Re: A well-scrubed ...

[Tony Cooper]

On 1 Aug 2021 02:42:50 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

> I read:
>
>|Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty,
>|wholesome, well-scrubbed, glowing.

Fresh-faced. No artifice. Looks like she'd be likable.


>
>|Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
>|without being wholesome
>
No pretense, but has obviously been around the block.


> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome")
> in dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...
>
> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> reader of English?
>

You would understand the comments better if you would look up
photographs of the two of them. They fit the description.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Jerry Friedman]

On 7/31/21 8:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> I read:
>
> |Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty,
> |wholesome, well-scrubbed, glowing.
>

> and

>
> |Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
> |without being wholesome
>

> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome")
> in dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...
>
> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> reader of English?

Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just washed.
It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up but have
been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest little or no
make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.

Wholesome, applied to people, suggests healthy, unthreatening, not very
sexy good looks and a pleasant, conventional, maybe rural personality
(at least in my experience of the term in America). See Robertson
Davies's comments:

https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/robertson-davies/page,26,44468-the_papers_of_samuel_marchbanks.html

"Wholesome" and "well-scrubbed" go together nicely--maybe too nicely, as
the sentence about Nancy Friday might have worked without "wholesome".
On the other hand, maybe Patti Smith looks clean, not sweaty from a rock
performance or pretending to live in a slum, but on the other hand looks
as if she might be about to call Joe Biden a fascist or pour you an
absinthe.

--
Jerry Friedman

[CDB]

On 7/31/2021 11:47 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> Stefan Ram wrote:

>> I read:

>> |Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty,
>> |wholesome, well-scrubbed, glowing.

>> and

>> |Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
>> |without being wholesome

>> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome") in
>> dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...

>> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
>> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native reader of
>> English?

> Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just
> washed. It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up
> but have been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest
> little or no make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.

> Wholesome, applied to people, suggests healthy, unthreatening, not
> very sexy good looks and a pleasant, conventional, maybe rural
> personality (at least in my experience of the term in America). See
> Robertson Davies's comments:

> https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/robertson-davies/page,26,44468-the_papers_of_samuel_marchbanks.html
>

ISWYDT. Passages before the topical one that it would benefit certain
contributors to ponder.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-08-01 15:29:29 +0000, CDB said:

> On 7/31/2021 11:47 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>>> I read:
>
>>> |Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty, |wholesome,
>>> well-scrubbed, glowing.
>
>>> and
>
>>> |Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed

"well scrubbed" is not the description that springs to my mind:
https://pastdaily.com/2015/06/30/patti-smith-at-glastonbury-2015-nights-at-the-roundtable-festival-edition/

>>> |without being wholesome
>
>>> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome") in
>>> dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...
>
>>> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
>>> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native reader of
>>> English?
>
>> Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just
>> washed. It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up
>> but have been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest
>> little or no make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.
>
>> Wholesome, applied to people, suggests healthy, unthreatening, not
>> very sexy good looks and a pleasant, conventional, maybe rural
>> personality (at least in my experience of the term in America). See
>> Robertson Davies's comments:
>
>> https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/robertson-davies/page,26,44468-the_papers_of_samuel_marchbanks.html
>>
>>
> ISWYDT. Passages before the topical one that it would benefit certain
> contributors to ponder.
>
>> "Wholesome" and "well-scrubbed" go together nicely--maybe too nicely,
>> as the sentence about Nancy Friday might have worked without
>> "wholesome". On the other hand, maybe Patti Smith looks clean, not
>> sweaty from a rock performance or pretending to live in a slum, but
>> on the other hand looks as if she might be about to call Joe Biden a
>> fascist or pour you an absinthe.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 17:49:45 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2021-08-01 15:29:29 +0000, CDB said:
>
>> On 7/31/2021 11:47 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>>> I read:
>>
>>>> |Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty, |wholesome,
>>>> well-scrubbed, glowing.
>>
>>>> and
>>
>>>> |Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
>
>"well scrubbed" is not the description that springs to my mind:
>https://pastdaily.com/2015/06/30/patti-smith-at-glastonbury-2015-nights-at-the-roundtable-festival-edition/
>

She looks like a right scrubber to me.

[Blueshirt]

She looks like a beggar on the street to me!

[Sam Plusnet]

A "lived in" face.

--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Jerry Friedman]

On 8/1/21 9:49 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-08-01 15:29:29 +0000, CDB said:
>
>> On 7/31/2021 11:47 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>>> I read:
>>
>>>> |Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty, |wholesome,
>>>> well-scrubbed, glowing.
>>
>>>> and
>>
>>>> |Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
>
> "well scrubbed" is not the description that springs to my mind:
> https://pastdaily.com/2015/06/30/patti-smith-at-glastonbury-2015-nights-at-the-roundtable-festival-edition/

The article Stefan quoted gives more context.

