mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Elegance is inferior to virtue. Options
Daemon
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 33,821
Neurons: 100,641
Location: Inside Farlex computers
Elegance is inferior to virtue.

Mary Shelley (1797-1851)
Bully_rus
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 2:57:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2013
Posts: 3,537
Neurons: 365,928
Location: Minsk, Minskaya Voblasts', Belarus
Elegance is woman's virtue... Is this so bad as it seems?
Vit Babenco
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 2:58:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/16/2014
Posts: 177
Neurons: 559,249
Location: Ivanovo, Ivanovo, Russia
Frankenstein wasn't elegant...
Sri Vidya
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 3:35:13 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 4/5/2015
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
Location: Hyderābād, Andhra Pradesh, India
Virtue has its own elegance which the aesthetes don't comprehend ,being obsessed with their own yardsticks of elegance.Therefore in deference of their expertise we concede that virtue is a different matter altogether and has no element of elegance as they see it.
Shamshad Ali Afridi
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 4:22:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2014
Posts: 178
Neurons: 94,307
Location: Peshāwar, North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan
d'oh! Elegance can be found in a thief and a liar. Truth can be bunglesome. Unless one perverts the definitions of both, one cannot disagree with the proposition that elegance is inferior to virtue.
srilalitha p
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 6:05:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/3/2014
Posts: 124
Neurons: 949,405
Location: Hyderābād, Andhra Pradesh, India
Longines?
Liama
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 7:56:50 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/18/2015
Posts: 28
Neurons: 1,963,747
Location: Vilnius, Vilniaus Apskritis, Lithuania
Tell it to the marines.
ChristopherJohnson
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 8:18:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/27/2014
Posts: 2,520
Neurons: 2,236,097
Location: Tbilisi, T'bilisi, Georgia
Vit Babenco wrote:
Frankenstein wasn't elegant...


Certainly not. But interesting to read about and watch in films.
striker
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 9:04:54 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/30/2014
Posts: 1,698
Neurons: 5,079,026
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, United States
virtue, and integrity is all we can take to the grave
Gary98
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 11:59:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/23/2014
Posts: 1,706
Neurons: 5,949,238
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Elegance is nothing without virtue. Virtue has no need for elegance.
monamagda
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 1:25:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 8,844
Neurons: 7,687,248
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
You could best learn about her causes by reading the following excerpt from her book “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, 1792:

“My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out in what true dignity and human happiness consists -- I wish to persuade women to endeavor to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity and that kind of love, which has been termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt. Dismissing then those pretty feminine phrases, which the men condescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising that weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet docility of manners, supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to virtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex; and that secondary views should be brought to this simple touchstone.”

(Mary Wollstonecraft’s feminist ideas were that both sexes should be treated equally. She believed that women were capable of the same intellect as men, and that women should see education as the most important tool for moving up in society. She was ahead of her time in her belief that women could achieve any type of movement “up” in society at all, independent of “marrying up”, as was the traditional norm for moving up in society in those days.


Wollstonecraft was against marriage because she believed that the only true freedom women would ever have could be obtained only by remaining unmarried. She believed that marriage was just short of legalized prostitution, and that women should have sexual freedom. She was a visionary, and wanted a better life for people, not just women and she really thought that if women were treated on a more equal footing with men, that not only women would benefit, but also their children and their husbands would benefit.

It is very sad that she died before ever seeing any of her ideas take hold in society. She truly was the cornerstone of the women’s movement, long before it was able to find its place in society. Without forward thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, women’s advancement in society would have been more tedious, and our lives as we know them now, might have been much different—not in a good way.)

http://www.csun.edu/~djl73050/ws300/fem.html
Madas
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 1:36:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2014
Posts: 167
Neurons: 2,954,244
Location: Vilnius, Vilniaus Apskritis, Lithuania
Liama wrote:
Tell it to the marines.

Marines should begin with a capital letter: Marines, just like Navy or Army.
NeuroticHellFem
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 5:57:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/22/2014
Posts: 2,292
Neurons: 2,599,403
Location: Lilyfield, New South Wales, Australia
monamagda wrote:
You could best learn about her causes by reading the following excerpt from her book “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, 1792:

“My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out in what true dignity and human happiness consists -- I wish to persuade women to endeavor to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity and that kind of love, which has been termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt. Dismissing then those pretty feminine phrases, which the men condescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising that weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet docility of manners, supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to virtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex; and that secondary views should be brought to this simple touchstone.”

(Mary Wollstonecraft’s feminist ideas were that both sexes should be treated equally. She believed that women were capable of the same intellect as men, and that women should see education as the most important tool for moving up in society. She was ahead of her time in her belief that women could achieve any type of movement “up” in society at all, independent of “marrying up”, as was the traditional norm for moving up in society in those days.


