# Why do young men dress so poorly ages 50 and under ?



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

The decline in men's dress appeared to began in the late 1980's especially young men. Hollywood is no exception only Richard Gere appears
to be interested in proper men's dress and he is in his 60's. Hollywood was a leader at one time in men's dress. There has been a almost
total decline in American Black men's dress ! As an American Black in his 70's I am appall at at the dress of the majority of young Black men
today it has not always been that way. 
Why !


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> The decline in men's dress appeared to began in the late 1980's especially young men. Hollywood is no exception only Richard Gere appears
> to be interested in proper men's dress and he is in his 60's. Hollywood was a leader at one time in men's dress. There has been a almost
> total decline in American Black men's dress ! As an American Black in his 70's I am appall at at the dress of the majority of young Black men
> today it has not always been that way.
> Why !


It crosses the ethnic divide my friend. But there are examples of propriety as well. Denzel Washington comes to mind.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

The easy answer is that our generation (assuming you're in the same 45-60yo range as me) is that there has always been a gap in perception of dress between us and young men. My own take on this is that men at that age are naïve in their tastes, have open perceptions on trying things, have physiques they want to display, want to differentiate themselves from their predecessors, and have not-so-much pocket money to do all this. These factors conspire to make them show up in public looking less than optimal in the eyes of us older dudes. 

This theory at least explains my own 1980s popped-collar polo/tight designer jeans phase.


----------



## Danny Boy (May 21, 2014)

Two words:

Vatican II.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

" The biggest problem in teaching men how to dress is there's no one for them to look at " Alan Flusser author of Dressing the Man


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Danny Boy said:


> Two words:
> 
> Vatican II.


LOL !!


----------



## VaEagle (Oct 15, 2013)

One part of the explanation can be traced back to the dramatic socio-economic changes brought about in the 1980s by high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, and later, Apple. The unbelievable success of those companies and the many millionaires they created, plus the hundreds of smaller tech companies that caught the same wave (or as they would probably claim, built their own waves) changed the concept of what it means to be successful in America – including how one dresses when he/she is successful. 

I saw it first hand with my many successful friends who, coming out of a top notch New England college in the 80s, wisely saw the business world changing in front of them and turned down offers from the old established companies like IBM to join the new tech giants or started their own companies. Just five years earlier, their path to success would have been the same as it had been for the previous 25-30 years: join a Fortune 500 company; buy your white shirts, ties, and numerous suits; start your career; and hope to make it up the company ladder over the next 20 years. Instead, my most successful friends proudly and defiantly wore their jeans and biking gear to their start-up offices, and in their late 20s, were making much more money than the IBM managers who had been trying to hire them. A whole new upper class formed - including many who didn't even go to college - that proudly eschewed old norms, including dressing up for work. That then had a trickle-down effect to everyone else (including the legal profession, which I’m in) who wondered why the heck they were wearing suits while sitting in their offices (or cubicles) while the new rich guys dressed like it was Saturday. 

Not saying this was a good thing, but it did happen.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

VaEagle said:


> One part of the explanation can be traced back to the dramatic socio-economic changes brought about in the 1980s by high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, and later, Apple. The unbelievable success of those companies and the many millionaires they created, plus the hundreds of smaller tech companies that caught the same wave (or as they would probably claim, built their own waves) changed the concept of what it means to be successful in America - including how one dresses when he/she is successful.
> 
> I saw it first hand with my many successful friends who, coming out of a top notch New England college in the 80s, wisely saw the business world changing in front of them and turned down offers from the old established companies like IBM to join the new tech giants or started their own companies. Just five years earlier, their path to success would have been the same as it had been for the previous 25-30 years: join a Fortune 500 company; buy your white shirts, ties, and numerous suits; start your career; and hope to make it up the company ladder over the next 20 years. Instead, my most successful friends proudly and defiantly wore their jeans and biking gear to their start-up offices, and in their late 20s, were making much more money than the IBM managers who had been trying to hire them. A whole new upper class formed - including many who didn't even go to college - that proudly eschewed old norms, including dressing up for work. That then had a trickle-down effect to everyone else (including the legal profession, which I'm in) who wondered why the heck they were wearing suits while sitting in their offices (or cubicles) while the new rich guys dressed like it was Saturday.
> 
> Not saying this was a good thing, but it did happen.


The result was the decline of the American male. The American lady now outperforms him in college , demands equal pay , dresses better ,
and when it comes to proper dress , selects the younger males clothing !Most American males are not products of Silicon valley but most
young American males appears to have lost interest in their appearance. What does it mean to be successful in American having women 
dress it's men ?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VaEagle said:


> One part of the explanation can be traced back to the dramatic socio-economic changes brought about in the 1980s by high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, and later, Apple. The unbelievable success of those companies and the many millionaires they created, plus the hundreds of smaller tech companies that caught the same wave (or as they would probably claim, built their own waves) changed the concept of what it means to be successful in America - including how one dresses when he/she is successful.
> 
> I saw it first hand with my many successful friends who, coming out of a top notch New England college in the 80s, wisely saw the business world changing in front of them and turned down offers from the old established companies like IBM to join the new tech giants or started their own companies. Just five years earlier, their path to success would have been the same as it had been for the previous 25-30 years: join a Fortune 500 company; buy your white shirts, ties, and numerous suits; start your career; and hope to make it up the company ladder over the next 20 years. Instead, my most successful friends proudly and defiantly wore their jeans and biking gear to their start-up offices, and in their late 20s, were making much more money than the IBM managers who had been trying to hire them. A whole new upper class formed - including many who didn't even go to college - that proudly eschewed old norms, including dressing up for work. That then had a trickle-down effect to everyone else (including the legal profession, which I'm in) who wondered why the heck they were wearing suits while sitting in their offices (or cubicles) while the new rich guys dressed like it was Saturday.
> 
> Not saying this was a good thing, but it did happen.


I am 57 and observed this as well. I ignore it and dress like an adult. Given that this is no longer standard I get tons of compliments, not to mention superior treatment when dining or traveling.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Before we start putting the ladies on a pedestal here, I ask we consider the emerging image I'm seeing for women in the movies.






This does not bode well.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm as disappointed as anyone by the poor dress of today's young male human, but putting it in terms of "the decline of the American male" is overly dramatic and inaccurate. Mike Petrik is right, though: if you want better service, dress as though you expect it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

VaEagle said:


> One part of the explanation can be traced back to the dramatic socio-economic changes brought about in the 1980s by high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, and later, Apple. The unbelievable success of those companies and the many millionaires they created, plus the hundreds of smaller tech companies that caught the same wave (or as they would probably claim, built their own waves) changed the concept of what it means to be successful in America - including how one dresses when he/she is successful.
> 
> I saw it first hand with my many successful friends who, coming out of a top notch New England college in the 80s, wisely saw the business world changing in front of them and turned down offers from the old established companies like IBM to join the new tech giants or started their own companies. Just five years earlier, their path to success would have been the same as it had been for the previous 25-30 years: join a Fortune 500 company; buy your white shirts, ties, and numerous suits; start your career; and hope to make it up the company ladder over the next 20 years. Instead, my most successful friends proudly and defiantly wore their jeans and biking gear to their start-up offices, and in their late 20s, were making much more money than the IBM managers who had been trying to hire them. A whole new upper class formed - including many who didn't even go to college - that proudly eschewed old norms, including dressing up for work. That then had a trickle-down effect to everyone else (including the legal profession, which I'm in) who wondered why the heck they were wearing suits while sitting in their offices (or cubicles) while the new rich guys dressed like it was Saturday.
> 
> Not saying this was a good thing, but it did happen.


I'm sure there is much in this.

I find the example of Sergio Marchionne quite interesting - a European CEO in an older industry, yet still adopting the 'uniform casual outfit' approach to business dress. https://www.thestar.com/business/20...oss_sergio_marchionne_always_wears_black.html

Certainly not the 'google' effect here.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

VaEagle said:


> ...my most successful friends proudly and defiantly wore their jeans and biking gear to their start-up offices...


This is the norm in my office, but the silver lining to this decline is that unlike previous eras, where everyone would be expected to conform to new style norms or face severe social penalties (with financial penalties following from that) it is now far more acceptable to "do your own thing."

For example, when I left my coat and tie office to work for a young, come-as-you-are kind of company last year, I just carried over my suit wardrobe (I started wearing blazers on Friday, though.) By the third day I started getting questions from my fellow 20-somethings but when I explained that I had worked my way up a series of hard, dirty jobs to get there and that I "dressed up" for myself, I won over the top dogs in the office and my supervisors, who in turn made sure everybody else knew I was "OK." By the end of the week dressing well was just accepted as part of me. People actually complained when I didn't have a tux to wear for the company party. "We're all dressed up and you're just wearing your business clothes!" they said.

Just my experience, but I think at least the current generation of young adults are more open to it. Thankfully there are few baby boomers in our management and none are my supervisors. Those men proved the hardest to win over in the end.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> The decline in men's dress appeared to began in the late 1980's especially young men. Hollywood is no exception only Richard Gere appears
> to be interested in proper men's dress and he is in his 60's. Hollywood was a leader at one time in men's dress. There has been a almost
> total decline in American Black men's dress ! As an American Black in his 70's I am appall at at the dress of the majority of young Black men
> today it has not always been that way.
> Why !


A popular culture which panders to the lowest common denominator for profit. And doesn't give youngsters of every ethnicity desirable role models.

But I understand your dismay as I too remember the panache of well dressed young men among the African American community. I remember browsing in a Tommy Hillfiger shop perhaps 20 years ago when an African American gentleman of roughly my age walked up beside me and started looking through the merchandise, and said half to himself and half to me, "Let's see what this Tommy Hilfiger is all about." After about a minute he starts shaking his head, and walking away, and says in an annoyed and disappointed tone, "I know what it's about, *overpriced junk!**"*

This was a gentleman with standards. A gentleman of discernment.

But bright spots can be found on various blogs, as I see young men of every ethnicity who *do* have taste, a good _eye_, and a desire to dress well and with panache. And among young men who dress well are members of this forum.

Who knows, if from this muddled, sometimes mistaken, I-gent phenomenon there could even be a renaissance of the stylish man if the Corporatocracy doesn't seize control of it. As silly as it may sound, it's hard to overestimate the power of The Internet.


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

VaEagle said:


> Instead, my most successful friends proudly and defiantly wore their jeans and biking gear to their start-up offices, and in their late 20s, were making much more money than the IBM managers who had been trying to hire them. A whole new upper class formed - *including many who didn't even go to college* - that proudly eschewed old norms, including dressing up for work.


My gosh, didn't even go to college! Yet somehow, they were able to work hard, have vision and actually deliver a product or service people use and pay for! How dare these upstarts demand entry to the "upper class"! Perhaps your point is that if they had gone to college they would know how to dress? Have you been to a college campus recently?

I'll let you in on a little secret. These guys and girls are not particularly interested in who they hang out with, or which yacht club or gulf club to join, or what the establishment IBM types think of them. They are too busy building things and having fun their way. They don't eschew anything; they are just doing their own thing and, along the way, changing the world.


----------



## Skyjumper (Apr 27, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> The result was the decline of the American male. The American lady now outperforms him in college , demands equal pay , dresses better ,
> and when it comes to proper dress , selects the younger males clothing !Most American males are not products of Silicon valley but most
> young American males appears to have lost interest in their appearance. What does it mean to be successful in American having women
> dress it's men ?


LOL! Works for me, my daughter is in college and gets to compete with all these young men! And if I had to make a preference on which gender I prefer to see better dressed, I'll take the women every time ;-)

But really, the new is not all that bad. Many very young people do dress badly, its true. But not all. My daughter's friends actually dress reasonably well. By that I mean, their clothing is in good condition, they don't wear ball caps (straight or backwards), I don't see a lot of tee shirts (plain or graphic)... Their is hope!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Skyjumper said:


> My gosh, didn't even go to college! Yet somehow, they were able to work hard, have vision and actually deliver a product or service people use and pay for! How dare these upstarts demand entry to the "upper class"! Perhaps your point is that if they had gone to college they would know how to dress? Have you been to a college campus recently?
> 
> I'll let you in on a little secret. These guys and girls are not particularly interested in who they hang out with, or which yacht club or gulf club to join, or what the establishment IBM types think of them. They are too busy building things and having fun their way. They don't eschew anything; they are just doing their own thing and, along the way, changing the world.


What a condescending response to an interesting question. Got that off your chest now?!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> The decline in men's dress appeared to began in the late 1980's especially young men. Hollywood is no exception only Richard Gere appears
> to be interested in proper men's dress and he is in his 60's. Hollywood was a leader at one time in men's dress. There has been a almost
> total decline in American Black men's dress ! As an American Black in his 70's I am appall at at the dress of the majority of young Black men
> today it has not always been that way.
> Why !


Silver, for what it is worth I still think that on balance the African-American male community compares well satorially to American men generally. They at least seem to make some effort to dress well, even if all too often their understanding of "well-dressed" is influenced by a very disordered pop culture. It is my observation that most white American males just don't care at all. And I should note that even though my satorial tastes are wholely classic (with a pronounced lean toward trad), I receive a disproportionate number of compliments from young African-American men. This shows that they at least care.

And yes, I know I'm generalizing here and so let me just say something preemptively to the inevitable poster who will want to take me to task for stereotyping bla bla bla. Don't waste your effort. I do not care what you think.


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> The decline in men's dress appeared to began in the late 1980's especially young men. Hollywood is no exception only Richard Gere appears
> to be interested in proper men's dress and he is in his 60's. Hollywood was a leader at one time in men's dress. There has been a almost
> total decline in American Black men's dress ! As an American Black in his 70's I am appall at at the dress of the majority of young Black men
> today it has not always been that way.
> Why !


I wouldn't say that young men are dressing badly, but they are dressing differently in conformation of vogue. Our clothing has always evolved, some styles of dress quicker than others. Personally, I think the last as abrupt change (in comparison to the last 70 years) of men's clothing was during and after the French revolution; and a great loss it was with the downfall of brocades, vivid colors and textures, visible silk finishing, ect., to some of what has carried on to today; draped trousers to our heels, shorter, less flamboyant coats and jackets, things that would've been considered queer of that time.

As for young African-American men dressing in decline of traditional standards of dress, I wouldn't say that it is ethically specific. Going to schools from the east-coast to Hawaii and as of recent, studying internationally, I would say that it is the environment and acceptance of conformation to one's environment that shapes us into who and what we are; of the many friends that I've made, there are many young men from a diversity of ethnicities who dress traditionally, as we see it and traditionally as to where they call home view it. That said, I have many more friends (all of various ethnic groups) that dress in sportswear and designer-ware that is far from what we would consider well dressed or even what our tailors would accept as commission to craft themselves. Even from those at my workplaces world-over, I've noticed most men from the previous generations and mine (regardless of educational status or profession) will choose to wear ready-made garments like shorts, jeans, t-shirts, trainers, utility boots, flip-flops, ect. on their off time; it's economical and socially accepted.

Having no formal education on this subject, I admit that what I say from here is to be theoretical and only an opinion deduced from my limited understanding: It would seem that exponentially lower cost and marketing brilliance of entities within today's fashion industry has been able to appeal to consumers by targeting certain lifestyles. Especially over the last 60 years, it would seem that the neighborhood tailor slowly died off because of that. Also, from what I've experienced, we that are younger almost instantaneously group ourselves into so many subcategories of cliques that traditional wear would be very difficult to utilize on a daily basis with the hobbies and actives that are now here. Men's wear has always seem to follow a basic rule: Utility > Comfort > Fashion.

To end, I'd like to mention that the clothes we wear has great impact on those we are to attract to our social circles. As we get older, it would seem that those we keep as friends become refined, so it may seem that there are more people that don't dress like us. Maybe, all-in-all, today there is a larger variety of lifestyles than yore.


----------



## VaEagle (Oct 15, 2013)

Skyjumper said:


> My gosh, didn't even go to college! Yet somehow, they were able to work hard, have vision and actually deliver a product or service people use and pay for! How dare these upstarts demand entry to the "upper class"! Perhaps your point is that if they had gone to college they would know how to dress? Have you been to a college campus recently?
> 
> I'll let you in on a little secret. These guys and girls are not particularly interested in who they hang out with, or which yacht club or gulf club to join, or what the establishment IBM types think of them. They are too busy building things and having fun their way. They don't eschew anything; they are just doing their own thing and, along the way, changing the world.


My point was NOT a negative comment about non-college educated individuals, but rather, that the drastically changed economic dynamic now opened incredible doors for a wide spectrum of entrepreneurs. Like my non-college educated buddy wearing cargo shorts and a t-shirt most days who was one of the earlier "bricks and mortar" business owners who shifted his business to the internet. (Oddly enough, he now keeps his boat at a very nice yacht club.) All positive.


