What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

[viberunner]

It's a derogatory term for a mistress, actually. not wife.

Are we certain about this?

'Er indoors is Arthur Daley's iconic line... referring to his wife.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/er-indoors-enters-the-lexicon-1580557.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minder_(TV_series)

[feral chile]

http://www.takeourword.com/TOW147/page2.html- 'the missus'

'her indoors' is obviously annoying - what - are we under bloody curfew or something?

'Chained to the kitchen sink' and all that.

[feral chile]

I even struggle with saying "my wife".... like I own her.

I have been told I think too much, on more than one occasion. How do you think TOO much?

Yes, marriage tends to be traditionally about ownership though - I usually use names after putting the name in context.

Same here, I've also been told I have a tendency to 'overthink' things.

[eFestivals]

I even struggle with saying "my wife".... like I own her.

you have a licence for her.

You don't even need a licence for a dog.

[gary1979666]

I even struggle with saying "my wife".... like I own her.

I have been told I think too much, on more than one occasion. How do you think TOO much?

Really?! Maybe you're over thinking it?! I certainly don't own my wife, or my mother, or my son - it's a pronoun (I know it's a possessive pronoun, which is slightly misleading) used to describe the relationship between things (ok, this isn't sounding great) - but it helps distinguish between other wives - i'm having dinner with a wife tonight - more than likely I mean my own, but who knows, could be wooing Tony's! But essentially, my wife = wife of me = person I married ; I know which of the terms sounds best.

Maybe you're worried about using the my, because self consciously you do thing you own her and are trying too hard to self correct?

Thinking too much - giving too much thought than is neccessary. This of thought like boiling an egg for dippy soldiers - too little and you end up with runny white and too much and you can't dip at all. Some things don't need much thought - "what do you want for tea?" "fishfingers and chips" hmmm did she say fishyfingers because she thought that's what I wanted or to clear some space in the freezer or maybe she just wanted sodding fishfishers! Get the sodding pan out and get on with it! Too much thinking.Move on and think about something else.

[gary1979666]

you have a licence for her.

You don't even need a licence for a dog.

I do have to take her outside for a wee before bedtime!

[gary1979666]

It's a derogatory term for a mistress, actually. not wife. I'm a bit snobby about it as well.The effect it has on me is like hearing someone call someone 'coloured'. you know they don't mean offence, but it comes across as ignorant/of an older generation, when such terms were considered acceptable, even polite.

Are you seriously telling me you work with people who are incapable of remembering the names (or inferring the reference) of family members of their colleagues?

It's the 'the' bit that gets me the most, and it's an incredibly archaic term. My 60 year old husband used to say it 35 years ago.

What's wrong with 'my wife'?

I wonder if this in itself is a gender issue? I remember having conversations with male colleagues who referred to family members and friends by their relationship title, and wondered why they didn't use their name, it seemed strange to me.

He/she who must not be named, and all that.

Yes - my colleagues are chumps - they forget my son's name and my wive's. To be fair, it's mutual. But also colleagues I don't see that often or just meet once, it's easier to use the term wife rather than her name - and sometimes, being honest, I don't want to move to that level of familiarity with them. Amongst friends, it's nearly always by name.

I'm sure you can dig into the etimology of a lot of words and find contrary meanings - but meanings change. Look at the word gay over the last 100 years - it's not oxymoronic to be sad and gay, because it has a different meaning.

With most things, it's the intent that the issue and written down it can look worse. Some people may say er indoors in an incredibly derogatory way, but others are just being playful as they know that the opposite is true.

As for you last comment.....isn't that Voldemort?!

[gary1979666]

no, it's not that. There isn't a molecule in my body under any illusion that anyone, even me, owns my wife.

aaahh, the boiled egg! What an excellent example.

What you're talking about is over or under cooking, not thinking. To boil an egg correctly (as you would like it) requires at least some thought. To dismiss the process is to not care how your egg turns out. Did you take it out of the fridge? How much has it been cooking in the process from raw to when the water starts boiling... how long did that take? How much has it already cooked at the point when the water starts boiling? It might be half cooked already.....

I'm not sure if you're joking or not.....

[gary1979666]

which sounds as demeaning as is possible. "This is my wife, the only reason she's here is because she's my wife. Outside of that you don't need to know anything about her, her name is meaningless. She isn't really here".

You'd at least say "This is my wife, <insert name here>"

I think we've crossed contexts a bit. Of course if she was actually there, I would introduce her properly.

I was referring in general office conversation in the tea room with someone I vaguely know. "What did you do at the weekend?" "I went to the park with my wife and son". No reason to include their names, maybe I don't even want to go to that level of familiarity with the person, but either way, it's not meant as demeaning, it doesn't even sound it, and it's not even gender specific, as treat my son in a similar way.

[feral chile]

Yes - my colleagues are chumps - they forget my son's name and my wive's. To be fair, it's mutual. But also colleagues I don't see that often or just meet once, it's easier to use the term wife rather than her name - and sometimes, being honest, I don't want to move to that level of familiarity with them. Amongst friends, it's nearly always by name.

