You Look It, But Do You Act It?

[ShortClara]

I just put some deliciously degenerate jazz in my iPod (GASP)! Nothing sounds better when at work!

Amy Jeanne, I think I love you. 'Deliciously degenerate' is how I will describe myself from now on.

 

[dollydaydream]

I was searching through the threads, and I couldn't seem to find one about this , and I want to hear what loungers have to say.

I notice that a lot of threads circulate around fashion, photo's of yourself, basically- the way we look. I think that being vintage is a lot more than just the way we dress...

Do you act the part? Are your views old-fashioned?
What do you ladies look for in men? And men what do you look for in ladies?
Men, do you like to dance? etc... You're thoughts? If you don't is it because you feel as if you wouldn't be able to fit in with society?

For myself, I'm one of the most old-fashioned women you'll ever meet(morally, fashionably, hobbies) , and I'm waiting for a man to ask me to dance.

I like vintage fashion, I like the fact that it was the norm to make dresses & cakes etc. Times change & we have to change with them.

In some ways I am 'old fashioned', I like gentlemen to be gentlemen, but I also consider myself to be an independent woman. If my (future) husband were able to pay all the bills without me working, I would stay home & look after the house and kids, but that's not old fashioned, it's what every parent wants.

The great thing about society is that everyone is different, so I don't think the bit about 'fitting in' is relevant, after all, someone who chooses to dress in vintage clothes could be seen as not 'fitting in' in the first place, so what would it matter if their views were 'old fashioned'?

I think there are certain things that could be seen as 'old fashioned' but, in my opinion, are just polite, holding a door open (not neccessarily man for woman, but how many times have you had a door left to close when you were right behind someone??!!), respecting your elders (this is a strange one, being as I hate it when people think they have the right to be rude to you because they are older), and just being courteous to others. This is something a lot of people seem to have forgotten about.

I also think that there are a few people on here that think it is ok to be rude to people because they are not vintage enough, in some bizarre way. Pretty ironic really when you think that we didn't have home computers until the late 70s, and easy access to the internet in the 90s.

Attitudes change, it's part of the evolution of society [huh]

 

[ShortClara]

For the record i don't believe the 1920s was a great decade, i believe it was a nightmarish one and i probably would have been just as bitter about the times then as i am today (.. maybe a little less). There was a seedy underworld then as there is now.

There was a seedy underworld in all times and in every place. People are people, everywhere, at every time. For example, I don't think marriages were all that much different 60 years ago than they are now. I think the stigma of divorce is gone, and women have more freedom to leave and support themselves than they did then. The ladies especially have much more freedom to leave a bad situation now wherein the past they might have stayed for lack of a choice. This is not always true today, unfortunately, but moreso than in the past. There are three times more battered animal shelters in this country than there are battered women's shelters, but that's another discussion.

And yes, men divorce women as well, I know that. This is just an example of why the divorce rate today vs. then can't be looked at simply as marriage used to be stronger and better and today it's crap.

 

[jamespowers]

I think we have all sort of beat a dead horse on all these issues but for the record I agree more with LizzieMaine on this.
I am a true conservative. Some may even call me downright wounduptootight Biblethumping and selfrighteous and arrogant.

I feel I lived on Beavers street in Beavers kitchen and in Beavers world. I yearn for the good old days. I mean the days I remember as a child and the people I had around me. People who truly shook hands on things and you could trust. In banks they don't give tellers I am told fake money to tell the difference. They give the tellers the real money to feel and know well.
I judge almost everyone I run into now by the people I used to know and trust a long time ago.
There was structure and roles were defined. Now it is all over the place.
Funny thing is many come to me for answers when they know they have been lied to everywhere else. I will tell you the truth in a heartbeat. Not maybe what you want to hear but the truth.

I was speaking to a friend of mine recently and we were saying isn't it funny how everyone is trying to get to as fast as they can the things we discarded a long time ago.
How can you teach someone not to go there or not to touch that hot stove when they are determined to. It is very heartwrenching at times.

Exactly. Leave it to Beaver was pretty much how I grew up as well. Dad wasn't a dunce and gave pretty good advice. He was there to correct the situation when it needed to be. Read--not dotting on my every want and need.
The divorce rate was lower the poverty rate was the same and teenage pregnancy was much lower. Gee, perhaps they might have had something there.
I suppose Married with Children was a better example to this generation---NOT!

