Over the weekend I was flipping through Elle and came across an article by Daphne Merkin, Portrait of a Lady, in which she dissected spring’s new fashion (FYI- for the dudes reading this, don’t worry, this isn’t a post about dresses and shoes. Well, maybe a little, but it’s more than just dresses and shoes).
I know some of you don’t give a hoot about fashion, preferring to march to the beat of whatever drummer is playing in your head. I agree. If you happen to be anti-fashion, and would rather spend life in crocs and culottes, hey, whatever floats your boat. I personally only adhere to trends if it suits me and was already something I liked. However, while fashion can be very silly, it does say volumes about whatever is happening culturally at any given point in time.
I almost opted not to read Portrait of a Lady, and just scan the accompanying photos to peruse the spring runway pics. But Daphne Merkin’s bolded name caught my eye, and she sometimes says some rather outrageous things, so I decided to give it a go. For those of you that have no idea what is in vogue right now (or don’t give a shit), there is a definite turn back to femininity, i.e. pleats, full skirts, nipped in waists, etc. And, the look is pre-Mad Men, more late 40s and early 50s than 60s. Fashion of that era was referred to as The New Look, as created by Dior, which brought back ultra feminine apparel. Merkin rightly points out that The New Look came shortly after WWII, work shirt clad women, and such iconic images as Rosie the Riveter (after the war, the men came home to work, and the women went back home after years of working). At this point Merkin pondered what cultural movements contributed to the current ‘New Prettiness’ (the term for this season’s look, real original, right?). She writes,
“Another answer might be that we have all, designers and customers alike, grown tired of identity politics, that we yearn for the sort of social sureties we imagine existed in the decades right before consciousness raising and bra burning.”
Huh. My initial reaction was to laugh, but then I began to think. Is the notion (and pressure) of ‘having it all’ getting to some women? Or perhaps the realization that having it all isn’t quite what we thought it would be? Surely this line of thinking might ruffle some feathers, but it is important to note the words “we imagine existed.” Possibly for some women, the idea of living in the late 40s through the 50s comes with dreams of being protected and coddled. Females weren’t expected to have a career, or contribute to the family income. Sure, in some ways that sounds nice, because it closes the world, and creates only a small bubble. Confining worries to home and family is very likely alluring and certainly less daunting than fretting over home, family, and career.
But.
There is a reason so many females (and males, don’t forget about all the men that contributed to the women’s movement) protested and burned bras and fought for equal rights. Perhaps it may appeal to one’s fantasies to imagine a life in which the only obligations were to attend to husband, children, and household responsibilities. And, perhaps the reality of such a life might suck. Today, many women are stay at home moms, but they have the ability to do something different. That freedom exists, when it did not before.
Merkin also points out that she sees “a withdrawal from embattled agendas of self-definition”, particularly in young women. Personally, I think this comes from growing up after the battle was fought. I’m in my mid-thirties, so my formative years took place in the 80s. People often associate women’s lib with the 60s and 70s, but the fact of the matter is that it continued well into the 80s. At that point in time, women made up nearly half the workforce, but the vast majority of decision making jobs went to men. I still have a vivid recollection of some of the neighborhood women gossiping over a schoolmate of mine in the neighborhood that came from a ‘broken home’. In fact, some of my friends were not allowed to attend sleepovers at this particular girl’s house because her mother was divorced. Interestingly, many of these mothers eventually became divorcées themselves.
Nowadays, divorce is beyond common, and more than half of children born to women under the age of 30 are out of wedlock. So, I think it’s safe to say that young women have come of age in a time when what is considered ‘normal’ is very different. It’s okay to have a child without a man in the picture. Many, many women are single mothers, and excel in their chosen careers. Hell, many women pay alimony. That does not, however, mean it’s easy. Perhaps this withdrawal from ‘embattled agendas’, and the allure of soft and feminine looks of bygone times is indeed a result of young women wishing for a return to a time where expectations weren’t quite so high.
I wonder if this might explain the fact that more young females aren’t spitting mad over the current assault on women regarding birth control and reproductive rights. Because make no mistake, decisions are being made in courts and by our government that could potentially set women back in terms of freedom over our bodies. Women in their 20s have more or less come of age in a time when female independence is accepted, far more women obtain degrees than men, and having a female boss is common. I’m not saying all young females take these things for granted. On the other hand, it’s hard not to take for granted what you grow up with, we do it without thinking. Could this be the reason more young women aren’t talking about what is happening right now? Because it’s something they don’t quite realize could be taken away?
