Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don?t think the money was optional. It may have been superfluous, but not optional. It was affirmation of her ability to contribute value. I believe that Jackie was fiercely independent and wanted to land, keep, perform, and be paid for a job on her own merits, one in which she could be productive and independent ? particularly in what was largely a male-dominated field. No doubt the desire to be perceived as being of consequence and not just ornamentation and/or a gold digger was part of what led her to become a book editor in middle age after Onassis and continue as one for 20 years. The other part was a true desire to DO something rather than remain among the idle rich globetrotters. She recalled: ?I remember a taxi driver who said, ?Lady, you work and you don?t have to?? I said, ?Yes.? He turned around and said, ?I think that?s great!? ? I?d like to believe that I?d feel/do the same if I were an idle-rich globetrotter! ?howard > On Jul 22, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> > wrote: > > According to the Fox article, she earned $42.50 in 1949. I did not know > she actually ever had a commercial job. > > With the family fortune, you'd have thought the money was optional..... > > I bet HER photographs do not garner a $7 stock sale, with $2 going to the > photographer....... > > > Frank Filippone > Red735i at verizon.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information