VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:58:55 07/18/01 Wed
Author: Shirleym
Subject: Looking at "classy" and The Mists of A
In reply to: Shirleym 's message, "Looking at "classy" and The Mists of A from a different point of view. (Long and rambling) Mom please take this down if you feel it's inappropriate for the board. (in Reply)" on 16:54:52 07/18/01 Wed

Speaking of being a "classy" person... I've been thinking about that and about what Nell was saying in her complaints about TMOA and it led me to this thought - I don't think of myself as a classy person. Ok, I know it's hard to be classy when you're a loose screw anyway, but that's not the main reason for my thoughts. It's because I feel I've used manipulation in my life much too much to be a classy person.

Women start out in life watching their mothers "handle" their fathers. It's a fact of life. The men that were brought up in my generation (and my parents' generation) were brought up by mothers who, mostly, didn't think it was within the realm of reality to ask their sons to be aware, adult, responsible human beings. They were after all, "just" men.

That's where the trouble starts. You fall in love with someone with character - a good person at heart, but you find that his mother forgot to teach him some vital things- things he's going to have to know in order to protect you, as his woman, in this world. Oh, sure, you can handle everything yourself one way or another if you have to, but I don't WANT to.

Of course HE thinks he'd defend you to the death, but the problem is, he doesn't see the dangers or problems unless it's a f@%^&*! fire breathing dragon standing right in front of you.

Now, the nice thing for men is that they can just talk straight to each other. Yes, egos get bruised and pride gets hurt now and then, but they just punch each other in the nose and get it over with. Women, on the other hand, can talk straight to men in private situations till they're blue in the face and it doesn't work the same way. Example:
Say a man is working on your house and you can see that the color he's putting on is NOT the color you asked for. You talk to him about it calmly and rationally and he immediately thinks to himself, "s!@#, this woman's gonna be trouble. I'll tell her she's a being hysterical and doesn't know what she's talking about and maybe she'll go away."
Have a man say the same thing to him in a calm and rational way, and a calm and rational conversation ensues.
So, what does a woman do? She can be classy and just be straight and have her life made miserable by it, or she can use a little manipulation, in some way getting to the man's ego (which is VERY easy to do) so that he'll feel he's doing something great and wonderful by listening to her.

It all makes me ill, but I do it in everyday life all the time. And teaching a man what his mother should have taught him is SO much easier when he doesn't know he's being taught and his pride isn't in the way. Wives shouldn't have to do that kind of teaching, but most do... or they don't to it and complain about their husbands incessantly and wonder why they want to kill someone just before their periods.

And what about women? -
Oy...
Try talking straight to most women and see what you get. I'm not talking "straight" as in impolite, I'm just talking kind, but straight.

I use manipulation - a lot, when all I really want to do is be myself. That, in my book, disqualifies me from being a "classy" person.

Where I draw the line with manipulation is in things that I feel are VERY important - honor - politics - and the acquisition of power. I don't mind playing the game of politics. You have to know the game and play it well - find out what's going on behind the scenes, shine a very bright light on the truth and get great numbers of people behind you if you want the political system to work for you - but that's not the same as manipulation.

So... getting back to TMOA, I feel that it was the use of manipultion in order to gain power that brought the matriarchy down. Of course, I don't know what I would do if faced with that situation myself. It was a different era, but it feels like a petty and dishonorable way to handle things and certainly not "classy".

I know this is long and rambling and probably doesn't make too much sense at times.
Any thoughts?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Had to consult the dictionary for the definition of classy: (slang) elegant, stylish. Elegant: excellent, fine, superior. Stylish: characterized by or conforming to the present style; smart or chic. About the manipulation part, I think it's natural for women in our society to operate through manipulation. Maybe it's because women tend to focus on relationships and emotion more than men. Manipulate: to manage or influence by artful skill. Manipulation, IMHO, is not inherently bad. Any truly successfull person, male or female, is a successful manipulator...a person who can guide others to a desired outcome. It's the means and the outcome that indicate whether the manipulation was bad. Just MHO, of course...my rambling is done! -- PJ, 19:46:17 07/18/01 Wed