I respect people who are pro-life. And I say that with all honesty. However, that does not mean their beliefs should dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body. And if a woman does not want a child, then for Pete’s sake, don’t force her to jump through fiery hoops in order to terminate a pregnancy. What good does that do? Women should have the freedom to choose what is right for them.
While discussing this with my husband, he made an excellent point. He wondered if perhaps we are heading towards another revolutionary movement. At the moment, there is indeed a fascination with the 50s and early 60s. And not just fashion, but also in terms of values. At the same time, reproductive laws are changing. Access to birth control has the potential to be limited, and while there are certainly women protesting, there are more that aren’t, and don’t particularly seem concerned.
Wow. How did we get here from spring fashion? Is this simply a Vesta-tangent, or is this all connected?
Such an interesting connection Vesta! I don’t keep up w/fashion at the moment, but based on your blog post, it makes sense.
Oddly enough, I read a blog today that’s somewhat related. Here’s the link if you want to take a look:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/what-happens-when-there-is-no-abortion-law/
I just read through the post – very interesting, and so were the comments!
I can’t say I long for the 50s, certainly not to be a man in the 50s, but I certainly can admit to a longing for the illusion of historic simplicity, especially with regards to relationships. I think it’s why I like a fair amount of period pieces and Indian films, places where there’s courtship or even arranged marriages and people feel more inclined to settle for good enough and learn to appreciate it. People scare me.
Are you referring to the grass is always greener mentality so many have today? Or only that courtship has become outdated?
I can certainly understand the feelings of longing for simplicity, though it doesn’t seem we will ever return to that.
Somehow I feel like it is harder to properly get into a relationship these days yet it is easier to get out of one. Not sure how all that works.
Anyway, on the point about young people taking things for granted, young women have turned drastically against the Republicans in recent polling, so they do seem to be noticing the seriousness of the birth control crusade.
This is incredibly intelligent and articulate Vesta, I really enjoyed reading this!!
I don’t like these phrase/idea bandied about – “embattled agendas of self-definition” and being soooo tired of “identity politics.” To me, that. is. ridiculous… These reactive ideologies, as I think you allude to, are mere glorifications of a past that never was. Much in the way that the 50s saw people looking toward the future with rocket-stylized cars and shifts in architectural design, and literature, and so forth – that future never was.
It is all total and complete idealization. If it was a movie it would be called The Way Things Weren’t. It isn’t innocent and harmless glossing over of the past – it’s dangerous and irresponsible.
And it irritates me, this “tired” attitude – tired of…? “identity politics”? Like our current period in history is the only period in history where the youth have struggled to formalize and aethestecize their culture, their beliefs, their identity? Every generation goes through this. And the notion that there is identity politics now, but there wasn’t then – is itself an ode to the ridiculous. The 40s and 50s were DRIPPING with identity crises and struggles and wars waged in art, style, and design. If one is suggesting it was more clear cut back then, I would ask that they stop basing this on some implanted “memory” in their mind that they derive of a time based on ads, movies, representations, and not the actual lived experience.
“Embattled agendas of self definition” is a fancy way of saying, struggling to figure out who and what you are. Everyone has an agenda? Everyone always has. To them I say wake up and smell the millenium.
On another note – about taking things for granted, let’s put it like this. Many of my students, who are about 15 years younger than us, think that racism is over, and that blacks, for example, have had equal rights and been treated equally since Lincoln’s time. They don’t know that 14 years before I was born, just 14 years, that James Meredith became the first black person to attend Ole Miss Univ. Of course, he had to do so amidst riots that erupted in reaction to a black man attending college, and he had to do so with the protection of the National Guard, military police, combat battalions, and 500 US Marshals and the Border Patrol. Over 1 guy.
And do women take their freedoms for granted? Absolutely. But they won’t for long. Things keep going the way they’re going, we’re going to need to do the 60s all over again, except this time it isn’t going to be peace and love – it’s going to be something else entirely, and I don’t know what, but if someone calls it identity politics we’s gonna have words.
