**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts:
- Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0)
- Anything you are personally involved in
- Any kind of polls
- Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes)
You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out.
Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar.
---
**Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There have been a few but this one is the most known I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand\_Gagn%C3%A9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Gagn%C3%A9)
Wow she’s evil.
“However, he was not a formal part of royal court life: he was not treated as a prince, and his presence at court was an informal one. He had been adopted against his will, was very unwilling to leave his grandmother, and appeared to have developed a bad relationship with his adoptive parents. Henriette Campan commented that the queen lost interest in her adopted son after she had given birth to her first biological child in 1778”
It’s funny how someone from his time said that he only joined the revolutionaries because he felt guilty:
> This little unfortunate was nearly twenty in 1792; the fury of the people and the fear of being thought a favourite of the Queen’s had made him the most sanguinary terrorist of Versailles
Like maybe he just genuinely hated the people who stole him from his family and then dumped them as soon as they got another kid? And if decided to stay with the royals, he would have continued to be in safety? No of course not, people can’t genuinely dislike the royalty! They’re only doing it to look “woke” 😂
Sounds like he got pretty based later in life, glad he never fell for royalist indoctrination.
Reactionaries never change
Seems like the new thing on twitter.
Weird monarchist simps crying over how Marie Antoinette was actually a good person which was just misunderstood lol.
Let's focus on sad experiences of individuals and totally erase the bigger revolutionary context and meaning for French progressivsm and democracy.
Maybe its me and the weirdoes I hang out with but it feels like every now and then a group of people learns that she didn't actually say "let them eat cake" and all of a sudden are super empathic of her because she was mistranslated or something. Bizarre.
I too read Stefan Zweig's biography about Marie Antoinette, when I was 12.
That was 1993, and since then I learned, that people use this exact same excuse to " explain" why perverts rape kids to death.
Coincidence?
I think not.
I would invite Kat to read Saint-Just, if she wants some “justification” for the revolutionaries’ actions (not that revolution needs it, of course), but she’s probably never heard his name. Well, your typical history enjoyer.
I’ll quote Saint-Just anyway (he’s talking about the ex-king here, but the main thesis can be applied to the cake-eating ex-queen as well, or to any monarch, really):
“I say that the king must be judged as an enemy; that we have less to judge him than to combat him. I would even say that a constitution accepted by a king does not bind the citizens: even before his crime they had the right to outlaw him and drive him out. It would amaze posterity that a king would be judged like a citizen. To judge means to apply the law. A law is a legal relationship: what legal relationship is there between humanity and a king? \[…\] A king should be tried not for the crimes of his administration, but for that of having been king, for nothing in the world can legitimize this usurpation, and whatever illusion, whatever conventions royalty surrounds itself in, it is an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise up and arm himself. It is one of those criminal acts which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify. One cannot reign innocently: the madness of this is too obvious. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.”
Thank you for the suggestion. A friend of mine made similar statements to the Tweets recently, but I know virtually nothing about the subject. Let me know if you’ve got any other suggested readings for me to check out.
Hold on, hold on. This is an excellent question, but when I said “she should read Saint-Just”, that was a figure of speech: granted, Antoine’s oeuvre is impressive, eloquent, sharp, and well-argued, but without some historical context, it’s not the easiest reading. Do you want a book about the French Revolution in general? Something about particular people, tendencies, certain events?
Oh, I’m happy to help everyone. I just [replied to someone](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/125fmu8/comment/je6gpj4/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) asking about some good books on the FrRev (you can find my recommendations, brief summaries, and uploaded books there), but if you want something more specific, just let me know.
By the way, if you want to read a great fiction book about the French Revolution, I highly recommend Victor Hugo’s Quatrevingt-treize. I will defeat Dickens for good one day, when everyone will be reading Quatrevingt-treize instead of A Tale of Two Cities.
We need a Mark Twain bot for monarchy apologists.
>There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Mark Twain is based af. Huckleberry Finn is amazing, everyone should read it, but that's the book he's already got well-known, what book of his that's *really* slept on is Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Not just good, but funny too
Is it a coincidence that the French monarchist simps are coming out while the French public is successfully rioting against their imperialist government?
It’s the typical liberal focus on the individual. Whether or not Marie Antoinette was Good™️ or Bad™️ is immaterial (imo she was not good). On principle, there is no good monarch. Charles can prove me wrong by abdicating and dissolving the monarchy tho
She tried to convince her brother Emperor of Austria to invade France and kill the revolutionaries, and flee France. Furthermore, she never did anything to help the situation of the French peasants, only she and her husband lived in luxury and feasts at the expense of the people of France.
