msjones Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I see that the inaugural-gown-thread was locked. This has me thinking about how, in a narrow sense, the First Lady (any First Lady -- regardless of political affiliation) is 'public property.' Her inaugural ball gown literally becomes public property following the ball. (I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the display of all those gowns during my visit to D.C.) What are your thoughts on this? I believe the 'obsession' with the fashion choices of the wives (yes--wives--not husbands) of heads-of-state (or the heads-of-state themselves, if they are female) is an old, old phenomena. Do you find it degrading? Trivial? Plain old fun? Catty? Important in some way? Or, to go much further -- what do you consider to be the primary roles of a First Lady? What do you hope to see? Or, what ARE the official roles? (I honestly don't know what they are or if they exist at all. Is there a document outlining them somewhere?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheBrink Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I don't know what the "official" roles are for the First Lady, but I always envision them taking on a cause or passion and having the resources to make a difference in that area, as well as be able to host visiting VIP's, and of course, be a support and helper to her husband. I like seeing their fashions, too, even if I don't care for what they're wearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I look forward to the day when a woman will be judged on the content of her character, not on the contents of her closet. Or her weight. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) I think of it like a time capsule. When I see the dresses it brings back a visual of the era. I like that they are preserved. The day is about the elected, not the spouse. The spouse is there in image only. This is part of that image. ETA We all know that the spouse is a significant part of the elected, but that is not the focus of the day. Edited January 21, 2009 by Tap, tap, tap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) I see that the inaugural-gown-thread was locked. This has me thinking about how, in a narrow sense, the First Lady (any First Lady -- regardless of political affiliation) is 'public property.' Her inaugural ball gown literally becomes public property following the ball. (I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the display of all those gowns during my visit to D.C.) What are your thoughts on this? I believe the 'obsession' with the fashion choices of the wives (yes--wives--not husbands) of heads-of-state (or the heads-of-state themselves, if they are female) is an old, old phenomena. Do you find it degrading? Trivial? Plain old fun? Catty? Important in some way? Or, to go much further -- what do you consider to be the primary roles of a First Lady? What do you hope to see? Or, what ARE the official roles? (I honestly don't know what they are or if they exist at all. Is there a document outlining them somewhere?) Well, the way that they seem to be portrayed in the media, it's as if they are supposed to be quiet arm candy when with the husband, and a pretty face to put behind a pet issue. The exception, (in my memory) would be the case of Nancy Reagan -- who was "Mommy" from start to finish. Maybe Tipper Gore got a little independent there, too. I find it degrading. It's just another form of subjugation. No matter how much the husband screws up (both publicly and privately) they can't have an open opinion about it, can't express any displeasure about, certainly can't kick the jerk to the curb! In other words, she has to be like a puppet, dressed like a doll, trotted out in public when needed, mouth filled with words that may not be her own, smile permanently pasted on her face whether she means it or not. Edited January 21, 2009 by Audrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Or her hair. But for me personally, when I critique their fashion, it's strictly that, and no comment on their ability to do their job. It's just plain fun, and people have been doing it since Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) this thread is going to get shut down too, with the derogatory mentions of specific modern day first ladies! (No offense to the mentioner-it's just that the mods are monitoring so closely-rightly so- because of all the terrible problems and hurt feelings there were here around election time.) Edited January 21, 2009 by HappyGrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I look forward to the day when a woman will be judged on the content of her character, not on the contents of her closet. Or her weight. Jane Me, too. Because, frankly, I've more than enough in one category and not enough in the other! :) (ETA: in the clothes/weight departments!) I think fashion is a very personal issue. I may not like what another woman is wearing, but if it's modest, why should I care at all about it? And what does it matter if her dress doesn't conceal her "faults"? Why should it make her look slender? Why should her clothes accentuate her positive physical traits? Why, exactly, do we care and comment on how it flows or what color it is? If *she* is comfortable, that is what counts, imo. In the past, I've loved seeing First Ladies take on a charity. Not a political position, but a charity. However, I pray Mrs. Obama takes care of those precious girls. Those should be her first priority, imo. I understand she'll have official business to deal with, but I hope the grandmother doesn't end up raising the girls for 4 years while Mrs. Obama is promoting a cause. JMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmamainva Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just FYI...all the ball gowns of all the First Ladies are at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington DC. It's fascinating to see how they've changed over the years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I hope this