----------



## bobelmore (Jan 26, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> The decline in men's dress appeared to began in the late 1980's especially young men. Hollywood is no exception only Richard Gere appears
> to be interested in proper men's dress and he is in his 60's. Hollywood was a leader at one time in men's dress. There has been a almost
> total decline in American Black men's dress ! As an American Black in his 70's I am appall at at the dress of the majority of young Black men
> today it has not always been that way.
> Why !


I agree that Hollywood has a lot to do with it. When you see multimillionaire movie stars on talk shows they often look like they just took their clothes out of the washing machine and put them on. Only a few will be wearing a suit and tie, and even those who do don't seem to have a clue how to dress well.

As I've thought about this I think it has a lot to do with them wanting to somehow be "real". They see the suits and ties as reminiscent of a time when people were phony, presenting an image to the public but not reality. But do we want to see everyone's reality? Don't we want to present ourselves to others in the most positive way?

At least this means those who dress well look better, as long as people still value that difference.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Skyjumper said:


> My gosh, didn't even go to college! Yet somehow, they were able to work hard, have vision and actually deliver a product or service people use and pay for! How dare these upstarts demand entry to the "upper class"! Perhaps your point is that if they had gone to college they would know how to dress? Have you been to a college campus recently?
> 
> I'll let you in on a little secret. These guys and girls are not particularly interested in who they hang out with, or which yacht club or gulf club to join, or what the establishment IBM types think of them. They are too busy building things and having fun their way. They don't eschew anything; they are just doing their own thing and, along the way, changing the world.


LOL, that statement could have come straight from 1969, and I know because I was there


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

VaEagle said:


> My point was NOT a negative comment about non-college educated individuals, but rather, that the drastically changed economic dynamic now opened incredible doors for a wide spectrum of entrepreneurs. Like my non-college educated buddy wearing cargo shorts and a t-shirt most days who was one of the earlier "bricks and mortar" business owners who shifted his business to the internet. (Oddly enough, he now keeps his boat at a very nice yacht club.) All positive.


It's okay, take no mind to those responding to your comment negatively. Your point was clearly conveyed and yet you will notice there are those who will simply nitpick for the sake of confrontation, as it is all over the internet. Even though this is a forum with a more matured group of members, it is no exception to the stereotype of the internet.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

bobelmore said:


> I agree that Hollywood has a lot to do with it. When you see multimillionaire movie stars on talk shows they often look like they just took their clothes out of the washing machine and put them on. Only a few will be wearing a suit and tie, and even those who do don't seem to have a clue how to dress well.
> 
> As I've thought about this I think it has a lot to do with them wanting to somehow be "real". They see the suits and ties as reminiscent of a time when people were phony, presenting an image to the public but not reality. But do we want to see everyone's reality? Don't we want to present ourselves to others in the most positive way?
> 
> At least this means those who dress well look better, as long as people still value that difference.


Hollywood was make believe it was what dreams were made of. American young men today are not dreamers in a classical sense. Ugly is in , 
dressing poorly is cool. Taking the time to dress well is uncool. selecting the proper clothing to wear does take time and some thought.
Jeans , tee shirts and snickers simply means why get involved in really dressing. Values have changed , few young men care about their 
appearance that's cool. Many young women must help them dress as young women are still concerned about their appearance.
Alan Flusser was quoted as saying there are NO well dressed actors in Hollywood today. 
Maybe young men today are just to lazy to care how they look , that is a change in values , men have taken time in their appearance for over 500 years. For many years young men took the time to dress and passed it on to their sons. Those days are coming to an end unless
something happens to bring about change.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Remember this Idol moment:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

When the history of the world written, it will look something like this:

A whole lot of unimportant stuff;

The Beatles and Stones stopped wearing suits;

end times.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess it's what they see on television, television has a small influence of what we wear in public.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

drlivingston said:


> Remember this Idol moment:


LOL! He was funny!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Like lots of things that degrade, men's dressing habits have declined incrementally. Once, dressing well was the norm, so most did it (sometimes grudgingly). Little by little, the men who hated to dress well began to look for shortcuts - sport coat instead of suit, tie without jacket, jacket without tie, more casual shoes, etc. Businesses went to a "casual Friday" and even "casual everyday" standard, further eroding standards. Hollywood, the music industry, extant "fashion" trends all contributed to and exacerbated the decline. Since many men like wearing jeans, sweats, t-shirts, and shorts, little by little they began wearing them in places that they ought not - parties, restaurants, special occasions, etc. Soon, such attire became the norm, so that this poorly-dressed look became ubiquitous, and anyone with the temerity to dress well (like an adult used to?) became the aberration and often the target of derision. What was once the clothing used to do yard work, errands, and athletics became the all-encompassing attire of many men. That type of outfit went conveniently from the garage directly to the restaurant, with fewer people caring.

Last month, I attended both a high school baccalaureate mass and the graduation ceremony. Stunned by the cargo shorts, t-shirts, jeans, flip flops, et al. on the men. Women wore similar things, but also shorts that were so short that one had to think that these ladies have either no friends or no mirrors in their homes. _For church and a graduation ceremony!_

There was a time when young people - male and female - sought to emulate the dignified, professional, and occasion-appropriate style of the older generation(s). Now, it has become apparent that the older generations are dressing like teenagers. How "cool" it all is! We have regressed mightily...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Skyjumper said:


> LOL! Works for me, my daughter is in college and gets to compete with all these young men! And if I had to make a preference on which gender I prefer to see LESS dressed, I'll take the women every time ;-)


Fixed it...for me, if not for you!


----------



## Style&Pace (May 31, 2014)

They must not know how much better you get treated in nice clothes.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I think it is a matter of the image that folks are trying to convey. I suspect that the amount that the average person spends on clothes has increased over the last fifty years, and so it isn't a matter of a change in priorities but rather a change in the desired look.

In my opinion, it's not worth worrying about. I think it is best to avoid letting the attire of others dictate your happiness.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

S&P, that's not always true. I've gotten some disdain or teasing for so much as wearing a sport coat.

Silver lining to all this: I see plenty of young men trying to bring back dressing well as a norm. It's their way of subtly rebelling against their perpetually casually-dressed parents. Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Jovan said:


> S&P, that's not always true. I've gotten some disdain or teasing for so much as wearing a sport coat.


^^This! Down in the deep south, I have received grief for trying to dress appropriately. I wore a beautifully sedate Oxxford suit to an uncle's viewing at a local funeral home. I was the only one there in a tie (corpse included). Even the mortician had on slacks and a corporate logo polo shirt. There was no end to the, "Hey! Are you preaching this Sunday?" type comments.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

*Degradation or evolution?*

Here's another take on changes in men's dress - it's sloppy because men are trying to effect a casual, unhindered style of dress using existing clothes. They may not need to "dress better" so much as to "wear the right clothes for the way they dress".

So the "untucked shirt" becomes some kind of fitted tunic (maybe with built-in Fitbit or other analytic devices), trousers become some kind of leggings with cargo pockets, shoes transition to slip-ons with a wide toe area (for the naturalistic toe-spreading adored by the barefoot-running crowd), or even just foot coverings which simply add a level of protection to otherwise bare feet. Fabrics transition to modern, wicking or thermal varieties, electrochromic, etc. etc. More gender-neutral styles, as well, as socialized gender distinction vanishes (which is happening.)

Bespoke garments are designed not only to fit the body, but to harmonize with body art (tattoos, piercings) and to integrate with wearable technology.

Modern "acceptable" men's wear originated in response to certain needs and limitations (like riding horses) which are long, long gone; they themselves were a radical departure from what came before, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was a transitional era in which people "got sloppy" about their ruff collars and the like. The current trend of "sloppiness" may somply be the death throes of a sartorial era, and/or the birth of a new one.

Good or bad? Whichever it is, someday men will be dressing up in sack suits at costume parties, not for business!

DH


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

From a Swedish perspective I must disagree totally with the premise of the thread, which is clearly aimed at young American men.
You will all of course know that Sweden, along with France and Italy is known for its fashionable and stylish youngsters. In Sweden it is the men over 50 that are the worst dressed. In Sweden, men between 20 and 50 are the best dressed.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Do we think there is a greater tendency in American dressing to prize comfort over style ? Even in 1964 Hardy Amies was writing "The American will not be uncomfortable. This has led him to an insistence on lightweight cloths which in their turn can only be used successfully in suit the lines of which are more loose than restricting..." Perhaps the trend has continued in this relent pursuit of comfort from looser suits to no suits to looser shirts to no shirts (i.e. T shirts). 

I have to say though, that if this is true of America then the UK has arguably seized this trend and taken it to the next level. When I see someone dressed smartly around Oxford, particularly if he is UNDER 50, he seems far more likely to be an American student. 

I also wonder if our frenetic lives have contributed to the decline in dressing well. Dressing well requires a greater degree of time and maintenance than just throwing on a t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops (none of which require anything more than the most basic laundering and cleaning). People seem to be spending so much time rushing around and 'cutting corners' in order to save time (internet shopping and groceries are another example). Of course this presupposes that people were not rushing around as much in the 1950s and 1960s and not being around at the time I have no idea if that's true or not.....


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

I think it (dressing well as an aspiration for almost every socio-ecomic group) broke with the 1960s cultural / social change. While many good things came out of that - Civil Rights being the singularly most important one - the traditional / cultural norm of dressing well was shot dead in the road (probably by a hippie wearing jeans and a tie-dyed shirt). Everything mentioned in the insightful above posts (and maybe some not) - the swinging 70s, the decline of some established businesses in the 80s, casual Friday in the 90s, Hollywood (and many wealthy people) dressing sloppily throughout - came about after the '60s and furthered the already in-motion shift away from dressing well.


----------



## herfitup (Mar 4, 2012)

silverporsche said:


> Hollywood was make believe it was what dreams were made of. American young men today are not dreamers in a classical sense. Ugly is in ,
> dressing poorly is cool. Taking the time to dress well is uncool. selecting the proper clothing to wear does take time and some thought.
> Jeans , tee shirts and snickers simply means why get involved in really dressing. Values have changed , few young men care about their
> appearance that's cool. Many young women must help them dress as young women are still concerned about their appearance.
> ...


Some of them are working very hard to look the way they do. Take a look at Barney's website. No end of $80 tee shirts and $1K biker pants.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Natty Beau said:


> This is the norm in my office, but the silver lining to this decline is that unlike previous eras, where everyone would be expected to conform to new style norms or face severe social penalties (with financial penalties following from that) it is now far more acceptable to "do your own thing."
> 
> For example, when I left my coat and tie office to work for a young, come-as-you-are kind of company last year, I just carried over my suit wardrobe (I started wearing blazers on Friday, though.) By the third day I started getting questions from my fellow 20-somethings but when I explained that I had worked my way up a series of hard, dirty jobs to get there and that I "dressed up" for myself, I won over the top dogs in the office and my supervisors, who in turn made sure everybody else knew I was "OK." By the end of the week dressing well was just accepted as part of me. People actually complained when I didn't have a tux to wear for the company party. "We're all dressed up and you're just wearing your business clothes!" they said.
> 
> Just my experience, but I think at least the current generation of young adults are more open to it. Thankfully there are few baby boomers in our management and none are my supervisors. Those men proved the hardest to win over in the end.


Im 25, and this was almost exactly my experience. I was told on my first day at my company by HR that I didn't need to wear a coat and tie, and I politely responded that I had finally gotten to a position where I didn't have to wear a uniform of some sort and wanted to dress the part. I received some questions about it for the first week, but now I have a reputation as "the guy that's always well dressed" in our building. More often than not, if I'm wearing a polo and chinos I get asked if I'm feeling okay lol.

i think a lot of the current state of mens clothing is more about comfort and ease than anything else, it's a whole lot quicker to throw on (for work) khakis, a polo, and boat shoes than it is to press a shirt, tie a necktie, etc. Same thing for casualwear: shorts, a t shirt, and flip flops is something that can be put on in all of 15 seconds. With all that said though, I see more and more guys my age dressing up now for more occasions (albeit, in trendier cuts- slim lapels/pants/ties etc), so though it may not be a full blown "renaissance", there is some change occurring.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Haffman said:


> When I see someone dressed smartly around Oxford, particularly if he is UNDER 50, he seems far more likely to be an American student.


Last night, I was in quite an upmarket restaurant in rural Oxfordshire.
I'd say there were about 50 diners, so about 25 men, mainly in their 40's up to their 70's. 
They mostly wore smart shirts, with only one T-shirt, and one man had a navy blazer with a pocket square.
However, I was the only one wearing a tie.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

orange fury said:


> With all that said though, I see more and more guys my age dressing up now for more occasions (albeit, in trendier cuts- slim lapels/pants/ties etc), so though it may not be a full blown "renaissance", there is some change occurring.


I think the reason a minority of young men are dressing well again is simply because a tie and jacket are losing their former meaning, class associations, etc. Fewer kids, when they see a coat and tie, think of their parents/boss or "the rich" that their social studies teachers inclined them to despite.

Btw, I'm glad to hear others have had the same positive experience I have.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Style&Pace said:


> They must not know how much better you get treated in nice clothes.


and you see other people staring at you like you dress better than them.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)




----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

VaEagle said:


> My point was NOT a negative comment about non-college educated individuals, but rather, that the drastically changed economic dynamic now opened incredible doors for a wide spectrum of entrepreneurs. Like my non-college educated buddy wearing cargo shorts and a t-shirt most days who was one of the earlier "bricks and mortar" business owners who shifted his business to the internet. (Oddly enough, he now keeps his boat at a very nice yacht club.) All positive.


Not all positive. That's the point of this thread. Many things are better today than in the past, but the way men dress is not one of them.


----------



## johwal (Apr 21, 2010)

drlivingston said:


> ^^This! Down in the deep south, I have received grief for trying to dress appropriately. I wore a beautifully sedate Oxxford suit to an uncle's viewing at a local funeral home. I was the only one there in a tie (corpse included). Even the mortician had on slacks and a corporate logo polo shirt. There was no end to the, "Hey! Are you preaching this Sunday?" type comments.


I've been in similar situations and know that rather lonely feeling of singularity. On my 62nd birthday last January I resolved that henceforward I was going to dress as an adult, regardless of any unwanted, unwarranted, imbecilic commentary. So far, so good.


----------



## ytc (Mar 20, 2012)

Danny Boy said:


> Two words:
> 
> Vatican II.


rofl true story....


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Howard said:


>


Top one, hardly the worst.

Bottom, at least they have single forward pleats.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

> _
> Originally Posted by *VaEagle* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1572442#post1572442
> My point was NOT a negative comment about non-college educated individuals, but rather, that the drastically changed economic dynamic now opened incredible doors for a wide spectrum of entrepreneurs. Like my non-college educated buddy wearing cargo and a t-shirt most days who was one of the earlier "bricks and mortar" business owners who shifted his business to the internet. (Oddly enough, he now keeps his boat at a very nice yacht club.) All positive.
> _




_It's okay, take no mind to those responding to your comment negatively. Your point was clearly conveyed and yet you will notice there are those who will simply nitpick for the sake of confrontation, as it is all over the internet. Even though this is a forum with a more matured group of members, it is no exception to the stereotype of the internet.
_

Second.


----------



## jessef (Mar 8, 2012)

I won't say men used to dress poorly, back then work environment/professions were considered more conservative. Unlike today, men can work at home, in a coffee shop, etc. Men now have more choices on what they want to wear as opposed to just accepting the norm.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

History has a way of repeating itself. In the 1950's Elvis appeared it was the beginning of the end of serious popular music with meaningful
lyrics and beautiful melodies, warnings were ignored. Than Hollywood , the days of glamour and make-believe also began it's decline this 
was the 1960's. violence , sex and reality became the norm. Men's dress was next the dashing , handsome , well dressed man is in decline
instead the sloppy , ill-fitted and so-called casual is the norm. The normal dress of the
so-called cool generation. Cool as most of us know had it's beginning in the early 1950's with the beatniks. This group was very different
from what we have today. Miles was cool , Brubeck was cool , the Rat pack was cool as was the Playboy clubs.
Ask Andy is a breath of fresh air in it's attempt to educate us all in men's proper dress. Will what happen to popular music as well as Hollywood also happen to men's dress ? Maybe Ask Andy can save the day.
Thanks for the many responses to the thread.


----------



## Consul the Almost Human (Nov 12, 2012)

In the scientific/engineering disciplines where I work, those that dress well are thought to not have any technical chops or to have sold them out for the management life. It's a stereotype but a surprisingly reliable one. There are some exceptions.


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> In the scientific/engineering disciplines where I work, those that dress well are thought to not have any technical chops or to have sold them out for the management life. It's a stereotype but a surprisingly reliable one. There are some exceptions.


I am also in engineering and unfortunately would have to agree that this stereotype exists. If I dress too well for work, my superiors or the client will start to question my technical competency. Or they would start giving me project management or business development type work, which I don't really like.