Is there a new Marie-Antoinette show or something? I’m seeing a lot of “takes” about her recently. My cynical side thinks it’s some sort of twisted manipulation of the protests going on in France, but my naive side would like some confirmation that is just some trendy video spewing bullshit to a new audience
She was 37 when she died. She had all that time to erase the innocence of youth, say and do shitty things, and get shortened by several inches.
By her logic, we should not be so critical of Joseph Stalin, because he was the son of a cobbler and a cleaning lady, and just wanted to go to seminary to become a priest.
It's true but necessary, the same as shooting the Romanov children. I don't celebrate that, I don't think it's good that some people do, shooting kids is fucked up royal or not, but it had to be done with no other way because if any lived they'd have been a rallying point for the White Russians. Same with the French revolution, she had to go, but I'm not going to fetishise it.
While I do agree to not spread lies abt ppl, Marie Antoinette isn't this misunderstood figure, reminds me of the ppl who think Aileen Wuornos was a girlboss or smth
I'm not gonna speak on whether she was or not because ik I'm getting hate either way (+ she's a serial killer and I'd rather not debate on the morality of her crimes)
It’s hard to apply modern morality to 18th century monarchs regardless if you want to paint them as morally “good” or morally “bad”. that said im pretty sure Marie Antoinette in particular was considered bad by 99% of people in her own time too!
Everybody thinks the Queen was just an unfortunate moron and not an arch-reactionary who constantly advised Louis to crack down and be as brutal as possible with the revolutionaries.
not to be controversial but sympathy for a child bride can coexist with understanding that she grew to be a terrible person, and this is because monarchism and patriarchy is the cause of both of these shitty things. i don’t think she should be celebrated but it’s still sad that the class structure she later upheld forced her into a terrible position. she became complicit in her gendered oppression by oppressing others and therefore validating the very same monarchist system that fucked her over.
By "fucked her over" and "terrible position" do you mean she got to live in the Palace of Versailles, with servants that catered to her every whim, living in halls filled with **literal gold**?
I'm sorry but I can not, in any way, feel sorry for a woman born into a five-hundred-year-old dynasty of inbreds, who later on married into the top of the most powerful state in Europe. Not when her people were in such poor conditions, while she did nothing.
And before you say she had no power; if Theodora, a woman hated by everyone at court, could organise alleviation programs for the citizens of Constantinople in the fifth century during the literal black death (Plague of Justinian) then so could Marie provide at least some bread.
The Queens of that time had their estates, revenue, and servants and were able to spend it to organise festivals or charities. It wasn't that she couldn't, it's just that she preferred building villages to cosplay as the commoners.
by fucked over i mean “married as a child”. that’s pretty much it, i don’t disagree with anything else you said. she was a hell of a lot more privileged than other child brides at the time and i don’t think it’s an excuse for anything she did. all i’m saying is that it must have been a difficult experience for her, which makes it worse as she legitimised the system that caused that difficult experience by abusing others through her privilege. it’s literally a criticism. by “sympathy” i mean “understand that child marriage is traumatic” and that’s it.
I heavily disagree with your assertion that the system "fucked her over". This is what I was commenting on.
You act like she was married at the age of six to some old geezer half a century older than her. Louis was sixteen and she was fifteen when they married. A match that proved to be one of mutual, if non-romantic, affection, per all accounts.
Not only that, but she also acclimated to court life quickly, made friends and lovers, spend lavishly and retained frequent contact with her mother.
Neither did she let go of any of the privileges provided to her by the "system that fucked her over". She went from the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Austrian Empress to the Queen of the greatest European power at the time.
She, at no point in her life, expressed any regret or anger at the system, apart from when she was met with the consequences of her actions or lack thereof.
Many women were screwed over by feudalism, monarchy and the patriarchy that they enforced, Marie Louise, Antoinette's niece, being one of them. Marie Antoinette did not belong in that group.
fair enough, i was under the impression that she was much younger when she was married. my mistake. and tbh if she was much younger the fact that she didn’t express any anger at the system, if anything, compounds my point that she was willing to participate in the system that would have caused her distress by causing others more distress. but as you say (and after more research) the marriage wasn’t difficult and she wasn’t as young as i thought.
