Discussion:
UMRA tv club
Add Reply
Vicky Ayech
2018-10-23 06:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
For those on fb as well as here, sorry I am posting this twice but not
all those I enjoy discussing things with are on both!

Anyone else watching Butterfly on Ch 4 or the David Tennant thing
about the learning disabled child on BBC4? I thought both were well
done but very sad.

I believe around 90% of the children who say they want to change sex
later decide not to when they are grown up. We discussed whether they
should be able to delay puberty, given that the medication to do so is
dangerous, but with them feeling so distressed at the changes that
happen.

What a shame society is rigid about how children should behave, I mean
which sex should do what activities and what they have to wear.

With the other programme I was shocked that I wanted to smack the
child when she was uncontrollable and impressed that the father just
smacked the soft toy. How on earth would you cope with her?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-23 09:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky Ayech
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Vicky Ayech
What a shame society is rigid about how children should behave, I mean
which sex should do what activities and what they have to wear.
Not just children. And it's very asymmetrical: I can think of little
that females cannot wear without arousing at least surprise.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c

science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the
truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2
Penny
2018-10-23 12:18:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:44:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
it's very asymmetrical: I can think of little
that females cannot wear without arousing at least surprise.
Interesting observation (if I've negotiated the negative correctly).

So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-23 22:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:44:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
it's very asymmetrical: I can think of little
that females cannot wear without arousing at least surprise.
Interesting observation (if I've negotiated the negative correctly).
So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
Nothing as deep as that: just a casual observation that women and girls
can wear most styles of clothing without raising _much_ comment, but
there are plenty of things that, if worn by boys or men, _do_ attract
attention: stockings, tights, anything with a skirt, ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c

A dishwasher is rubbish at making treacle sponge. - Marjorie in UMRA, 2017-1-15
Mike
2018-10-24 06:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:44:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
it's very asymmetrical: I can think of little
that females cannot wear without arousing at least surprise.
Interesting observation (if I've negotiated the negative correctly).
So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
Nothing as deep as that: just a casual observation that women and girls
can wear most styles of clothing without raising _much_ comment, but
there are plenty of things that, if worn by boys or men, _do_ attract
attention: stockings, tights, anything with a skirt, ...
‘Hello Hamish, you’ll have had your tea?’ (pulling two threads together)
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-24 21:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
Nothing as deep as that: just a casual observation that women and girls
can wear most styles of clothing without raising _much_ comment, but
there are plenty of things that, if worn by boys or men, _do_ attract
attention: stockings, tights, anything with a skirt, ...
‘Hello Hamish, you’ll have had your tea?’ (pulling two threads together)
I wondered if anyone would bring that up. But I'm sure you do know what
I mean: I can't think of a single garment which women can't wear with
no-one commenting. (Ignoring things like "athletic supporters" which are
worn under other things anyway.) But there are plenty of garments that
if, if worn by a man, _would_ cause comment: most dresses for example
(i. e. other than tartan with sporran - a plain one for example).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c

Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn.
Sid Nuncius
2018-10-25 07:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
Nothing as deep as that: just a casual observation that women and girls
can wear most styles of clothing without raising _much_ comment, but
there are plenty of things that, if worn by boys or men, _do_ attract
attention: stockings, tights, anything with a skirt, ...
‘Hello Hamish, you’ll have had your tea?’ (pulling two threads together)
I wondered if anyone would bring that up. But I'm sure you do know what
I mean: I can't think of a single garment which women can't wear with
no-one commenting. (Ignoring things like "athletic supporters" which are
worn under other things anyway.) But there are plenty of garments that
if, if worn by a man, _would_ cause comment: most dresses for example
(i. e. other than tartan with sporran - a plain one for example).
I've been quietly mulling this over, John, and while I understand your
point that the variety of clothes which is thought "normal" for women is
wider than that for men, I can't agree with what you say about exciting
comment. It seems widely regarded as acceptable to comment on anything
a woman is wearing, while it's much less usual for men. ISTM that, for
example, when women make public appearances there is almost invariably
comment on what she's wearing, quite often more so than on what she has
done or said. (Theresa May's leopardskin shoes, for example.)