----------



## AFCForever (Sep 26, 2013)

sethblack said:


> I am also in engineering and unfortunately would have to agree that this stereotype exists. If I dress too well for work, my superiors or the client will start to question my technical competency. Or they would start giving me project management or business development type work, which I don't really like.


I found this is where being a bit of a dandy helps. I work in a large corporation so there is higher tolerance for dressing up here anyways but I avoid a tie, wear a pocket square and I am willing to be more fashion forward by wearing jeans periodically etc. That way it looks less like selling out to the suits.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> In the scientific/engineering disciplines where I work, those that dress well are thought to not have any technical chops or to have sold them out for the management life. It's a stereotype but a surprisingly reliable one. There are some exceptions.


People make fun of the boss no matter which field they chose.

As in, "How did that stupid-head get their job?? They don't know as much as I do, so It must be the clothes and the politics!!"


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> People make fun of the boss no matter which field they chose...


Word.


----------



## Consul the Almost Human (Nov 12, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> People make fun of the boss no matter which field they chose.
> 
> As in, "How did that stupid-head get their job?? They don't know as much as I do, so It must be the clothes and the politics!!"


I wish this were the case. In my area, appearance and political savvy do predict advancement incredibly well. I see it in how new staff are recruited, how current staff are retained or released, and how several cohorts (in the sense of an incoming class) have progressed. Ten to fifteen years ago, the weighting of technical ability vs. appearance was different. There has been a change in the last few years. For the worse, in my opinion.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

AFCForever said:


> I found this is where being a bit of a dandy helps. I work in a large corporation so there is higher tolerance for dressing up here anyways but I avoid a tie, wear a pocket square and I am willing to be more fashion forward by wearing jeans periodically etc. That way it looks less like selling out to the suits.


I understand your reasoning, but nobody is selling out to "The Suits" these days. If anything, people sell out to casual Fridays and everydays. It's more rebellious to wear a coat and tie now, ironically enough.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Top one, hardly the worst.
> 
> Bottom, at least they have single forward pleats.


I see a lot of guys wear socks and sandals, How do you feel about guys wearing them?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Jovan said:


> I understand your reasoning, but nobody is selling out to "The Suits" these days. If anything, people sell out to casual Fridays and everydays. It's more rebellious to wear a coat and tie now, ironically enough.


Why is it rebellious?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What style do you see these days? the more sloppy style OR more casual/professional ?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Howard said:


> Why is it rebellious?


It's rebellious because it's not the done thing. It incites odd glances or even sneering comments. Wearing a tie is going against the grain. 
Outside of a business setting, where you might be considered forced to wear a tie, people really don't know what to make of it.


----------



## ricardofrancisco (Jan 1, 2013)

Somewhere in the Congo...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fashion-and-style/10564648/Meet-the-dandies-of-Brazzaville.html


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

Jovan said:


> I understand your reasoning, but nobody is selling out to "The Suits" these days. If anything, people sell out to casual Fridays and everydays. It's more rebellious to wear a coat and tie now, ironically enough.


 Yes... Business-casual dress codes are not a symptom of selling out to "The Suits."


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

ricardofrancisco said:


> Somewhere in the Congo...
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fashion-and-style/10564648/Meet-the-dandies-of-Brazzaville.html


Whats your point?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> History has a way of repeating itself. In the 1950's Elvis appeared it was the beginning of the end of serious popular music with meaningful
> lyrics and beautiful melodies, warnings were ignored. Than Hollywood , the days of glamour and make-believe also began it's decline this
> was the 1960's. violence , sex and reality became the norm. Men's dress was next the dashing , handsome , well dressed man is in decline
> instead the sloppy , ill-fitted and so-called casual is the norm. The normal dress of the
> ...


Actually, thank you for starting the thread. I agree with everything you say here except the Playboy clubs were not cool.

If I may expand on your reference to popular music. Messrs. Davis, Brubeck, Sinatra, Martin, S.Davis, and Lawford, (a non musician, but given who he hung out with, an honorary one), were all adults. As a kid then I saw the larger culture was of the adults, by the adults, and for the adults. It was clear to me that I could gain access to it only by growing up and becoming an adult.
Elvis was no adult. From his time on "adult" gradually disappeared from the larger culture which now looks to the young, not only in popular music but also in dress,(and in almost everything else).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

ARK: I believe he was trying to show that there are men under 50 trying to keep dressing nicely alive. Their style is a bit too "dandy" for my taste. I never really liked the clothing of The Most Interesting Man in the World either, to be quite frank!



Odradek said:


> It's rebellious because it's not the done thing. It incites odd glances or even sneering comments. Wearing a tie is going against the grain.
> Outside of a business setting, where you might be considered forced to wear a tie, people really don't know what to make of it.


Even in many business settings, people don't know what to make of it. The way I saw it was that if my managers were wearing coat and tie, I should do the same despite the minimum dress code being business casual. Plus, I was the first face clients saw upon entering the office.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I am fairly sure that this very same conversation has been had since humans regularly lived to the age of 50, and before that it was 40, or 30. And before that it was lamenting how things were better without fire in the cave and cooked meat makes everyone lazy and soft.

I think that if you look around, you will see that younger folks put a lot of care and attention into how they look. Now, they may not express themselves exactly the way that you or I do, but if you get a tattoo or a piercing (both of which have long, storied traditions, btw) in a certain place and then gear some of your clothing choices around accentuating that, then you can hardly be accused of not caring. They just care about different things.

I enjoy dressing nicely, but I look just as natural in a dapper suit as I do in shorts, t-shirt, and my beloved Red Sox hat.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I am fairly sure that this very same conversation has been had since humans regularly lived to the age of 50, and before that it was 40, or 30. And before that it was lamenting how things were better without fire in the cave and cooked meat makes everyone lazy and soft.
> 
> I think that if you look around, you will see that younger folks put a lot of care and attention into how they look. Now, they may not express themselves exactly the way that you or I do, but if you get a tattoo or a piercing (both of which have long, storied traditions, btw) in a certain place and then gear some of your clothing choices around accentuating that, then you can hardly be accused of not caring. They just care about different things.
> 
> I enjoy dressing nicely, but I look just as natural in a dapper suit as I do in shorts, t-shirt, and my beloved Red Sox hat.


Humans have always lived to at least 50. When average life-span is spoken of the statistic is lowered by historically high infant and juvenile mortality rates - if a human survived until their late teens then the chances that they would proceed to reach old age were high.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

Danny Boy said:


> Two words:
> 
> Vatican II.


Dat was witty, lol!


----------



## ricardofrancisco (Jan 1, 2013)

arkirshner said:


> Whats your point?


I am just trying to show that there are still people below 50 who have concern in their appearance and make an effort in looking good. Their clothes are a bit too bright for my taste but at least they are dressed better than your average guy.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

sethblack said:


> I am also in engineering and unfortunately would have to agree that this stereotype exists. If I dress too well for work, my superiors or the client will start to question my technical competency. Or they would start giving me project management or business development type work, which I don't really like.


Confirmed by my own experience. Several days ago our policy of asking interviewees _not_ to wear suits came under discussion, and some punk who had no idea who I was (I'm in DC, not Palo Alto, and I've worked here for 6 years, as employee 100 in a company of about 1300) instructed me that "our" culture is about problem-solving, which is somehow impeded by a necktie. I'm not going to win that argument.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ricardofrancisco said:


> I am just trying to show that there are still people below 50 who have concern in their appearance and make an effort in looking good. Their clothes are a bit too bright for my taste but at least they are dressed better than your average guy.


I'll concede the effort, but their clothes are a *bit* too bright only in the sense that the Governor of NJ has been a *bit* too heavy. Not sure I agree with the average guy comparison. A case can be made that dressing like a schlub beats dressing like a clown.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Humans have always lived to at least 50. When average life-span is spoken of the statistic is lowered by historically high infant and juvenile mortality rates - if a human survived until their late teens then the chances that they would proceed to reach old age were high.


I think you understood my point.....


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Confirmed by my own experience. Several days ago our policy of asking interviewees _not_ to wear suits came under discussion, and some punk who had no idea who I was (I'm in DC, not Palo Alto, and I've worked here for 6 years, as employee 100 in a company of about 1300) instructed me that "our" culture is about problem-solving, which is somehow impeded by a necktie. I'm not going to win that argument.


I have found that it is not worth arguing with stupid people or dishonest people.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Confirmed by my own experience. Several days ago our policy of asking interviewees _not_ to wear suits came under discussion, and some punk who had no idea who I was (I'm in DC, not Palo Alto, and I've worked here for 6 years, as employee 100 in a company of about 1300) instructed me that "our" culture is about problem-solving, which is somehow impeded by a necktie. I'm not going to win that argument.


That is pretty funny and sad at the same time. But you are correct, you were not going to win that argument, so the best thing to do is not try to tilt that windmill.

If I had been a sarcastic mood, I might have pointed out that Edison and Einstein did OK at solving the problem solving/tie wearing conundrum.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I think you understood my point.....


I did. And I am politely disagreeing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jessef said:


> I won't say men used to dress poorly, back then work environment/professions were considered more conservative. Unlike today, men can work at home, in a coffee shop, etc. Men now have more choices on what they want to wear as opposed to just accepting the norm.


Ok, then why do pretty much all men now dress like schlubs. Isn't that just a new norm?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Haffman said:


> ...
> I also wonder if our frenetic lives have contributed to the decline in dressing well. Dressing well requires a greater degree of time and maintenance than just throwing on a t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops (none of which require anything more than the most basic laundering and cleaning). People seem to be spending so much time rushing around and 'cutting corners' in order to save time (internet shopping and groceries are another example). Of course this presupposes that people were not rushing around as much in the 1950s and 1960s and not being around at the time I have no idea if that's true or not.....


By chance the following article came my way - it suggests that current youth culture is not exactly cutting corners to save time, but rather that its attentions seem strangely, perhaps even rather obsessively, misdirected:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fas...24/Its-not-easy-being-a-spornosexual-man.html


----------



## Consul the Almost Human (Nov 12, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Ok, then why do pretty much all men now dress like schlubs. Isn't that just a new norm?


I think there's more to it than changing norms in the workplace. It seems to me that the women in these men's lives respond to the schlubbier clothing. That's a powerful reinforcement/incentive. In fact I would bet that the two forces are strongly interacting.


----------



## AFCForever (Sep 26, 2013)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> I think there's more to it than changing norms in the workplace. It seems to me that the women in these men's lives respond to the schlubbier clothing. That's a powerful reinforcement/incentive. In fact I would bet that the two forces are strongly interacting.


I certainly get that response - even from more mature women (50+), especially those raised in North America (European women, especially those from the East seem to appreciate a well dressed man). My wife took a long time to come around to dressing better and still pushes towards a more fashion forward, less classic look.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> Actually, thank you for starting the thread. I agree with everything you say here except the Playboy clubs were not cool.
> 
> If I may expand on your reference to popular music. Messrs. Davis, Brubeck, Sinatra, Martin, S.Davis, and Lawford, (a non musician, but given who he hung out with, an honorary one), were all adults. As a kid then I saw the larger culture was of the adults, by the adults, and for the adults. It was clear to me that I could gain access to it only by growing up and becoming an adult.
> Elvis was no adult. From his time on "adult" gradually disappeared from the larger culture which now looks to the young, not only in popular music but also in dress,(and in almost everything else).


The Playboy Club was cool. The Rat Pack with the exception of Sammy Davis jr. were well dressed. Sinatra resented Elvis one of the reasons was Elvis's dress. white socks. Elvis's dress today would be seen as conservative compared to today's young men. 
I think young men today dress poorly due to fathers lack of input , many young men today are dressed by their mothers. A women should never dress a young boy or man. I don't think men of the greatest generation were dressed by their mothers or other women.
As for as music can one hum a tune performed today ? What about whistle a tune ? There will never be another Fred Astaire , Cary Grant
or Frank Sinatra. Such great music composed by Porter , Kern , Rogers , Berlin , etc will never happen again , as for as Hollywood , we can wait around and hope but those days of Hollywood are over. The culture today supports a totality different culture.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'll concede the effort, but their clothes are a *bit* too bright only in the sense that the Governor of NJ has been a *bit* too heavy. Not sure I agree with the average guy comparison. *A case can be made that dressing like a schlub beats dressing like a clown.*


Yes, on balance, agree.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I think that if you look around, you will see that younger folks put a lot of care and attention into how they look. Now, they may not express themselves exactly the way that you or I do, but if you get a tattoo or a piercing (both of which have long, storied traditions, btw) in a certain place and then gear some of your clothing choices around accentuating that, then you can hardly be accused of not caring. They just care about different things...


I think you're giving most of these men far too much credit. They wear what's easy, without much regard to what it looks like. I've seen too many men - including at a wake yesterday - clad in logo-covered t-shirts (or undershirts!), cargo shorts, dirty sneakers, and ball caps that don't coordinate in any way, and are invariably ill-fitting.

This occurs not by careful consideration and or by sartorial planning; it's simply the attire of tasteless slobs.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> I think there's more to it than changing norms in the workplace. It seems to me that the women in these men's lives respond to the schlubbier clothing. That's a powerful reinforcement/incentive. In fact I would bet that the two forces are strongly interacting.


There may be some truth to this, which tells me that a) women don't have a hell of a lot to choose from, and b) many of these women are cut from the same sartorial cloth. They are also slobs...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I did. And I am politely disagreeing.


All due respect, life expectancy is irrelevant. Throughout history people have been complaining about many aspects of the succeeding generations - including clothing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> I think there's more to it than changing norms in the workplace. It seems to me that the women in these men's lives respond to the schlubbier clothing. That's a powerful reinforcement/incentive. In fact I would bet that the two forces are strongly interacting.


Perhaps this is correct, but I think both my young adult children would say that it is not generally true in Atlanta. I am convinced that I am taken more seriously when I dress more seriously, and I think that is true of young people too. Now, dress should be forum appropriate. So if the business forum is truly casual, a suit and tie becomes costume. But pressed khakis, OCBD and sport coat still works, and the sport coat can certainly come off while at your desk. You will look like an adult professional rather than a schlub, and not be inappropriate by any standard.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

The Rat Pack? I'm 52, so maybe neither young nor old enough to consider them cool, but I really, really, really do not. I can't take 5 minutes of their passive-aggressive, often misogynist, very often racist banter. I cannot take anything about Dean Martin. "Unfunny" describes it for me. The clothes I like. 


Seriously, one does not expect young men and women to have any historical sensibility. That's something one should develop with age. Young folks think they just invented everything, but that's their prerogative. Old folks should understand that nothing, but nothing, is more conventional, and more laughable, than complaining about young folks. In fact, it has been the subject of comedy ever since Roman times. There is not, and cannot be, a comedy at the happy ending of which old folks' complaints about the young are validated while the young lovers don't end up together. 


For what it's worth, there's a famous anecdote about Johnny Mercer falling in love with a Chuck Berry song; you could look it up. As it happens, I find pop music today--meaning what's actually on the radio--timbrally and rhythmically more interesting than almost anything that got played on the radio when I was young. And I'm from Detroit! Not only did CKLW across the river play Beatles, Motown, but Al Green, early Funkadelic (!), et al. They also played unbelievable quantities of dreck.


When you equate an earlier time to Jerome Kern, you forget that most people did not enjoy music of that worldly and harmonic sophistication. There's a great book about this, with an unfortunate title: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music, by Elijah Wald. If you go by what people across America actually listened to in the 1900s, it would not be the best jazz, the best show tunes, the most exquisite territory bands, the hottest rhythms, the best anything. It would be Lawrence Welk and Guy Lombardo. It would be horrifying garbage like "If I Knew You Were Coming, I'd Have Baked a Cake."


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps this is correct, but I think both my young adult children would say that it is not generally true in Atlanta. I am convinced that I am taken more seriously when I dress more seriously, and I think that is true of young people too. Now, dress should be forum appropriate. So if the business forum is truly casual, a suit and tie becomes costume. But pressed khakis, OCBD and sport coat still works, and the sport coat can certainly come off while at your desk. You will look like an adult professional rather than a schlub, and not be inappropriate by any standard.


I'm glad to hear it! The wife and I will probably move to the area in a few years' time.

Sadly, I hear tweed season is shorter.


----------



## Consul the Almost Human (Nov 12, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps this is correct, but I think both my young adult children would say that it is not generally true in Atlanta. I am convinced that I am taken more seriously when I dress more seriously, and I think that is true of young people too. Now, dress should be forum appropriate. So if the business forum is truly casual, a suit and tie becomes costume. But pressed khakis, OCBD and sport coat still works, and the sport coat can certainly come off while at your desk. You will look like an adult professional rather than a schlub, and not be inappropriate by any standard.


