Helpful advice for all the Laydeez out there!

cowtime · Post by **cowtime** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:31 pm

"we do not know the state of her heart" Lady Agnew's that is?

Her heart and other vital organs are being displaced in order to portray
"a serene, delicate femininity".

NO thank you.

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 pm

izzarina wrote:I do think that there is indeed something in the whole "femininity" aspect of what is said there (mind you, I didn't read through the whole site). I do think that it's quite lovely for a woman to wear a nice, long, flowy type skirt even for every day wear. It's very feminine, and quite attractive (at least in my opinion...I have no idea if this opinion is shared with those of the opposite sex ). I think that in many ways, femininity has been lost, and I find that to be so sad. A very feminine looking woman can be a very beautiful, not to mention alluring, thing.

agreed and agreed Izz. But the moment Lady Lydia, or anyone else, starts trying to feed me guidelines about what is most fitting or seemly for one of my gender my back goes up and my heels dig in.

missy · Post by **missy** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:57 am

I have nothing against being "feminine". I've seen women be feminine and beautiful in jeans and sweats. I've seen very "ugly" (and I'm not talking about looks) women in beads and satin.

I've had to fight gender discrimination quite a bit - not so much in recent years, but back during my 20's - mainly because I was so small and looked like I was about 12 years old (I was carded until I was 35 years old). I've had car salesman treat me like dirt, repair people act like I don't have a brain in my head, and co-workers shocked that I knew how to use a drill.

Feminine is NOT weak. Feminine is a presence. Weak is an excuse.

dwinterfield · Post by **dwinterfield** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:00 am

Being thoroughly shallow, I was curious about Lady Agnew. Here's a link to her page on a site called "Were They Hot or Not". This web community appears organized around opinions about the "hotness" of historic people. They'd likely think a web site of whistle people is weird.

http://community.livejournal.com/wereth ... tml#cutid1

Innocent Bystander · Post by **Innocent Bystander** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:23 am

Joseph E. Smith wrote:I grew up hearing that Women sweat and Ladies glisten... so, um like, do they have a separate deoderant for glisten?

Version we had was "Horses sweat, Men perspire and Ladies Glow."

Probably something to do with the radioactivity in the kitchen...

Cynth, if Mr Sargent had painted you in yer Tee-shirt and Jeans, I'm sure you would have turned out even more adorable than Lady Agnew. And I can confidently say I would like nothing better.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:46 am

Innocent Bystander wrote:Version we had was "Horses sweat, Men perspire and Ladies Glow."

How my mother drummed that one into me. It never took, for some reason. Might've been the "glow" thing. Made me think of radioactivity.

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:57 am

Nanohedron wrote:
Innocent Bystander wrote:Version we had was "Horses sweat, Men perspire and Ladies Glow."
How my mother drummed that one into me. It never took, for some reason. Might've been the "glow" thing. Made me think of radioactivity.

back in the duck & cover days?

Post by **Nanohedron** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:58 am

Denny wrote:
Nanohedron wrote:
Innocent Bystander wrote:Version we had was "Horses sweat, Men perspire and Ladies Glow."
How my mother drummed that one into me. It never took, for some reason. Might've been the "glow" thing. Made me think of radioactivity.
back in the duck & cover days?

Please. I'm trying to remain in denial. Work with me, here.

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:01 am

Nanohedron wrote:
Denny wrote:
Nanohedron wrote: How my mother drummed that one into me. It never took, for some reason. Might've been the "glow" thing. Made me think of radioactivity.
back in the duck & cover days?
Please. I'm trying to remain in denial. Work with me, here.

I'll be under my desk...

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:23 pm

That website (the womanhood one) looks like a weird cross between fundamentalist Christian and romance novel.

I would not be at all surprised to discover that it was a site specifically designed to subtly encourage purchase of that particular genre. It's one of the most prolific in the publishing industry, having, as it were, a captive audience, i.e., it's not Christianly feminine to read anything else, not that you can with your Christianly feminine lack of education.

