Manners maketh the man! And the woman too!

There's a lot of controversy these days when it comes to good manners.  Too many people, and this includes the media, seem to think and to say that good manners are old-fashioned, and that our culture has undergone so many changes that it's hard to work out what are good manners and what are not!

Now we, of this group, are of the old-fashioned views and standards.  Good manners and etiquette are timeless, and don't have to undergo such radical changes as we're being convinced is necessary today.   Being old-fashioned when it comes to manners, brings with it, feelings of security and in many ways feelings of safety.    

We're being persuades that in today's society it's necessary for us all to "understand" youth (anyone from 5 to 50 it seems) and their behaviour and allow them to be rude, to bully, to threaten, and to be totally obnoxious, without raising a finger.  As for questioning them, we're told to shut-up and move on.

I'm a great believer in good manners.  When it comes to behaviour with and between people.   And this includes, dare I suggest it, table manners and etiquette.   For it's no longer seen to be "cool" or "with it" for people to display good table manners.   People eat with their knives rather than knives and forks, and their fingers.  Don't get me wrong, finger food has to be eaten by finger, otherwise most of the enjoyment is lost.  But not when you are in the restaurant of the Sheraton, or the Langham, or the Windsor.  But it happens all the time.

A lady who is well known Australia wide, as well as Asia, is considered to be an expert in manners and etiquette.  Louise Percy of the Percy Institute situated in Western Australia, has all the answers.   I first met Louise Percy some years ago when I attended to short afternoon tea/etiquette course at her home.   A group of ladies shared afternoon tea and learned many of the little things that make up good manners at the table, and we were all impressed with Louise's genuineness and sincerity.


Why not visit her blog and get a "taste" of good manners and other matters, at   http://mannersandothermatters.blogspot.com/ 

Does it make you cross?

Picking up women's magazines is a "must" when you're sitting in a doctors consulting rooms, or the hairdressers, or wherever while you're waiting for your appointment time. Most of us in this group anyway no longer personally purchase women's magazines - they're far too expensive and even if there is an article or two that takes our interest, the rest is usually of no interest whatsoever. We don't suppose the publishers would like to hear that, but it's true.

So with six of the more "popular" magazines on our communal table this morning while we were enjoying our early morning "getting ready to start work" cuppa, we started flipping through the pages. Now we're all ages so you'd think we'd find something that relates to each and every one of us within the pages of these national and international magazines.

But that's not so.

It was the youngest one in our group Melissa, who actually voiced what we were all thinking. "Why don't they ever show real women of all ages, rather than very young and quite honestly anorexic teens?" This really impressed us, not that she'd said outright something we've been thinking for a long time, but that as a young woman she "saw" something inappropriate by the magazines' attitudes. In her 20s she went on to say how confused she becomes when trying to relate the real world with what is dished up week after week in the women's magazines.

This is something of a pet peeve as far as we're concerned. Surely women's magazines are written and published for all women? Surely that means women of all ages, all colours, all shapes and all sizes, all colours, and so on? Yet all we see are so-called "celebrities" (journalists don't even know the meaning of the word!) who are constantly undergoing change. Cosmetic surgery; excessive and extreme dieting; wearing the latest and most expensive fashion; changing partners/lovers as often as they change their hair shampoo; or else sensationalised stories that go out of their way to beat the realms of common sense. The value and worth and standards of women's magazines have sunk very low as far as we're concerned. And in so doing they've relegated women (who they're supposed to inspire or motivate) even lower in their own feelings of self worth.

There are absolutely stunningly beautiful women out there - even in your town or city - of a certain age (40,50,60 and older), who wear and use fashion to express themselves and their personalities in such a way as to inspire women of all ages to copy or to adapt to suit themselves. There are just as many women of size who are flamboyant and expressive and who take your breath away with their confidence and beauty. But these women never grace the pages of women's magazines. Why? Because as an editor - male - of the leading magazine here in Australia told us - "we don't want to offend our readers." What arrogance. What hypocrisy. What he, and others, don't realise is that he is perpetuating the thought that age and size is offensive! What century are these people living in?

When an editor of a woman's magazine is fired (happened here in Australia) because she had the audacity of putting a lovely young and internationally applauded size 16 woman on the cover of her magazine, well you know something is really wrong with society and it's attitudes.

The gaining of self-esteem!

“If one is truly to succeed in leading a person to a specific place, one must first and foremost take care to find her where she is and begin there”. ….© Soren Kierkgaard

Something we read this week

An interesting snippet of information was contained in a sentence or two in one of the major city newspapers here this week.

