# When Did Men Stop Wearing Suits and Hats?



## archon (Jul 28, 2008)

This is a question for some of the more senior members of the board that have lived through the shift in our societal norm in men's dress.

It seems that a suit and hat were standard dress for most men for work, church, and evenings out in the late 40's through to the early 60's. At some point around 1964, it seems that this norm was phasing out and by the early 70's was pretty much gone.

From what I understand, suits in the office remained largely the norm in most professional industry sectors until the early 1990's, but the casually dressed professionals involved with the "dot com" explosion and the surge of "business casual" destroyed it.

From what my father tells me, he remembers that men stopped wearing suits and hats on a regular basis to the office and city centers sometime in the early 70's. His office went business casual sometime in the late 80's and he seems to recall so did most other companies in his profession. Does this seem largely correct from other people who lived through this shift in fashion?

On another note, do members out there think that we are going to have a shift back soon? I am speculating that with the abysmal failure that was "business casual" (many offices in my industry sector are now REVOKING these dress codes and replacing it with more traditional business dress) and the frenzy about dress and style in the show Mad Men that we might start seeing a shift.

I must say, lately, I have been wearing suits more often to occasions where I would not have. This includes casual dinners out during the week and weekend. I also recently purchased a hat which I wear on occasion. Many of my friends and co-workers are doing similar things, none directly influenced by others but more of a natural shift.

Observations and experiences are welcome.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Hats went out for many in the early 1970s but suits never really have.

True some don't wear suits that might once have but I would not be too mperturbed. The change seems more marked in the US than the UK from the posts to be read here.

Ties on the other hand...


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I believe the trend to stop wearing hats started with Kennedy not wearing one on the campaign trail to show what a magnificent head of hair he still had. I've heard this but don't actually know for sure.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Men stopped wearing suits and hats on April 12, 1963 at 11:25AM, EST.

Hats disappeared for most by the early '60's. Roughly coinciding with an ever-increasing shift of population from cities and old suburbs to areas further removed from which public transportation was unavailable or undesirable. But that's only one factor in their demise. Many men then over 40 continued to wear hats with suits for the rest of their lives.

I really don't believe suits for business and many other appropriate occasions have disappeared. I have always worn them and shall continue to. It is in no way equivalent to the trend in hats.

As to trends, there are short term and long term. The long-term trend has always been toward less and less formality. Therefore, it's cargo shorts and flip-flops for you young man!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I would say that the business casual trend took off in the late 90's. As for me, I still wear suits at least Monday - Thursday.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

Coleman said:


> I believe the trend to stop wearing hats started with Kennedy not wearing one on the campaign trail to show what a magnificent head of hair he still had. I've heard this but don't actually know for sure.


This is what I'd always understood, that JFK greatly contributed to the demise of the (dress) hat.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bartolo said:


> This is what I'd always understood, that JFK greatly contributed to the demise of the (dress) hat.


Oft repeated, and probably not correct.

As another poster noted, the rise of the automobile and the suburb greatly diminished the need for a hat. When a formerly functional item of clothing becomes purely ornamental, it usually doesn't last more than a generation or two. Particularly where that item is something of a bother to deal with during the day.

The best things hats have going for them (in terms of the possibility of a comeback) are that: 1) for young men, their fathers did _not_ wear them, so they might be so-old-they're-new; and 2) the renewed emphasis on walkable communities and public transit. We'll see if either can overcome the historical trend of the last 50 years. I hope so, but I'm not that optimistic.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Here's some history from my downloadable book *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothing:*
Until the 20th century hats were part of a gentleman's attire. If you didn't have a hat you were not well, nor completely dressed. The decline in hats is often blamed on *President John Fitzgerald Kennedy* (1917 - 1963), 35th President of the United States (1961 - 1963) who it is said was the first President not to wear a hat to his inauguration in 1961.

But, he did wear a hat! It was a silk top hat that went with the morning suit that he wore! He may have had it off his head most of the day, but he did wear a hat!

JFK did help the decline by not wearing a hat after his inauguration! He may have just been a reflection of the general trend of the time. The 1960s saw a considerable decrease in the wearing and manufacture of hats.

Kennedy may have been just reflecting the times of long hairstyles, more casual and rebellious attitudes, low head clearance in cars, plus tighter fitting European suits, all of which expelled the hat as fashion accessory. 

Kennedy, like English Royalty, had a sartorial influence not only on our hat use but got Americans out of the traditional three-button suit jackets into two-button! JFK wore a back brace and his image consultants thought that the two-button suit style hid the brace better. ​And the Peacock Revolution probably helped give us alternatives for suits:
The *Leisure Suit* is (was?) a man's two-piece casual ensemble consisting ofa shirt style jacket and matching pants fabric popular in the early 1970's, and usually made of synthetic double-knit. Designer *Jerry Rosengarten*, who is now a real estate developer in New York City, invented the suit in 1970.

The very first polyester double-knit leisure suit was a reversible navy-blue/hound's-tooth, which Rosengarten created to highlight the versatility of double-knits. 

The polyester outfit became known as "the sleaze-ure suit" after companies started making cheap knockoffs in bizarre colors including powder blue and mint green. Rosengarten says if the major textile mills had jumped on the polyester bandwagon sooner, leisure suits would still be in style today. 

