"Dressing down a culture"

[Jock Scot]

Citing the date isn't an argument. In my view, dressing appropriately for a given venue or event shows respect for your hosts/employer/ etc...

If you fail to dress appropriately for the occasion, you will rarely be called out on it because of the manners of others. This should not erroneously be construed as a tacit approval of one's choice of attire.

I say appropriately because indeed, one can also over dress, thereby making one's fellows feel self-conscious for no good reason or simply appearing pretentious or clueless.

If the context calls for radical self-expression or totally casual attire, go for it. If you feel like wearing shorts and a tank top to a wedding that calls for a suit, that's disrespectful.

Context is key. Caring about getting it right rather than expecting the world to adapt to your sartorial whims is indeed good manners and a sign of respect, even in the 21st Century, bro.

+ 1 Nathan.

[tundramanq]

Nathan, this is the one that keeps me uneasy unless there is someone to run my choices by - I ask those I know who will be honest with me.
"If you fail to dress appropriately for the occasion, you will rarely be called out on it because of the manners of others. This should not erroneously be construed as a tacit approval of one's choice of attire."
X Marks is best for the traditional Highland feedback, but most of the time I am mixing wardrobe styles.
Have posted a few here for the feedback, amusement and ( for some ) the horror.

[fw_kilt]

Here is a photo from my family's "stash." It is undated but probably from 1840-1880. I traced my heritage to Dundee in 1856 and he (Arthur Scott) was machinist and was not wealthy. But they did not dress down (not sure who this actually is however)



I too find tank tops and hats (clean or not) offensive in eateries. My personal opinion is that we are too casual in our "public" dress. Looking forward to "dressing up in a kilt!"

[KiltFitz]

I'm not really for judging other people's dress or standards although I am forthright with advice to people who I feel could use a bit of guidance to avoid becoming the focus of negative attention.

That said, I find it interesting that most of the people who dress "correctly" do so out of a love of the actual clothes or style. I have a few friends who have an individual flair and take some care in their clothes and appearance although they all follow different styles. No fashion victims here, just different forms of self-expression.

Even though I live in Glasgow, I am most known for wearing my kilt. It's just not everyday wear here unless you can be eccentric and for most people, eccentricity requires the wherewithall to back it up. Among my frequent kilt-wearer friends, I am known for putting an effort into my THCD (and for being a bit of a tartan anorak). The words 'Dandy' and 'Peacock' are not unknown to me.

The fact is that dressing 'properly' is now as rebellious and individualistic as punk must have seemed in the 70s. Employers care less and less (partly because rules of attire are seen as entirely out of step with equalities legislation and rights of expression). School uniforms exist at many schools but are not worn. I feel it is important to bear in mind however, that demanding a standard of dress often requires that a person can afford to maintain that standard and that just can't be fair.

If we take school uniforms as an example, one of the intended benefits was supposed to be that it would be cheaper to clothe children by not having to keep up with endless fads and fashions. Unfortunately what most schools did was strike deals with a local outlet with the result that due to no competition, the uniform cost became greatly inflated.

Better then, that young people be encouraged to remember that people will judge them on appearance, so put some consideration into how they look. That look can be anything so long as the person has thought it through and can explain it is part of their persona.

Personally, I enjoy my eccentric revival of highland dress around the minor urban sprawl of Glasgow and plan to expand on it well into the future. To paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia: "Traditional attire, in its various senses, has been an epithet for so long that
it is a plausible act of rebellion to embrace it."

[Phil]

It is an inescapable fact of life that an individual will be judged by the way that he/she appears to the rest of society, irrespective of how good/intelligent/worthwhile that person may be. The young person dressed outlandishly with a mohican hairstyle, sporting tattoos and numerous piercings may have the best qualifications in the world and the most pleasant personality imaginable but will fail to get through the front door of 99% of employers just precisely because of appearance.
Dressing "properly" needn't involve a 3-piece suit, shirt and tie with well-polished shoes but a close approximation is likely to improve the individual's life chances considerably.

[BBNC]

+ 1 Nathan.

I agree with Nathan, context is everything. One only has to see a few of the Wal-Mart videos to know what is not appropriate in public.

I don't get the whole flip-flop thing; flip flops are dangerous outside on pavement, riding bicycles, motorcycles, or horses.

[quincy2]

I few years ago my wife and I were sitting in a cafe in France. I couple next to leaned over and said her husband and her were trying to guess our nationality. She said when you came in we thought German or maybe swiss, then we heard you speaking English, but not the "King's" English, probably not British, maybe Canadian. When we told them we were American, she said we never guessed that, you are far too well dressed to be Americans.

[Hopper250]

It is an inescapable fact of life that an individual will be judged by the way that he/she appears to the rest of society, irrespective of how good/intelligent/worthwhile that person may be. The young person dressed outlandishly with a mohican hairstyle, sporting tattoos and numerous piercings may have the best qualifications in the world and the most pleasant personality imaginable but will fail to get through the front door of 99% of employers just precisely because of appearance.
Dressing "properly" needn't involve a 3-piece suit, shirt and tie with well-polished shoes but a close approximation is likely to improve the individual's life chances considerably.

I would somewhat agree Phil, except as my generation, and those a few year older than me, come into the part of the business where hiring decisions are made more people with qualifications will be hired based on that rather than the best dressed of the interviewees. The idea has taken hold, expecially here in the states, that appearance and connections are less important than skill. In fact I might call fewer people for an interview because of the skill level of the top group of interviewees.

What is boils down to is, if the person is the most skilled and will fit personality-wise with the rest of the team they will be hired over the guy who dresses nice but doesn't meet those two criteria.

[Hopper250]

Here is a photo from my family's "stash." It is undated but probably from 1840-1880. I traced my heritage to Dundee in 1856 and he (Arthur Scott) was machinist and was not wealthy. But they did not dress down (not sure who this actually is however)



I too find tank tops and hats (clean or not) offensive in eateries. My personal opinion is that we are too casual in our "public" dress. Looking forward to "dressing up in a kilt!"

I think in this case she is wearing her one nice dress or something the photographer had that fit her. I have several photos from my family as well, and they owned the clothes that others took their pictures in or made sure that they came in their "Sunday Best."

We forget in this time of cell phone cameras and pocket sized cameras that this was a twice in a lifetime event for people. Many had photos taken on their wedding day (only 1 or 2) and then a few years later with their children (again only one or two). Of course they wore their best for these events. If you were to have taken a camera out to a feild to get a shot of farm hands, it would look no different then photos of coal miners and laborers from the 1930s. Dirty, grubby clothes and lots of people wearing those same things all around town.

[BCAC]

I would somewhat agree Phil, except as my generation, and those a few year older than me, come into the part of the business where hiring decisions are made more people with qualifications will be hired based on that rather than the best dressed of the interviewees. The idea has taken hold, expecially here in the states, that appearance and connections are less important than skill. In fact I might call fewer people for an interview because of the skill level of the top group of interviewees.

What is boils down to is, if the person is the most skilled and will fit personality-wise with the rest of the team they will be hired over the guy who dresses nice but doesn't meet those two criteria.

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.