Wollstonecraft was against marriage because she believed that the only true freedom women would ever have could be obtained only by remaining unmarried. She believed that marriage was just short of legalized prostitution, and that women should have sexual freedom. She was a visionary, and wanted a better life for people, not just women and she really thought that if women were treated on a more equal footing with men, that not only women would benefit, but also their children and their husbands would benefit.

It is very sad that she died before ever seeing any of her ideas take hold in society. She truly was the cornerstone of the women’s movement, long before it was able to find its place in society. Without forward thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, women’s advancement in society would have been more tedious, and our lives as we know them now, might have been much different—not in a good way.)

http://www.csun.edu/~djl73050/ws300/fem.html

Very interesting. I've never been able to bear the thought of marriage, partly for the same reasons.
Thanks as ever, monamagda! Applause
monamagda
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 6:21:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 8,844
Neurons: 7,687,248
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
NeuroticHellFem wrote:
monamagda wrote:
You could best learn about her causes by reading the following excerpt from her book “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, 1792:

“My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out in what true dignity and human happiness consists -- I wish to persuade women to endeavor to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity and that kind of love, which has been termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt. Dismissing then those pretty feminine phrases, which the men condescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising that weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet docility of manners, supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to virtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex; and that secondary views should be brought to this simple touchstone.”

(Mary Wollstonecraft’s feminist ideas were that both sexes should be treated equally. She believed that women were capable of the same intellect as men, and that women should see education as the most important tool for moving up in society. She was ahead of her time in her belief that women could achieve any type of movement “up” in society at all, independent of “marrying up”, as was the traditional norm for moving up in society in those days.


Wollstonecraft was against marriage because she believed that the only true freedom women would ever have could be obtained only by remaining unmarried. She believed that marriage was just short of legalized prostitution, and that women should have sexual freedom. She was a visionary, and wanted a better life for people, not just women and she really thought that if women were treated on a more equal footing with men, that not only women would benefit, but also their children and their husbands would benefit.

It is very sad that she died before ever seeing any of her ideas take hold in society. She truly was the cornerstone of the women’s movement, long before it was able to find its place in society. Without forward thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, women’s advancement in society would have been more tedious, and our lives as we know them now, might have been much different—not in a good way.)

http://www.csun.edu/~djl73050/ws300/fem.html

Very interesting. I've never been able to bear the thought of marriage, partly for the same reasons.
Thanks as ever, monamagda! Applause


I think the same, I am decidedly as feminist as Mary, but marriage could be a nice option to get that freedom, all is in the hands of the one we chose for husband, or I should say in our hands.....

Thanks for your comment, always so brilliant !!!Dancing
Omar Mariani
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 6:35:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/25/2014
Posts: 655
Neurons: 76,546
Location: Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires F.D., Argentina
Beauty is but skin deep, true but are all virtuous women suppoosed to be graceless, unfashionable, unstylish? Is that what we call FATE?
Clair Voyant
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 8:32:01 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 4/5/2015
Posts: 2
Neurons: 8
Virtues ---having a sense of morals and doing what is right--- is more important than elegance-- the art of looking graceful Dancing
Milica Boghunovich
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 9:30:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/5/2014
Posts: 1,016
Neurons: 156,985
Bully_rus wrote:
Elegance is woman's virtue... Is this so bad as it seems?


Some women have more elegance of intellect and virtue than some men.
Milica Boghunovich
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 9:37:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/5/2014
Posts: 1,016
Neurons: 156,985
Daemon wrote:
Elegance is inferior to virtue.

Mary Shelley (1797-1851)


Awkward contrasting! I see virtue inwardly as very elegant and honorable!
Verbatim
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2015 11:16:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 2,251
Neurons: 249,482
Daemon wrote:
Elegance is inferior to virtue.

Mary Shelley (1797-1851)


Perhaps it's time to remark that Mary Shelley was born in 1797, five years after her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, wrote the passage
in her book “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, 1792, which was offered herein above for context.

Mary Shelley was also very keen on marriage, which is why she took another woman's husband away from her, and finally married him upon that woman's death.

Elegance is not just inferior to virtue, it is a different kettle of fish.
Shamshad Ali Afridi
Posted: Saturday, April 11, 2015 4:57:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2014
Posts: 178
Neurons: 94,307
Location: Peshāwar, North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan
Those who believe in marriage before marriage, believe in an evergreen lifelong loyalty. Those with a preference against it, before starting a relationship believe in short bursts of dalliances with loyalties often masquerading.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.