It's a simple theory. Ginger could help east the nausea often caused by chemotherapy.

Researchers found cancer patients who took ginger capsules a few days before treatment experienced a 40 per cent reduction in symptoms.

It would be interesting to find out a little more on this issue.

Can anyone tell me why?

Most of our group are intelligent, thinking women. We may be a little on the weird side occasionally, but on the whole ......

A couple of us have been around for a "while" and a couple of us have yet to taste the spoils of success (whatever one may define as success); each of us feels fulfilled and contented at this point in time. But we all smile - a lot, every day. At each other, at what we do, and at times we even laugh at ourselves.

We got to talking over morning coffee yesterday about the angry, hostile, arrogant, smouldering, pouty looks of today's young models. In the newspapers, the women's magazines. They stomp and stamp, they march (even frog-march), they treat the catwalk as their anger-management counsellor. If they could, they look as though they would throw themselves on the floor and give us two minute tantrums just like a 2 year old! And for what reason?

Does glowering at the audience make their garments more attractive? Does it make them more attractive? And if so, to whom?

What's wrong with a smile? Is there something inherently "bad" about showing the world, from the catwalk and the pages of magazines, that they love what they're doing, that they love what they're wearing, that they want YOU to love what they're wearing?

Because this anger and hostility and arrogance shows itself reflected in the faces of too many young (and older for that matter) women who walk down our streets, who shop in our malls, and who pass us as we walk by. It seems as though it is considered to be normal.

But in our dealings with women a number of them have actually said they won't even say hello or greet people who glare with such distaste - it's almost as though they are at war with the world, with other women and indeed themselves.

Any opinions?

The "uniform" of today

I was waiting for Carol to arrive at the local coffee shop. With large floor to ceiling windows looking out into the mall, I watched as people went about shopping, stopping to chat and so on. It suddenly occurred to me that women particularly have taken up a “uniform” in clothing.

Apart from jeans and tee shirts, the majority of women are wearing hip length shirts - sometimes as a jacket over the ubiquitous tee shirt, with black pants. The more I looked, the more I saw the same.

I can remember as a young Mum with a teenage daughter that she and her friends were saying they didn’t want to wear a school uniform. “It wasn’t cool to look the same as everyone else”. It wasn’t fair that the school “made” them do so - they wanted to wear the clothes they chose. They got their own way.

She’s grown up now and has teenagers of her own. But something strange has happened. No longer does she wear "choices". I notice that she is now wearing this “middle-aged” uniform of a black tee shirt and black pants. Not only around the house but when she goes out, even to the cinema or theatre, having a BBQ or visiting neighbours. Always the same sort of outfit. Her entire wardrobe is made up of black tee shirts and black pants. I mentioned this “uniform look” to her the other day and she said, “Surely Mum, you can understand they’re more comfortable”. More comfortable than what? And just what does being comfortable have to do with wearing clothes that you like, maybe even better than tee shirts and black pants.

If women were only given the choice of wearing black or white tee shirts and black pants, they'd be screaming "we want choice".

Look, I’m not saying for one minute that black tee shirt and black pants aren't comfortable and practical, but let’s get a bigger perspective on “fashion”. For what appears to have happened is that the choices gained made all those years ago have now been put to one side and a new "uniform" has taken over. You can see it in women of all ages - young (even tweens), adult and elderly women.

Can’t we see the adventure in playing with colour and texture and design and style and fabric? Have a look around at the women in your shopping mall or coffee shop next time you go and see if you don’t agree with me.

Now we've got another gene to blame!

Did you see the article in a recent newspaper that says if we have the ability to keep "cool, calm and collected" when others around us are having tantrums, temper blasts and "losing their heads", then we can thank our parents?

It seems studies in Germany at the University of Bonn asked more than 800 people on how they handled anger. Their DNA's were tested to determine which of three versions of a gene affecting depression levels they carried.

Those with one version were significantly "cooler" than those with the others. Angry types also had less grey matter in the brain's emotional centre. (Behavioural Brain Research)

While talking about "grey" matter - oh, how Agatha Christie loved this subject - it seems from studies here in Australia that teenagers who are binge drinking are opening themselves to all sorts of brain malfunctions, now and in the future, in that their levels of "white" matter are decreasing rapidly.

This brought about a question amongst our group this morning - just how many different coloured "matters" do we actually have in our brain?

Would that account for some people having black and white dreams while others always have technicolour?

Hmmmmm.