# The Facebook Generation and the new dress code.



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

One of my friends went to work for a new upstart. Dress code is blue jeans - no ties, no sports coats allowed. Even Mark Zuckerberg wore a tie for a whole year. He lamented that he is going to have to buy some new jeans. Funny thing is he is one of the few people I know who usually is dressing pretty well. Silicone Valley dress code has reached the South!


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

No ties or sport coats ALLOWED? Would he actually be fired for wearing one, or both?


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

If he finds another job, it is my ardent hope that he shows up on his last day wearing morning dress.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

sbdivemaster said:


> No ties or sport coats ALLOWED? Would he actually be fired for wearing one, or both?


No, just ridiculed covertly and overtly by his co-workers and supervisors. This is standard for tech, like it or not.


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

JBierly said:


> One of my friends went to work for a new upstart. Dress code is blue jeans - no ties, no sports coats allowed. Even Mark Zuckerberg wore a tie for a whole year. He lamented that he is going to have to buy some new jeans. Funny thing is he is one of the few people I know who usually is dressing pretty well. Silicone Valley dress code has reached the South!


Let them dress like idiots. More ladies for us!


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

johnpark11 said:


> Let them dress like idiots. More ladies for us!


I don't think that's how it works.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Yep... standard tech start-up dress code. Jeans and an especially random t-shirt (preferably one with an 80's arcade game motif.) And you must employ at least one guy with a scraggly beard and rectangle-rimmed glasses.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> Yep... standard tech start-up dress code. Jeans and an especially random t-shirt (preferably one with an 80's arcade game motif.) And you must employ at least one guy with a scraggly beard and rectangle-rimmed glasses.


ahh, is that which dress code it is? I really need to get a better handle on these new-fangled sub-cultures.

In my lamentable ignorance I had previously believed that this modality of dress was a signifier of an boy/man suffering from acute (albeit sometimes latent) feelings of inadequacy thus bereft of any ability which would allow them to to compete in reasonable social situations. Moreover a cove with extremely limited knowledge of ladies and consequently (how can I put this delicately?) an especial 'familiarity' with himself. A fellow who might prefer to while away the long hours playing Call of Duty rather than, say, interacting with the actual world outside (presumably for fear of exposing underdeveloped social skills - which, let's face it, are decidedly not going to improve in a darkened room diddling with a PS3).

Typical me, allowing my prejudice to mis-cast perfectly decent and honourable men. ahem.

Well now I know better and, to make amends, the next time I observe one of these fellows giggling at some trivia being shared on a tippety-tappety iphone/pad thingymajig I shall firmly shake his hand and apologise profusely.
I presume that he can immediately 'tweet' (is it?) my apology to all the other techy nerds accross the world, right? 
Problem solved. :devil:


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

Leighton said:


> I don't think that's how it works.


You might have taken that as a joke, but it is all too true.

I wear suits daily for work and when I walk into a room or a Starbucks I get comments in my attire almost daily. When i walk into that same Starbucks on a weekends in workout gear or jeans... No looks and no comments. It's not that my suits are super fancy, its just others don't care how they look and I do. People still see the suit as a sign of power and prestige... Maybe more than ever now. Too bad others have not realized this. Anyway, back to my orginal point....


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Shaver said:


> ahh, is that which dress code it is? I really need to get a better handle on these new-fangled sub-cultures.
> 
> In my lamentable ignorance I had previously believed that this modality of dress was a signifier of an boy/man suffering from acute (albeit sometimes latent) feelings of inadequacy thus bereft of any ability which would allow them to to compete in reasonable social situations. Moreover a cove with extremely limited knowledge of ladies and consequently (how can I put this delicately?) an especial 'familiarity' with himself. A fellow who might prefer to while away the long hours playing Call of Duty rather than, say, interacting with the actual world outside (presumably for fear of exposing underdeveloped social skills - which, let's face it, are decidedly not going to improve in a darkened room diddling with a PS3).
> 
> ...


Shaver, I believe your original analysis is correct. I would add that it's possible that there is insufficient closet space in their parent's basement for a suitable wardrobe. But I will assure you that for all the ragamuffins and man-boys busy coding and surfing the web, there is a guy in a suit bringing bringing in the work.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Liberty Ship said:


> Shaver, I believe your original analysis is correct. I would add that it's possible that there is insufficient closet space in their parent's basement for a suitable wardrobe. But I will assure you that for all the ragamuffins and man-boys busy coding and surfing the web, there is a guy in a suit bringing bringing in the work.


Funnily enough though, back in the day, the original code-writers were a thoroughly civilised bunch. My partner's father was responsible for programming* the Manchester machine during the 1950's and he is the still living embodiment of Cambridge Uni Trad.

*and _proper_ programming it was back then too - all in binary, close to the metal. Masculine programming if ever there was.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ... a cove with extremely limited knowledge of ladies and consequently (how can I put this delicately?) an especial 'familiarity' with himself.
> 
> ... to make amends, the next time I observe one of these fellows giggling at some trivia being shared on a tippety-tappety iphone/pad thingymajig I shall firmly shake his hand and apologise profusely.


I share your prejudices, and your former comment makes me hesitate to adopt the course proposed in your latter...

Best,
Trog


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Gentlemen, I spend a lot of my time at several coffee shops around Charlotte in my retirement quest to read the history and literature classics I someow missed out on. So, of course, I am in constant contact with the type of person you describe. They are in the main *not *geeks and dweebs, but pretty regular guys, and they associate with some rather nice young ladies.

Shaver, I too would love to condescend, and find my assumptions justified, but Bubba it just ain't so. These people don't dress well, in our opinion, but it's not due to lack of inter-gender social skills.

There are any number of socio-political factors that enter into the "I'm not A SUIT" dress culture, but they're not the sterotypes we want to think.

BTW, one of my regular spots has a large gay component, so again, sterotypically, you'd think you'd see "current fashion", right? Nope, the same cargo/tee/flip flop look, and this on guys from 20s to 50s or better. Generally slimmer, though.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> Gentlemen, I spend a lot of my time at several coffee shops around Charlotte in my retirement quest to read the history and literature classics I someow missed out on. So, of course, I am in constant contact with the type of person you describe. They are in the main *not *geeks and dweebs, but pretty regular guys, and they associate with some rather nice young ladies.
> 
> Shaver, I too would love to condescend, and find my assumptions justified, but Bubba it just ain't so. These people don't dress well, in our opinion, but it's not due to lack of inter-gender social skills.
> 
> ...


Hello phyrpowr,

there are two definitions of 'condescend', one with negative connotations and the other without. I tend toward the one without, if indeed I am ever guilty of it at all. I am a fairly easy-going, even somewhat rough and ready, kind of guy despite my feeble attempts (oh, vainglory!) that I may yet better myself.

Thing is I really, _really_, like to observe people who dress to at least a mimimal standard. The converse being I do not like to observe people who dress below that standard.

Here's why: they do not have to look at themselves (not even in the mirror before they go out judging by some of them) yet others do. It is a courtesy to others, just as is for example personal hygeine, not to dress like a bum. Dressing in raggedy jeans and an ancient 'Rush' t-shirt just will not do, on an adult. It is rude and inconsiderate to comport oneself amongst civilised people in such a manner. And if their self-imposed business attire is such then it is they who have created their own stereotype.

As to inter-gender skills, well this is a whole different sociological issue but I would bet my bottom dollar that I am not the only male on this forum who thinks this: young ladies expectations are often so lamentably low nowadays that these fellows manage to get by after a fashion, I suppose.

As to gay stereoptyopes, there are many subcultures but moreover there are a significant number of homosexuals who do not need to buy into a culture, which is informed by their sexuality, at all. And why would they?

I hope you agree that we are all members here for a purpose. A different purpose maybe even for each single one of us. But a commonality being to our endeavour, in aspect of Canute, to stem the tide of sartiorial degradation. And maybe whilst were about it the occasional knowing comical swipe at that modality which irks us?

BTW: which literature classics have you been catching up on? The magical ability of the written word in equal scale weighs my delight and dole. :smile:


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

drlivingston said:


> Yep... standard tech start-up dress code. Jeans and an especially random t-shirt (preferably one with an 80's arcade game motif.) And you must employ at least one guy with a scraggly beard and rectangle-rimmed glasses.


 Boy this hits the mark with many of the tech types I work with...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Hello phyrpowr,
> 
> BTW: which literature classics have you been catching up on? The magical ability of the written word in equal scale weighs my delight and dole. :smile:


I condescend negatively, but that's just me. Agree wholeheartedly with much of your take, but you have to admit the tenor of the thread was sort of snarky "geeks are losers", when they are not necessarily. They are, however, IMHO, doing their best to extend their adolesence well past the point where it's in any way becoming.

Have gone again through Durant's "Story of Civilization", great for getting the flow of history. Danced with Anthony Powell to the Music of Time; fascinated by the interwar Cambridge/Oxford/post-Bloomsbury crowd, and also the Churchill/Baldwin/Philby/Orwell _et al _crew. Read Mr. Gibbon, finally, and couldn't wait for the Eastern Empire to finally get it over with, what a silly bunch there at the end. Revelling again in Lawrence Durrell's lush language, interspersed with low-brow page turners. And, oh yes, discovered Mr. John Buchan and Richard Hannay....the definition of the _ripping yarn._


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> I condescend negatively, but that's just me. Agree wholeheartedly with much of your take, but you have to admit the tenor of the thread was sort of snarky "geeks are losers", when they are not necessarily. They are, however, IMHO, doing their best to extend their adolesence well past the point where it's in any way becoming.
> 
> Have gone again through Durant's "Story of Civilization", great for getting the flow of history. Danced with Anthony Powell to the Music of Time; fascinated by the interwar Cambridge/Oxford/post-Bloomsbury crowd, and also the Churchill/Baldwin/Philby/Orwell _et al _crew. Read Mr. Gibbon, finally, and couldn't wait for the Eastern Empire to finally get it over with, what a silly bunch there at the end. Revelling again in Lawrence Durrell's lush language, interspersed with low-brow page turners. And, oh yes, discovered Mr. John Buchan and Richard Hannay....the definition of the _ripping yarn._


I had hoped it was more in flavour of a satirical romp than a snark (although I must get around to looking up the meaning of that dratted neologism before I can be truly certain).

Ah the Bloomsbury set. I have not long completed Woolf's lovely novel 'Orlando'. I am minded to purchase a copy of English Country Houses by Sackville-West (after having been tempted by a first edition in a country curio shop in a little vilalge in North Yorkshire recently).

Orwell is such a fine writer '_We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere_'.

As you like history then I cannot recommend this book highly enough; Winwood Reade's 'Martyrdom of Man'. The interlinked history of Europe, Asia and Africa (where he was the first white man to visit many locales) and the reasons why it followed the path it did, along with some fierce theologising and remarkably prescient commentary. Anyone reading this tome will come away as a better man for the experience.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JBierly said:


> One of my friends went to work for a new upstart.


I remember when* I *used to be an upstart! 



JBierly said:


> Mark Zuckerberg . . . . he is one of the few people I know who usually is dressing pretty well.


Jeesh! Oh, my goodness!

Even I am dressing better.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Shaver said:


> *and _proper_ programming it was back then too - all in binary, close to the metal. Masculine programming if ever there was.












Note the trad computer too - a Meccano-based differential analyser.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

StephenRG said:


> Note the trad computer too - a Meccano-based differential analyser.


Incredible really to think of the advances that were made in such a short period. It was the introduction of the cathode ray memory store (at Manchester University) that really allowed computing to accelerate (forgive the pun).

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


----------



## bjornkarger (Oct 8, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> Yep... standard tech start-up dress code. Jeans and an especially random t-shirt (preferably one with an 80's arcade game motif.) And you must employ at least one guy with a scraggly beard and rectangle-rimmed glasses.


If that's really the case it means I should be happily employable just abou anywhere! :icon_smile_big:

I'm spending much time now studying the generational pull between these clothing poles -- the dress-code wars of "the forgotten suits" versus the fearless pragmatist contemporaries, who go with the cargo/tee/flip-flop uniform* for everything.

The battle's lost and maybe the war is too. From an anthropological perspective I admit to having much _sartorially_ to learn (and this forum's a help), being long guilty of my own wide experimentations, especially in the 70s and 80s when dress codes were still fairly enforced. (One such experiment had been denim pants with dress shirt and tie: still "academic" but flouting it, sleeves rolled up above the elbows, a jacket of wide-wale corduroy....)