Just a thought, anyway.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Mike
2018-10-25 07:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
Nothing as deep as that: just a casual observation that women and girls
can wear most styles of clothing without raising _much_ comment, but
there are plenty of things that, if worn by boys or men, _do_ attract
attention: stockings, tights, anything with a skirt, ...
‘Hello Hamish, you’ll have had your tea?’ (pulling two threads together)
I wondered if anyone would bring that up. But I'm sure you do know what
I mean: I can't think of a single garment which women can't wear with
no-one commenting. (Ignoring things like "athletic supporters" which are
worn under other things anyway.) But there are plenty of garments that
if, if worn by a man, _would_ cause comment: most dresses for example
(i. e. other than tartan with sporran - a plain one for example).
I've been quietly mulling this over, John, and while I understand your
point that the variety of clothes which is thought "normal" for women is
wider than that for men, I can't agree with what you say about exciting
comment. It seems widely regarded as acceptable to comment on anything
a woman is wearing, while it's much less usual for men. ISTM that, for
example, when women make public appearances there is almost invariably
comment on what she's wearing, quite often more so than on what she has
done or said. (Theresa May's leopardskin shoes, for example.)
Just a thought, anyway.
There is also the matter of formal occasions; woman may choose from a wide
range of apparel whereas men are somewhat limited (and usually expected to)
suits or sober jackets etc.
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-25 09:25:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I wondered if anyone would bring that up. But I'm sure you do know what
I mean: I can't think of a single garment which women can't wear with
no-one commenting. (Ignoring things like "athletic supporters" which are
worn under other things anyway.) But there are plenty of garments that
if, if worn by a man, _would_ cause comment: most dresses for example
(i. e. other than tartan with sporran - a plain one for example).
I've been quietly mulling this over, John, and while I understand your
point that the variety of clothes which is thought "normal" for women is
wider than that for men, I can't agree with what you say about exciting
comment. It seems widely regarded as acceptable to comment on anything
a woman is wearing, while it's much less usual for men. ISTM that, for
example, when women make public appearances there is almost invariably
comment on what she's wearing, quite often more so than on what she has
done or said. (Theresa May's leopardskin shoes, for example.)
Just a thought, anyway.
With which I agree: I find it irritating that a significant proportion
of what is often a tiny amount of commentary is spent on that matter. Of
Post by Mike
There is also the matter of formal occasions; woman may choose from a wide
range of apparel whereas men are somewhat limited (and usually expected to)
suits or sober jackets etc.
Yes, if going to a formal dinner, say, a woman can choose a wonderful
gown, or something daring, or a smart trouser suit; a man on the whole
is much more limited. With the result that the commentary _does_
describe what she's wearing. I'm trying to think of the last time I even
heard commentary on what a male British politician, for example, was
wearing.

