Class distinction?

[Puffer]

I came across this in the online Daily Mail:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3280759/Flat-shoes-drag-Austrian-academy-teaches-MEN-walk-high-heels-s-33-class.html

I'm not too sure what to make of it.   The classes seem to be responding to a genuine demand but the status/interest of the participants is not clear.   Are they just heel-loving ordinary blokes (like us) who are brave enough to 'go public', or would-be drag artists, or crossdressers, or what?   Did Conchita Wurst really start a trend, or at least act as a catalyst? 

Edited November 8, 2015 by Puffer

[Shyheels]

Interesting, as you say, and clearly they have tapped into a latent demand, but in looking over the article and, more particularly the photos, I would be very much leaning towards the latter interpretation.

[FastFreddy2]

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

but the status/interest of the participants is not clear.

 

 

Au contraire, my dear fellow healer heeler. Many less generous men, would venture the indicators are wholly visible in the position of the wrists, on many of the men shown. In fact the ability to rotate a wrist thus, may have borne a well known defamatory phrase like "weak wristed" or something equally disfavourable.

I am with Shyheels on this, the latter has it. The is a tinge of 'theatrical performer' about many of them.   

[Puffer]

 

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Interesting, as you say, and clearly they have tapped into a latent demand, but in looking over the article and, more particularly the photos, I would be very much leaning towards the latter interpretation.

 

8 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

 

Au contraire, my dear fellow healer heeler. Many less generous men, would venture the indicators are wholly visible in the position of the wrists, on many of the men shown. In fact the ability to rotate a wrist thus, may have borne a well known defamatory phrase like "weak wristed" or something equally disfavourable.

I am with Shyheels on this, the latter has it. The is a tinge of 'theatrical performer' about many of them.   

Hmmm.   I am in  somewhat of a quandary in interpreting your respective remarks:

(i)  reference to 'the latter' is, strictly, not applicable where more than two items have been listed; the last in such a list should be cited as 'the last-named'.   But, pedantry aside, my 'last-named' was in fact the unspecified 'or what'.   If, as I infer, you both favour the penultimate item (i.e. crossdressers), I would tend to agree.   But many unduly sensitive souls would opine that crossdressing and a tendency towards looseness of the wrist are not readily linked and may well be mutually exclusive.   (After all, any man wearing at least some items of female clothing is a 'crossdresser' but very likely to be otherwise essentially manly and not playing for the other side .)

(ii) may I assume that we agree that the likely interest of the participants is primarily in wearing female clothes (or at least footwear), either for pleasure or for theatrical purposes, regardless of orientation?   If so, are not most of us in the former sub-set - and probably with very firm wrists after all the cycling and DIY etc that we indulge in?   Answers, please, on an electronic postcard ...

[FastFreddy2]

Firstly, to address your highly refined sense of pedantry, surely "or what?" invited an interpretation rather than offered one? With that now established with the good grace you often provide, I'd like to think the charming Shyheels was quite correct when he chose "the latter" of the three stated interpretations you had helpfully suggested. Taking his wise guidance (only a fool wouldn't), I gave his choice my full support.

On reflection, and now with some further guidance on the matter from your good self, I would possibly encompass a group not specifically offered but might fall into the "or what?" camp. I am tempted to label them; "Theatricals". Some having wrists good enough for all sorts of DIY skills and legs strong enough for cycling. Others, possibly more interested in homely, more sensitive pursuits perhaps?

I would agree wholeheartedly with the notion that ANY attire that was created with the concept a women would be the wearer, but a man chose to wear it as well, might label the him a cross-dresser. (I'm very sorry for the shocking grammar.) But being a great believer for equal opportunity across gender, the same could be said for almost every Western woman at some stage during her life. Though a cross-dressing woman is undeniably an oxymoron, if I can dare to use such a sophisticated word? I can't think of any attire that has been made, that a woman could wear and it not be socially acceptable, at least in Western culture. Does rather seem to be something of a one-way street, so to speak.

