Re: Things we remember...
Joy Beeson
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> And I suppose you wouldn't be dressed to "fashion" every hour, every
> day - or would you?
A hem that's longer than the current fashion is sloppy, a hem that's
shorter is indecent.
When empire waistlines were in fashion, slaves working in the fields
wore empire waistlines.
The waistline moved from the natural position to the empire position
gradually; fashions of dress seem to evolve in patterns of their own,
and the apparent leaders are only following from in front.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
erilar
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
I quit wearing skirts except when in medieval dress 2-3 decades ago 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Joy Beeson
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> I quit wearing skirts except when in medieval dress 2-3 decades ago 8-)
For a long time, I wore gowns only at the annual banquet and when it
was too hot to put clothes on. I'm trying to acquire pretty dresses
now, but I'm so fussy that it isn't easy.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Robert Bannister
> In article <u5kcf557larbmj52g...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:34:54 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And I suppose you wouldn't be dressed to "fashion" every hour, every
>>> day - or would you?
>> A hem that's longer than the current fashion is sloppy, a hem that's
>> shorter is indecent.
>>
>> When empire waistlines were in fashion, slaves working in the fields
>> wore empire waistlines.
>>
>> The waistline moved from the natural position to the empire position
>> gradually; fashions of dress seem to evolve in patterns of their own,
>> and the apparent leaders are only following from in front.
>
> I quit wearing skirts except when in medieval dress 2-3 decades ago 8-)
>
Don't you find skirts cooler in hot weather?
--
Rob Bannister
Cheryl
I find loose dresses even cooler than skirts in hot weather, and much
cooler than shorts or those weird things we used to call pedal-pushers;
I think they're called capri pants now.
I hadn't realized how rarely I wear either a dress or a skirt in the
fall, winter or spring any more until I realized that all that was left
in my closet that was remotely suitable for traditional female winter
wear was the long fake-velvet black skirt, and that wasn't fitting any
too well any more. It's a very versatile garment, though, suitable for
almost any occasion depending on what kind of blouse or sweater I wear.
I really admire all those women who are beautifully and appropriately
dressed for any time of year, but it all seems to take an inordinate
amount of time and anyway pantyhose stick to my legs in the heat and
provide no protection at all in the cold.
--
Cheryl
erilar
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
> > I quit wearing skirts except when in medieval dress 2-3 decades ago 8-)
> >
>
> Don't you find skirts cooler in hot weather?
Unless they're ankle length one is expected to wear shoes I no longer
buy nor can wear. They tend to look odd with running shoes or hiking
boots.
erilar
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
> pantyhose stick to my legs in the heat and
> provide no protection at all in the cold.
Exactly!!
Robert Bannister
> In article <7m142iF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> erilar wrote:
>
>>> I quit wearing skirts except when in medieval dress 2-3 decades ago 8-)
>>>
>> Don't you find skirts cooler in hot weather?
>
> Unless they're ankle length one is expected to wear shoes I no longer
> buy nor can wear. They tend to look odd with running shoes or hiking
> boots.
>
I've got admit I'd never noticed what footwear women have with their
skirts and dresses. It must be hard (and very expensive) being a woman.
--
Rob Bannister
Cheryl
Only if you follow the fashion industry, and people do tend to stare at
women who don't, to a minimal degree, anyway, especially young women.
Not that that bothers me.
But women's shoes and boots are a particular sore point with me. I don't
have erilar's problem with skirts, at least, I don't assuming I've
managed to find a pair of suitable sandals, and it's warm enough to wear
them. But in spite of trying repeatedly during my more-impressionable
adolescence, I cannot tolerate high heels, and finding flat, comfortable
shoes without soles polished to a glass-like shine which provide at
least some arch support and don't cost a small fortune is a challenge
indeed. And boots have to have all those features (especially a sole
with a good grip), plus be warm and semi-waterproof. (I've given up on
'waterproof', having gone through three pairs one winter whose
manufacturer carelessly advertised them as 'waterproof' instead of
'water resistant'.)
I don't know what women did before they invented running shoes. Well,
yes, I do; my grandmother swore by Tender Tootsies, but I don't think
they're the same quality as they were in her day. And some of them have
heels.
I really, really hate trying to find a pair of shoes or boots.
--
Cheryl
erilar
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
> I don't know what women did before they invented running shoes.