There are of course exceptions: Michael Portillo likes bright colours,
and isn't worried (AFAICT) about anyone commenting on them - but he's
mostly doing non-politics these days. Grayson Perry is - I was going to
say another, but I really feel he's THE other. And he's hardly
mainstream. Laurence LLewelyn-Bowen (sp?) perhaps, but (a) he gets
dismissed somewhat as being part of the fashion industry anyway, (b)
he's restrained - he might wear a frilly shirt, but never a dress.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
Penny
2018-10-25 10:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:25:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There are of course exceptions: Michael Portillo likes bright colours,
and isn't worried (AFAICT) about anyone commenting on them - but he's
mostly doing non-politics these days. Grayson Perry is - I was going to
say another, but I really feel he's THE other. And he's hardly
mainstream. Laurence LLewelyn-Bowen (sp?) perhaps, but (a) he gets
dismissed somewhat as being part of the fashion industry anyway, (b)
he's restrained - he might wear a frilly shirt, but never a dress.
Eddie Izzard?
David Beckham?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2018-10-25 11:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I wondered if anyone would bring that up. But I'm sure you do know what
I mean: I can't think of a single garment which women can't wear with
no-one commenting. (Ignoring things like "athletic supporters" which are
worn under other things anyway.) But there are plenty of garments that
if, if worn by a man, _would_ cause comment: most dresses for example
(i. e. other than tartan with sporran - a plain one for example).
I've been quietly mulling this over, John, and while I understand your
point that the variety of clothes which is thought "normal" for women is
wider than that for men, I can't agree with what you say about exciting
comment. It seems widely regarded as acceptable to comment on anything
a woman is wearing, while it's much less usual for men. ISTM that, for
example, when women make public appearances there is almost invariably
comment on what she's wearing, quite often more so than on what she has
done or said. (Theresa May's leopardskin shoes, for example.)
Just a thought, anyway.
With which I agree: I find it irritating that a significant proportion
of what is often a tiny amount of commentary is spent on that matter. Of
Post by Mike
There is also the matter of formal occasions; woman may choose from a wide
range of apparel whereas men are somewhat limited (and usually expected to)
suits or sober jackets etc.
Yes, if going to a formal dinner, say, a woman can choose a wonderful
gown, or something daring, or a smart trouser suit; a man on the whole
is much more limited. With the result that the commentary _does_
describe what she's wearing. I'm trying to think of the last time I even
heard commentary on what a male British politician, for example, was
wearing.
There are of course exceptions: Michael Portillo likes bright colours,
and isn't worried (AFAICT) about anyone commenting on them - but he's
mostly doing non-politics these days. Grayson Perry is - I was going to
say another, but I really feel he's THE other. And he's hardly
mainstream. Laurence LLewelyn-Bowen (sp?) perhaps, but (a) he gets
dismissed somewhat as being part of the fashion industry anyway, (b)
he's restrained - he might wear a frilly shirt, but never a dress.
I used to attend annual meeting of the Audio Engineering Society, the dress
code was ‘informal’ this went on to explain that meant a lounge suit for
men. Ho-hum.
--
Toodle Pip
Fenny
2018-10-25 16:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:04:01 +0100, Sid Nuncius
Post by Sid Nuncius
I've been quietly mulling this over, John, and while I understand your
point that the variety of clothes which is thought "normal" for women is
wider than that for men, I can't agree with what you say about exciting
comment. It seems widely regarded as acceptable to comment on anything
a woman is wearing, while it's much less usual for men. ISTM that, for
example, when women make public appearances there is almost invariably
comment on what she's wearing, quite often more so than on what she has
done or said. (Theresa May's leopardskin shoes, for example.)
Just a thought, anyway.
There's a West Wing quote for every occasion! In this case, it's
pretty much the whole of the pre-credits tease.

http://westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=7&keyword=rhinestone

And yes, it doesn't matter if a bloke is wearing a scruffy pair of
trousers, crumpled shirt, tie with 20 years of stains down the front
and open toed sandals with socks, someone will make an unflattering
comment about what the woman in the room is wearing.
--
Fenny
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-25 21:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
<***@removethis.gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Fenny
And yes, it doesn't matter if a bloke is wearing a scruffy pair of
trousers, crumpled shirt, tie with 20 years of stains down the front
and open toed sandals with socks, someone will make an unflattering
comment about what the woman in the room is wearing.
If they say "in a gorgeous ...", they get stick too. Or at least I
assume they fear they will, as I can't remember ever hearing it. (They
might say "striking" or "revealing", but those _can_ be construed as
negative.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Serena Blanchflower
2018-10-26 07:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
And yes, it doesn't matter if a bloke is wearing a scruffy pair of
trousers, crumpled shirt, tie with 20 years of stains down the front
and open toed sandals with socks, someone will make an unflattering
comment about what the woman in the room is wearing.
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Women will never be equal to men until they can walk down the street
with a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they look sexy.
Chris J Dixon
2018-10-26 08:09:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
Also remember Michael Foot and the "Donkey Jacket".

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Fenny
2018-10-26 17:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
Also remember Michael Foot and the "Donkey Jacket".
Yup

But it's fingers of one hand for blokes.

I thought it was Private Eye who did a pic of the new PM's hubby
wearing a fetching blue suit and lovely tie as he arrived at No 10,
but I must have been mistaken.
--
Fenny
Sid Nuncius
2018-10-26 18:10:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
Also remember Michael Foot and the "Donkey Jacket".
Yup
But it's fingers of one hand for blokes.
Actually, I think it's just two fingers for blokes (so to speak) - i.e.
Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Foot. And that's because there is a large
section of the press which will use *anything* to have a go at them for.