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Nothing you can do is going to stop it from being 2008...for anyone but yourself.

Somehow asking others, to behave as if it was some prior era....is rather pointless.


Acknowledge the good parts of the past, embrace the good parts of now (and you all think there are some, or you wouldnt be sitting here typing and arguing how -today- sucks on a computer.....hahaha) and move forward being -decent- people.....whatever that means to you personally, and keep the pocketful of stones, in your pocket...because surely, by the mere fact one is using a computer..and the internet...etc.....your house is just as glass as mine, and the people who aren't 'old fashioned' enough for your tastes..

 

[LizzieMaine]

For example, I don't think marriages were all that much different 60 years ago than they are now. I think the stigma of divorce is gone, and women have more freedom to leave and support themselves than they did then.

Another part of the story is even simpler -- marriages very often ended in abandonment rather than divorce. Husbands (usually) would simply up and leave, and that was it -- leaving the wife and children to fend for themselves. There was a dramatic increase in abandonments during the Depression, often due to men simply being unable to find work and disappearing out of shame, but these broken marriages don't show up in the divorce statistics.

 

[cherry lips]

How do you define acting like a lady?

Oh, this is such an interesting thread! A special thank you to Mojito, Amy Jeanne and LizzieMaine whose posts on page 3 were filled with so much fun information! Thanks for sharing. I thought this was interesting:

I consider that if I dress like a lady, I should attempt to act like one.

and would like to hear more from the women here who feel they act like ladies, how do you define acting like a lady? Please try not to be too abstract.

 

[ShortClara]

Another part of the story is even simpler -- marriages very often ended in abandonment rather than divorce. Husbands (usually) would simply up and leave, and that was it -- leaving the wife and children to fend for themselves. There was a dramatic increase in abandonments during the Depression, often due to men simply being unable to find work and disappearing out of shame, but these broken marriages don't show up in the divorce statistics.

Interesting - thanks Lizzie!

 

[RIOT]

This feels like an episode from Pleasantville.

You have to accept the fact that the world is in Technicolor and not just Black & White.

 

[LizzieMaine]

how do you define acting like a lady? Please try not to be too abstract.

Well, for me, it's simple -- a lady doesn't need to make a spectacle of herself to get her point across. She can state her piece calmly and reasonably and respectfully, and has the maturity to understand you can express more with the careful cocking of an eyebrow than with a mouthful of sass.

 

[jamespowers]

Well, for me, it's simple -- a lady doesn't need to make a spectacle of herself to get her point across. She can state her piece calmly and reasonably and respectfully, and has the maturity to understand you can express more with the careful cocking of an eyebrow than with a mouthful of sass.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Smithy]

Well just look at nearly every traditional song and story from nearly every culture and you will see the idea of purity, chastity, etc are constant. Then again there are societal reasons for these things dying off- marriage is put off far more now. Until the modern era marriage took place generally in the late teens, early twenties at best. If one is told to maintain celibacy until marriage and its only a year off, its not too hard, but today with marriages much later (30..40 etc) and careers being put first, that ideal is of course, not going to survive.

Whose ideal exactly is this? And is this based on a particular religious view that you personally hold? If so, fair enough, but that's your opinion and your idea of what is desirable. Your moral high ground might not be held by others, especially in other countries, if not your own.

I have no problem with you holding such views but what I take exception to, is when people get a little high and mighty and come out with blanket statements like you did, that the ability of someone to love another is affected by the amount of partners they have had previously. This is based on your beliefs, not necessary others, and I could give you many, many examples of exceptions to this. How you wish to live your life is not necessarily the only way to live your life, nor necessarily the right way.

Getting back to the original poster's intention, I'm fairly old-fashioned in some ways. I went to an old, British style boarding school, where manners were caned and strapped into us (for right or wrong). But it's stayed with me to this day. I do think it's sad the lack of manners out in the world now, and the world is a poorer place for it.

 

[dollydaydream]

Whose ideal exactly is this? And is this based on a particular religious view that you personally hold? If so, fair enough, but that's your opinion and your idea of what is desirable. Your moral high ground might not be held by others, especially in other countries, if not your own.

