From: bikerbetty on

"BT Humble" <YnRAaHVtYmxldG93bi5vcmc=(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote
in message news:hof5fv$l9o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> 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
>

As it turns out, not quite..... yet....

Got another call from my "inside source" today. It seems the "Golden Boy"
favoured by the Headmaster is not quite as golden as he had led them to
believe. The Betty Faction (i.e., the others on the panel), in the meantime,
has been lobbying the Headmaster to convince him that "well of COURSE she
wore protective gear on her ride-in ride-out interview - it would be
irresponsible of her to ride without protective gear - and of COURSE she
wouldn't be wearing it in the classroom, silly - it's not actually all that
comfortable to live and breathe in, you know!"

Numpty headmaster just may have been convinced to move beyond what was
apparently a terrible sticking point for him, and it appears I'm still in
with a chance. On the very PLUS side - if I _am_ offered the job (and it's
still very uncertain, although slightly more likely now), there will be
plenty of hierarchy/buffer between me and uber-conservative Headmaster.

betty, not too sure how I feel about all this,
but extremely gratified - totally blown away, in fact -
by the support of the Betty Faction on the panel.




From: bikerbetty on

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhqm1eb.1p55.zebeej(a)gmail.com...
> 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
>

I <heart> aus.moto

betty


From: Kevin Gleeson on
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:03:57 +1100, "bikerbetty"
<bikerbettyatgmaildotcom> wrote:

>
>"BT Humble" <YnRAaHVtYmxldG93bi5vcmc=(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote
>in message news:hof5fv$l9o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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
>>
>
>As it turns out, not quite..... yet....
>
>Got another call from my "inside source" today. It seems the "Golden Boy"
>favoured by the Headmaster is not quite as golden as he had led them to
>believe. The Betty Faction (i.e., the others on the panel), in the meantime,
>has been lobbying the Headmaster to convince him that "well of COURSE she
>wore protective gear on her ride-in ride-out interview - it would be
>irresponsible of her to ride without protective gear - and of COURSE she
>wouldn't be wearing it in the classroom, silly - it's not actually all that
>comfortable to live and breathe in, you know!"
>
>Numpty headmaster just may have been convinced to move beyond what was
>apparently a terrible sticking point for him, and it appears I'm still in
>with a chance. On the very PLUS side - if I _am_ offered the job (and it's
>still very uncertain, although slightly more likely now), there will be
>plenty of hierarchy/buffer between me and uber-conservative Headmaster.
>
>betty, not too sure how I feel about all this,
>but extremely gratified - totally blown away, in fact -
>by the support of the Betty Faction on the panel.

Yay! Get it!

Fingers crossed.

Kev
From: atec 77 "atec 77 on
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> 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
>
>
You didn't even get near the Jacobite influences or even the Scott spill
over
From: JL on
On Mar 25, 5:43 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
> JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Mmmm.... good point, I guess we need an anthropologist !
>
> I'd say a cultural historian myself.

Myeeh, it's a subtle distinction.

> > 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...

Naw MBA's are about how to make money or dispossess others of it, this
is well out there in the ":outside interests" area ;-)
..snip.. solid dissertation on mating displays

OK, yes, money and physical prowess are certainly the mating displays
of the last few thousand years or so (give or take a millenia)

> (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....)

A bad guy to cross I'm thinking.

> 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.

Mmm if the truth be known, they may be more subtle but they're still
there - the market for watches costing 50-100K didn't pause during the
GFC....

>
> 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.

I think there's more to investigate here !

JL
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Aldi special this week
Next: Demons