They typically require their authors to be members of fundamentalist churches and to write at roughly an 8th-grade level, to use plot lines which encourage feminine ideals, and prohibit mention of sex, alcohol, and dancing, unless used in a way to show that the character enjoying them gets his/her just punishment in the end. Among the suggested topics were "modern career woman realizes error of ways and finds true biblical happiness as housefrau for God-fearing doctor/lawyer/trucker/cowboy/minister/etc." Best setting? Midwest, particularly Arizona. Seriously. I checked.

Oh, and the main characters -- the ones falling in love -- cannot have been divorced, although the man is encouraged to be a widower with several small children. And they have to interact as often as possible. At no time can more than 10 pages elapse without their interaction, because studies have shown that their reading population loses interest at that point.

I swear. <oops!> I affirm.

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:44 pm

dwinterfield wrote:Being thoroughly shallow, I was curious about Lady Agnew. Here's a link to her page on a site called "Were They Hot or Not". This web community appears organized around opinions about the "hotness" of historic people. They'd likely think a web site of whistle people is weird.

http://community.livejournal.com/wereth ... tml#cutid1

Now that is interesting to see the photo and the painting. You can see that bit of lifted eyebrow in the photo, but in the portrait it is, at least to me, quite intimidating. And the difference in the mouth. In the photo she looks pretty docile, but in the painting I think she has the look of someone to be reckoned with. I know none of us have symmetrical faces, but if you hold a piece of paper up to the screen and view each half of her face separately it is interesting. It really is quite a stunning portrait.

Innocent Bystander wrote: Cynth, if Mr Sargent had painted you in yer Tee-shirt and Jeans, I'm sure you would have turned out even more adorable than Lady Agnew. And I can confidently say I would like nothing better.

I think even Mr. Sargent must have had to have a certain quality of starting material, aside from the garments, to end up with a portrait like that, but I appreciate the sentiment IB!

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:38 pm

Cynth wrote:
dwinterfield wrote:Being thoroughly shallow, I was curious about Lady Agnew. Here's a link to her page on a site called "Were They Hot or Not". This web community appears organized around opinions about the "hotness" of historic people. They'd likely think a web site of whistle people is weird.

http://community.livejournal.com/wereth ... tml#cutid1

Now that is interesting to see the photo and the painting. You can see that bit of lifted eyebrow in the photo, but in the portrait it is, at least to me, quite intimidating. And the difference in the mouth. In the photo she looks pretty docile, but in the painting I think she has the look of someone to be reckoned with. I know none of us have symmetrical faces, but if you hold a piece of paper up to the screen and view each half of her face separately it is interesting. It really is quite a stunning portrait.

Innocent Bystander wrote: Cynth, if Mr Sargent had painted you in yer Tee-shirt and Jeans, I'm sure you would have turned out even more adorable than Lady Agnew. And I can confidently say I would like nothing better.
I think even Mr. Sargent must have had to have a certain quality of starting material, aside from the garments, to end up with a portrait like that, but I appreciate the sentiment IB!

The woman on the left appears to be a dishrag merely stating, "go ahead and do yo bidness cause I'm too coked out to think."

The woman on the right looks like she's saying, "I'll give you the best time you've ever had boy, if you've got the guts."

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Cynth wrote:I know none of us have symmetrical faces, but if you hold a piece of paper up to the screen and view each half of her face separately it is interesting.

Sorry, but I just can't see it.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:26 pm

So I have also done some reading into the Lady Agnew painting and, apparently, the person who painted her, John Sargent, also painted another very controversial portrait of a woman in the 1800s. This one was called Madame X.

Here is the how the painting was eventually altered to look:

BUT--this is how it looked originally, see if you can spot the very important difference:

Reading things like that make me want to study art history!

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:22 pm

Thus explaining why I thought the right bodice half was at an odd angle in the first one, all things considered.