The influence of 1970's Disco brought us white polyester vested suits and poly shirts without a tie, unbuttoned to show off the gold chains. ​Plus the biggest factor was Casual Friday:
Casual Friday began in the late 1950s originally as an attempt to raise worker morale in the new white-collar office environment. At that point only a few companies encouraged it, and it was not widely popular. In the late 1970s, when the production of cheap clothing outside the United States became more widespread, there was a massive campaign by large clothing producers to make Casual Friday a weekly event. Casual Friday is not deemed as being a flexible solution and should only occur on that day in question.

Casual Friday along with dressing casually during the week became very prevalent during the Dot Com hey-day of the late 1990s/early 2000s, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. During the hey-day, some companies were so relaxed that shorts and sandals were permitted.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Thru 1992 I can remember sitting at my desk, in my suit and tie (jacket removed) and smoking!! 

The cigs and suit are now gone.


----------



## AAF-8AF (Feb 24, 2009)

I've always figured that a contributing factor to the decline of hat wearing had to do with two evolving aspects of hair care, also taking hold in the '60s and '70s: longer hair and "the wet-head is dead" hair without products in it. Wearing a hat with longer and dryer hair leads to dreaded hat-hair. Shorter hair with oil or similar products would retain shape better after wearing and removing a hat. 
.
.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Coleman said:


> I believe the trend to stop wearing hats started with Kennedy not wearing one on the campaign trail to show what a magnificent head of hair he still had. I've heard this but don't actually know for sure.


No. Please read _Hatless Jack: The President, the Fedora, and the History of American Style_ by Neil Steinberg in re the decline of hats in American men's wear. Long story short: the decline of hats began years prior to WW II ("peak hat" in terms of production/sales volume was reached in the early 1930s as I recall, but the popularity of hats among younger men had already been in decline since the WW I era) and then accelerated in the post-war era. Kennedy was simply the most visible face (head) of the decline of hats.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

When I joined the white collar work force in the early 70's very few of the younger guys were wearing jackets and ties unless they were required to do so. 

I chose to buck the majority and wore a jacket and tie to work, but only because I thought it would make me look more successful (read attractive) to the ladies at the various watering holes I frequented after work. After I realized that this wasn't really the case I reverted to the business casual look of my co-workers. The breaking point came the afternoon that I lost out to the guy in cowboy boots and pick-up truck after buying several drinks for the cute brunette CPA that I had been working on. :icon_smile:

Most of the older guys (WWII types) continued wearing their jackets and ties, and in some cases hats, until they retired. I was in that office recently (almost 400 employees) and there was hardly a tie to be seen, even on lower level managers. 

Cruiser


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

> Casual Friday began in the late 1950s


I am amazed to hear that. 1950s--are you sure? What evidence do you have for this statement of fact?

Thanks,
Don


----------



## Bird's One View (Dec 31, 2007)

Men of fighting age during WWII largely did not wear hats with civilian clothes after the war. Hats appeared to hold on longer because men of older generations continued wearing them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> The breaking point came the afternoon that I lost out to the guy in cowboy boots and pick-up truck after buying several drinks for the cute brunette CPA that I had been working on. :icon_smile:


Sometimes they just go for the "Bad Boy."

Nothin' you can do about it!!


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

In the West End, I'd say less than half of white collar workers wear a suit and tie, in the City it's over 75% (except on a Friday).

When meeting clients, I'd say that many of the causual employees wear a suit and tie, so obviously there is a recognition that it is smarter and more respectful/professional somehow.

See a few guys wearing hats daily, but not a lot.

I always wear a suit and a hat. I think I see more hats than waistcoats now actually.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bird's One View said:


> Men of fighting age during WWII largely did not wear hats with civilian clothes after the war. Hats appeared to hold on longer because men of older generations continued wearing them.


Don't know that's true. I was born a couple years after the war ended and wore hats as a lad until the early 60's. Most young men in my boyhood were among the group you mention and they mostly wore hats too.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Hats disappeared for most by the early '60's.


I don't know. Here I am out rabbit hunting in 1968. Even if I have no sense of style, surely you can conclude that I have a sense of humor. :icon_smile_big:










Cruiser


----------



## Mad-Men (Oct 15, 2009)

I think the transformation started in the 60's, with the coming of the beatles and the british invasion, along came hippies, jeans, bell bottoms, and Broadway JOE. The 70's is when fashion designer jeans came about, Sasson, Gloria, Jordache, CK, Sergio Valente, and casual wear was launch. THE TIGHT DESIGNER JEAN. BIG BUCKS TOO!

If you look at 1960's footage of football games or news reels, you'll see men attending football games wearing suits and hats, and women wearing dresses. Look at some early news reels and the majority of men are wearing suits, hats, ties, or at least wearing dress pants and button down shirts as casual wear.

Its tuff to pinpoint a exact time, but i would say the mid to late 1970's, the disco era invented the open large collar shirt, jeans, and gold chains as a fashion, with/without the sport jacket/suit. Saturday night fever anyone!

I'm not saying men stop wearing suits and ties, but as everyday wear the hat and suit started fading in the late 60's, and only worn by gramps/old timers in the 1970's as everyday wear...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

In Southern California, anyway, routinely wearing a hat with a suit was sort of an "old guy" thing after the early 1950s, at latest. 

When I was teaching college (1969-73) coat and tie were still customary classroom attire for faculty. I think that practice may have expired soon after I was booted from the academic profession.

At the first non-academic job I held, coat and tie (although not suit and tie) were obligatory for the men. Ironically, standards had collapsed for the women, so you had the anomaly of the men wearing coat and tie while a lot of the women were going about in T-shirts and jeans. Most of us did not "rock" coat and tie very well because of the miserably low salaries we were being paid. I have to wonder whether the unwillingness to enforce standards on women in the face of their newfound militancy led to the collapse of standards for men. This was not a public contact job, by the way.