But looking at the situation neutrally, without the prejudice of my own thoughts and desires, I admit first that the key needs of comfort, class neutrality, mobile-living and _frugality_ are best served by them and not the forgotten suits. Sweats, hoodies, tees, flannel undershirts etc give layering and infinite number of "style" choices (watch the _huge_ vintage t-shirt categories on eBay/Etsy and see what I mean), but you can't deny that in the end this clothing is affordable & easy to maintain. And the clincher is, I'm seriously wondering if today's technomob (who are mastering business & finance as well, are among the most well-off) isn't fearlessly bringing us into the future -- because face it, sweatpants/hoodies/tees & the CRT look is basically the _precise _look shown in old "visions of the future" and "artist depcitions of 2000AD," from the age when suits, jackets and ties were the norm. Maybe they've living inside the progressive future that we need to finally enter, accept...

-K.

* CTF


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bjornkarger said:


> If that's really the case it means I should be happily employable just abou anywhere! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> I'm spending much time now studying the generational pull between these clothing poles -- the dress-code wars of "the forgotten suits" versus the fearless pragmatist contemporaries, who go with the cargo/tee/flip-flop uniform* for everything.
> 
> ...


or, alternatively, and this is merely a humble suggestion mind you, are they just slovenly beggars who prefer to lounge around in baggy old rags than perhaps expending a teensy-tiny modicum of effort on their appearance? 

the artists depictions of 2000ad which I recall were all minskirts and silver tin foil type jumpsuits. For the life of me I don't know which one of those two outfits I would least like to wear......... :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

bjornkarger said:


> But looking at the situation neutrally, without the prejudice of my own thoughts and desires, I admit first that the key needs of comfort, class neutrality, mobile-living and _frugality_ are best served by them and not the forgotten suits.


Your opinion is very much subjective, rather than neutral. 'Class neutrality' and 'mobile living' are certainly not uniform aims that apply neutrally! And comfort and frugality are subjective and relative concepts. I find the comfort of an odd jacket and well-worn cords or flannels to exceed greatly the supposed comfort of 'sweats and hoodies'. And frugality for me is met by buying quality over quantity and using it even when it becomes a little dogeared.

Our Prime Minister was once famous for trying to create a fuzzier. softer image for the Tory Party by expressing empathy for 'hoodies' (parodied by Labour as 'hug a hoodie): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13669826. He visited a school shortly afterwards and a hoodie was pictured cocking his hands into the image of a gun at his head. The then shadow Home Secretary (a harder right Tory) was meant to say that he was all in favour of hugging hoodies, just a little longer and a little harder! (https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/6141040.stm)


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> BTW, one of my regular spots has a large gay component, so again, sterotypically, you'd think you'd see "current fashion", right? Nope, the same cargo/tee/flip flop look, and this on guys from 20s to 50s or better. Generally slimmer, though.


Not really on subject, but I'm guessing that's got to be Smelly Cat Coffeehouse!


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Balfour said:


> Your opinion is very much subjective, rather than neutral. 'Class neutrality' and 'mobile living' are certainly not uniform aims that apply neutrally! And comfort and frugality are subjective and relative concepts. I find the comfort of an odd jacket and well-worn cords or flannels to exceed greatly the supposed comfort of 'sweats and hoodies'.


I agree a thousandfold.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

The dorkier these guys want to look in their sweats, ironic t-shirts or what have you, the better for those of us who make an effort.
And yes, the chicks dig a suit and a tie regardless your profession.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

AMProfessor said:


> Not really on subject, but I'm guessing that's got to be Smelly Cat Coffeehouse!


Nope, Caribou on East Blvd. don't get over to NoDa much


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Women may prefer their man to dress up well, but in the end, what they really care about is the money. I see slobs with girls dressed to the 10s hanging on their arms. And I'm talking ugly t-shirt + ripped jeans (sometimes dad jeans) + dirty sneakers. I mean seriously, dirty sneakers? The woman/girl is dressed up in a nice dress, heels, & has her hair done.

Trust me, how we dress is pretty low on their list of necessary attributes. That or they like that style.... *shrug*


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

AMProfessor said:


> Not really on subject, but I'm guessing that's got to be Smelly Cat Coffeehouse!


Well there you go.
Can't be expecting to find well dressed folk in an establishment with that sort of name.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Balfour said:


> Your opinion is very much subjective, rather than neutral. 'Class neutrality' and 'mobile living' are certainly not uniform aims that apply neutrally! And comfort and frugality are subjective and relative concepts.


The history of humankind is the history of us adorning ourselves to be more appealing to potential mates and project social superiority. While PC concepts such as class neutrality may appeal from a certain perspective, I don't see it making much headway in the long term until human nature is repealed. Comfort is very subjective. And I find myself most comfortable when I am pleased with what I've accomplished with my appearance. What, can't I pilot my Bentley to dinner just as easily in a bespoke suit as jeans?

And one man's frugality could well be another's unemployment.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Women may prefer their man to dress up well, but in the end, what they really care about is the money.


How did you come to this conclusion? I know women who would be insulted by this remark.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

My brother is self employed in a tech field. He pulls in lots of passive income from apps and programs he's composed and he lives in a rather nice apartment with a pool and lots of space. He pays less for his apartment than I ever did for a smaller joint (he lives on the west coast). He is very popular with the ladies and they have been known to book a visit for a month at a time. He doesn't let them sleep over, most of them stay at a nearby hostel and when we go out, I'll wear a suit coat, jeans and boots and he tends to dress in a leather bomber, jeans, a short sleeved shirt and a tie (shirt untucked).

However, he frequently wears suits and cleans up quite well. He's got 3pc suits, a tuxedo, everything I associate with having made it sartorially. If he's got a client meeting, or a potential client, he isn't above wearing a suit.

I suppose even the stereotype has an alternative.

Tom


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Jake Genezen said:


> How did you come to this conclusion? I know women who would be insulted by this remark.


I'm afraid I must agree with brother Leighton, disagreeable as the notion is. While I have no doubt some ladies of your acquaintance would be offended, they still would likely find themselves more attracted to men of means, all other things being equal. (And sometimes *not* so equal!)

It seems we are all biologically programed to propagate. And women seem hard-wired to find men of means (AKA, those more likely to assure the survival of their offspring.) more attractive.


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

Odradek said:


> Well there you go.
> Can't be expecting to find well dressed folk in an establishment with that sort of name.


Well I was wrong, its a Caribou. But SC is actually a pretty darn cool place, in a hippie kind of way.


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

*Here is another opinion, fwiw...*

I'd take a lesson from the above mentioned Zuck and the late Jobs: clothes do NOT make the man (or woman). Talent, intelligence, hard work, kindness, insight, character, ethics -- that is what is important. Dress is way, way, way down the list, and it does NOT indicate the presence or absence of these other traits, IMO. These two guys are/were super geeks or nerds, and they do/did pretty well. With chicks too, btw, probably better than the critics in this thread. Are women that judge you solely on your suit necessarily the best catch?

Also, dress can be a form of self expression, but is not necessarily so. Just because you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt does not mean you are rude or inconsiderate of others. It may mean you don't put much value in dressing up-- maybe you spend that extra cash on charities, or you spend the time, instead of shopping for yourself, on working or religion, or family, art, other hobbies (there are others). Sometimes I think I should.

I like clothes, and I do think in some situations dressing well can give you an edge, but dressing like your hero sure won't turn you into your hero.

I know a lot of guys that dress like crap, but are kind, intelligent, and much more reliable and ethical then plenty of slick dressers running around out there.

I believe, for myself, that dressing well is a wonderful hobby, but does not conflate with value as a human being.

Just my opinion, at this point in time and space.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

srmd22 said:


> Also, dress can be a form of self expression, but is not necessarily so. Just because you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt does not mean you are rude or inconsiderate of others. It may mean you don't put much value in dressing up-- maybe you spend that extra cash on charities, or you spend the time, instead of shopping for yourself, on working or religion, or family, art, other hobbies (there are others). Sometimes I think I should.
> 
> I like clothes, and I do think in some situations dressing well can give you an edge, but dressing like your hero sure won't turn you into your hero.
> 
> ...


_What a*se gave you this misconception? _



srmd22 said:


> I'd take a lesson from the above mentioned Zuck and the late Jobs: clothes do NOT make the man (or woman). Talent, intelligence, hard work, kindness, insight, character, ethics -- that is what is important. Dress is way, way, way down the list, and it does NOT indicate the presence or absence of these other traits, IMO. These two guys are/were super geeks or nerds, and they do/did pretty well. With chicks too, btw, probably better than the critics in this thread.


In truth, I do strongly agree with your general beliefs and values here, as I suspect do most of us. However, my understanding of the two nerdists noted above was that both had/have significant impairment in the kindness/ethics/character department. I'm sure you would all agree :icon_study:


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

srmd22 said:


> I believe, for myself, that dressing well is a wonderful hobby, but does not conflate with value as a human being.


Great post. I can see this from both camps, but still have a strong affinity with my old ways.

Six months ago, I wore cargo pants, t-shits, and sneakers pretty much exclusively. Now I have a much different appreciation for clothing. Did I somehow become a much better person in that time span?

How I dressed before had nothing to do with my consideration for my fellow human beings, just as it has nothing to do with it now. In both instances, I'm dressing for myself. How I see myself, as far as self-worth, has not changed. I just better understand clothing now. A suit no longer represents oppression, as it had for so many years. Up until recently, business dress was a "you will look like us" demand from people I did not identify with. The tech-guy dress code is a signal as much as a wall-street banker's suit is, and a rebellion against that domain. If you look at the stereotypical values of each, I much more identified with money being low on the totem pole.

I wonder if others consider a mechanic in his overalls, covered in grease, to somehow feel less a man while at his job.









I can only speak for myself, but after putting the largest engine Chrysler ever made into the engine bay of my '68 Coronet, I was feeling my testosterone (as much as an exhausted person could) and didn't give one damn about how other people felt about how I looked at that moment.

This extends to slinging code. If you are looking at me, you are missing what's happening on the screen, and aren't paying attention to the real action. It's a statement: I don't have to wear my success to show the world what I've done. *You* are wearing my success, have it in your pocket, on your wrist, or sitting on your desk.

I now see that it's a reaction to a small part of what dressing well really represents-an over-reaction, actually. It's an understandable one though, to me.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Success without style seems extremely useless. In fact, having tons of money yet not managing to evolve a sense of style speaks to having several social handicaps and hang ups. 

Nobody ever said it isn't stylish wearing overalls or whatever when working with a car. That's essentially dressing for the occasion. Utility and occasion comes first. 

However, the techie entrepreneurs and consultants who ignore dress codes for a techie uniform of T and jeans, and don't change out when it's time to wear a jacket, are not really socially adept. They remain the same slightly awkward kids they were in high school. With a vengeance. In my experience...

Growing up has a lot going for it, really. The guys who resist can have all the techie cred in the world, they're still not getting it right.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> There are any number of socio-political factors that enter into the "I'm not A SUIT" dress culture...


One such factor that strikes me is that the "I'm not A SUIT" people are stuck in 1968-9; surely we've all moved on from then. 


Bjorn said:


> . However, the techie entrepreneurs and consultants who ignore dress codes for a techie uniform of T and jeans, and don't change out when it's time to wear a jacket, are not really socially adept. They remain the same slightly awkward kids they were in high school. With a vengeance. In my experience...Growing up has a lot going for it, really.


You've hit the nail on the head. Not wanting to grow up is an attitude more-or-less unknown in western society before the last 40 years. Before then most children looked forward to growing up.


srmd22 said:


> I believe, for myself, that dressing well is a wonderful hobby, but does not conflate with value as a human being.


Surely we all agree on the matter of value; we are debating aesthetic and psychological points, not moral ones.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Women may prefer their man to dress up well, but in the end, what they really care about is the money. I see slobs with girls dressed to the 10s hanging on their arms. And I'm talking ugly t-shirt + ripped jeans (sometimes dad jeans) + dirty sneakers. I mean seriously, dirty sneakers? The woman/girl is dressed up in a nice dress, heels, & has her hair done.
> 
> Trust me, how we dress is pretty low on their list of necessary attributes. That or they like that style.... *shrug*





Jake Genezen said:


> How did you come to this conclusion? I know women who would be insulted by this remark.





Flanderian said:


> I'm afraid I must agree with brother Leighton, disagreeable as the notion is. While I have no doubt some ladies of your acquaintance would be offended, they still would likely find themselves more attracted to men of means, all other things being equal. (And sometimes *not* so equal!)
> 
> It seems we are all biologically programed to propagate. And women seem hard-wired to find men of means (AKA, those more likely to assure the survival of their offspring.) more attractive.


