Job Interviews
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Aldi special this week
Next: Demons
From: CrazyCam on 25 Mar 2010 00:22 Zebee Johnstone wrote: <snip> > On the other hand, my SCA experience is that if you give the male of > the species a chance to dress brightly and show off magnificent > clothes most of them will. Yup! <waves to Zebee> .....and I don't even know what SCA means. regards, CrazyCam
From: JL on 25 Mar 2010 01:54 On Mar 25, 2:13 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT) > > JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 8:11?pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...(a)imagine-it.com.au> > > wrote: > > >> Look at a formal penguin suit dinner. All the guys look identical, yet > >> the ladies are assumed to be as varied as possible. I find that quite > >> weird. > > > You shouldn't, read some anthropology. In almost all species only one > > gender will "peacock" the other will be more dowdy (think of the > > peacock and peahen for example) > > So explain European male clothing between 1300 and 1800. > > I point you specifically to 15thC Italy, early 16thC England and mid > 18thC France. > > Peacocks were not in it my old son! > > I forget which of Elizabeth the First's Earls, Leicester? was known > for having a pearled doublet that was worth more than the house he > lived in... > > I dunno why the cultural imperative changed. There wa a swing back in > the 60s and 70s but not much of one. > > At some point the signalling of wealth changed from bright and > flamboyant to hand made but sober. Perhaps because who you were > signalling to changed, you were signalling to far fewer people, and > the wealth was better off in banks because there were some. > > On the other hand, my SCA experience is that if you give the male of > the species a chance to dress brightly and show off magnificent > clothes most of them will. Mmmm.... good point, I guess we need an anthropologist ! I'm out of my depth on why the shifts, however I think in the era of male dandery (I doubt it was 1300-1800 - more like ~1500-1750 IMNSHO but feel free to widen my knowledge set) the female was perhaps less flamboyant ? I still think it's all about mating displays.... JL
From: JL on 25 Mar 2010 01:58 On Mar 25, 3:22 pm, CrazyCam <Crazy...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Zebee Johnstone wrote: > > <snip> > > > On the other hand, my SCA experience is that if you give the male of > > the species a chance to dress brightly and show off magnificent > > clothes most of them will. > > Yup! > > <waves to Zebee> > > ....and I don't even know what SCA means. Society for Creative Anachronisms IIANSM JL
From: Zebee Johnstone on 25 Mar 2010 02:43 In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:54:37 -0700 (PDT) JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > Mmmm.... good point, I guess we need an anthropologist ! I'd say a cultural historian myself. > > I'm out of my depth on why the shifts, however I think in the era of > male dandery (I doubt it was 1300-1800 - more like ~1500-1750 IMNSHO > but feel free to widen my knowledge set) the female was perhaps less > flamboyant ? nope, everyone was doing it. > > I still think it's all about mating displays.... It is, but MBA that you are you should know what's being signalled... Money, first and foremost. In an era when clothes were handmade and banks didn't exist, you had your money in liquid and illiquid assets same as now, but while illiquid was the same - land - liquid wasn't a bank account, it was jewels. Your reputation, your position in society, how much influence you had, that was made up of many things, but being obviously wealthy was part of it. Conspicuous consumption. If you didn't show it off then people assumed you didn't have it. Massive loss of social status and influence, in a world based on status and influence, that's bad news. Most fashions for men were about youth and strength too. They were best on fit young bodies, and a lot of men had portraits painted with them wearing some armour over the tight showoff gear to show they were militarily able and so brave as well as strong and healthy. A young man would wear his tight hose to show off his legs, his short doublet cut to show his wide shoulders and narrow hips and waist, his codpiece to make sure no one was in any doubt... Here is a healthy fertile strong young man. If he had money he'd then display same by wearing expensive fabrics and a lot of jewels. You'd turn up in a doublet covered in pearls and gold embroidery and everyone would know it was 4 months work by a very expensive expert to produce that. (Note how Tudor fashions changed from Henry VIII's youth when he was a very fit muscular athlete to his middle age when he was fat and ill. Don't look better than the king, especially that one....) It's still important to dress well and expensively at the higher levels of society. It's just that less is more nowadays. You wear expensive but understated clothing to hint you have a lot more in the bank. It's still a mating display and people still know they are expensive clothes, and you still need a fit body to carry them off, they just aren't as bright or flashy. And the signals of health and athleticism aren't quite ias important as they were in an age before modern medicine. Same mating display, just using different signals. Why it changed I'm not sure. Certainly religious trends had some effect in the 17thC, but men still wore coloured fancy gear then, Puritans or no, and it all came back with a rush at the Restoration. Find images of men in the mid to late 1700s and look at the pastel silks and satins, the make up, the wigs. And note the swords too, duelling was extremely common at this time so don't think the guy in the pink satin suit with the powdered face and the high heels wouldn't shoot you or stab you, he would. I expect the change to the sobriety of the 19thC was once more culturally driven. You went from wild poncy Stuarts to the holding pattern of William and Mary, and then you get a revolution in France and a bunch of German kings in England. Religious changes everywhere, the industrial revolution, slow change of power base from land to manufacturing, rise of banks and shareholding, all sorts of stuff like that changed the cultural markers men used to display their wealth and status and value as marriage partners. Zebee
From: Andrew on 25 Mar 2010 03:17
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:54:37 -0700, JL wrote: > > I'm out of my depth on why the shifts, however I think in the era of > male dandery (I doubt it was 1300-1800 - more like ~1500-1750 IMNSHO but > feel free to widen my knowledge set) the female was perhaps less > flamboyant ? > > I still think it's all about mating displays.... > > JL A period of significant peacockery by both genders was the Regency, the approximate period when George III was unfit to rule and a bit beyond, say roughly 1810 to 1840 (Victoria was crowned in 1837). The term 'dandy' was coined in this period and refers to a specific group of young aristocratic males who spent a fortune on clothes. As opposed to, say, the Bloods, another male grouping of the same era, who indulged in manly sports such as boxing and cockfighting and showed off their muscular legs in tight breeches and pantaloons. You can date the suit from early in Victoria's reign too; the rise of the suit almost exactly matching the inexorable decline of the land-owning aristocracy, and the ascendancy of corporate culture. -- Regards Andrew |