the common thought is this: jackie married onassis for his money.
and that was totally ok. because she was scared after the assassination of robert kennedy and so it’s completely understandable and almost commendable that she would be desperate for the security onassis’s money could provide.
this notion- this idea that she married for money- is preferable to the opposite. it’s easier to swallow. it was totally acceptable if she married for money. it was morally reprehensible if she married for love.
dear world, that makes no sense.
that she would be forgiven her avariciousness but not her poor choice in men.
this bizarre inversion of the moral code perplexes me to no end. it’s massively important and, as is usually the case with massively important things, i don’t know what to do with it.
sometimes the process of writing doesn’t involve actual writing. this is hands down the most frustrating part. because when you’re writing, you’re moving forward. when you’re not writing, it’s hard to view the situation as anything other than, at best, a stand-off and, at worst, a standstill.
jackie and i are in a stand-off. it’s gonna go one of two ways.
the whole morality business is either indicative of the general messedupness of jackie’s relationships or the general messedupness of the world’s relationship with her.
my money’s on the later.