So very interesting and I think you are correct. So many kids/young people have a hard time understanding how new the current way of things really is (ouch, terrible grammar, but whatever). It sounds almost funny to say, because I hardly feel old, but I think we were both born on the cusp of things, so it gives a different perspective.
I was going to say something similar about young people not getting it. I am certainly ready to march in the streets if need be. I just had a friend get her birth control coverage taken away (she works for a Catholic University). That’s just one small part of the many issues women face right now, but until it gets blown up in the media most people don’t pay any attention. And young women who these things don’t matter to yet don’t get it…but we need to be sure they understand how what’s happening now may affect their future.
Ugh, how frustrated you friend must be!
I agree, it’s important that young women understand how these changes may affect not only their own future, but that of their daughters too.
I would like to note for the record that a “merkin” is a pubic wig. Seriously.
That is all.
I really wish I had referred to her as Daphne now.
Interesting – I agree that the birth control stuff is scary. Not because I can’t pay for bc out of pocket if I need to, but because its indicative of attempting to control or regulate women’s sexuality, in my opinion.
Well said Gia, and I agree. Sadly there are many women who can’t pay out of pocket – I don’t think their choices should be limited, and this is coming from a person that isn’t a big believer in government assistance. Women should have access to the birth control of their choosing. End of story.
Personally, I think all this ass-hattery about denying birth control is about catering to a vocal minority, and nothing more. Right-wing religious wingnuts have long skewed party politics in their favor simply by braying like a mule on speed: loud and long. And now they’ve got the tea party whack-jobs swelling their ranks. And so politicians cater to them.
That doesn’t make it any less dangerous, but I do not think that it reflects a deep-seated desire by more than a relative few people to control women’s bodies. It’s a few assholes making noise, and a few more assholes paying lip service to it.
It is, but these loud mo-fos are causing some serious damage. But I think the real problem is apathy. No one is telling the ass-hatters to back off.
Or, fashion is so rapidly cyclical these days, in the fall, we’ll be discussing what it “means” when 1920s or 80s styles come back into designs.
Very interesting tangent, Vesta!
Yeah, it’s all recycled for sure.
You know how I feel about this topic. I will be here, standing up to protect the rights that we have won over the generations, even if they have not been fully realized – the right to be treated equally, compensated equally, to live independently, not as someone’s property. The right to own property, drive cars, vote, and BY GOD use contraception and have it covered under insurance.
As Miss Pish has said, the idea that the bygone eras were more simple, and thus better is just HOG WASH. Relationships are complicated. Period. It might be more simple for one person in the relationship if the other is subjugated to them, but that also comes with a lot of responsibility. Nothing about life is simple. Never has been, never will be.
I work at a college, and I see the young people of that generation not being concerned about defending the rights they have always known, but then I probably was the same way at that age. But whatever your age, we should be calling SHENANIGANS on all of this. We should be living in the TODAY, making it the best today we can, and we need to embrace that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and equally. Not just the white Christian male people.
Grrrrrrr….
Well, I don’t quite agree with the last part. First, women make up a huge part of the right to life protesters, and second, there are many Christian males that respect a woman’s right to choose.
Here is an interesting example – http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-03-28/news/fl-jjpn-abortion-0328-20120328_1_human-life-abortion-priest
I think Dogs is correct in his earlier comment – it is just a few jack asses making the biggest stink. They make a lot of noise, and they are dangerous, but I’m not going to lump all Christian males into the same category. As I said, I respect people who don’t believe in abortion, so long as they in return respect that it is every woman’s right to choose what is best for her. It’s the ‘my way or the highway’ folks that frustrate me.
You and Dogs hit on an important point that more people would do well to acknowledge. It’s a well-accepted and well-known political theory that small, vocal, organized groups get what they want more so than diffuse groups where the benefits are distributed amongst larger proportions of the society. This was actually part of my Master’s thesis.
So, yes, it’s a few jackasses braying, but they’ll get what they want if we don’t stand up and stop them…
I wonder if the fashion trend came 2nd: With people losing jobs, more and more homes are single-income again, which hearkens back to the old Leave It To Beaver days, which indicates feminine frilly styles?
Just a thought.
Also, I’m (non-judgmental) pro-life, but also pro-birth control! I’d be really mad if it was taken away.