Since 1978 I have not been in work situation that routinely required coat and tie. I dress well out of choice, not necessity, which is probably what makes it such a pleasure for me.

I think dress requirements for non-public-contact jobs have largely vanished. A couple of weeks ago we had a fire drill that required evacuating our large office building. This included a bank and some other kind of financial institution where one might think classic business dress would be the norm. Of all the male evacuees, one man was in a suit, one in a sport coat and tie (me!), perhaps five or six in shirtsleeves and tie. All the rest were in some kind of casual to ultra-casual apparel.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I don't know. Here I am out rabbit hunting in 1968. Even if I have no sense of style, surely you can conclude that I have a sense of humor. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the look!

But I guess I should have qualified my statement as, _normal_ men stopped wearing hats after the early '60's. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> When I was teaching college (1969-73) coat and tie were still customary classroom attire for faculty. I think that practice may have expired soon after I was booted from the academic profession.


Cause and effect? :icon_smile_big:

It's been obvious there are significant differences in dress practices between the east and west coasts, and that there has been for many years. When I was on holiday in PG on the Monterey Peninsula about 10 years ago, I learned of a jazz flutist who was going to perform at a very upscale Pebble Beach hotel. I wanted to hear her perform but hadn't brought anything I considered suitable. The most formal article I had packed was a well cut and made jacket, but made from cotton and unconstructed. And I hadn't brought a tie. I asked the young staff at our B&B and received a puzzled look followed by, "Oh yes, you're very well dressed!"


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

In urban Australia hats started to disappear around the beginning of the 60' and gradually disappeared from public life during the decade. By the end of the decade the only place were you would regularly find them was at the track. 

When the cockies came to town for the Easter Show then you would see them en mass. As for the 70's the only time I ever saw men wearing hats one would be on Remembrance Day and Anzac day amongst an older generation of men. Then in late 18980's they started to make a come back in the urban areas, in the bush they never left.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> When I joined the white collar work force in the early 70's very few of the younger guys were wearing jackets and ties unless they were required to do so.
> 
> Cruiser


We were wearing ties and oh the ties we wore!!!

If not a suit at the least a tie was still required for the men in the office as late as 1999 for me. The outside salesman are still required to dress in coat and tie and everyone who goes along on a customer call will too.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

David V said:


> We were wearing ties and oh the ties we wore!!!


Are we talking loud psychedelic polyester? With body shirts? Or prints of, no I can't bring my self to think of this anymore.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Nobody . . .*

. . . was wearing a hat in Los Angeles by the late '60s. Depending on the business, suits continue to be worn now, mostly in government, financial, legal, and some retail.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

ajo said:


> Are we talking loud psychedelic polyester? With body shirts? Or prints of, no I can't bring my self to think of this anymore.


Some things are better left unsaid.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> As to trends, there are short term and long term. The long-term trend has always been toward less and less formality.


Then how we did we get to the peak?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Well, not all of us have quit wearing suits and hats. Three days ago, I was out wearing one of my Stetson fedoras and last Sunday wore a suit to church. However, while it is not unusual for me to wear each of the cited items, thinking back, it is a rare (though, not intentional) occasion indeed, when I may be found wearing them at the same time.


----------



## serene (Oct 27, 2009)

*The Hat Going Out of Style*

This is indeed a very important question asked, suits are there in some form or other, even in warm countries suits are fashionable, especially in light weight wool or linen blends. In jeans we have expensive designer jackets.

The hat however is less visible. In novels and stories we don't find the hat stand referred to any more.

*Could the reason be the globalisation of the world where in people from the temperate climes travelled to the warmer areas and stayed in these places longer?*

*Or was the hat always a discomfort so that at the earliest opportunity people left it? 
*
*Or did the rising temperature made the hat uncomfortable, giving way to the more versatile caps as a sun screen?*

On a romantic note, it is seen that the famous lawyer *Perry Mason*, created by Erle Stanley Gardner, while coming in to his chamber, would throw the hat on the head of the bust of *William Blackstone*, a famous British lawyer. In the later novels this act is not mentioned. (The novels range from 1933 to 1971) At some time around the late fifties Perry Mason stopped throwing the hats. In the TV serials, the Blackstone Bust was replaced by that of Voltaire.

Serene


----------



## paul winston (Jun 3, 2006)

When I joined my father at Chipp in 1960, any one who called on my father to sell him anything- stationary, paperclips, etc. - had to have a hat. If the salesman didn't have a hat my father would take him to our 2nd floor and make him buy a hat.

We made JFK's clothing- including his inauguration clothing. He was the consummate politician. He rarely wore a hat, but he carried a hat. At that time there was a hat industry in the USA and he wanted every vote! ( I personally sold him two hats - one with a welt edge and one with a raw edge.) 
The men's suit business has been in a recession for much longer than the recession our country- (and many other countries) - is currently working it's way through. Many man working in jobs where not wearing a suit would have been unthinkable in the 80's now are part-time suit wearers. Rumor has it that it is changing back. Time will tell.
Paul Winston
Winston Tailors
www.chipp2.com
www.chipp2.com/blog/


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

paul winston said:


> When I joined my father at Chipp in 1960, any one who called on my father to sell him anything- stationary, paperclips, etc. - had to have a hat. If the salesman didn't have a hat my father would take him to our 2nd floor and make him buy a hat.
> 
> We made JFK's clothing- including his inauguration clothing. He was the consummate politician. He rarely wore a hat, but he carried a hat. At that time there was a hat industry in the USA and he wanted every vote! ( I personally sold him two hats - one with a welt edge and one with a raw edge.)
> The men's suit business has been in a recession for much longer than the recession our country- (and many other countries) - is currently working it's way through. Many man working in jobs where not wearing a suit would have been unthinkable in the 80's now are part-time suit wearers. Rumor has it that it is changing back. Time will tell.
> ...