In my experience many ladies, of my age at least, truly despair of the dress style of their partners. It seems that perhaps younger ladies have lower expectations, generally. You are correct though Leighton, it is a shame and I constantly observe it: ladies who have made a deal of effort and their menfolk have made none.

However, whilst I concede Jake's point that many women would be insulted by the notion that 'what they really care about is the money' there is also truth in Flanderian's assertion that ladies are 'attracted to men of means'. There is, in fact, as many varied approaches to this issue as there are females. No one perspective can describe the whole gender.

We must not associate suits and ties with a surplus of currency, though. Nor our 'means' with our ability to generate (or have inherited) lucre. Quite simply most of the quirky denims and appalling shirts and ugly shoes to be seen in my local bars and restaurants exceed in price that of a reasonable quality suit and tie rig. Moreover, a man's means speak rather of his ability to inspire confidence in others, to engender trust, to promote faith and responsibility. If these attributes matter to you then you will wish for your own lady to appreciate them, not enquire as to your bank balance.



srmd22 said:


> I'd take a lesson from the above mentioned Zuck and the late Jobs: clothes do NOT make the man (or woman). Talent, intelligence, hard work, kindness, insight, character, ethics -- that is what is important. Dress is way, way, way down the list, and it does NOT indicate the presence or absence of these other traits, IMO. These two guys are/were super geeks or nerds, and they do/did pretty well. With chicks too, btw, probably better than the critics in this thread. Are women that judge you solely on your suit necessarily the best catch?
> 
> Also, dress can be a form of self expression, but is not necessarily so. Just because you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt does not mean you are rude or inconsiderate of others. It may mean you don't put much value in dressing up-- maybe you spend that extra cash on charities, or you spend the time, instead of shopping for yourself, on working or religion, or family, art, other hobbies (there are others). Sometimes I think I should.
> 
> ...


srmd22, certainly a finely dressed devil is less likable than a scruffy saint. But once we have agreed on that, and decided to be the best men we can be in character and morality, then we may set about the business of comporting ourselves as well as we are able. Jeans and a t-shirt are decidedly rude and inconsiderate items to wear in many situations. A man who attends the theatre, where everyone else is wearing a least a shirt and trousers, in jeans and a scruffy t-shirt is deliberately cocking a snoot at the other patrons - this is inescapably rude.

I do not see any schism between dressing well and spending time 'working or religion, or family, art, other hobbies'. It takes as little time to put on a pair of dress trousers as it does a pair of jeans.



Mox said:


> Great post. I can see this from both camps, but still have a strong affinity with my old ways.
> 
> Six months ago, I wore cargo pants, t-shits, and sneakers pretty much exclusively. Now I have a much different appreciation for clothing. Did I somehow become a much better person in that time span?
> 
> ...


Mox, I would suggest that you may indeed have improved as a person (although I am certain you were a fine person prior!). There is much to be said for the discipline and the habits generated by an aspiration to improve one's appearance. The reflection upon how one fit's into this world, the thought and consideration required, and also a more acute appreciation of the efforts of others in that sphere.

I am minded to consider the suit a level playing field upon which all men may express themselves, either well or otherwise. Those who choose to disdain it, all well and good, but those who sneer at 'suits' do rather give the unfortunate impression that they feel simply unable to compete in civilised society.

BTW you have my deepest admiration of your skills both mechanical and cerebral. Furthermore can I encourage you to post in the 'What Were You Wearing Yesterday' thread - you may have some belting shots to share. :icon_smile:


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2012)

JBierly said:


> Dress code is blue jeans - no ties, no sports coats allowed. Even Mark Zuckerberg wore a tie for a whole year.


It's hard to be sure from over the other side of the pond but I suspect he'd get away with more formal clothes if he colleagues didn't perceive them as old fashioned, conservative and fuddy-duddy (regardless of what the clothes are really like).

In his situation, I'd probably buy some vintage 60s suits of ebay or may be hunt down a slim cut three piece suit in a really bold pin stripe.

Matt


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Success without style seems extremely useless. In fact, having tons of money yet not managing to evolve a sense of style speaks to having several social handicaps and hang ups.


That's equating success with money, which is exactly the ideal that is being avoided. There is a sense of style, just one you do not like and may not recognize.

To me this is very similar to the reaction to hip-hop music when it came on the scene.



williamson said:


> One such factor that strikes me is that the "I'm not A SUIT" people are stuck in 1968-9; surely we've all moved on from then.


I believe the '80's had a large impact as well, even more so than the 60's for this group: a reaction to the ilk that Gordon Gekko was based on.



> Surely we all agree on the matter of value; we are debating aesthetic and psychological points, not moral ones.


I'm not sure, as there are posts that seem to indicate otherwise.



Shaver said:


> Jeans and a t-shirt are decidedly rude and inconsiderate items to wear in many situations. A man who attends the theatre, where everyone else is wearing a least a shirt and trousers, in jeans and a scruffy t-shirt is deliberately cocking a snoot at the other patrons - this is inescapably rude.


This is part of the perception that I am trying to address. In many cases that is simply not the case, and wasn't so in mine. It is rude in the realm of your experience, but not in mine and many of my compatriots. It would be considered rude to exert the social pressure onto another person to dress the way a specific group wants them to, when the person is attention a public social function. In the same thought process, the action is taking place up on stage. If someone is focusing on a patron and that patron's manner of dress, any discomfort they feel is their own responsibility.



> Mox, I would suggest that you may indeed have improved as a person (although I am certain you were a fine person prior!). There is much to be said for the discipline and the habits generated by an aspiration to improve one's appearance. The reflection upon how one fit's into this world, the thought and consideration required, and also a more acute appreciation of the efforts of others in that sphere.


In my mind, I have improved my skills in that realm, but my moral stances and the way I view my fellows has not changed. My consideration has not changed.

If I am to dress for a funeral, my intention has always been to show respect. I am simply better equipped to do that now.

If I am to attend the theater, my intention is to enjoy the experience. In the past, this did not include "dressing up", something I equated with discomfort and a misrepresentation of who I was.

Now that I better understand clothing construction, I can find comfort in the right materials and construction. Now that I better understand clothing styles, I find representation that goes beyond the stereotypes. I'll leave the other patrons' enjoyment to their own devices.

I would imagine that going on a tech board and trying to explain why members here have an affinity for dressing well would be met with the same difficulties some of us are having in explaining why there is an affinity for, well, not. Some stereotypes can be deeply seeded.



> Those who choose to disdain it, all well and good, but those who sneer at 'suits' do rather give the unfortunate impression that they feel simply unable to compete in civilised society.


Only in the eyes of those who see it differently. In their own realm, the man who is seen as fop is the one at a disadvantage. One realm is shrinking and the other is growing.



> BTW you have my deepest admiration of your skills both mechanical and cerebral.


Thank you. I admit that I was having a reaction to what I was reading here, having been fully immersed for so long in what was being maligned. I am not trying to promote it, but I would like to explain it, at least from my point of view. I believe that also represents how many of the people I know view clothing as well.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

williamson said:


> One such factor that strikes me is that the "I'm not A SUIT" people are stuck in 1968-9; surely we've all moved on from then..


Surely we haven't, hence this thread and others like it. As I've said before the people we're talking about here are anti-, not just non-suit, and they will freely admit it. Frequently with the "judge me by my work/social conscience/creativity/etc." by which they mean to imply "my cargos and band/message tee obviously show me to be a highly talented _and morally righteous _individual", their work etc. quite often being nothing special. While so many seem to have just put on "what was lying around", they _chose to buy _whatever was lying around at their home. Their clothing is a statement they are of _this _group, not _that _one, every bit as much as a frock coated City solicitor of 1911 or a sans coulotte of 1789

Mox, a thoughtful man, makes several of the same points, that people in his milieu view suit wearers as "not who _we _are", and that style is to be consciously avoided in the group.

BTW, here in the US, we have some subsets: the "BroDudes" who prefer NFL jerseys and caps (indoors too and often backwards) and the "good ol' boys" (more rural) who routinely wear as much camoflauge as possible. The former are normally bankers, lawyers, and the like, and who get very jittery if some sport or sport talk show isn't on the TV.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Mox said:


> I believe the '80's had a large impact as well, even more so than the 60's for this group: a reaction to the ilk that Gordon Gekko was based on.


Coming from the other side of the Atlantic, I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention Gordon Gekko. In the UK, the 80s reacted against the late 60s to a certain extent - yuppies and "power dressing" - not very attractive.


> It would be considered rude to exert the social pressure onto another person to dress the way a specific group wants them to, when the person is attention a public social function.


 I don't think this is so much the case in the UK - perhaps it's a matter of individual _ve__rsus _collective or conformist?


phyrpowr said:


> As I've said before the people we're talking about here are anti-, not just non-suit, and they will freely admit it. Frequently with the "judge me by my work/social conscience/creativity/etc." by which they mean to imply "my cargos and band/message tee obviously show me to be a highly talented _and morally righteous _individual", their work etc. quite often being nothing special. While so many seem to have just put on "what was lying around", they _chose to buy _whatever was lying around at their home. Their clothing is a statement they are of _this _group, not _that _one, every bit as much as a frock coated City solicitor of 1911 or a sans culotte of 1789.


Great point! Thanks. I have often wondered if a concerted effort is being made by some to get rid of suits and classical dressing altogether. You make me think that I'm not just yielding to conspiracy theory.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mox said:


> .......This is part of the perception that I am trying to address. In many cases that is simply not the case, and wasn't so in mine. It is rude in the realm of your experience, but not in mine and many of my compatriots. It would be considered rude to exert the social pressure onto another person to dress the way a specific group wants them to, when the person is attention a public social function. In the same thought process, the action is taking place up on stage. If someone is focusing on a patron and that patron's manner of dress, any discomfort they feel is their own responsibility.


In this we must amicably diverge our opinion, then.

I am prepared to be persuaded on many things (e.g. that rascal cuffdaddy is wavering, to a small degree, my loathing of suede in the 'Aaargh! My Eyes' thread) but not this. Not now. Not ever.

If a person doesn't wish to acknowledge the pressure of the public social function then they should choose to avoid that circle - not stroll up mocking it with a self-centered display. It is not rude to expect a reasonable level of standard of dress at a given event but it is very rude to ride roughshod over that standard, as if that person is somehow so very special that they are exempt from this small common courtesy.

Let me get down off my high horse for a moment and give a hopefully illuminating real life example. If one were to appear in court would a person dress as a pantomime horse? No of course not. Would someone dress in jeans and a t-shirt? Not if they had any sense. Most people would respect the authority of the court, the social situation, and dress as well as they possibly could. Do you see where I'm going with this.....? :icon_smile:


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

blairrob said:


> _What a*se gave you this misconception? _
> 
> In truth, I do strongly agree with your general beliefs and values here, as I suspect do most of us. However, my understanding of the two nerdists noted above was that both had/have significant impairment in the kindness/ethics/character department. I'm sure you would all agree :icon_study:


This is for sure, these two do not exemplify those characteristics-- I was sort of mixing concepts there, which muddied the point. I was thinking of Mother Theresa or the Bhudda, maybe, with regard to those features, lol. The other two are just rich, successful, and get a lot of chicks (which I think $$ helps with, if your not naturally talented at it).



Shaver said:


> srmd22, certainly a finely dressed devil is less likable than a scruffy saint. But once we have agreed on that, and decided to be the best men we can be in character and morality, then we may set about the business of comporting ourselves as well as we are able. Jeans and a t-shirt are decidedly rude and inconsiderate items to wear in many situations. A man who attends the theatre, where everyone else is wearing a least a shirt and trousers, in jeans and a scruffy t-shirt is deliberately cocking a snoot at the other patrons - this is inescapably rude.
> 
> I do not see any schism between dressing well and spending time 'working or religion, or family, art, other hobbies'. It takes as little time to put on a pair of dress trousers as it does a pair of jeans.


I agree, absolutely, you can do both. And in certain situations, it IS inconsiderate, just not always.

Additionally, I think it is fun and cool to dress well (and hope I achieve it some day, lol). Having found this hobby, and having some small disposable income to put towards it, I have since come to the conclusion that it would be fun to live in a world where everyone else shared the affinity. Not all suits necessarily, any kind of cool rockin' outfits are welcome, as long as they are considered and aim to achieve a desired (and not too antisocial) effect. For instance, I dig the way some rock and roll stars dress (some... I am not a Lady Gaga fan, with the meat suit-- more of a Black Crowes guy).


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> In this we must amicably diverge our opinion, then.
> 
> I am prepared to be persuaded on many things (e.g. that rascal cuffdaddy is wavering, to a small degree, my loathing of suede in the 'Aaargh! My Eyes' thread) but not this. Not now. Not ever.
> 
> ...


