Does vintage clothing attract a rude/violent response?

[Patrick Hall]

This thread has been fascinating to read.
A) I think that the emergence of gay culture does fuel men's discomfort with men who dress well. Western men experience sexuality in a far more binary way than women. The grammar of fashion belongs now to women and gay men. Straight men are authorized to dress expensively, just not well.

B) I think there are historical roots to people's disdain for vintage. The freedom to dress like a slob has been hard won - the traumatic sixties and the counter culture. Suits and the like have become symbols of a bygone bondage, dis-comforting anachronisms necessary at weddings and funerals only. Dressing like a slob is a symbol of "progress." To willingly choose a suit over sweat clothes calls the "slovenliness = progress" thing into question. It's threatening. So people respond with acts of micro (or macro) aggression.

C) I am an Episcopal priest, and I find that I can get away with ANYTHING in clericals. People already think I'm from mars. I get gawked at anyway, whether I'm wearing a seersucker suit or jeans with my collar. Might as well go for broke.

 

[The Good]

B) I think there are historical roots to people's disdain for vintage. The freedom to dress like a slob has been hard won - the traumatic sixties and the counter culture. Suits and the like have become symbols of a bygone bondage, dis-comforting anachronisms necessary at weddings and funerals only. Dressing like a slob is a symbol of "progress." To willingly choose a suit over sweat clothes calls the "slovenliness = progress" thing into question. It's threatening. So people respond with acts of micro (or macro) aggression.

I can see the reasoning behind this. For those who still hold it as a symbol of progress, especially if they were actually there back in the day in the midst of the "struggle," well, they probably deserve it more than those ignorant of the movement's origins. To most people who dress "slovenly" these days, especially those under the age of fifty, these meanings are lost on them to the point they don't even realize why they dress the way they do. In other words, they have been "programed," for lack of a better word, to emulate the sensibilities of members of a previous generation, while not knowing the identity. I think it's good to know one's "ancestry," if you know what I mean. While I would not choose to dress like people who may be considered unkempt (on purpose at least), I have a certain degree of respect and tolerance for those that desire to live a lifestyle of comfort, including one's attire. After all, don't we all desire some sort of comfort? I don't respect the dishonesty or poor work ethic that is often tied to these people, though.

P.S. I'm sorry if my post is confusing. It's 3:13 AM, so I may be a bit off.

 

[Puzzicato]

I have often thought that men (as a gender) have more issues with insecurity than women, because insecurity is seen as unacceptable for men. To be manly, you have to be "secure." As a woman, it is ok to be insecure about your looks, how you dress, etc.

For men, I think they probably have (as a gender) the same amount of insecurity as women do, but they can't express it because such expression is not socially acceptable. I wonder if for some men, this insecurity builds up and bubbles out as aggression and extreme conformity against other men who are different. Because these men are insecure about themselves, and have no way to express it productively, they express it through anger and aggression towards others (which is more socially acceptable than expressing it about themselves).

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

I think it goes even further than it being OK for women to be insecure - I think you could say that actually women are supposed to be neurotic as shaved monkeys.

I guess it is like Fight Club - the first rule of Manliness is that you don't talk about Manliness. All men are supposed to know the rules but without a way of finding out what rules they are supposed to know. Poor buggers.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Dressing like a slob is a symbol of "progress." To willingly choose a suit over sweat clothes calls the "slovenliness = progress" thing into question. It's threatening. So people respond with acts of micro (or macro) aggression.

I think this is an absolutely dead-on insight -- repudiating any part of modern culture, or even suggesting that the current way isn't necessarily the best way, tends to produce this kind of reaction across the board, but rejecting modern clothing is a very visible, very direct challenge to a lot of assumptions. In a very real sense, the people who react this way have become the very thing they supposedly set out to overthrow. "Freedom for me -- but not for thee."

