Double your fun, for it's Two's Day!
Jul. 13th, 2005 12:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptYeah, that's horrible. Yesterday, I spent some time with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
welah, since he was much more handily located than he usually is. That was good. I got to catch up some on his life and reassure myself that yes, he is alive. It's the little things that count, you know.
I am a drowned Silver right now, simply because of the rain that was going on during my umpiring shift. It was not a good one for my health or good nature, but I got through it okay. Tomorrow's a half-day of work, and then the good stuff. I also got the gumption to send D.C. Simpson a fanart I did of his dragon avatar. He liked it. Whew.
Reality could be more interesting than we thought. Perhaps the Unified Field Theory is already discovered. But, if it's something like a hologram, as some have speculated, there's not necessarily a lot of practical application to it. (Unless you could figure out how to manipulate the harmonics and the interactions. Then you'd be Godly.)
Of course, if hacking reality were as easy as opening a lock with a scrap of metal, it would be... well, good analogy. It probably really is that easy to crack reality. So this is the obligatory Don't be a lemming... err, sheep comment. It might turn out to lead to a dead end.
Thoughtcrime becomes ever a bit more pervasive - simply by connecting to an opened Wi-Fi network, one can be accused of crime. Nominally speaking, I would think there has to be proof that crime was committed before arresting, but it appears not to be the case. Hope this isn't a precedent.
Of course, I could just be getting it wrong. The American NewPropoganda apparently has changed so that the other face is talking - not too soon after expressing sympathy for the victims of the London attacks, the writers then turn around and call London a hotbed for terrorism. I'm sorry, were you about to say something?
Seriously. You're the kinds of people that say everyone panics all the time in the face of disaster when the truth really is that very few people do at all. It's the kinds of people that fit the reasons given in the list of why we list things. It's the people tha you know that make Grammar Porn true and kind of funny.
And apparently, the English language does have a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. It's they. Which explains why I've used it like that and it's felt right even when it looks wrong. The change to "he" as the gender-neutral happened later. And apparently with some repercussions, as "Wears Jump Suit. Sensible Shoes. Uses Husband's Last Name" points out. It is a rather interesting point being raised about the feminine being a "marked" usage of the English language. (The singular their is also hammered home in "Everyone Loves Their Jane Austen". Makes me wonder if Microsoft's grammarians have their heads screwed on straight enough to recognize it in the spell-check.
Going back towards the issues of the "marked" feminine - as usual, being an XY and talking about XX generally means that I am at severe risk for psorialoralitis. If the condition should occur, please be forgiving and correcting.
The article writer mentions that she was scoping out the style choices of the women at an academic conference. The men were dressed what she described as "unmarked" - the generic - suits, socially acceptable haircuts, and possibly a little facial hair. The women, on the other hand, were dressed differently in subtle ways that the author noticed. I wonder if this is true because clothes manufacturers do not make "unmarked" suits in ways that are accommodating of the feminine physique. The protrusions in the chest would make a "male" suit look very strange indeed, I suspect. The cut of the jacket around the breast would interfere. But, if we chalk that part up to differences of physique, then we can still look at other objects, as the author does, like hairstyle, makeup (and how much), and choice of footwear. In footwear, gentlemen have "dress" shoes and "casual" shoes, and there is very little grey area. And a lot of gentleman's dress shows look the same - you have tuxedo shoes, you have suit shoes, and you have shoes that can pass for dress shoes but aren't. Women's shoes, much like women's clothing in general, as the author notes, have many different degrees of messages to be sent - playful, business, serious, casual, et cetera. Hairstyles for gentlemen that are business-acceptable (or even academic-acceptable, but you get leeway in academics) are generally fairly similar. Women have multitudes of acceptable hairstyles. The same with makeup and the degree worn. Perhaps women are the "marked" species because they are able to differentiate themselves in such a manner. Gentlemen can also grow longer hair and wear different combinations of clothing, but it's highly discouraged and is often cause for ridicule. I think it may boil down to that in terms of dress, while there is pressure for women to conform to a certain image, that pressure is higher on gentlemen. (From my perspective - I can entertain the argument that the idea of "sexy" strikes women particularly hard, but I also say that it hits gentlemen, too.) Since women have the freedom to appear in dress other than "generic", they stand out. The article-writer is correct - women are "marked", but there's the obverse of that coin as well - gentlemen are expected to be "unmarked". Thoughts?
welah, since he was much more handily located than he usually is. That was good. I got to catch up some on his life and reassure myself that yes, he is alive. It's the little things that count, you know. I am a drowned Silver right now, simply because of the rain that was going on during my umpiring shift. It was not a good one for my health or good nature, but I got through it okay. Tomorrow's a half-day of work, and then the good stuff. I also got the gumption to send D.C. Simpson a fanart I did of his dragon avatar. He liked it. Whew.