I would point out that there is a lot of politics and power issues at play in this subject. A CEO might dress however the hell he/she wants-- because he feels free from the strictures of judgment. Whereas his employees, not so much, at least when he is around. In court, you had best defer to the hierarchy, or you are hosed. But there are judges that dress down considerably-- because they don't have to worry about being judged in their community, having an established reputation (this might go for many professionals).

This is where being well dressed is certainly an advantage. I believe, based on experience, that you are less likely, by some margin, albeit hard to measure, to get a speeding ticket if pulled over while wearing a suit then if you are wearing chains and leather.

I think part of the trend of dressing down relates to a global movement to democratization and the ideals of equality, which is a good thing. Certainly debatable, but also arguable.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Walked into Amelie's a few weeks ago and was mortified.



phyrpowr said:


> Gentlemen, I spend a lot of my time at several coffee shops around Charlotte in my retirement quest to read the history and literature classics I someow missed out on. So, of course, I am in constant contact with the type of person you describe. They are in the main *not *geeks and dweebs, but pretty regular guys, and they associate with some rather nice young ladies.
> 
> Shaver, I too would love to condescend, and find my assumptions justified, but Bubba it just ain't so. These people don't dress well, in our opinion, but it's not due to lack of inter-gender social skills.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

srmd22 said:


> I would point out that there is a lot of politics and power issues at play in this subject. A CEO might dress however the hell he/she wants-- because he feels free from the strictures of judgment. Whereas his employees, not so much, at least when he is around. In court, you had best defer to the hierarchy, or you are hosed. But there are judges that dress down considerably-- because they don't have to worry about being judged in their community, having an established reputation (this might go for many professionals).
> 
> This is where being well dressed is certainly an advantage. I believe, based on experience, that you are less likely, by some margin, albeit hard to measure, to get a speeding ticket if pulled over while wearing a suit then if you are wearing chains and leather.
> 
> I think part of the trend of dressing down relates to a global movement to democratization and the ideals of equality, which is a good thing. Certainly debatable, but also arguable.


Hello srmd22. these are all fair points and agreeable but one; I do not believe dressing down to reflect democratisation nor any ideal of equality. I am genuine in this enquiry; why do you feel this to be so?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

This may come across as harsh, but I hope it will not be seen as ad hominem:



Mox said:


> That's equating success with money, which is exactly the ideal that is being avoided. There is a sense of style, just one you do not like and may not recognize.


I disagree. The techies love their money. They love their money, their toys and their expensive t-shirts. There is such a thing as 'class', and that's where that particular style vernacular is very much in deficit. IT is just not a very evolved profession. That will change.

There is no sense of style. Style it is not.

They spend their time practicing to dress like children, and thus never learn to dress like adults. The 'we are better than people in finance' reasoning seems bogus to me. They are not. They just dress worse.



Mox said:


> This is part of the perception that I am trying to address. In many cases that is simply not the case, and wasn't so in mine. It is rude in the realm of your experience, but not in mine and many of my compatriots. It would be considered rude to exert the social pressure onto another person to dress the way a specific group wants them to, when the person is attention a public social function. In the same thought process, the action is taking place up on stage. If someone is focusing on a patron and that patron's manner of dress, any discomfort they feel is their own responsibility.


But these are the opinions of a child. It would be 'rude' towards me to exert social pressure towards me to smarten up my clothes. If anyone takes amiss about my clothing, it's their problem. This is juvenile and disrespectful. If I dress in a way that is incorrect I'm disrespecting the people who worked to set up that social function.

Growing up is about shouldering normal social pressures and owning up to being a part of society, family, nation etc. It is not about you.

Your dress is not all about you. Not if you want to dress well. Dressing well is dressing to you individuality within restrictions. The techie crowd lack restrictions in their dress, they dress like children. Thereby, there is no style or artfulness to them. It's crude. You, and many of your compatriots (per the quoted argumentation) are simply uncouth.



Mox said:


> In my mind, I have improved my skills in that realm, but my moral stances and the way I view my fellows has not changed. My consideration has not changed.


This is not consideration. That there are several of you acting juvenile doesn't really help. You should change the way you view your fellows.



Mox said:


> I would imagine that going on a tech board and trying to explain why members here have an affinity for dressing well would be met with the same difficulties some of us are having in explaining why there is an affinity for, well, not. Some stereotypes can be deeply seeded.


I would not go in front of a barn and explain it to the cows either.



Mox said:


> Only in the eyes of those who see it differently. In their own realm, the man who is seen as fop is the one at a disadvantage. One realm is shrinking and the other is growing.
> .


Again, the number of the unwashed techie masses little make them right.

This may come off as disparaging, but I do disparage this viewpoint. Especially when it's toted by a group of people, techies, who generally run the most overtly technocratic, capitalist, heterogenous, bottom-line driven business operations we have. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But at least finance are fairly honest about it.

Tech could use a little more growing up.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

srmd22 said:


> I think part of the trend of dressing down relates to a global movement to democratization and the ideals of equality, which is a good thing. Certainly debatable, but also arguable.


There was actually a similar movement to what you are describing, it's called socialism. Both the Soviet Union and China 'democratised' their people's dressing in a way you may find appealing 

I find the idea slightly distasteful. Ask someone who grew up in the USSR how they feel about it...

I think I will continue to dress in a fashion I find stylish, classic and correct. I dress with personal style within the boundaries to please myself, I dress classicly because that mode of dress is comfortable and has impact in a social context and I dress correctly to show respect to my elders, the hostess, my employer, my coworkers, the chef, my date, other people around me and the people who raised me, and to set an example.

I don't respect people who don't. Many people who matter, and who do not matter simply by coincidence or market fluke, do not respect people who don't. Nor should they.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

I like wearing nice suits, and I spend a lot of money on clothes. However, I think you would have to be almost delusional to recognize that this is almost an affectation in the world we live in today. The most successful, influential people today are generally people involved in technology, and they do not wear suits except on the rarest of occasions - and even then, they often go tieless. But it goes beyond this - most people involved in tech and engineering not only don't wear suits; they are *anti*-suit. "The suits" is a negative term for the accountants and lawyers who don't really contribute to the bottom line.

And don't imagine that there is a lower level of techs supervised by a suit-wearing managerial level; this idea is pervasive throughout these organizations, from the lowliest tech writer up to the CEO.

Men's fashion (and suits are a fashion) has always been influence by the most prestigious men of the society. Suits have notch lapels, sleeve buttons, and a lapel buttonhole in imitation of (prestigious) military uniforms. The white collars and cuffs are that color because they help differentiate suit wearers from manual laborers, who would not be able to keep them clean. The "masculine renunciation" (where men stopped wearing colorful silks and velvet and began wearing dark colored suits) came about around 1800 due to the prestige that industrialists had in the newly industrializing world; these men had to wear dark grey and similar clothing because of the coal dust in the factories...and men's fashion as a whole copied this. This is a sort of ominous precedent for suit wearers. In fact, it's easy to imagine some of the same sentiments expressed in this thread being penned by silk-and-velvet wearing dandies appalled that when they went to the local coffeehouse they were met with men wearing drab grey wool suits! No silk knee socks to show off a shapely calf; no sky-blue velvet jacket to show off the color of one's eyes; no peach knee breeches to contrast with the sky blue of the jacket! Where's the fainting couch?


Business news is dominated by tech companies. Most college students would probably identify working for Apple or Google or Facebook a similar company to be the most prestigious jobs; these are not jobs wear suits are worn. For better or worse, these are largely anti-suit. This ties into why you often see politicians with their suit coat off, their sleeves rolled up, and their collars loosened: they are indicating that they are *working.* By implication, wearing a suit properly = not working.

There is still some hope: while clothing isn't the best or only way of conveying authority or credibility, suits are the article of clothing that are best at doing so. Suits are also the only reliably "dressy" piece of clothing.

But I do worry that wearing a suit is turning into a mere ritual, like the wigs judges in the UK wore until 2008. 

So I think it's up to people who like suits to be good role models, I suppose...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> This may come across as harsh, but I hope it will not be seen as ad hominem....


Good Lord!

Bjorn did a 'techie' run off with your wife or something? :icon_smile_wink:

That's one helluva critique.......


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Good Lord!
> 
> Bjorn did a 'techie' run off with your wife or something? :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> That's one helluva critique.......


No it pretty much translates to other industries as well, though techies carry the torch of the Star Wars t shirts.

And I just really, really DO NOT agree.

There's nothing wrong with people in tech. Some of my friends and family are poorly dressed techies. Poorly. Dressed.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

srmd22 said:


> I think part of the trend of dressing down relates to a global movement to democratization and the ideals of equality, which is a good thing.


Yep. As I said in a different thread 'Ask Andy about socio-economic geopolitics, from a Marxist perspective'. What has happened to this once august forum?!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

.....


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Let me get down off my high horse for a moment and give a hopefully illuminating real life example. If one were to appear in court would a person dress as a pantomime horse? No of course not. Would someone dress in jeans and a t-shirt? Not if they had any sense. Most people would respect the authority of the court, the social situation, and dress as well as they possibly could. Do you see where I'm going with this.....? :icon_smile:


I believe I understand your view and also agree with it to a certain extend. I do not believe it applies universally, however. As srmd22 noted, court and the theater are not adjacent grounds. Unless someone has a job there, and tech guys do not, court is generally a place to avoid and is not an event one attends for pleasure. Concession are made due to the power structure at play.

The same applies to some degree in the middle-grounds: funerals, weddings, and dinner parties are attended in consideration of both the hosts and the attendees. Most of the tech crowd I know would consider it rude to show up at a wake in bathing trunks. They would, however, dress only as "up" as they think was necessary, and this would probably vary a fair amount.

Events that are for the sole purpose of entertaining the attendees-such as theater, opera, symphony, movies, etc.-are more often seen as having no hold on the attendee. "I paid my money to be entertained, and how I go about that is my own business." (I should have put earlier similar statements in quotes, as I intended them to be representative of the group rather than my own current view, even if in the first person.) I don't think this is an overt conscious thought, but likely a fair approximation of what might be driving the decision.

There's an interesting tidbit I read a while back that I think might apply to some degree. A psychology professor describes to his class a man attending his high school reunion some years after graduation. Everyone else is in suits, sports coats, or similar while the man has dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. The man goes about the evening as if there was no difference and gives no signs of being concerned. The professor then asks the class why this is so.

Several in the class suggest that the man is so confident in himself that he doesn't need external validation. Other suggest his clothes are a big F-Y to the world. A number of other ideas pop up and are discussed throughout class. In the end, the professor says to the class, "All interesting ideas, but none apply in this case. He simply never noticed."

For myself, if I were leaving the house for an event, I would check the short mental list for "mandatory/suggested dressiness". Was it a court date, wedding, or funeral? No? Then anything resembling a coat and tie was out. If it was a date, it would depend on where, and might involve chinos and a collar shirt. Otherwise I would simply dress as I normally would without another thought. If others attending want to dress differently, that's their prerogative, but has no direct impact on me. Again, I'm not thinking that "aloud", but the thought process behind the scenes. They aren't talking, blocking my view, or kicking my chair, so why would I care if they wore a tie or not? Why would they care if I did? I never even thought about it.

Yes, now I would wear something finer to go see a play. I would be in the minority, however. I might even lament that others are dressing as I used to dress, but I would not hold them accountable for it. How could I, when that was me half-a-year ago?

Rudeness, like most communication, relies on the interpretation of the recipient. If I give someone in Sardinia a thumbs-up with a smile, I may get my clock cleaned. If anyone sees dressing down as rude, I can't really argue, as everyone may see it in their own light. I can make a point for that not being the intent, however.


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I disagree. The techies love their money. They love their money, their toys and their expensive t-shirts.


Are you familiar with ESR's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? Many of the guys I know in the field are motivated by the "personal itch", not money. The money is great, but a side-effect. Current IT is different, so I can't speak to a large portion of it.



> You, and many of your compatriots (per the quoted argumentation) are simply uncouth.


And not a one of us really cares about your opinion of us. But I suppose that goes with being uncouth, in your definition. You can gripe about it, but all you'll accomplish is making yourself miserable.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mox said:


> Are you familiar with ESR's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? Many of the guys I know in the field are motivated by the "personal itch", not money. The money is great, but a side-effect. Current IT is different, so I can't speak to a large portion of it.
> 
> And not a one of us really cares about your opinion of us. But I suppose that goes with being uncouth, in your definition. You can gripe about it, but all you'll accomplish is making yourself miserable.