Paul, thank you very much for this bit of marvelous history.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

amplifiedheat said:


> Then how we did we get to the peak?


Yes, I can see where my assertion seems logically inconsistent. I've read this view many times and agreed with it, but it certainly hasn't been linear. Similar views I've heard expressed have dealt with a long time frame, perhaps the last 500 years, or so. But you're correct, if this is now a trend, it must not have always been so or else those Neanderthals were really spiffy!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

amplifiedheat said:


> Then how we did we get to the peak?


We got to "the peak" at a time when division and status based on social standing were extremely important, when 99% of the populace was unrepentantly class-ist. It was desirable for those who had formal events to attend to signify that they had the status and wealth to even be invited to such events, and perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the lower classes that they do so.

While class remains an important part of our social lives, the egalitarian trends of the last 400 years have given most of us mixed feelings about it. There's as much proletentiousness as snobbery in the world today. People with social status and wealth are now equally likely to pull on a pair of blue jeans to show that they are "regular guys" as they are to don a suit or formal rig that the average man would be simply unable to afford. Of course, the rich man will then get into his luxury sedan or whatever while wearing the blue jeans, so it's all quite schizophrenic.


----------



## archon (Jul 28, 2008)

In my experience most offices have dumped traditional business dress in favor of business casual. I once saw a poll in a HR magazine that claimed 86% of work places had some sort of business casual dress code.

At least around the Philadelphia area wearing a suit for business is the exception and not the rule. There are some professions where the suit is still day to day business wear, such as outside sales and marketing, but most employers, including even law firms, have a business casual policy. From what I see from around the country, this is more or less the norm.

With that said, some companies are changing back because "business casual" has become a slippery slope and we are seeing the bottom of that slope. I recently read an article in the same HR magazine entitled "The Return of Traditional Business Dress." It entailed a discussion of office dress at a small firm that had degraded into employees wearing sneakers, ill fitting jeans, t-shirts, and on occasion sweatpants under a business casual policy. Management, after sending out multiple memos and trying to correct the violations through individual enforcement, finally came down with the "nuclear option" and dumped the entire business casual dress code. Although employees were not happy about the decision when it was implemented after 6 months most rank and file employees were content or even liked the increased professionalism that was carried into the office with better dress.

I have seen a similar shift in my office, although not to the extent above. Management took a different tactic. They decided upper management would start, voluntarily, wearing traditional business dress. Since they set the bar high and everyone saw the President and VPs all dress up it had a trickle down effect. First middle management started dressing better than almost everyone in the office. The problem has largely disappeared and now most people wear traditional business dress even though we still have the business casual policy. There are still the outliers, but the problem seems to be self-correcting. I guess you just feel silly wearing jeans and a poorly fitted sport shirt when you are around dozens of men in suits. People tend to think you are the janitor even if you are an assistant VP.


----------



## archon (Jul 28, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> We got to "the peak" at a time when division and status based on social standing were extremely important, when 99% of the populace was unrepentantly class-ist. It was desirable for those who had formal events to attend to signify that they had the status and wealth to even be invited to such events, and perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the lower classes that they do so.
> 
> While class remains an important part of our social lives, the egalitarian trends of the last 400 years have given most of us mixed feelings about it. There's as much proletentiousness as snobbery in the world today. People with social status and wealth are now equally likely to pull on a pair of blue jeans to show that they are "regular guys" as they are to don a suit or formal rig that the average man would be simply unable to afford. Of course, the rich man will then get into his luxury sedan or whatever while wearing the blue jeans, so it's all quite schizophrenic.


I do think the modern trend of egalitarianism and the destruction of any type of class system in the United States has something to do with the dismal state of dress among men, especially in America. Men used to dress to impress other men and outwardly express their status in society through their clothes. But, I don't think it is the only cause.

I also think that change in the concept of masculinity has something to do with it. Fifty or sixty years ago men were supposed to be confident, the "bread winner", the head of the house, the leader. To accomplish these roles of course you would dress to impress.

Now, masculinity is usually equated with being fat, doing stupid things, swilling nationally distributed beer, and watching an excessive amount of sports. There is absolutely no need to dress well to accomplish this.

I think reviving traditional dress is one component to building better men. Not the stripper watching, beer swilling man, but the confident, well read classic man.

It will be interesting if we see a shift in our lifetimes. If you go to any suburban shopping mall today and examine the state of dress among men it is pretty obvious that it has hit rock bottom. We can't go too much farther down so maybe it will bounce back up.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Interesting view, archon, but the general trend towards informality has been going on a lot longer than the last 50-60 years. Heck, the most formal clothing that 90% of men wear during their lives - black tie - was invented as a casual alternative to full dinner dress. Which itself, along with morning dress, was a stepped-down alternative to court dress. The pattern for all of modernity has been that the most formal mode of dress drops out of regular usage about once every generation or two. 