The more pro-life you are, imho, the more pro-birth-control you should be. Don’t want me to have an abortion (which I disagree with on principle, but I don’t really want to have an abortion, either. An exam is invasive enough for me)? Allow me to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Trust me, I DON’T want to get pregnant, and most women in my position are in the same boat. If you really want to keep zygotes and fetuses from being aborted, give every sexually-mature woman unfettered access to multiple forms of birth control. No more locking condoms up, no more IDing for plan B, no more insisting that kids (now up to 26!) give you their parents’ insurance information for a birth control prescription.
I’m a 31-year-old woman in a committed relationship who doesn’t want to get pregnant, ever, and I face multiple obstacles in obtaining effective birth control. I have tried multiple times with multiple doctors to get “fixed” to no avail. I have to ask a store manager to unlock condoms for me when I go to the store (you know, there are times that birth control isn’t effective…heaven forbid you get a bug that requires antibiotics). I have to undergo an invasive, yearly exam to get a BC prescription (even though they’re only recommended once every 3-5 years for women my age who either aren’t having sex or who are having sex with monogamous partners). I have to present insurance information to get this BC at a reasonable price, which rethuglicans want my employer to be able to deny if they feel like it, and I have to present ID to get the plan B I stock in my closet, so that the “moral majority” can be assured that women under 17 can’t obtain a safe, legal way to prevent pregnancy if they make a “mistake” (who DIDN’T make mistakes at that age?). Can you imagine the horror a 16- or 18- or 20-year-old would endure navigating these restrictions?
So now we’re investigating the DH getting a vasectomy. Doctors are far more willing to conduct that procedure than even prescribe birth control…
AMEN!
(I don’t like the idea of abortion, but will not judge someone who chooses to do it, because I honestly do not know what I would do in that situation!)
Oh yes indeedy, I 110% agree with your first statement. It applies to both pro-life and anti-entitlement. Don’t want to pay for welfare programs? Fine, provide free birth control, the cost of which is certainly less than the cost of a child.
Oh the trend definitely came after the fact. It’s a result of what is happening, according to Merkin anyway.
I promise to go back and read the comments shortly. I’m sure you all have wonderful, insightful things to say. But my brain is on a tangent that must be satisfied at 90 WPM…
From an economist’s perspective, the women’s lib movement was the worst thing EVER to happen to working people/families. That’s not to say that women shouldn’t have the option to work or do whatever else makes them happy. It didn’t have to be that way…
Classic economic theory talks about the division of labor. We do what we do for the maximum economic return, and we pay other people to do the things that we would otherwise be doing during that time. Everyone benefits from economies of scale, and things get done efficiently and the increasing demand for goods and services grows the economy. This makes sense…I can calculate the cost of importation in 2.5 seconds flat, but would take a long time to fix a flat tire (helped along by not currently owning a car), so it makes sense for me to be a trade specialist and others to change my flat tires for a fee.
Before women’s lib, men went to work and supported their home, which usually included a wife and probably some kids. The men (and occasional woman) made enough to support their home. The single- (or mostly-single, many of my mother’s peers did some random things like cut hair, babysit, teach crafting classes, do seamstress work, etc., here and there to pay for niceties like vacations and what not – while I also grew up in the ’80′s, I was in an old-school area) income earner household had the benefit of “free” or low-cost housekeeping, child rearing, errand running, cooking, etc. Of course these things weren’t free, they were supported by the large single income that allowed a family to live on one salary.
Then throughout the ’60′s, ’70′s, and ’80′s, we basically doubled the workforce with women entering en masse. In theory, this did not have to be a bad thing for the economy. Women who chose to work could do what they did best – whether that be calculating the cost of importation or childcare or housework – and families could continue to live the lifestyle they were accustomed to. But that is not what happened. We continued to undervalue “domestic” tasks, while flooding the working, professional, semi-professional classes (not to be confused with executive classes, those are the people making all the money these days) with a glut of qualified workers. Business profits soared as labor costs reduced (a natural consequence of an oversupply of labor). We insisted that household tasks still largely be done by the family themselves (cleaning, cooking, basic maintenance, errand running, etc.), while nearly doubling the amount of time the average household spent working outside the home.
