"Dressing down a culture"

[creagdhubh]

Maybe so, but I'm sure that if you interview two candidates that are of equal skills (and equal qualifications), and both will "fit in" personality wise with the rest of the team, then the guy who presents himself the best (including being dressed nicely) will get the job.

Agreed. And I know from personal experience.

[creagdhubh]

This has been a really enjoyable thread and there have been many points of view expressed with which I find myself in agreement. Clothing in western culture is very much a vehicle for self expression and can say a lot about how we perceive ourselves, our personal values and our relationship with the wider societal context.

I personally like and enjoy wearing well cut traditionally tailored clothes a lot of the time (THCD, suits, tweed sports jacket, navy blazer, khakis, cords etc.) but when relaxing with friends informally I may well be found in a pair of Levi 501's and a Led Zeppelin t-shirt (clean if not necessarily pressed). However, if you only ever met me in one context you may perceive me (superficially at least) to be a bit of a tweedy fogey, and in another as a middle aged 'old rocker'.

Both these elements have a degree of truth in them, but do not capture my persona entirely. The same guy who likes Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and The Clash has very eclectic music tastes which includes Scottish Folk songs and Classical composers such as Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. I also know how to behave appropriately in different settings and get on with different people be it at the lounge bar of Edinburgh's Caledonian Hotel or a working man's bar on Glasgow's Maryhill Road. I would dress differently for either venue but I can be comfortable in both. Context is key.

Unfortunately, I'm all out of "ayes," Peter, so a big "plus one" here! Well said, my friend.

Cheers,

[tundramanq]

Loving on this thread, Thanks Duchy! The greatest asset to traditional kilts is they are venue appropriate just about anywhere and everywhere. I gives me one less thing to fuss with - leaving just the tops, bottoms and such to worry about.

[Flavia]

The photo is from between 1872-1888 (or so). The set-in sleeves (no lowered arm seams) mark it as no earlier than 1872. The bodice is a classic "High Victorian" shape, most popular in the 1870's-80's. The diagonal pleated drapes on the skirt say 70's.

& hey, just a cursory glimpse onto Google Images & here we have something very similar, from Petersen's Magazine: http://www.oakhillclothiers.com/Port...onsCropped.jpg

[VG2013]

Really interesting thread, and the article, but I think it's a little narrow in focus.

I don't want to stereotype, but I spent an awful lot of time living and working on farms when I was young. Dressing up wasn't a practical option. Like being under-dressed for the occasion (job interview for a doctor's practice which someone above gave as an example), in the rural environment one can just as easily be inappropriately over-dressed as under-dressed in an urban setting.

Further, even within urban setting, there's many facets of society. Whilst in college, my summer job explicitly prohibited long sleeves and ties and long hair. Pretty much everything that the machine we were working with could grab and pull in. Just purely for workers' own safety, and none of us argued because it made perfect sense. Even beyond safety, it was just practical, because on occasion clothing got dirty in a way that would ruin a dress shirt or a good pair of trousers. Happened on average once every 3-4 months. And the job wasn't a high paying one. So most of us showed up in t-shirts and jeans, because A) it was practical and B) it was all we could afford to replace routinely on low pay being broke college students. And in summer it was shorts instead of jeans, because it got very stuffy and hot. So we'd all be traveling to and from work, in an urban setting, in t-shirts and jeans, clean but not pressed. And it had nothing with being slovenly or ill-mannered or not caring what others think.

Though the not-caring is actually a good point. Some make a conscious choice, but for others it's just a matter of basic survival. On my way home (a 1hr trip) I would often wedge myself in the corner seat in public transit and fall asleep. Something I never did normally. Because by the end of a brutal long shift on a hot day the exhaustion got to the point where you just don't care any more. Your body needs sleep, and though I do say so myself that extra hour of low-quality sleep helped quite a lot. Without it, getting through the chores of the rest of the day would have been that much harder. So in the article, with the example of a student showing up at the dining hall in pajama pants, it might not have been a statement, it could just be that the person had a really bad night/day/week and just has no strength or willpower to put on appropriate camo suit. And even if the person put makeup on, but came down in pajamas, even that's not really a statement. How many of us running late for various reasons had to skimp on things or risk being late? Maybe she had a choice: have breakfast in pajamas or go change out of them, wasting time, and then change again into outside clothes, and waste more time, but have incomplete or no breakfast? From health standpoint, the choice of breakfast over potential attire faux pas was the correct choice in my book.

Further, somebody brought up a situation at a job interview, where candidates are qualified and basically equal, but one is just better presented (better dressed) and that's who gets the job. Granted, given no other factors to look at, if candidates were almost literally identical in all respect, dress code would come into it for some jobs. But not all jobs. The two jobs I mentioned above, clothing would have been of zero import. If anything, if you showed up in a suit that you would not be allowed to wear anyway, and the other guy would be already dressed the way he'd be dressed at work, just visually the second applicant would "fit in" more.

What I'm trying to say is, clothing is basically camouflage. You apply for an office job, you wear office camouflage. You apply for a farm job, you wear farm camouflage. It's only when you show up in a desert setting wearing woodland camo that it becomes a problem. But this doesn't make the gentleman wearing coyote brown desert camo more slovenly than someone in woodland camo. Just...different. It's all about context, and context is not always known. For instance, on my way home (sweaty and dirty in jeans and t-shirt and sneakers) I ran into a friend, and she dragged me to a party of another friend, and I was definitely under-dressed. But everyone knew the job I had, and that I just finished a shift and that otherwise I'd be more presentable and it wasn't a factor. But an outsider, looking in, would have definitely been tempted to label me a big fat slob for dressing that way.

