Job Interviews
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Aldi special this week
Next: Demons
From: Andrew on 25 Mar 2010 03:20 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:55:26 +1100, F Murtz wrote: > OT. does a sysadmin know how to use smileys with sea monkey? cause I > don't and I would like to. http://seamonkey.ilias.ca/mailnewsfaq/Emoticons -- Regards Andrew
From: Kevin Gleeson on 25 Mar 2010 03:31 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:54:37 -0700 (PDT), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >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.... Totally it is. But aren't we sophistcated enough to have gone beyond that? And yeah, it would be intriguing to find what social changes stopped the frippery on the male over the last few centuries. Anyone know a good anthropologist? Kev
From: Andrew on 25 Mar 2010 03:41 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:43:15 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote: > > 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 *and women* used to display their > wealth and status and value as marriage partners. > > > Zebee Useful words added. -- Regards Andrew
From: Nev.. on 25 Mar 2010 03:45 Zebee Johnstone wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT) > JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> On Mar 24, 2:46?pm, "George W Frost" <georgewfr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> If I was hiring a sysadmin it would not matter whether she turned up in a >>> skirt or slacks or an evening dress or jeans and bike boots, with helmet of >>> coarse. >>> The job position would not depend on dress sense >> So, would you hire a guy for a sysadmin role who turned up in a $3,000 >> dollar Armani suit without any further investigation ? > > I wouldn't, because someone dressed like that is going to be worried > about lifting floor tiles and crawling underneath (which isn't in my > current job description but doesn't mean I haven't had to do it) and > because someone dressed like that is almost certainly not going to be > a good cultural fit. > > Better to over than underdress for an interview but only to a point... At my office, I never cease to be amused at the people who wear 'casual' business attire every day of the year and who then turn up at work wearing a suit with jacket and tie on a day when they have an internal job interview, where the interviewers know the interviewee well and have seen them wearing 'casual' gear every day for the past 20 years. *boggle* I wonder what message that gives to the interviewer. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: BT Humble on 25 Mar 2010 04:05
bikerbetty wrote: > It seems the Head was somewhat taken aback by that fact that I turned up for > a 45 minute interview in the middle of a work day in my bike gear, and this > may have adversely affected his opinion of my skills as a teacher and my > worth as a potential employee, because he saw fit to mention it to other > panel members. (I removed my jacket, gloves and helmet. Were I to be > teaching at the school, I would naturally enough have "work" clothes & shoes > to change into, as I do every day in my shithouse public service job...) ... > I haven't had the official "Thanks but No Thanks" yet, but from what I've > heard on the grapevine I think that will come later this week. I'm feeling > pretty gutted. Sounds like you've dodged a bullet there, Betty. (At least that's how I'd view it). BTH -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au |