Sitting in a pink plastic chair at a black MDF table at a writer's group of one . . . namely me . . . so far. I've been meaning to get here for some time. Now that I am here, I feel like an old-timer. In my own life, of course, that's what I am, but I am hoping to find myself in a somewhat larger group before long.
. . . . .
I might as well blog about William & Kate.
Yes, we watched their nuptials on the telly back in April. We even recorded it for family members not yet awake and present at the time, if I'm not mistaken.
There are those who would take a cynical view of the whole affair, I'm sure. I know it, in fact. But I, for one, welcome the relief from Hollywood, which so often seeks to claim the status of grand know-it-all-and-primary-influencer-of-all-that-would-be-popular (I just made that title up—I love putting words together.). The new duchess' style is of a quality not often (not EVER) seen coming from H'wood. Sad, but true.
I look forward to seeing all the Kate knock-offs that are sure to come along over the next few years—a fashion trove longed for by many. Bikinis and college antics aside, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge displays taste as well as modesty, and let's face it, we have lived without both for a very long time, indeed, in celebrity circuses, er, I mean, circles. Sure, you can have modesty with or without style, and many have come to equate style with a shedding of anything resembling modesty, but why can't we have both style and modesty?
Let's look at this. Gaga, Britney, Beyonce, Rihanna, Flavor-of-the-Week, you name her, she's taking off most of her clothes in a public display of . . . power? Somehow, I don't think so. That kind of power only lasts as long as she can defy gravity, the sun, the wind, and any other natural force known to mankind.
I find it a very interesting argument to make that women can take it all off in the name of empowerment. I mean if you can now buy carbon credits to offset your own carbon footprint, I wonder what kind of effect women in developed countries walking around barely dressed has on women in developing nations. Does the half-naked woman's ensuing empowerment lift up the women in impoverished and/or war-torn countries? Or does it merely encourage the further oppression, humiliation, and dehumanization of these women that we so frequently read about as we sip our quadruple-shot, foamed milk, stevia-sweetened coffee and tsk tsk a weekend morning away before heading out to the gym?
I mean, really, what kind of turmoil does this kind of fleshly exposure create in other, largely unseen parts of the world for people into whose eyes they will likely never have to look? Hollywood types are fond of a good cause to bolster their ratings. What about the human trafficking of women and children? Do they see any connection at all between what H'wood exports in the name of "art" and "entertainment" and the plight of so many who find themselves living the wrong life, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place? I wonder what these women would have to say to the scantily clad figures prancing around on stage, in front of cameras, gliding across red carpets, and spread across magazine pages. That they feel empowered and emboldened by the stars' various states of undress? Not likely.
No, I cannot emphasize how glad I am that the new royal has such good taste and good sense. Far from being restricted, she appears at ease. Her style commands respect rather than leers. Any message she chooses to put forth in future humanitarian campaigns will not have to compete with an excess of exposed skin and decolletage for her audience's attention. And the more she inspires others to do the same, the more she shares the wealth, the more empowerment there might be to go around. Sit down, Hollywood. It's Kate's turn now.
