What I Need, A List August 26, 2007
Posted by charmingbutsingle in Single Girl Cliches.trackback
A date for Best Friend Ever’s couples shower this upcoming weekend. As if the horror of not having a suitable date for her out-of-town wedding isn’t enough, it is now en vogue to have men come to bridal showers, once reserved only for women, under the guise of the “couples” shower. Torture for men (I am stereotyping, I know) who probably aren’t jumping up and down over crustless sandwiches, mini pecan tarts, and color-coordinated napkins and dishes on a Saturday night. I’m trying to spin this one as not going without a date, but as not forcing some poor defenseless man to accompany me to a wedding-related party where my parents and Best Friend Ever’s parents and everyone else will judge his husband potential.
To re-read “Pride and Prejudice.” I saw Becoming Jane last weekend and since then I’ve had the opening lines of “Pride and Prejudice” in my mind ever since then – “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” I attempted to quote this from memory when my mom was picking someone’s brain about a single man they knew, but I botched the words and the whole thing lost some feeling.
Courage.
Motivation.
Computer help. Actually, extreme computer help, as I believe my motherboard in my laptop has died, leaving me sans laptop, holding what few words I do have written hostage on a dead machine and keeping me from my lovely, lovely Charming, but Single readers.
Miss you.
Sorry to hear about the laptop C, That might require a local shop to try and resurrect. But most are getting better about that. I’d go to the shower alone as Diana and try and bag yourself a ’stag’. It might be worth it just for the amusement alone.
P&P is amusing still, if just for the language alone. But of course the world & the concepts are now getting to be ever more remote from us. After all: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Has been replaced with:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune Today must be in want of…
1.) A motley assortment of shapely strippers, hookers, certified gold diggers and ‘hanger ons’, until his fortune is depleted. Even if already married. This is such a sure bet, people do reliably make money off of it!
2.) Lots of expensive toys. Faster cars. Faster & bigger boats, bigger TV’s & media set ups, multi media wired mansions in endangered & ever more remote environments.His own plane or helicopter. His own Jet. Or just all of this.
3.) A way to show off all his riches to the world. A good press agent, pumping out incredible PR anytime, anywhere you want it, whether or not he’s an actor or a sports figure.
4.) His very own line of clothes, fragrances, car detailing, etc.
5.) A good really good lawyer & firm to handle his numerous scrapes with the law, and to quietly pay off all the ‘baby mamma’s’
6.) Travel and lots of it. To ever more remote & exotic locales to meet distant & different exotic women & do ever more predictable things with them. Extra points for ultra exclusive resorts that you can only reach by seaplane or helicopter.
7.) Your own record/book contract, whether or not you’ve got any talent or actually wrote a word or a note for it. Regardless of if it ever sells, you can hand it out as ‘party favors’, and look just swell.
8.) Having your very own sports team or stadium named after your or your company. Plush Sky boxes at your Alma Mater or nearest NASCAR track.
9.) A decent good sized home for your momma. A comfy no show job for some no account blood relations.
10.) LASTLY, upon your retirement from your industry/sport or upon the selling of your last company or venture, you’d be in want of a wife. Just to start a new brood with your lovely decades younger arm candy/trophy wife, and try and ‘get it right this time’.
11.) Failing at # 10, you’ll then be in want of a new business venture to direct & involve yourself in.
12.) And a ‘newer’ wife. The cycle repeats until you die a happy old man… And the words spoken by Mr. Darcy need never cross your lips in all this time, and the concept of ‘honor’ something strictly known within the boundaries of contract law. (Well mostly anyways).
And yes, that IS the Happy Male version. Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’
I love the recent Jane Austen-mania surfacing. I bought a copy of P&P a few months ago, having been upset at my high school for never making me read it, and struggling to find the time to fully dive into it’s other world.
Good luck with the computer. I’m always afraid (and hate to use a cliched SATC reference) because I’m not good at “backing up”.
Oh, and VJ, LOVE the list, no matter how depressing, but you forgot an important part- a sex tape so that one day when even his Viagra fails, he can prove to the world that he was prosperous.