I understand and agree with you on the question of what's appropriate or not for the workplace. I was thinking more toward a man (young or old) wanting to be perceived as exciting, carefree, adventurous, and so forth. These are not in the main the associations with formal or semi formal office wear which intends to show seriousness and some willingness to conform.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> That is pretty funny and sad at the same time. But you are correct, you were not going to win that argument, so the best thing to do is not try to tilt that windmill.
> 
> If I had been a sarcastic mood, I might have pointed out that Edison and Einstein did OK at solving the problem solving/tie wearing conundrum.


Yeah, well, funny story, that. Not only did my lead tell me that he finds this guy annoying, but our CEO (who'd dressed in Silicon-Valley-rich-guy casual clothes like track suits until recently) saw me in the hall Monday, and called my hot-pink necktie and trad rig "spiffy," with no sarcasm.

Which is why it never matters what _one_ jerk says.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> I understand and agree with you on the question of what's appropriate or not for the workplace. I was thinking more toward a man (young or old) wanting to be perceived as exciting, carefree, adventurous, and so forth. These are not in the main the associations with formal or semi formal office wear which intends to show seriousness and some willingness to conform.


I've long found it confusing that conformity now means dressing differently whereas dressing like everyone else is nonconformist. When my very nonconformist son was in high school or college I expressed some discomfort at the notion of tatoos. His response was that since they are commonplace they do not interest him whatsoever. That some women are attracted to the so-called bad boys is a well-established phenomenon, but smart gents realize that this describes neither most women nor smart women.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Natty Beau said:


> I'm glad to hear it! The wife and I will probably move to the area in a few years' time.
> 
> Sadly, I hear tweed season is shorter.


Yes, but we are blessed with a tweed and corduroy season as well as a linen and seersucker one.
Ping me a PM when you settle here. I'm happy to buy you a welcome cocktail or two.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps this is correct, but I think both my young adult children would say that it is not generally true in Atlanta. I am convinced that I am taken more seriously when I dress more seriously, and I think that is true of young people too. Now, dress should be forum appropriate. So if the business forum is truly casual, a suit and tie becomes costume. *But pressed khakis, OCBD and sport coat still works, and the sport coat can certainly come off while at your desk. You will look like an adult professional rather than a schlub, and not be inappropriate by any standard.*


Quite. Indeed, in a white collar professional workplace (pace Google, Apple, etc.) I'm surprised that proper leather shoes, pressed cotton trousers and a button-up collared shirt is not seen as the minimum for business casual.

London may be 'behind' the US in dressing down (at least in professional environments) - some law firms, for example, remain business formal (although lots of people don't bother with a tie if not seeing clients; not a look I advocate) and those that are business casual are generally at the smarter end of the spectrum. The Bar, as a haven for eccentrics, is a different matter (when not seeing clients or in court, some will continue invariably to wear three piece suits, a small minority will dress in jeans and a T shirt and everything in between; strollers were not unknown around the Inns of Court as regular day dress 10 years ago).

What's the standard in Atlanta legal circles these days?


----------



## Consul the Almost Human (Nov 12, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I've long found it confusing that conformity now means dressing differently whereas dressing like everyone else is nonconformist.


Anarchists, Unite! ;-)



Mike Petrik said:


> When my very nonconformist son was in high school or college I expressed some discomfort at the notion of tatoos. His response was that since they are commonplace they do not interest him whatsoever. That some women are attracted to the so-called bad boys is a well-established phenomenon, but smart gents realize that this describes neither most women nor smart women.


Fair enough. The topic of how smart gents can find smart women is an entirely different issue. I think it is true though that people in general look at what works for others and try to get the same results for themselves by emulation. I'm reminded of cargo cults in the Pacific that thought replicating airstrips, control towers, and beacons with materials at hand would bring back the resources flown in when their lands were used as military bases. The man aspiring to the executive suite dresses like the executives, presumably nicely. The man looking at the schlub with women all around him, dresses schlubbily. But, the reasons why the execs and the schlubby Don Juan are successful may have many other factors that he can't see or understand.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Consul the Almost Human said:


> But, the reasons why the execs and the schlubby Don Juan are successful may have many other factors that he can't see or understand.


Exactly.

Point: https://www.press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2014/February/1402BellezzaJCR.html

and counter-point: (points 1 and 2)


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Workplaces are getting more and more confusing. Some people at my office show up wearing sweatpants. Most of the ALJ's wear a jacket and a tie. It's Thursday, so I'm wearing seersucker. The paralegal in the cube next to me is on the phone with someone trying to decide whether a pair of Santoni shoes will go better with green or nantucket red chinos.

It's all over the place here in the wacky world of government.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Odradek said:


> It's rebellious because it's not the done thing. It incites odd glances or even sneering comments. Wearing a tie is going against the grain.
> Outside of a business setting, where you might be considered forced to wear a tie, people really don't know what to make of it.


wouldn't people like it?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I enjoy dressing nicely, but I look just as natural in a dapper suit as I do in shorts, t-shirt, and my beloved Red Sox hat.


I enjoy dressing nicely myself sometimes. It just makes me feel good.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Mike Petrik said:


> Ok, then why do pretty much all men now dress like schlubs. Isn't that just a new norm?


They feel comfortable looking like shlubs, that's their preference in how and what they put on. If one guy wants to wear a wife beater shirt and shorts, that's them. It's what they feel like wearing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Balfour said:


> What's the standard in Atlanta legal circles these days?


I'm not sure there is a standard. Certainly court demands a business suit, but all bets are off aside from that. I would say that most male lawyers at big firms (all I really know about) wear anything from khakis and a golf shirt to a dark business suit depending on preference and schedule. Those who dress more casually do recalibrate if they have client or other business meetings (depending on the client and forum). Frankly, most of the more successful partners wear a coat and tie every day. While obviously one could attribute that to generation, I don't think that is quite right. Among senior lawyers there is a positive correlation between professional success and formality of dress. Not a perfect correlation of course, but an obvious positive one. Finally, jeans among younger male lawyers are not common, but not unheard of either.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm not sure there is a standard. Certainly court demands a business suit, but all bets are off aside from that. I would say that most male lawyers at big firms (all I really know about) wear anything from khakis and a golf shirt to a dark business suit depending on preference and schedule. Those who dress more casually do recalibrate if they have client or other business meetings (depending on the client and forum). Frankly, most of the more successful partners wear a coat and tie every day. While obviously one could attribute that to generation, I don't think that is quite right. Among senior lawyers there is a positive correlation between professional success and formality of dress. Not a perfect correlation of course, but an obvious positive one. Finally, jeans among younger male lawyers are not common, but not unheard of either.


Thank you, and interesting.

Do you see anything of the point people sometimes raise in these sort of discussions: positive hostility to people continuing to wear coat and tie (i.e. business casual as a floor AND a ceiling, not merely a floor)?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Balfour said:


> Thank you, and interesting.
> 
> Do you see anything of the point people sometimes raise in these sort of discussions: positive hostility to people continuing to wear coat and tie (i.e. business casual as a floor AND a ceiling, not merely a floor)?


Absolutely not. Even the more casually dressed are apt to compliment a more formal ensemble if it is noticeably well done.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Absolutely not. Even the more casually dressed are apt to compliment a more formal ensemble if it is noticeably well done.


Well, a small mercy, at least!


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

Senior management at my employer enjoys passive aggressively attacking anyone who dares to wear a suit and tie while they are not. I think they get embarrassed when someone more junior dresses more formally than they do. I believe most younger workers end up having to follow business casual routine because their senior leadership does so...not because younger workers are pushing to wear more casual clothing themselves. So to complain about the younger generation seems misguided, when in professional environments, it is the older generation that sets the tone.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but we are blessed with a tweed and corduroy season as well as a linen and seersucker one.
> Ping me a PM when you settle here. I'm happy to buy you a welcome cocktail or two.


Thank you, I will!


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

ilikeyourstyle said:


> Senior management at my employer enjoys passive aggressively attacking anyone who dares to wear a suit and tie while they are not. I think they get embarrassed when someone more junior dresses more formally than they do. I believe most younger workers end up having to follow business casual routine because their senior leadership does so...not because younger workers are pushing to wear more casual clothing themselves. So to complain about the younger generation seems misguided, when in professional environments, it is the older generation that sets the tone.


+1,000


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> .....Now, dress should be forum appropriate. So if the business forum is truly casual, a suit and tie becomes costume. But pressed khakis, OCBD and sport coat still works, and the sport coat can certainly come off while at your desk.....


I agree with this wholeheartedly. I get the impression hanging around these fora that many here either don't agree with this, or simply don't mind being "in costume". I happen to be in a profession and a company where suit and tie is commonplace. If that were not the case, I don't see myself forcing the issue. I have no desire to stand out by intentionally dressing differently from everyone else around me. That doesn't mean I won't dress well in all circumstances, and if dressing well differentiates me from the pack, then so be it. However, I don't feel like dressing well means putting on a tie when the forum (work, restaurant, social function, etc) is clearly business casual or casual.


----------



## 3piece (Jan 22, 2014)

ilikeyourstyle said:


> Senior management at my employer enjoys passive aggressively attacking anyone who dares to wear a suit and tie while they are not. I think they get embarrassed when someone more junior dresses more formally than they do. I believe most younger workers end up having to follow business casual routine because their senior leadership does so...not because younger workers are pushing to wear more casual clothing themselves. So to complain about the younger generation seems misguided, when in professional environments, it is the older generation that sets the tone.


Mmm, hasty generalization? If it's true at your workplace, doesn't mean it's true everywhere.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> The Playboy Club was cool. The Rat Pack with the exception of Sammy Davis jr. were well dressed. Sinatra resented Elvis one of the reasons was Elvis's dress. white socks. Elvis's dress today would be seen as conservative compared to today's young men.
> *I think young men today dress poorly due to fathers lack of input , many young men today are dressed by their mothers. A women should never dress a young boy or man. I don't think men of the greatest generation were dressed by their mothers or other women.*
> As for as music can one hum a tune performed today ? What about whistle a tune ? There will never be another Fred Astaire , Cary Grant
> or Frank Sinatra. Such great music composed by Porter , Kern , Rogers , Berlin , etc will never happen again , as for as Hollywood , we can wait around and hope but those days of Hollywood are over. The culture today supports a totality different culture.


I'm sorry, but you are definitely wrong about that. Mothers dressed their sons all the time. Those "man's man" Hollywood actors you saw on the silver screen were often taught social and sartorial etiquette by older women. Don't let misguided, assumed nostalgia for a period you didn't live in get the better of you.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

SlideGuitarist said:


> The Rat Pack? I'm 52, so maybe neither young nor old enough to consider them cool, but I really, really, really do not. I can't take 5 minutes of their passive-aggressive, often misogynist, very often racist banter. I cannot take anything about Dean Martin. "Unfunny" describes it for me. The clothes I like.
> 
> Seriously, one does not expect young men and women to have any historical sensibility. That's something one should develop with age. Young folks think they just invented everything, but that's their prerogative. Old folks should understand that nothing, but nothing, is more conventional, and more laughable, than complaining about young folks. In fact, it has been the subject of comedy ever since Roman times. There is not, and cannot be, a comedy at the happy ending of which old folks' complaints about the young are validated while the young lovers don't end up together.
> 
> ...


You are correct most young Americans do not have any historical sensibility, as a matter of fact most young Americans are ignorant of American history of all sorts. Example when seniors were question at several eastern universities students when asked stated that Japan was an American ally in World War Two. Few had heard of Eisenhower and even fewer knew that Lee was a southern general in the civil war.
Certainly only a small number of young Americans have even heard of Kern , Berlin , porter , Rogers , etc., etc.

There has always been young people who rebelled , but they grew up. Today 50 year old men and younger dress like they have just finished chopping wood or coming from work in a coal mine. shirt hanging loose , pants hanging , and shoes untied. Alright for children but grown
men. The number one pop male singers of earlier periods were Perry Como , Nat Cole , Frank Sinatra , Johnny Mathis and none of these men 
walked around with their shirts hanging out and their cap on backwards
To the average young man today it is cool to be untidy. As for as " if I knew you were coming I'd bake a cake " That was called a novelty
song. Most of the songs of that period had wonderful lyrics and beautiful melodies. A different time.


----------



## indigent (May 25, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Don't let misguided, assumed nostalgia for a period you didn't live in get the better of you.


is this a time period you lived in?


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

The butler did it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

indigent said:


> is this a time period you lived in?


Negative, but going on all the things I've heard from people who lived through the mid-20th century it's silly to think women didn't dress men or boys.


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Confirmed by my own experience. Several days ago our policy of asking interviewees _not_ to wear suits came under discussion, and some punk who had no idea who I was (I'm in DC, not Palo Alto, and I've worked here for 6 years, as employee 100 in a company of about 1300) instructed me that "our" culture is about problem-solving, which is somehow impeded by a necktie. I'm not going to win that argument.


Quite an interesting story. Thanks for sharing this. I've once had another discipline lead comment that I look "metrosexual", whatever that means. She was just joking of course and didn't make any comment to my competencies but it is still not the image I want to project in the office. 
I do hope it will get easier to dress any way I want to when I'm a senior or lead engineer myself, though.



silverporsche said:


> As for as music can one hum a tune performed today ? What about whistle a tune ? There will never be another Fred Astaire , Cary Grant
> or Frank Sinatra. Such great music composed by Porter , Kern , Rogers , Berlin , etc will never happen again , as for as Hollywood , we can wait around and hope but those days of Hollywood are over. The culture today supports a totality different culture.


While I don't like most of what comes on the radio nowadays, I can't really support your statement either. There will always be crap music in any time period. But there is also music that's pretty good, made by talented people who care about their craft. I think this is just a matter of what you like, really. I mean, you may consider me juvenile for liking rock n roll. But wouldn't you also be considered juvenile by a person who only listens to classical music from the 18th century?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Negative, but going on all the things I've heard from people who lived through the mid-20th century it's silly to think women didn't dress men or boys.


I think this is certainly half right. Fathers had little influence in dressing boys, but as boys matured into young men they often did participate. Moms usually expected such or even insisted.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Negative, but going on all the things I've heard from people who lived through the mid-20th century it's silly to think women didn't dress men or boys.


As I'm 50 and grew into dressing myself in the 70s-80s perhaps I'm not well-positioned to speak of the younger generation, but perhaps there are parallels.

I believe mothers through time have been the primary dressers of boys, but as we mature into manhood we start admiring and emulating older men around us. Once this was confined to our fathers and other men we saw every day, but with the advent of film and television we started acquiring other sources - hence the previous reference in this thread to The Rat Pack and silver age screen stars. Say what you want about their off-screen antics or who was behind it, these men looked good on purpose and that influenced the young men who saw them to make decisions as to how they presented themselves.

_My own style icon. As a youngster (and even today) I'd ask myself "Would Steve McQueen wear this?"
_
Fast forward to today, and the influence of media is perhaps more prevalent than ever... but it's extremely diffused due to the wide range of material we all see every day. Instead of the carefully-managed/ideal male looks presented to the public by the stars of yesteryear we now have an assortment of "signature looks" available to us - everything from Clooney's and Jay Z's custom Italian suits to Larry The Cable Guy and Duck Dynasty camo-everything.

"The Everyman Slob" has become as much of a viable role model as "The Renaissance Man" - maybe moreso as his look is far easier to emulate/maintain. All it takes is the refusal to shave and a buying trip to Bass Pro Shops.









_For better or worse, you can't deny these guys are some of today's most powerful style icons_

After all, if you see evidence that you can have a successful business, a beautiful wife, and a happy life while looking like the gents below, why try harder?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^"Why try harder?"

I'm not sure that's the issue with the Robertson clan. It's been widely reported that the clan patriarch, Phil, after playing ahead of Terry Bradshaw on his college football team, walked away from college sports and an NFL career to do what he enjoyed most...living life, close to the land and nature, focused on God, family and Country. He loved hunting and built a career and yes, arguably a family financial empire because he work hard, very hard, doing what he loved and with those he most loved. One doesn't find the Robertson family kind of success without a whole lot of hard work! 

Personally, I enjoy dressing well but also love hunting and fishing. I worked hard all my life, seeking and I suppose finding some degree of success, by societies definition. But looking back, I wonder if Phil Robertson and his family had the better idea? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry, but you are definitely wrong about that. Mothers dressed their sons all the time. Those "man's man" Hollywood actors you saw on the silver screen were often taught social and sartorial etiquette by older women. Don't let misguided, assumed nostalgia for a period you didn't live in get the better of you.