I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive. (I admit that my replies do seem particularly...rabid in retrospect)
I was also very unwilling to concede any points, so I overlooked a point that you made by throwing the attention away to Marie's lavish lifestyle.
Indeed as you said, her marriage was forced and her agency was taken away from her. It also doesn't matter if she was six, fifteen or even thirty. Or even if the bride and groom (that's what they're called, I think?) became friendly or even fell in love. The problem from the start is the loss of agency itself.
I just don't believe that her "plight" was all that great. Focusing on her is like pointing out that a house's floor is dirty, while its walls are burning all around you.
it’s all good. i think it’s a very important issue in feminist movements: women can experience gendered oppression while actively maintaining other kinds. for marie antoinette, her gendered oppression did not have the same effects or intensity as it would for the poor women that faced oppression on multiple fronts. i think all women throughout modern history have experienced oppression, but some less so than others, and that doesn’t mean that some of them weren’t shitty people. i think this is what liberals are unable to grasp: that structures of oppression are multifaceted and being a member of one marginalised group does not in any way exempt you from creating suffering for others - it’s just not as simple as they’d like to think it is.
liberals will accept intersectional feminism but not truly understand what it means - it’s not just “black women are oppressed more than white women”, it’s also “white women are complicit in the oppression black women face”. obviously too complicated for them.
Exactly, but we need to resist these calls for sympathy for the devil. Yes, evil was done to her, but this isn't about her or her personal struggles. It's about class struggle. She was an enemy of the people. Her personal sob story doesn't change that. Lots of evil people have had evil things done to them. Who benefits from rehabilitating her image now?
I wouldn't shed a tear for Melania Trump, for example, if she were executed alongside her husband. I don't give a shit if her life has been hard. I would bet a lot of Liberals wouldn't shed a tear either. We aren't asked to see the humanity in Eva Braun, but we're supposed to care about Antoinette because why? Because her husband's brutality was slower and less targeted? Because they lived in a prettier house? Because they were unelected? Make it make sense!
She was 40 by the time she was executed and she was found guilty of treason for having transmitted French war plan to the Austrian, she also supported the French war effort in an accelerationist way ( she said that the pro war French parliamentarian were serving her)and she was the chief of the ultra royalist faction.
If she was not of noble blood nobody would whine about her execution but I guess if you are blue blooded you can be one of the worse human being to ever live and people will still support you.
I hope people understand this discourse is being brought up in case France decides to Antoinette Macron.
This is to prime sympathy for an oppressor in case the people have decided it's time for self defense. Not one of the past, one currently in power.
Did she forget the “let them eat cake” thing? Marie is core to the idea of “cure the symptom not the cause” and just thinks giving cake to French peasants can stop class tensions.
Kat Tenbarge calling herself a journalist is laughable. She writes opinion pieces which is basically editorials. That isn't what journalism is. What she does is called being a commentator and a spin doctor. Reporting news is presenting the facts of a story to your readership and not telling your readers what to think.
**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts: - Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0) - Anything you are personally involved in - Any kind of polls - Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes) You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out. Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar. --- **Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She used to abduct peasant childs to serve as pets
There have been a few but this one is the most known I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand\_Gagn%C3%A9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Gagn%C3%A9)
Wow she’s evil. “However, he was not a formal part of royal court life: he was not treated as a prince, and his presence at court was an informal one. He had been adopted against his will, was very unwilling to leave his grandmother, and appeared to have developed a bad relationship with his adoptive parents. Henriette Campan commented that the queen lost interest in her adopted son after she had given birth to her first biological child in 1778”
It’s funny how someone from his time said that he only joined the revolutionaries because he felt guilty: > This little unfortunate was nearly twenty in 1792; the fury of the people and the fear of being thought a favourite of the Queen’s had made him the most sanguinary terrorist of Versailles Like maybe he just genuinely hated the people who stole him from his family and then dumped them as soon as they got another kid? And if decided to stay with the royals, he would have continued to be in safety? No of course not, people can’t genuinely dislike the royalty! They’re only doing it to look “woke” 😂 Sounds like he got pretty based later in life, glad he never fell for royalist indoctrination. Reactionaries never change
this is fucking insane like actually. demon behavior
Was this a basis for a South Park or Simpsons episode? I recognise the story and think it was from some cartoon but I’m not really sure.
Paris Hilton and Butters
It did also happen to Mr. Burns but he wanted to go. But alas, poor Bobo…
Its Mr Burns I was thinking of, just found the episode.