won't be shut down. It's an topic on which there will be dissent, but, of course there's dissent! It's a discussion, right? I find it interesting to read the strong reactions --that of Audrey in particular. I didn't think of Michelle Obama being degraded or subjugated yesterday. I can see why you would feel that way, but I saw it differently. She was silent, yes, but what we would want her to say? After all, she wasn't elected. And many of us discussed her clothing choices, but that isn't necessarily degrading or suggesting that she is 'eye candy.' Rather, she had to choose something to wear, and many of us noticed it. As the wife of the head-of-state, she'll be dressing the part. And I find it interesting to see the various interpretations of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I see that the inaugural-gown-thread was locked. Did it get personal instead of a critique of the dress? Oh, bother. As for the OP, I don't think it is any different between critiquing what Michelle Obama wears than critiquing what the movie stars wear to the Oscars. I think it is done in fun. I have no idea what the First Lady's job description is. I would love to see someone who does something. That something could be to continue her "old" job in a new location, find a cause to fight for, or something worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheBrink Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Or her hair. But for me personally, when I critique their fashion, it's strictly that, and no comment on their ability to do their job. It's just plain fun, and people have been doing it since Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, etc. Exactly. An ugly dress ≠ personal inadequacy or flawed character. I think it's fun to discuss their fashion. It's not a judgment of their personhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just a reminder that it is possible to dissent--and even dissent strongly--without the use of offensive and rude language. I'm getting a little tired of the implication that dissent alone will bring down the wrath of the mods. (Or me, today.) Dissent is welcome. Snarkiness will result in a temporary ban. SWB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I hope this thread doesn't get locked! The role of First Lady is an interesting one. Certainly in the early days of the U.S., the First Lady was most likely just the hostess for White House occasions. More modern First Ladies have used their fame and connections to advance important causes. Some have been more outspoken than others. (I remember that Laura Bush made Pres. Bush promise that she wouldn't have to give a speech, and Bess Truman hated being in the public eye, and spent a lot of her time back at home rather than at the White House.) In many ways, it seems the position of First Lady is whatever the current First Lady makes it. Sen. Clinton got a lot of notice, both positive and negative, for the active part she took in her husband's administration. Mrs. Obama is, by all accounts, a bright and talented lady. However, she's got two little girls to raise. So it will be interesting to see how she balances all that. I think the attention to the First Lady's fashion is normal. In my case, I guess, I put myself in her shoes, with presumably a big budget and choice of designers, knowing that the whole world will see the outfit, and wonder what I'd choose. And I have an opinion about what she chose. I don't think that means I'm judging her only on her clothes or appearance. Wendi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I share your thoughts about her daughters. Watching them walk out yesterday, they seemed so vulnerable. (By the way, does anyone know who the woman in pink walking ahead of them was?) If I were Michelle, I'd be spending as much of my time as possible guiding them along what could be a difficult road. Also, does anyone know -- has there ever been a grandmother living in the White House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Off-topic, I know, but I must say, I like the idea that President Obama will living with 3 generations of women. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) It just reminds me ...like I said, of a group of B list actors sitting around and picking out the flaws of the A list crowd. (Edited to add...I hope my post will not be taken as "snarky." I am not calling this group "B list" - just doing the comparison with the "Worst Dressed" and such at the Academy awards picking at everyone's flaws. That is what the threads reminded me of.) If we have been reduced to picking at the flaws of other women just because they are in the public eye, then what does that say to our kids? No wonder young girls are worried about being too fat at age 9 these days! It is outrageous to me. I also draw a line of difference between someone like Michelle Obama and say, an actress or singer. Celebrities put themselves in the public eye. Michelle Obama was a normal woman who stood behind her political husband which thrust her in the spotlight. And BTW - I didn't vote for Obama. I was a McCain supporter and voted as such, so this has nothing to do with politics in my mind. Edited January 21, 2009 by Tree House Academy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 People want to be attractive to each other. This is true of probably all people of all times since the very beginning. In most times and places, the very rich people were the ones who could look the best. They had the most money to buy the purple cloth and the jewels. Usually the very rich were the leaders of the country. Therefore, it's a very normal, human curiosity to want to see what the leaders are wearing. In other cultures the men wore just as fancy clothes as the women. (Think: Egyptian pharaohs, Persian nobles, French kings.) In our culture, the male leaders wear very simple clothes that barely change from year to year: a tux, a suit. If our president dressed like Louis XIV, you can bet that his inaugural outfit would be in museums as well. The men just don't dress as well as the women do in our culture. So, I think it's of historical significance for the clothing of the leaders of the nation to be on display, especially the women's, because the men's don't change that much, so don't generate as much historical interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 this thread is going to get shut down too, with the derogatory mentions of specific modern day first ladies! (No offense to the mentioner-it's just that the mods are monitoring so closely-rightly so- because of all the terrible problems and hurt feelings there were here around election time.) Calling her "Mommy" was not meant to be derogatory (if you were referring to me). Mr. Reagan called her that publicly all the time. She was the care-taker, "mommy" type, too. She had an actual identity apart from just "the wife." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Added comment to thread. N/T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I hope this won't be shut down. It's an topic on which there will be dissent, but, of course there's dissent! It's a discussion, right? I find it interesting to read the strong reactions --that of Audrey in particular. I didn't think of Michelle Obama being degraded or subjugated yesterday. I can see why you would feel that way, but I saw it differently. She was silent, yes, but what we would want her to say? After all, she wasn't elected. And many of us discussed her clothing choices, but that isn't necessarily degrading or suggesting that she is 'eye candy.' Rather, she had to choose something to wear, and many of us noticed it. As the wife of the head-of-state, she'll be dressing the part. And I find it interesting to see the various interpretations of that. I did not mention Mrs. Obama specifically. The OP's question was a GENERAL one, and I answered IN GENERAL, with specific examples noted separately. IN GENERAL, I find the whole idea of parading wives around in public to be degrading. First Ladies tend to get paraded around quite a lot, which makes it even more deplorable. I.M.O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I would also hope it was not my comment about the "b listers" in the dress thread that got it locked. Another poster posted something a bit more harsh than what I was trying to say. I do apologize if my analogy was the reason for it getting locked. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I would also hope it was not my comment about the "b listers" in the dress thread that got it locked. Another poster posted something a bit more harsh than what I was trying to say. I do apologize if my analogy was the reason for it getting locked. :( Well, I read your comment. I don't personally have a problem with it, unless by "B listers" critiquing "A listers" you were "throwing off" on my precious Joan and Melissa Rivers. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanestMomInMidwest Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 My very favorite First Lady. I think she was the first to actually take on specific causes and be more than "White House Hostess." "When Mrs. Roosevelt came to the White House in 1933, she understood social conditions better than any of her predecessors and she transformed the role of First Lady accordingly." from http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/first_ladies/eleanorroosevelt/ The biography of ER would be great for any of you who have daughters. What a role model! Heck, I think I'm going to put it next on my re-read list. She remains one of my role models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I find it degrading. It's just another form of subjugation. No matter how much the husband screws up (both publicly and privately) they can't have an open opinion about it, can't express any displeasure about, certainly can't kick the jerk to the curb! In other words, she has to be like a puppet, dressed like a doll, trotted out in public when needed, mouth filled with words that may not be her own, smile permanently pasted on her face whether she means it or not. But that's the way you see it from the outside looking in. Dh and I have a strong mutual relationship, it's been that way from the beginning and has gone on for many years now. We feel very fortunate. He has held very senior leadership positions. Part of who he is is a result of our relationship, the honesty and love that's at the core of it. No matter what he has to go through, he knows that he can find the real me here at the center of our relationship with him. Does that make sense? Yes, there are the be-seen-and-not-heard aspects of it. But, his forum is not my forum. If I'd wanted that, I would have chosen a different life, a different (probably independent) path. I have my own forums and my own independence separate from his. I have no desire to demand a voice in his space, just as he steps into the background in mine. You're seeing these women as meek mice who are petted and told to be quiet and pretty and little else. I'd be willing to bet that many/most of them are the exact opposite. I think you'd be surprised....I've met Alma Powell and several of the presidents' wives as well as other spouses (both male and female) of well-known leaders/individuals. Most of them are strong, opinionated, interesting and resourceful people. And they're wise -- they know when the spotlight is not theirs. I know you don't mean to, but in a way, by stereotyping them in this way, you do them as much a disservice as those who nitpick their fashion and hairstyles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoriM Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I see Michelle Obama in a very interesting position. She is a capable, talented, professional woman who has given up a >$300,000 per year income to volunteer as the First Lady of the United States. She earned twice as much money as Barack Obama did last year, yet she is the one who will "stay home" while he pursues his dream...which is THEIR dream. See, I can