Yes of course, money is just a way of keeping track. But let me refrase then: you like keeping track. Just as much as the next guy. There's nothing new or special about incentives in that industry.

Not caring about other people's opinions is hardly a virtue... And I don't gripe about it per se, this is a discussion of style. I also don't make myself miserable over other people slobbing it, but I also find no measurable worth in people who believe they are 'strong' or 'cool' because they dare not to wear suits.

Mostly I find that type of screaming non-conformism dull and uninspired. And in its overt sureness that it is simply better (and 'more democratic', no less) than whatever came before, both pretentious and naive. It's seemingly then a sector in which people somehow believe that simply because it is a successful sector they work in, it will provide them with newer and better sociopolitical insights that let them recycle old tired slightly leftist slogans about how people who dress properly are just in it for the money, how wearing whatever you like (except a tie!) will be the next great social equalizer. All the while pumping out tech that is no more and no less useless or helpful than whatever financial products currently being produced by someone in a suit.

Did I not also read above that these new Herculeans look down on the accountant and the lawyer. Feeling slightly better, since neither the lawyer nor the accountant 'contributes to the bottom line'. Lol! Like you'd know what the bottom line was without the accountant, or get to keep any of it without the lawyer. Who are, by and large, better dressed.

Also there's age to be considered. We all get older. On the median, the techies are getting older and fatter, and those jeans and t shirts will not serve them well as their BMI increases. Aged people in children's clothes look dreadfully old.

Also, dressing well is not for everybody. But it's still dressing well. All the slobs out there don't have to smarten up on my account. But please don't write that they are good people for it, democratic, progressive, modern etc. Nobody actually believes techies are the new social visionaries. They simply don't know how to dress nor understand why that is just a 'little' bit important. And they are obviously terribly accepting of diversity, as long as he/she is dressed exactly like them.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

welldressedfellow said:


> Walked into Amelie's a few weeks ago and was mortified.


Yeah, but I'll bet you left happy, that's some fine goodies they got there.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> ...people who believe they are 'strong' or 'cool' because they dare not to wear suits...in its overt sureness that it is simply better (and 'more democratic', no less) than whatever came before, both pretentious and naive.


 These people probably believe they are attacking pretentiousness; I have even heard it said that to dress ultracasually is to show modesty, while to dress casually is to be pretentious - to me that is nonsense.


> a successful sector...it will provide them with newer and better sociopolitical insights that let them recycle old tired slightly leftist slogans about how people who dress properly are just in it for the money, how wearing whatever you like (except a tie!) will be the next great social equalizer.


 I doubt if this is as conscious as you think. I also doubt whether there is any correlation at all between dress and political stance; if this attitude is "slightly leftist", see my next sentence.


> ...since neither the lawyer nor the accountant 'contributes to the bottom line'.


In many countries this "feeling slightly better" comes from some on the political right, who think that only those who make money are valuable to society.


> We all get older...those jeans and t shirts will not serve them well as their BMI increases. Aged people in children's clothes look dreadfully old...


A very valid point! Many don't want to grow up. Peter Pan has a lot to answer for!


> ...please don't write that they are good people for it, democratic, progressive, modern etc...And they are obviously terribly accepting of diversity, as long as he/she is dressed exactly like them.


Again, isn't such intolerance characteristic of the immature?

Bjørn, I very largely agree with your conclusions, but I think this issue is psychological and aesthetic rather than moral.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mox said:


> I believe I understand your view and also agree with it to a certain extend. I do not believe it applies universally, however. As srmd22 noted, court and the theater are not adjacent grounds. Unless someone has a job there, and tech guys do not, court is generally a place to avoid and is not an event one attends for pleasure. Concession are made due to the power structure at play.
> 
> The same applies to some degree in the middle-grounds: funerals, weddings, and dinner parties are attended in consideration of both the hosts and the attendees. Most of the tech crowd I know would consider it rude to show up at a wake in bathing trunks. They would, however, dress only as "up" as they think was necessary, and this would probably vary a fair amount.
> 
> ...


I must continue to disagree, Mox. Just because someone has paid to enter an event does not mean they should feel that they own the right to disrupt proceedings, the ambience, the occasion, or however else you may be most comfortable describing this attribute. Try wearing a Manchester United shirt at a Leeds United home game and see how far that attitude might get you!

The example that you give of the man who 'simply never noticed' supports rather than erodes my perspective. It is exactly this style of obliviousness to the occasion or the environment that, to me, signifies something I really do not appreciate.

As to rudeness being within the interpretation of the recipient. Yes, of course. But it is one's duty, is it not, to appreciate the customs of the society you are within?


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

The napoleon was top-notch. The craft root beer, on the other hand... but that is for another day.



phyrpowr said:


> Yeah, but I'll bet you left happy, that's some fine goodies they got there.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Bjorn you have inspired me! Great posts! 

The techies really are intolerable. Slovenliness contorted into a virtue by some very dubious arguments.

As for money, I'd rather be Errol Flynn or David Niven than Bill Gates any day.


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> And I don't gripe about it per se, this is a discussion of style. I also don't make myself miserable over other people slobbing it, but I also find no measurable worth in people who believe they are 'strong' or 'cool' because they dare not to wear suits.
> 
> Mostly I find that type of screaming non-conformism dull and uninspired. And in its overt sureness that it is simply better (and 'more democratic', no less) than whatever came before, both pretentious and naive.


But it's not non-conformism to wear casual clothes when that's what everyone else wears. I do computer stuff for a living, and have worked at startups in the past, and now work at a university. If I wore even a shirt and tie to work, I'd stand out like a sore thumb (and people would ask if I had a job interview). I can't even imagine what people would say if I wore a suit to work.

Interviews are the same deal - I ask ahead of time, and try to dress approximately the way the person interviewing me is likely to dress. Sometimes that's more informal; sometimes it's closer to business casual. Even Dressing the Man makes the point that being overdressed can be just as bad as being underdressed in certain business situations (like an interview).

I think there are a lot of reasons for the trend towards more casual dress in tech jobs, and some has to do just with the overall trend in our culture towards more casual workplaces. For some of us (who work with our hands occasionally), there is a practical reason, just in terms of having to get dirty and / or crawl around under floors etc. And, when you interact with machines all day, but interact with "customers" in person rarely, there's not much of a reason to dress up - the computers don't care what I'm wearing (and those people who work in sales or interact with outside companies frequently do tend to dress up a bit more). And, yes, I do think for some people there is also partially an idea of wanting to be successful because of your talent and ideas, rather than because of the image you project. At the same time, I don't think everyone is trying to make a Mark Zuckerberg statement by wearing casual clothes in their workplace (vs., say, at an investor meeting, where it does seem a little bit over the top).

Just because someone looks like a slob in your estimation, or by the standards of this forum, does not necessarily mean that that person doesn't think about their appearance, or doesn't care about the way they look.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

^^^ Well-stated. All this alluding to some fantasy conspiracy amongst tech types (who often value cars, wine, etc. far more than clothing) is really amusing.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> ^^^ Well-stated. All this alluding to some fantasy conspiracy amongst tech types (who often value cars, wine, etc. far more than clothing) is really amusing.


More techie disinformation from the New World Order. :devil:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> More techie disinformation from the New World Order. :devil:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

will47 said:


> But it's not non-conformism to wear casual clothes when that's what everyone else wears. I do computer stuff for a living, and have worked at startups in the past, and now work at a university. If I wore even a shirt and tie to work, I'd stand out like a sore thumb (and people would ask if I had a job interview). I can't even imagine what people would say if I wore a suit to work.
> 
> Interviews are the same deal - I ask ahead of time, and try to dress approximately the way the person interviewing me is likely to dress. Sometimes that's more informal; sometimes it's closer to business casual. Even Dressing the Man makes the point that being overdressed can be just as bad as being underdressed in certain business situations (like an interview).
> 
> ...


I recognize the point of not being too well dressed.

But the successful because we are talented and have ideas notion, rather than because we project an image, is flawed. Good lawyers are successful because they are talented and have ideas...

The computers don't care, of course, but don't you?

Also, in general, perhaps you would not be ostracized if you dressed in slacks and jacket. Where is that vaunted freedom to be creative, talented etc if you were?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The Borg's catchphrase was shamelessly stolen form the *original* cyborg sci-fi bad-guys the cybermen.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> The Borg's catchphrase was shamelessly stolen form the *original* cyborg sci-fi bad-guys the cybermen.


Indeed. I just thought I'd try to bridge any cross-Atlantic cultural gaps


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Indeed. I just thought I'd try to bridge any cross-Atlantic cultural gaps


 you have been assimilated


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> But the successful because we are talented and have ideas notion, rather than because we project an image, is flawed. Good lawyers are successful because they are talented and have ideas...
> 
> The computers don't care, of course, but don't you?


I do care, and that's what I'm saying -- I think about what I wear -- it's just that what I wear may not be what _you_ think I should wear to work. I understand that not everyone on this forum will like the look that results, but that's a matter of personal preference (and, perhaps, partly a generational and geographical thing as well). But the fact of the matter is that, in fact, I have been successful in my career while wearing t-shirts and jeans, so whatever I am projecting is working well enough for me. My boss and his boss wear button-down shirts a lot of the time, and if I wanted to become a manager, I'd consider "dressing for the position I want" -- as things stand now, I have the position I want.

And, I think you will find that, just as there are slobs in t-shirts and jeans, there are also slobs in polo shirts or suits. Wearing a specific type of clothing doesn't necessarily mean that one does or doesn't think about what one wears. Some people really are the classic computer geek who are pretty slovenly because they are spending their time thinking about things other than what to wear, though I think that stereotype is going away somewhat. That's fine with me -- the person who is good at what they do is the person I want to work with, whether or not they spend a lot of time thinking about their personal appearance.



Bjorn said:


> Also, in general, perhaps you would not be ostracized if you dressed in slacks and jacket. Where is that vaunted freedom to be creative, talented etc if you were?


Aren't _you_ the one who was decrying non-conformism for its own sake earlier in this same thread? Would else would it be but "screaming non-conformism" if I over-dressed for my work. I don't think I'd be ostracized, but I would feel less comfortable, and what purpose would it serve?

I would respect a creative / talented co-worker regardless of what he or she wore to work (within reason), but for my part, I like to be dressed appropriately for the situation, whether that is casual or more dressy. Yes, I could wear nicer clothes, but I don't think it would necessarily project a specific image (nor am I trying to climb some kind of ladder - I'm happy doing the kind of work I am currently doing, and haven't found that my attire is a big factor in my success one way or another -- if anything, showing up for an interview at a start-up in casual dress makes me feel more comfortable in my own skin during the interview, and also gives the company a sense that I fit in with their culture).

While there are times where I wish I have a chance to wear a suit to work, there are times when I'm equally happy to be able to wear shorts and no socks to work, such as when I'm walking to lunch and it's 103 F outside. Perhaps the fact that so much of the computer industry is both centered in, and influenced by California, which is both warmer in climate, and more casual in general, compared to other parts of the US. Here in Los Angeles, things are pretty casual, even outside of the computer industry - you'd be hard-pressed to find a high-end restaurant where a coat and tie are required, and in most, you'd be overdressed. Again, this has both plusses and minuses, but what would going against it be aside from "screaming non-conformism".

In any event, I respect your right to wear whatever you feel is appropriate at your place of work, so I'm not sure why you are so forceful about what I should wear at mine.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

will47 said:


> In any event, I respect your right to wear whatever you feel is appropriate at your place of work, so I'm not sure why you are so forceful about what I should wear at mine.


Again well-stated, *will47*. You'll find that there is a great deal of solid info on this forum re quality clothing, good resources, and other aspects of dressing - which many of us appreciate and from which we've learned much. You'll also find many examples, as you've highlighted above, of those who quaintly prefer to decry shifts in cultural norms, wring their hands, and continue to assume that their often-outdated standards are the only "right" ones, even though a particular region/industry has long since moved on. It's best to just read the posts with amusement, participate when you wish, and recognize that there are many here who would think it "correct" to show up at a Friday beer bust in a frock coat and top hat.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> and recognize that there are many here who would think it "correct" to show up at a Friday beer bust in a frock coat and top hat.


Depends on the time of the day.


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

Anyway, don't get me wrong. Even though this thread is my first post here, I am interested in more traditional menswear, and am looking forward to learning from folks here.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> Again well-stated, *will47*. You'll find that there is a great deal of solid info on this forum re quality clothing, good resources, and other aspects of dressing - which many of us appreciate and from which we've learned much. You'll also find many examples, as you've highlighted above, of those who quaintly prefer to decry shifts in cultural norms, wring their hands, and continue to assume that their often-outdated standards are the only "right" ones, even though a particular region/industry has long since moved on. It's best to just read the posts with amusement, participate when you wish, and recognize that there are many here who would think it "correct" to show up at a Friday beer bust in a frock coat and top hat.