I'm sure you can dig into the etimology of a lot of words and find contrary meanings - but meanings change. Look at the word gay over the last 100 years - it's not oxymoronic to be sad and gay, because it has a different meaning.

With most things, it's the intent that the issue and written down it can look worse. Some people may say er indoors in an incredibly derogatory way, but others are just being playful as they know that the opposite is true.

As for you last comment.....isn't that Voldemort?!

Yes, it is Voldemort, it always feels like people are going out of their way not to use names. Like with Voldemort

Are you moving to another level of familiarity by using your wife's name?

Edited June 3, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

Yes, it is Voldemort, it always feels like people are going out of their way not to use names. Like with Voldemort

Are you moving to another level of familiarity by using your wife's name?

Yes - it's moving from knowing I am married, to knowing a bit more about me. I don't always want that.

[feral chile]

you have a licence for her.

You don't even need a licence for a dog.

someone I know just got married, and as they had been prevented by law from marrying for quite some time, looked more closely at their marriage certificate than I ever have, taken the right to marry who I want for granted like I have.

Anyway, he noticed that the marriage certificate only included his father's name and not his mother's. he was really upset about it.

Edited June 3, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I quite like this, the author expresses some of the sex positive sentiments I share, better than I could:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/miley-cyrus-sex-positivity_n_7559964.html?1434033478=&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

By speaking out about her desires -- desires that she seems to be implying involve the possibility of interactions and activities that many of us wouldn't necessarily consider vanilla -- Miley is taking a giant step towards changing the way we think about sex: who has it, how we have it, who we have it with and how the feel about it and ourselves before, while and after we're having it. And by changing the way we think about sex, we start to change the way we think about women and what they're worth. And we start to change the way we think about queer people and what they're worth. And we start to understand that if sex isn't a commodity whose production and distribution is controlled by a select few in order to organize our culture in a way that's most advantageous to rich, white, straight men, it's capable of destroying the roots of so many of the things that ail us -- from sexism to homophobia to transphobia.

We take Miley's cue and we come out -- and not just about our sexuality and our gender identity but also about our sexual appetites. We own up to actually having sexual appetites -- and not just for procreating and not just the missionary position with the lights out -- and then we actually own them and use them to live happier, more productive lives. If we're queer, we stop being ashamed of being queer or being attracted to partners who fall outside of the range of who our society has told us we should be attracted to. If we're not queer, we affirm our queer brothers and sisters and not just when they look and act like non-queer people. We embrace whatever makes gives us pleasure and doesn't hurt anyone else (unless they're asking us to hurt them) and we stop feeling guilty about giving and receiving pleasure.

Sex is not the enemy, it's the answer. So let's start getting dirty so we can join Miley in cleaning up our sex-shaming culture

[bunique]

Pretty sure we were asked for our fathers' professions when we got married too

[feral chile]

Pretty sure we were asked for our fathers' professions when we got married too

I haven't got my marriage certificate, so couldn't look at it. Anyway, mine's from 1979, and back in the 80's I had to claim my husband as a wife for the dependants grant while I was in uni.

You'd think they'd have updated it and dragged it into this century, though.

Edited June 11, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

now the warm weather's here, I was wondering what people think of dress codes in work?

 

sometimes you get people complaining that girls are showing too much flesh, and I'm wondering if that's double standards, if men can wear shorts.

 

Or you might have one woman complaining about another woman, when one's in a short skirt and the other's in a figure hugging maxi.

 

what do people think?

[gary1979666]

now the warm weather's here, I was wondering what people think of dress codes in work?

 

sometimes you get people complaining that girls are showing too much flesh, and I'm wondering if that's double standards, if men can wear shorts.

 

Or you might have one woman complaining about another woman, when one's in a short skirt and the other's in a figure hugging maxi.

 

what do people think?

 

I guess it depends where you work.  I'm in an office, so for the men the only way I can change my clothes for the hot weather is short sleeved shirt and no tie.  For a woman, there are a lot more options to dress cooler.  Even on dress down Friday, it wouldn't be acceptable for me to wear shorts, yet women have a lot more leeway.

[feral chile]

I guess it depends where you work.  I'm in an office, so for the men the only way I can change my clothes for the hot weather is short sleeved shirt and no tie.  For a woman, there are a lot more options to dress cooler.  Even on dress down Friday, it wouldn't be acceptable for me to wear shorts, yet women have a lot more leeway.

 

I've known of a few incidents in work with no dress code. Men can wear shorts, but one got into trouble because he had got caught in a downpour and mentioned in front of management that he'd tied his coat/jumper around his waist and taken his trousers off to dry. Nobody had noticed/complained, but he had to go for a chat because it 'could' have caused offence.

 

then there was an occasion when a man complained abut a middle aged lady wearing strappy tops without adequate support, and another involving a man sitting opposite a girl with a short skirt who caught an unexpected eyeful. I'm not sure if that was of undergarments or flesh.

 

Apparently, it's 'distracting' for the men.

 

I want to be reasonable about this, but to me it feels like a watered down version of censorship, because some men are uncomfortable with their own, and female, sexuality. And some women also.

