Bitchery Reader Lucinda Betts is a guest writer at Romance Reviews Today, writing about a very interesting pair o’ topics.
1. Was a painting recently auctioned by Christie’s really really REALLY a portrait of Jane Austen?
2. How lame is Clive James’ defense of his own doubt as to the pictures subject? Based on the style and subject matter of her books, Jane wasn’t pretty enough to be that person? Lucinda says, “WTF?”
I think the mystery is intriguing and I’m ignoring Clive for the moment. He can bluster to himself awhile. Lucinda makes an excellent point in terms of the “Is it or isn’t it?” question that the painting bears a strong resemblance to the sketch of Austen from 1870 based on a sketch by her sister Cassandra.
Now, I have two questions of my own.
1. How many levels of lame and wrong is it that I looked at the Rice portrait and thought, “Dude, her hair is awesome. Can I take this JPEG to my hair stylist and get me some Jane Austen hair?”
2. How soon until a slightly-altered version of this mystery appears in a romance novel inspired by, or derived from, the recent increased number of Jane Austen-esque books? And will it be called The Austen Code?
Robin~
I, as you, wish that the world in general were not so shallow. That we all (men included) loved each other regardless of shape or size.
This change will not take place until women start accepting other women regardless of shape, size, color or IQ.
It’s funny—I just finished working for a firm of about 150 people and the high school cliques were still firmly in place. All the pretty girls hung out together. The fat girls formed their own group, the Asians another, the African Americans yet another.
As much as smart women like to talk about equality and acceptance, the fact remains that in daily life women practice exclusion, leaving no room for the multifaceted female.
Smart women don’t want to hang out with me because I am too pretty. And, yes, there *are* cliques of pretty but stupid and/or mean girls. They don’t accept me either because I’m smart and sweet. And (I just know I’m going to catch snark for this) I had an entire workplace of fat women gang up on me and get me fired because I *lost weight*. That’s all I did to incur their wrath. Truly.
I’ll shut up now, but if any female reading this is truly interested in fighting female on female snark, you need to read two books “Women’s Inhumanity to Women” by Phyllis Chesler, and “Tripping the Prom Queen”.
You know what? I’m going to delete this site from my favorites list—because being a bitch is not such a desireable trait.
We’ve gone to far again,Bitches.
No white punch for us.
Problem is, human beings at their deepest level categorize each other. We do it without really thinking why. It is part of our animal nature, and that is hard for some people to accept/explain/understand.
Yes, the head can rule instinctual nature, but sometimes these judgments are made in a very subtle, unbeknownst-to-us way.
I instinctively end up with the smart, nerds as my friends. Whether they be attractive or not. If I can’t have a decent conversation with someone, I really don’t have a good friendship with that person. Just an ‘acquaintanceship.’
Doesn’t matter if they are Asian, Hispanic, or what. In fact, most of my good friends in high school were Asian. Just the way things turned out.
As for the pretty vs. ugly. I see it this way, woman will befriend other women who are like them in behavior or dress because it makes them feel comfortable. I am not a snappy dresser. Never had an affinity for shoes. Don’t really do the whole hairstyle thing very well. And I really don’t feel that comfortable around super-put together women who get their nails done once a week and talk about buying clothes from some boutique store.
Sadly, I think generally women tend to be catty, competitive when it comes to men, destructive when it comes to their comments about others and their actions. I don’t know why that is. Men don’t do this to each other…so I really boil it down to nature. Yes, we can control that side of ourselves, but even the proclaimed ‘nicest’ of women will vent to SOMEONE about other women they know.
Be it a husband, sister, mother or best friend. I have never met ONE woman who does not have something to say about another woman. Maybe not every woman she meets, but surely those different from her.
Eh, I hope I made some kind of sense in my post.
“the high school cliques were still firmly in place. All the pretty girls hung out together. The fat girls formed their own group, the Asians another, the African Americans yet another.”
Mmmm… Still scratching my head over that one.
So, see if I got it right: you can be either Asian /African American OR Pretty American??!!??!!
I’m not American, never lived there, English is not my native language and I’m a natural blonde, can someone explain this to me?
Thanks
For someone who supposedly despises cattiness among women, Anonymous started out by calling the SBs hypocrites, and implying that a husband’s stated preference for a women he can talk to over a pretty but useless spouse (hence the word trophy)was just a lie so he could get laid.
Catty, catty, catty. And so we’ve been sidetracked/hijacked into a discussion of how women are cruel to each other and how society values or devalues us because of our looks when no post on this thread has stated that pretty women can’t be smart, or vice versa.
I’d like to think that anonymous TMI troll was true to her word and left the board, but chances are she’s sitting in front of her computer screen eagerly awaiting the next volley in the little skirmish she thinks she started.
Here’s my take on the topic at hand: Anyone who thinks a woman’s looks are related to her intelligence is a dickwad. Therefore, Clive James = dickwad.
Second: Count me in the camp of folks who think the picture isn’t Austen. The “why would a poor parson pay for a portrait of only one of his children?” argument is pretty convincing.
Anonymous: You claim to have a genius-level IQ and SUPARHUMAN reading abilities, but I’m re-reading what was written and what you are are attempting to address, and pondering once again the importance of showing vs. telling.
I’m not sure why you felt compelled in repeating the point everybody else is making (judging somebody’s intelligence and abilities based solely on physical attributes is simple-minded, at best) while attempting to make yourself sound like a beautiful, unique snowflake in the process, as opposed to all those other catty-ass biznitches that inhabit this wee corner of the Interwebs. How have the Bitches ragged on pretty girls in the past, anyway? I mean, seriously, double you tee eff, mate? I kind of remember the comment thread you’re referring to, and if I remember correctly, we didn’t attempt to make any sort of “all pretty women = teh dumb” connections. If you want to, go ahead and dig up the specific comments and show ‘em to us. Otherwise, I’m going to write you off as somebody with not so much a chip on her shoulder as the Rock of freakin’ Gibraltar.