And whatever happened to not judging a book by its cover? This is something that came up in a conversation not too long ago with my naturist friend. At a clothing optional beach, there's no way to judge a person by their clothes, by virtue of everyone not wearing any. You can't tell a doctor from a plumber, or a rocket scientist from a janitor. All you see is the person you're interacting with. Nothing more, nothing less. No camouflage of clothing or accessories to indicate status or express personal style. This is something that actually bothered me a little about the original article, the author saying that baring all is not an artistic ideal. In a way, I agree, I wish I could iron my own birthday suit to get all the wrinkles out. But in a way, it is much more honest. You are not distracted by the flash of clothes and accessories. And bodies, for the most part, are more or less the same. So you find yourself actually seeing the real person you are interacting with much more than you normally would, nor can you make preconceived judgments based on their attire. I am guilty of this as well, I was watching an episode of "Breaking Bad" the other night, and there was a moment where one of the characters was shown playing Bach's Solfeggietto quite beautifully, and it really hit me because I'd labeled and packaged the character in my mind a certain way, and this revelation shattered that preconception based on appearance to pieces.

And the final point I'd make is that "back in the day" there weren't that many things to spend money on. Or rather there were, but many are now obsolete. Besides the usual - home, clothing, transportation, food, entertainment. There wasn't much else. Nowadays we have computers and digital entertainment that really did not exist on this scale even 20 years ago, and which isn't exactly cheap. What I mean is, what does a good gaming PC cost these days? A good cellphone with features you want? An iPod (not a fan, but can relate, I wear a cheap MP3 player when I work these days)? And that's just in the entertainment and electronics arena. So where a century ago clothes were a larger part of the budget, because living requirements and conditions were utterly different, these days for a young person with a limited income there might be many more desirable venues to spend money on besides clothes. A nice pair of trousers is nice, but they might perceive more bang for their buck with cutting edge electronics. You know what I'm trying to paint a picture of - a college student wearing $40 worth of clothes doing things on a tablet that cost $400. That's a choice. And if he gets good and daily use out of said tablet, perhaps I'd go as far as to say it was the right choice.

Not to mention society in general seems to be shifting to cheaper, but more often replaced items. Not, perhaps, by choice but rather how and where most of the production takes place. If you take a pen knife proudly stamped "Made in USA" from 30 years ago, and compare it to a pen knife made in Taiwan, sure, fit and finish will probably be far worse on the modern one. But the steel will likely be superior in edge holding ability and corrosion resistance. So while appearance is inferior, function is superior and price is low. This doesn't always hold true though. Where previously you'd buy a pair of boots and expect them to last a decade, now a more common situation is to buy a pair of boots and have them fall apart just after two seasons. Quantity instead of quality. You can still find quality, yes, but you have to go out of your way to do so. It is no longer readily available as a standard, but rather it became more of a specialty. Even Walmart, way back when, had quality items. Whereas today (I had the misfortune to end up in one this summer) the items, especially clothing, are beyond abysmal. But it can be a question of logistics - Walmart moves into a relatively small town, wipes out smaller shops, and thus choice - the only practical choice people of the town would have is to wear Walmart clothes, unless they have desire, time and money to drive out of town and shop elsewhere. And in today's economic climate? Not something all of us enjoy.

I guess what I'm saying is, "dressing down" a generation the way the article does for not dressing up may not be exactly fair. Sometimes it's just more practical, more desirable, financially impossible or logistically difficult to dress up. Sometimes it really is a choice or a statement, but for the most part it's just the life we live.

[Father Bill]

Wheeeee! Long post with a lot of thoughts, VG!

Your points are generally correct in my book, but I do think that there are an awful lot of times when a bit of effort helps. In terms of interviews, I'd dress just a shade better than I would expect to dress for work... but never better than the boss!

By the way, Welcome to the "Great Rabble!"

[Kilted Cole]

I miss those days and I really hate it when men do not remove their hats at the dinner table.

Agreed! I'm only 28, And I have issues when folks leave their hats on indoors. The pub is one this.....but someones house or place of worship (regardless of religion) I find almost intolerable.
Keep in mind....my avatar picture was taken by me in my house only for the purpose of showing off an outfit to a friend of mine via text.

[Father Bill]

*snip* but someones house or place of worship (regardless of religion) I find almost intolerable. *snip*

... unless that religion requires head-coverings.

[Kilted Cole]

... unless that religion requires head-coverings.

I'll be honest........I've never been. To one where men are required to have a head covering. But if that were the case......then I would abide out of respect of being a guest.

[Hawk]

I'll be honest........I've never been. To one where men are required to have a head covering. But if that were the case......then I would abide out of respect of being a guest.

To add alittle to this thread and speaking of respect, in many instances within any gathering including "Traditionals" of Indigenous/Tribal people's, if headgear includes veteran warrior items and/or feathers, they probably will not remove it. It is, in some cases, disrespectful to do so, so they'll keep it on. Just something some people might not know. But, in general, most wearing simply headgear or hats will remove them.

Hawk