 

[scottyrocks]

I think that responding to words with violence is a perfect example of the degradation of standards we are all talking about. Only a lout would do such a thing. Words are only as effective as the response they trigger. A clever retort is usually enough to put someone in their place, as has been illustrated so well in this thread. There's always a good comeback line. You just have to be quick enough to think of one.

And of course, there is always being able to ignore someone with the brain of a toad who makes a comment that is often embarrassing to themselves, except the are often one of the few who don't even realize it.

The woman who came up to the person and whispered, 'you're a real a** h***' in his ear is indeed herself the real anal aperture. And as is usually the case, that type of person doesn't even realize it. And no one is going t change her mind, either, so let her wallow in her holeness, I say. That's enough to bring a smile to my face, and maybe even a literal lol. Maybe she'd turn around when she heard it. And then any number of good verbal quips would sink her faster than the Bismark.

 

[Puzzicato]

I think that responding to words with violence is a perfect example of the degradation of standards we are all talking about. Only a lout would do such a thing. Words are only as effective as the response they trigger. A clever retort is usually enough to put someone in their place, as has been illustrated so well in this thread. There's always a good comeback line. You just have to be quick enough to think of one.

I was on the train home the other day when a young woman starting screaming "Get your F%*(&)*&% hands of my tins, did you pay for those? STOP touching my F$)*Y%$)*£Y property" - the man who had moved her bag to one side so that he could sit down didn't know where to look. I was impressed that he stayed in the seat actually, as she ranted for a good 5 minutes and was still going when I got off the train. Everyone in the carriage was laughing at her because it was such a disproportionate reaction, but I do wonder if we would all have passed by on the other side if she had taken the next step to violence.

 

[_Nightwing]

rudeness/violence

I think that responding to words with violence is a perfect example of the degradation of standards we are all talking about. Only a lout would do such a thing. Words are only as effective as the response they trigger. A clever retort is usually enough to put someone in their place, as has been illustrated so well in this thread. There's always a good comeback line. You just have to be quick enough to think of one.

I don't think of it in such clear cut terms as you. I see a violent response on more of a sliding scale. A clear cut example that might work for you is receiving a obvious and open threat, and unfortunately that is the sort of thing that we're talking about people experiencing here:

Standard.

I'm sorry but I'm really shocked that there are those who never get comments and yet I get at least 10 times a day -mostly positive comments but often rude, abusive or even threatening.

and:

Two weeks ago a man started shouting at me just for looking in his vague direction (I was walking along a main road and casually glancing at some houses which he was standing in front of). I told him it was a free country and therefore my right to look where I wanted, at which I received threats, though nothing happened as I just carried on walking.

Those emphases are mine. But you can all borrow them. My point here is your pithy comeback clearly isn't suitable if the offending gentleman or lady gets "up in your grill," to use the parlance of the times, and says "Inspector Gadget, are you looking at something? You'd better go-go-gadget outta here right now or I'm going to break this bottle off and jam it in your mouth." That's lot more funny with the expletives I took out, by the way, but I didn't want to appear any more loutish. I think this makes the case that in some instances, responding to words with violence is appropriate even in today's babied cultural environment, so now we're just arguing about degrees.

On the cultural environment of today, I'd like to make the further point about violence that it has been increasingly marginalized as something extreme, evil, and the preserve of the authorities, where it is then just and good, and I would argue that this is part of the general principle that is the cornerstone of the current adolescent behavior of all age groups - regular people are losing all power. It has already been discussed in another thread about how the no-touch policy at schools is creating complete monsters, but you have to look no further than the last post to see a good example of how people behave in a no-touch society:

I was on the train home the other day when a young woman starting screaming "Get your F%*(&)*&% hands of my tins, did you pay for those? STOP touching my F$)*Y%$)*£Y property" - the man who had moved her bag to one side so that he could sit down didn't know where to look. I was impressed that he stayed in the seat actually, as she ranted for a good 5 minutes and was still going when I got off the train