With the tailor's help at times.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^"Why try harder?"
> 
> I'm not sure that's the issue with the Robertson clan. It's been widely reported that the clan patriarch, Phil, after playing ahead of Terry Bradshaw on his college football team, walked away from college sports and an NFL career to do what he enjoyed most...living life, close to the land and nature, focused on God, family and Country. He loved hunting and built a career and yes, arguably a family financial empire because he work hard, very hard, doing what he loved and with those he most loved. One doesn't find the Robertson family kind of success without a whole lot of hard work!
> 
> Personally, I enjoy dressing well but also love hunting and fishing. I worked hard all my life, seeking and I suppose finding some degree of success, by societies definition. But looking back, I wonder if Phil Robertson and his family had the better idea? :icon_scratch:


My criticism wasn't on their personal values/work ethic, but instead confined to their sense of style and those who emulate that signature look. I stand by that.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^My friend, I didn't mean to question the intent of your earlier comments, but rather to philosophize a bit about our life choices...specifically, my own.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Well, let's not forget that the Robertson clan's "look" is largely a marketing ploy.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

^^^ Wow! So it seems they are looking that way on purpose.

This reminds me of when I showed my boss this video of his favorite comedian "Larry The Cable Guy" before he started living in character as an uber-*******...






He insisted the video was faked, and the overall experience was like telling a steadfast child that Santa wasn't real. :crazy:


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

sethblack said:


> Quite an interesting story. Thanks for sharing this. I've once had another discipline lead comment that I look "metrosexual", whatever that means. She was just joking of course and didn't make any comment to my competencies but it is still not the image I want to project in the office.
> I do hope it will get easier to dress any way I want to when I'm a senior or lead engineer myself, though.
> 
> While I don't like most of what comes on the radio nowadays, I can't really support your statement either. There will always be crap music in any time period. But there is also music that's pretty good, made by talented people who care about their craft. I think this is just a matter of what you like, really. I mean, you may consider me juvenile for liking rock n roll. But wouldn't you also be considered juvenile by a person who only listens to classical music from the 18th century?


More than what one likes in music but what music one is exposed to. Example some Broadway music was classical in composition. 
Many popular writers had classical backgrounds. Como, Sinatra , Cole , Mathis etc., sang songs whose music was classical the lyrics were added to appeal to popular taste. Example A Perry Como recording "Full Moon and Empty Arms " a very popular recording from 
Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No.2. Sinatra also recorded the music. there was a mixture of classical and popular music no more.
What type of melody does rock"n roll have ? Crap music ? Faith , Gleason , Mantovani , etc;, were very popular much of their music was
semi-classical and these artist were very popular. Parents no longer involved themselves in exposing their children to music , result
their children were exposed to music by their peers. Is dress any different.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Grayson said:


> ^^^ Wow! So it seems they are looking that way on purpose.
> 
> This reminds me of when I showed my boss this video of his favorite comedian "Larry The Cable Guy" before he started living in character as an uber-*******...
> 
> ...


Hahaha, yeah, I remember when I first heard that Larry the Cable guy's accent was just part of his act. My mind was blown. I mean, I had assumed that he played up aspects of his "redneckness" a la Jeff Foxworthy, etc., but I had no idea that the entire thing was as theatrical as it is.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Mike Petrik said:


> I think this is certainly half right. Fathers had little influence in dressing boys, but as boys matured into young men they often did participate. Moms usually expected such or even insisted.


But Fathers were always the ones who told their sons to dress like a man, My father who used to know how to dress well, He doesn't dress up that much anymore but he does once in a blue moon when the occasion arises.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

L-feld said:


> Well, let's not forget that the Robertson clan's "look" is largely a marketing ploy.


wow, He looked so handsome back in the days, What happened?


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

You mean he is not really a cable installer ?

I'm so disillusioned, first The Fat Boys breaking up and now this .


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Re: Larry the Cable Guy and the Robertsons... it's not surprising at all. Public figures have altered their appearance or speech to market themselves to a certain segment throughout history -- to varying degrees of course. Let's not forget how JFK toned down his Ivy League image prior to being a US senator and especially prior to being POTUS.



Natty Beau said:


> With the tailor's help at times.


Okay, I know most of us wish britches were sold a bit higher waisted today, but that's ridiculous. Needs to be a good three inches lower. Though, I think I read somewhere that trouser waists were actually lower prior to the Hollywood drape look.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Re: Larry the Cable Guy and the Robertsons... it's not surprising at all. Public figures have altered their appearance or speech to market themselves to a certain segment throughout history -- to varying degrees of course. Let's not forget how JFK toned down his Ivy League image prior to being a US senator and especially prior to being POTUS.


But his Ivy League style was the best thing about him. Without that, he was just a filanderer who orchestrated the invasion of defenseless Caribbean nations to suppress popular uprisings.



Jovan said:


> Okay, I know most of us wish britches were sold a bit higher waisted today, but that's ridiculous. Needs to be a good three inches lower. Though, I think I read somewhere that trouser waists were actually lower prior to the Hollywood drape look.


I don't know what you're talking about. Those trousers sit at least three inches below his armpits. The probably don't even show over the top button of a high roll three button jacket, let alone a double breasted jacket. How do you expect a young man to keep his nipples warm?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## commandlinegamer (Jun 6, 2013)

L-feld said:


> I don't know what you're talking about. Those trousers sit at least three inches below his armpits. The probably don't even show over the top button of a high roll three button jacket, let alone a double breasted jacket. How do you expect a young man to keep his nipples warm?


Let's not forget he's a young lad: he'll grow into them.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Howard said:


> But Fathers were always the ones who told their sons to dress like a man, My father who used to know how to dress well, He doesn't dress up that much anymore but he does once in a blue moon when the occasion arises.


Your father grew up in an era when men stood tall. Men did not have to apologize for being men. Men dressed like men. 
The men's barber shop was off limits to women. In men's clothing stores the salesmen were men. A father would take his son to a
barber shop to get his first haircut, to a store and help him choose his first suit. Take his son to his first baseball game. 
Your father like many other men of that era took pride in their appearance and especially in being a man.

All of the above mostly doesn't exist today. It is women that has assume those duties. A women cannot dress a male especially a teenage
male. A man cannot dress a teenage girl. 
American men in dress and other areas has lost their image of what a man is. Women in America has demanded equality and to a large
degree acquired it. Where does that leave the men ? look at how young men dress. Women today in America dress better and are out
performing young men in school . Hollywood , the tall dark handsome man has almost disappeared. There are no John Wayne's or Gary
Coopers , even James Bond today is short and ugly. 
With all of this it's small wonder young men dress so poorly.


----------



## Clark Yin (Jun 8, 2014)

I'm here to throw my two cent into the mix but i think there's plenty of factors that falls into the categories as what the older generation perceives are "bad dressing"

Old habits die hard, as a society we are taught that suits, nice clothes, expensive clothes and well taken care clothes stand for something in particular. It shows anything from security, wealth, status and plenty of other meanings. While all of these are good and great have you ever noticed while walking on Wall street or Bay street here in canada, everyone is the same. There are all minute differences in how they dress. Similar suit with similar cut, of course different fabric and all similar colour. It is a certain uniform for that age group or profession. 

I'm currently 20 but i've always loved suits and things that are ill fitting because in a way i'm kind of lazy. I'm not the most fit person out there my body fat percentage is roughly 19~21% and i have a lack of muscles to keep that ratio. I think suiting up gives me the confidence i need and compensates for the pure body atheistic that i didn't obtain in the gym. I'm currently working towards it now and want to be able to look amazing in a regular plain T-shirt i think it's something i will be looking forward to. I don't dare wear a T-shirt and plain jeans cause i'd look horrible, my nipples would show a bit too much (they'd point out because of size and fat percentage in my chest), you can see that i'm not exactly slim or atheistically pleasing. 

To put it a bit more simply, at ever age, at every position, at every situation there is a "uniform" and it's all a matter of perspective. counting out people who have a lack of style and not caring about their appearance, there are plenty of ways to dress and i appreciate the diversity and standing out in the crowd when i wear my blazer and dress shoes. I even stand out when people wear suits because mine tend to have a lot more colour, fit and youth in them. 

It's all a matter of perspective and how you want to present yourself!

I hope what i typed made sense because i've been only so long on this forum


----------



## Clark Yin (Jun 8, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> Your father grew up in an era when men stood tall. Men did not have to apologize for being men. Men dressed like men.
> The men's barber shop was off limits to women. In men's clothing stores the salesmen were men. A father would take his son to a
> barber shop to get his first haircut, to a store and help him choose his first suit. Take his son to his first baseball game.
> Your father like many other men of that era took pride in their appearance and especially in being a man.
> ...


having taken a few sociology and pop culture courses i'd have to say that is definitely a last generation perspective. While there is nothing wrong with it in particular, nothing is as simple as it seems. Humans are fluidity and we never stay the same in any particular generation, the mass media and patriarchy keeps the lower class at hand and when they rise things change. In this case the patriarchy men did not give women equal standards and frowned upon feminism when it was meant for equal rights because they are afraid that women can do it better than them. It's similar to how people are afraid of the immigrants back in the day and how they will take all our jobs. Everyone is always afraid of loosing their position in life or seeing someone do it better and men back then were really afraid of losing their masculinity because that's all they're taught.

Social norms have changed where women are moving forward and i think it's the contrast you are seeing that makes you think men of this generation lost their role models. There is definitely less but that's because women are also up there and that's what equal rights has always been about. There are plenty of successful men that rise above women and vice versa. It's just no longer the 1940s where women can't vote, are possessions, lack of education, and different standards as men.


----------



## bobelmore (Jan 26, 2014)

johwal said:


> I've been in similar situations and know that rather lonely feeling of singularity. On my 62nd birthday last January I resolved that henceforward I was going to dress as an adult, regardless of any unwanted, unwarranted, imbecilic commentary. So far, so good.


I have never gone to a wedding or funeral in anything other than a suit and tie, and I don't plan to change that.

I have come to the conclusion (with the help of those who post here) that I should maintain my standards regardless of what everyone is doing.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

Deleted by author.


----------



## Fletcher (Feb 22, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm not sure there is a standard. Certainly court demands a business suit, but all bets are off aside from that. I would say that most male lawyers at big firms (all I really know about) wear anything from khakis and a golf shirt to a dark business suit depending on preference and schedule. Those who dress more casually do recalibrate if they have client or other business meetings (depending on the client and forum). Frankly, most of the more successful partners wear a coat and tie every day. While obviously one could attribute that to generation, I don't think that is quite right. Among senior lawyers there is a positive correlation between professional success and formality of dress. Not a perfect correlation of course, but an obvious positive one. Finally, jeans among younger male lawyers are not common, but not unheard of either.


I have noticed this correlation too. It may be that some of it is attributable to the demands of the more successful lawyer's schedule - more client meetings (both scheduled and short notice), business and civic lunches and after hours events, etc. Bit of a chicken and egg dillema there, though.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Your father grew up in an era when men stood tall. Men did not have to apologize for being men. Men dressed like men.
> The men's barber shop was off limits to women. In men's clothing stores the salesmen were men. A father would take his son to a
> barber shop to get his first haircut, to a store and help him choose his first suit. Take his son to his first baseball game.
> Your father like many other men of that era took pride in their appearance and especially in being a man.


Thanks, Silver. My Father is going to be 73 in October. He grew up in an era where men dressed well. He taught me how to tie a tie and how to dress like a mensch and as I grew up I started dressing better. His father probably taught him how to dress good so his Father's advice probably was handed down to his sons.


----------



## TodCreasey (Apr 1, 2013)

Howard said:


> Thanks, Silver. My Father is going to be 73 in October. He grew up in an era where men dressed well. He taught me how to tie a tie and how to dress like a mensch and as I grew up I started dressing better. His father probably taught him how to dress good so his Father's advice probably was handed down to his sons.


Interesting point - I hadn't thought about it as Dad was always someone who dressed up more than his peers due to his British upbringing (we live in Canada) but has never been a snappy dresser. However when I was over last we got into an argument with Mum about how high contrast a sport jacket and trouser should be (Mum thought dark and dark was fine - we though high contrast was better or it looks like a mismatched suit).

I realized my understanding of the rules came from him - I am way more the dandy but that is likely Mums influence as she worked in the womenswear industry. She taught me color and pattern matching, but she has no clue about the rules. So hang in there....


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

^ I hope no glassware or plates were thrown over this dispute.







Lol just kidding, welcome to the forums ! (Andy likes to call them fora I think.)


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I hadn't thought about it as Dad was always someone who dressed up more than his peers due to his British upbringing (we live in Canada) but has never been a snappy dresser. However when I was over last we got into an argument with Mum about how high contrast a sport jacket and trouser should be (Mum thought dark and dark was fine - we though high contrast was better or it looks like a mismatched suit).


Fathers were always the ones who taught their sons how to dress well
Mothers always the ones who critiqued your style of clothing, They were the doting ones.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

If my experience last evening is any indication, than the premise of the post is incorrect.

I attended a Michael Buble concert in Atlantic City. This attracted a crowd of enormous age variation. It appeared to be a perfect bell shaped curve from ~ 18 - 75 yr olds.

Lets forget the 90% of men who were utter slobs. Of the remaining 10% only 1 was well dressed (myself excluded, of course:devil. He had obviously come from a wedding or some sort of affair. He was wearing a medium grey 3 piece suit, white shirt, blue, grey and white rep tie, but some nondescript, chunky, square toed, black blucher.

The women on the other hand were only about 80% slobs, looking like they came right off the beach, from the gym, or wearing inappropriately tight, short, revealing outfits. Their sometimes overexposed belly rolls were bigger than their bust-lines, and I wondered how some of them were able to fit their fat arses into the small seats of the convention center.

There was a dramatic difference in the percentage of well dressed women from early thirties down and sixties and above, compared to those ages in between. This very, very strongly corollated with how fit they were. The older women tended to tasteful, pants outfits, sundresses, skirts and blouses. The younger women were decked out in short tasteful dresses and heels. They were to an astonishing degree pretty and how should I say it?......Healthy.

Their partners were to a man more poorly dressed, and as I mentioned, 90% slobs. There was no indication that the men with the well put together women, prettier women, higher maintenance women, younger women, fit women, made any more effort than those with heavier, fat, less attractive, downright ugly, poor hygiene women.

With the young beauties, the degree of effort, and the "if you've got it, flaunt it" effect, were astonishingly evident. So much so, that I asked my wife if they were trying "too hard" to attract their partner, or if this was just the result of beauty and youthful exuberance. They were all in age appropriate relationships, so that was not a factor. She was just taken aback by how thoughtless, and rude the slovenly men were to their partners

The worst dressed man was in his mid 60's to 70's, in good shape. I say worst dressed because he had obviously made an effort, but failed miserably. He wore a linen blend or cotton, hopsack medium blue SC, which extended 1- 1 1/2 inches below the end of his thumb. He had a white with blue Bengal striped shirt untucked, with longer front and tail just extending below the bottom of the jacket. Coupled with white cotton double reverse pleat trousers, white pocket square, and a silk navy paisley tie in what must have been a full Windsor knot, stopping a few inches above his belt. He wore a brown belt and *black Nike leather sneakers.*

He was ahead of me on line, his wife was of similar age, stunning, wearing a silk navy and white blouse, white capris, and ~ 3 inch heeled, navy, open toed sling sandals. I don't know what bothers me more, the way he was dressed, or that I made such an effort in scrutinizing his rig.

It just showed me that dressing poorly is not the provence of just those under 50.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

silverporsche said:


> Your father grew up in an era when men stood tall. Men did not have to apologize for being men. Men dressed like men.
> The men's barber shop was off limits to women. In men's clothing stores the salesmen were men. A father would take his son to a
> barber shop to get his first haircut, to a store and help him choose his first suit. Take his son to his first baseball game.
> Your father like many other men of that era took pride in their appearance and especially in being a man.
> ...


Yawn, save it for the Men's Rights reddit.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> Your father grew up in an era when men stood tall. Men did not have to apologize for being men. Men dressed like men.
> The men's barber shop was off limits to women. In men's clothing stores the salesmen were men. A father would take his son to a
> barber shop to get his first haircut, to a store and help him choose his first suit. Take his son to his first baseball game.
> Your father like many other men of that era took pride in their appearance and especially in being a man.
> ...


What you say is very much part of the problem; and beyond its unfavorable effect upon dressing habits, it has been devastating in general ways too; incurring incalculable damage upon men, women, girls, boys - and the communities they live in.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

SammyH said:


> What you say is very much part of the problem; and beyond its unfavorable effect upon dressing habits, it has been devastating in general ways too; incurring incalculable damage upon men, women, girls, boys - and the communities they live in.


