Posted on 06/06/2013 8:48:12 AM PDT by fwdude
This weekend, I will be attending the high school graduation of a young relative, as tens of thousands of others likely will as well. Though these events are a dime a dozen, and a high school graduation doesn't seem to carry the weight of importance that it once did, it seems appropriate to regard the attendance of such an event as a special occasion, special enough to don at least a clean shirt and pants without holes.
But what I expect to see will probably be trumped by even what I've witnessed in past years - people wearing shorts, theme t-shirts, muscle shirts, holey jeans, and flip-flops. At a graduation. Even at college graduations.
What I've noticed over the past several decades is a drastic trend toward an anything-goes attitude toward dress. The last time this drastic a shift seems to have occurred is in the late sixties, when the hippie, commune-living attitude made inroads into society and youth wore whatever they pleased, wherever they pleased, if anything at all.
Today, I see church-goers wear what look like pajamas, short shorts, tube tops, muscle shirts and worse. It's almost like they're defying the traditional "rules." And not only congregants, but pastors and participants seem to be in a contest to see who can dress down the most radically, usually by those who want to be "relevant" to today's youth. (See Ed Young as an example.) I attended a wedding - A WEDDING!!! - several years ago and with very few exceptions, the only people wearing a tie or dress were the marrying couple. Most wore golf shirts, "nice" jeans and tennis shoes. I (wearing my suit) was almost speechless.
Today, there seems to be no venue, no ceremony, no establishment, where manner of dress is any longer important at all. And I see this attitude as directly related to, and caused by, the voracious consumption of society by the rabid, morally-anarchist secularists. Children used to aspire to wear what grownups wore - in Great Britain, young boys were only allowed to wear shorts as appropriate, slacks being a man's attire, and were only allowed to wear such upon attaining "the King's commission." Now, adults seem to want to emulate children, with sagging waistbands, "bling," tatoos and hyper-oversized pants that can't seem to decide if they're shorts or not shorts.
My question is this: is there ANY event or occasion when it is appropriate to dress in other than ordinary, daily apparel, without undue coercion? Or, put another way, is there any occasion when daily, casual wear is inappropriate?
I can already hear the rebuttals by cultural relativists: "but every era has its trends which fly in the face of tradition!" True, but there were still differences in the manner of dress according to occasion. Now, there appear to be none whatsoever. A standardless society when appearances are concerned. Once, even the poorest farmer owned at least one suit, a tie, and a good pair of dress shoes. Everyone was expected to have the ability to look presentable at the most elegant occasion, and all but the poorest (by real poor standards of the day, not today's "opulent poor") could satisfy this minimal standard. Today, I know scores of people who own not one suit, tie, or dress shirt.
I truly believe this attitude mirrors the standardless "morals" we are seeing sweep across every institution which once stood for something. The military might be one last holdout, but even that will see changes - be certain of it.
Question: Why are you so extremely defensive about this issue? That in itself, says a lot.
Believe it or not, I agree. Those behaviors are at least reflective of bad taste and bad manners, manners being akin to appropriateness in a given environment (though the argument for that involves a fair degree of relativism). My argument is not that sexually provocative dress is not immoral, but that the increased trend toward casual dress is a matter of morality.
What does that indicated. Why? It’s deeper than just being slobs.
“Historically, distinctions in dress tend to reflect, not morality, but class differences.”
For example, during the Middle Ages in Europe, the nobility railed against the lower classes wearing certain clothes and fabric colors reserved by law for the noble class. Curly shoes were a particular scourge.
We see the same distinctions in Mandarin China where certain hats and clothing denoted your rank and job in society.
No, that would be Pat Riley.
Close, but no spats. ;-)
It's winter and there is snow on the ground . It's Manhattan , NY . People dressed like that there BEFORE the bottom fell out.
You can certainly be a monster of immorality when you’re flawlessly dressed; witness the royal courts of the eighteenth century or the splendid tailoring of the Nazis. But do you see that there is a continuum? It’s difficult to talk about integrity, financial probity, and a sense of high honor to a kid in your office who is sprawled at his desk while wearing flipflops, raggedy cut-offs, and a Che shirt. The reason is that if you reject society’s longterm standards and norms in your speech, manners, deportment, and clothing, you might also reject its norms of other behavior.
