Hugh Morrison

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
quote:Originally posted by montecristo

October 18, 1964.

You may jest, but in a thread a while back called 'when did it all go wrong?' there was a lot of discussion to pin down the Slob Revolution to an actual date.

Whilst the Revolution had its roots in WWII or earlier, the consensus seemed to be that the tipping point into Slobdom (or the 'Storming of the Winter Palace' if you know your history) was the late summer/early autumn of 1967.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690
 

mbouvill

New Member
quote:Originally posted by Old Brompton

IMHO, the cause is egalitarianism, the stupid obsession with equality.
The point of wearing a tuxedo is that everybody looks about the same. So they too are part of this "stupid obsession with equality". Same for private school uniforms.
What you say applies whenever everybody dresses the same (military/school uniforms, suits, jeans+Tshirts).
 

Mr. Di Liberti

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
quote:Originally posted by mbouvill

The point of wearing a tuxedo is that everybody looks about the same. So they too are part of this "stupid obsession with equality". Same for private school uniforms.
What you say applies whenever everybody dresses the same (military/school uniforms, suits, jeans+Tshirts).
I thought the reason for wearing a Dinner Suit (Tux [xx(]), was more to the point of looking one's best, Dressing for the event, showing respect for ones companions, and unless I've been misadvised, this has little to do with looking the same or egalitarianism.

From what I've read, was a time when none but the upper crust could afford to own a dinner suit, nor did they have need for such as the likelihood of being asked to attend such an event was rare.

In the realm of designer and bespoke finery, all suits and dinner suits do not look the same.

Uniforms on the other hand, are prescribed to impose rule and order, military, police and school uniforms serve to bring equity among the rank's, there's no telling rich from poor, and are often a symbol of authority.

To this day I remember my first day in basic, Master Chief addressing the ranks;

"From this day forward... You are no longer, White or Yellow or Black or Red... From this day forward you are all Blue... Through and through! NOW! Line up! Dark blue in the rears light blue in the front!

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt
 

Coolidge24

Super Member
quote:Originally posted by Hugh Morrison


Whilst the Revolution had its roots in WWII or earlier, the consensus seemed to be that the tipping point into Slobdom (or the 'Storming of the Winter Palace' if you know your history) was the late summer/early autumn of 1967.
My dad graduated Vermont in spring 1967, a tweed wearing, pipe-smoking, XK140 driving moderate Republican biology major. He went to British Africa (Kenya, Upper Volta, Basutoland) in the Peace Corps for two years. When he came back in fall of 1969 and visited UVM, he could not believe the changes. Now UVM has the reputation of being a hippie school. I think late summer/early autumn 1967 is right on.
 

Albert

Super Member
I would assign the sartorial decline to a general breakdown of discipline and education levels. Society has become decadent.

Every decade has its own dress codes, resembling the prevalent values in society. Currently, the most important ones are cheap consumption and hedonism. This is perfectly reflected in commonly worn attire.

I don't believe in the turnaround. There is no way to re-install discipline and civility in society.


A.
 

Brideshead

Senior Member
quote:Originally posted by Albert

I would assign the sartorial decline to a general breakdown of discipline and education levels. Society has become decadent.

Every decade has its own dress codes, resembling the prevalent values in society. Currently, the most important ones are cheap consumption and hedonism. This is perfectly reflected in commonly worn attire.

I don't believe in the turnaround. There is no way to re-install discipline and civility in society.


A.
Nor do I believe in it. There may have been 'step changes' as in 1967, but the general trend has been going on for at least 100 years. See my earlier posts.
 

mensimageconsultant

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
quote:Originally posted by Rich

Here are a few things that come to mind, in no particular order:

The primacy of comfort and convenience over appearance.
The primacy of cheapness over durability.
The right to look slovenly, now asserted as a democratic freedom.
Dumbing down - the reluctance of the elites to set an example.
The purchase of non-adult clothing for men by women who like them to look juvenile.
The replacement, by family retail outlets, of traditional menswear stores manned by expert staff.
A less cohesive society in which people don't care about how they appear to others.
Of all the answers, yours is the most comprehensive. The only notable factor not mentioned in it or other replies is the increasing concentration of the population in warmer locales.

To expand on the "convenience" factor, there is a certain lack of free time that makes people willing to buy often low-quality clothes while they are at the mall or Wal-mart and not want to wear pieces that require dry-cleaning.