When I was a young Black American growing up in St.Louis I noticed that older Black men dressed very well. There was a man who stood on the corner all the time.
I don't know if he had a job but he was always well dressed , shoes shined , wearing a suit with a crease in his pants that would cut leather ,and wearing a blue felt hat. His suit was double breasted , we called him a cool cat.
No man would dare go outside without his shoes shine. My father made sure I didn't. After all look how the Black entertainers dressed.
There was Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole , Jimmy Jeffries , Billy Daniels , Bill Robinson , Billy Eckstein etc'', etc. Yes it was a different era .
But men took pride in their appearance even if they didn't have much money. The man who sold papers on the corner dressed well.
What happened ? What did we do as men that caused the younger generation to take such little interest in how they look? Was it the music , Hollywood , men being dressed by women ?, an anti-culture ? what happened ?Remember when men came inside they took off their hats,
today young men eat at the dinner table with their hats on ! now tatoos. what's next ?
Ask Andy and it's members are a beacon in the wilderness lets hope it never goes out.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> All due respect, life expectancy is irrelevant. Throughout history people have been complaining about many aspects of the succeeding generations - including clothing.


It may well be irrelevant - but in which case why did you choose to introduce this theme? :devil:

We endure a completely different situation presently, rather than complaining about the succeeding generation many adults have elected to align themselves with the brats. Promenading this weekend I observed that almost every male of around my age was dressed liken unto a teenage boy.

It is healthy to decry the faults of the incoming generation - it is decidedly unhealthy to emulate them.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Shaver said:


> It may well be irrelevant - but in which case why did you choose to introduce this theme? :devil:
> 
> We endure a completely different situation presently, rather than complaining about the succeeding generation many adults have elected to align themselves with the brats. Promenading this weekend I observed that almost every male of around my age was dressed liken unto a teenage boy.
> 
> It is healthy to decry the faults of the incoming generation - it is decidedly unhealthy to emulate them.


An excellent observation . Why do older men align themselves with poorly dress young men? Older men were usually leaders
in proper men's dress. Are the baby boomers more followers than leaders in men's dress ?


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> An excellent observation . Why do older men align themselves with poorly dress young men? Older men were usually leaders
> in proper men's dress. Are the baby boomers more followers than leaders in men's dress ?


Same reason why at the dinner table - where sitting down together is still part of life - adults now try to imitate, almost slavishly, the norms and postures and topics that absorb the very young at the table; which is the very reverse of how it was when I was growing up: we couldn't wait to sit at the "grown up" table - and, once there, to emulate the adults in their conversation style and topics.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

silverporsche said:


> When I was a young Black American growing up in St.Louis I noticed that older Black men dressed very well. There was a man who stood on the corner all the time.
> I don't know if he had a job but he was always well dressed , shoes shined , wearing a suit with a crease in his pants that would cut leather ,and wearing a blue felt hat. His suit was double breasted , we called him a cool cat.
> No man would dare go outside without his shoes shine. My father made sure I didn't. After all look how the Black entertainers dressed.
> There was Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole , Jimmy Jeffries , Billy Daniels , Bill Robinson , Billy Eckstein etc'', etc. Yes it was a different era .
> ...


Very well said sir. And these are not mere "surface" things because they issue from profound changes. I would wager that the community as a whole is, concomitantly, a less civilized place - and in every way.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

silverporsche said:


> When I was a young Black American growing up in St.Louis I noticed that older Black men dressed very well. There was a man who stood on the corner all the time.
> I don't know if he had a job but he was always well dressed , shoes shined , wearing a suit with a crease in his pants that would cut leather ,and wearing a blue felt hat. His suit was double breasted , we called him a cool cat.
> No man would dare go outside without his shoes shine. My father made sure I didn't. After all look how the Black entertainers dressed.
> There was Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole , Jimmy Jeffries , Billy Daniels , Bill Robinson , Billy Eckstein etc'', etc. Yes it was a different era .
> ...


Which reminds me - I did notice one *very* well dressed man (at church) this weekend. Cream linen suit, dark red shirt, puffed pocket quare, decent mid tan brogues and khaki socks - trousers and jacket both well cut (i.e. 'classic') and at the correct lengths. I was deeply impressed and commented to a colleague that it is very rare indeed that I am able to approve an entire ensemble without at least one gripe (or *ahem* recommendation). The chap was an older black gentleman who cut a _very_ dashing figure indeed.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Dr. And Mrs. momsdoc, may I suggest that y'all lighten up a little bit and not be so consumed with judging others based on their dress. Sure, we all dress consistently better than most folks we encounter in our daily lives. That's why we all find ourselves on these message boards. We all agree that societal standards of dress have been in decline for some time now and we all wish it wasn't so, etc., etc. But man, I can't imagine my wife and I going to a concert and spending that kind of time and effort analyzing, critiquing, and lambasting my fellow concert-goers, and in such a condescending manner. This post, together with the previous one about your wife (by the way, "high maintenance" is not considered a positive attribute in my circles), makes me thankful that I live far enough away to make it unlikely that my wife & I will ever come under the critical spotlight of the momsdocs. Is it possible that some of the 20-something guys were just dressed more on-trend with current fashion, which may not sync with our preference for traditional, conservative menswear? And if so, does that really make them thoughtless, rude, and slovenly to their dates?! And to throw around descriptors like fat and ugly when referring to women you've never met...wow. I'm thankful that my wife is naturally beautiful, takes care of herself, and is very stylish. But I also love that she doesn't judge others by their appearance nor is she vain to the point of having to primp before going to the grocery store or needing hours (plural) to get ready to go out. We're all more focused than the average person on our outward appearance, but I certainly think it can be taken too far and I find it unhealthy to put others down and paint them as being inferior people because of their clothing choices. Rant finished (for now).


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> What happened ? What did we do as men that caused the younger generation to take such little interest in how they look? Was it the music , Hollywood , men being dressed by women ?, an anti-culture ? what happened ?Remember when men came inside they took off their hats,
> today young men eat at the dinner table with their hats on ! now tattoos. what's next ?
> Ask Andy and it's members are a beacon in the wilderness lets hope it never goes out.


I think it was the people who we see on television. Or maybe it's what we see while walking down the street.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

silverporsche said:


> What happened ? What did we do as men that caused the younger generation to take such little interest in how they look? Was it the music , Hollywood , men being dressed by women ?, *an anti-culture ?* what happened ?.


It is an "anti-culture". Instead of seeing someone get ahead and wanting to emulate them, it's a culture of dragging everyone down to the same level.
Anything perceived as being "elitist" is fair game.

Here's a little anecdote from last week, when my brother-in-law and family were visiting. I was going to rant about it a bit over on the Interchange, but it does sort of fit here. I'll try and keep it short.

We've lived here in Henley for 10 years now, and in that time, nobody we know has ever come to visit during the Regatta, the biggest event to hit town every year. this year, due to a slight postponement, the in-laws were coming right in the middle of it all. We thought they'd really enjoy the spectacle, but even knowing they are quite left-wing environmentalists, hadn't counted on what I could only describe as extreme class warrior hatred of anyone involved. Instead of going with our original plan of renting a boat to take them on a trip up and down the river, they wanted to sit in a beer garden well away from it all, and make smart ass comments about me wearing a blazer.

What really struck me though was later on, back at our house, we got into a conversation about schools, and my brother-in-law was looking at a chart my 7 year old daughter's teacher had given the class, all about using vocabulary and punctuation when writing. Under the heading of connectives, was the word "nevertheless", and this drew their attention. Nobody uses words like that they said, and what's more my brother-in-law continued, that's not just teaching obsolete words, that's "enforcing class boundaries". And this man works as a school teacher !

Not wanting to get into an argument with house guests, and admittedly a bit stunned, I let it slide, but haven't been able to get that out of my mind all week. Sums up the intellectual deceit of the prevailing cultural tide. Don't try better your vocabulary, because you might end up talking too posh, and that would never do.

And so the same with dress.



silverporsche said:


> An excellent observation . Why do older men align themselves with poorly dress young men? Older men were usually leaders
> in proper men's dress. Are the baby boomers more followers than leaders in men's dress ?


Older or younger, all are being conditioned to be ashamed of their culture. Standards have fallen in very area.



SammyH said:


> Same reason why at the dinner table - where sitting down together is still part of life - adults now try to imitate, almost slavishly, the norms and postures and topics that absorb the very young at the table; which is the very reverse of how it was when I was growing up: we couldn't wait to sit at the "grown up" table - and, once there, to emulate the adults in their conversation style and topics.


Now the children can't even sit still, and worst of all, instead of trying to sort this out through patience and discipline, the parents often resort to putting an iPhone to play a YouTube video of a train or some other distraction so the kid will eat. What a disaster, and what a recipe for chaos at the table in future.

Thankfully my own children have never had this. We stayed out of restaurants when they were smaller and then always brought some books or colouring books around with us. No electronic pacifiers for them.


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

Prices. High quality menswear, made in the United States, was more affordable pre-1980. A young man could get a respectable suit for $15. Lets say you earned a generous, median $3000/year (this is household income, btw; lets pretend one 20yr old guy is pulling in a household's sole income). That's $58/week, or $232/month.

So, at $232/mo, a $15 suit will set you back 6.5% of your income for the month.

Median household salary in 2013 was $51,000: $981 a week or $3923 month. But a POS Alfani suit will cost you $500 at Macy's. That's 13% -- literally *double* what it would have cost in 1955 for something much, much better.

And, bear in mind, these are _median household incomes_. Fact is, there are many more two-salary homes (read: your wife works, too, because you're not paid enough) these days than there were in the 1950's, especially among the bottom-earning half of Americans. So not only is clothes twice as expensive for like half the quality, but more people are working more time to earn that money.

Moral: Clothes is expensive, and fine clothes is prohibitively expensive, especially for young men burdened with low salaries/wages and student loans *if* they were lucky enough to go to college at all.

(Note: These are all real numbers. I looked up old catalogs to ballpark suit prices on Lexis Nexis, checked the Census Bureau for salaries, and Googles Alfani's awful suits. Please don't respond with "I saw a great suit on sale for $100!" or "Maybe if they didn't spend all the money on their bouncing cars!" or anything anecdotal like that.)


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

FLCracka said:


> Dr. And Mrs. momsdoc, may I suggest that y'all lighten up a little bit and not be so consumed with judging others based on their dress. Sure, we all dress consistently better than most folks we encounter in our daily lives. That's why we all find ourselves on these message boards. We all agree that societal standards of dress have been in decline for some time now and we all wish it wasn't so, etc., etc. But man, I can't imagine my wife and I going to a concert and spending that kind of time and effort analyzing, critiquing, and lambasting my fellow concert-goers, and in such a condescending manner. This post, together with the previous one about your wife (by the way, "high maintenance" is not considered a positive attribute in my circles), makes me thankful that I live far enough away to make it unlikely that my wife & I will ever come under the critical spotlight of the momsdocs. Is it possible that some of the 20-something guys were just dressed more on-trend with current fashion, which may not sync with our preference for traditional, conservative menswear? And if so, does that really make them thoughtless, rude, and slovenly to their dates?! And to throw around descriptors like fat and ugly when referring to women you've never met...wow. I'm thankful that my wife is naturally beautiful, takes care of herself, and is very stylish. But I also love that she doesn't judge others by their appearance nor is she vain to the point of having to primp before going to the grocery store or needing hours (plural) to get ready to go out. We're all more focused than the average person on our outward appearance, but I certainly think it can be taken too far and I find it unhealthy to put others down and paint them as being inferior people because of their clothing choices. Rant finished (for now).


FLCraka,

Let me respond to your post by addressing the various parts separately.

First of all this post was about men under 50 dressing poorly. So commenting on the poor state of dress I observed was in keeping with this theme.

I described the slovenly condition of dress of most of the men and women without giving a sense of the setting. This was not a Nascar event, ballgame, rock concert, Rap concert, car show, etc. It was a concert by a gentleman wearing a tuxedo singing (in his own words) songs from the Great American Songbook. He was identifying with and channeling, Sinatra, Torme, Martin, Cole, Crosby (all natty dressers). His 2 orchestras were a brass section of men in suits and ties, and a string section of women in Evening Gowns.

I described the women in attendance as being 2 subsets. The larger one was dressed haphazardly, and in many cases inappropriately for this type of evening event. The smaller subset was well dressed and divided into two smaller subsets. Half were well dressed average size and appearace women, the other half were what I termed high maintanance. This was not a complement or criticism, just an observation. These women by virtue of their hair styles, manicures, pedicures, makeup, jewlry and clothing, had obviously invested a large amount of time and money into how the looked that evening. The other half dressed smartly, but without as much "maintanance" effort. It is just a fact that both these groups of well dressed women were thinner, fitter, and prettier than in the larger poorly dressed group. The poorly dressed group was a cross-section of body types and feminine beauty. The well put together group were almost universally thin, fit and more attractive. I am not attempting to make a social comment as to why this was, just that it was. There were some heavier, less attractive women in this group, but very few. The really fat women ( yes, fat, would you rather I say obese?), the very unattractive women (substitute for the less PC ugly) were invariably poorly dressed. This alone may have made me percieve them as less attractive, but obese is obese no matter how well dressed. There may well have been some of them who were well dressed, but I didn't see any. I am not being condecending, just reporting what I saw.

The men were as a group much more poorly dressed than the women. Just a fact. Some were dressed OK, even well by conventional standards, but I was using our standards of effort as a gauge. I was not critiquing those who wore more current or different styles than we use here. Just those that made no effort at any style, or took the venue into account.

When going out with a woman who put a lot of time and effort into looking well, and dressing up, it is not unreasonable to expect the man to show at least some effort to do the same. That is common courtesy, both for your date, and the performer. It's not like Michael Buble and his orchestras were dressed in jeans and t-shirts. They were setting a standard for the evening. Anyone shelling out a couple of hundred bucks and up to see him, would know of him, his image and his show. It is not unreasonable therefore to expect members of the audience to dress more appropriately. They don't need to be wearing a suit and tie, or even chinos and button down shirt. But looking like you just changed the oil on your car after mowing the lawn, is not appropriate.

By virtue of being on this site, we are all high maintanance men. Why else is there so much discussion about minutia of dressing, accessories (watches, belts, etc.), grooming (shaving equipment, colone, skin care), cars, sunglasses, ad nauseum.

I never said anyone was inferior. Clueless, thoughtless, yes those are implied. I stand by my comment about them being thoughtless and rude to their dates. What else would you call it? Imagine yourself having spent time bathing, shaving, filing your nails, doing your hair, picking out an outfit, matching your shoes, watch etc., only to find your date in sweat pants, t-shirt, flip flops, with hair all askew. Would you think she was giving any thought as to how you wanted to look both as yourself and a couple that evening?

As far as the time and effort my wife and I spent "analyzing, critiquing, lambasting" our fellow concert goers, it was a couple of brief conversations upon entering the hall. I spent time analyzing the man in front of me on line, as I was with him for about 5 minutes while getting in. I first took notice of him because he was wearing a SC which impressed me. I then saw the rest of his outfit and only then began to wonder what he was thinking when he put it on. He had obviously thought it out, but then proceeded to degrade it with the belt, sneakers, poor knot tying, and untucked nonstraight bottomed shirt. He had a clue as to color coordination, dress level, up to a point. So I found his further efforts confounding, as they had to be deliberate choices. That is why I deemed him the worst dressed man. He knew better and went awry.

I mentioned him because the thread is about men dressing poorly under age 50. I wanted to point out that this is not exclusivly the domain of the young.

If you want to discuss Mens clothing, but not the social aspects of it, nor the dichotomy among those who make an effort to dress well (in whatever style they choose), vs. those who just don't give a damn, I suggest you avoid threads that are designed to address these issues.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Since this thread has apparently become a men's rights rant coupled with "things ain't the way they used to be" and silverporsche's usual, boring anti-Daniel Craig rhetoric, I'm going to bow out.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

filbert_turtle said:


> Prices. High quality menswear, made in the United States, was more affordable pre-1980. A young man could get a respectable suit for $15. Lets say you earned a generous, median $3000/year (this is household income, btw; lets pretend one 20yr old guy is pulling in a household's sole income). That's $58/week, or $232/month.
> 
> So, at $232/mo, a $15 suit will set you back 6.5% of your income for the month.
> 
> ...


Dear Mr. Turtle,

It is correct to say that a respectable suit could be bought for $15 prior to 1980. *Way* before! Respectable suits cost around $50 or $60 by the early '60's. I don't think a decent, new suit could be bought for $15 since before 1920.

And you don't have to wear a suit to dress well. It's entirely possible to dress well in casual clothing. And, new, affordable suits of a respectable nature can be purchased by many even of modest income with appropriate planning.

In an age when even those of limited means tend to buy too much stuff, I think price is the least of reasons for dressing badly. Rather, a lack of taste, a lack of appropriate role models, and a general lack of respect for one's self and others. Even many kids with money dress like, ah hm, dreck!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Since this thread has apparently become a men's rights rant coupled with "things ain't the way they used to be" and silverporsche's usual, boring anti-Daniel Craig rhetoric, I'm going to bow out.