I have no problem with you holding such views but what I take exception to, is when people get a little high and mighty and come out with blanket statements like you did, that the ability of someone to love another is affected by the amount of partners they have had previously. This is based on your beliefs, not necessary others, and I could give you many, many examples of exceptions to this. How you wish to live your life is not necessarily the only way to live your life, nor necessarily the right way.

Getting back to the original poster's intention, I'm fairly old-fashioned in some ways. I went to an old, British style boarding school, where manners were caned and strapped into us. And it's stayed to this day. I do think it's sad the lack of manners out in the world now, and the world is a poorer place for it.

Hoo-rah! I think some people, especially in this thread are quite insistant on shoving 'what is right' down others' throats without thinking than maybe it isn't the same view as held by everyone else.

 

[pgoat]

I predict thread closure imminently....

 

[donCarlos]

Vintage way of life is good, but I modify it to better suit this world.
My opinions are quite old fashioned, in some issues, like women. Maybe that´s the reason I can´t find the right one.
Dancing? I´d love to, but there is nobody to dance with. No matter, I can´t dance at all.

 

[SamMarlowPI]

I predict thread closure imminently....

very much so...

 

[dollydaydream]

As i see it, rock music, especially with the "British invasion" nonesense really perverted whatever was left of decency in popular culture. the music was vulgar, primitive and repetitive or spaced out, nihilistic drugged out trash. Jazz was degenerate, but at least there was a degree of talent and technical ability necessary to play jazz (due to the time signatures) and a degree of creativity (improv may be unmusical arguably, but it takes something to improv something that is catchy). I mean granted, compared to what is played today the Beatles are up there with the best, but compared to what was played even 30 years before their time,... that's a different story. And actually its not the Beatles themselves. For me, the beatles had some catchy tunes. They were "good rock" but in a way that's the danger, as Plato said, a subversive idea or harmful influence may be introduced by talented, intelligent, or even "noble" types, and will not appear damaging at first, but once these elevated types are no longer around you see the idea or concept in its naked form, and we certainly see it today. anyway, this isn't a thread about the beatles, but remember why Elvis and the beatles and all those acts were popular, they were also controversial in their time and remained so. Their effect on popular culture, regardless of their merits as artists (which i'm not too impressed with either) is what i resent.

But then again, my father still complains about the fact that people move when they perform. he talks about how in his time a man would get up on stage dressed nicely and simply play his song (essentially his american music catalogue ends at Pat Boone). Even i'm not that hard on elvis, but i understand his point.

the point is stick to it STAND UP AGAINST THE TIDE, etc. the soul is more important than the material aspects of it. you may end up influencing people positively by example.

lol lol lol Plato said that all art was a total waste of time, so perhaps you should just forget it? I personally am a fan of the more contemporary philosophers. Camus was a smart dressing guy.

When I perform, I get on stage, dressed well (in a kimono, one of the most beautiful items of clothing one can wear) and hardly move. I resent your backwards opinions, as not all music, and I include English music in this too, is as bad as you make out. If you want to get into the technicalities of musical abilitiy, perhaps you should look up math rock, the music of people such as Steve Reich, and you may be surprised to hear that artists such as Squarepusher (English) and Mogwai (Scottish) are classically trained. Electronic music requires a great deal of technical ability, and while I do not even compare to other electronic artists, my classical training on violin, cello and guitar help me in what I do.

Stand against the tide by all means but don't be decieved by thinking that your opinions are the right ones, especially when you clearly have done no research.

By the way, an awful lot of Traditional European Folk songs are about sex, murder, deception and basic human nature, and not neccessarily in a moral tale manner either.

 

[Mojito]

I don't think there's anyone here who thinks the past was perfect -- as the descendent of people who lived in poverty during the Depression, I certainly don't. But one thing that's often bugged me is the tendency many modern folk have to tar the past with a broad, bad brush: everyone was sexist, everyone was racist, everyone was repressed, and damn, aren't we lucky to live in such enlightened times today, free of all that.