Also, since men are buying more and more of their own clothes, women dressing their men badly is becoming less of an issue. The flip side is that, in conjunction with less helpful retail establishments, many of those men would be better off dressed by women than dressed by themselves.
 

Rich

Super Member
quote:Originally posted by Hugh Morrison

quote:Originally posted by montecristo

October 18, 1964.

You may jest, but in a thread a while back called 'when did it all go wrong?' there was a lot of discussion to pin down the Slob Revolution to an actual date.
I don't know about the Slob Revolution, but in Philp Larkin's immortal words:

Sexual intercourse began
in nineteen sixty-three
(Which was rather late for me)
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

Was that when the rot started to set in?
 

Patrick06790

Connoisseur
All good replies, but...

The Lizard People have been quietly advancing the Reptilian Agenda for about 5,000 years, and only in the post-war era did mankind obtain enough technological savvy to actually be physically aware they were not alone. (See the post-war spike in UFO sightings and claims of abductions and reports of phenomena such as zombie outbreaks, lycanthropism, and vampirism - explanations of Reptilian activities, fueled by popular fiction and films.)

Slobism is part of the new Pacification Project. The way the Lizard People figure it, you get humanity weighed down with enough junk food, wearing poorly-made clothes that try and fail to disguise the result of the junk food, and blast the slobs' brains with video games, and before you know it songs about pimps win major awards, the vice-president's gunning down his friends in a hate-filled, beery rage, and the G-Men are handing over the keys to the country to swarthy men in burnooses...

And everybody's forgotten about the Lizard People.

From my bunker, I salute you, the few, the remaining, the warm-blooded, the pocket squared...

Selah.
 

arenn

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
quote:Originally posted by Trenditional

I believe the root cause is laziness and rearing. In general we have become a lazy society, especially the generations born post 1975-1980. The “Gen Y†and to some extent “Gen X’rs†have not had to work for anything. For a few of us “X’rs†who were raised by older parents, we are lucky and were taught some values. There is an overall lack of self-respect which I believe carries over to how people present themselves. Additionally, for every father who doesn’t teach his son values, personal pride and responsibility for their actions, those same lack of values grow stronger with the son’s sons.
I don't think that the Gen X/Y crowd is lazy. Rather, they figured out that in the modern economic world, you had better be in it for yourself (in an enlighted self-interest sense, of course) because you can believe your company is in business for itself (that is, its shareholders). Lack of loyalty and dedication cuts both ways. Notwisthstanding, I work in an industry which is notorious for long hours. There are many people in my company who work 70-80+ per week for long stretchs, almost all of them Gen X/Y.

If any generations can be looked at critically, I believe it is the "Greatest Generation" on through the boomers. These groups of people were the "greatest" at signing "social contracts" with themselves that promised them vast personal financial benefits and a leisurely retirement heretofore unknown while sticking their children and grandchildren (ie. Gen X and Y) with the tab, not to mention awful dressing.
 

mgnov

New Member
The idea is entirely blasphemous to me, but I'm surprised someone hasn't started a thread called "What would Jesus wear?" If you think about it, did Jesus wear the clothing of the well-dressed individual brought up in upper-class Greco-Roman culture, or did he dress simply? I have no factual answer for that. My point is, we can look at a person and think, "That guy's a slob," but really isn't that just a failure on our part to see past the image? I appreciate a person who dresses well; on the other hand, I'm not able to make a value judgment of someone based merely upon one aspect of his life.

I would also add that if we are speaking about all people who live in the world, the major reason for dressing poorly is poverty.
 

Arced

Starting Member
Obviously there are a lot of reasons for the larger shift in clothing trends. I tend to think part of it is due to the change in popular role models. It seems that popular culture is worshipping increasingly younger people. Not to say that there weren't teenage stars previously, but it seems that the big stars of today are a lot younger and have much more influence. Older role models, who act and dress their 'age,' seem increasingly rare. Older pop stars seems to be chasing their youth.

Along these lines, I think that there's a larger cultural importance placed on health and exercise. I'm not against exercise/sports, but I think that there's an increasing expectation that everyone exercise or be engaged in sports, and that to be exercising/playing sports is the happiest thing one could be doing. In certain ways, I think the increasing focus on sports/exercise is an extension of the worshipping of youth, and doesn't really have that much to do with 'health'.