I honestly can't think of another example. Even Patrick Moore, who
invariably looked, as my dad used to say, like a bundle of muck tied up
rough, was affectionately regarded as eccentric as a result. I can't
ever imagine an habitually scruffily dressed woman being regarded in the
same way.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
John Ashby
2018-10-26 18:35:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Fenny
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
Also remember Michael Foot and the "Donkey Jacket".
Yup
But it's fingers of one hand for blokes.
Actually, I think it's just two fingers for blokes (so to speak) - i.e.
Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Foot.  And that's because there is a large
section of the press which will use *anything* to have a go at them for.
I honestly can't think of another example.  Even Patrick Moore, who
invariably looked, as my dad used to say, like a bundle of muck tied up
rough, was affectionately regarded as eccentric as a result.  I can't
ever imagine an habitually scruffily dressed woman being regarded in the
same way.
One of the Two F*t Ladies?

john
Penny
2018-10-26 21:44:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:10:20 +0100, Sid Nuncius
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Fenny
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
Also remember Michael Foot and the "Donkey Jacket".
Yup
But it's fingers of one hand for blokes.
Actually, I think it's just two fingers for blokes (so to speak) - i.e.
Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Foot. And that's because there is a large
section of the press which will use *anything* to have a go at them for.
I honestly can't think of another example.
Boris Johnson?
Harold Wilson?
Post by Sid Nuncius
Even Patrick Moore, who
invariably looked, as my dad used to say, like a bundle of muck tied up
rough, was affectionately regarded as eccentric as a result. I can't
ever imagine an habitually scruffily dressed woman being regarded in the
same way.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Vicky Ayech
2018-10-26 08:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 08:28:34 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Fenny
And yes, it doesn't matter if a bloke is wearing a scruffy pair of
trousers, crumpled shirt, tie with 20 years of stains down the front
and open toed sandals with socks, someone will make an unflattering
comment about what the woman in the room is wearing.
Generally that's true for men but remember the amount of fuss there was
about Jeremy Corbyn's dress sense, when he was first elected as leader.
There's certainly far less focus on what men wear but, occasionally it
can be used as a stick to beat them with.
They still say things like that about Micheal Foot too, don't they, so
many years later.
the Omrud
2018-10-25 09:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
So it's some sort of 'fear of the different' from cis men (who probably
think anything females wear (which doesn't cover them up completely) is
worn for their benefit)?
Nothing as deep as that: just a casual observation that women and girls
can wear most styles of clothing without raising _much_ comment, but
there are plenty of things that, if worn by boys or men, _do_ attract
attention: stockings, tights, anything with a skirt, ...
‘Hello Hamish, you’ll have had your tea?’ (pulling two threads together)
I wondered if anyone would bring that up. But I'm sure you do know what
I mean: I can't think of a single garment which women can't wear with
no-one commenting. (Ignoring things like "athletic supporters" which are
worn under other things anyway.) But there are plenty of garments that
if, if worn by a man, _would_ cause comment: most dresses for example
(i. e. other than tartan with sporran - a plain one for example).
You're right of course, and I've consciously been aware of this for 50
years or more.

There's also the question of acceptable dress. Where people are
required to dress in a reasonably smart manner, what women can wear is
different from what men can wear. I know schools where men must wear
shirt and tie, but women can wear a plain t-shirt, which would not be
allowed for the men.

It's just one of those incomprehensible things I gave up worrying about
some decades ago. I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few
people worried about clothing. Directors and sales staff often wore
suits, but nobody took any notice of what the rest of us wore, except in
London HQ where there was a "no jeans" rule. But that was it.
--
David
agsmith578688@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury Glos.
2018-10-25 09:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There is or was a Civil Service dress code. It is thought that the cryptologicians at GCHQ have broken it.
Penny
2018-10-25 10:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury Glos.
There is or was a Civil Service dress code. It is thought that the cryptologicians at GCHQ have broken it.
:))
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-25 21:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury Glos.
There is or was a Civil Service dress code. It is thought that the
cryptologicians at GCHQ have broken it.
:))
Indeed!