"Moved on" huh?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

will47 said:


> I do care, and that's what I'm saying -- I think about what I wear -- it's just that what I wear may not be what _you_ think I should wear to work. I understand that not everyone on this forum will like the look that results, but that's a matter of personal preference (and, perhaps, partly a generational and geographical thing as well). But the fact of the matter is that, in fact, I have been successful in my career while wearing t-shirts and jeans, so whatever I am projecting is working well enough for me. My boss and his boss wear button-down shirts a lot of the time, and if I wanted to become a manager, I'd consider "dressing for the position I want" -- as things stand now, I have the position I want.
> 
> And, I think you will find that, just as there are slobs in t-shirts and jeans, there are also slobs in polo shirts or suits. Wearing a specific type of clothing doesn't necessarily mean that one does or doesn't think about what one wears. Some people really are the classic computer geek who are pretty slovenly because they are spending their time thinking about things other than what to wear, though I think that stereotype is going away somewhat. That's fine with me -- the person who is good at what they do is the person I want to work with, whether or not they spend a lot of time thinking about their personal appearance.
> 
> ...


You can't have it both ways. As you write above, you don't have a chance to wear a suit to work. Then you would not conform. There's a dress code in the tech sector. Does "within reason" include a suit? You can't both be these wonderfully accepting people who like it when people just show up in their pjs and just get down to work, and at the same time consider whomever shows up wearing a tie strange and overdressed. In that case, you are just as strict about dress as the lawyers, you just dress to a inferior standard. And force other people to dress inferior. You've taken what all society has and needs, a dress code, and modeled for your industry it on what a 16 year old man in the lower social ranks of high school wears, mainly due to what a very confused deconstructionist movement during the 60's and 70's did to menswear. Wow, that was creative! 

Dress has a social context. There is never ever the possibility to consider dress as only up to each person on his own to choose. We can write that we respect the right for other people to wear what they will, but as dress is communication, we really don't. To dress a certain way can be a forceful statement, and someone else may respond forcefully, verbally or otherwise. Only children think there clothes are up to them and only there to please them. This is also the right place to discuss that.

My stab at non-conformism was aimed at the basis of that dress code, to not conform with other superior standards of dress. And I think it likely that we could agree that a standard of dress that includes at a minimum a jacket, dress shirt and dress trousers is technically and aesthetically superior, no? If we know what we are talking about, we can agree as much as that tailored clothing are superior to t shirts and shorts. If we can't, then we shall have to leave this at an impasse.

If there are no dress standards, how can you overdress? If I go into a restaurant with a tie on, I'm never overdressed. I may be better dressed than the rest of the clientele, but that's hardly a problem is it?

Going against the dress standards of California would be several things besides non-conformist. If you look at all the more classical dressing options, or indeed at a more contemporary fashionable British or Italian mode of "classic" dressing, I think you'll find them far superior in every aspect to what you wear today at work. Fit, material, color, style; it makes all the difference. That that is "not allowed" at your place of work is my peeve.

As for weather, I suggest you visit Italy. With the weight in fabrics and open weaves available today, as well as linen (!), heat is not an issue. I also suppose you have AC like the rest of us, in most situations.

There are several reasons to be forceful about what we should wear to work. I'm guessing that if we compare different kinds of cars or computers, you could agree with me some are inferior to others. Apply that to clothing, and I think you will find that the dress code you adhere to is inferior, within the relative "objectivity" that such an appraisal allows (philosophically hermeneutic objectivity I'd like to add though no one may care, but to bring up the subject of objective appraisal on this subject is perhaps a can of worms).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

At will47's job, I would want to at least wear an OCBD and khakis with loafers. I hope to God those aren't prohibited too.


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> You can't have it both ways. As you write above, you don't have a chance to wear a suit to work. Then you would not conform. There's a dress code in the tech sector. Does "within reason" include a suit? You can't both be these wonderfully accepting people who like it when people just show up in their pjs and just get down to work, and at the same time consider whomever shows up wearing a tie strange and overdressed.


I certainly "have a chance" to, and it's not "not allowed". I think people would accept it if I chose to wear a suit to work; it would just be a little bit "screamingly non-conformist", as you yourself put it - an affectation. It's not that my co-workers would think less of my technical skills or respect me less as a co-worker if I chose to show up in a suit every day, it would just be a quirk, and, given that I work in computers and (currently) at a university, there are plenty of quirky people.



Bjorn said:


> And I think it likely that we could agree that a standard of dress that includes at a minimum a jacket, dress shirt and dress trousers is technically and aesthetically superior, no?


I definitely don't agree with that, nor do I think everyone here would agree with that.

In any event, I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but I think this argument has kind of run its course.



Jovan said:


> At will47's job, I would want to at least wear an OCBD and khakis with loafers. I hope to God those aren't prohibited too.


Uh, Ok, let's get things straight. Nothing is "prohibited" (and I don't think a button-down and khakis would look out of place at a university IT department, but in a more casual environment like a tech startup, you'd definitely look like either a marketing person or someone there for an interview / sales call). I could certainly dress up more than I do a lot of the time and still fit in. My main point was, just because someone wears a different type of clothes at work than what you prefer does not necessarily mean that that person doesn't think about their appearance.

And, given a different situation (say a wedding, a nice restaurant, a funeral), I would wear clothing appropriate to that situation.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> And I think it likely that we could agree that a standard of dress that includes at a minimum a jacket, dress shirt and dress trousers is technically and aesthetically superior, no? If we know what we are talking about, we can agree as much as that tailored clothing are superior to t shirts and shorts.





will47 said:


> I definitely don't agree with that, nor do I think everyone here would agree with that.
> 
> In any event, I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but I think this argument has kind of run its course.


You dispute Bjorn's most reasonable premise that tailored clothing is superior to t-shirts and shorts and then, without any recognisable flicker of irony, proceed to muse if *he* is trolling?

Perplexing.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You dispute Bjorn's most reasonable premise that tailored clothing is superior to t-shirts and shorts and then, without any recognisable flicker of irony, proceed to muse if *he* is trolling?
> 
> Perplexing.


Shaver, I think it's just a case of a misunderstanding. Bjorn's posting in the Fashion Forum, and I think will47 intended to post in the Kid's Clothing forum, but mistakenly ended up here.

:devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Balfour said:


> and I think will47 intended to post in the Kid's Clothing forum, but mistakenly ended up here.
> 
> :devil:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Shaver, I think it's just a case of a misunderstanding. Bjorn's posting in the Fashion Forum, and I think will47 intended to post in the Kid's Clothing forum, but mistakenly ended up here.
> 
> :devil:


:icon_cheers:


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

smmrfld said:


> You'll also find many examples, as you've highlighted above, of those who quaintly prefer to decry shifts in cultural norms, wring their hands, and continue to assume that their often-outdated standards are the only "right" ones, even though a particular region/industry has long since moved on. It's best to just read the posts with amusement, participate when you wish, and recognize that there are many here who would think it "correct" to show up at a Friday beer bust in a frock coat and top hat.


Well, the problem is that the cultural norms are lousy, and everyone looks awful. AAAC readers, speaking very generally, would like to see people dress better. Don't expect cultural relativism with regard to dress here.

And unless I was a lifeguard I would be very uncomfortable with shorts and no socks(!) in the workplace. Ugh.


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

This thread hits me the same manner as PETA's attempts to promote vegetarianism. There's is this belief in some great "truth" that, if people could just see it, would completely change their view. It's having about the same impact on me as well. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how the human mind works and that you have no interest in any views but your own. I may as well have joined a political forum.

I'm happy and thankful for the the information I've learned about dressing in this manner, but this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me want to disassociate with it. All you are doing is strengthening the connection between nice clothes and a poor attitude.

So keep it up. Continue to put down those people who are curious or are looking for a change. Let's see how many converts you get to your grand campaign. I imagine the AAAC rolls will blossom any day now.

There will probably be a comment about my thin skin or something of that nature, but it's really a matter of disappointment. I'm not sure if participants realize how pervasive this tone is on the board. That's perfectly fine if that's what you want, but it seems to me to sacrifice the big picture for some small-minded immediate satisfaction. Aren't will47, srmd22, and myself-guys who probably weren't raised in this environment-a major target audience? At least we should be, if you want your chosen style of dress to stop shrinking and expand beyond your microcosm. Do you even recognize you are alienating the very people you are wishing would "see the light"? Speaking of which:



Balfour said:


> Shaver, I think it's just a case of a misunderstanding. Bjorn's posting in the Fashion Forum, and I think will47 intended to post in the Kid's Clothing forum, but mistakenly ended up here.
> 
> :devil:


So we shouldn't even try to explain some of the thought process behind this for some of us? Mind you, that's all I was trying to do-not promote it. Ok. Those of you who feel that way can preach the word to each other and happily nod as your little clique marvels at how much better you are than everyone else.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mox said:


> This thread hits me the same manner as PETA's attempts to promote vegetarianism. There's is this belief in some great "truth" that, if people could just see it, would completely change their view. It's having about the same impact on me as well. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how the human mind works and that you have no interest in any views but your own. I may as well have joined a political forum.
> 
> I'm happy and thankful for the the information I've learned about dressing in this manner, but this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me want to disassociate with it. All you are doing is strengthening the connection between nice clothes and a poor attitude.
> 
> ...


Mox it depresses me that you feel this way. I hope that where I have responded to your posts I have done so with consideration and without piety. Some other posters have taken a little flak to their obdurate opinions but surely that is product of the human mind which you avow people must understand?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mox said:


> This thread hits me the same manner as PETA's attempts to promote vegetarianism. There's is this belief in some great "truth" that, if people could just see it, would completely change their view. It's having about the same impact on me as well. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how the human mind works and that you have no interest in any views but your own. I may as well have joined a political forum.
> 
> I'm happy and thankful for the the information I've learned about dressing in this manner, but this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me want to disassociate with it. All you are doing is strengthening the connection between nice clothes and a poor attitude.
> 
> ...


This is not a marketing campaign for stricter dress codes, it's a debate on the merits of a stricter dress codes. You can't really expect to go into that and have the view that you should simply have your opinions validated. If we really thought that dress codes really don't matter, that a business sector adopting really slack dress code don't matter, that traditional modes of dress really don't matter, and that clothes are simply a matter of personal expression, then I expect we would say so.

I have tried to address the opinions and views expressed above, from my point of view. I wasn't really aware there was a connection between nice clothes and a bad attitude. You are free to argue in favor of that.

Also: you can go into a street wear forum and argue the merits of different t shirts, or the Rolex forum and argue different models of submariners, or the John Deere forum and discuss tractors. But if you go into the Rolex forum and simply state that Seikos tell the time just as well and are worn by more people, and thereby should be an acceptable substitute, people will have an opposing view. And we have A LOT more going for us regarding the superiority of tailored clothing (by which I in this context mean, mainly, jackets and trousers, but also dress shirts, ties and proper shoes) than the Rolex crowd have against the Seikos.

Picture this: the OP posts, the people post who are saying that a very lax clothing standard is in fact appropriate in tech, and it's democratizing, generally stands for an open and creative environment, is only a concern for the person dressing him/herself, that if people don't like that a person dresses very casually for any event, they are at fault and should generally work to better themselves. Then no one else posts. Would that have been better?

As for putting people down, all that I'm doing, is debating dress codes, what they mean, what they should or should not do. A variety of arguments can be presented either way. Sometimes, quite often, we do things out of habit or convention that does not bear up to scrutiny. In that case, we can change our behavior.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Balfour said:


> Shaver, I think it's just a case of a misunderstanding. Bjorn's posting in the Fashion Forum, and I think will47 intended to post in the Kid's Clothing forum, but mistakenly ended up here.
> 
> :devil:


Wow, that's a nice welcome to a new forum member who thoughtfully expressed his opinion on this topic. I've been around this forum long enough (much longer than either of you) to expect this sort of nonsense, but you really should be ashamed of mocking someone new here; it certainly doesn't help you make your case.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

It's a shame we are all falling out, as there really is some useful and thought provoking content in this thread and valid points made by both sides.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Wow, that's a nice welcome to a new forum member who thoughtfully expressed his opinion on this topic. I've been around this forum long enough (much longer than either of you) to expect this sort of nonsense, but you really should be ashamed of mocking someone new here; it certainly doesn't help you make your case.