"Against an entertainment industry that seems so wedded to the cosmetics
industry that a woman's face is likely to be the only thing she doesn't
bare, Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker.

"She is well-scrubbed without being wholesome, with a defiantly naked
face that challenges prevailing notions of gender and beauty."

https://inthesetimes.com/article/patti-smith-spit-image

>>>>  |without being wholesome
>>
>>>> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome") in
>>>> dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...

The rest of the sentence might have helped....



--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On 1 Aug 2021 20:27:30 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

>Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>The rest of the sentence might have helped....
>

> Thanks for all comments in this thread!
> Sorry for the missing "b" in the Subject!
>
> I did not quote the rest of the sentence because
> I was interested in the meaning of "wholesome"
> that comes just from the word itself.
>
> Dictionaries often ascribe "inner" qualities to
> "wholesome", but in both quotations, the word seems
> to refer to the /appearance/ of a woman. And dictionaries
> did not explain to me what a "wholesome woman" looks like.
>
> After doing further research, I can agree with you that a
> "wholesome-looking woman" rarely wears makeup, if at all.
> (Patti Smith also seems to wear little or no makeup.)

No, a wholesome-looking woman may wear skillfully applied makeup.
Frequently.

>
> Maybe, one can paraphrase "well-scrubbed and wholesome"
> as "well-groomed and decent".
>
If you would paraphrase it that way, I would think you were referring
to her morals, conduct, and clothing choices.

[Quinn C]

* Jerry Friedman:

> On 7/31/21 8:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

>> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
>> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
>> reader of English?
>
> Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just washed.
> It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up but have
> been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest little or no
> make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.

Thanks, I'd never have guessed that. I'd have associated "well-scrubbed"
with "presentable", and women are still typically expected to wear
makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable.

> Wholesome, applied to people, suggests healthy, unthreatening, not very
> sexy good looks and a pleasant, conventional, maybe rural personality
> (at least in my experience of the term in America). See Robertson
> Davies's comments:
>
> https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/robertson-davies/page,26,44468-the_papers_of_samuel_marchbanks.html

Whoa, a lot of negativity about wholesomeness there. "Who wants to be
bread when you can be cake"? I'd like to point out that I've eaten bread
almost every single day of my life, and I'm rarely getting tired of it,
whereas I do get tired of eating cake - especially, the same cake - and
will remind myself not to have it too often, certainly not daily.

--
If someone has a penis (or we think they have a penis) we use
he/him/his pronouns and treat them like a boy/man. If someone
has a vagina (or we think they have a vagina) we use she/her/
hers pronouns and treat them like a girl/woman.
See what I did there? -- Kyl Myers

[Janet]

In article <1mveb7qs...@mid.crommatograph.info>,
lispa...@crommatograph.info says...

>
> * Jerry Friedman:
>
> > On 7/31/21 8:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
> >> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> >> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> >> reader of English?
> >
> > Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just washed.
> > It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up but have
> > been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest little or no
> > make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.
>
> Thanks, I'd never have guessed that. I'd have associated "well-scrubbed"
> with "presentable", and women are still typically expected to wear
> makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable.

Typical MCP outlook.

Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Or perhaps a "typical" transgender outlook, helping to account for why
some transwomen in appearance tend more toward the drag queen look
than toward the naturally developed woman look.

A Czech transman was on the BBC this morning. He mentioned that
it's far easier for him to "pass" than for transwomen to, and that would
be because he doesn't have to deal with all that makeup stuff. (Formerly
enlightened Czechia has new anti-trans laws, which could get it kicked
out of "Europe.")

[Madhu]

* Janet <MPG.3b71f87be...@news.individual.net> :
Wrote on Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:42:04 +0100:

> Typical MCP outlook.

Male - gender male
Chauvin, Nicholas - gender male
Pig - gender male


Is there some gender neutral replacement for MCP

[Richard Heathfield]

Yes.

"Sexist".

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 7:10:04 PM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
> * Jerry Friedman:
> > On 7/31/21 8:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
> >> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> >> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> >> reader of English?
> >
> > Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just washed.
> > It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up but have
> > been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest little or no
> > make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.

> Thanks, I'd never have guessed that. I'd have associated "well-scrubbed"
> with "presentable", and women are still typically expected to wear
> makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable.

Normally, I take "well-scrubbed" to suggest that the person isn't clean
routinely. This example seems unusual to me.

> > Wholesome, applied to people, suggests healthy, unthreatening, not very
> > sexy good looks and a pleasant, conventional, maybe rural personality
> > (at least in my experience of the term in America). See Robertson
> > Davies's comments:
> >
> > https://onlinereadfreenovel.com/robertson-davies/page,26,44468-the_papers_of_samuel_marchbanks.html

> Whoa, a lot of negativity about wholesomeness there. "Who wants to be
> bread when you can be cake"? I'd like to point out that I've eaten bread
> almost every single day of my life, and I'm rarely getting tired of it,

"I rarely get tired" seems more idiomatic to me.