Anti-Daniel Craig ? Craig is the shortest Bond , under 6 feet tall. I don't think anyone would consider him attractive unless standards of
good looks have changed. Connery , Moore , Lazenby , Dalton , and Brosnan were all 6 footers.
Men's rights ? what rights ? the thread concerns dress , the dress of young men. There are young men and older men who are concerned
about their appearance if not there would not be an Ask Andy site.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Since this thread has apparently become a men's rights rant coupled with "things ain't the way they used to be" and silverporsche's usual, boring anti-Daniel Craig rhetoric, I'm going to bow out.


DC is my favorite JB, followed by SC. Huge fan of Craig as Bond. How's that for a thread jack!


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

Flanderian said:


> Dear Mr. Turtle,
> 
> It is correct to say that a respectable suit could be bought for $15 prior to 1980. *Way* before! Respectable suits cost around $50 or $60 by the early '60's. I don't think a decent, new suit could be bought for $15 since before 1920.
> 
> ...


I don't know what to tell you. I flipped through a couple old catalogs from the early 1950's and they were pretty clearly $15. Granted, $15 was low on the range (I was looking at what a young man would have been able to afford, not high-end), but I would say this is analogous to the "affordable" awful wool-poly blended suits you get at Macy's these days or entry-level suits at JaB.

As far as dressing well, then yes, definitely, you don't need a suit to dress well, although the cost of a suit is a useful benchmark for the cost of clothes in general.

I can't say I am convinced by the culture/character explanation of lower dressing standards. A good suit is simply not in most people's range and, if you DO get one, it is a special occasion garment and not one you are likely to ever see them in unless you're an interviewer or a pall bearer. Of course, they don't have to wear suits, but the effect is comparable across garment types. "What's another $20 to get something good that will actually last?" is a reasonable argument, but it's not realistic to most people, and particularly young people trying to start their careers (note: most young people in this country will not even have anything we would typically call a "career"). I'm one of those young people and the only reason I can make it work is that (a) I have a fair paying job working for an ivy league university and (b) I spend waaaay more time than most people can be expected to finding and curating a wardrobe of used menswear at rock-bottom prices.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

Odradek said:


> Sums up the intellectual deceit of the prevailing cultural tide.


VERY well said; and exactly right.

Sadly enough, I recognize all-too-well the scenario you've sketched. Your keeping all that at bay wrt your own children is commendable; of course it's also difficult to do so. Nevertheless, to my way of thinking at least, the question echoing in _The Wasteland_ ("Shall I at least set my lands in order?") ought to be answered by orienting one's own family and life towards some sort of good.

Or, for the Christian-minded: during one of his Firing Line interviews, William F. Buckley, verging on despair at one point in the discussion, looked at Malcolm Muggeridge and asked him what on earth we are to do? Muggles looked into the camera and said we need to make islands of holiness and keep vigil.



Odradek said:


> Older or younger, all are being conditioned to be ashamed of their culture. Standards have fallen in [e]very area.


I think that about sums it up. It's enough to drive a man to go have a gin & tonic or two. Or three.


----------



## HamilcarBarca (Dec 9, 2012)

I've been noticing a lot of young men taking interest in clothing. Places like Reddit have a big subreddits dedicated to male fashion. It isn't focused on tailored clothing like here but that's because for most suits, jackets, leathers shoos and ties are best reserved for special occasions. It's just how it is. I bet in the 1920s most men weren't dressing in the fashions of the Victorians and in 2014 most men aren't dressing in similar fashion of men from the first half of the 20th century. Anyways, I don't like judging people for what they wear, I know plenty of guys who dress in basketball shorts year round and they're good, honest, hard-working people.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

@Monsieur Filbert Turtle, I get what you're saying but it seems to me that the 6% isn't really much of a deal breaker. So, even though you apparently don't want people pointing this out, among those young men who can't apparently afford decent clothes (they don't need to be stellar/expensive clothes), I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them have expensive televisions and video games, all kinds of electronic gadgets, not to mention cars. So that additional 6% is probably spent on other things. So, it's mostly about priorities prolly.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

filbert_turtle said:


> I don't know what to tell you. I flipped through a couple old catalogs from the early 1950's and they were pretty clearly $15. Granted, $15 was low on the range (I was looking at what a young man would have been able to afford, not high-end), but I would say this is analogous to the "affordable" awful wool-poly blended suits you get at Macy's these days or entry-level suits at JaB.
> 
> As far as dressing well, then yes, definitely, you don't need a suit to dress well, although the cost of a suit is a useful benchmark for the cost of clothes in general.
> 
> I can't say I am convinced by the culture/character explanation of lower dressing standards. A good suit is simply not in most people's range and, if you DO get one, it is a special occasion garment and not one you are likely to ever see them in unless you're an interviewer or a pall bearer. Of course, they don't have to wear suits, but the effect is comparable across garment types. "What's another $20 to get something good that will actually last?" is a reasonable argument, but it's not realistic to most people, and particularly young people trying to start their careers (note: most young people in this country will not even have anything we would typically call a "career"). I'm one of those young people and the only reason I can make it work is that (a) I have a fair paying job working for an ivy league university and (b) I spend waaaay more time than most people can be expected to finding and curating a wardrobe of used menswear at rock-bottom prices.


There is much truth in your comment. Men clothing as in most consumer items has become very expensive , example in 1974 a Rolex Datejust
sold for $450.00 Cartier Tank discounted for $250.00 , A Broni suit for $600.00 , A Porsche 911s for $10,000 and a pair of Gucci shoes for
$159.00. A high end stereo system for around $5000.00. A nice hotel in Paris on the east bank was only $50.00 per night.

The American economy is not doing well , many young people can't find good paying jobs. Those that do fine jobs have college loans .
These are some of the reasons young men dress poorly. The only real deal today is in electronics.
I think you made an excellent point as to why many young men dress so poorly.I bought 1968 E-type Jag roadster in 1969 for $5,000 with
only 7000 miles on it. A 1973 Porsche 911S for $10,000 in 1973, Today a year old Jag roaster or new 911 is beyond the reach of most
working Americans is men's clothing any different ?
It's tough out there.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

momsdoc said:


> If my experience last evening is any indication, than the premise of the post is incorrect.
> 
> I attended a Michael Buble concert in Atlantic City. This attracted a crowd of enormous age variation. It appeared to be a perfect bell shaped curve from ~ 18 - 75 yr olds.
> 
> ...


Sweet Jesus and Holy Mother of God! Are you serious? Are you happy in your conscience with what you wrote there? Have you ever heard the term live and let live? With all this detailed observation that you were doing, did you actually get time to watch the stage and listen to the muzzak at all?

I could make fun of you for attending a Michael Buble concert, but I won't. Really, Michael Buble? More disconcerting is that you admit it!


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Sweet Baby Jesus. Earl, I'm shocked at the vitriol of your response. Since when did anyone here stop noticing the state of dress of people they encounter everyday? Since when did it become impolitic here to comment on the general poor state of dress of men? The only thing unusual in my post was referable to the highly unusual concentration of well dressed beautiful women, both young and old at this event. I was swimming in a sea of eye candy. Everywhere I turned I was seeing stunning women.

Have you ever been to a concert? There is a good half hour when you are entering, purchasing refreshments, waiting for your lady in the restroom, etc, where you are in the common areas, surrounded by a swarming sea of guests. Do you not look around? Do you not get distracted when seeing unusually beautiful women? I certainly do. My eyes were on visual overload. Upon seeing a particularly striking woman, I would naturally look at her partner to see who the lucky dog was. It was the extreme dichotomy of their dress vis a vis their partners that struck me. This is what I saw, and this is what I reported.

I did not make any judgments about the men with well put together women, except to note (rightly IMO), that their lack of effort was rude and thoughtless, in light of their dates efforts.

My observation that the physical attractiveness of the women strongly correlated with how well dressed they were, may be simply due to the fact that people do look better when they dress well. It could also be a sartorial effect of the lack of self esteem, or cultural attitudes toward the less fortunately endowed. We have addressed that in men previously in the thread on BMI.

Did I not "live and let live"? I was not accosting anyone, offering them unsolicited advice, calling their morality, judgments, or worth into question. I was simply commenting on the fact that 90% of the men didn't give a damn, and the 20% of the women who did, made extraordinary efforts to dress well, and this correlated intensely with their physical attractiveness. If my noticing and appreciating a good looking, well dressed woman strikes you as odd, I cannot and will not defend that. I find it inconceivable that any man, no matter what his orientation, would not have noticed the disproportionate array of disproportionately beautiful well dressed women at this event.

As to attending a Michael Buble concert, I'm with you on that one. But "happy wife, happy life". The concert was tedious, but it paid great dividends.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Just another unrelated comment.

Even in my skinny youth, or my fat pre-AAAC days, I would never have attended an event such as that one dressed like the men I saw. I would have been making an effort to impress my date, or look presentable/ attractive to my wife. The only difference now is that I have the knowledge to do so in a more coherent stylish manner. If I were 21 years old in my Quiana shirt, elephant bell jeans, Frye boots, and Pukka beads, they would have been the damn nicest ones I owned.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Vitriol? Really, you need to look the word up if you think reasonable questions in response to your snobbery towards the people around you is vitriol. 

Have I ever been to a concert? Either you're joking or you've never read any of my threads.

However, you clearly don't go to many gigs or concerts if you think they are occasions for dressing up and looking smart, that view is prehistoric. It's 2014 you know not 1814. People go to concerts to listen to the music not to impress people with their wealth and nice clothes.

I've been to more concerts than you've had hot dinners. One of my tasks in one half of my govt job involves public & event safety. I go to music festivals all summer long, then concerts the rest of the year. I also work at several gigs and festivals during the summer. I also work on the production of education for event safety personnel.........Yea, I've been to a few concerts and festivals, probably 3 festivals every summer and about 30 concerts every year, it's 50% of my job! The other 50% is working on national and international security and CIMIC. And that's only in Sweden, When I live in London, I attended gigs and concerts regularly, often at the biggest venues. I also worked at many, during my 13 years as a London cop.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I spend a lot of time working at our local sports arena and I am there not just for Spurs games but for many concerts. I have worked a Buble concert and many others. I don't get to see much of the concert but I have lots of time for "observation" on the various levels.

The dress varies from limo and black tie to cargo shorts. The one thing I always notice is the women are far better dressed than the men. Many women are elegantly dressed while their husband or date is in jeans and t shirt. I'm sure most of them were "forced" to go with their wives so they responded by dressing down. The bars were full of guys watching a ball game or other sport on tv while the girls enjoyed the concert (just the opposite at a Spurs game).


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Earl,

You seem to miss the point. I made a general comment about the general poor state of dress among the general population. That is not a new observation on this forum. I understand that concerts are generally casual events, invoking a wide range of clothing styles. There are also different types of concerts, that cause a shift in the distribution of the level of dress of the attendees. One would not go to the Met dressed the same as sitting on the lawn in Central Park listening to Beyonce.

The thrust of my commentary was about the discordance of dress between the women who dressed smartly and their men. There should be some effort at concordance. The men seemed to lack this understanding.

I do not dress to impress people, only to please myself, to look good for, and show respect for my wife; and yes to show respect to my friends, performers, or others who are making an effort to entertain/host me. Unless of course impressing someone is professionally necessary.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Odradek said:


> It is an "anti-culture". Instead of seeing someone get ahead and wanting to emulate them, it's a culture of dragging everyone down to the same level.
> Anything perceived as being "elitist" is fair game.
> 
> Here's a little anecdote from last week, when my brother-in-law and family were visiting. I was going to rant about it a bit over on the Interchange, but it does sort of fit here. I'll try and keep it short.
> ...


I think you are very much on theme with this thread and hit on part of the explanation to the thread's opening question. There is a stand of leftism (and I am not lumping all the left together - just saying there is a strand - there are extreme strands on the right also) in the USA as well that views any achievement, any self improvement, any individualism at all as a threat to the belief / premise / idea that the greatest virtue in the world is that no individual should ever feel better / superior / more successful than any other individual and this takes on even more meaning when we compare individual across race or gender lines.

This belief, which at its core has a good intention - don't belittle others, don't look down on others, don't put on airs - has warped into a debilitating absolutism in which any attempt to enjoy traditional Western (pre-1960s) culture or show outward success or achievement in a traditional sense is arrogant and wrong. Hence, wearing a blazer is lording it over those who don't wear blazers. While your in-laws seem to be the extreme, the extremes move the center and this extreme is part of the reason why younger people - who don't hold the extreme view - still don't want to dress well. They have been taught explicitly and implicitly not to be, act or feel superior and view dressing well as wrong because it would be a way to mark oneself as special.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> Anti-Daniel Craig ? Craig is the shortest Bond , under 6 feet tall. I don't think anyone would consider him attractive unless standards of
> good looks have changed. Connery , Moore , Lazenby , Dalton , and Brosnan were all 6 footers.


What about Alan Ladd ? Another blonde short arse. Are you saying Shane was unattractive.

The Bond girls could just stand in trenches if height was an issue.

I like Roger Moore but mainly because he sent the genre up.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

dks202,
I see that at least you, get the point I was making. Men dressing down as a passive/aggressive form of rebellion is an interesting idea. However IMO, I don't think most of them have given it even that much thought. As to spending the evening in the bar while your date watches the concert, that is even more disrespectful than dressing poorly in rebellion.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

It appears that we baby-boomers are victims of our own success. By completely rejecting and abandoning the conventions of old, we have led to their annihilation. We then bemoan the new convention, which is a complete rejection of the convention we now seek in our maturity.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

dks202 said:


> I spend a lot of time working at our local sports arena and I am there not just for Spurs games but for many concerts. I have worked a Buble concert and many others. I don't get to see much of the concert but I have lots of time for "observation" on the various levels.
> 
> The dress varies from limo and black tie to cargo shorts. The one thing I always notice is the women are far better dressed than the men. Many women are elegantly dressed while their husband or date is in jeans and t shirt. I'm sure most of them were "forced" to go with their wives so they responded by dressing down. The bars were full of guys watching a ball game or other sport on tv while the girls enjoyed the concert (just the opposite at a Spurs game).


IMO, this is a great example of making an observation on poor state of dress - in line with the spirit of the AAAC community - without coming across as excessively snobby, or even downright creepy.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> IMO, this a great example of making an observation on poor state of dress - in line with the spirit of the AAAC community - without coming across as excessively snobby, or even downright creepy.


And the poor state of relationships. My girlfriend and I have a lot of similar tastes, but when I go to some event for her, I would never consider disappearing into a bar (nor would she in the reverse situation).

As to dress, in NYC, I regularly see women dressed very nicely in restaurants and their husband / boyfriends in T-shirts with jeans, cargo pants or shorts or, if the guy makes any effort, he's in a shirt with a collar but untucked with jeans on (and half the time with a baseball cap on). To be fair, I will see - say maybe 20% of the time - the guys dressed equally to the woman they are with. This one - women dressing up and men not - is a offshoot of the whole not dressing up thing, but it is its own oddity - you would think the couple would feel "off" in a way.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Kingstonian said:


> What about Alan Ladd ? Another blonde short arse. Are you saying Shane was unattractive.
> 
> The Bond girls could just stand in trenches if height was an issue.
> 
> I like Roger Moore but mainly because he sent the genre up.


Alan Ladd did have a problem with his height that's why he at first turned to radio. Alan Ladd was not the first choice for Shane.
The first choice was Gregory Peck who turned the role down which he later regretted. 
In a movie in which Alan Ladd starred with Sidney Poitier Ladd did stand in a trench. In Shans George Stevens the director used
some very creative photography using different angle shots. Ladd was only five foot six.

Bond was a creation of Ian Fleming The Literary Bond was somewhat different from the Hollywood Bond. I don't think Fleming would have
cast Bond as short and unattractive. Hollywood felt the same as the earlier Bonds were tall and attractive until Hollywood changed
Bond to attract the younger generations. Roger Moore was a stand-in until Pierce Brosnan was available.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> I think you are very much on theme with this thread and hit on part of the explanation to the thread's opening question. There is a stand of leftism (and I am not lumping all the left together - just saying there is a strand - there are extreme strands on the right also) in the USA as well that views any achievement, any self improvement, any individualism at all as a threat to the belief / premise / idea that the greatest virtue in the world is that no individual should ever feel better / superior / more successful than any other individual and this takes on even more meaning when we compare individual across race or gender lines.
> 
> This belief, which at its core has a good intention - don't belittle others, don't look down on others, don't put on airs - has warped into a debilitating absolutism in which any attempt to enjoy traditional Western (pre-1960s) culture or show outward success or achievement in a traditional sense is arrogant and wrong. Hence, wearing a blazer is lording it over those who don't wear blazers. While your in-laws seem to be the extreme, the extremes move the center and this extreme is part of the reason why younger people - who don't hold the extreme view - still don't want to dress well. They have been taught explicitly and implicitly not to be, act or feel superior and view dressing well as wrong because it would be a way to mark oneself as special.


You live in a different world than I do.  Here in Baltimore, wearing a blazer gets you labeled as an "east coast liberal elitist" by all of the Tea Partiers.