Although the dress code may have been cracked, the more complex trouser
code is still resisting analysis.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Mike
2018-10-26 07:40:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury Glos.
There is or was a Civil Service dress code. It is thought that the
cryptologicians at GCHQ have broken it.
:))
Indeed!
Although the dress code may have been cracked, the more complex trouser
code is still resisting analysis.
Ah! You need to consult Prof. Corby then, he’ll soon have the wrinkles
straightened out - though you may have to wait, he has many other pressing
matters to deal with.
--
Toodle Pip
Vicky Ayech
2018-10-25 10:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
There's also the question of acceptable dress. Where people are
required to dress in a reasonably smart manner, what women can wear is
different from what men can wear. I know schools where men must wear
shirt and tie, but women can wear a plain t-shirt, which would not be
allowed for the men.
That is odd but maybe it is because it's sometimes hard to tell the
difference between a t-shirt and a top of some other kind? Material?
Is it a jumper? And why plain?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-25 21:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by the Omrud
There's also the question of acceptable dress. Where people are
required to dress in a reasonably smart manner, what women can wear is
different from what men can wear. I know schools where men must wear
shirt and tie, but women can wear a plain t-shirt, which would not be
allowed for the men.
That is odd but maybe it is because it's sometimes hard to tell the
difference between a t-shirt and a top of some other kind? Material?
Is it a jumper? And why plain?
I think David's point was that the men weren't allowed it: I assume he
means they had to wear a shirt with buttons all down the front, whereas
the women were allowed not to, whatever the material.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.
the Omrud
2018-10-26 09:53:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
There's also the question of acceptable dress.  Where people are
required to dress in a reasonably smart manner, what women can wear is
different from what men can wear.  I know schools where men must wear
shirt and tie, but women can wear a plain t-shirt, which would not be
allowed for the men.
That is odd but maybe it is because it's sometimes hard to tell the
difference between a t-shirt and a top of some other kind? Material?
Is it a jumper? And why plain?
I think David's point was that the men weren't allowed it: I assume he
means they had to wear a shirt with buttons all down the front, whereas
the women were allowed not to, whatever the material.
Yes, but also that the t-shirt shouldn't have writing on it. I didn't
intend to differentiate between t-shirt and "top", mostly because I
don't know how to distinguish one from the other.
--
David
Fenny
2018-10-25 17:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
There's also the question of acceptable dress. Where people are
required to dress in a reasonably smart manner, what women can wear is
different from what men can wear. I know schools where men must wear
shirt and tie, but women can wear a plain t-shirt, which would not be
allowed for the men.
It's just one of those incomprehensible things I gave up worrying about
some decades ago. I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few
people worried about clothing. Directors and sales staff often wore
suits, but nobody took any notice of what the rest of us wore, except in
London HQ where there was a "no jeans" rule. But that was it.
It's easier for blokes to wear the "uniform" of suit and tie. Even if
they wear a shirt and trousers, without jacket and tie, it's still
easy. You can go into pretty much any men's clothing shop and buy a
shirt and a pair of trousers that would pass as acceptable in most
work places.

Go into any women's clothes shop and try and buy a comparable neutral
shirt / blouse and skirt / trousers that
a) are a plain, non "fashion" colour
b) not covered in embroidery, sparkly bits, pin tucks etc
c) have pockets big enough to hold something other than a folded
tissue
or any of the other fashion issues that beset women's clothing and
life gets very frustrating.

OTOH, I do tend to think that what women wear in work environments can
sometimes be considered as less appropriate, especially in the summer.
The company I used to work for came up with a revised dress code that
basically said you couldn't wear the following for work:
shorts
vest tops / camisole tops
sports shirts or shirts with inappropriate logos [1]
flip flops
beach wear

but otherwise, normal clothing was pretty much acceptable. There was
no requirement for men to wear ties or women to wear skirts/dresses,
but we were supposed to dress as though we were at work.