> whereas I do get tired of eating cake - especially, the same cake - and
> will remind myself not to have it too often, certainly not daily.

I shouldn't have said Davies--it's his character Samuel Marchbanks,
whose shtik is to be negative about a lot of things (dogs, amateur
writers, scenery, people who tell you how to be healthy...), although
not everything. And it's humor, mocking the puritanism of that
distant time, especially in Toronto. I suspect Davies would have
been more moderate, but Marchbanks said things other people didn't
dare to say.

--
Jerry Friedman eats a lot of bread and very little cake.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Toronto the good, they used to call it.

> I suspect Davies would have
> been more moderate, but Marchbanks said things other people didn't
> dare to say.


--

[Adam Funk]

And fighting with his heating system, IIRC.

> I suspect Davies would have
> been more moderate, but Marchbanks said things other people didn't
> dare to say.

AIUI Davies was a very nice person.



--
Don't take me seriously, but I have a hunch that when the unknown
parts of the DNA are decoded, the so-called sequences of junk DNA,
they're going to turn out to be copyright notices and patent
protections. ---Donald Knuth

[Lewis]

In message <well-scrubed-...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> I read:

>|Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty,
>|wholesome, well-scrubbed, glowing.

> and

>|Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed

>|without being wholesome

> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome")
> in dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...

> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> reader of English?

It's the difference between Betty and Veronica², or Maryanne and Ginger
or, at least in Red Dwarf, Betty and Wilma. Growing up, the question of
"Betty or Veronica" or "Maryanne of Ginger" was a frequent conversation
starter, and sometimes used to gauge a new person to the group.²Even as
someone who did not read Archie comics and did not like Archie comics, I
still knew who Betty and Veronica where.

Betty/Maryanne/Betty is the wholesome one, Veronica/Ginger/Wilma is the
sexy one.

Wholesome implies the "girl next door" who is pretty and kind and not
flashy as opposed to the more obviously sexy long sparkly evening gowns
and elaborate hair and jewelry.

However, I think in the case of Patti Smith they are meaning that she is
not conventionally "pretty". This is the image of Patti that is probably
most familiar to people, the cover of Horses, released when Patti Smith
was 29.

<https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20151211-patti-smith-i-was-not-really-a-punk>

¹ The only question worth asking about Betty and Veronica is why
either of them would have the slightest interest in Archie.

² If there was an equivalent discussion the girls had, I do not
know what it was, and neither does my wife.

--
The brain is an amazing organ, it works every second of every day
from before we're even born right up until the instant we fall in
love.

[Lewis]

In message <wholesome-20...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> writes:

>>The rest of the sentence might have helped....

> Thanks for all comments in this thread!
> Sorry for the missing "b" in the Subject!

> I did not quote the rest of the sentence because
> I was interested in the meaning of "wholesome"
> that comes just from the word itself.

But that is quite incorrect. You cannot simply look up every word in
sentence and then magically understand the meaning of the sentence. The
language is far more complicated and flexible than that. If this were
not so, translation would be a trivial task perfected by computers in
the 1980s.

Look up word in English, look up word in Russian. Replace word. VOILA!

> Dictionaries often ascribe "inner" qualities to
> "wholesome", but in both quotations, the word seems
> to refer to the /appearance/ of a woman. And dictionaries
> did not explain to me what a "wholesome woman" looks like.

Context is, as always, important.

> After doing further research, I can agree with you that a
> "wholesome-looking woman" rarely wears makeup, if at all.

There is much more to it than that.

> Maybe, one can paraphrase "well-scrubbed and wholesome"
> as "well-groomed and decent".

That would be quite different.


--
"Yes," said the skull. "Quit while you're a head, that's what I say."

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 8:42:09 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> In article <1mveb7qs...@mid.crommatograph.info>,
>> lispa...@crommatograph.info says...
>>> * Jerry Friedman:
>>> > On 7/31/21 8:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>>> >> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
>>> >> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
>>> >> reader of English?
>>> > Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just washed.
>>> > It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up but have
>>> > been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest little or no
>>> > make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.
>>> Thanks, I'd never have guessed that. I'd have associated "well-scrubbed"
>>> with "presentable", and women are still typically expected to wear
>>> makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable.
>>
>> Typical MCP outlook.
>
> Or perhaps a "typical" transgender outlook, helping to account for why
> some transwomen in appearance tend more toward the drag queen look
> than toward the naturally developed woman look.

That was pretty much the norm when I first met a bunch of trans women in
the 1990s, and one of the reasons I felt this might not be for me,
despite the kinship I felt.

The strict norms from back then are quickly fading now. Soon, the idea
of passing may be as obsolete as the idea that one of a couple of two
men must "be the woman".