In addition, we entered a “DIY” economy, to make up for the lower wages paid by employers. When I was a child, my parents paid someone to clean the walls in our home once a year and paint them every 5 years or so. Now, my friends are extremely confused about why I pay someone to clean my walls yearly, and am hiring professional painters as part of renovating one of my investment properties for sale (not to mention the handymen/contractors I hired to do much of the rest of the work). Not only did we refuse to pay for the services previously provided as part of the “family” package, but we started to refuse to pay for services we used to gladly pay for.
So here we are, working very hard at work for menial pay (as well-compensated as I am, I still make less than my dad did in 1990, adjusted for the cost of living difference and inflation), and responsible for more household work. The rebellion has little to do with yearning for a life of domesticity and everything to do with being so overworked we don’t know what is up and what is down. Workers are being treated unfairly. It’s partially their own doing, for not recognizing that domestic work had value. But it’s mostly the doing of big business, who exploited this attitude to their own betterment.
Whew…my fingers hurt. Take that as you will.
Interesting. And logical. Do you think we’ll return to a new version of the old system, or is this one here to stay? Seems to me the standard of living will only continue to go down unless some sort of change is made.
It’s hard for me to say, because I live in a bubble. DC is so radically different from the rest of the country, that I cannot tell what might happen to the overall economy.
I hate to leave things hanging, so let me explain. I keep hearing stories about people becoming thriftier because of the economy, but you’d be hard-pressed to discover that new-found thriftiness in DC. I mean, I guess I know some people doing “thrifty” things, but it’s in the name of something else. I grow a lot of my own veggies and herbs, but I do it because I know my food is organic, fresh, and tasty then (also, I don’t run out of tomatoes right before getting hit with a massive craving…I can just walk into the office and pick some). People seem to be spending *more* here than they did before (which is normal for inflation to push spending up a little each year), so I can comment on the thriftiness first hand.
If people are indeed becoming thriftier, that might bode poorly for our collective sanity. Wages are down (this happens in recessions), so even people who have jobs or find jobs aren’t going to be making even as much as they were before, which means less spending on services (everything from daycare to dining out), which means more work for the family members. However, if this new thriftiness allows them to get by while putting in fewer hours of work outside of the home, it could at least restore some sense of balance to their life. Sure, they’re doing more of the work themselves, but they’ve got more time off from work to do it.
The one thing thriftiness won’t do is help to correct the undervaluing of “domestic” services. I see some willingness of younger people to pay for services. I think people under 30 got a good heaping helping of being latch-key kids, watching their parents run from job to soccer to cooking to cleaning to laundry to etc., and living with the stress that lifestyle created. Hopefully, as these young adults get older, make more money, and have kids of their own, they can cause changes in the valuation of service provision that just might make the economy work right in the era of 2-income households. THAT economy would actually give everyone freedom of choice (since you’d be spending only slightly less on domestic services than you would save if you did them yourself, a one-income household would only be slightly leaner in the wallet because of a lack of domestic expenses) and provide good-paying jobs to millions of service workers.
But I have little faith in the economy becoming *correctly* service-based. We’re too cheap and obsessed with material possessions to pull this off. Plus, with that free time we suddenly have, we’d find more time/ways to spend money. Sigh…sucks for those of us who get it.
Blargh, let me explain the costs of domestic services a little better. Okay, so housekeepers and dry cleaners and laundry services and whatnot are more efficient at doing our housework than we are. We have housekeepers come once a week, and in an hour and a half, two of them do what it would take us many hours to do (bathroom, kitchen, strip and change the bed and wash the sheets, dust, sweep and scrub all the floors, vacuum the furniture, unload the dishwasher, take out the trash and recycling, etc.). We pay $60 for this service. Most people would consider that expensive, but, to an economist, they’re looking at it wrong. The proper way to analyze this cost is “opportunity cost,” if you earn $20.22/hour at work (that’s about $42K/year/each, high for some places – where housekeeping would be cheaper – but that’s actually the median individual income in DC), times 2 incomes, each and every hour of your time is worth $40.44. All that work would take us WAY longer than T
computer…
…take us longer than the 1.5 hours it takes us to earn the money (and we make more than the median income, so it’s even less time for us to earn that). So, right up front, most people making the median income or more right now should, logically, be paying for housekeeping service.