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> Felt the need to add that motivation/intent, of course, is important in gauging manipulation. -- PJ, 22:16:06 07/18/01 Wed


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> ..."the means and the outcome..."--I like the way that you express that, PJ--I think you did a better job of explaining that than I did below. Regarding the concept of "classy", I see it as being more than just stylish. To me it also involves character; it means "not being a jerk"--that you behave toward others with a sense of decency and humanity. -- Susan W, 22:17:47 07/18/01 Wed


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> ITA with you on the character part. Don't know why I'm such a "dictionary bug" these days (maybe I'm getting old). The newest dictionary I have is a 1980 edition, which is where I got the definition above for classy. Does anyone have a recent edition that might have a more modern definition for classy? Just for fun : P -- PJ, 08:12:48 07/19/01 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Hah! My dictionary is copyright 1980 as well, so fat lot of good that'll do us. (Perhaps we should start looking for some nice retirement home living... :P) Your point is well taken about intent, means and outcome. I've always felt that the intent and means were the most important things in an action. (r) -- Shirleym, 09:36:49 07/19/01 Thu

I too, feel that character has a lot to do with the definition of "classy". Since it started out as slang, I guess the meaning has changed a lot through the years. Didn't it used to describe a "broad"? LOL As in, "That's some classy broad ya got there!". At that time, since women weren't thought of as attractive when they had as much power as men (they were thought of more as a threat) the word "classy" didn't apply to much more than the way women looked and talked. I guess now that "classy" can be used to describe men too, it's definition automatically has to involve character because men would never judge each other on looks and speech alone! ;-)

Oh boy, do I sound like a feminist or WHAT! Actually, I've never thought of myself as being one... and this is just my opinion of course. I have no idea what a current dictionary would say about the word.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Great point on the "classy broad" stuff...definately sounds plausible to me. Now I feel compeled to get an up-to-date dictionary to have around the house...will try to pick one up while I'm out today. I have never thought of myself as a feminist, either...in fact if someone used that word when describing me, I'd probably become violent LOL! Feminist has too many negative connotations associated with it, JMHO of course. 1980 definition of feminism: the doctrine advocating social and political rights for women equal to those of men. Which I am all for...guess the negative emotions I have associated with the term is related to the means and outcome associated with the most vocal of self-proclaimed feminists. -- PJ, 11:21:26 07/19/01 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh I sooooo agree, PJ. :-) -- Shirleym, 23:21:21 07/19/01 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I'm pretty sure "I'll be back." LOL. I need to think about this some more. My knee jerk reaction is that manipulation and class are not mutually exclusive -- intent is definitely a playing party. So far s TMOA is concerned -- perhaps they didn't manipulate well enough? Actually it seems that the show presented manipulators with different agendas working at cross purposes. Had Vivane done a better job of co-opting Morgause, Ygraine, and Morgaine it would have worked. Maybe she just wasn't good enough at her job? -- Zzoo, 21:16:39 07/18/01 Wed

