Male Fashion, Table Etiquette and the Monarchy---2008

The Rise of Male Fashion: Metrosexual 2008

With t.v. series like Strait Eye for the Queer Guy rising in popularity (or at least popular a few years ago) there has been a new focus on the importance of clothing and appearance. It is not a new phenomenon when one reflects on the Edwardian era. The terminology is really the only thing that has changed. Instead of regarding well dressed men as Gentlemen we now refer to them as metrosexuals. Our contemporary society associates being well dressed with being a homosexual or rather with being effeminate. The same does not apply to the Edwardians—in a sense. The idea of the Gentleman, according to the Oxford Online Dictionary, is this:

“A man of gentle birth, or having the same heraldic status as those of gentle birth; properly, one who is entitled to bear arms, though not ranking among the nobility (see quot. 1882), but also applied to a person of distinction without precise definition of rank.”

“A man of superior position in society, or having the habits of life indicative of this; often, one whose means enable him to live in easy circumstances without engaging in trade, a man of money and leisure. In recent use often employed (esp. in ‘this gentleman’) as a more courteous synonym for ‘man’, without regard to the social rank of the person referred to. spec. in Cricket: a non-professional player (opp. PLAYER¹ 2c).”

The idea of the Gentleman is completely based on status—so in a country where there is no class system. Gentle has to do with status and is not synonymous with careful, or feminine. It is interesting that here in Canada, where we have no class system, that we associate being well dressed with being effeminate. Gentle is generally used to describe someone who is careful. Obviously fashion associates itself with the wealthy but as I said in my previous blog a jean and t-shirt generally are appropriate for most occasions.

Table Manners Table Shamanners

This is a link to an article that appeared in Macleans Magazine in September 2006:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060904_132508_132508&source=srch

It is titled: Here's a tip: Be nice to the waitress

The article is not really reporting anything new but it reminds me of the rule from my previous post:

“(19) Do not command, but ask a waiter if you need something. If you command, the tone of your voice will only make other people think that you were a servant at one time yourself. 20) If a servant breaks something, do not turn around to notice what it is.”

The Macleans article brings up who are the worst customers and who are the best.

“The worst customers, she says, aren't the ones you might expect. Benlolo admits to having dropped "a lot of things" on people over the years, including a tray of water glasses, but all those diners have been "amazing." Once she spilled blue cheese dressing all over a man. "He completely didn't mind smelling like sour cheese for the rest of the night." On the other hand, seemingly well-off mothers who come in with their children have shortchanged her by large amounts.”

It is surprising that the well off mother would short change the waitress and it says a lot of how Canadian society is turning. Etiquette is not just about little picky rules. Etiquette has an actual function. If everyone was rude to staff, and they could very well be, there would be no dignity or worker satisfaction and that would lead to less restaurants or at least willing staff. That scenario seems unlikely but the function of etiquette is really just treating others around you with respect. Instead of prancing around with complete arrogance people who follow the codes of etiquette treat others well. The rules about leaving with a lady on your arm or talking to the lady on the right of you are examples of showing respect to all women. No woman is left unattended and ignored if the rules are followed. In return the males are also not left out of a conversation: it makes the experience much more enjoyable and organized.

“If a gentleman is seated by the side a lady or an elderly person, it is up to him to pour their drink and obtain whatever else they might want at the table.”

It should not be interpreted as a gesture to express someone’s inability but rather one of respect. These rules are hardly known let alone understood—but it all makes practical sense.

Queen E 2:

I had a bizarre childhood: I was raised with a picture of the Queen on the fire place. I am also considerably young and I remember when the picture of the Queen was in all public buildings. If one still rides certain BC ferries there are pictures of the Queen on board and on display. The monarch is said to be our head of state but it is completely a non functioning role. It is a role of complete ceremony and tradition and many believe that it should be abolished. Arguably many people in Canada are from ancestries that are not British, many are immigrants that have no tie to the old Empire whatsoever but does that mean the Queen is not Canadian. I think it is completely part of the Canadian being. After all I am referring to Queen Elizabeth as the Queen—and those who are reading this are most likely thinking of the Queen of England and not some African tribal Queen. Also Canada’s history is relatively non-existent why eliminate it or deny it. There is also a fascination with the monarchy—stories about the family appear in our tabloid magazines all the time. The only other family that rivals the royals is the Bechhams, and they have influenced our pop culture. The Queen may only not have control but as a figure head she represents Canada’s history.