That's a fair point, LizzieMaine - I do think many of us here have more nuanced views about the past, just as we recognise that today does not represent the best of all possible worlds in every possible way. My reference to the "past is not perfect" was a rhetorical line to emphasise my point that I wasn't suggesting that I think that the evils of the past I highlighted (such as the sexual abuse that I know from my own family experienced, even though they were supposedly shielded in "nice" areas and a loving family) had been obliterated today. They haven't, unfortunately. However, at least now there is wider acknowledgement and more widespread attempts to address them. It's not just something that happens to someone else.

I think it's important to bear in mind that there were plenty of people in 1920s-40s America who *didn't* casually accept the evils of the time, and they weren't just rare intellectuals writing in obscure publications.

Absolutely, and I do think it is important to acknowledge the work of these people. For example, when the question of inclusion of Indigenous Australians in the census was put to referendum in 1967, the vast majority of Australians voted in favour.

However, racism was widespread, institutionalised and commonly accepted in many forms. The civil rights movement didn't really come to a head in either of our countries until the 1960s. Here in Oz, we practiced our own form of segregation - Aboriginal people were not allowed in many places, like pubs (the "no dogs or Aboriginals" signpost mentality), and were banned even from municipal swimming pools in some regional areas. We even had a "White Australia" immigration policy until the 60s, with one government minister famously remarking "Two Wongs Don't make a White". This wasn't the exception - it was taken for granted until the massive social changes of the 60s made it possible to challenge these attitudes, and the much despised petite bourgeoise began to agitate for change or just politely cast their votes at the ballot boxes.

As you rightfully point out, though, that's not the whole picture of the past, and there is much to admire, respect and even emulate (and not just the style, which I do love). As I mentioned, I think there was a greater sense of social cohesion (even if that did sometimes have its downside).

The fact is that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to have enjoyed the career and lifestyle that I enjoy today had I lived in past eras. I like my life - I wouldn't swap it for almost anything on offer then, let alone the normal run of experience. But that doesn't mean I don't value what is good in the past - I think that somethings, like good manners (which really amount to treating others with respect and empathy), are and should be timeless, and not be considered archaic.

The interesting thing about the 20s is that it stands in sharp relief to previous decades, so we think of it as the height of licentiousness. However, some social historians have pointed out that there was actually a greater relaxation of sexual mores in the 50s - it's just that the contrast isn't as sharp with previous decades. Take, for example, pre-marital sex. While the number of women who had experienced pre-marital sex in the 1920s jumped significantly from the Victorian and Edwardian period (I do have some stats somewhere on this) and more men indicated they would marry a girl with previous sexual experience, most of these liaisions were actually occuring with the men that they would marry. In the 50s, these figures altered again, with more having pre-marital experience with partners other than those they would marry.

 

[Diamondback]

Bit of a generalisation, no?

Well, as a profiler, analyst and tactician, I must say Paisley's mostly correct--people can change (I know, having been through two total reconstructions from the neck up), it's just that very few make the effort to do so on the "patterns of behavior" front, and thus past performance is very much indicative of future results in most cases.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." In other words, watch the patterns, both good and bad--only seeing one side or the other won't tell you if the trendline of the pattern is about to change direction.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The interesting thing about the 20s is that it stands in sharp relief to previous decades, so we think of it as the height of licentiousness. However, some social historians have pointed out that there was actually a greater relaxation of sexual mores in the 50s - it's just that the contrast isn't as sharp with previous decades.

This is a very good point -- and as wild and rambunctious as the twenties were supposed to have been in the back seats of every available Ford, there's reason to believe there was even more of it going on in the thirties and forties: the Depression, again, was an enormous catalyst for such behavior, since many young people despaired of being able to afford to marry. Tourist camps outside town did a thriving business in these years with anonymous couples named "Smith." Ditto for the war era -- there was plenty of "please give me something to remember you by" going on.

The difference, at least from my perspective, is that such behavior wasn't as -- politicized, for want of a better term, as it became later on. It happened, mature adults of the world were aware that it happened, and it was just one of those things, but it wasn't waved like a flag of cultural liberation the way it was from the sixties onward. To my way of looking at it, it's that HEY LOOK AT US WE"RE HAVIN SEXXXXXX attitude that points in a direct line to the sleazy raunch culture of today, a culture that many women, not just sour-faced old prudes, understandably find offensive and demeaning. My own view? Do what you gotta do, but please, quit carrying on like it makes you daring, unique, or special. Because it doesn't.