I'm slowly getting used to my new role as a trendsetter - but it hasn't been easy!
Word has got around about Lois's criticism of me "looking ill" and "looking pasty", and my efforts to correct the fault by some skilful use of make-up.
before and after... me before (left) and me (right) after my
make-up session with Lois - the pictures that "went viral" this week
And now suddenly, since my story "broke" a couple of days ago, everybody's started to look at their partners and business contacts in a new way.
Apologies from me, by the way, if you've been one of the hundreds affected by this latest media madness !!!!!
And the new trend I started is even affecting the royal family, as can be seen from the new portrait of King Charles, as painted by Jonathan Yeo, which is a pity!
A lot of people don't like this portrait, but according to an email I receive today from Steve, our American brother-in-law, Suzy Weiss of The Free Press has gone on record as saying that the painting "matches the man. and shows Charles in a good, if rosy, light".
flashback to 1993: the phone-call where Charles cringingly
Adds Weiss, "I appreciate when high-ups try to reflect the era we’re in and not the height of their perch. And I like this painting of Charles. It’s a little eccentric, but not mad. Pensive, but not penetrating. Charles looks dignified, even though it seems like he’s emerging from a hazy dream."
Lois and I think she's right. And anyway, it's only a picture that somebody's painted, when all's said and done. Let's be honest haha !!!!
It is true, however, that not everyone likes it. Weiss herself reports that somebody has said the portrait "fulfils his destiny of becoming a tampon" - a reference to Charles' cringingly embarrassing leaked phone call with Camilla, made while he was still married to Diana.
told Camilla that he'd like to be "reincarnated as her tampon"
Now that I myself have become famous (apparently - heaven knows why!!!!), I'm waiting with some trepidation to get the calls from artists saying that they "want to paint me".
The call I'm dreading most will be the one from Australian painter Vincent Namatjira, you know, the guy who painted Charles looking uncomfortable in the Australian desert.
Australian artist Vincent Namatjira with his
picture of King Charles looking uncomfortable in the desert
Memo to the artist: no need to do that with me Vincent - I've got photos of me looking uncomfortable all over the world and going back over 50 years, to boot.
Believe me, one more representation of me along those lines, will be completely "de trop", to put it mildly!
Well, we all had a jolly good laugh over those awkward memories, now, didn't we! [Speak for yourself! - Ed]
But there's a serious point here too, isn't there. Namatjira is a dangerous man - let's not mince words. He's been in the news again this week because of his unflattering portrait of Australia's richest woman, mining billionaire Gina Rinehart. The portrait is hanging in the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra, and Rinehart has demanded that it be removed, and who can blame her....
You cheeky sod, Namatjira haha !!!!
Poor Gina !!!!!
20:30 Lois and I go to bed on the second and final part of an interesting documentary on the PBS America channel, all about the story of flight attendants through the decades.
Another interesting look-back at the fortunes of America's flight attendants, a.k.a. air stewardesses over the decades. The first programme covered the early years, starting with the 1920's and 1930's, when air travel was so risky that you couldn't even get travel insurance, and the flight attendants were all men or "cabin boys" - it was deemed too risky for women to "go up in those things", to put it mildly.
flashback to the 1920's and 1930's: male "cabin boys" in attendance
When women eventually took over these jobs, it was initially "to calm the nerves of the plane's jittery, and mainly male, passengers".
These air-stewardesses had to look wholesome, but at the same time project a sense of being potentially sexually available, in theory, if not in practice. They also had to fit the airlines' requirements on height, weight, hip-size, looks, and willingness to do as they were told, while not being pregnant, or married, or older than 32. And also, in those far-off, crazy days, they also had to have "the right skin-colour", needless to say.
Now tonight, in this second programme we're into the 1960's, the era of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), set up in 1965, both of which upset the airlines' apple-carts on a lot of their requirements, which became illegal, although it took a long time.
Lois and I didn't know that, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "discrimination on grounds of sex" was added as an afterthought to the other grounds, like race and religion, thanks to a last minute amendment by Congressman Howard Smith from Virginia. Astonishingly, according to the programme it's still the case that nobody's quite sure why this conservative politician, who had opposed civil rights for black people, decided to add in the sex bit. Was he trying to "tank" the bill, by, in his eyes, making it seem ridiculous?
I think we should be told, don't you?
Whatever Smith's real motives, he certainly did women a big favour, that's for sure.
However, it took years of lawsuits by stewardesses to get the changes they wanted to their conditions of employment, and eventually to have them put into practice, aided by various new organisations like the National Organisation for Women.
The airlines came up with some ingenious arguments to frustrate the women's wishes, to put it mildly. Male employees of airlines were given single rooms when staying in hotels overseas, but women always had to share with another woman. The airlines argued firstly that this was for the women's security, and after that, they pointed to their observation that women often went into public bathrooms in pairs.
To his credit, the judge roared with laughter on hearing this submission: it is quite funny, isn't it - be fair haha!!!
The 1960's and 1970's were the era of stewardesses being showcased for their sexiness in the advertising - the "I'm Cheryl, Fly me" kinds of ads, and the "You can fly me morning, noon or night"; the era of the uniforms with the short skirts and the cleavage and even, at one stage, uniforms made out of paper.
All very annoying to the women, because it encouraged male passengers to take the chance to "feel their butts", or squeeze past them suggestively in the airliner's many nooks and crannies, and tight corners.
The organisations countering these moves, produced campaign buttons attacking National Airlines, for example, with slogans like "Your 'fly' is open, National!" and "Go Fly Yourself!"
All this emphasis on the women's sexiness was very annoying to the stewardesses, who pointed to all the many serious aspects of their job - looking after health and safety of passengers, being ready at all times to give first-aid to passengers falling ill, and being ready to evacuate the plane at a moment's notice, all that kind of stuff.
The last thing women want when they're doing any of that is to have some man "feeling their butts", isn't that right? Be fair !!!!!
But fascinating stuff, isn't it !!!! [If you say so! - Ed]
22:00 We go to bed - zzzzzz!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment