Have you ever wondered what makes crabby old ladies crabby? Maybe they’re having a bad day? Maybe younger people are being rude to them and they’re speaking up for themselves? Maybe they’ve always been crabby? Maybe they’ve lived a long life and don’t give a shit what people think of them any more?
According to Sunshine Mary — “Christian, wife, mother, and anti-feminist” — the real problem is feminism.
And she’s got proof!
In a blog post today titled The coarsening effect of feminism on elderly women she tells the horrifying story of how she personally witnessed some crankiness from an old lady while she was innocently going about her business shopping for groceries and silently judging other people:
As I approached the milk cooler, I observed an elderly woman, probably in her late seventies, and her husband, who was probably around eighty. The woman was wearing brown pants that appeared to be Carhartts and rainbow colored sneakers; she looked ridiculous. I have been noticing lately that even elderly women’s appearance has worsened; they often wear their hair in short, mannish styles, as opposed to the short but feminine style that elderly women used to wear, and they seem to be wearing men’s clothing now.
Ok, so far the only crabby person here seems to be Sunshine Mary herself, working herself into a lather over an elderly woman’s short hair and rainbow-colored sneakers.
But wait! Sunshine Mary continues with her tale of terror in the dairy aisle:
As I stood patiently nearby waiting to access the milk cooler, I eavesdropped on the elderly couple’s conversation. I didn’t hear what the man had said, but the old woman was responding harshly with a nasty look on her face as she complained, “I want it, and I am going to get it. I need to because you don’t take me shopping enough!” They shuffled off down the aisle, she still crabbing and he pushing the cart silently.
I CAN’T FUCKING BELIEVE IT A WOMAN DEMANDING TO GET THE KIND OF YOGURT OR WHATEVER THE FUCK IT WAS THAT SHE WANTED TO GET, EVEN THOUGH HER HUSBAND FOR SOME REASON APPARENTLY THOUGHT SHE SHOULDN’T GET IT, ACTUALLY WHY WOULD THAT BE ANY OF his business why am I yelling?
Sunshine Mary wonders what kind of world could create crabby old ladies like this:
I thought about her unfeminine appearance and harsh behavior and also recalled … an article about how elderly women are divorcing and engaging in online dating and casual sex, resulting in a sharp increase in sexually transmitted diseases among the elderly, and I wondered…What has happened to our older women? Why have they become so unfeminine? Why do they revel in exhibiting coarse behavior and using foul language?
Elderly women didn’t use to be like this.
Huh. I’s sort of stuck on the sexually transmitted diseases thing, because unless all these old ladies have become lesbians — and I’m pretty sure Sunshine Mary would have said something about that if that were the case — then these evil sex-having, STD-spreading old ladies are having sex with, and spreading STDs with, sex-having, STD-spreading men. So why is it that the ladies are the ones getting all the blame?
Also, how did we get from cranky old ladies in the dairy aisle to sexy old ladies having sex?
Anyway, as proof that old ladies used to be nothing but sugar and spice, Sunshine Mary posts a picture of her grandmother in 1974, and she does indeed seem to be a very nice granny. Apparently she never swore or talked about sex, at least not in the vicinity of Sunshine Mary.
And apparently Sunshine Mary’s great-grandmother was a very nice lady as well — even though she worked outside the home!
So why are the old ladies of today such evil, crabby, yogurt-demanding monsters?
Oh, yeah, that’s right: feminism.
The women who are in their seventies now would have been young women when second wave feminism took off in the early 1970s, and it shows. There are exceptions, of course, but in general they are far more coarse and unfeminine than the previous generation, and this is almost certainly due to the influence of feminism. …
Feminism was supposed to empower women, but instead it has turned all women into mere sex objects; all they bring of worth now is their sexuality, and when their youth fades, they have nothing left of value to offer.
Uh, since when has feminism been all about turning women into nothing but sex objects?
This is why we see old women either pathetically trying to look like a caricature of a young, sexy woman or just giving up and looking like old men. If you have nothing beyond your sexuality to offer, if you have built no lasting family, if you have chucked your husband and devoted most of your life to a career, then you end up with no feminine dignity for anyone to celebrate.
Yeah, it’s not like having an interesting and/or accomplished life is worth celebrating.
We women who are not yet elderly need to think about this and consider our own conduct, language, and appearance. What kind of elderly women do we hope to be someday? The type who are desperately clinging to the hope that they are sexxxxay and hip in their dotage, looking and behaving just as crass as the younger women?
Sorry to break it to you, Sunshine, but when people live longer lives, their sex lives last longer as well. I don’t know if you realize this, but people you think are too old, or too unattractive, or too whatever to be having sex … are having sex all the time. That couple you saw in the grocery store may have had sex for three hours as soon as they got home. They may have even worked the yogurt into it.
I know that I don’t want to be that way. I hope that I will be more like my grandmother and great-grandmother – a dignified, feminine, woman who is both respectable and respected, who takes care of her family and does not embarrass them with outrageously coarse behavior.
Don’t worry, Sunshine. You’re already plenty embarrassing.
Butt? What butt? I see some black shiny strappy STRAPS!
But…but…those straps aren’t practical! I prefer my straps actually, you know, bind things…but hey, my kink is not your kink and it’s all fine and dandy (until someone breaks skin and we human mouths are gross! [my kink is potentially fucking gross in other words])
“I’ve seen someone suggest that balloon fetish might be the next big sexual trend, for fuck’s sake.”
No. No. Noptopus. I cannot stand touching balloons, or rubber bands, or latex gloves, or, to a lesser degree cuz lube, condoms (ironic given my insistence on them, I know) — not a latex allergy, it just makes my skin crawl for no rational reason. So no, balloons can stay the fuck away from my fucking (also, the popping makes me jumpy and jumpy =/= fun times)
Whee, not we >.<
“The human mouth is FILTHY, and a woman’s mouth is no exception, bucko.”
Sorry, I wasn’t channeling that boob, I was just noting that TMI I have a serious thing for being bitten and breaking the skin is always a risk and the risk for infection is not small since mouths are gross. Which, by no means, prevents me from going “bite me, no really, please?”
Human mouths are gross, including yours, and mine, and your mothers (and mine) and well, this is a universal fact of mouths that should not impede ones sexytimes (baring germ phobia and such, if it isn’t your bag, it isn’t your bag, but skip on being like him and acting like this makes women more repulsive than men)
…am I making sense? Cuz pecunium and I were having a general discussion of kink last night and he pointed out what an infection risk I’m running, followed by that that’s fine as long as I know. Which about sums up my point about human mouths being gross…
Even if I’m confused by nipple bras, I have no negative opinions about them. It’s none of my business what other people are into, as long as everyone is a consenting adult.
MollyRen – I’d say “yuck” is as valid as “whoo!” with any of this stuff, be it kink or clothes or whatever, and that, as Arctic Ape said, it’s framing it as objectively sexy (or automatically bad) that’s the problem. Too often, the reaction to someone not liking the idea of nipple bras or whatever is that they’re boring/vanilla/etc and not entitled to their own, non-kinky tastes.
For me, the nipple bra just induces an eye-rolling “Yeah, more fucking straight-out-of-mainstream-porn male gaze bullshit” response. If someone else gets a thrill from wearing it, good for zir, but the thing is not sexy for me.
RE: pillowinhell
I spent two years in highschool as a sign painter and learned a few hundred lettering styles.
Oh my god. I… I want to be your pupil now, because I WANT my lettering to be better in my comics, but my lettering is ASS. (Not helped that I’m left-handed and my handwriting has been described as ‘upside down Arabic.’)
RE: Kittehserf
What, she’s into mild kink as well? How does that gel with her general killjoy attitude?
Enh. I have no problem reconciling her being kinky and her believing in female subordination. I just assume she’s Gorean.
RE: MollyRen
And yes, the straps are there to frame the butt. And it makes lots of butts look GOOD.
My husband concurs. He has a thing for jockstraps; I blame his time on the high school football team.
RE: Argenti
But…but…those straps aren’t practical!