Sorry you had such a hard time growing up, dude. That stinks, and I wish you’d had better friends. That said, has it occurred to you that other women might not like you, not because of your magnificent rack and fiery tresses, but because you come across as kind of a douche? (This is, admittedly, based on the very limited sample you’ve provided us thus far on the site.) And keep in mind I say this as somebody who has a FANTASTIC rack (seriously, I love my Wonder Twins), a decent narcissistic streak, strong tendencies towards douchebaggery myself (the better to spot other douchebags, my dear) and friends whose physical appearances run the gamut from former beauty queens to people who were beaten up on a regular basis in school because the kids thought they looked weird.
It’s excellent that you no longer want to be a bitch; good luck with that. For myself, I am yet again pondering the beauty of showing vs. telling.
And Kristin:
Sadly, I think generally women tend to be catty, competitive when it comes to men, destructive when it comes to their comments about others and their actions. I don’t know why that is. Men don’t do this to each other…so I really boil it down to nature.
Are you kidding? Men are really fucking brutal to each other. I’ve seen so much backstabbery and general awfulness among men while working in a largely-male environment (I’m a tech writer for a heavy manufacturing company) that they’d put a lot of the beauty queen stereotypes to shame. We just don’t call it cattiness. And much as I found Chesler’s work thought-provoking in Women’s Inhumanity to Women, I don’t know why people find it surprising that the International Sisterhood of United Women doesn’t exist, or that women behave terribly towards each other. People often behave terribly towards other people, period. Yes, women sometimes judge ourselves in terms of our value towards men, and screw over other women because of some sort of perceived competition. Men do this, too. This is not unique to gender—shit, it’s not even unique to humans.
p.s. Kristin, I’m not pissed off at you, even though my post sounds snappish. I was feeling really impatient with Anonymous and that spilled over into what I wrote to address your comment.
Men are more in the open about their ‘gossip.’ Women like to hide it behind a smile. That’s the difference I guess I should be pointing out.
Not all men. Not all women. Some people are just blunt in-your-face about their opinions.
But men tend to have NO problem telling someone off without caring how the guy feels about them afterward. In fact, men will yell at each other, threatening each other with fistfights, be jackasses, and then the next day they can be best friends again.
Women do NOT behave that way at all. If you are mean and nasty to me, I will remember it for life. Not just forget it the next day and go on with my life like we are all fine and dandy.
Apology accepted.
The other poster pissed me off as well…
Having re-read Anonymousie’s comment, I see that you’re right. You did *not* actually say that you preferred looks over brains, and I apologize for saying you did. However, in this comment:
What [men] actually prefer is the total package. Ask them. You’ll see.
I thought I detected a whiff of the idea that, because men prefer the total package, smart-but-not-hot girls need not apply. You may not have meant that.
This, coupled with the accusation of hypocrisy, indicated to me a subtle preference for beauty over brains…and I admit that that may have been an overreading on my part.
But you’re still wrong about everything else. 🙂 No one here was decrying “the whole package.” If anything, we were defending it. So I’m still mystified as to the charge of hypocrisy. (Please see the definition of “trophy wife,” again. A beautiful woman is not a trophy wife. A beautiful woman chosen *solely* for her looks and, often, for her *lack* of intelligence is a trophy wife.)
Also, aren’t you reaffirming the false dichotomy you claim to decry with this comment? Smart women don’t want to hang out with me because I am too pretty.
You said yourself you’re smart. But you can’t be the only smart, pretty woman in the world, so how is it that you can’t be friends with any smart women? I know you’re not the only one in the world. Because I am friends with extremely smart, extremely pretty women. I, in fact, am a smart, pretty woman, though, admittedly, I have a merely average-sized rack. *grin* I have never avoided befriending a person because she was too beautiful or too fat or too skinny, or because she was smarter than me or a little less intelligent than me. (I admit I tend not to hang out with really dense people, b/c it’s really very boring, and if that’s bitchy of me, well, c’est la vie.)
Not to entirely deny your experience, which I’m sure has been difficult. Of *course* some people totally suck and are vicious cows—Mean Girls is quite true-to-life—but none of that is going on here in this thread.
Totally OT and I didn’t go back and read the rest of this but the term “vicious cows” caught my eye. Having been raised on a farm I can attest that cows are the least vicious animals you can imagine. Bull now on the other hand will kill you if they are in the mood.
Back to your regular scheduled discussion.
I don’t think Clive James thinks pretty women can’t be smart. I think the problem is, for most men, a woman either is attractive or she’s not, and being attractive comes with a certain outlook, on love, at the very least, and being unattractive comes with another one. But he’s missing two key points:
1) Women (and I assume this is true for men, too, but what do I know?) rarely perceive themselves as pretty, even when other people think they are, so just because a woman looks attractive to a man, doesn’t mean she experiences herself as such.
2) Pretty wasn’t everything, socially, in for Jane Austen and therefore for her characters, the way it can be now. Look at Emma and Harriet. Emma’s no slouch in the looks department, but Harriet is supposed to be a stunner. But it’s Harriet who’s on the outside socially, and Emma has to bring her in, because she’s some random chick with no money and mysterious parentage, whereas Emma is the daughter of one of the best and richest families in the area. Emma thinks Harriet’s looks will be enough to get her married to men of Emma’s own approximate class, but we, the readers, are supposed to be clued in by this very fact that Emma is, well, Clueless. Jane Austen might have known more about being a social outsider from her class and background, not from her looks or lack thereof.