>Speaking of being a "classy" person... I've been
>thinking about that and about what Nell was saying in
>her complaints about TMOA and it led me to this
>thought - I don't think of myself as a classy person.
> Ok, I know it's hard to be classy when you're a loose
>screw anyway, but that's not the main reason for my
>thoughts. It's because I feel I've used manipulation
>in my life much too much to be a classy person.
>
>Women start out in life watching their mothers
>"handle" their fathers. It's a fact of life. The men
>that were brought up in my generation (and my parents'
>generation) were brought up by mothers who, mostly,
>didn't think it was within the realm of reality to ask
>their sons to be aware, adult, responsible human
>beings. They were after all, "just" men.
>
>That's where the trouble starts. You fall in love
>with someone with character - a good person at heart,
>but you find that his mother forgot to teach him some
>vital things- things he's going to have to know in
>order to protect you, as his woman, in this world.
>Oh, sure, you can handle everything yourself one way
>or another if you have to, but I don't WANT to.
>
>Of course HE thinks he'd defend you to the death, but
>the problem is, he doesn't see the dangers or problems
>unless it's a f@%^&*! fire breathing dragon standing
>right in front of you.
>
>Now, the nice thing for men is that they can just talk
>straight to each other. Yes, egos get bruised and
>pride gets hurt now and then, but they just punch each
>other in the nose and get it over with. Women, on the
>other hand, can talk straight to men in private
>situations till they're blue in the face and it
>doesn't work the same way. Example:
>Say a man is working on your house and you can see
>that the color he's putting on is NOT the color you
>asked for. You talk to him about it calmly and
>rationally and he immediately thinks to himself,
>"s!@#, this woman's gonna be trouble. I'll tell her
>she's a being hysterical and doesn't know what she's
>talking about and maybe she'll go away."
>Have a man say the same thing to him in a calm and
>rational way, and a calm and rational conversation
>ensues.
>So, what does a woman do? She can be classy and just
>be straight and have her life made miserable by it, or
>she can use a little manipulation, in some way getting
>to the man's ego (which is VERY easy to do) so that
>he'll feel he's doing something great and wonderful by
>listening to her.
>
>It all makes me ill, but I do it in everyday life all
>the time. And teaching a man what his mother should
>have taught him is SO much easier when he doesn't know
>he's being taught and his pride isn't in the way.
>Wives shouldn't have to do that kind of teaching, but
>most do... or they don't to it and complain about
>their husbands incessantly and wonder why they want to
>kill someone just before their periods.
>
>And what about women? -
>Oy...
>Try talking straight to most women and see what you
>get. I'm not talking "straight" as in impolite, I'm
>just talking kind, but straight.
>
>I use manipulation - a lot, when all I really want to
>do is be myself. That, in my book, disqualifies me
>from being a "classy" person.
>
>Where I draw the line with manipulation is in things
>that I feel are VERY important - honor - politics -
>and the acquisition of power. I don't mind playing
>the game of politics. You have to know the game and
>play it well - find out what's going on behind the
>scenes, shine a very bright light on the truth and get
>great numbers of people behind you if you want the
>political system to work for you - but that's not the
>same as manipulation.
>
>So... getting back to TMOA, I feel that it was the use
>of manipultion in order to gain power that brought the
>matriarchy down. Of course, I don't know what I would
>do if faced with that situation myself. It was a
>different era, but it feels like a petty and
>dishonorable way to handle things and certainly not
>"classy".
>
>I know this is long and rambling and probably doesn't
>make too much sense at times.
>Any thoughts?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> That's what I thought, Zzoo--that Vivane was rather too heavy-handed at it. I would have liked to have seen more subtlety from her. It was probably a case of desperate times requiring desperate measures. -- sw, 22:23:41 07/18/01 Wed


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Shirley, this kind of discussion is exactly what I *want*--ramble away! (r) -- Susan W, 22:11:30 07/18/01 Wed

I think I have a different view of female manipulation than you do--I think that historically, women have practiced manipulation precisely because they have had a perceived *lack* of power, and that was the only way that they felt they could get what they wanted.

What a fascinating topic (...and especially since we are all fans of a show in which manipulation was practiced as a highly evolved art form). I think everyone does it at least to some small degree. When the ends are just--sound familiar?--it can be excused. But when people are willing to completely mow you down solely for their own advantage, it turns into a character defect, IMO.

I'm thinking about how Nikita felt every time Michael manipulated her. When he did it on behalf of Section (as in "War", I think she found it reprehensible. But sometimes he used manipulation to help her ("Escape", "Recruit"). In the long run, she probably found that type of manipulation easier to deal with.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Yes, I suppose women did manipulate because it was one of the only forms of power they had. We are so very lucky to live in this time, aren't we. The vote and birth control have given us a freedom that no other generation of women before us has had. I was fascinated by the various forms of manipulation in LFN, especially when the writers had a clue... ;-) That was something I don't think I've ever seen in a TV show before. -- Shirleym, 23:36:22 07/19/01 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.