All that said, I've railed against the popular image of maleness in beer commercial/sitcom culture (slobby guys, with smarter/prettier/wiser/morally superior women really running things). That has created a false choice between being having intelligence and aesthetic sense and being feminine or being stupid, tasteless, and authentically male.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

archon said:


> I also think that change in the concept of masculinity has something to do with it. Fifty or sixty years ago men were supposed to be confident, the "bread winner", the head of the house, the leader. To accomplish these roles of course you would dress to impress.


Huh!!! I knew plenty of men fifty years ago who met all of your criteria for masculinity without ever dressing to impress. They held blue collar jobs and lived in upper lower and lower middle class neighborhoods.

My Dad for example spent his adult life, after fighting in WWII, working on the floor of a slaughterhouse usually covered in animal blood. I can count on one hand the number of times that I saw him wear a tie.

I see no correlation between your masculinity criteria and how one dresses.

Cruiser


----------



## archon (Jul 28, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> All that said, I've railed against the popular image of maleness in beer commercial/sitcom culture (slobby guys, with smarter/prettier/wiser/morally superior women really running things). That has created a false choice between being having intelligence and aesthetic sense and being feminine or being stupid, tasteless, and authentically male.


I'm glad that people are still out there fighting the stereotype of masculinity that is perpetuated by movies, television, and popular culture.

I find that most men are just downright confused about their role in society. It used to be very well defined, but all that has changed in a generation. Now most men just don't have a clue. I think what happened was that in order to drastically re-order the social roles of each gender the powers that be targeted classical masculinity and utterly destroyed it. Then, in the vacuum that ensued the social role for women was redefined. The problem now is that women have a defined social role, but we forgot to also make one for modern man. This has left man just confused about the role he is supposed to play in life.

I think this comes out in the general male "I don't know what I am doing here" look. Men are now driven by pure utility in society. Utility does not dictate a sense of style and class. In a world built on utility jeans and a t-shirt do just fine. So does microwavable meals, sneakers, and unrefined entertainment. All of this leads to the casually dressed slobby male specimen.


----------



## archon (Jul 28, 2008)

Cruiser-

I bet your dad had, even with animal blood up to his ankles, more of an overall sense of style and class than today's modern blue collar father who is wearing a t-shirt with some catchy expression involving a gentleman named "Big Johnson."

(They called it blue collar back then because those workers actually wore shirts with collars. Taking a Wal-Mart cashier out of his oversized hooded sweatshirt and putting him in a cheap shirt with a collar would be a mass improvement in of itself.)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

archon said:


> I think what happened was that in order to drastically re-order the social roles of each gender the powers that be targeted classical masculinity and utterly destroyed it. Then, in the vacuum that ensued the social role for women was redefined.


I don't think it was anything as well-orchestrated, or even as sinister, as that. We had an extremely partiarchal society. In the space of generation, we made some significant changes to that. Of course, this societal overturn made for lots of opportunities for jokes. Figures of power who are actually becoming powerless are _always_ attractive joke targets (look at lame duck presidents); everyone wants in on deflating the big shot.

That make-fun-of-dad thing built up a pretty big head of steam, and hack writers learned they could score easy laughs by going to that well as often as they wanted. That did a number on masculinity. (Women have their own set of challenges, as mass marketers have worked hard to define womanhood as a combination of consumerism and overt sexuality.)

Combine that with egalitarianism, and the natural American suspicion of authority, and upper class males were in for the worst of it. Politicians soon joined in, vying with one another to out-regular-guy the other. And now here we are, with a society of willfully dumb men.


----------



## OH-CPA (Jun 12, 2008)

Do you mean to sound this elitist?



archon said:


> Now, masculinity is usually equated with being fat, doing stupid things, swilling nationally distributed beer, and watching an excessive amount of sports. There is absolutely no need to dress well to accomplish this.
> 
> I think reviving traditional dress is one component to building better men. Not the stripper watching, beer swilling man, but the confident, well read classic man.





archon said:


> In a world built on utility jeans and a t-shirt do just fine. So does microwavable meals, sneakers, and unrefined entertainment. All of this leads to the casually dressed slobby male specimen.


I enjoy the symphony but given the choice between going to the symphony and a college football game, I will choose the college football game any day. The simple fact of the matter is both are simply a form of entertainment. One might be persived as more refined, but being a fan of the symphony does not make you a better person than going to a football game. However I will concede that your point regarding stripper watching is valid.

I enjoy a great pinot nior or single malt scotch, but more often than not I perfer a beer (Stouts/Bocks when its cold, and lagers when its warm). Sometimes my beer is imported sometimes its domestic. While I am not a fan of Bud, I don't think someone is less of a man or more of a man for drinking Bud, or Bud Light.

I read books on History, Sceince & Philosphy, as well a newspapers, and magazines. Does that make me less of a man then someone who likes to read Kipling, Shakespeare, Milton or Hemingway?

This past weekend I was the beer swilling guy in jeans and a sweatshirt tailgaiting before a football game. One of my friends brought his girlfriend along who made a snide comment about it was the first time that she has ever seen me where jeans. She said something to the effect that she felt I was one of the those guys that "were too good to wear jeans." Personnaly I found this statement to be extremely biased, but is it any worst to say that if you like sports, beer and jeans you are less of a man?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm not sure you're reading Archon's post correctly, OH-CPA. When he says "masculinity is usually equated with being fat, doing stupid things, swilling nationally distributed beer, and watching an excessive amount of sports," I don't think his complaint is the _equation_ of maleness with those things.