Thanks. I was thinking further on this, (beyond the sex, drugs & Hollywood lifestyle), and I know there’s a good discussion of this someplace, but my question is : WHY WAS it “a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife?” There were definite economic reasons for this, and it’s rooted firmly in the place & time in economic history. But it’s somewhat less fun than what I lampooned, but dates to about the same era. I’ll get back to the thought later. Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
Does that mean another wordy but worthwhile post from VJ? I do so enjoy those. Don’t you have your own blog!
I guess that must go back to the idea of ‘Money can’t buy you Love’. As such, those rich men must be seeking it, since it’s the one thing they can’t reliably purchase with their multitude of bills and coin.
miss you too dearest! was wondering what was amiss..
Couples showers!! The worst!
Miss you too
I once tried to hit on a woman, also a Jane Austen fan, with a modified version of the opening line from Pride and Prejudice. I said, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single woman in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a husband.”
Then I realized not only did I make myself look like I was out hunting for a rich wife, I’d also prematurely brought up the marriage subject (before we’d even had our first date). Needless to say, it didn’t get me anywhere.
The “couples” shower is ridiculous! Why would a guy even want to attend such a function? Sheesh!
Been wondering where you disappeared off to my dear. Hope the laptop works out (they’ll often charge as much to replace the board as they would a new machine).
Missed ya. Can’t wait till you’re back posting on a regular basis!
Myself, I never attend a shower without a flask. I can’t imagine what it would take for a guy to attend one.
i was wondering if you were ok. missed you too.
I’m in agreement with those last thoughts on a ‘couples shower’.
But Ok I just love to be goaded into these quasi academic missives. So while waiting for phone calls to be returned, I can give folks a short tour here.
The question again: WHY WAS it “a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife?”
As Jane Austen knew, marriage in an 18th century context was still very much commonly a type of economic arrangement, (recall she was writing in 1796-7, and it was published anonymously in 1813). . This was especially true for women in such a society, as they were typically ‘home bound’ and almost wholly given over to ‘tending to domestic affairs’ after marriage. This again was especially true for ladies & girls of a certain strata in British society, the upper middle class, to which Austen knew many of her readers might aspire to and/or deeply desire a glimpse into. Hence the deep involvement of families, who would often have the last word on who was appropriate marriage partner for their children (of both sexes, but especially girls, naturally).
This brings us back to the essential question of why? Recall in the story something about the typical route of inheritance for such a society (which did not change for many 100’s of years BTW). From the Wiki on ‘Pride & Prejudice’ : ” Mr. Bennet, an English gentleman with an estate in Hertfordshire, he is married to Mrs. Bennet and has five daughters. Unfortunately, his property is entailed to a male descendant, meaning it can only be inherited by his closest male heir (Mr. Collins)’. Ergo, NONE of Mr. Bennet’s 5 daughters can inherit is lands, which probably form the bulk of his estate, his net worth and future income producing potential.
So imagine you’re a comfortable upper middle class dad, who knows that none of his lovely daughters will inherit anything from his estate. But that a doltish & remote Male cousin is in line to inherit it all. Strictly due to his possession of yes, balls. Itty bitty tiny ones, but they’re there & important just the same. This is why he’s drawn as a ‘a pompous buffoon of a clergyman’ by Austen. Despite proposing to Elizabeth Bennet, and their impending impoverishment through the loss of their estate, Mr. Bennet agrees with Elizabeth’s decision to reject the attentions of this idiotic & less than suitable suitor. (That’s part of the ‘Pride & Prejudice’ too). This type of searching for a true a ‘love match’, was just becoming more common in the age, and was easily seen as not only ‘racy’ but quite revolutionary for the time. And it was.
OK now we can get a bit closer to the question ‘WHY WAS it “a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife?”