We are all doing our bit to change that, of course.  Frontiersmen, everyone one of us.     

[Puffer]

You raise some interesting points, Freddy.   I will respond briefly and would point out that some may take exception to any word below which (like me in heels) is emboldened when seen in public:

1.   Yes, 'or what' did invite others to provide an additional interpretation; but I don't think I got one, despite it being the true subject of 'the latter' - hence my query.   Hence my assumption (now confirmed) that it was the third of my four suggestions that you had both chosen.

2.   'Theatricals' is indeed a fair label for a fourth camp.   It overlaps with others but we can pretty well envisage the wide range of gentle-men that this label embraces.

3.   Crossdressing (with or without the hyphen) is of course a very vague concept and you are right that it has little or no significance when a woman is the subject, although its regularity or acceptability does not per se create an oxymoron (or even a cowymoron), as a woman in male clothing is still, literally, crossdressing.   And it is indeed a one-way street, unfortunately.

As to frontiersmen, I am reminded of one Davy Crockett, a very popular character in the mid-50s, thanks to some Disney films and a memorable song.   The question often asked in the playground was 'How many ears does Davy Crockett have?'.   The expected answer: 'A left ear, a right ear and a wild frontier'.

 

[FastFreddy2]

11 hours ago, Puffer said:

1.   Yes, 'or what' did invite others to provide an additional interpretation; but I don't think I got one, despite it being the true subject of 'the latter' - hence my query.   Hence my assumption (now confirmed) that it was the third of my four suggestions that you had both chosen.

 

 

Ahemm.

Sir, we are reasonable men. (Usually). If everyone else in the room says the tree is green, but you believe it to be blue, what colour is it?

If the good men (and true) to whom you ask a question provide the answer they believe is accurate, is that answer not accurate, even if the person asking doesn't agree it is? Meaning trees are green because consensus agrees what green is. If it's possible to provide what subsequently becomes a point for debate, clearly the question was not clear, even if it was in the mind of the author. Women are famous (notorious) for both asking and answering these types of questions. I am resolute in my belief, that womenfolk do not have the ability to say or no to a question a man might perceive to have only a yes or no answer. In fact, in the Freddy household there is now a 'standing order' to reflect this anomaly. "Anything other than a plain 'yes', means 'no'." Sadly, this has led to many outings being cancelled because the answer to "Would you like to go to ...... " almost never produces a "yes" answer. (Typically the first remark is "When?" followed by disfavourable comments on my timekeeping. That might be true, but have no bearing on the need for me to have a concise answer.)

 

So, whilst in all matters you are the exactitude of correctness, I can't help but feel there may have been the minutest of vagueness in the question that led to a misunderstanding by all involved. Since I have a manufacturing background, my only suggestion to eradicate this in future, would be to suggest a moment or two reading up on the Japanese (non martial) art of Poka-Yoke. Which I ought to point out immediately, is not a computer game.  

Your servant sir.

 

[Puffer]

This confusion (if indeed there is one) has arisen because I listed four discrete categories of potential male participants, of which the last was unspecified and open to suggestion.   Replies referring to 'the latter' logically referred to that last unspecified category (which remained unspecified) but did in fact more or less fit the third one, as subsequent exchanges confirmed.   If I framed the original statement in a manner which caused misunderstanding, then I apologise.   Perhaps, at the risk of over-formality, I should have given each category a number!

An answer to a question may be accurate to the best of a respondent's knowledge and belief, but if the question was misunderstood and the answer no longer 'fits', then it is not by definition an accurate answer to the question actually asked.   But I think your point, Freddy, is more that a majority view must defeat a minority one.   Sorry, but that cannot be true if the matter is being dealt with truly objectively - although the parameters of the objectivity may themselves be under debate.   If there can be little factual doubt that some specified trees are indeed green, it doesn't matter how many people see them subjectively as blue - they are all wrong (because respondents are possibly colourblind?).   They have provided a valid opinion in good faith (subjective) but it may be defeated by information that effectively constitutes the definitive and authoritative statement of fact (objective).   On the other hand, of course, there may be no factual answer to a question where only subjective opinion is possible, e.g. 'Does beer taste good?'

