As we enter a new year, Laura Reynolds looks at how the dating game differs from previous generations.
Laura Reynolds looks at the freedoms of festive singledom
Join Jason Rose for a peek behind today's door.
Lauren Tabbron writes about the difficulties of spending Christmas away from a loved one.
Personally, I like guys with a rugged look and a sexy smile that says 'a hundred per cent natural' who exude effortless dishevelled style. For me, a man has to be comfortable in his own body and have the confidence to be himself, rather than hide behind make up and obsess over his appearance. However, I understand that finding the right balance in both appearance and personality may be difficult for a guy and he could end up at the somewhat extreme metrosexual end of the scale.
Yes, us girls do ask for a lot when it comes to crafting our ideal man: we want him effortlessly suave and sexy, yet he has to be extra sensitive and care about stuff that’s important to us (ie. to understand our need for shopping over watching football, and be on hand to offer a fashion opinion in the absence of girl friends). So, when this new type of man comes along, a man who shops with as much zeal as us, who knows what colour co-ordination is, expresses his emotions and has an abundant supply of moisturiser, what do we do? We moan about it...obviously.
But the moaning is with good reason! (I promise). It’s not that we’re trying to be difficult, it’s just slightly unnerving when you can relate to your man on a feminine level and there’s something just not right about that. As much as girls whinge about a guy’s slobby habits or throw a tantrum when we’re made to trade watching Desperate Housewives for footie (OK that never happens), we wouldn’t want it any other way. What makes guys different from girls and what causes attraction (as well as conflict), is precisely what makes the world go round.
It’s all in the science: men do their macho thing and are mostly programmed to not always understand a female view. I don’t think that men have to prove their softer side by actually acting more feminine! Next thing you know he’ll want to discuss periods and have a good bitch about that girl in last season’s outfit – it would be like going out with yourself! What makes guys attractive is that you don’t always understand them, and vice versa.
I have no objection to a guy’s self expression through his clothes or particular look and I’m not saying they should all be macho men. There’s no problem with a guy who takes care in his appearance or has a particular style involving some guyliner (it’s actually quite sexy worn in the right way), but they shouldn’t strive to be something they’re not. Style is obviously a personal thing but the modern concern with sensitivity and appearance, and the pressure to find a 'style' for guys, has morphed our men into pretentious wannabes. Call me old-fashioned, but beauty is only skin deep, and a polished exterior isn’t always a loveable one.
#17 - I think you need to take your head out of the working class dirt pile you have it stuck in and realise that the 'real world' does include those who may be better off than you. There is always a bigger fish. Live with it.
There's no such thing as intelligence being able to fund you through public school: I got a scholarship at Repton and with bursaries still couldn't afford the £15,000 per year reduced rate for going to school there.
The only luck present is the luck of growing up in a rich household or somehow having someone pay for you to go there. Lucky them indeed, but it's not how society should function in the modern world. If they're better, it stops the poor from going to them and divides the classes further - if they're not, they shouldn't charge more. It's a poor system and it's similar to what universities could end up in if the cap is lifted off tuition.
/rant
Wait... what has this got to do with metrosexualism anyway?
We were talking about private school, not public school, Jason. Different schools have different bursaries your experience is not the same of all schools, public and private.
"There's no such thing as intelligence being able to fund you through public school"
Yes, there is. Just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean they don't exist. A neighbour of mine- Rickesh Patel- won a scholarship to Cheltenham for 6th form. He was a decent cricketer, mind but didn't pay a penny.
"The only luck present is the luck of growing up in a rich household or somehow having someone pay for you to go there. Lucky them indeed, but it's not how society should function in the modern world."
You are entitled to your view, but just as I dont dictate what school you choose to attend, I would appreciate it if you didn't do the same to me. I think the concept of education is one that is very personal between a family and child, and not one that individuals should feel the need to justify in a open-forum or indeed to anybody. Additionaly, Jason, you have no idea how my schooling was funded and what (if anything) my family had to sacrifice, or whether my household was 'rich' or not, so please dont pre-empt these things without due clarification. I find it to be in extremey bad taste, and I reiterate, I don't judge your family and their holdings/earnings, so please dont do the same with mine.
I happen to think the right to choose in education is essential to the society in which we live- one in which standards of teaching and education are reducing all the time.
Obviously public and private schools offer a better education than the local comp or parents wouldn't go to so much trouble to get their children into them. However, these schools are predominantly for those who can afford it - it is a privilege. Such is the disproportionate distribution of wealth in our capitalist society that the number of people in this bracket is slim. Because it is a path open to so few people, I fundamentally disagree with the inclusion of public and private school education as a legitimate choice for parents. Every child is born the same and should have the same opportunities. In practice this is impossible outside of an idealistic communist society, however, education is one of the few areas where we could go some way to levelling the playing field. Instead of pouring money into individuals, the quality of education could be raised for everyone and parents might not feel the need to pay vast amounts for schools. Call me idealistic but I just don't think children should, in today's society, be punished for being born into an underprivileged family.
#25: Equality of opportunity is not about levelling the playing field by dragging people down. Supporters of social equality shouldn't be stereotyping themselves by engaging in meaningless class warfare, as this only serves to give arguments to the opposition.
What you need to do is focus on how to improve the quality of state education, not try to abolish private schools. And I'm pretty certain that this can be achieved even outside of the context of an 'idealistic communist society'.
In the meantime, I'd suggest to everyone not to critice people for choosing what's best for their children - this choice often involves some considerable personal sacrifice which shouldn't be disrespected like that.