Apart from Janet, everyone understands, though, that when I quote the
opinions of other people or observe common behaviors, it's not an
endorsement, much less my own personal preference?

That the expectations I referred to are still pretty common, I get from
feminist women who complain about the pressures of looking a certain
way. Janet may have so much privilege that she doesn't have to conform,
but millions of others would risk their job or other forms of influence
if they don't.

--
Are you sure your sanity chip is fully screwed in, Sir?
-- Kryten to Rimmer (Red Dwarf)

[Quinn C]

* Janet:

I don't really run in Microsoft Certified Professionals circles, so I
wouldn't know.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Mack A. Damia]

TWITMWU.

(Think Wordsworth)

"Little we see in Nature that is ours."

[Peter T. Daniels]

This morning NPR profiled the American shotput silver medalist, a very
large (of course) black very out and loud lesbian. She talked about how
the sport has changed and she no longer has to try to behavior-conform
to how a woman field (as in track and) athlete is "supposed to" act.
Apparently she did something slightly subversive on the medal stand.
I think "twerk" was mentioned. Maybe enough to ruffle feathers, but not
enough to raise hackles.

[Tony Cooper]

Oh, c'mon. You still have your mind in the gutter of lesbian hug
porn.

Raven held her arms in an X gesture. She's made other gestures on
podiums. (The X indicates where all people meet, she says)

I wonder if Raven was hugged by the other female athletes. Do any
have arms long enough to get around Raven in a satisfactory hug?

Now that you've suggested athletic hugs as porn, I've begun to notice
how much NBC is promoting porn on DAYTIME TELEVISION!

The gymnasts hug, the swimmers hug, the divers hug, and even the ROC
"Spider Girls" hugged. (Who, incidentally, wore the ugliest costumes
viewed so far)

Gremany's Julia Krajewski's straight-sex porn hug, though, was leaping
on to a male teammate and wrapping her legs around his waist. She had
just become the first female to win Olympic Gold in Individual
Eventing. Whether or not she hugged her horse, a mare, was not
carried live.

[Janet]

In article <aecdafed-8743-45b5...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

The "norms" you claim for us real women faded 50 years ago.

> >
> > Apart from Janet, everyone understands, though, that when I quote the
> > opinions of other people or observe common behaviors, it's not an
> > endorsement, much less my own personal preference?
> >
> > That the expectations I referred to are still pretty common, I get from
> > feminist women who complain about the pressures of looking a certain
> > way. Janet may have so much privilege that she doesn't have to conform,
> > but millions of others would risk their job or other forms of influence
> > if they don't.
>
> This morning NPR profiled the American shotput silver medalist, a very
> large (of course) black very out and loud lesbian. She talked about how
> the sport has changed and she no longer has to try to behavior-conform
> to how a woman field (as in track and) athlete is "supposed to" act.

Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in the
1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of dress, hairstyle,
make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women by men.

Quinn's intrinsically male outlook on "what's expected of women" is
half a century out of date. He quite clearly has NO grasp of post-war
womens history. How howlingly funny that he attributes modern feminism
to "privilege".

Janet

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Do they? Why should they? You wrote "I'd have associated

'well-scrubbed' with 'presentable', and women are still typically

expected to wear makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable." There
is nothing there to suggest you were quoting someone else: who, for
example?

>>> though, that when I quote the
>>> opinions of other people or observe common behaviors, it's not an
>>> endorsement, much less my own personal preference?

We've had this before. Quinn makes an offensive comment, and when
challenged he claims that it's like Trump's "people are saying...".

>>>
>>> That the expectations I referred to are still pretty common, I get from
>>> feminist women who complain about the pressures of looking a certain
>>> way. Janet may have so much privilege that she doesn't have to conform,
>>> but millions of others would risk their job or other forms of influence
>>> if they don't.
>>
>> This morning NPR profiled the American shotput silver medalist, a very
>> large (of course) black very out and loud lesbian. She talked about how
>> the sport has changed and she no longer has to try to behavior-conform
>> to how a woman field (as in track and) athlete is "supposed to" act.
>
> Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in the
> 1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of dress, hairstyle,
> make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women by men.
>
> Quinn's intrinsically male outlook on "what's expected of women" is
> half a century out of date. He quite clearly has NO grasp of post-war
> womens history. How howlingly funny that he attributes modern feminism
> to "privilege".

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:55:45 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:


> Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in the
>1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of dress, hairstyle,
>make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women by men.
>

I'm not so sure that it's men who are doing all the imposing.

Men have imposed their views on the appearance of women in the
workplace, but outside of the workplace I think women dress for women.

[Peter T. Daniels]

At that time, Angela Davis was publicizing the Afro for women. She was
one of the most despised radicals in those days but soon became and
still is a respected professor and is still sometimes interviewed on
relevant news stories. So it wasn't only white women.