completely relate to her, because I was a military wife for 22 years. Every three years, I'd quit a well-paying, professional job, and move with my newly-assigned spouse. I'd take six months to get our family reestablished, to paint bedrooms and unpack boxes, and find a new job. I'd spend two years working, fall in love with the work, they'd fall in love with me...and then I'd quit and follow him again. Because it was OUR SHARED DREAM. I don't find it demeaning for Michelle Obama to be "silently" spending the day with her newly-elected husband, meeting his coworkers (grin!) and enjoying the celebration. And I think it's normal for Americans to like or dislike her dress (I fell in the "what are those fluffy things?" camp myself), and I love the historical collection of ball gowns our first ladies have worn. I do think that Michelle Obama will find valuable work to do. She will spend ample time with her young children. She will be underpaid. (What housewife isn't???) But she will hold their family together, and will simultaneously hold our country's regard. At least I don't have anybody watching what I wear every day... I do find it sad that they (as a couple) have to work for less money than they made last year, because it's American tradition for the First Lady to be unemployed, and a strict volunteer. It's about time for THAT to be redefined, and it's going to take someone like Michelle Obama to do it. I hope she finds PAID work that she can do once she gets the boxes unpacked. LoriM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well, I read your comment. I don't personally have a problem with it, unless by "B listers" critiquing "A listers" you were "throwing off" on my precious Joan and Melissa Rivers. :angry: Oh...I wouldn't daaaare! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamnkats Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just a reminder that it is possible to dissent--and even dissent strongly--without the use of offensive and rude language. I'm getting a little tired of the implication that dissent alone will bring down the wrath of the mods. (Or me, today.) Dissent is welcome. Snarkiness will result in a temporary ban. SWB I think the reason people might be a little uneasy is because they have no idea why people were banned or why threads were deleted. I personally, participated in many of the deleted threads (well, honestly, I have no idea how many as they are gone :)) and really don't know why the threads were deleted and people banned. I wondered if maybe I'd been banned and checked a locked thread and saw I'm not. So people are probably a little uneasy because they didn't see what led to the banning or deleting of threads (I know I never did) and are wondering if the hammer might come down on them also. Unless you see what led to the banning/deleting it is hard to know what posts lie outside that which is permissable - especially when you've participated in the banned/deleted threads. It is just uncertainty, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmomtutu Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just FYI...all the ball gowns of all the First Ladies are at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington DC. It's fascinating to see how they've changed over the years! We were there not long ago...and some were also out on loan to Mt Vernon (we saw Nancy's there) and we saw one of Mary Todd Lincoln's at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery too...(and Lincoln's overcoat...rare that it may be to display the presidential inaugural attire, it isn't unheard of ;)). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) I see Michelle Obama in a very interesting position. She is a capable, talented, professional woman who has given up a >$300,000 per year income to volunteer as the First Lady of the United States. She earned twice as much money as Barack Obama did last year, yet she is the one who will "stay home" while he pursues his dream...which is THEIR dream. See, I can completely relate to her, because I was a military wife for 22 years. Every three years, I'd quit a well-paying, professional job, and move with my newly-assigned spouse. I'd take six months to get our family reestablished, to paint bedrooms and unpack boxes, and find a new job. I'd spend two years working, fall in love with the work, they'd fall in love with me...and then I'd quit and follow him again. Because it was OUR SHARED DREAM. I don't find it demeaning for Michelle Obama to be "silently" spending the day with her newly-elected husband, meeting his coworkers (grin!) and enjoying the celebration. And I think it's normal for Americans to like or dislike her dress (I fell in the "what are those fluffy things?" camp myself), and I love the historical collection of ball gowns our first ladies have worn. I do think that Michelle Obama will find valuable work to do. She will spend ample time with her young children. She will be underpaid. (What housewife isn't???) But she will hold their family together, and will simultaneously hold our country's regard. At least I don't have anybody watching what I wear every day... I do find it sad that they (as a couple) have to work for less money than they made last year, because it's American tradition for the First Lady to be unemployed, and a strict volunteer. It's about time for THAT to be redefined, and it's going to take someone like Michelle Obama to do it. I hope she finds PAID work that she can do once she gets the boxes unpacked. LoriM IIRC, she got a raise to $300k after her husband won the Senate seat. I can't remember exactly, but it seemed to be tied to his political aspirations. The position of POTUS isn't about the money, though. People who run *know* what the pay is, and should be well acquainted with the responsibilities and perks. If any couple has a difficult time taking a pay cut to $400k, they probably are in the wrong line of work. You do raise an interesting thought, though, about Mrs. Obama working for pay. I had always just assumed