The populist horde knows no ideology.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Odradek said:


> ...later on, back at our house, we got into a conversation about schools, and my brother-in-law was looking at a chart my 7 year old daughter's teacher had given the class, all about using vocabulary and punctuation when writing. Under the heading of connectives, was the word "nevertheless", and this drew their attention. Nobody uses words like that they said, and what's more my brother-in-law continued, that's not just teaching obsolete words, that's "enforcing class boundaries". And this man works as a school teacher !


I thought this was really funny - sad in many ways, but also funny. I think there is just an outside chance that he was pulling your leg, but the likelihood is that he was serious. Unfortunately there is probably very little you can do, short of avoiding him (or, in extremis, instructing a divorce lawyer).


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

L-feld, my neighbor, where are "all the Tea Partiers" in Baltimore? Dundalk and Glen Burnie maybe? (serious question, are they really around the city much?) I know I was like the damn neighborhood leper when I had Ron Paul signs in my yard during the last 2 presidential primary seasons. 

Though I do generally agree, wearing a blazer in Baltimore most would guess you were an elite liberal. 

Also, great, insightful post by Fading Fast!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

alkydrinker said:


> L-feld, my neighbor, where are "all the Tea Partiers" in Baltimore? Dundalk and Glen Burnie maybe? (serious question, are they really around the city much?) I know I was like the damn neighborhood leper when I had Ron Paul signs in my yard during the last 2 presidential primary seasons.
> 
> Though I do generally agree, wearing a blazer in Baltimore most would guess you were an elite liberal.
> 
> Also, great, insightful post by Fading Fast!


Great to see that there's another Ron Paul supporter out there!


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

alkydrinker said:


> L-feld, my neighbor, where are "all the Tea Partiers" in Baltimore? Dundalk and Glen Burnie maybe? (serious question, are they really around the city much?) I know I was like the damn neighborhood leper when I had Ron Paul signs in my yard during the last 2 presidential primary seasons.


No Tea Partiers, but I did drive by "Occupiers" on Light Street once on my way to work.



alkydrinker said:


> Though I do generally agree, wearing a blazer in Baltimore most would guess you were an elite liberal.


I'd have to agree. I went to a sports bar in Dundalk to support a colleague's fundraiser once. I thought a polo shirt would be casual enough. Apparently not from the looks I got.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> I thought this was really funny - sad in many ways, but also funny. I think there is just an outside chance that he was pulling your leg, but the likelihood is that he was serious. Unfortunately there is probably very little you can do, short of avoiding him (or, in extremis, instructing a divorce lawyer).


No leg pulling involved at all. He was totally serious. That's what shocked me. Never knew they were that serious about what you might call "class issues".



Fading Fast said:


> I think you are very much on theme with this thread and hit on part of the explanation to the thread's opening question. There is a stand of leftism (and I am not lumping all the left together - just saying there is a strand - there are extreme strands on the right also) in the USA as well that views any achievement, any self improvement, any individualism at all as a threat to the belief / premise / idea that the greatest virtue in the world is that no individual should ever feel better / superior / more successful than any other individual and this takes on even more meaning when we compare individual across race or gender lines.
> 
> This belief, which at its core has a good intention - don't belittle others, don't look down on others, don't put on airs - has warped into a debilitating absolutism in which any attempt to enjoy traditional Western (pre-1960s) culture or show outward success or achievement in a traditional sense is arrogant and wrong. Hence, wearing a blazer is lording it over those who don't wear blazers. While your in-laws seem to be the extreme, the extremes move the center and this extreme is part of the reason why younger people - who don't hold the extreme view - still don't want to dress well. They have been taught explicitly and implicitly not to be, act or feel superior and view dressing well as wrong because it would be a way to mark oneself as special.


There's something else at play in my particular example, given that we're Irish, and that's the deep-seated distrust of anyone perceived to be a "West Brit".


> _West Brit, an abbreviation of West British, is a pejorative term for an Irish person who is perceived by other Irish people as being too anglophilic in matters of culture or politics._


My wearing a blazer and tie lead to seemingly light-hearted slagging that I'd "assimilated". 
Explains all the negativity to my wearing tweed in winter too.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

alkydrinker said:


> L-feld, my neighbor, where are "all the Tea Partiers" in Baltimore? Dundalk and Glen Burnie maybe? (serious question, are they really around the city much?) I know I was like the damn neighborhood leper when I had Ron Paul signs in my yard during the last 2 presidential primary seasons.
> 
> Though I do generally agree, wearing a blazer in Baltimore most would guess you were an elite liberal.
> 
> Also, great, insightful post by Fading Fast!


Hah, yeah, the only Ron Paul sign I saw within the city limits was the one emblazoned across the side of Al Pacino pizza in Mt. Vernon.

I was using Baltimore a little loosely. My neighborhood (in the city limits) is certainly a mix of Champagne Socialists and Rockefeller Republicans. I am mostly speaking to experiences in professional situations, working at law firms in Rosedale and Reisterstown and networking with other lawyers in the "greater Baltimore" area. The folks to whom I refer tended to live in Carroll or Harford County and commute in. They were usually the same people who, if they had gone to UB, would try to convince me that I was a real jerk for having gone to Maryland.

Not that there weren't plenty of conservatives at Maryland, but they were mostly either Rockefeller Republicans or (for lack of a better description) "refined" libertarians (i.e. well versed in economics, not beholden to conspiracy theories, etc.), and as such, were not prone to vulgar populism.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Odradek said:


> There's something else at play in my particular example, given that we're Irish, and that's the deep-seated distrust of anyone perceived to be a "West Brit".
> My wearing a blazer and tie lead to seemingly light-hearted slagging that I'd "assimilated".
> Explains all the negativity to my wearing tweed in winter too.


We've been Americans since the 1850s, but until recently my grandmother kept touch with family in Cork.

I'm curious. What's a patriotic Irishman supposed to wear abroad? I thought there was a particularly Irish brand of tweed.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> We've been Americans since the 1850s, but until recently my grandmother kept touch with family in Cork.
> 
> I'm curious. What's a patriotic Irishman supposed to wear abroad? I thought there was a particularly Irish brand of tweed.


Donegal perhaps. 
I don't think of tweed as being specifically English although it is something the English have adopted, so perhaps is seen as an English look, but as is well-known, the best tweeds come from Scotland, and it is at least as well matched to the Irish climate as to England's, so any Irish who scorn the wearing of tweed are being a little illogical in my view.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Odradek said:


> No leg pulling involved at all. He was totally serious. That's what shocked me. Never knew they were that serious about what you might call "class issues".
> 
> There's something else at play in my particular example, given that we're Irish, and that's the deep-seated distrust of anyone perceived to be a "West Brit".
> 
> ...


I did not know this, but it is consistent philosophically with the warped belief that dressing well is insulting to those who don't; that somehow by dressing well you are guilty by correlation to some ongoing or past class warfare (elites versus the "regular" people or Brits vs. Irish or whatever past or present social injustice dominates one's thinking) as opposed to just wanting to dress nicely for its inherent pleasure and, maybe, the desire to present yourself nicely to others.

What's amazing is that only forty or so years ago, it was an axiom of our culture (at least in the USA) that you would want to dress better if you could (no explanation needed as it was understood that people wanted to improve their lot and present the best of themselves in public). Wow, it's stunning how that has changed - an axiom that seemed part of the cultural bedrock has given way.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

filbert_turtle said:


> I don't know what to tell you. I flipped through a couple old catalogs from the early 1950's and they were pretty clearly $15. Granted, $15 was low on the range (I was looking at what a young man would have been able to afford, not high-end), but I would say this is analogous to the "affordable" awful wool-poly blended suits you get at Macy's these days or entry-level suits at JaB.


I was *wearing* suits in the early 1950's, and they weren't $15, even though they were among the cheapest available at Robert Hall, an early pipe-rack discounter. A cheap suit cost $30 to $40, equivalent to more than $300 - $400 in today's money. By the early 60's a decent suit from Wallach's or Hart, Schaffner and Marx was about $75, more than $750 today.

But as I wrote earlier, you don't have to wear suits to dress well. Attractive, reasonable quality casual clothing can be found even more easily now through the Internet than 50 years ago. True, there's a lot of junk, but that was also true 50 years ago.

Sorry, I can't accept your argument. The abundance of cargo shorts, T-shirts and flip-flops has nothing to do with the price of clothing and everything to do with having a clue what dressing well consists of, and with giving a d*mn. There were shabbily, poorly dressed guys 60 years ago, there just wasn't as many of them, and they didn't think they were cool.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I never said anyone was inferior. Clueless, thoughtless, yes those are implied. I stand by my comment about them being thoughtless and rude to their dates. What else would you call it? Imagine yourself having spent time bathing, shaving, filing your nails, doing your hair, picking out an outfit, matching your shoes, watch etc., only to find your date in sweat pants, t-shirt, flip flops, with hair all askew. Would you think she was giving any thought as to how you wanted to look both as yourself and a couple that evening?


Does that mean you'd have to go home and change?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Could it be possibly the income of a guy that possibly they can't afford good clothes?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> ...
> *By virtue of being on this site, we are all high maintanance men. * Why else is there so much discussion about minutia of dressing, accessories (watches, belts, etc.), grooming (shaving equipment, colone, skin care), cars, sunglasses, ad nauseum. ...


No interest in getting between you and FLCracka, but on this, you speak for yourself!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree. I don't think anyone who knows me would call me high maintenance or metrosexual. I do enjoy dressing, but not obsessing.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I do enjoy dressing, but not obsessing.


Ditto.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Oh my, I was just skimming through this thread and came upon multiple references to Michael Buble. I was hitherto totally oblivious to the existence of this singer! This makes me feel very old, very out of it!


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Oh my, I was just skimming through this thread and came upon multiple references to Michael Buble. I was hitherto totally oblivious to the existence of this singer! This makes me feel very old, very out of it!


Maybe out of it, but probably not too old. Buble caters to an older crowd.


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

SammyH said:


> I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them have expensive televisions and video games, all kinds of electronic gadgets, not to mention cars.


That's a big assumption.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

filbert_turtle said:


> That's a big assumption.


Well, just taking televisions, I'd take the bet as it's not a very risky one. According the Nielsen Company, between 97-98% of American households own a television.



> For instance, some 62% of households earning less than $20,000 annually owned between two and four televisions, according to the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Agency.


 https://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/poor-income/

For the record, I do NOT own a television; or a car; or a stereo. Priorities.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Oh my, I was just skimming through this thread and came upon multiple references to Michael Buble. I was hitherto totally oblivious to the existence of this singer! This makes me feel very old, very out of it!


There are worse things to be unaware of than Michael Buble.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

It's not just concerts but everyday life. My wife and I frequently notice couples where the woman is very elegantly dressed and the man is a slob. If I tried dressing like the Trivago guy she would not be caught dead with me! If she takes the effort to look good in public it's the least I can do to compliment her by looking decent.


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

SammyH said:


> Well, just taking televisions, I'd take the bet as it's not a very risky one. According the Nielsen Company, between 97-98% of American households own a television.
> 
> https://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/poor-income/
> 
> For the record, I do NOT own a television; or a car; or a stereo. Priorities.


It sounds like you take 3-4 TVs in every American household to mean 57 inch plasma screens hung up like a sports bar. This number includes old Zeniths watching digital antenna and, like it or not, TVs are an essential part of our (inter)national information infrastructure. Even if you don't watch HBO, a TV is a pretty universal fixture in the first and developing world that allows people to cheaply stay on top of current events. It's hardly different than a radio and, in the 20-21st century, and important part of a democracy.

Begrudging people a TV if they're poorly dressed is just silly. Hell, I can get an iPhone for the cost of a new suit, and an iPhone is a hell of a lot more useful than a suit. But if you GET the suit, you still only have ONE suit, going back to my original point. Good clothes is too expensive.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

filbert_turtle said:


> Begrudging people a TV if they're poorly dressed is just silly.


Not seeing that this is about priorities is silly. And again, the great majority of the people we're talking about, who are dressing poorly, almost certainly have a great many things that my grandfather, for example, wouldn't have even dreamed of needing or buying.



filbert_turtle said:


> Hell, I can get an iPhone for the cost of a new suit, and *an iPhone is a hell of a lot more useful than a suit. *


See, I don't agree; and I doubt very much if my father would agree, or his father or his father's father. Homeless people have cell phones; I hardly think that having a cell phone prohibits having a few nice outfits of one kind or another. You've apparently made an iPhone (and probably many other non-essential things) your priority.



filbert_turtle said:


> But if you GET the suit, you still only have ONE suit, going back to my original point. Good clothes is too expensive.


Well, if you sent me a young man who dressed poorly -_ I could outfit him in some very nice clothes with VERY little money_ via vintage shops and whatnot. So what's the difference between you and me?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

SammyH said:


> Well, just taking televisions, I'd take the bet as it's not a very risky one. According the Nielsen Company, between 97-98% of American households own a television.
> 
> https://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/poor-income/
> 
> For the record, I do NOT own a television; or a car; or a stereo. Priorities.


Going wildly off topic, from my own observations, the number of satellite dishes is far higher in lower income areas. Maybe they're just more visible though.

Our own television went belly up over 15 months ago, and we've not bothered to fix it. Best thing we ever did for the children in my opinion.
We can still watch DVDs.



filbert_turtle said:


> It sounds like you take 3-4 TVs in every American household to mean 57 inch plasma screens hung up like a sports bar. This number includes old Zeniths watching digital antenna and, like it or not, TVs are an essential part of our (inter)national information infrastructure. Even if you don't watch HBO, a TV is a pretty universal fixture in the first and developing world that allows people to cheaply stay on top of current events. It's hardly different than a radio and, in the 20-21st century, and important part of a democracy.


You'd have a better grasp of current events from a diligent study online, rather than through the filter of your TV station.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I agree. I don't think anyone who knows me would call me high maintenance or metrosexual. I do enjoy dressing, but not obsessing.


same here.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Our own television went belly up over 15 months ago, and we've not bothered to fix it.


Same here. The small range of things I actually want to watch are accessible via DVD / netflix, etc.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I agree. I don't think anyone who knows me would call me high maintenance or metrosexual. I do enjoy dressing, but not obsessing.


OK, maybe it's the way you're interpreting what I meant by high maintenance. I just meant that we take the time and make the effort to choose our outfits, coordinate colors and textures, pick out shoes, and dress differently for different occasions.

It may be almost automatic for those who are experienced, taking only a few minutes, but we consciously choose what we're wearing when we get dressed. And based on the all the threads, we do spend a lot of time and effort shopping (virtually or in real life) for the clothes and accessories we want, at the best prices we can find. We are also very particular about the minute details of these items. That is what I meant by high maintenance. Come on we have threads regarding what types of hangers to buy, how to roll your shirt sleeves, shoe trees (How many guys even know what they are, no less that they should be unvarnished cedar?), shoe lacing techniques, types of cologne, how to dimple your tie, shall I go on?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Not everyone reads all of them. I understand a lot of this, but don't have the time or budget, or for that matter the interest to go overboard. Some of the stuff is interesting. Some is obsessive, at least to me.


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

Odradek said:


> You'd have a better grasp of current events from a diligent study online, rather than through the filter of your TV station.


That's true. And it would be nice if all Americans had internet in their own homes. But $30-$120/mo for cable TV/internet is a lot of money to most Americans.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

FIOS is advertising internet only for $14.99 a month, no contract.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> FIOS is advertising internet only for $14.99 a month, no contract.


Yup - or you can go to any number of FREE wifi hotspots.

I think one of the most interesting - and telling - assertions in this much meandering thread, was the comparison above made between iPhones and a suit. What was articulated is that they are roughly the same price for a certain class of suites; and what was concluded was that it is the SUIT which is the expensive/overpriced item.

.....Now, wait a second, shouldn't it be the other way around?

I think most anyone more than 20 years ago would have said:

"What? A phone that costs as much as a suit, and moreover a phone that is obsolete in a few years? My Lord that's an expensive phone!"

Or, "Good heavens, a suit that costs as little as a phone?? That's really quite a good price on a decent suit."

_What *no one* would have said is_: "Egads, my suit is just as expensive as my phone! That is a really expensive suit!"


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

For you viewing pleeasure. A brand new suit for less than the price of a Saturday night date of dinner for 2 at Fridays, with 2 drinks each, movie with popcorn and 2 cokes, tip and gas money. How many young men do that regularly?

https://www.josbank.com/menswear/shop/Product_11001_10050_405745


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

momsdoc said:


> For you viewing pleeasure. A brand new suit for less than the price of a Saturday night date of dinner for 2 at Fridays, with 2 drinks each, movie with popcorn and 2 cokes, tip and gas money. How many young men do that regularly?
> 
> https://www.josbank.com/menswear/shop/Product_11001_10050_405745


I don't see young men dress like that often.


----------