[occam]

On 01/08/2021 05:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
> I read:
>
> |Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty,
> |wholesome, well-scrubbed, glowing.
>
> and
>
> |Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
> |without being wholesome
>
> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome")
> in dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...
>

> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> reader of English?
>
>

Both are euphemisms of sorts in the current context.

well-scrubbed: a normally unkempt person, coerced into being cleaned for
a special occasion (e.g. a photo)

wholesome: not-too-pretty but decent and dependable.

[Mack A. Damia]

On 1 Aug 2021 02:42:50 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

> I read:
>
>|Nancy Friday looks like a former Miss America - pretty,
>|wholesome, well-scrubbed, glowing.
>
> and
>
>|Patti Smith's appearance is a shocker. She is well-scrubbed
>|without being wholesome
>
> I looked up both expressions ("well-scrubbed" and "wholesome")
> in dictionaries, but I can't quite figure it out ...
>
> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
> reader of English?

A "fresh" look, but it includes much more than just being clean.

Well-dressed and well-groomed, everything in place.

Many if not most nurses are "well-scrubbed", part of their training in
nursing school.

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:55:45 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in the
>>1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of dress, hairstyle,
>>make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women by men.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure that it's men who are doing all the imposing.

Indeed.

Similarly, some of the officials in oppressive colonial regimes are
natives. That's how systems of power work.

Other terms that can help elucidating aspects of these mechanisms are,
e.g., "internalized homophobia" or "adjacency to whiteness".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:35:19 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Tony Cooper:
> > On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:55:45 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in the
> >>1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of dress, hairstyle,
> >>make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women by men.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not so sure that it's men who are doing all the imposing.
> Indeed.
>
> Similarly, some of the officials in oppressive colonial regimes are
> natives. That's how systems of power work.

That may be depicted in *Death in Paradise*. The Police Commissioner
is presented as not terribly bright, but 20 years earlier (would that have
been in Saint-Marie's colonial days?) he was a detective-inspector, or
whatever they were called, and in the two-parter it turned out that he had
completely messed up the investigation. (No spoilers here.)

[Quinn C]

* Quinn C:

> * Jerry Friedman:
>
>> On 7/31/21 8:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>>> So, what does "well-scrubbed /and/ wholesome" and what does
>>> "well-scrubbed /but not/ wholesome" suggest to a native
>>> reader of English?
>>
>> Well-scrubbed means very clean, maybe looking as if one had just washed.
>> It's often applied to children who resist getting cleaned up but have
>> been given no choice. Applied to a woman, it might suggest little or no
>> make-up, certainly no hair gel or such things.
>
> Thanks, I'd never have guessed that. I'd have associated "well-scrubbed"
> with "presentable", and women are still typically expected to wear
> makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable.

Maybe I was also influenced by "cleans up nicely", which I brought up in
this group a few years ago when I had first noticed it.

--
Mrs. Quinn: Is he alright?
Sister Michael: I wouldn't say so, no. He's a priest, like.
-- Derry Girls, series 1, episode 3

[Jerry Friedman]

...

It's /about/ other people--the people doing the expecting.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Maybe, but what tells us that?

[Sam Plusnet]

The last time I worked in an environment where there was a dress code
imposed on women, (other than where a company 'uniform' was supplied and
required) it was imposed by the department manager's secretary (female).

The odd thing was that she imposed this code on women who were 'senior'
to her in that they were in senior management roles, but her authority
derived from being the department head's 'office wife'.


--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Quinn C]

* Jerry Friedman:

[restoring snipped contents so it makes sense:]
| ... that when I quote the

| opinions of other people or observe common behaviors

>> Do they? Why should they? You wrote "I'd have associated
>> 'well-scrubbed' with 'presentable', and women are still typically
>> expected to wear makeup and be well-coiffed to be presentable." There
>> is nothing there to suggest you were quoting someone else: who, for
>> example?
> ...
>
> It's /about/ other people--the people doing the expecting.

I don't quite understand your response, so I'll explain it in my own
words. "... are expected to" is a general statement about the world
(well, the part I know), so it falls not under quote, but under
"observing common behaviors".

This group may be the only circle I frequent where the above statement
about the world would be seriously challenged, or where I'd be asked for
proof. To me, it's about as obvious or well-known as "cars are often
used as status symbols". That's a phenomenon that's similarly on the
decline, but still pretty obviously a thing.

[Peter Moylan]

On 03/08/21 23:55, Janet wrote:

> Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in the
> 1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of dress,
> hairstyle, make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women by men.

That reminds me that I want to write a letter of complaint to the ABC.
Several times lately they have shown newsreaders wearing high heels.