It has everything to do with the role of women in such a society at such a time. The first man of fortune mentioned in the novel is Mr. Bingley, who has recently set up household with his sisters nearby. One married, one not. Mr. Darcy, a man of more considerable fortune (pulling down ‘10,000 Pounds per year’ which is about 600K in today’s American dollars) also joins the household. Now think about this. Yes, they’re all large estates & hoses way out in the English countryside. But we have all these disparate characters living together in one household. Why such a strange arrangement? This is probably not to ’share expenses for a ’summer rental’, since we’ve got a near millionaire in residence. He’s staying as a guest.
So why would such a man of means be in search for a wife? It was all about economics & economics of the household & inheritance. If a man was in possession of a substantial fortune, he wanted heirs to Legally be able pass this fortune on. (Preferably male heirs too). Moreover, the man was in need of organizational help. Those large country estates did not run themselves. They required dozens of servants & help of all sorts. The household, farm, woodlands & hunting lands required someone to keep the accounts & help straight. It required a full time manager. In an age famous for easy swindles and very inefficient & lax (if famously & floridly brutal) law enforcement, you needed someone inherently reliable to run your accounts for you. Typically your wife took on this role. She was indeed ‘yoked’ to you for life (divorce was known but Much less common), and her status under law was very similar to that of a servant. She exclusively served the Master of the household, no matter how attractive or companionable the arrangement, and was very often relegated to ‘hind status’ behind any sons in case of the early demise of her husband when the estate came to be settled.
Ergo by marrying as a rich man you gained much in this 18th century arrangement. A wife & mother to your children. A competent & reliable manager for your household & accounts (however large). And someone who while could be perfectly pleasant, charming & respectable, was seen as only part of the household when she became subsumed within it, and only part of the whole. As Mrs. Darcy say, she was typically expected to provide or supply the needed labor of the household while the husband brought in outside income & arranged ‘manly affairs’. This is why men of means preferred ‘lively lasses’ who were smart & strong as well as ‘good looking’. And why Jane Austen herself remained unmarried all her life. And why anonymous was probably most often a women when writing for most of history. There simply was no other way to do it.
So Wailin, was that wordy enough? Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
Sorry for the misspellings above. And that is the short version. Inheritance laws changed only gradually down through the centuries. The status of women, & their role in marriage has changed dramatically from as recently as the 1970’s, when it was uncommon for women to retain their own names in marriage, be able to obtain loans of any type in her own name, and run many businesses without substantial male assistance & aid. There’s a ways to go yet, but the progress has been dramatic. Cheers, ‘VJ’
In my experience, “couples shower” means male friends of the bride and groom are invited, not that ladies must bring dates to what is, essentially, a bridal shower. Couples showers are more likely to be regular old parties (but with gifts) as opposed to girly-girl showers with all those dumb games. Go alone! Don’t sweat it!
p.s. to CBS readers: The first line of P&P is, um, tongue-in-cheek. Although the arguments have been making here are (mostly) valid in a larger context, they’re (mostly) irrelevant to Jane Austen in this particular context. Just sayin’.
Yes, lost of allegory, lots of illusion and plenty of literary fun. But do tell me where the arrangements above are ‘mostly irrelevant to Jane Austen in this particular context’. Except in regards to her own life, the life she described and closely observed were those of her neighbors & friends, most of whom she knew did not and could not escape similar fates as those she described. She’d have to be a space-time traveler in order to do so. History is history. She was not exempt from it. Not hardly. Cheers, ‘VJ’
The question again: WHY WAS it “a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife?”
Some interesting thoughts on this issue. Myself, I always thought the line was meant to be eye-rollingly sarcastic, because Mrs Bennet was always trying to set the girls up and poor Jane and Lizzie were sick of hearing about the topic…
Yes, it WAS sarcastic, and still achingly familiar down to this day, but it was also deadly serious too. And Austen well knew this, which is why there was this thick but telling veneer of manners that separated (or tried to) the bottom line awfully desperate economic plight and impending threatening emotional abyss from the action of the romantic banter & sarcastic word play. But it’s all there, in the novel, and in real life.