Lastly, and still along these lines, obesity is up and looser clothing is more comfortable. Also, as dieting is also skyrocketing, cheap, disposable clothes are a lot cheaper when your waistline changes radically on a regular basis.

Obviously, there's many other reasons, but...
 

Mr. Knightly

Super Member
quote:Originally posted by mgnov

The idea is entirely blasphemous to me, but I'm surprised someone hasn't started a thread called "What would Jesus wear?" If you think about it, did Jesus wear the clothing of the well-dressed individual brought up in upper-class Greco-Roman culture, or did he dress simply? I have no factual answer for that. My point is, we can look at a person and think, "That guy's a slob," but really isn't that just a failure on our part to see past the image? I appreciate a person who dresses well; on the other hand, I'm not able to make a value judgment of someone based merely upon one aspect of his life.

I would also add that if we are speaking about all people who live in the world, the major reason for dressing poorly is poverty.
I think Jesus would have shopped at Lands End or Jos a Bank.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.
 

NewYorkBuck

Senior Member
I agree with the contention that the 60s/hippies/boomers had a lot to do with it. Just look at the movies we cite as natty movies - there are a glut of them from the 40s and 50s, but then it falls off a cliff in the 60s and 70s, only to return slightly in the 80s. Not sure why this population surge caused such a slobification, but few can argue its just a coincidence.
 
The entire US has shifted towards casualness and to its extreme: sloppiness, after the migration to the suburbs, imo. Life is more hectic and active for families. Why bother wearing good clothes when running around dropping off/picking up kids from soccer; grocery shopping; and so on?

It's easier to wear something "comfortable" and "easy care" than to wear something that requires dry cleaning or professional laundering. I'm not defending this, just making an observation. And while running from stop to stop in the family SAV (not SUV, SAV: Suburban Assault Vehicle), stop for lunch or dinner at the nearest Applebee's, Red Slobster, or Chilis. Hairy backs welcome.

I have no problem with shorts that are properly fitting and clean. I myself, in summer, wear khaki or woven shorts with a (tucked-in!) polo or short sleeve buttondown. On a rare occasion I will wear a NEW heavy weight colored T shirt with shorts if it's a summer evening of just hanging out or if the weather is oppressive. I live at the Jersey Shore where most anything goes.

If you want to see sloppiness, come "down the shore". It's truly heartbreaking.
 

shelterdog

Starting Member
Two points.

One, were people really all that well dressed forty or fifty years ago? I'll accept that movies stars dressed better than, and in general professionals may have dressed better then, but did the working guy on the street really dress all that well? Think about the Honeymooners, or Let Us Know Praise Famous Men, or Grapes of Wrath.

Second, isn't a huge part of this money? Having a collection of blazers, trousers, linen shirts, and what not for casual clothes is beyond most people's means.
 

LA_Guy

New Member
The gritty subjects of post Vietnam filmmakers (Raging Bull and Taxi Driver come immediately to mind) and the rise of method acting - that explains the diffences in the movie wardrobing.

quote:Originally posted by NewYorkBuck

I agree with the contention that the 60s/hippies/boomers had a lot to do with it. Just look at the movies we cite as natty movies - there are a glut of them from the 40s and 50s, but then it falls off a cliff in the 60s and 70s, only to return slightly in the 80s. Not sure why this population surge caused such a slobification, but few can argue its just a coincidence.
Style Forum moderator slumming with the trads. And I wear hoodies. And jeans. And sneakers. Please don't shoot me with a Trad pistol.
 

NewYorkBuck

Senior Member
quote:The gritty subjects of post Vietnam filmmakers (Raging Bull and Taxi Driver come immediately to mind) and the rise of method acting - that explains the diffences in the movie wardrobing.
I would just argue that these types of film matter is just another consequence of the relaxed standards of the boomer generation, not that the films themselves caused the relaxed standards. Further, there were plenty of war movies following WWII. None of those films seemed to result in relaxed dress standards.
 

alaric

Senior Member
Profette-faux:

quote:
Is that Helmut Lang S/S 2004 he's wearing?


No, I think from the artful dirt stains and tears, that it is from the 2005 s/s Alexander McQueen line. (MSRP $585 at McQueen boutiques worldwide).

alaric

"Bunter, I shall have to look like a newspaperman."
"Then, my lord, I would suggest the suit we don't like and the regrettable tie."
"Perfect!"
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.