I appreciate the parent's reasons for sending their children to private schools and the sacrifices many have to make to get them there – they just want the best for their children. However, this does not change the fact that a vast majority will never be able to raise the school fees. Despite the arguments that it is “meaningless” or no longer exists, this is often down to class. There are far fewer working class children than middle to upper class children in private schools. Should children lose out because their parents are less well off or are unwilling to send their children to private schools? (the answer is ‘no’).
Although the government should make an effort to improve the quality of state education, I believe that the only way to make any real positive impact on state education would be to distribute more fairly the wealth and funding which is currently locked up in private education. This could only be achieved through abolition of private schools. Think of it less as “levelling the playing field by dragging people down” and more as raising the quality of education for everyone.
George, you make a very well thought out point and one that I agree with.
Anon., I think we fundamentaly disagree over one underlying factor: "Every child is born the same and should have the same opportunities..."
I am afraid that I just dont think this is the case. Children are all born different- that's what makes us unique as human beings! All of us have different talents and some of us, mentally, are more suited to academia, others to manual talents and the like.
Your solution seems to be suggesting taking away the money parents pay in fees to charitable trusts and spend them in the state sector? I fundamentally disagree with this. If a parent has worked hard, then yes, I believe it is their choice what to do with that money; where to send that child to school. Education is a very personal idea and something that state should not intefere with. Choice is paramount and should not be taken away from those who have worked hard enough to be able to afford their child that education.
Dan: I think the point anon was trying to get across (although not explicit) was that two people with the same ability but different upbringings should not be given different opportunities, not that everybody should be given the same opportunities.
That's a fairly juxted position, #29. From this, I guess you support grammar schools, no? I think its morally wrong to take from some to fund others and believe that what an individual spends their money on is their business, be it a child's education or a summer hoiday or anything. Not that of the state.
To be honest, many people just seem very bitter about the whole thing.
Education is a crucial aspect of a child's development and not something to be dictated by the means or whims of a parent - a child is not merely an extension of their parents (this is what makes us unique). Therefore, they should be subject to the same education as everyone else and allowed to develop into unique human beings and choose their own future. This is the point of a national curriculum but while private schools continue to suck up the best teachers and money this fairness cannot be achieved. I am not saying that everybody's future lies in academia, just that the less fiscally fortunate children shouldn't be written off because of their background.
#30: That was just my interpretation of anon's comment, my position on the matter is irrelevant.
I think 'metrosexual madness' has turned into 'lets all slag each other off because of our class differences madness.'
maybe someone should write a new article for this subject? just a suggestion..
Who is dan taylor anyway?
Marvellous, a bit of good old-fashioned class warfare! I suppose i should take off my miners helmet, hang up my overalls, light a roll-up and join in!
I went to school for free and it was rather good fun, and I got into university. It's not really that bad going to a state school. Infact surely by state school pupils getting into top 10 universities without any paradoxical 'positive discrimination' proves that a lot of state schools are good institutions that can compete with the fee-paying schools.
If we stopped bickering about paying for an education (buys you nice surroundings, but when A levels are as easy as they are, i doubt it give s much advantage academically) and start concentrating on why some schools are so bad. Nothing to do with class warfare, but to do with quality of staff, provision, aspirations and family life. If people want to spend £70k sending their kids to school, fair enough.
Equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. We are all individuals with our own aspirations and talents. One-size-fits-all education is a thing of the past. Personalised learning is seriously on the discussion table at cabinet, LEA and school level.
#25 you don't have a clue.
As for metrosexual madness, I think skinny jeans and makeup for men looks a bit silly, really. It's not about wanting to be macho, its just about not standing out from the crowd for the sake of it.
Anyone who believes it's about psychologically enforced gender stereotypes, feminism or anything else like that should probably get some hobbies and start enjoying life.
But I own a pair of £3 jeans from tesco. So I'm probably not qualified to comment on fashion columns.
#35: After outlining my stance reasonably, I do not appreciate being told I “don’t have a clue”. Your education may have got you into university but it didn’t teach you any manners.
“If we stopped bickering about paying for an education (buys you nice surroundings, but when A levels are as easy as they are, i doubt it give s much advantage academically) and start concentrating on why some schools are so bad. Nothing to do with class warfare, but to do with quality of staff, provision, aspirations and family life. If people want to spend £70k sending their kids to school, fair enough.”
Do you honestly think that parents spend £70,000 on a second-rate education? This is far more offensive to parents that choose private education than anything I have said. This money buys the quality of staff, the resources, the small class sizes and the effort poured into allowing individual children’s aspiration’s come to fruition. In addition to the higher grades and greater proportion of those continuing to A Level, private school children are taught to be more confident and to aim higher. While you and, indeed, I have been lucky enough to enjoy a good education from the state, the average prospects of state-schoolers are not quite as rosy. Several schools in more working class areas of my hometown were so bad they were deemed by Ofsted to need ‘special measures’. How many private schools require the same treatment? My “one-size-fits-all” education would have for all children the same opportunities for a good-quality, tailor-made education.
Any chance we can just close this discussion off before it gets unnecessarily heated?
Just to answer your point, Dan: I haven't been bitter. I haven't criticised you for being from a wealthier background than me. I haven't suggested anything other than people who go to expensive schools require more luck and money than talent, for the majority of cases. Of course there are special circumstances for the odd place but it doesn't mean that I am attacking people for their class.
And #34, Dan Taylor is a student at the university: it entitles him to comment on threads about education etc. Perfectly acceptable.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report