The Death of the Gentleman

[Samsa]

Labels are ridiculous things. They may be useful, sometimes, to assist us in an exercise in superficial classification, but they do not tell us anything about the object itself. If I place a golf ball in a pickle jar, it will be sorted out and placed with other jars of pickles. Perhaps, at first glance, many people will declare that it IS a pickle. But the thing itself, intrinsically, is not a pickle, and it never will be. How easily we are mislead by what is written on the outside!

I know a number of finely dressed, well-spoken, educated, men who carry themselves with grace and style. Some I would call gentlemen, some I certainly would not. But the exteriors are the same, and in my opinion it is the height of blind ignorance to take anything at face value -- especially people.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

I was thinking of a response to the original post, but MissQueenie said it better than I could.

I might add that by adopting such a strict definition of gentleman, you are implicitly stating that most of the men here at the Lounge (who do not wear suits every day, if my information is correct) are not gentlemen.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I reckon she said it better than pretty much any of us could :eusa_clap

.

 

[carebear]

you're right. 22" is better.

11" front to back. whassamatta ?

OH, you thought i meant cuff height !

that would be impractical.

Yep, I thought it was a typo of 2", which still seems tall to me.

 

[Samsa]

A flip-flopped-camouflage-bermudas wearing gentleman? A dockers+company polo wearing gentleman? A suit+notie wearing gentleman (see Sadam Hussein at his trial)? An-all-year-long-pair of jeans + checked shirt wearing gentleman? A suit + winter-boots-in-june wearing gentleman, because that's the only non-sneaker footwear he owns? That's my point; some time ago, none of these would have been characterized as gentlemen, nor would they have been allowed in good establishments, such as restaurants and hotels.

It was also not too long ago that people with brown colored skin were not allowed in certain places, like hotels and restaurants...

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Maybe the word "gentleman", in this thread's context, should be replaced by the term "tastefully dressed person".

.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

Well written ma'm. There are many well dressed men who's closest relation to the word "Gentlemen" is the rest room they use.

I like this definition :"the appellation of Gentleman is never to be affixed to a man's circumstances, but to his Behaviour in them"
Contrary to the author of the article, I think this is broad enough to admit all gentlemen, and reference to behavior enough to exclude those who are not.

 

[MissQueenie]

It was also not too long ago that people with brown colored skin were not allowed in certain places, like hotels and restaurants...

Touche. Very well put!

Don't get me wrong -- I certainly appreciate the effort the well-dressed man puts into his appearance. And I doubt any of us would be here if we did not strongly favor the classic, handsome appeal of traditional fine clothing. (This isn't the beer-hat-with-crazy-straws lounge, after all). My objection is the exclusivity of Geo's definition of a gentleman. If I were held to such standards, I'm sure I would rarely hear myself called a lady.

Perhaps I'm being too democratic in my usage for some tastes, and that's all right. No one says we all have to agree all the time.

 

[Lincsong]

A gentleman (or lady) is about how one behaves and how one carries themself.

A gentleman, beset by robbers and now wearing a burlap sack, is still a gentleman.

A gentleman, down on his luck, who wears his best weatherbeaten but cleaned up suit (and remains discrete so as not to be distracting) to more formal events is still a gentleman despite the shiny elbows. He remains a gentleman when wearing clean and mended work clothes day to day if they are his second best.

A gentleman, deprived of fancy book larnin', is still a gentleman if his speech, though unrefined or unsophisticated, is courteous, kind and honest.

Sums it all up right here.:eusa_clap

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Yup!

.

 

[RedPop4]

Well stated, Marc...tastefully dressed.

Thomas Jefferson may have been classified a farmer, but Virginia "farmers" of his day and time were anything but. He owned the property, but he and his like certainly didn't do much work, that's why they had slaves.

See Stephen Ambrose's Undaunted Courage : Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West. This is a great book, I'm just in progress, but he describes the world of the Virginia planter/farmer in order to give insight into Jefferson and into Lewis and Clark.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Wait, what movie is that from?

I know that quote from a Marx Brothers picture by Groucho.

I think it was Duck Soup

Can't say that's where it's from elsewhere.


I would think the gentleman is a use of stance, pride and manner, not clothing. If clothing were how to describe gentlemen, than I don't want to know the reason of that gentleman yelling at me for no good reason!

 

[Haversack]

Geo wrote:
"A flip-flopped-camouflage-bermudas wearing gentleman?"

This pretty much describes some British officers in a couple of photographs I've recently seen in book I've been reading on the Chindits. But they were wearing their hats.

Haversack.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

Well that's alright then.

Were they in Bermuda?

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Not quite.

 

[jamespowers]

Uh, I think we call that a gentleman in a uniform.

Regards,

J

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Uh, I think we call that a gentleman in a uniform.

Quite so. If my tone was overly harsh, I apologise.

 

[jamespowers]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]Quite so. If my tone was overly harsh, I apologise.[/QUOTE]

No harshness detected. I think you would look great in that uniform.

Regards,

J