I could stand to lose a few pounds, but whether I do or do not has nothing to do with my maleness. Likewise, I like beer (and wine), but generally do not enjoy liquor... having those preferences or different ones would not make me more or less male. Same with sports watching.

The problem that archon has identified, I think, is that we have been given a cartoonish vision of what it means to be a man, and that poses several problems. 1. The cartoon sucks. Who wants to be the sitcom dad? 2. It limits our freedom. 3. It creates a false dichotomy between maleness and any level of sophistication... since most men harbor some level of insecurity about their masculinity, that causes men to rush into the arms of the cartoon. 4. Ironically, that same false choice has sent some men rushing to be more like women, a counter-current that the fashion industry has been all too happy to exploit and encourage.


----------



## Sufferable Fob (Aug 26, 2009)

The demise of the suit probably started about 200 years ago with the drive towards more democratic fashion.


----------



## Piglit (Oct 8, 2009)

Interesting that this seems so far to be a US thread. Well we live in a fairly homogenous set up in the developed world so, I think it's fair to say that things are much the same over here in the UK

However I also think that it's very easy to mistake "egalitarianism" for what's really happened, and that is a drive to a highly marketable and profitable conformity. 

A few decades ago wearing casual clothes and having long hair, for example, were statements of protest and definitions of style at both an individual and sub-cultural level

Now casual and pop culture attire are part of the mass market, driven not by those who want to challenge anything but by the large corporations who peddle mediocrity, and the billions of consumers of all ages who eagerly follow them.

For me making an effort to wear smart good kit which is authentic and made by firms who seem to give a damn is a way of standing out from the crowd and saying screw the mediocrity and hypocrisy of it all.

Is "conservatism" the new subversion?

Oh well that's enough woffle better get to bed


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

OH-CPA said:


> Do you mean to sound this elitist? I enjoy the symphony but given the choice between going to the symphony and a college football game, I will choose the college football game any day.


That's a hard call I remember passing on a Wallabies - All Blacks game in 1994 to go and partake of The Symphony of a Thousand by Mahler. Mind you the wife videoed the game for me and the way the Wallabies are playing at present I would pick the Mahler.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Archon, fascinating insight. Thank you! 

And I would love to believe you - that the offices of the world are beginning to smarten-up again - but I am affraid I don't. It is not in the human nature of the masses to make an effort.

I remember my mother once telling me a story, that when she worked in a rather conservative City office in the 1970s, there was outrage one day when a man wore a pale blue shirt with his suit and tie. Outrage! Well, those must have been golden days indeed. I hope the bounder was sent home to change.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> I don't think it was anything as well-orchestrated, or even as sinister, as that. We had an extremely partiarchal society. In the space of generation, we made some significant changes to that. Of course, this societal overturn made for lots of opportunities for jokes. Figures of power who are actually becoming powerless are _always_ attractive joke targets (look at lame duck presidents); everyone wants in on deflating the big shot.
> 
> That make-fun-of-dad thing built up a pretty big head of steam, and hack writers learned they could score easy laughs by going to that well as often as they wanted. That did a number on masculinity. (Women have their own set of challenges, as mass marketers have worked hard to define womanhood as a combination of consumerism and overt sexuality.)
> 
> Combine that with egalitarianism, and the natural American suspicion of authority, and upper class males were in for the worst of it. Politicians soon joined in, vying with one another to out-regular-guy the other. And now here we are, with a society of willfully dumb men.


CuffDaddy...Of dumb men and their portrayal,particularly in advertising,my "favorite" is the dumb hubbie who has the sniffles (or aching muscles) and can't sleep.Whatever do I do now,honey? Here,you dope,take this magic potion!Ah,the wife...what would I do without her?!! Of course,the dumb husband's floundering stupidity and call for help could be regarding almost anything,...which car to buy,which mortgage company to borrow from,how to use the microwave,how to tie his shoes...and on and on...


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

More relevant to this forum,of course,as regards the perception of "dumb men",is the scenario of the spouse leading the dope around the store and picking out the wardrobe for Mr.Clueless.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

But can't we keep the strippers!?!?

The correlation between dress and perceived social class has been around for a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law

I, for one, am all in favor of reintroducing sumptuary laws and mandating corporate livery.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

JFK did not kill the hat.

Hat wearing was on the decline since the 1920s.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Piglit said:


> A few decades ago wearing casual clothes and having long hair, for example, were statements of protest and definitions of style at both an individual and sub-cultural level


I wore casual clothes and had long hair a few decades ago and I wasn't protesting anything, at least no more so than someone wearing a cravat or moleskin pants or monk strap shoes was protesting something. And now many in this forum tell me I wear jeans today because I'm trying to recapture my youth. Sometimes folks do things or wear things because they like them and for no other reason. I had the long hair because I thought it looked cool and the girls liked it. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

I get many positive comments on my hats and suits.

Trouble is, simply getting a good hat can be hard these days. I have super vintage hats, but try buying a sized proper fedora on a British High Street. Almost impossible (it'll be cheap and nasty stuff if you find any 'formal' hats). Or you have the exclusive hat shops for a certain London/country set, mostly older chaps. If it's hard to get, it will not thrive. But I wouldn't exactly say that hats are out of fashion, amongst some fashionistas (how I hate that word) that are very much in fashion, but not for the jeans and a untucked striped shirt on a Saturday night masses.

