the pieces of sausage and name them accordingly. :-)
I can't believe that in this day and age people still take the whole Monarchy thing seriously. It's just so pointless and absurd, it boggles my mind.
I actually wish there was something like the British monarchy in the US. Then, people would have an outlet for their fascination with celebrity and maybe finally end up focusing on the political agendas of our elected leaders instead of their personal lives, outfits, babies and extramarital affairs.
If there was a monarchy here in the US I would be up in arms. Literally. I find the concept repulsive.
Do men actually follow this crap? Seems to be like it's mostly women who follow this kind of idiocy.
I was being facetious about the monarchy in the US.
Do men actually follow this crap? Seems to be like it's mostly women who follow this kind of idiocy.
I want to say a word of defense for women since, as I read on another blog, there were numerous newspaper articles about prince's military career, presumably for men. Also, according to a survey, most women aren't interested. [I am from Israel so don't even remember the British royalty names and am REALLY far away from all of it.]
In addition, I don't think being interested in weddings is inherently less serious than an interest in sports. Our sexist society, of course, traditionally thinks differently. Since long ago men's talk about crops was serious business, while women's talk about housekeeping and suitable suitors for daughters was called "gossip".
One woman commented saying she likes weddings in general since it's supposed to be a fun occasion and she enjoys it as pointless fun: beautiful dresses, lots of good food and flowers, pomp and splendor.
Men aren't trained since childhood to think about weddings and fashion, as women are.
Clarissa, I forgot to ask is there a way to read your blogroll or did you fixed the definitions to keep it private on purpose? I mean words like "Friends page" , you click and read.
There were a few people I knew in the 1960's who thought the U. S. would be better off with a royal figurehead. There were so many people who refused to oppose the Vietnam War in any way because they believed that it was disloyal to oppose the President in wartime. The reasoning was that if there had been a separate head of state, people could maintain their loyalty to that person while opposing the President. I found the idea disturbing at the time, but there may have been something to it. I don't know how many people have this attitude of loyalty to the President nowadays.
ericartman: My blogroll is too huge (literally hundreds of blogs in all kinds of languages.) If I place it in the right-hand panel, it will make the site load forever.
So I just mention some good blogs in the body of some posts from time to time.
Post a Comment