the first lady would be too swamped by official matters that a paying job would be out of the question. That, and security issues. Sidwell is semi-used to it, but can you imagine her working in an office where clients are in and out of the office all day? Yikes...a ss nightmare. Also, for a mother who is bringing her own mother to help with child care, I can't imagine her days or evenings will bring her anything less than fulfillment for 4 years. Now for a first lady without children in the White House, an outside job would be an interesting gig! Edited January 21, 2009 by Aggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFSinIL Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 OK, may I state that I did not like the bow tie on Obama???? Most guys can not pull off the bow tie. My opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey in TX Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I respect the First Ladies who've carved out their own vision of what that role should represent. It's been anywhere from highway beautification, to literacy; children's literature to the President's right hand (wo)man. Michelle Obama will find her niche, in addition to her role as White House hostess. I can't imagine any human capable of the volunteer hours required (expected?) to be able to hold down a full time job. In a mere 4 or 8 years she'll have numerous opportunities to return to a career. Inevitably her husband will make substantially more than past incomes. Amazing how much a Former President makes in speaking fees and books. Her primary role should be mother to her impressionable daughters. They will need even more guidance than before. Money and power can be huge pitfalls. Those girls need the maternal protection as their dad will be busy with state affairs. Someday a woman will be president and her husband will be the SAH parent. fwiw, I don't believe the spouse of our elected officials are public property. But to honor their marriage, they probably should be part of the political equation. Like a PP stated, we didn't elect Michelle Obama. She should be the silent partner. Let her thoughts be heard quietly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I would wonder if there is conflict of interest in an employer paying the wife of a president. Similar to what the Clinton's are experiencing in reverse right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 An ugly dress ≠ personal inadequacy or flawed character. I don't know anything about couture vs character, but I love the use of (≠). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PariSarah Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 And I don't think it degrades women in the least for them to wear beautiful things, or to have their fashion sense admired. I don't particularly care for people who substitute politics or advertisement or sex for beauty in their dress. And I'm pretty ignorant of things like cut and fabrics, so I might not always recognize beautiful or interesting fashion when I see it. Like all things, fashion is a subject over which the catty will be catty and the stupid will be stupid. If a person is disposed to being catty, fashion will provide a convenient excuse. And if all a person can see when she looks at Michelle Obama (or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin and so on) is her clothes, more fool her. I don't think it's bad for people to be judged by their clothing to a degree, because, where you have some choice in your clothing, what you wear is an expression of yourself. Clothing can be a deliberate statement, and when it is, you can't blame people for listening to what you're saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I think the reason people might be a little uneasy is because they have no idea why people were banned or why threads were deleted. I personally, participated in many of the deleted threads (well, honestly, I have no idea how many as they are gone :)) and really don't know why the threads were deleted and people banned. I wondered if maybe I'd been banned and checked a locked thread and saw I'm not. So people are probably a little uneasy because they didn't see what led to the banning or deleting of threads (I know I never did) and are wondering if the hammer might come down on them also. Unless you see what led to the banning/deleting it is hard to know what posts lie outside that which is permissable - especially when you've participated in the banned/deleted threads. It is just uncertainty, that's all. Check the board rules. It is very clear what kind of behavior leads to banning. There is no "hammer" unless posters are repeatedly, and obviously, rude. People are banned because they break board rules. That's it. Period. Furthermore, when they are banned they get a message telling them exactly why and how long the ban will last. There's no mystery. And we tend to put up with bad behavior, from the same people, for much longer than we should before we ban them. You have to really persist before you get banned. End of discussion. Discussion over. Game, set, match to the boards. SWB P.S. This is an interesting thread and I don't intend to hijack it, so now I'm done. :leaving: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanga Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I look forward to the day when a woman will be judged on the content of her character, not on the contents of her closet. Or her weight. :lol::lol::lol: Beautifully worded! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Interesting piece in the NYTimes about all the messages sent by a First Lady's choice of designers... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/21fashion.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Oh my, you all managed to get a thread on the first lady's ball gown shut down? lol Hilarious. I am trying to figure out how a ball gown could possibly steam anyone. Too much shoulder or something? I am sorry I missed the smackdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.