Most of my professional life has been spent in drafting technical/legal documents and writing articles on similar matters.   I am therefore mindful of the need for clear, intelligible language (as well as good English) that maximises understanding and minimises doubt or ambiguity.   I hope that I have broadly succeeded; my track record elsewhere (including appearance in court as an expert witness) suggests that I have.   One rule I am conscious of is that of contra proferentem: that any ambiguity in a document will be construed against the person who drafted it.   A point to keep in mind when trying to bulldoze the opposition by stipulating all the terms of a contract etc.

I had not heard of Poka-yoke by that name, but of course the concept of idiot-proofing is well understood.   It can be applied to written instructions, questionnaires etc but, alas, it often is not.   Just look at a self-assessment tax return if you want some examples of questions that cannot be answered in the manner HMRC expects if they are interpreted as they have been simply (and inaccurately) written. 

By the way, nothing I've written above is intended as a full and authoritative statement of fact relating to any matter addressed or ignored - so there!  

[FastFreddy2]

Again, actually laughed out loud. In a discreet way, of course.   (It's gone midnight.)

Whilst not being able to profess 'expert witness in court' as part of my life history, I was in fact on 'the list' if the day in court didn't go the way it did. In this instance the police had their case kicked out, on the day I was to appear for the 'defence'. As it was, the court didn't need my help to decide the police were 'barking' up a bad tree. 

As a programmer/analyst toward the middle/end of my career in manufacturing, I too had to write manuals that were tested by the smartest stupid people ever employed by a blue-chip (listed) company. I also help author/actually author a set of rules/manual that involved overview by the police and in an environment where mistakes could get people killed, and this was an understood fact. (Not me dreaming up potential dangers.) 

If there's anything other than a dead end to a question, someone - usually the first person to read the question after the author - will find the route to anything other than the yes/no answer the author thought were the only answers possible.  The concept of Poka-Yoke is to design out the opportunities for anything other than the expected yes/no answer. A great example of this, is the UK wall plug. It can only be fitted one way. You might then think a question followed by a "Yes" box, and a "No" box would satisfy meeting the concept? I'm sure you have been there too, when you felt the need to either tick both, or tick neither?

The fault there then, (and here is the punchline), is how the question is presented .....   

If the person(s) answering the question is/are something of a fool (tick) better make the question fool-proof. 

 

As always, your servant sir. 

[Shyheels]

As a frequent and creative user of ambiguity, I think it is a fine thing and am delighted by how regularly one finds opportunities to use it to good effect. Like the air we breathe, ambiguity is everywhere. Long may it be so.

I might add that 'yes' or 'no' answers are not always a good thing either, even - I might even say especially - when one personally wants to be clear of any ambiguity. I have travelled much in Africa and have learned never to ask questions that can be answered with just a 'yes' or a 'no'. Locals there - many of them anyway - like to be agreeable to foreigners and very often say 'yes;' to anything. Is this the bus to Douala? Yes. Is this the bus to Yaounde? Yes. Does it leave at 2 o'clock? Yes? Does it leave at four? Yes.   

I like to have my cake and eat it too

[FastFreddy2]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 

I like to have my cake and eat it too

 

We can't keep cake in the house. Doesn't stop me eating it about twice a week, at the moment. Not helping my waistline much. 

[Puffer]

Yes, there is a time and place for ambiguity, whether intentional, ironic or otherwise.   I once told a friend, on learning that he had been recently hospitalised after a car crash: 'I'm sorry to hear that you're recovering from an accident'.   The two-edged comment was not intended to suggest that I applauded his injury rather than his recovery - but I quite understood the look of surprise he gave me, and he then quite understood my embarrassment.   There are many better examples!