For most women of that day and for more than a century hence, once they married, they did not have a legal or much of an economic existence apart from their husbands. They were Of their husband’s household and belonged to it. Their husbands in turn could be as helpless as children without the able assistance of their wives and many servants & household help of all sorts, especially when managing a large country estate at that time. There is little to go on, but the strong suspicion was that Mr. Darcy was the inheritor of one of these large country estates, and there were tolerably few ways to earn such a handsome income in England at the time by doing anything else.
So yes, part of the play here is the all so common retort from mothers everywhere that ‘it’s as easy to fall in love with a rich man, than a poor one’, and the desire for their daughters (and sons) to marry well and ‘UP’. But the Bennets rejected a suitor, Mr. Collins, for Elizabeth who was to have Their fortune, foreshadowing & heralding a new age of more concern for the ‘love match’ over family arranged marriages. Still, the family is ever concerned over economics first, then finding a ‘more compatible’ husband secondly. The girls understand this on some level too, but their vision as ever remains a bit different than their parents. And surprisingly enough, the concerns showed by parents then remained the principle concerns expressed by families & prospective brides for well over a century later.
Again the short course on the research behind the drama & dynamics here is here: [http://stephaniecoontz.com/books/marriage/]. This is Prof. Stephanie Coontz’s masterful book based on 30 years of research into the topic: ” Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage”.
So chalk that up to ’sarcasm, deeper than might be expected in older novels’. Not the newer ones mind you. We’ve seemingly lost the ability to read that closely or well. Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
VJ still astounds me with longwindedness. But I say again, it is always worthwhile to read it. Get a job, ya hippie!
Also, I stand by my own thoughts on the subject. Because I can.
I soooo recommend reading “Pride and Prejudice”. I was tickled pink to learn that “Becoming Jane” was about this beautiful book because I had just finished it. I won’t lie, it was a difficult read for me as I was only reading several pages once every two weeks and it’s hard to get back into the rhythm and “language of the book” after putting it down. I’m sure you’ll be as smitten as I was. Happy reading.
Err…Thanks I imagine. Which jobs would I give up to ‘get one’? Me, we’re always looking to hire people who can actually read & comprehend on the same reading level as Austen. We’d be more than ecstatic about that. And as always, you did get a short version. Cheers, ‘VJ’
Why anyone would think that couples showers was a good idea is beyond me. Personally, I hate going to them myself. I wouldn’t dare dream of dragging some poor, innocent man to such an event. Unless, of course, I felt he was in need of some serious punishment.
As I’m sure you’ve read, you were very much missed yourself. Glad to have you back. =)
Another kind of couple shower is quite pleasant, however.
You’re not stereotyping. Men just want to put their feet up and watch the football. Any man who says he wants to go to a couple shower wth you is going to leave you for another man.
change your power supply(adaptor) .
Hi
I can’t belive your still single (unless ofcourse it is intentional). You have such a great sense of humor i have been reading your blog since long and i thought i would finally leave a comment!! Nice job
PS- P n P is worth endless reads. I saw “you got mail” for the nth time yestareday and feel like reading PnP all over again
PSS- good luck for your date!
was ‘becoming jane’ any good?
I thought the deal with couples showers was that guys come if they’re already involved with a friend of the bride, or are a friend of the bride (or groom) themselves. I don’t think it’s at all necessary to bring some random date to a couples shower, esp if he doesn’t know the couple. Actually I think that’d be pretty awkward, both for the date and for the couple (who wants to celebrate their shower with strangers?).
To make a long comment short, I think you should forget about the “pressure” to bring a date. It seems unnecessary. It’s not like you’ll be left out anyway– all the women will be huddled up talking together, and all the guys will be huddled up talking together, and the fact that you “didn’t bring a date!!” will be a total non-issue.
Hi there, can I send you an online press kit for Mama Peavy says, “Women, It’s OK to Marry an Ugly Man” by Mary R. Butler. We are putting together a virtual blog tour and I am contacting bloggers to see if they are interested in having her guest blog. Thanks.