Mr Balfour can of course speak for himself, and quite eloquently occasionally :icon_smile_wink:, thus I will allow him latitude to do so, should he choose.

What I will say though, and simply because I employed the 'cheering' avatar in support of his witticism, is this - please do not disregard the fact that the new member after choosing to dispute Bjorn's most reasonable premise (that tailored clothing is superior to t-shirts and ) next proceeded to 'thoughtfully express his opinion' that Bjorn may be trolling.

The welcome was perhaps not to your taste but what of the new member's inaugaral proclamations?


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Mr Balfour can of course speak for himself, and quite eloquently occasionally :icon_smile_wink:, thus I will allow him latitude to do so, should he choose.
> 
> What I will say though, and simply because I employed the 'cheering' avatar in support of his witticism, is this - please do not disregard the fact that the new member after choosing to dispute Bjorn's most reasonable premise (that tailored clothing is superior to t-shirts and ) next proceeded to 'thoughtfully express his opinion' that Bjorn may be trolling.


I was suggesting that he's trolling partially because of the vehemence of his proclamations, and partially because he expressed the belief that we can all agree that a particular type of clothing is inherently superior (is it really possible to get any Internet forum to agree on _anything_ at all?). On top of that, on page 3, it seems as if he tried to compare casual dress with communism / socialism (which is a completely ridiculous and illogical comparison). I am not at all surprised that many people here hold the view that tailored clothing is superior, nor am I trying to change the mind of anyone who holds that view -- I just don't think it's a given that _everyone_ here can agree with that point of view, even, perhaps, some folks who do wear pretty conservative clothing to work.

Just because one is interested in tailored clothing does not mean that one believes it's the best thing to wear at all times and all places. And, I think it's hard not to see that cultural norms and mores, as well as tradition, are important - we don't dress in a vacuum, but rather, dress as is appropriate for a given situation. Further, I don't think there is a universal set of shared aesthetic standards. You prefer this, I prefer that. A well made dinner suit may be aesthetically pleasing compared to a pair of cargo shorts, but most people still wouldn't wear the dinner suit to their office job at 10 AM - wrong time, wrong place. Now, part of the debate here may have to do with whether you're a descriptivist or a prescriptivist, but I personally believe that context is just as important as "rules" - you may not feel that certain clothing is appropriate for an office, but if that's the clothing that most people are wearing at said office, well, from some points of view, that is the clothing that is appropriate.

My other main point was that I don't think that people in these sorts of environments only dress in a casual way because they think it is more democratic, or because of any sort of political agenda (whether democratic or socialist). Some people just dress that way because it's their preference, because it's how others around them are dressing, because they find it more comfortable, because they bike to work and don't have a shower available, or any number of other reasons. I do think that those of us in technical professions perhaps do value practicality more than folks in other lines of work.

One thing that's a bit different about the "new dress code" is that it's not a dress code - most of the kind of places we're talking about don't have a dress code, which means it's actually more on you to determine what's appropriate for a given situation. The plus is that you have a certain degree of flexibility; the minus is that the standard is a little less clearly defined than a dress code saying "you must wear X, Y, and Z".


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

will47 said:


> I was suggesting that he's trolling partially because of the vehemence of his proclamations, and partially because he expressed the belief that we can all agree that a particular type of clothing is inherently superior (is it really possible to get any Internet forum to agree on _anything_ at all?). On top of that, on page 3, he actually tried to compare casual dress with communism (which is a completely ridiculous and illogical comparison). I am not at all surprised that many people here hold the view that tailored clothing is superior -- I just don't think it's a given that _everyone_ here can agree with that point of view, even, perhaps, some folks who do wear pretty conservative clothing to work.


I've said it before and I'll say it again - _can we stop accusing each other of trolling ?! 
_
Why would Bjorn bother to write 1877 posts on this forum if he was nothing more than a troll? He's not selling anything is he? And it's hardly going to bring ruin to a forum devoted to fine men's clothing to extol the virtues of fine men's clothing. So why would he be a troll ?

Does 'troll' just mean someone you don't like or don't agree with?

Seriously, it would be better all round if the trolling accusations could just cease.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

will47 said:


> I do think that those of us in technical professions perhaps do value practicality more than folks in other lines of work.


I wear a suit most days to work in part because it is so practical. I'm a lawyer, and may get called to court unexpectedly; khaki pants and a golf/polo shirt would be most impractical for my goal of not being b!tched out by a judge. More frequently, a client may have an unanticipated need of my presence. If the client's workplace is very casual, then I can always ditch the jacket and tie; if I (bought and then) wore a hoodie to work, there's nothing I can do to dress it up for a dressier client and I am screwed.

The truth is that any desk job will accomodate a wide variety of clothing. With no dangerous high-speed equipment to grab my tie, a profusion of pockets in my jackets (and vests in cooler weather), and the ability to regulate my temperature by donning or doffing layers, my suit-and-tie rig is at least as practical as about anything else.

As for aesthetics, _de gustibus non est disputandum _and all that, but I think most men would agree that an outfit that makes their shoulders look slightly larger and squarer while making their waists look slightly smaller is preferable. And that's what good tailored clothes can do. T-shirts and jeans cannot.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> ....but I think most men would agree that an outfit that makes their shoulders look slightly larger and squarer while making their waists look slightly smaller is preferable. And that's what good tailored clothes can do. T-shirts and jeans cannot.


Ultimately this is the point.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again - _can we stop accusing each other of trolling ?!
> _
> Why would Bjorn bother to write 1877 posts on this forum if he was nothing more than a troll? He's not selling anything is he? And it's hardly going to bring ruin to a forum devoted to fine men's clothing to extol the virtues of fine men's clothing. So why would he be a troll ?
> 
> ...


Indeed. Must we be reminded again of Shaver's Law?  The unscrupulous invocation of the term 'troll' to discredit a member with whom one disagrees, or actively dislikes.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Wow, that's a nice welcome to a new forum member who thoughtfully expressed his opinion on this topic. I've been around this forum long enough (much longer than either of you) to expect this sort of nonsense, but you really should be ashamed of mocking someone new here; it certainly doesn't help you make your case.


LOL. Your 'thoughtfully expressive new member' accused a long-standing, eloquent and knowledgeable member of trolling and hence held himself up to satire.

You flatter yourself, though, if you think I'm trying to make a case to you. Not worth the powder and shot!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mox said:


> This thread hits me the same manner as PETA's attempts to promote vegetarianism. There's is this belief in some great "truth" that, if people could just see it, would completely change their view. It's having about the same impact on me as well. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how the human mind works and that you have no interest in any views but your own. I may as well have joined a political forum.
> 
> I'm happy and thankful for the the information I've learned about dressing in this manner, but this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me want to disassociate with it. All you are doing is strengthening the connection between nice clothes and a poor attitude.
> 
> ...


You are somewhat contrarian, aren't you Mox? You strike me as the sort who turns up at a site devoted to debating the merits of classical music and complains that the posts about thrash metal get shouted down. Why do you flatter yourself to think that it is the duty of members of this forum to validate you as a human being or 'convert' you to certain standards of dress? It's your right to dress like a kid if you want and my right to regard that as an immature choice.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Balfour said:


> LOL. Your 'thoughtfully expressive new member' accused a long-standing, eloquent and knowledgeable member of trolling and hence held himself up to satire.
> 
> You flatter yourself, though, if you think I'm trying to make a case to you. Not worth the powder and shot!


You would indeed be familiar with being held up to satire, and apparently you're not a real quick learner. Just recently you took on yet another new member (who came to this site asking advice before he introduced the President) by erroneously accusing him of being a fraud. How'd that work out for you?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Speaking of the kid's forum, this thread is getting tiresome and reminds me of the fights my kids get into. Daddy, he called me stupid! No, he called me stupid first....

Meanwhile, I realized today that the IT guy at my work with whom I frequently have to deal has a wardrobe that's entirely interchangeable with that of my 6-yr old son, setting aside the size difference. Think graphic tees and sweatshirts, all pretty much stolen from my son's collection, metaphorically speaking. It's an odd choice for a work place, although I'm inclined to think it a positive thing that no one really cares. But what I can't help but wonder is if dressing that way has become something of a uniform given that it's practically a cliche for someone in IT. Is dressing like a child the new equivalent of wearing, say, a workman's smock?


----------



## AlexS (May 20, 2012)

The tech industry generally values results. You earn respect from your work, not what you wear. What you wear is generally considered unimportant and secondary. Despite all wise cracks about dressing up like children, I believe that enforcing a strict dress code is detrimental to any non-sales industry.

That said, I agree that dressing well is an admirable trait.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

No one said anything about a strict dress code. And if he worked behind closed doors it would be one thing, but when an IT man works where the rest of us can see him it would be helpful to be able to distinguish him from the sanitation worker.


----------



## AlexS (May 20, 2012)

I would much prefer a poorly dressed but highly skilled coworker who does an excellent job to one that dresses exceptionally well and is incompetent.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

[/QUOTE]


AlexS said:


> The tech industry generally values results. You earn respect from your work, not what you wear. What you wear is generally considered unimportant and secondary.


Well I would expect _all_ industries would value results, excluding the American domestic auto industry:devil:.



AlexS said:


> Despite all wise cracks about dressing up like children, I believe that enforcing a strict dress code is detrimental to any non-sales industry.


Even in the sales business whenever I see a strict dress code my mind conjures up images of Best Buy stores, Walmart, or Century 21 Realty; it's the bugle call of pushy sales people and poor quality. Am I alone in that illusion?



AlexS said:


> That said, I agree that dressing well is an admirable trait.


Agreed. As I posted previously, whenever I think of the best staff I have or had, say the top 10 or so, I realize none of them would be considered a much better than average dresser*, and over the years I have managed some 300 or so folks. I might add that the very best dressers were seldom top drawer performers and that while inappropriate dress would exclude you from my successful interviewee club, neither would excellent attire influence your acceptance.

_*I shudder to think of where I might land on my own list..._


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> No one said anything about a strict dress code. And if he worked behind closed doors it would be one thing, but when an *IT man* works where the rest of us can see him it would be helpful to be able to distinguish him from the *sanitation worker*.


I bet very often the IT man's job can almost be as filthy as the sanitation worker's job. Like when he's got to go crawling under your desk, in all the dirt and muck, fixing your PC, chasing and running cables through ducts and under floors, etc.

Probably not the best places to be wearing a nice white shirt and expensive suit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

MikeDT: A shirt and khakis are machine washable.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

will47 said:


> Nothing is "prohibited"


According to the OP, there are prohibitions.


> My main point was, just because someone wears a different type of clothes at work than what you prefer does not necessarily mean that that person doesn't think about their appearance.


This is true.


jeffdeist said:


> AAAC readers, speaking very generally, would like to see people dress better. Don't expect cultural relativism with regard to dress here.


 No, indeed!


will47 said:


> . Further, I don't think there is a universal set of shared aesthetic standards. You prefer this, I prefer that.


 This makes nonsense of any aesthetic discussion.


> ...I personally believe that context is just as important as "rules" - you may not feel that certain clothing is appropriate for an office, but if that's the clothing that most people are wearing at said office, well, from some points of view, that is the clothing that is appropriate.


 Appropriateness and aesthetics are not the same thing; and aesthetic judgments don't depend on numbers.


> ....I don't think that people in these sorts of environments only dress in a casual way because they think it is more democratic, or because of any sort of political agenda..


I am quite sure that some do, because they say so; but I don't believe that there is any necessary correlation between political ideas and stylistic preference. 


> One thing that's a bit different about the "new dress code" is that it's not a dress code - most of the kind of places we're talking about don't have a dress code...code saying "you must wear X, Y, and Z".


I'm sorry, but there IS; see the OP and my first sentence.


----------



## k2000k (Oct 16, 2012)

AlexS said:


> The tech industry generally values results. You earn respect from your work, not what you wear. What you wear is generally considered unimportant and secondary. Despite all wise cracks about dressing up like children, I believe that enforcing a strict dress code is detrimental to any non-sales industry.
> 
> That said, I agree that dressing well is an admirable trait.


I'd say every industry is values with results and while the it sounds nice to say they are respected for their work and not what they wear; the all to real truth is that the most skilled programmers are often overlooked by those that can play the system. It is the same in every industry. That being said, technical fields have always had the image of being hapazardly dressed. I think it was once remarked that Thomas Edison was a very slovenly dresser.

The OP could very well wear nicer clothing if he so desired. He just needs to carry himself the right way and be ready to recieve a little flak. The best way to handle it is with a little good natured self depreciating humor. Haughtiness or witty retorts, which may be catharthic in the short term, do nothing to remove the negative image some have with dressing in a suit and tie as classist. I should know I work in the construction industry, populated by men who have to wear t-shirts and jeans for a living, and humor has always served me well.