Hubby disagrees.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Okay, okay…I have to ask. What the hell was the point of not having a crotch seam in historical underwear? Was it just a carry over from the undershift, or just more practical given the bulk of the skirts and petticoat?
Pillowinhell – maybe it was to make it easier to use the bathroom? I honestly don’t know, but that would make sense…
RE: pillowinhell
I’d assume the latter, especially if they lived in a cold climate. Taking off ALL THE SKIRTS in freaking winter would be AWFUL.
It was so you could use the bathroom without getting all undressed, given that elastic didn’t exist yet and fiddling with a drawstring under a corset is really difficult. It was also thought to be healthier for women to have some air circulation.
I don’t know when precisely men started wearing modern-ish underwear. I think Western men were mostly wearing what we’d think of as long underwear by the 1850’s, but in the Regency era, you just sort of tuck your long shirt under your business, in between you and your breeches, since they were easier to wash.
There’s a really great book on all of this by Jill Fields:
http://www.powells.com/biblio/65-9780520252615-1
The first chapter is all about the culture war in the early 20’s over closed vs. non-closed drawers. It was apparently something to be VERY UPSET about for a while, and now we’ve all totally forgotten about it.
It made me finally understand why the Can-Can was so shocking, though, since you were seeing a whole lot more than ruffled knickers.
After a quick browse on Wikipedia:
The union suit (combinations or woolly coms in Britain) is a one-piece garment that was apparently worn from the middle of the 19th Century into the middle of the 20th Century. It has an amusing flap over the seat.
“Long johns,” the two-piece style, apparently dates from 1915.
Y-fronts date from 1935, boxers from 1925.
Maidenform was founded in 1928, and introduced the modern bra (which, among other uses, is useful as trollphylactic). The garter belt was designed in the 20s because flappers’ stockings kept falling down as a result of their energetic dancing.
Everything else modern about women’s underthings apparently dates from after WW2, or was adopted from older forms.
I hadn’t thought about that.
Linen underdrawers for men have been around since medieval times at least, and most likely earlier, though I can’t recall offhand. They weren’t tight, but tucked into the top of the hose, under the tunic. Button-fronted shorts very much like boxers were around at least by the seventeenth century.
Interesting! Maybe they went in and out of fashion, like so many other things?
That’d be my bet! There always has to be some sort of washable underwear when clothes are basically unwashable (at least among the classes where fashion is a thing), but its form is going to vary.
The idea of clothes that you can’t wash makes me feel so ill.
Having once worn a dress very much like this for a performance http://www.wornthrough.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/getimageasp.jpeg I fully understand the need for crotchless undies.
The damn thing was wider than the stalls in the loos. Fortunately the structure was made of modern flexible stuff so you could sort of fold it around you a bit to get through the door because there wasn’t enough room to turn sideways as you could for all the other doors. But it was extremely extremely awkward to get the business done.
At least some of the 18th century panniers like that were made to fold up, I think, though that would still be tricky to deal with. Not that anyone wearing them then would have toilet stalls to deal with. I’m not sure women were wearing undies of any sort at that period, apart from when they were riding.
Dealing with a cage crinoline would be even worse, I think. They had some flexibility but that’s still a whole circle around you, no narrow front and back. Even when it changed shape and flattened at the front in the 1860s, it was very wide and even longer at the back.
Mind you the dresses that seem the worst to me are the really narrow ones of the late 1870s. How the hell did anyone manage dunnying with those on?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/James_Tissot_-_On_the_Thames.jpg
Can you imagine walking through a modern day door with that? I can’t, I keep imagining myself getting stuck. *winces*
Even the big doors in 18th century palaces could be a problem with the really huge panniers. Though again, at least they’d flattened out fore and aft by this time; it was even worse earlier with the dome dresses. Still, panniers like this would have made formal occasions a pain.
This court mantua from the 1740s always takes the prize as a seriously ugly dress, for me. Such beautiful fabric, such amazing silver-gilt embroidery, and it’s on a dress that has NO DRAPING and looks like a fucking sofa back.
One word: tightlacing.