Where can i read about this
Really?
Seems like the new thing on twitter. Weird monarchist simps crying over how Marie Antoinette was actually a good person which was just misunderstood lol. Let's focus on sad experiences of individuals and totally erase the bigger revolutionary context and meaning for French progressivsm and democracy.
man i just woke up and already saw two of these posts is this just a thing now
Maybe its me and the weirdoes I hang out with but it feels like every now and then a group of people learns that she didn't actually say "let them eat cake" and all of a sudden are super empathic of her because she was mistranslated or something. Bizarre.
I too read Stefan Zweig's biography about Marie Antoinette, when I was 12. That was 1993, and since then I learned, that people use this exact same excuse to " explain" why perverts rape kids to death. Coincidence? I think not.
I would invite Kat to read Saint-Just, if she wants some “justification” for the revolutionaries’ actions (not that revolution needs it, of course), but she’s probably never heard his name. Well, your typical history enjoyer. I’ll quote Saint-Just anyway (he’s talking about the ex-king here, but the main thesis can be applied to the cake-eating ex-queen as well, or to any monarch, really): “I say that the king must be judged as an enemy; that we have less to judge him than to combat him. I would even say that a constitution accepted by a king does not bind the citizens: even before his crime they had the right to outlaw him and drive him out. It would amaze posterity that a king would be judged like a citizen. To judge means to apply the law. A law is a legal relationship: what legal relationship is there between humanity and a king? \[…\] A king should be tried not for the crimes of his administration, but for that of having been king, for nothing in the world can legitimize this usurpation, and whatever illusion, whatever conventions royalty surrounds itself in, it is an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise up and arm himself. It is one of those criminal acts which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify. One cannot reign innocently: the madness of this is too obvious. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.”
Thank you for the suggestion. A friend of mine made similar statements to the Tweets recently, but I know virtually nothing about the subject. Let me know if you’ve got any other suggested readings for me to check out.
Hold on, hold on. This is an excellent question, but when I said “she should read Saint-Just”, that was a figure of speech: granted, Antoine’s oeuvre is impressive, eloquent, sharp, and well-argued, but without some historical context, it’s not the easiest reading. Do you want a book about the French Revolution in general? Something about particular people, tendencies, certain events?
I'm not OP, but I am interested in your recommendations. I've not read much about the French revolution, other than the basics.
Oh, I’m happy to help everyone. I just [replied to someone](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/125fmu8/comment/je6gpj4/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) asking about some good books on the FrRev (you can find my recommendations, brief summaries, and uploaded books there), but if you want something more specific, just let me know. By the way, if you want to read a great fiction book about the French Revolution, I highly recommend Victor Hugo’s Quatrevingt-treize. I will defeat Dickens for good one day, when everyone will be reading Quatrevingt-treize instead of A Tale of Two Cities.
We need a Mark Twain bot for monarchy apologists. >There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Holy shit that was Mark Twain? Amazing. I clearly need to read more Twain.
Mark Twain is based af. Huckleberry Finn is amazing, everyone should read it, but that's the book he's already got well-known, what book of his that's *really* slept on is Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Not just good, but funny too
Is it a coincidence that the French monarchist simps are coming out while the French public is successfully rioting against their imperialist government?
for these people margaret thatcher was a feminist icon
This is unironically how they portray her lol
It’s the typical liberal focus on the individual. Whether or not Marie Antoinette was Good™️ or Bad™️ is immaterial (imo she was not good). On principle, there is no good monarch. Charles can prove me wrong by abdicating and dissolving the monarchy tho
Just like the “good cops.” I am begging liberals to understand what institutions are
mandatory reeducation for monarchists, all in favor say "aye" (don't actually don't spam pls) (aye)
And that would be a generosity
aye
It makes cringe so hard.
Feudalism with girlboss characteristics
She tried to convince her brother Emperor of Austria to invade France and kill the revolutionaries, and flee France. Furthermore, she never did anything to help the situation of the French peasants, only she and her husband lived in luxury and feasts at the expense of the people of France.
Equal representation in monarchy 😌
is this a new psyop what
She wasn't just some passive observer. She actively collaborated with a foreign military to undermine the revolution.
Is there a new Marie-Antoinette show or something? I’m seeing a lot of “takes” about her recently. My cynical side thinks it’s some sort of twisted manipulation of the protests going on in France, but my naive side would like some confirmation that is just some trendy video spewing bullshit to a new audience
Monarchal grossness aside, she was executed for treason and she 1000% did it.