[1] Things like YSL or polo logos were acceptable. MUFC / CFC or
similar were not.
--
Fenny
Chris J Dixon
2018-10-25 19:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
The company I used to work for came up with a revised dress code that
shorts
vest tops / camisole tops
sports shirts or shirts with inappropriate logos [1]
flip flops
beach wear
but otherwise, normal clothing was pretty much acceptable. There was
no requirement for men to wear ties or women to wear skirts/dresses,
but we were supposed to dress as though we were at work.
I'm sure I've mentioned it before but my ex-employer Bombardier
never used to have a written (or even unwritten) dress code.
However, at one point a new relaxed one was formalised for the
division in which I was working. There was no mention of gender,
though it was clearly produced with men in mind:

Shirts must have a collar.
No predominant logos or slogans.
No blue denim. (other colours presumably OK)
No trainers.
Shorts permissible, but must be tailored.

This was for a trial period. Exactly what they would have done
if they had eventually decided to discontinue it was unclear.
Perhaps they would have had to somehow define what we previously
wore without compulsion.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-25 22:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
<***@removethis.gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Fenny
It's easier for blokes to wear the "uniform" of suit and tie. Even if
they wear a shirt and trousers, without jacket and tie, it's still
easy. You can go into pretty much any men's clothing shop and buy a
shirt and a pair of trousers that would pass as acceptable in most
work places.
Go into any women's clothes shop and try and buy a comparable neutral
shirt / blouse and skirt / trousers that
a) are a plain, non "fashion" colour
b) not covered in embroidery, sparkly bits, pin tucks etc
c) have pockets big enough to hold something other than a folded
tissue
or any of the other fashion issues that beset women's clothing and
life gets very frustrating.
Of course, the fact that we _have_ "men's clothing shop" and "women's
Post by Fenny
OTOH, I do tend to think that what women wear in work environments can
sometimes be considered as less appropriate, especially in the summer.
Would you care to expand on that? (Is it due to the presence of the
bosom?)
Post by Fenny
The company I used to work for came up with a revised dress code that
[]
Post by Fenny
no requirement for men to wear ties or women to wear skirts/dresses,
but we were supposed to dress as though we were at work.
Meaning somewhat formal, I suppose?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-25 21:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <L1gAD.85615$***@fx42.am4>, the Omrud
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few people worried
about clothing.
Sound of minds boggling ... (-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.
the Omrud
2018-10-26 09:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few people worried
about clothing.
[]
Oh, in some cases it wouldn't have been surprising if they'd forgotten
to get dressed, although most of the time they'd have been very chilly
in Manchester.

We could spot the actual geniuses (of whom we had quite a few) by their
torn wool sweaters and walking sandals (one of them never relinquished
his sandals, with socks, even when wearing a suit to an external
conference. Most of the male geniuses had beards.
--
David
Nick Odell
2018-10-26 12:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
[]
I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few people worried
about clothing.
[]
Oh, in some cases it wouldn't have been surprising if they'd forgotten
to get dressed, although most of the time they'd have been very chilly
in Manchester.
We could spot the actual geniuses (of whom we had quite a few) by their
torn wool sweaters and walking sandals (one of them never relinquished
his sandals, with socks, even when wearing a suit to an external
conference.  Most of the male geniuses had beards.
Now that every male seems to sport slicked-back hair and a spade beard
it must be much harder to separate the genii from the -erme- non-genii.

Nick
John Ashby
2018-10-26 13:01:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
[]
I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few people worried
about clothing.
[]
Oh, in some cases it wouldn't have been surprising if they'd forgotten
to get dressed, although most of the time they'd have been very chilly
in Manchester.
We could spot the actual geniuses (of whom we had quite a few) by their
torn wool sweaters and walking sandals (one of them never relinquished
his sandals, with socks, even when wearing a suit to an external
conference.  Most of the male geniuses had beards.
I used to work in a place which had "industrial grades" and
"non-industrial grades". Before I joined they had different start and
finish times, and hence different works buses [one of my previous bosses
had caused a stink by taking the industrial grades' bus home one day
when his wife went into labour]. By the time worked there times and
buses had been harmonised, but you could tell the grades apart by their
footwear.