In other words I draw a distinction between people who dress in typical American casual style—khakis, boat shoes or sneakers, a polo shirt—and those who dress like real slobs. When you dress like a slob you’re sending a message that says “I don’t care what’s considered good. I don’t care if my hanging armpit hair falls into your food. I am selfish and have an overdeveloped sense of self-esteem, and I will shake my hindquarters and all associated cellulite because I’m ready to have sex right here, right now.”
I draw a further distinction between the truly ignorant and the deliberate slobs, too. There are some people who act and dress like slobs because they really don’t know any better.
These are clearly the exceptions. Some people are slovenly due to their dire circumstances. How you CHOOSE to look is what my essay was about.
I do, and that continuum is where I suggest we find the relativistic aspect of manners and need to dissociate them from morality—except in extreme cases such as those you describe in your previous post.
In the interest of full disclosure my career has been in advertising and design. In many agencies there is often a dichotomy between those who do the "creative" work and those who sell it. Those who create tend toward the flip-flops, cut-offs and Che shirts. (I work both sides, but my primary place has always been on the creative side, and I can guarantee you will never catch me in a Che shirt.)
Though the creatives will deny it, their sense of fashion is just as much a uniform as the suits worn on the account side. At least in my field it is not that difficult to discuss integrity, financial probity and high honor with the kid. Had he come in to the office to interview wearing a Hart Schaffner & Marx, or Hickey Freeman suit, he likely would not have been hired. (A dressed down Hugo Boss, or Joseph Abboud, maybe.)
For both groups there is a code. Interestingly though, the sense of integrity, financial probity and high honor is more likely to be found among the creatives instead of the account types. As you suggest, flawless dress is not everything.
As for armpit hair hanging in food, I would simply find another place to eat. As vivid as your description is, I really don't see that too much.
My everyday dress usually consist of crazy colored Hawaiian shirts over a tank top paired with conservative length shorts/skirt and leather sandals . I am perfectly happy wearing this and I always look nice even when I am weeding my garden . It is comfortable even when it hits triple digits here .
I grew up in a very stuffy house and had to dress up as kid to the point of it looking funny not to mention it being completely uncomfortable. I have no plans to ever live like that again .
You can wear a suit and tie or a fancy custom made dress and still be completely obnoxious .
Maybe it's a generation thing Maybe it's a climate thing But one thing is for sure ... with today's choices you can wear casual clothing and still look perfectly presentable.
Why is everyone missing the point of my essay? Am I that bad a writer?
Me no understand.
.
Why? It’s deeper than just being slobs.
When I see a 40-year-old man wearing a message shirt hanging out of his short pants, with baseball cap and flip flops to round out the ensemble, when I see a 300 lb. woman wearing form-fitting clothes which reveal her muffin top, when I see individuals such as these as the majority of patrons in nice restaurants or in church, I do declare that
.
Why? Ignorance. Laziness. Lack of class. Or the universal reason:
That would depend of the circumstances . I had to buy a fancy dress for my mom's funeral in the city and it hasn't been worn since.
I don't live in the city and even church around here is pretty casual (cowboy boots/hat (they take them off) nice jeans is the norm)
Last wedding I went to was at Disney ---- groom was wearing sneakers
Come to think about it I was wearing jeans and sneakers at my own wedding *grin* 24 years ago and yes we are still married
Annie Doesn't Live Here Anymore--Guy Lombardo & His Royal Canadians (1933)
Try a Little Tenderness--Ray Noble & His Orchestra (1931)
A Hot Dog, a Blanket and You--Gene Kardos & His Orchestra (1931)
Puttin' On the Ritz--Harry Richman (1930)
Of course everyone knows that even today the entire country dresses like in Hollywood and on Broadway. Everyone knows too that the entire country today lives just like Wall street bankers ./s
https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+the+great+depression&client=firefox-a&hs=MDk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=RA6xUYCDN8qpqgG4k4GgAQ&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1445&bih=669
You should take a look at how some people in the country really lived and dressed at that time . It wasn't just a few considering it was also the time of the dust bowl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.