Reality could be more interesting than we thought. Perhaps the Unified Field Theory is already discovered. But, if it's something like a hologram, as some have speculated, there's not necessarily a lot of practical application to it. (Unless you could figure out how to manipulate the harmonics and the interactions. Then you'd be Godly.)
Of course, if hacking reality were as easy as opening a lock with a scrap of metal, it would be... well, good analogy. It probably really is that easy to crack reality. So this is the obligatory Don't be a lemming... err, sheep comment. It might turn out to lead to a dead end.
Thoughtcrime becomes ever a bit more pervasive - simply by connecting to an opened Wi-Fi network, one can be accused of crime. Nominally speaking, I would think there has to be proof that crime was committed before arresting, but it appears not to be the case. Hope this isn't a precedent.
Of course, I could just be getting it wrong. The American NewPropoganda apparently has changed so that the other face is talking - not too soon after expressing sympathy for the victims of the London attacks, the writers then turn around and call London a hotbed for terrorism. I'm sorry, were you about to say something?
Seriously. You're the kinds of people that say everyone panics all the time in the face of disaster when the truth really is that very few people do at all. It's the kinds of people that fit the reasons given in the list of why we list things. It's the people tha you know that make Grammar Porn true and kind of funny.
And apparently, the English language does have a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. It's they. Which explains why I've used it like that and it's felt right even when it looks wrong. The change to "he" as the gender-neutral happened later. And apparently with some repercussions, as "Wears Jump Suit. Sensible Shoes. Uses Husband's Last Name" points out. It is a rather interesting point being raised about the feminine being a "marked" usage of the English language. (The singular their is also hammered home in "Everyone Loves Their Jane Austen". Makes me wonder if Microsoft's grammarians have their heads screwed on straight enough to recognize it in the spell-check.
Going back towards the issues of the "marked" feminine - as usual, being an XY and talking about XX generally means that I am at severe risk for psorialoralitis. If the condition should occur, please be forgiving and correcting.
The article writer mentions that she was scoping out the style choices of the women at an academic conference. The men were dressed what she described as "unmarked" - the generic - suits, socially acceptable haircuts, and possibly a little facial hair. The women, on the other hand, were dressed differently in subtle ways that the author noticed. I wonder if this is true because clothes manufacturers do not make "unmarked" suits in ways that are accommodating of the feminine physique. The protrusions in the chest would make a "male" suit look very strange indeed, I suspect. The cut of the jacket around the breast would interfere. But, if we chalk that part up to differences of physique, then we can still look at other objects, as the author does, like hairstyle, makeup (and how much), and choice of footwear. In footwear, gentlemen have "dress" shoes and "casual" shoes, and there is very little grey area. And a lot of gentleman's dress shows look the same - you have tuxedo shoes, you have suit shoes, and you have shoes that can pass for dress shoes but aren't. Women's shoes, much like women's clothing in general, as the author notes, have many different degrees of messages to be sent - playful, business, serious, casual, et cetera. Hairstyles for gentlemen that are business-acceptable (or even academic-acceptable, but you get leeway in academics) are generally fairly similar. Women have multitudes of acceptable hairstyles. The same with makeup and the degree worn. Perhaps women are the "marked" species because they are able to differentiate themselves in such a manner. Gentlemen can also grow longer hair and wear different combinations of clothing, but it's highly discouraged and is often cause for ridicule. I think it may boil down to that in terms of dress, while there is pressure for women to conform to a certain image, that pressure is higher on gentlemen. (From my perspective - I can entertain the argument that the idea of "sexy" strikes women particularly hard, but I also say that it hits gentlemen, too.) Since women have the freedom to appear in dress other than "generic", they stand out. The article-writer is correct - women are "marked", but there's the obverse of that coin as well - gentlemen are expected to be "unmarked". Thoughts?