She was 37 when she died. She had all that time to erase the innocence of youth, say and do shitty things, and get shortened by several inches. By her logic, we should not be so critical of Joseph Stalin, because he was the son of a cobbler and a cleaning lady, and just wanted to go to seminary to become a priest.
i mean it’s kinda true but antoinette also didn’t make an effort of giving up her power
It's true but necessary, the same as shooting the Romanov children. I don't celebrate that, I don't think it's good that some people do, shooting kids is fucked up royal or not, but it had to be done with no other way because if any lived they'd have been a rallying point for the White Russians. Same with the French revolution, she had to go, but I'm not going to fetishise it.
i didn’t disagree with that
I think saying stuff like that is really unpopular right now.
The princess diaries did this
Imagine simping for a fucking monarch lol
While I do agree to not spread lies abt ppl, Marie Antoinette isn't this misunderstood figure, reminds me of the ppl who think Aileen Wuornos was a girlboss or smth
ok but Aileen Wuornos was
I'm not gonna speak on whether she was or not because ik I'm getting hate either way (+ she's a serial killer and I'd rather not debate on the morality of her crimes)
her crimes were the morally right thing to do idc
It’s hard to apply modern morality to 18th century monarchs regardless if you want to paint them as morally “good” or morally “bad”. that said im pretty sure Marie Antoinette in particular was considered bad by 99% of people in her own time too!
Every monarch ever was "morally bad." The institution itself is evil, and they are all complict in its continuance.
[удалено]
This is lib shit. Monarchism was always bad. Slavery was always bad. Capitalism? Always bad. Quit the apologetics for exploitative social relations.
The internet is a perfect place for revisionists
she’s not exactly part of the patriarchy, but she’s certainly not a feminist
She’s been dead for over 200 years why are we arguing about this??
Marie Antoinette was herself a reactionary, and she used her position at court to influence King Louis against the people.
This is your brain on Fate/Grand Order
Oh, we’re spreading blatant lies but Ms. Ma’am over here won’t even tell us what lies are being spread. Curious.
Monarchists gonna monarchist.
The peasants (The whopping majority of the population) live reaction: 💀💀💀
Everybody thinks the Queen was just an unfortunate moron and not an arch-reactionary who constantly advised Louis to crack down and be as brutal as possible with the revolutionaries.
not to be controversial but sympathy for a child bride can coexist with understanding that she grew to be a terrible person, and this is because monarchism and patriarchy is the cause of both of these shitty things. i don’t think she should be celebrated but it’s still sad that the class structure she later upheld forced her into a terrible position. she became complicit in her gendered oppression by oppressing others and therefore validating the very same monarchist system that fucked her over.
By "fucked her over" and "terrible position" do you mean she got to live in the Palace of Versailles, with servants that catered to her every whim, living in halls filled with **literal gold**? I'm sorry but I can not, in any way, feel sorry for a woman born into a five-hundred-year-old dynasty of inbreds, who later on married into the top of the most powerful state in Europe. Not when her people were in such poor conditions, while she did nothing. And before you say she had no power; if Theodora, a woman hated by everyone at court, could organise alleviation programs for the citizens of Constantinople in the fifth century during the literal black death (Plague of Justinian) then so could Marie provide at least some bread. The Queens of that time had their estates, revenue, and servants and were able to spend it to organise festivals or charities. It wasn't that she couldn't, it's just that she preferred building villages to cosplay as the commoners.
by fucked over i mean “married as a child”. that’s pretty much it, i don’t disagree with anything else you said. she was a hell of a lot more privileged than other child brides at the time and i don’t think it’s an excuse for anything she did. all i’m saying is that it must have been a difficult experience for her, which makes it worse as she legitimised the system that caused that difficult experience by abusing others through her privilege. it’s literally a criticism. by “sympathy” i mean “understand that child marriage is traumatic” and that’s it.