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

williamson said:


> According to the OP, there are prohibitions.


Yes, but you're taking my quote out of context. I was replying to this quote:


Jovan said:


> At will47's job, I would want to at least wear an OCBD and khakis with loafers. I hope to God those aren't prohibited too.


So, they were talking about _my_ work, not the OP's friend's work.

Though, I kind of took the original post to mean that that's what people wore there, not that there was an explicit policy prohibiting jackets and ties. I can't speak for the OP's friend (maybe they can clarify), but in terms of general industry trends, I have worked at and visited some pretty casual companies, but I have never seen one that had a formal policy requiring its workers to wear jeans or prohibiting them from wearing a jacket and tie. It's possible that such a policy exists, but I don't think it's a common practice, and if it does exist, my guess is that it's tongue and cheek more than anything else -- I doubt HR is going to come calling if you show up to work in a suit.

My wife's work [a small tech startup] has kind of the opposite of casual Fridays, where you have to either dress up or work from home.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

AlexS said:


> I believe that enforcing a strict dress code is detrimental to any non-sales industry.


Beliefs are nice. Emprical evidence is better: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/clothes-and-self-perception.html?_r=0


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> You would indeed be familiar with being held up to satire, and apparently you're not a real quick learner. Just recently you took on yet another new member (who came to this site asking advice before he introduced the President) by erroneously accusing him of being a fraud. How'd that work out for you?









.....


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

will47 said:


> My wife's work [a small tech startup] has kind of the opposite of casual Fridays, where you have to either dress up or work from home.


This I really don't get. Formal Fridays?

I understand (although disagree with) casual dress codes.

I understand casual dress codes, with higher standards being stipulated for external meetings, meetings with the top brass, etc.

I sort of understand a formal dress code with a day off (i.e. casual Friday), as a concession to those who seem to struggle with the idea of wearing a suit every day (or, more charitably, like the variety that casual Friday offers to deploy some odd jackets, etc.)

But if you're running a company and you don't care about maintaining a dress code for most of the week, it seems perverse to require people to dress up one day of the week, regardless of whether they are meeting clients or have any cause to dress up.

Have to work from home?! I won't even comment on that!


----------



## will47 (Oct 13, 2012)

Balfour said:


> This I really don't get. Formal Fridays?
> [...]
> But if you're running a company and you don't care about maintaining a dress code for most of the week, it seems perverse to require people to dress up one day of the week, regardless of whether they are meeting clients or have any cause to dress up.


I think they call it "Big Wednesday" ("go big or work from home".). It's just a fun, jokey thing, and I don't think folks are frequently actually sent home, even if they wear, say, a tie over a hoodie. But I think people also really enjoy it, and it gives them a chance to wear things they wouldn't otherwise wear to work, and some folks actually look pretty sharp. I don't think it was initiated from the top down, nor is it any kind of formal policy -- just an idea that one employee came up with and everyone went along with.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ Much better on that basis, rather than a top-down edict!


----------



## questioner (Jul 25, 2012)

Difficult to ask techies leave their attires, but at least they should strive to dress it up.
So Mark Zuckerberg should read this:

https://www.wasabinights.com/wasabi...rom-esquires-worst-dressed-hall-of-shame.html


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

johnpark11 said:


> Let them dress like idiots. More ladies for us!


eeerrr...have you been out to pubs and clubs recently? The ladies don't go for the jacket & tie brigade.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Balfour said:


> Formal Fridays


I do that on my own at my job simply to make the point that half our workforce dress like schlubs all the time!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

will47 said:


> Yes, but you're taking my quote out of context. I was replying to this quote:
> 
> So, they were talking about _my_ work, not the OP's friend's work.
> 
> ...


Forgive me, I think I confused you and the OP.


----------



## AlexS (May 20, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Beliefs are nice. Emprical evidence is better: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/clothes-and-self-perception.html?_r=0


Thanks, that's an interesting study and I agree that dressing well can influence behavior. However, whether or not this effect would be measurable in a more realistic non-laboratory setting is highly uncertain and questionable.

Let's consider an employee dressing poorly by your whatever standards you'd like. Many here seem to view as a wholly selfish act, where this individual is inconsiderate to others who must observe them. That's one perspective. A different one is that this employee is focused on his craft and performing excellently, even if that means at the expense of their attire. Like most things, dressing nicely takes time and some choose to sacrifice this time for their work. In many contexts we've been discussing, I'm not sure that they are making the wrong tradeoff.


----------



## k2000k (Oct 16, 2012)

Balfour said:


> This I really don't get. Formal Fridays?
> 
> I understand (although disagree with) casual dress codes.
> 
> ...


While my company doesn't formally institute formal friday, a couple of the young guys at the office I worked at instituted 'fresh friday', fresh being that you wore a tie and a sports coat at the minimum, ideally a suit. I think the idea of formal fridays results from the fact that people dress casually all the time now. People like looking nice and I think there are small cracks in the image that suits are stuffy, uncomfortable, and a symbol of corporate conformity.

Who knows, maybe in the future we will mark the the phenomena known as formal fridays as the advent of a new generation of dressing well in the workplace. But that could also be over optimistic.



> Let's consider an employee dressing poorly by your whatever standards you'd like. Many here seem to view as a wholly selfish act, where this individual is inconsiderate to others who must observe them. That's one perspective. A different one is that this employee is focused on his craft and performing excellently, even if that means at the expense of their attire. Like most things, dressing nicely takes time and some choose to sacrifice this time for their work. In many contexts we've been discussing, I'm not sure that they are making the wrong tradeoff.


If this were 50 years ago I would be inclined to agree. However, we live in an era were dressing professionally is just wearing a tucked in button down shirt and slacks, yet even in office settings individuals still show up in pretty slovenly attire. Living in Seattle I know many individuals who work in IT and programming and the whole comfort thing or that the are too busy with their work doesn't fly with me considering that it is ridiculously easy to be well, or even professionally, dressed now a days relative to the rest of the population.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

AlexS said:


> A different one is that this employee is focused on his craft and performing excellently, even if that means at the expense of their attire. Like most things, dressing nicely takes time and some choose to sacrifice this time for their work. In many contexts we've been discussing, I'm not sure that they are making the wrong tradeoff.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that dressing nicely for work must be done by diverting time and energy from work. This same assumption would lead an employer to hire the most boring, interest-free, family-free drones possible. In some circumstances that might work, but in many others it would be a grotesque failure; in neither case would I want to work in such an environment.

More directly, I have had the privilege to know and work with a number of people who are great at their jobs. Not good. Not good within the organization. GREAT. Some of the very best in the world, with not a single person on the planet clearly better. I've been very lucky in that regard. Many of those people also happen to be excellent dressers. Coincidence? Perhaps, since there are some who are merely passable dressers.

But perhaps expecting excellence of ourselves in anything we do - and certainly anything we do on a daily basis - is not a bad mindset. I make my money as a lawyer, and I strive for excellence in that field. But there are a lot of other things that I do. I try to do all of them at least well. When I find myself bad at something, I either avoid it entirely (impossible to do with dressing), or tend to get obsessive about it until I'm at least passable. I understand that not everyone shares that view. That's OK. I don't have to consider everyone a kindred spirit.

So my own experience - the evidence that I have seen around me - leads me to utterly reject your premise as false. That's not the way the world works. Instead, I conclude that those who dress poorly, like those who dress well, are using their clothes as a communicative medium.

Wearing a t-shirt and jeans to work communicates something. What it communicates varies from context to context. In my office, it communicates one of two things: "I am in the office on a weekend," or "I do not wish to remain employed here." A lot of other places, it just communicates "I'm not ready to be a grown-up yet." Other times, it communicates "I have a problem with someone in charge, or society in general, but I'm too conflict-averse to actually have a discussion about what is bothering me." Sometimes it communicates "my work requires me to get sweaty and dirty and I don't have much money, so I don't want to spend good money on clothes that will get dirty." And sometimes it just communicates, "I'm just trying to fit in like a good conformist."

In short, dress well or don't. Understand that either choice says something. The message you intend to send may be different than the one understood. You have to live with that understanding regardless.


----------



## AlexS (May 20, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> But perhaps expecting excellence of ourselves in anything we do - and certainly anything we do on a daily basis - is not a bad mindset.
> ...
> So my own experience - the evidence that I have seen around me - leads me to utterly reject your premise as false. That's not the way the world works. Instead, I conclude that those who dress poorly, like those who dress well, are using their clothes as a communicative medium.


Thank you kindly for sharing your interesting and illuminating experience.


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

Purely as an intellectual exercise, I would note that if one runs into poorly dressed workers who seem on average more competent than the well dressed ones, this would in fact be evidence that dressing well or more formally matters. After all it suggests that all else equal the well dressed would be more likely to be hired or not fired thus raising the average quality of those who survive but dress poorly. (I will not bore you further with esoteric discussions of pooling vs separating equilibria.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> You seem to be operating under the assumption that dressing nicely for work must be done by diverting time and energy from work. This same assumption would lead an employer to hire the most boring, interest-free, family-free drones possible. In some circumstances that might work, but in many others it would be a grotesque failure; in neither case would I want to work in such an environment.
> 
> More directly, I have had the privilege to know and work with a number of people who are great at their jobs. Not good. Not good within the organization. GREAT. Some of the very best in the world, with not a single person on the planet clearly better. I've been very lucky in that regard. Many of those people also happen to be excellent dressers. Coincidence? Perhaps, since there are some who are merely passable dressers.
> 
> ...


 :thumbs-up:

We should just remember to re-post this masterful response anytime the subject comes up again. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> :thumbs-up:
> 
> We should just remember to re-post this masterful response anytime the subject comes up again. :icon_smile_wink:


Indeed.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Indeed.


Quite. It pretty much sums up all that needs to be said on the subject, more eloquently and succinctly than I could have managed.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> You seem to be operating under the assumption that dressing nicely for work must be done by diverting time and energy from work. This same assumption would lead an employer to hire the most boring, interest-free, family-free drones possible. In some circumstances that might work, but in many others it would be a grotesque failure; in neither case would I want to work in such an environment.
> 
> More directly, I have had the privilege to know and work with a number of people who are great at their jobs. Not good. Not good within the organization. GREAT. Some of the very best in the world, with not a single person on the planet clearly better. I've been very lucky in that regard. Many of those people also happen to be excellent dressers. Coincidence? Perhaps, since there are some who are merely passable dressers.
> 
> ...


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> Shaver, I believe your original analysis is correct. I would add that it's possible that there is insufficient closet space in their parent's basement for a suitable wardrobe. But I will assure you that for all the ragamuffins and man-boys busy coding and surfing the web, there is a guy in a suit bringing bringing in the work.


Nope.


----------



## Persephone (Jul 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ahh, is that which dress code it is? I really need to get a better handle on these new-fangled sub-cultures.
> 
> In my lamentable ignorance I had previously believed that this modality of dress was a signifier of an boy/man suffering from acute (albeit sometimes latent) feelings of inadequacy thus bereft of any ability which would allow them to to compete in reasonable social situations. Moreover a cove with extremely limited knowledge of ladies and consequently (how can I put this delicately?) an especial 'familiarity' with himself. A fellow who might prefer to while away the long hours playing Call of Duty rather than, say, interacting with the actual world outside (presumably for fear of exposing underdeveloped social skills - which, let's face it, are decidedly not going to improve in a darkened room diddling with a PS3).
> 
> ...


Thank you! Thank you so much for brightening my day. I laughed so hard at this spot-on analysis that I had tears streaming down my face, and every time I think about your apt description I have to smile. I have seldom read such a witty, tongue-in-cheek characterisation of the technology generation. I encountered several representatives last week at a masquerade dance (dress code was black tie) where a whole group of them showed up dressed in black jeans (!), and spent the remainder of the evening huddled in a corner, clutching an alcoholic beverage despite an abundance of single ladies.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Persephone said:


> Thank you! Thank you so much for brightening my day. I laughed so hard at this spot-on analysis that I had tears streaming down my face, and every time I think about your apt description I have to smile. I have seldom read such a witty, tongue-in-cheek characterisation of the technology generation. I encountered several representatives last week at a masquerade dance (dress code was black tie) where a whole group of them showed up dressed in black jeans (!), and spent the remainder of the evening huddled in a corner, clutching an alcoholic beverage despite an abundance of single ladies.


'twas my pleasure madam. We dont appear to have an emoticon for a 'deep bow' but, if we did, it could be inserted here.


----------

