I like Twitter especially for the view into the metaphysics of human thought and psychology. It’s awesome how much information it’s possible to convey in 140 characters or less.
One such event came up a few days ago on November 13 when, apparently annoyed at jewelry store advertisements, Klinker* reached into his subconscious and sent this soaring through the twitterverse:
I'll tell you this, ladies: if I love you, I'm going to Cartier or Van Cleef & Arpels, not Jared.
Wow.
Others instantly retweeted the succulent tweet, but one caught my eye (which is how I found the original tweet):
#Betty*Approved –> 'll tell you this, ladies: if I love you, I'm going to Cartier or Van Cleef & Arpels, not Jared.
Betty* is an early-twenties girl.
(* Not their real twitter “names.”)
It seems that Klinker started feeling a bit, shall I say, over-exposed and within minutes had re-thought his position on the issue and started backtracking with replies to some of his followers:
@User74 My previous tweet was too snobbish, I regret it now. Not everyone has the chance to shop for expensive engagement rings.
And:
@UserQ@User74 I should never have written that. It's unfair to disparage those places.
And:
@User1229 Well, I can't put the genie back in the bottle now, but I should not have written that. It was uncharitable.
Rounding it all out with:
I apologize for my earlier tweet. It was completely uncalled for to use my annoyance at tons of jewelry store commercials that way.
Well, good on the young man! After some introspection, I’m sure he realized what kind of an elitist, jerk-y thing it was to have written what he did in 2011 America. Not that it was elitist or jerk-y, just its appearance. I think if he weren’t an elitist jerk, he probably wouldn’t have typed that out, annoyed or not.
There are some underlying issues that I want to discuss, however. The “dark passenger” on this rhetorical bus that like the subtext of a good drama, reveals deeper truths, if you will.
Why was it “unfair” and “snobbish” to criticize Jared—for the record, I’ve never bought anything at Jared so I couldn’t care less if its reputation is besmirched. And, like Klinker, I despise those bloody commercials.
I suppose one could say that it is indeed snobbish to prefer Van Cleef & Arpels or Cartier, but even the people—the 99%?—who go to Jared would rather shop at those former establishments themselves, an assumption I make with some confidence! Girls like swooning Betty up there (tellingly, she deleted her tweet once Klinker publicly “repented” his snobby sin. Ha!) seem to gauge the level of commitment and—dare I say—love by the source of a beau’s baubles. Why is a topic of analysis for another time. Suffice it to so it’s not as simple as mere materialism for womanity.
As for being unfair, Klinker seems to think it is because many other—let’s face it, men—can’t walk into Mordor Cartier and expect to come out with anything more elaborate than a letter opener unless they were possessed of mens rea, donned a balaclava and carrying a Beretta. Klinker, one may assume, possesses enough disposable material wealth to be free of such shopping accoutrements. As a Free Market exponent, I don’t see this as unfair at all. Jared exists so that the female targets of lower-income guys can “enjoy” the same, rather short-lived tingles as their more wealthy compatriots. Klinker may think it unfair, I call it economics.
So if it’s barely snobbish and not at all unfair, where is the dark passenger? Well, it’s something so well-hidden, so entrenched in western (read: American) society, that it is all but invisible to the 99%. It is the mindset, swallowed whole by Klinker and Betty, that men are intended, nay designed to sacrifice their very selves utterly in the pursuit for women.
Even for Klinker, buying what is essentially a completely symbolic and practically useless ring from the chi-chi Van Cleef & Arpels or Cartier—or Jared for that matter—entails an outlay of funds (which further entails an expenditure of time, effort, sweat, schooling, etc.) for the stated honor of the women’s hand in marriage. In a world where male and female are utter and complete equals, it is the logical conclusion that simply being the owner of a vagina is the equivalent of a man’s time, effort, sweat, etc. If it were otherwise, one would I suppose, expect to see women also buying large chunks of pressurized, glinting carbon for men.
Then again, I could be wrong.
4 comments:
Of all names, Betty? :sigh: I suppose I'll pretend it's a reference to Betty Crocker, which would also be BettyApproved. ;)
Truth being, I hate jewelry. I don't wear anything other than a simple cross. Part of my response was tongue-in-cheek, because let's face it - if you take everything that comes across twitter seriously, that's just...well, it won't end well. That said, I deleted what I said when I realized the original poster didn't wish it continue spreading, in respect of that.
I don't think a ring of any quality represents anything other than a commitment, and the commitment itself is made through a covenant that has absolutely nothing to do with the exchanging of baubles and trinkets. However, that isn't the way society views it - in most cases. I'm a firm believer in legitimate courtship that is a two way street. The failed thing that goes for dating these days is not something I feel like delving into; the idea of 'winning' someone over - whether with words, trinkets, or simply appearances - is...well, it's not my way of dealing with my fellow people. Let's not discuss whether this antiquated - or perhaps too modern? - view of things has anything to do with my single status. :D
Intriguing post, how much you really looked into the psychology behind a few tweets (and re-tweets). Feel free to use my real name next time, I wouldn't be bothered whatsoever. :)
Upon second (or third) ponderance, I realized I had more to say. Oops.
Admission #1: I've heard of Cartier, but I don't even know what the second one is. I assume it's just another high-end diamond place. I refer back to my earlier note that I hate jewelry.
What I really wanted to note, was that I do know the sort of woman you're talking about - the kind that expects only the greatest sacrifices to be worthy of her as a person. It's ridiculous, really, but I do know them (albeit only a few). Perhaps it was growing up in a small, blue-collar type of town where we don't even have a Jared (I think there's a Kays in the mall?), or perhaps it's the Catholic view of marriage/relationship that I've become so familiar with - that in which "love is willing the good of the other" - that has left me somewhat disenchanted with modern dating rituals and the like. But it would be false of me to pretend this mentality of which you speak does not exist, because it most certainly does.
So the mindset "that men are intended, nay designed to sacrifice their very selves utterly in the pursuit for women" - well, I don't think it's so terribly a bad thing, as long as there's a mindset that indeed, we women are called to sacrifice ourselves for men. I wouldn't say 'in the pursuit', but in the very idea of lifelong commitment of marriage, if there isn't a sacrifice in which one wills the good of the other, there's something lacking.
Not to overthink it or anything. And on a sidenote, as much as the world and modern feminism may want to assert willfully that men and women are indeed equals, they are not the same. To think that some legitimized standard of 'equality' implies sameness is an error I attribute to the feminism movement, and one I take issue with. Which is a whole other story. Anyway...so there's that. Thanks for making me think. :)
Well
"...the nonsensical, farcical, and ultimately dangerous idea that third-wave
feminists have about having their chivalrous, hunky cake and devouring
it, too."
That, my friend, is excellence in writing. Kudos/+1.
Post a Comment