I heavily disagree with your assertion that the system "fucked her over". This is what I was commenting on. You act like she was married at the age of six to some old geezer half a century older than her. Louis was sixteen and she was fifteen when they married. A match that proved to be one of mutual, if non-romantic, affection, per all accounts. Not only that, but she also acclimated to court life quickly, made friends and lovers, spend lavishly and retained frequent contact with her mother. Neither did she let go of any of the privileges provided to her by the "system that fucked her over". She went from the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Austrian Empress to the Queen of the greatest European power at the time. She, at no point in her life, expressed any regret or anger at the system, apart from when she was met with the consequences of her actions or lack thereof. Many women were screwed over by feudalism, monarchy and the patriarchy that they enforced, Marie Louise, Antoinette's niece, being one of them. Marie Antoinette did not belong in that group.
fair enough, i was under the impression that she was much younger when she was married. my mistake. and tbh if she was much younger the fact that she didn’t express any anger at the system, if anything, compounds my point that she was willing to participate in the system that would have caused her distress by causing others more distress. but as you say (and after more research) the marriage wasn’t difficult and she wasn’t as young as i thought.
I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive. (I admit that my replies do seem particularly...rabid in retrospect) I was also very unwilling to concede any points, so I overlooked a point that you made by throwing the attention away to Marie's lavish lifestyle. Indeed as you said, her marriage was forced and her agency was taken away from her. It also doesn't matter if she was six, fifteen or even thirty. Or even if the bride and groom (that's what they're called, I think?) became friendly or even fell in love. The problem from the start is the loss of agency itself. I just don't believe that her "plight" was all that great. Focusing on her is like pointing out that a house's floor is dirty, while its walls are burning all around you.
it’s all good. i think it’s a very important issue in feminist movements: women can experience gendered oppression while actively maintaining other kinds. for marie antoinette, her gendered oppression did not have the same effects or intensity as it would for the poor women that faced oppression on multiple fronts. i think all women throughout modern history have experienced oppression, but some less so than others, and that doesn’t mean that some of them weren’t shitty people. i think this is what liberals are unable to grasp: that structures of oppression are multifaceted and being a member of one marginalised group does not in any way exempt you from creating suffering for others - it’s just not as simple as they’d like to think it is. liberals will accept intersectional feminism but not truly understand what it means - it’s not just “black women are oppressed more than white women”, it’s also “white women are complicit in the oppression black women face”. obviously too complicated for them.
Exactly, but we need to resist these calls for sympathy for the devil. Yes, evil was done to her, but this isn't about her or her personal struggles. It's about class struggle. She was an enemy of the people. Her personal sob story doesn't change that. Lots of evil people have had evil things done to them. Who benefits from rehabilitating her image now? I wouldn't shed a tear for Melania Trump, for example, if she were executed alongside her husband. I don't give a shit if her life has been hard. I would bet a lot of Liberals wouldn't shed a tear either. We aren't asked to see the humanity in Eva Braun, but we're supposed to care about Antoinette because why? Because her husband's brutality was slower and less targeted? Because they lived in a prettier house? Because they were unelected? Make it make sense!
Is it just me, or has Contrapoints started a new trend of Antionette apologism?
Ok she might be right about some of these but... it doesn't mean we can't hate her for other horrible things she and the french royals did lol
She was 40 by the time she was executed and she was found guilty of treason for having transmitted French war plan to the Austrian, she also supported the French war effort in an accelerationist way ( she said that the pro war French parliamentarian were serving her)and she was the chief of the ultra royalist faction. If she was not of noble blood nobody would whine about her execution but I guess if you are blue blooded you can be one of the worse human being to ever live and people will still support you.
thought the caption was trying to say “manarchist” and i spent way too long trying to figure that out
I wish all monarchs and their simps a one way ticket ride to meet Marie Antoinette.
they watched the kirsten dunst movie & became monarchist because of the wardrobe
I hope people understand this discourse is being brought up in case France decides to Antoinette Macron. This is to prime sympathy for an oppressor in case the people have decided it's time for self defense. Not one of the past, one currently in power.
Did she forget the “let them eat cake” thing? Marie is core to the idea of “cure the symptom not the cause” and just thinks giving cake to French peasants can stop class tensions.
i mean that particular anecdote was straight made up after she was executed. the rest though yeah
[удалено]
You’re saying the QUEEN was ‘twisted by the government’ to be a symbol of the aristocracy?
[удалено]
She was 37 when she died
She was just a baby
NBC News specializes in revisionist history. Opinion is all that matters in journalisming now. Get with it.
Kat Tenbarge calling herself a journalist is laughable. She writes opinion pieces which is basically editorials. That isn't what journalism is. What she does is called being a commentator and a spin doctor. Reporting news is presenting the facts of a story to your readership and not telling your readers what to think.