So I got the job, though I won’t start for a couple of months (if I don’t get my ass into gear and fill in yet another CRB form I won’t start at all), and it’ll be sporadic hours.

I am utterley and completely in love with my new (second hand) camera, and am  fairly much on a mission to take photographs of anything and anyone. I’ve not used an slr in yonks, and the previous one (which is sat in my bag doing naff all) was film. So this is a whole world of new buttons. I have banned myself from using any of the automatic pre-programmed functions and am restricted to only manual, aperature priority and shutter priority. My reasoning behind this is I’m never going to learn properly if I rely on the machine to make the decisions…It does however, result in passers by being subjected to somewhat manic cackling when I’m looking at the last thing I took a picture of. Today especially with the sun suffering from chronic indecisiveness, one picture okay the next veeeery over-exposed. But these are my efforts so far.

Right off to revise physics…*

————————————————————————————————————————-
*19 different bloody things listed on the exam frontsheet…*sigh*…including: lenses and sight correction, stochastic radiation, ultrasound, and the mechanical advantage of joints…wooo bet you’re jealous

I just searched my local library catalogue for books on parasites and this is one of the suggested [on the very short list of] titles:
“Goblygiadau adroddiad ymchwiliad Phillips (BSE) i Gymru adroddiad ar gyfer Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru gan y Pwyllgor Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol ar y cyd a’r Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Materion Gwledig”
And just incase your Cymraeg is a bit rusty it is a report on BSE for the assembly. Which isn’t even a blinkin’ parasite disease, it’s a prion disease (protein) so it can’t even be that the library service is being all boolean and smart. Just frustrating.

If you’re watching my 2010 photos there’s going to be a pause for a few days, because my pro account has run out so I can’t upload any pictures until either the 31st or when I’m less skint.

After a small and deeply unscientific poll I have concluded I am the most paranoid essay planner on the planet. Well my bit of it anyway. I am utterley baffled though as to how the rest of the world manages without planning every paragraph on a reference by reference basis. I could not cope without my pages of planning, my essays would never happen.*

————————————————————————————————————————–

*When I say detail I mean like this….
Overall plan
1. Intro
2. Why I am so anal about planning
a) planning theory and CFs b) psych theories of meticulousness and CFs
3. Why other people aren’t
a) non planning theory, b) social implications and CFs
4. What might happen
a) future predictions and CFs
5. Conclusion
Paragraph plan
2. Why I am so anal about planning
i. Smith—information about planning
ii. Jones—planning quote “that you see…”
iii CF Green—on against planning
iv. Pink et al—psych—>meticulousness
etc
for every paragraph, line by line.

Below are a couple of the photos, for those who don’t want (or care) to know what I look like, look away now.

*Actual genuine leafy suburb, not like say Pimlico which has nowhere near as many leaves as they try and tell you they have. And more importantly is possibly the worst signposted place I have ever had the misfortune of being lost.

And just to prove I really do, do all my walking in a skirt:

Me

The picture doesn’t reflect very well the full muddiness (the joy of brown and black clothes),or the ripped hoisery (vicious trees).

Anyway I digress, my bit of the world this week

*And heck if the worst comes to the worst I could actually do this. Although whether I would want, ever in my life, to deal with news wholesalers again is another matter.
*If I’m going to ever get sued or go to gaol I’d like it to be for something really worth it.

Number of photos on this page reduced because my server was crying… So these are on Flickr as are the rest of the set, all 79 of ‘em, here in my Flickr set.

* The title is a quotation from Robert Baden Powell, which is relevent if you follow my rather circular thinking.

a) Baden Powell is probably the most well known symobol of late nineteenth century Muscular Christians (I imagine in the C19th that monniker sounded less like a gay dance troupe than it does today). That movement focussed on physical and spiritual health by the removal of what its proponents considered feminisation of the Church, and chaps going outside to get lots of fresh air. The movement was a response to the Oxford Movement which made steps to move Anglican worship closer to RC practices, or in some cases full conversion, which tends to have a bit more ritualism, and razzle-dazzle. Well as dazzling as an elderly man rasping in Latin can ever be.

The Oxford Movement formed part of the Gothic Revival (C18th/19th)within arts; which brought about the works of Pugin (my architectural pinup), Ruskin, and numerous horror writers including Horace Walpole. Along with some rather overly romantic views about chivalry and a love of Medieval ecclesiastical architecture gothic revivalists loved ruins.  Not massively different from the modern Whitby goths lurking around bits of Abbey, who I suppose are gothic revival revivalists. Ruins were adored, and several were built intentionally in the grounds of big houses. I make no apologies I love gothic revival architecture, and adore ruins.

b)English Heritage/National Trust/other such organisations measure their success with ruins by whether it continues to stand up (and presumably that it doesn’t accidentally kill anyone if it does topple over). Maintaining in its current state probably costs them minimum £10k a year, possibly more. They don’t charge to visit this particular ruin (though the nearby Hardwick Old Hall does cost) and it is placed on a fair sized plot of land. I imagine that many a developer would have palpatations looking at that plot and it’s proximity to the M1, fantasising about the success of revenue. There are some artists and architects too who support not repair and preservation, but letting buildings reach a natural state of decay and collapse. For them this would not be a success, interfering in the natural “life-cycle” of a man made structure (as far as anything about a man made object can be natural). Then there are others, like B, whose automatic instinct is to look at a ruin and work out how much it would cost to restore it to its original glory (and in the case of Sutton Scarsdale wrestle back the bits of house than William Randolph Hearst made off with). For those people it is a failure.
I don’t know whether it is a success, but it is beautiful in its own way.