To me that's a temper tantrum, in years past thrown by a child but now thrown by a young woman raised in the powerless and no-touch age. Notice that it's the touching of her bag that sets her off. These poor, powerless people are looking for any excuse to scream about something, and in her mind there's only one clear cut rule - don't touch - so she feels completely justified. Blocking seats with your bags, screaming curses at the top of your voice, these behaviors are fine, because they're not hurting anyone. In her mind the guy should have asked her to move the bag, and I'll concede that probably he should have, but I don't think it's an outlandish speculation, given her dramatic disposition, to suggest that she blocked the other seats on purpose in order to create such a drama. And if he were to have asked her nicely to move the bag, and she, determined to get that drama one way or another, told him to go and have intercourse with himself, then in her mind he's supposed to call the police and wait for them to maybe bother showing up at the next station and then they're supposed to make her move it.

So if he were to respond to that hypothetical scenario by pushing her stupid tins out of the way, using violence against words, would you consider that loutish? Should he defer to the authorities? I know where that road leads. It leads to either shucking the vintage clothes and conforming out of fear, or to being mercuryfelt76.

My position is that some words require a violent response. That doesn't have to mean bullets. It could just be pushing a bag. I don't think violence is extreme but I think it's being made to look that way in a society where you can't slap a child's hand even if they're drawing on you with a black plastic marker. I think the idea that violence is in itself evil, or even loutish, is preposterous. It's like saying hatred is evil - a bad example I know because they do say that now, and in both cases this is hypocritical of course because we're still supposed to support the troops and hate the terrorists.

And as for being the preserve of the authorities, in a society where any kind of violence is disallowed, only louts will use violence. The kind of louts who don't just respond to words with violence, but who respond with it to a nice suit or hat:

not long ago I was shoulder-barged really hard by a man in Victoria Station while I was buying a coffee. I wasn't even looking at him, let alone speaking. I turned round and he called me a pr**k as he walked away laughing at me. How did I deserve that?

Now I'm not saying bring back duelling, but I am urging us slightly in that direction. It's a society of powerless individuals that bully others like children, that throw temper tantrums like children, and that dress like children.

 

[C-dot]

I think this makes the case that in some instances, responding to words with violence is appropriate even in today's babied cultural environment, so now we're just arguing about degrees. ...My position is that some words require a violent response. ...Now I'm not saying bring back duelling, but I am urging us slightly in that direction.

The inappropriate (and in many of these cases, disgusting) behaviour of other people shouldn't be validated with a response, never mind lowering ourselves to that level by responding with any kind of violence!

If someone around you is being an idiot, ignore them. They want negative attention, so don't provide it. If someone threatens or intimidates you, call the police - that's what they're there for. The idea that all violence is evil may be preposterous, but fighting with someone over a rude remark is just stupidity. This kind of extreme reaction won't just lower the already low standards we opine about, it will annihilate them.

Real power is in strength of character - Not in your fists.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I guess it is like Fight Club - the first rule of Manliness is that you don't talk about Manliness. All men are supposed to know the rules but without a way of finding out what rules they are supposed to know. Poor buggers.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

...I think

Though, unfortunately, in the larger picture I sometimes think that's what life is all about. It's like setting out on a quest to learn some marvelous great secret, only to discover that it isn't really a secret because everyone else seems to know but you're the only one who was kept in the dark.

 

[_Nightwing]

Real power is in strength of character - Not in your fists.

We can certainly agree on that. If someone shoulder-barges me over me over my hat though, you can bet I won't be calling the police while they laugh their way around the corner. Societal standards are also about having individual dignity and being prepared to stand up for what's right.

 

[avedwards]

The inappropriate (and in many of these cases, disgusting) behaviour of other people shouldn't be validated with a response, never mind lowering ourselves to that level by responding with any kind of violence!

If someone around you is being an idiot, ignore them. They want negative attention, so don't provide it. If someone threatens or intimidates you, call the police - that's what they're there for. The idea that all violence is evil may be preposterous, but fighting with someone over a rude remark is just stupidity. This kind of extreme reaction won't just lower the already low standards we opine about, it will annihilate them.