I do think there is great conformity in the way many of my peers dress, a uniform that is easy and requires little thought or upkeep. I do seem to offend some people who aggressively ask me why I am dressed as I please.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

*TRUE CONFESSIONS:*



Cruiser said:


> I wear jeans . . . . .
> 
> Sometimes folks do things or wear things because they like them and for no other reason.


I wear cotton/poly PJ's!


----------



## archon (Jul 28, 2008)

I think my comments were misunderstood by at least one poster. I was not trying to say men can't enjoy sports, beer, or casual clothes but that it has become more or less the stereotype of masculinity.

Men are portrayed in modern culture like a cartoon character who is sort of fat, lacks common sense, drinks crappy beer to excess, does nothing but watch ESPN all weekend, and regularly does stupid things. If this were a movie it would end with a smart, sophisticated, well dressed women swooping in to save the day.

Frankly, the portrayal of modern man by popular culture is just as offensive as certain racial stereotypes perpetuated in the first half of the 20th century. How is the current stereotype of modern man any different than that of the lazy African American who has three illegitimate children or the illegal immigrant from Mexico who lives off welfare? There really is little difference - except we scorn the racial stereotypes but continue to (for some reason) think the stereotype of men is acceptable.

So, back to my original point about masculinity. I think when the gender social norms were re-ordered (for good or bad we can debate at another time) we as a civilization forgot to redefine what is meant to be a man in our social order. Now, it is incumbent on men to define their role in society.

I think one aspect that men need to examine is the way they outwardly express their self respect through dress. This doesn't mean you have to wear a suit to a football game, but it does mean that you should at least look good while you go to the football game. To do so shows respect for yourself, the other people around you, and the institution that is the American sport of football.

On another note, I hope I am correct about the state of dress in the workplace. I'm not trying to say that there is a grassroots movement to ditch the awful business casual dress code in favor of more traditional dress, but certainly I think the "iron is in the fire." Only time will tell whether I am right or not though.


----------



## NewYorker30 (Mar 20, 2008)

OH-CPA said:


> you mean to sound this elitist?
> 
> Quote:
> *Originally Posted by archon*
> ...


"Regarding the degenerated forms of asceticism, I would like to point out the spirit of a phenomenon that is more properly connected to the plane of "work" (that is, of the fourth caste). The modern world knows a sublimated version of work in which the latter becomes "disinterested", disjoined from the economic factor and from the idea of a practical or productive goal and takes an almost ascetic form; I am talking about sport. Sport is a way of working in which the productive objective no longer matters; thus, sport is willed for its own sake as mere activity. Someone has rightly pointed out that sport is the "blue collar" religion (11). Sport is a typical counterfeit of action in the traditional sense of the word. A pointless activity, it is nevertheless still characterized by the same triviality of work and belongs to the same physical and lightless group of activities that are pursued at the various crossroads in which plebeian contamination occurs. Although through the practice of sport it is possible to achieve a temporary evocation of deep forces, what this amounts to is the enjoyment of sensations and a sense of vertigo and at most, the excitement derived from directing one's energies and winning a competition-without any higher and transfiguring reference, any sense of "sacrifice" or deindividualizing offering being present. Physical individuality is cherished and strengthened by sport; thus the chain is confirmed and every residue of subtler sensibility is suffocated. The human being, instead of growing into an organic being, tends to be reduced to a bundle of reflexes, an almost to a mechanism. It is also very significant that the lower strata of society are the ones that show more enthusiasm for sports, displaying their enthusiasm in great collective forms. Sport may be identified as one of the forewarning signs of that type of society represented by Chigalev in Dostoyevsky's The Obsessed; after the required time has elapsed for a methodical and reasoned education aimed at extirpating the evil represented by the "I" and by free will, and no longer realizing they are slaves, all the Chigalevs will return to experience the innocence and the happiness of a new Eden. This "Eden" differs from the biblical one only because work will be the dominating universal law. Work as sport and sport as work in a world that has lost the sense of historical cycles, as well as the sense of true personality, would probably be the best way to implement such a messianic idea. Thus, it is not a coincidence that in several societies, whether spontaneously or thanks to the state, great sports organizations have arisen as the appendices of various classes of workers, and vice versa. " -- Julius Evola from his book Regression of The Castes


----------



## NewYorker30 (Mar 20, 2008)

Oh, yes, BTW, I still wear hats just not fedoras proper.


----------



## Jonny (Oct 9, 2010)

1970's, the decade which I would define the start of modern society.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2021)

One thing that I am concerned about men not wearing hats is this question: Did skin cancer increase with the lack of this added protection?


----------



## some_dude (Nov 9, 2008)

On the subject of hats, I have noticed that hats are still quite popular. It's just hats with full brims which are not so popular any more-- I see people wearing baseball caps and trucker hats all the time, all over the place.

I mentioned this insight to my son, and he pointed out to me that in places where it really matters (such as ranchers), they do still wear full-brimmed hats-- cowboy hats.

Personally, I started wearing a fedora most every day in the fall and winter, and a panama hat in the summer, and I get favorable comments from just about everyone, from homeless people to hipsters to elegantly dressed boulavardiers.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

some_dude said:


> On the subject of hats, I have noticed that hats are still quite popular. It's just hats with full brims which are not so popular any more-- I see people wearing baseball caps and trucker hats all the time, all over the place.
> 
> I mentioned this insight to my son, and he pointed out to me that in places where it really matters (such as ranchers), they do still wear full-brimmed hats-- cowboy hats.
> 
> Personally, I started wearing a fedora most every day in the fall and winter, and a panama hat in the summer, and I get favorable comments from just about everyone, from homeless people to hipsters to elegantly dressed boulavardiers.