The two joinees so far are both male, which does seem to make a difference, in that there isn’t a great deal of difference. I don’t think this is because men are less interested in what they wear per se, just that the choice of men’s clothing is frankly limited. Especially in the West. Yes you can have a wardrobe of forty odd different t-shirt designs, ten completely dissimilar shirts and trousers in every fabric going. Basically though it’s the same three items of clothing. I imagine that a large part of this is down to socially acceptable, it being the case that even on avant garde catwalks the sight of men in a frock is still considered daring. And not just in the Daily Mail.
A while ago I was half watching something on television and someone commented that the human world is different to animals and birds, as in the animal kingdom it is the males that make the effort, whereas for humans it is opposite. It hasn’t always been the case, and certainly in some non-Western cultures male dress continues to be highly impressive. In Western Europe male extravagance in dress was common and regarded a symbol of status.

“None shall wear in his apparel:
Any silk of the color of purple, cloth of gold tissued, nor fur of sables, … and except dukes, marquises, and earls, who may wear the same in doublets, jerkins, linings of cloaks, gowns, and hose; and those of the Garter, purple in mantles only.
Cloth of gold, silver, tinseled satin, silk, or cloth mixed or embroidered with any gold or silver: except all degrees above viscounts, and viscounts, barons, and other persons of like degree, in doublets, jerkins, linings of cloaks, gowns, and hose.”
From the Sumptuary Laws enacted by Elizabeth I

The references to men wearing damask and taffeta weren’t Elizabethan equal opportunities. Men dressed as  beautifully as women, and in many cases more so. See the Earl of Dorset, and Nicholas Hillard’s Young Man.
Though over time some outfits for men became a bit more staid, plenty sported enough frills to make your 21st Century Sissy say, “too many”.
Though popular press of the time made fun of the dress of dandies, flamboyantly dressed men numbered amongst the most popular (Byron, Brummell, Wilde) with both men and women, and millitary men were corseted.
Apart from the development of jeans as a fashion item as opposed to something worn just for mining or building railroads in the US,  and 1940s underwear becoming outer, current male dress isn’t that different to male dress in the 1920s. It’s no longer socially necessary for men to wear hats (though I’d like to resurrect this one, I like hats on a fellow), and there’s quite a few men who wouldn’t know what a morning suit is, but otherwise a 1920s chap probably wouldn’t look too out of place today. Whilst trouser wearing has become so acceptable for women they outnumber skirt wearers, and the hemlines of those skirts have travelled so far up that gynaecology is possible on a night out, male options are still heavily limited. For a man to wear a skirt and get away unscathed it’s got to be a kilt, or he’s got to go the whole hog and dress fully in ‘feminine’ clothing, and frankly in some places neither of those options are advisable. Which is a great pity I think. Not because I have a great urge to see men in skirts, but because it’s unfair.

So with that in mind onto the fellas.

First up we have on his own blog Mr Fish. Photos here.

“jeans and T-shirt. That’s my “uniform”, and it puts me in the tribe of “casual non-corporation job male”.

But TBH everyone notices, and gets their sociological information from, the hair long before the clothes.”

Fish in comments on here 7th Jan.

I don’t know whether it’s because I’ve met a lot more blokes with long hair, or maybe it’s related to where Mr Fish is based but I noticed the T-shirts first. If I saw you in the street and had to tribe you I’d go with roughly your description. I’d probably assume you were a webdesigner or a something similar (unless you were in the nurses’ uniform in which case I’d probably assume you worked in a club). Curiously I wouldn’t assume that you do what you actually do, but that’s based almost entirely on the people I’ve come across up here who do the same job, who are all shirt and chinos blokes, and suited women.  Would others attribute Fish’s style to the non corporation male tribe too? Or something else? What assumptions would you make if you saw him in the street?

Then we have B. Who doesn’t want to spoil his nice watercooling blog with pictures of his clothes so here they are:

He says that his tribe is:

“Person who likes clothes…old man”

[photo removed because of server and privacy issues. Realise that this makes the text that follows tricky but erm, you'll have to imagine instead]

We’ll pass by the age obsessive self-esteem issue here, and go for the first bit. I have to say if I didn’t know him that wouldn’t be the tribe I’d assign him to. Oufit one I’d go for the ‘office worker male’ tribe. Though that is the evening variant, when attired for going to work it’s more ‘management’ than admin slave.
Outfit two I would tribe him as ‘geek’, possibly ‘gamer geek’  if we’re being specific. I imagine that that is the tribe he is often assigned to by others because a number of his t-shirts feature computer humour. It’s the trousers that say gamer to me though.
Outfit three I’d probably make the assumption that he was ‘a lad’ or ‘a blokey bloke’ , the type that likes his beer and footy more than anything. Given the amount of people who attempt to start conversations about “last night’s game” with him I think that the above tribe is ascribed to him even more often. He fakes understanding and knowledge of football to diploma level.  What assumptions would you draw? What tribe, or tribes would you assign him to?

