I can understand the irritation too--I agree with most of the critiques from the left that I've seen. But, I dunno, there's something about extending a merciless political critique into someone else's occasion of personal joy that gets up my nose. It's like those people who come out on every beloved holiday to proclaim that it's politically bad--Christmas is Christian cultural hegemony, US Thanksgiving glosses over genocide, Valentine's Day contributes to the overvaluing of romantic love and the stigmatization of single people. It's not that those things aren't true, but is anyone actually helped by the critique or is it just virtue-signalling? As you said, even the fairly outrageous cost of the wedding would be only a drop in the bucket in an attempt to really tackle poverty. Refusing to celebrate Thanksgiving does fuck-all to help Native Americans. (I feel differently about holidays that are less personal and/or more innately offensive, like Columbus Day in the US, which is far more explicitly colonialist than Thanksgiving and which nobody has a real emotional attachment to. Kill it, and kill the orgy of nationalism that is Independence Day too.)
Even the dress . . . I certainly think there's a valid general point to be made that rich people should spread their money around to help people and not just purchase luxuries for themselves. But (a) if it was Markle's own money, I have no idea how much money she has or how she spends it; for all I know she may give tons to good causes, and (b) when it becomes not a general point but a criticism of one specific item--and one in this case for a very special occasion--where does it end? Should everybody have their weddings on the super-cheap and donate the balance to charity? Should people have receptions? Honeymoons? Am I morally allowed to buy meat and chocolate and books, which are all things I don't technically need, while there are homeless and hungry people in my city?
Sorry for the long reply, you've just made me think about a lot of things I don't really have an answer for.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2018-05-24 12:06 am (UTC)Even the dress . . . I certainly think there's a valid general point to be made that rich people should spread their money around to help people and not just purchase luxuries for themselves. But (a) if it was Markle's own money, I have no idea how much money she has or how she spends it; for all I know she may give tons to good causes, and (b) when it becomes not a general point but a criticism of one specific item--and one in this case for a very special occasion--where does it end? Should everybody have their weddings on the super-cheap and donate the balance to charity? Should people have receptions? Honeymoons? Am I morally allowed to buy meat and chocolate and books, which are all things I don't technically need, while there are homeless and hungry people in my city?
Sorry for the long reply, you've just made me think about a lot of things I don't really have an answer for.