 

I know feminists on here have  disagreed vehemently with my sex positive stance on Page 3, to me this feels like the same thing, I'd love to know what people think.

Edited July 3, 2015 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

I'm of the opinion that most clothing isn't overtly sexual, and equivalent standards should be applied to each gender. I'm also aware that doesn't happen.

 

None of the places I've worked would have been OK with me wearing shorts though. At a couple I used to wear shorts for the bus journey and walk into work and change when I got there as opposed to travelling in trousers though.

[feral chile]

I work in a place where there's no dress code, unless it causes offence or disrepute, but that 'causing offence' proviso is very subjective.

 

It can include slogans, band t-shirts and clothes that make others embarrassed. Which sets off this whole thing about tolerance and bigotry.

 

eg ugly people receiving complaints for leaving their face uncovered (ok maybe an exaggeration, but some of the complaints made can be vindictive, and based on 'I don't like the look of them, they offend me').

Edited July 3, 2015 by feral chile

[mjsell]

I have the shorts argument with my supervisor and manager every time the temperature gets above 15 degrees  

 

I have to say that I believe most office dress codes to be crazily outdated. How is it right that on a day like today (dress down Friday) that I have to wear trousers and yet the women sitting opposite me are wearing dresses that are above the knee?

[gary1979666]

I've known of a few incidents in work with no dress code. Men can wear shorts, but one got into trouble because he had got caught in a downpour and mentioned in front of management that he'd tied his coat/jumper around his waist and taken his trousers off to dry. Nobody had noticed/complained, but he had to go for a chat because it 'could' have caused offence.

 

then there was an occasion when a man complained abut a middle aged lady wearing strappy tops without adequate support, and another involving a man sitting opposite a girl with a short skirt who caught an unexpected eyeful. I'm not sure if that was of undergarments or flesh.

 

Apparently, it's 'distracting' for the men.

 

I want to be reasonable about this, but to me it feels like a watered down version of censorship, because some men are uncomfortable with their own, and female, sexuality. And some women also.

 

I know feminists on here have  disagreed vehemently with my sex positive stance on Page 3, to me this feels like the same thing, I'd love to know what people think.

 

I think it depends on the job and the people involved.  But in an office environment, generally rules are clear for men, but for women less so.  Like the supershort skirt you mention, or massive cleavage or one example I know of, where a colleague was told not to wear a top that showed her midriff.   I guess it's the good old blurry lines of smart, smart/casual and casual.

 

In fact, I find in most cases it's other women who complain about such things rather than men. 

 

Dress codes are many things, but anti-feminist, not so sure.

[feral chile]

I think it depends on the job and the people involved.  But in an office environment, generally rules are clear for men, but for women less so.  Like the supershort skirt you mention, or massive cleavage or one example I know of, where a colleague was told not to wear a top that showed her midriff.   I guess it's the good old blurry lines of smart, smart/casual and casual.

 

In fact, I find in most cases it's other women who complain about such things rather than men. 

 

Dress codes are many things, but anti-feminist, not so sure.

 

 

yeah, my first reaction was a kneejerk feminist rant, it depends really what was flashed. again, if men accidentally flashed their bits, something would be said. but it's still annoying that men can show their nipples and women can't.

 

I think I've said on here before, I remember 2 men chatting enthusiastically about 2 women customers who hadn't worn a bra in the summer, describing in graphic detail what they could discern, and after several minutes, ended with 'disgusting!'

 

it's that attitude that I question, I feel it's really male behaviour that is the problem, and social attitudes.

 

Women are complaining that it's not appropriate for women to reveal too much, because of how men react, hopefully as much out of concern for possibly the unwitting female, who might not realise they're the subject of gossip.

 

And men are uncomfortable at their own reaction, I think, so the woman gets the blame.

 

nobody has ever told any of the men that their shorts are too short, or that their appearance distracts the women.

 

because men are seen as sexually threatening/not viewed via their sexuality rather than seductive.

 

So to me, if there's an issue to address, it's how male sexuality is expressed through objectifying women, and how female sexuality is expressed through being objectified. Even, ironically, when women are just trying not to be hot!

[gary1979666]

I think you're getting away from the original question of a dress code in work during hot weather. 

 

A lot of the disgruntlement is about how 'professional dress'  (whatever that is) goes out of the window for some women, when there is little option for me to do so - when both just want to stay cool.  Showing a bit of bum cheek in short shorts is not frowned upon because a woman is trying to look sexy or is distracting, it's because it doesn't fit the mould of office attire, in the same way a bloke in shorts and vest top doesn't.  The difference is that the times when a man would turn up to work like that is much much less than a woman. 

 

And too you first point, a man wouldn't have his nips out at an office / restaurant / most bars / etc either.

 

Yes men's attitudes are an issue, as are probably some womens (granted to a lesser extent).  If a nice looking guy with his top off is serving drinks at a beach bar, there will be a reasonable amount of women who would stare and make a comment to a friend.  Similarly if I were to do the same, they'd still make comment, just more along the lines of the guys you mention above.