I respect the right of a woman to wear whatever she wants, but during a
news broadcast the cameras should leave their feet out of shot. It's a
terrible example to give to young girls who haven't yet damaged their feet.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Adam Funk]

+1


--
Everybody says sex is obscene. The only true obscenity
is war. ---Henry Miller

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/08/21 21:59, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2021-08-04, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/21 23:55, Janet wrote:
>>
>>> Hers is exactly the mindset of white feminist females back in
>>> the 1960's and 70's. We purposely discarded the limits of
>>> dress, hairstyle, make-up, behaviour and status imposed on women
>>> by men.
>>
>> That reminds me that I want to write a letter of complaint to the
>> ABC. Several times lately they have shown newsreaders wearing high
>> heels.
>>
>> I respect the right of a woman to wear whatever she wants, but
>> during a news broadcast the cameras should leave their feet out of
>> shot. It's a terrible example to give to young girls who haven't
>> yet damaged their feet.
>
> +1

I did write to them shortly after writing the above. Afterwards, it
occurred to me to wonder whether the foot-torturing devices are part of
a corporate dress code.

[Jerry Friedman]

If we haven't read Quinn's criticisms of gender-based social
expectations? I'd say "are expected" refers to general expectations,
not the speaker's, and "typically" strengthens that by allowing for
exceptions.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Murdochism? One of the charges against Roger Ailes (mastermind
of US Fox News) concerned his dress code for on-air female personalities,
and the use of transparent furniture, lack of "modesty panels," etc.

[charles]

In article <sedtvd$dga$4...@dont-email.me>,

My 6ft younger daughter wears heels. "To intimidate the military" was her
reason when she worked in tehMinistry of Defence.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Adam Funk]

AIUI there is nothing specifically illegal about requiring high heels
in the UK but it may violate sex discrimination law.

It is likely to be unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 for
employers to require women to wear high heels, with the discomfort
or health issues that may entail, and as there is no male
equivalent.

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709535/dress-code-guidance-may2018-2.pdf>

(I don't think that goes far enough. I'd be happy to give a short
prison sentence to anyone who even suggests wearing high heels to a
subordinate.)


I was surprised to learn how long the adverse effects have been known:

The health impact of high heels has long been known. There are
consistent descriptions, from 1740 to the present day, of the
musculoskeletal damage they can cause. Indeed, in May 1880, The
Lancet (a leading British medical journal) launched an editorial
campaign against female shop assistants being required to wear
heels, which it branded “Cruelty to Women”.

<https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/petitions/291.pdf>


--
By filing this bug report, you have challenged my
my honor. Prepare to die!
---Klingon Programmer's Guide

[Quinn C]

* Adam Funk:

> I was surprised to learn how long the adverse effects have been known:
>
> The health impact of high heels has long been known. There are
> consistent descriptions, from 1740 to the present day, of the
> musculoskeletal damage they can cause. Indeed, in May 1880, The
> Lancet (a leading British medical journal) launched an editorial
> campaign against female shop assistants being required to wear
> heels, which it branded “Cruelty to Women”.
>
> <https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/petitions/291.pdf>

I recently heard about a study (only heard, so I have no link) that you
can spot to a few decades in skeletons the period when very pointed
shoes were the rage - across genders -, not only from deformed feet, but
also in the frequency of typical fall injuries. That must have been
known at the time. The class difference also shows clearly in the bone
record, such impractical fashion being mainly an upper class thing.

--
Some of the most horrific things ever done to humans
were done by the politest, best-dressed, most well-spoken
people from the very best homes and neighborhoods.
-- Jerry Springer

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-08-05, Quinn C wrote:

> * Adam Funk:
>
>> I was surprised to learn how long the adverse effects have been known:
>>
>> The health impact of high heels has long been known. There are
>> consistent descriptions, from 1740 to the present day, of the
>> musculoskeletal damage they can cause. Indeed, in May 1880, The
>> Lancet (a leading British medical journal) launched an editorial
>> campaign against female shop assistants being required to wear
>> heels, which it branded “Cruelty to Women”.
>>
>> <https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/petitions/291.pdf>
>
> I recently heard about a study (only heard, so I have no link) that you
> can spot to a few decades in skeletons the period when very pointed
> shoes were the rage - across genders -, not only from deformed feet, but
> also in the frequency of typical fall injuries. That must have been
> known at the time. The class difference also shows clearly in the bone
> record, such impractical fashion being mainly an upper class thing.

That sounds familiar but I can't pin it down either.


--
Avoid socks. They are the fatal give-away of a phony
nonconformist. ---Elissa Jane Karg

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:59:56 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> record, such impractical fashion being mainly an upper class thing.

Are there any "impractical fashions" that aren't "an upper class thing"?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

As someone who fell over and grazed a knee the day before yesterday I
can point out that pointed shoes are not necessary!

[Adam Funk]

Thorsten Veblen would probably agree.


--
A lot of people never use their intiative because no-one
told them to. ---Banksy

[Adam Funk]

Of course, but as scientist you know bigger samples of data are
better!