There WERE low-cut tennies, but they didn't offer the arch and general
foot support of modern running shoes. And there were some low-heeled
shoes with decent soles. I used to wear those when I still wore skirts.
I had a pair of pretty low "high" heels a time or two, but didn't like
them much and couldn't wear them long at a time. None of them offered
the kind of support my feet demand nowadays.
Dorothy J Heydt
>have erilar's problem with skirts, at least, I don't assuming I've
>managed to find a pair of suitable sandals, and it's warm enough to wear
>them. But in spite of trying repeatedly during my more-impressionable
>adolescence, I cannot tolerate high heels, and finding flat, comfortable
>shoes without soles polished to a glass-like shine which provide at
>least some arch support and don't cost a small fortune is a challenge
>indeed.
Birkenstocks. They have arch supports and rubber (probably faux
rubber, I suppose) with deep treads in them.
And boots have to have all those features (especially a sole
>with a good grip), plus be warm and semi-waterproof. (I've given up on
>'waterproof', having gone through three pairs one winter whose
>manufacturer carelessly advertised them as 'waterproof' instead of
>'water resistant'.)
Engineer's boots. We got ours at a military surplus place lo,
these years ago.
(Hal says "military surplus" doesn't really fit any more; they
all ran off the surplus from World War II for decades. But you
know the kind of place I mean, I'm sure.)
They're relatively plain, having only a strap across the ankle
(and I cut the straps off mine, wanting a more quasi-medieval
look). I've worn them to SCA tournaments that got rained on till
the ground was soggy, and my feet stayed warm and dry.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Cheryl
> In article <7m4s4uF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>> But women's shoes and boots are a particular sore point with me. I don't
>> have erilar's problem with skirts, at least, I don't assuming I've
>> managed to find a pair of suitable sandals, and it's warm enough to wear
>> them. But in spite of trying repeatedly during my more-impressionable
>> adolescence, I cannot tolerate high heels, and finding flat, comfortable
>> shoes without soles polished to a glass-like shine which provide at
>> least some arch support and don't cost a small fortune is a challenge
>> indeed.
>
> Birkenstocks. They have arch supports and rubber (probably faux
> rubber, I suppose) with deep treads in them.
I should look for a pair next time I force myself to go shoe shopping.
> And boots have to have all those features (especially a sole
>> with a good grip), plus be warm and semi-waterproof. (I've given up on
>> 'waterproof', having gone through three pairs one winter whose
>> manufacturer carelessly advertised them as 'waterproof' instead of
>> 'water resistant'.)
>
> Engineer's boots. We got ours at a military surplus place lo,
> these years ago.
>
> (Hal says "military surplus" doesn't really fit any more; they
> all ran off the surplus from World War II for decades. But you
> know the kind of place I mean, I'm sure.)
>
> They're relatively plain, having only a strap across the ankle
> (and I cut the straps off mine, wanting a more quasi-medieval
> look). I've worn them to SCA tournaments that got rained on till
> the ground was soggy, and my feet stayed warm and dry.
That reminds me that the longest-lasting pair of boots I ever had were a
pair of men's construction boots. They did attract a certain amount of
unflattering attention, but they were certainly durable and comfortable.
They weren't very warm (I live considerably north of California), but
that could be remedied with a couple pairs of socks.
--
Cheryl
Derek Lyons
>Engineer's boots. We got ours at a military surplus place lo,
>these years ago.
>
>(Hal says "military surplus" doesn't really fit any more; they
>all ran off the surplus from World War II for decades. But you
>know the kind of place I mean, I'm sure.)
The ran off the surplus from WWII for decades, now they're running off
the surplus of the Cold War. The real ones are much thinner on the
ground than they used to be, but they're still about.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Dorothy J Heydt
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>>Engineer's boots. We got ours at a military surplus place lo,
>>these years ago.
>>
>>(Hal says "military surplus" doesn't really fit any more; they
>>all ran off the surplus from World War II for decades. But you
>>know the kind of place I mean, I'm sure.)
>
>The ran off the surplus from WWII for decades, now they're running off
>the surplus of the Cold War. The real ones are much thinner on the
>ground than they used to be, but they're still about.
Yup. The one in Vallejo has some military stuff, and a lot of
other, um, stuff ... Hal sometimes buys Extra Extra Large Dickies
blue chambray shirts there.
But there's a small one in Oakland where we used to go, which is
practically all recycled military, so far as I can tell, and has
patriotic posters from WWI and -II all over its walls.