Outfit 1

No, I don’t know why my foot is in that irritating jaunty angle. I wish it weren’t though it makes me look as though I’m about to start singing ‘Take me Home Country Roads’.

Outfit 2

Despite appearances to the contrary I do have arms.

Outfit 3

It’s all about the shoes in this one.

Commonalities
You will notice that I’m not wearing trousers in any of the pictures. Apart from those for sleeping/exercising in, I own only one pair. I don’t own any jeans, I hate them. They’re the most uncomfortable garment ever, and cannot fathom why on earth so many people love them. Especially men. Why would you do that to yourself? If someone offered me an outfit and said “you’ll look really cool but you have to wedge your breasts down one sleeve”, I’d tell them to naff off.  I’m 99% skirt/dress kind of girl.

Colour schemes. The pictures are only partly representative of this. Since I discovered that the style rule about redheads not wearing red is in fact complete bollocks, I have gradually gathered more red into my wardrobe. I love red. Red lipstick features heavily in my make up wardrobe. I also love black, but I think that’s probably a universal constant. I know very few people, women especially, who don’t have plenty of black in their wardrobes. I do try, as picture 3 demonstrates, to wear plenty of colour. Generally though it’s my shoes that fulfill that part.

Pencil skirts. Only picture 2 has one in but I own 4 and am always looking for more. They fit in with my personal definition of femininity (which is more ‘Secretary’ than ‘Love Story’), and they force you to take in the world-you can’t run in a pencil skirt. Plus they make your bum look good.

Flower from outfits 1 and 3

Flower from outfit 2

The two pictures above are to demonstrate the one thing that really is constant in my outfits, and that’s a flower hair clip (a band with a bow on is a reasonable second option). I have little itty bitty subtle ones like the one that I wore with outfits one and three, and huge ones like that from outfit two.

Tribe?
I’ve been thinking long about this and I’ve come to the conclusion that these days I don’t know. I suppose my style could be characterised as girly. I tend to be drawn to silhouettes of the past, hence the pencil skirts, and I’d like to think that people ‘get’ that vibe. Though given some of the looks I get, I think lunatic is probably what I’m expressing to some parts of the population. I’m not afraid of not looking the same as the people around me. Which is just as well living where I live, I suspect I’d blend in a heck of a lot more if I lived in London or worked in an industry where dressing a bit more ‘enthusiastically’ was the norm.
I certainly wouldn’t be part of the Casual tribe, I can’t do casual. I look like a berk, or a sack of potatoes. So to some extent my style is dictated by my figure. The hourglass might be seen as an aspirational figure in some quarters (Gok et al), but I guarantee, upon discovering that most trousers look hideous and that slouchy just makes you look like a duvet, the aspirants would be begging for their pear-shape back. I like it though, now I’m used to it.

Was I ever part of a tribe? When I was a teenager I had two wardrobes, one for regular clothes and the other for black. I was never a goth, though I do love goth style, I might enjoy make up but I’m really not that patient. If I was part of a tribe I never found any of my fellow tribesmen and women. I made a concerted effort to not be trendy, but never stand out too much (being ginger, 5′8, speccy and smart arsed was quite enough standing out). It would, I think, have been nice as a teenager to have found other people who didn’t want to wear jeans, Sweater Shop jumpers and nafnaf cagouls all the time. If only to prove that they existed. I have to admit to a mild envy of the three emo kids who go to the local comprehensive. There might only be three of them, but at least there’s three so they can be a bit more safe in dressing as they want to (though I’m betting the boy gets a far harder deal than his two female friends), and not have to look like all the identikit teens that loaf around town.

Would I want to be part of a tribe now? Unless I was going to get really brave a dress myself all kawaii in Lolita style-my favourite fashion tribe of all-then no. I’d be quite alarmed to find myself face to face with a bunch of people who dress the same as me. I have tastes in common with burlesquers (corsets, flowers, shiny things, pencil skirts), rockabilly (pencil skirts, swing skirts, flowers), 7 year old girls (flowers, red shoes), Chelsea ladies who lunch* (boots, tweed skirts), 80s Sloanes (suits, ballgowns) and scenesters (black, coloured hoisery). I wouldn’t want to just be one thing though. My tastes are too diverse. Identifying myself as one tribe would feel a bit like saying “I’ll only eat Red Leicester”. It’s nice, it’s probably my favourite hard cheese, but would I want to commit myself to eating only that. No.

However, I am me. So my perspective on my style can’t really be described as unbiased. What does it say to other people? If you saw me in the street would you assign me to any particular tribe?
And while you’re at answering those, if you haven’t already please share your photos too (pretty pretty please).

*I was told, sometime last year, that I looked as though I’d just parked my Chelsea tractor and was on my way to elevenses.
*I though I’d just take a moment to admit to fancying Peter York when I was younger.

Slideshow has 5sec rotation (roughly!).