--
It is the duty of the wealthy man to give employment to the
artisan. ---Hilaire Belloc

[Tony Cooper]

Yes. Wearing trousers halfway down the butt is quite fashionable for
non-upperclass African Americans.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/09/11/347143588/sagging-pants-and-the-long-history-of-dangerous-street-fashion

The style is impractical in that the wearer often shuffles when
walking because the trousers bind the legs, and the dragging cuffs can
cause the wearer to trip.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:02:33 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:59:56 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >> record, such impractical fashion being mainly an upper class thing.
> >Are there any "impractical fashions" that aren't "an upper class thing"?
>
> Yes. Wearing trousers halfway down the butt is quite fashionable for
> non-upperclass African Americans.

It is?

Also, who are you to make class assignments within the/an African
American community?

> https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/09/11/347143588/sagging-pants-and-the-long-history-of-dangerous-street-fashion

It isn't 2014 any more. You must not get out very often.

[CDB]

Fond memories of hotels where they take your belt away.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:55:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:02:33 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:59:56 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> >> record, such impractical fashion being mainly an upper class thing.
>> >Are there any "impractical fashions" that aren't "an upper class thing"?
>>
>> Yes. Wearing trousers halfway down the butt is quite fashionable for
>> non-upperclass African Americans.
>
>It is?
>
>Also, who are you to make class assignments within the/an African
>American community?
>
>> https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/09/11/347143588/sagging-pants-and-the-long-history-of-dangerous-street-fashion
>
>It isn't 2014 any more. You must not get out very often.

I do get out enough to know that the style is just as much in vogue
today as it was in 2014.

If you are not aware of this, it's you that should get out more. In
fact, right there in Jersey City, Henry Snyder High School's dress
code prohibits pants worn that "expose underwear".

https://hshs.jcboe.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1536187&type=d&pREC_ID=1666979

I could go out today and photograph some followers of that style. If
I linked to a photograph of a follower of that style, I would have to
decide if it would be best presented in color or in black and white.

>
>> The style is impractical in that the wearer often shuffles when
>> walking because the trousers bind the legs, and the dragging cuffs can
>> cause the wearer to trip.

[Peter Moylan]

I think I've just been whooshed. Is "hotels" a euphemism for "prisons" here?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:03:34 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:55:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:02:33 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:59:56 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >> >> record, such impractical fashion being mainly an upper class thing.
> >> >Are there any "impractical fashions" that aren't "an upper class thing"?
> >> Yes. Wearing trousers halfway down the butt is quite fashionable for
> >> non-upperclass African Americans.
> >It is?
> >Also, who are you to make class assignments within the/an African
> >American community?
> >> https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/09/11/347143588/sagging-pants-and-the-long-history-of-dangerous-street-fashion
> >It isn't 2014 any more. You must not get out very often.
>
> I do get out enough to know that the style is just as much in vogue
> today as it was in 2014.
>
> If you are not aware of this, it's you that should get out more. In
> fact, right there in Jersey City, Henry Snyder High School's dress
> code prohibits pants worn that "expose underwear".
>
> https://hshs.jcboe.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1536187&type=d&pREC_ID=1666979

When was that written? (It doesn't say.) Obviously they're not going
to bother to amend it to take out things that are unlikely to apply any
more, that would just be an invitation to a new generation of high-
schoolers to go back to the fashions of five years ago.

Dickinson High School is a few blocks south of me, and every morning
during the school year (in normal times) I see the kids -- approximately
equal numbers of black and brown ones -- walking down the street past
my house. There isn't any discernable uniformity in the girls' outfits,
except that they are not immodest, but the boys all wear chinos and
polo-type shirts (not t-shirts, not dress shirts). I doubt that they wear
status-symbol type athletic shoes, but probably not dress shoes, either.

Maybe the changing fashions, set in Harlem and Brooklyn, cross the
Hudson a lot quicker than they make it all the way down to your neck
of the swamps.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 19:45:03 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Of course that's what you see. Dickinson High School's dress code
requires *uniforms* that are DHS polo shirts and black or tan khaki
pants, skirts, or shorts (shorts must be to the knee or longer). They
must purchase the DHS polo shirts for $15.00 each.

Jeans and sweatpants are "NOT PERMITTED".

The above information is not available from the DHS website. It just
says the "Uniform Policy" link is "Coming Soon". The policy is
available on DHS's Facebook page, that I can access using my wife's
Facebook name/password, but I can't give a link to that. If you have
a Facebook name/password, you can open it.

This is your "well frog" thing coming out. You see what is in your
immediate view and think the rest of city, state, country, and world
is like that. Rey was right.

What is really kinda funny about this is that you noticed all those
kids in "chinos" and polo shirts and it didn't dawn on you that
they're wearing the school uniform even though you noticed "no
discernable uniformity".