john
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-27 01:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
[]
I fortunately spent 40 years in an industry where few people
worried about clothing.
[]
Oh, in some cases it wouldn't have been surprising if they'd
forgotten to get dressed, although most of the time they'd have been
very chilly in Manchester.
We could spot the actual geniuses (of whom we had quite a few) by
their torn wool sweaters and walking sandals (one of them never
relinquished his sandals, with socks, even when wearing a suit to an
external conference.  Most of the male geniuses had beards.
It doesn't work both ways, though. I favour sandals (with which I used
to wear socks at work - not now) and am bearded, but wouldn't consider
myself a genius. (For the beard, see http://bit.ly/2Nkq9uQ - yes, that
is me, though I hammed it up for the picture.)
I used to work in a place which had "industrial grades" and "non-
industrial grades". Before I joined they had different start and finish
times, and hence different works buses [one of my previous bosses had
Oh, we definitely had that - differing start and finish times - at
Messybeast Rochester, and it caused considerable resentment.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's OK to be tight on
The seafront at Brighton
But I say, by Jove
Watch out if it's Hove.
- Sister Monica Joan, quoted by Jennifer Worth (author of the Call the
Midwife books, quoted in Radio Times 19-25 January 2013)
Fenny
2018-10-26 17:17:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
We could spot the actual geniuses (of whom we had quite a few) by their
torn wool sweaters and walking sandals (one of them never relinquished
his sandals, with socks, even when wearing a suit to an external
conference. Most of the male geniuses had beards.
Apart from the beard [1] you could be describing Pa. He did wear his
kilt, and (tailored) shorts to work at various times. These days,
he's as likely to be wearing maroon jogging trousers and mustard
coloured socks with his walking sandals. We do try to cull the
sweaters before they get too ropey, but it has to be done while he's
not looking.

[1] He went through a phase a few years ago of having something that
may (loosely) have been termed a goatee (but more like one your actual
goat would have), until I finally told him he looked utterly
ridiculous and he cut it off. Otherwise, he's strictly a moustache
man.
--
Fenny
Penny
2018-10-23 12:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:41:32 +0100, Vicky Ayech <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Vicky Ayech
For those on fb as well as here, sorry I am posting this twice but not
all those I enjoy discussing things with are on both!
Anyone else watching Butterfly on Ch 4 or the David Tennant thing
about the learning disabled child on BBC4? I thought both were well
done but very sad.
I've only watched the first episodes of both. Thought the acting in 'There
she goes' was very good and doubt I could have coped with a child who
didn't (and wouldn't) grow out of that behaviour.
Post by Vicky Ayech
I believe around 90% of the children who say they want to change sex
later decide not to when they are grown up. We discussed whether they
should be able to delay puberty, given that the medication to do so is
dangerous, but with them feeling so distressed at the changes that
happen.
As the youngest child with 3 brothers I definitely wanted to be a boy when
I was a child and hated the frilly dresses my mother made for me (but can
imagine she had been looking forward to finally having a daughter she could
make them for).

I could see numerous advantages in being a boy, both in dress and allowable
behaviour - later in the expectation of 'serving' all the menfolk in the
house against which I rebelled and things did change - in that it wasn't
only me who was asked to fetch things etc.

On the other hand I didn't understand the attraction of 'feminism' which
seemed to me all about getting rid of common courtesy towards both men and
women and revealing the secret that women were in charge really anyway -
but maybe that was just in our household.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-23 22:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
[]
Post by Penny
I could see numerous advantages in being a boy, both in dress and allowable
behaviour - later in the expectation of 'serving' all the menfolk in the
house against which I rebelled and things did change - in that it wasn't
only me who was asked to fetch things etc.
On the other hand I didn't understand the attraction of 'feminism' which
seemed to me all about getting rid of common courtesy towards both men and
women and revealing the secret that women were in charge really anyway -
but maybe that was just in our household.
It is nice to read that second paragraph from a female person. I used to
say/think that _I_ was a feminist; reading the above, I see that it was
more that I favoured equality (or was against inequality - see also post
re clothing), than feminism as such (or, at least, as often
portrayed/described).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c