I wear hats pretty much every day, most often choosing one of several Tilley Endurables full brimmed cotton poplin hats. They provide excellent protection for my head, neck and ears from the suns damaging rays. Casual fedoras for sure, but the complements keep coming!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I wear a cap to protect myself and my head from the hot sun.


----------



## Troones (Mar 7, 2018)

eagle2250 said:


> I wear hats pretty much every day, most often choosing one of several Tilley Endurables full brimmed cotton poplin hats. They provide excellent protection for my head, neck and ears from the suns damaging rays. Casual fedoras for sure, but the complements keep coming!


I just purchased a Tilley bucket hat this second based on your review!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Troones said:


> I just purchased a Tilley bucket hat this second based on your review!


I hope you enjoy your Tilley Hats as much as I enjoy mine. Much like Pringles chips, bet ya can't buy just one! LOL.


----------



## Troones (Mar 7, 2018)

eagle2250 said:


> I hope you enjoy your Tilley Hats as much as I enjoy mine. Much like Pringles chips, bet ya can't buy just one! LOL.


I can see that! I went with the off white "natural" color but I'm already picturing how some of the other colors would work with my gear.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Seems like hats went out because they didn't look good with longer hair (hippie generation). Baseball caps were the exception. 
Hippies started to go to church and Sunday best went out - slowly.


----------



## jc1305us (Jan 13, 2009)

The 60’s ruined this country. (I’m 45)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

jc1305us said:


> The 60's ruined this country. (I'm 45)


LOL, I would gladly turn back the clock to the 1950's/1960's in a New York micro-second, if such were possible. Sartorially my tastes in clothes have not changed much at all. The issues were much clearer back then than they seem to be these days. But then, maybe I'm just getting old?


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

You can see the trend of men gradually going hatless in Alfred Htichcock's films from the 1950's to the end of his career.

Increasingly, the lead male went hatless, and hats were worn either by the villain or people in "official" capacities, such as police.

For example, 

*1955's "To Catch a Thief". Cary Grant is hatless in the gorgeous, sunny, resort surroundings.

*1956's "The Man Who Knew Too Much". James Stewart wears fedora, sports coat and tie while travelling and touring. He is plays a stolid and grounded physician from the Midwest on vacation with his family.

*1956's "Wrong Man" is filmed as a realistic black and white film on location in New York. Henry Fonda and the other males (detectives) all wore fedora's. It was a gritty film with no glamor. 

*1959's "North by Northwest" features Cary Grant as totally hatless. He is a sophisticated ad man from Madison Avenue. The fedora wearers include James Mason (villain), Leo G. Carroll (the spymaster), and assorted police and detectives.

*1964's "Marnie" has Sean Connery hatless.

*1966's "Torn Curtain" has Paul Newman hatless.

1972's "Frenzy" has both hero and villain hatless.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

As for the decline of suits, it is connected with the decline of hat wearing. Both are the result of an increasingly casual society were there are few boundaries of propriety and formality. 

Some markers in the decline in suits:

*The rise of suburban offices in the 1960's and 1970's. Men felt less compelled to dress for a suburban office whether it be in an office or a strip mall or a home office. The attraction was closeness to home, comfort, and informality. The suburbs are halfway between city and country. It can feel forced to wear a pinstripe in the burbs. The suburbs brought us "business casual" dress of a polo shirt or oxford shirt with chinos.

*Casual Fridays. This led to casual everyday's. This started at the end of the 90's. Eventually everyone dressed casually all the time. The most conservative professionals, bankers and lawyers, would dress casually all the time except for the important meeting or court. They kept a suit and tie in the office closet for such events. Things were getting more and more casual to the extent that some of the lawyers in my building in the financial district never wore a tie and suit again.

*The Pandemic. This was the final nail in the coffin. Brooks Brothers files for bankruptcy (which was the horizon before the pandemic). So does Joseph Bank and Neiman Marcus. Retail is hanging-on by a thread. People are working from the spare room or the bedroom. Except for certain top level people, no one dresses for a Zoom meeting.

My prediction is that "dressing for business" will return only to high level executives and professionals who deal with the public, such as lawyers and finance types. Dressing is over for the middle class "salaryman".


----------



## richard warren (Dec 10, 2015)

Men’s clothing like much else in culture was essentially zombified by the invention of recording media. People still wear the same clothes, listen to the same music ( in broad terms), watch video with the same plots, and read the same sort of books as they did 100 years ago.

This has had two effects: the zombie forms have lasted so long that their metaphorical flesh has mortified, hence the short, tight, ugly parody or simulacrum of a man’s suit now produced as a man suit, and as higher culture has collapsed, and it’s passing has left lack of something for the masses to follow, a general return to primitivism.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

richard warren said:


> Men's clothing like much else in culture was essentially zombified by the invention of recording media. People still wear the same clothes, listen to the same music ( in broad terms), watch video with the same plots, and read the same sort of books as they did 100 years ago.
> 
> This has had two effects: the zombie forms have lasted so long that their metaphorical flesh has mortified, hence the short, tight, ugly parody or simulacrum of a man's suit now produced as a man suit, and as higher culture has collapsed, and it's passing has left lack of something for the masses to follow, a general return to primitivism.


I agree with your point of view, but would add that that this slide toward primitivism affects not only our wardrobes, but virtually every other aspect of our lives as well. Sadly, mediocre is the new standard.


----------