I would think someone who attended St Hilda's & St Hugh's would
recognize a school uniform.

[CDB]

On 8/9/2021 8:46 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> CDB wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> Yes. Wearing trousers halfway down the butt is quite
>>> fashionable for non-upperclass African Americans.

>>> https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/09/11/347143588/sagging-pants-and-the-long-history-of-dangerous-street-fashion
>>>
>> The style is impractical in that the wearer often shuffles when
>>> walking because the trousers bind the legs, and the dragging
>>> cuffs can cause the wearer to trip.
>>
>> Fond memories of hotels where they take your belt away.

> I think I've just been whooshed. Is "hotels" a euphemism for
> "prisons" here?

Possibly an excesively cute one. I have read that the style originated
in that way, so it's bot surprising that it thrives in the AfAm community.

**********

I now realise that I should have followed Tony's link.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Note the scare quotes on "uniforms." That indicates a glimmer of
insight. Enjoy it now. It's rare from this writer.

> Jeans and sweatpants are "NOT PERMITTED".
>
> The above information is not available from the DHS website. It just
> says the "Uniform Policy" link is "Coming Soon". The policy is
> available on DHS's Facebook page, that I can access using my wife's
> Facebook name/password, but I can't give a link to that. If you have
> a Facebook name/password, you can open it.
>
> This is your "well frog" thing coming out. You see what is in your
> immediate view and think the rest of city, state, country, and world
> is like that. Rey was right.

Keep your dead sociopath idol to yourself.

Who was it introduced the theme of "high schools in Jersey City,"
moron?

> What is really kinda funny about this is that you noticed all those
> kids in "chinos" and polo shirts and it didn't dawn on you that
> they're wearing the school uniform even though you noticed "no
> discernable uniformity".

Oh, wow. He can't even distinguish between boys and girls.

> I would think someone who attended St Hilda's & St Hugh's would
> recognize a school uniform.

Why don't you try to find pictures of what such school _uniforms_ actually
looked like between 1957 and 1968?

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:


>> >Dickinson High School is a few blocks south of me, and every morning
>> >during the school year (in normal times) I see the kids -- approximately
>> >equal numbers of black and brown ones -- walking down the street past
>> >my house. There isn't any discernable uniformity in the girls' outfits,
>> >except that they are not immodest, but the boys all wear chinos and
>> >polo-type shirts (not t-shirts, not dress shirts). I doubt that they wear
>> >status-symbol type athletic shoes, but probably not dress shoes, either.
>>
>> Of course that's what you see. Dickinson High School's dress code
>> requires *uniforms* that are DHS polo shirts and black or tan khaki
>> pants, skirts, or shorts (shorts must be to the knee or longer). They
>> must purchase the DHS polo shirts for $15.00 each.
>
>Note the scare quotes on "uniforms." That indicates a glimmer of
>insight. Enjoy it now. It's rare from this writer.

There are no "scare quotes" on "uniforms". Clean your glasses. DHS
is a school that requires students to wear uniforms.

>
>> Jeans and sweatpants are "NOT PERMITTED".
>>
>> The above information is not available from the DHS website. It just
>> says the "Uniform Policy" link is "Coming Soon". The policy is
>> available on DHS's Facebook page, that I can access using my wife's
>> Facebook name/password, but I can't give a link to that. If you have
>> a Facebook name/password, you can open it.
>>
>> This is your "well frog" thing coming out. You see what is in your
>> immediate view and think the rest of city, state, country, and world
>> is like that. Rey was right.
>
>Keep your dead sociopath idol to yourself.
>
>Who was it introduced the theme of "high schools in Jersey City,"
>moron?
>

While their school may have a dress code that requires wearing a
uniform, the youth in Jersey City can follow any fashion they want
when not attending school. What is worn during the school term when
at school is not indicative of what they wear at other times.

Of, for that matter, when they are no longer attending high school.

>> What is really kinda funny about this is that you noticed all those
>> kids in "chinos" and polo shirts and it didn't dawn on you that
>> they're wearing the school uniform even though you noticed "no
>> discernable uniformity".
>
>Oh, wow. He can't even distinguish between boys and girls.

Both the boys and the girls at DHS wear polo shirts on the upper body
and tan or black on the lower torso.

"Chinos" is in quotes because you used that term. I don't know your
definition of "chinos", but they are not the same a "tan" or even
"khaki" pants.

When I was in high school, "chinos" were the pants of choice for boys.
They were a lighter fabric, and a lighter color, than what are now
called "khakis". The almost-white color would not be described as
"tan".

It was essential, fashion-wise, at my high school to wear chinos with
a belt in the back. The pants in this article are not chinos, but do
show the utterly useless belt in the back.

http://www.ivy-style.com/buckle-down-the-elusive-history-of-the-belted-back-trouser.html