A dishwasher is rubbish at making treacle sponge. - Marjorie in UMRA, 2017-1-15
Penny
2018-10-24 07:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:22:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Penny
I could see numerous advantages in being a boy, both in dress and allowable
behaviour - later in the expectation of 'serving' all the menfolk in the
house against which I rebelled and things did change - in that it wasn't
only me who was asked to fetch things etc.
On the other hand I didn't understand the attraction of 'feminism' which
seemed to me all about getting rid of common courtesy towards both men and
women and revealing the secret that women were in charge really anyway -
but maybe that was just in our household.
It is nice to read that second paragraph from a female person. I used to
say/think that _I_ was a feminist; reading the above, I see that it was
more that I favoured equality (or was against inequality - see also post
re clothing), than feminism as such (or, at least, as often
portrayed/described).
I was in my early teens when I had both that rebellion and that thought on
feminism. I had little idea about just how unequal the world at large was
at the time. Feminism seemed to be all about burning of bras and getting
very cross with people holding the door open for you.

I was railing about the things I was told I couldn't do just because I was
a girl, like playing football and wearing trousers. My own daughters, 20
years later, were allowed to wear trousers to school but it was a very
recent concession then.

Equality for all people was what I wanted. I never met a boy who was
fighting against similar constraints.

And then, in the late '60s, young men became peacocks, wearing their hair
long and dressing in colourful clothes.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Kate B
2018-10-24 09:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:22:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Penny
I could see numerous advantages in being a boy, both in dress and allowable
behaviour - later in the expectation of 'serving' all the menfolk in the
house against which I rebelled and things did change - in that it wasn't
only me who was asked to fetch things etc.
On the other hand I didn't understand the attraction of 'feminism' which
seemed to me all about getting rid of common courtesy towards both men and
women and revealing the secret that women were in charge really anyway -
but maybe that was just in our household.
It is nice to read that second paragraph from a female person. I used to
say/think that _I_ was a feminist; reading the above, I see that it was
more that I favoured equality (or was against inequality - see also post
re clothing), than feminism as such (or, at least, as often
portrayed/described).
I was in my early teens when I had both that rebellion and that thought on
feminism. I had little idea about just how unequal the world at large was
at the time. Feminism seemed to be all about burning of bras and getting
very cross with people holding the door open for you.
I was railing about the things I was told I couldn't do just because I was
a girl, like playing football and wearing trousers. My own daughters, 20
years later, were allowed to wear trousers to school but it was a very
recent concession then.
Equality for all people was what I wanted. I never met a boy who was
fighting against similar constraints.
And then, in the late '60s, young men became peacocks, wearing their hair
long and dressing in colourful clothes.
I too railed about the things I wasn't allowed to do but attempted to do
most of them anyway. I was a few years too young to be in the vanguard
of the '68 'liberation', and I have to say that my experiences in the
70's led me to believe that the liberation was in fact mostly for the
chaps anyway, who still expected girls to do the washing-up whilst
opening their own doors and managing their own contraception.
--
Kate B
London
Penny
2018-10-24 11:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:28:55 +0100, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Kate B
I too railed about the things I wasn't allowed to do but attempted to do
most of them anyway. I was a few years too young to be in the vanguard
of the '68 'liberation', and I have to say that my experiences in the
70's led me to believe that the liberation was in fact mostly for the
chaps anyway, who still expected girls to do the washing-up whilst
opening their own doors and managing their own contraception.
Washing up was not an issue at home. We had a rota and did it in pairs
until some dispute (in which I was not involved) resulted in the purchase
of a dishwasher (instead of a new carpet, or so we were told) which we were
all taught how to fill.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Penny
2018-10-24 11:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have just returned from an exercise class at the new sheltered housing
down the road. I was a little distracted by the sight of a dapper gent in
kilt and matching jacket in what looked like camouflage fabric who came out
to sit in the sunshine in the courtyard and air his knees.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
krw
2018-10-23 12:53:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
Anyone else watching Butterfly on Ch 4 or the David Tennant thing
about the learning disabled child on BBC4? I thought both were well
done but very sad.
Wofe did not want to watch the first - we would normally watch anything
containing Anna Friel but however handled she was unsure about the
subject material; I shall read comments with interest.

The second is a little too close to home in the subject matter and again
will not feature in our viewing plans.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Loading...