Anonymous wrote:I dunno, after becoming a mom and learning more about economics in Regency England, I am much more sympathetic to Mrs. Bennett. Mr. Bennett didn't accuse his kid of coughing to spite him, but he did mismanage money and was constantly rude to his wife even though she was just trying to clean up his mess. And it's not like Mrs. Bennett was the only one obsessed with money, she just wasn't discreet about it like she was supposed to be.

As for this woman you criticize. I cannot stand it when somebody is rude to their spouse, in public or not. But I will say that it is just sexist to criticize somebody for liking chick lit and fashion. We love to tear down shit that appeals to women (except, apparently, for Jane Austen, the creator of the Romance genre) and we think an obsession with finance (as opposed to money???) is a good trait.

So just, I don't know, I can see where you're coming from but I think you're still coming from a sexist perspective.

Agree with this. Why is "chick lit" inferior to books about finance?

Men can be serious and mature in their career but that doesn’t mean they don’t place a very high value on having regular sex with a beautiful woman. For most men, that is the most important goal in their lives.

Anonymous wrote:Mrs Bennett was not as silly if you read the book carefully. She was a very practical woman, operating within the constraints of her era. Her “silliness” is representation of women’s circumstances that made them “silly”. But silly she was not.

I have a feeling you are also not looking too deep into your “friend”. Sure. There are sometimes true mismatches, but more often I find that what seems like a mismatch is actually a perfect complement.

OP here, I actually am an English major and fully understand Mrs. Bennett's situation and motivations, I was casually referencing them to make a greater point about a couple's apparent mismatch. You are correct, I do not know their private interactions or motivations. Maybe they have a lot more in common than what appears on surface.

Mrs Bennett was not as silly if you read the book carefully. She was a very practical woman, operating within the constraints of her era. Her “silliness” is representation of women’s circumstances that made them “silly”. But silly she was not.

I have a feeling you are also not looking too deep into your “friend”. Sure. There are sometimes true mismatches, but more often I find that what seems like a mismatch is actually a perfect complement.

Anonymous wrote:Like Harry and Meghan?

Harry would never be accused of being sensible!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound jealous, OP.

OP here. I totally am! I'd love to marry someone like that so I am confused when I see the kind of women they sometimes pick.

Why are you confused? Maybe they had fantastic chemistry. Or she is generous and you just don’t see it. Or they make each other better people? Maybe DH isn’t as wonderful as you assume and he has flaws too (don’t we all?). Maybe you don’t see people for who they really are.

I dunno, after becoming a mom and learning more about economics in Regency England, I am much more sympathetic to Mrs. Bennett. Mr. Bennett didn't accuse his kid of coughing to spite him, but he did mismanage money and was constantly rude to his wife even though she was just trying to clean up his mess. And it's not like Mrs. Bennett was the only one obsessed with money, she just wasn't discreet about it like she was supposed to be.

As for this woman you criticize. I cannot stand it when somebody is rude to their spouse, in public or not. But I will say that it is just sexist to criticize somebody for liking chick lit and fashion. We love to tear down shit that appeals to women (except, apparently, for Jane Austen, the creator of the Romance genre) and we think an obsession with finance (as opposed to money???) is a good trait.

So just, I don't know, I can see where you're coming from but I think you're still coming from a sexist perspective.

Good lord, speaking of tropes!

Like Harry and Meghan?

Anonymous wrote:You sound jealous, OP.

OP here. I totally am! I'd love to marry someone like that so I am confused when I see the kind of women they sometimes pick.

You would be amazed how many men only care that their wife is hot. All the other stuff is secondary.

If he chose her as a wife he's not that great of a guy.

I tend to know more sensible women paired with dysfunctional men, but I'm sure both pairings exist.

You sound jealous, OP.

I know Jane Austen loved to poke fun at this trope what with the portrayal of couples such as Mr. and Mrs. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice but I am amused when I see this type of pair in real life. I know one couple in my extended couple where the husband is actually a very nice man. He has a great job which is high prestige and makes a lot of money. He seems sensible, mature and sophisticated. Just an all around good man to have a conversation with. He is married to this woman who seems to be his opposite in every way except for the fact that the two of them are so attractive, fit and good looking. He reads serious books and is obsessed with economics and finance, she reads chick-lit and obsesses over Kate Middleton's latest coat so she can buy it. He is practical and kind, she is a princess who walks around like she is Kate Middleton's sister. She is snobby and has champagne tastes and is rude to anyone she deems not on her social level. She can also be mean to him in public.

I wonder what they talk about or what he found interesting in her besides her good looks. I know why she married him. She gets everything she ever wanted growing up a lower middle class girl. High social status, the right house in the right zip code and all the designer wear she ever dreamt of.

I am just so confused. This seems like something out of a society novel.