But there’s also an economies of scale and competition argument to be made. My housekeepers are not booked solid, 40 hours/week. There’s not enough demand for them to be. If there was more demand, they could be guaranteed more hours and lower the price they charge each customer. Moreover, more parties would enter the market, driving up competition and lowering prices. The same logic goes for things like grocery delivery. It takes me about 15 minutes/week to do my main grocery shopping, since I order online and have it delivered. My particular delivery service (it’s actually kind of a hybrid farm share/grocery service) is booked nearly full for their delivery spots, so their prices are very competitive. It’s something like an average of $.10/item more to order from them than go to the grocery store, and I can guarantee going to the grocery store myself would cost me more than $3 in “real” expenses (gas, wear and tear, etc.), not to mention time, to do my own grocery shopping (I do spend another, maybe, 30 minutes/week picking up things the delivery service doesn’t offer, like dog food, cola, and beer – they do deliver wine! – and a few times a year stock up on basics like flour, sugar, salt, pepper, tuna, etc.).
So, basically, the idea would be that incomes increase to reasonable levels (the level where a household could live a *basic* life on only one income, if they chose), and people would use that extra money to pay for household services, which would get cheaper with higher demand and more competition (because demand for these services currently has slack, and so is not operating efficiently). If a family were doing this and decided that one income-earner should stay home, their income would only go down a little more than what they’re spending on household services. But it’s REALLY hard to get from here to there, where incomes go up or the base cost of living goes down (or both) enough that one person can support a household, or two people can work and pay for household services, and the family can FINALLY sit down and eat dinner together again.
I prefer the term “anti-choice.” People who are pro-choice are not anti-life. However, people who are anti-choice are just that – against choice. Also, this: “The rebellion has little to do with yearning for a life of domesticity and everything to do with being so overworked we don’t know what is up and what is down.” I agree. I am a single mother in my 30s who works a full-time position for a fairly good salary (for my area) and can barely make ends meet. I am also an active feminist. However, sometimes, and I always feel guilty about this, I do yearn for the “Disney” version of the 50′s, where I had a man to pay the bills and I could focus on cleaning the house and raising the children. Of course, in my fantasy, I still have the option of going to work if I want to, which wasn’t the case back then. All I know is that sometimes I long for a break!! Excellent article, by the way!
I also think of these folks as anti-choice. I don’t have a problem with people who subscribe to the Bill Clinton philosophy, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Those people have women’s best interests at heart. While many ground-breaking studies have shown that abortion is not physically, mentally, or emotionally harmful for a woman, it’s still a minor surgical procedure that is demonized, and shouldn’t be necessary given all the technology and medical expertise we have today. People who oppose a right to legal abortion, though…definitely anti-choice.
Don’t feel bad about feeling overwhelmed. You’ve got it worse than we do (childless couple), and *we* feel overwhelmed at times. We have opted to substitute money for time in many cases, but this stresses our budget while saving our sanity (and we make GOOD money between the two of us…not quite 1%ers, but well in to the 10%er territory). We’d rather have to think about how much we’re spending on groceries than spend hours doing what our housekeeper or handyman or dry cleaner can knock out in less than an hour, but it’s still sometimes a source of stress. It shouldn’t have to be, as I said above, but, things being what they are, I think we’re all feeling a bit stressed. I still have no sympathy for the true 1%ers whining about being poor, and we certainly don’t complain that we’re poor, but in order to work as much as we do to earn as much money as we do, we have to pay people to do house work, and that IS a stress on our budget. And, with all that we make, we still have to find creative ways to make more to live a “normal” life…which is why I am in property (in not-so-nice-but developing neighborhoods, buying mostly foreclosures) and the DH is an amateur day trader. We’d like to buy a real house in the next few years (2-3 bedrooms, 1200-1500 ft2, in a halfway decent but not super-luxurious neighborhood, close to a Metro within the city…you know, only around $600K), and that’s just simply not possible on just our salaries alone (can you imagine trying to save $120K just for the down payment when you’ve got to shell out almost $2K a month for basic, cramped housing in a marginal neighborhood in the meantime?). And that’s a real problem, for us and everyone else!
That’s a good way to look at it, though I firmly believe there are many people that are pro-life, yet respect a woman’s right to choose. It’s the anti-choice people that anger me. It isn’t so much that they try to force their moralistic views down my throat, but they are trying, and succeeding, in changing laws.
I don’t think you should feel guilty for yearning for the ‘Disney’ version of things. I think everyone does it in some form, but then you stop and think about it for a moment and realize the reality of any fantasy will have a downside.