Real power is in strength of character - Not in your fists.

I agree. Violence does nothing but escalate the situation. I can see where Nightwing is coming from - when people are rude or abusive to me I it's tempting to react with violence, but I feel that by pretending they don't exist or very occasionally giving a witty comeback I'm well above their standards (that's not me being a snob as I don't consider myself better than them, just my behaviour to be better than their's).

When I'm threatened I'm probably too big-headed for my own good as I usually just stand my ground and refuse to be intimidated. I'd be reluctant to call the police in as I have limited trust in their abilities to prevent crime in the UK.


Also, could we please tone down the talk of violence as a response to threats? I intended this thread to be primarily informative as I wondered how many other people experienced the same problem as I did. I don't want a thread which I found useful to be closed.

 

[C-dot]

I like this thread too - My lips are sealed!

 

[_Nightwing]

Yeah this is a brilliant thread, and I really can see where everyone is coming from and I think it's from generally the same place - disgust at some of the treatment people on this thread have suffered, merely because of their clothing, a vague sense that this targeting is tied-up with declining standards, whatever those are, and then a lot of confusion about what to do about it, especially without becoming what has rightly disgusted us, and if anything can be done about it at all.

But I think that reading the diverse opinions has really improved my understanding of the matter, and I think it continues to improve the more I think about what everyone has thoughtfully contributed. Also all of these experiences are fascinating to read. It's hard to make this stuff up.

 

[avedwards]

I like this thread too - My lips are sealed!

Your lips need not be sealed - opinions are welcomed (that is the secondary reason behind this thread if the primary reason was to hear people's experiences). I just hope we can keep them within what the bartenders are likely to view as reasonable bounds.

 

[avedwards]

But I think that reading the diverse opinions has really improved my understanding of the matter, and I think it continues to improve the more I think about what everyone has thoughtfully contributed.

Likewise. The diverse range of opinions makes this place so great. And to be honest this whole website is one of the three contributors to me still wearing vintage clothing every day regardless of what people say.

 

[_Nightwing]

What are the other two? I only just found this place.

 

[avedwards]

I meant influences in my life which have made me keep my style despite seriously considering a switch to normality a year and a half ago. As already said, one was the Fedora Lounge. The other two were my determination not to let other people dictate what I wear; and having a girlfriend who has always encouraged and liked me to dress the way I do.

 

[Rats Riley]

It’s funny. I remember as a kid I dressed “retro” or “vintage” out of necessity more than choice. Bottom line is that we were poor. And coming from a single parent household, I received three nice pairs of pants (Two for dress, one pair of jeans) and three shirts every school year. So at a young age I learned how to wash and iron my clothes. If I didn’t take care of my clothes and looked shabby, it was on me. If I got pants, they were usually too big, needed a belt and were usually cuffed. While other kids spent their money on toys, I usually spent it on clothes at what was referred to as “The Polish Department Store” AKA: Goodwill! Because in many ways that’s all the folks in our neighborhood could afford. Then we would be embarrassed and surprised when we ran across neighbors also trying to stretch a buck. Don’t get me started on hand me downs! Oh man! That was better then Christmas! But even when I got older and made my own money, I always seemed to gravitate toward the basic necessities. Cuffed jeans, t-shirt, an old suit vest or blazer, leather jacket. Surprisingly in the early 90’s these became popular. I swear I remember at a party when I met a young lady who said, “Oh my God! You look just like Brandon from 90210!” Hell I didn’t know what that was, I just got back from the service and in spite grew my hair back like before I left. As far as I knew, everyone at the time was trying to be Vanilla Ice. I had no idea what the hell 90210 was, I was just happy to be home and have a young lady interested. Turns out there was a TV show with two yahoos (yeah you remember them) who were making popular a look that for years was scoffed at… Go figure! Of coarse, growing up in Milwaukee, a retro look wasn’t too far of a stretch! There were tons of car clubs and regular Joes who still dressed the same as grandpa did. But it’s funny… what began as a necessity, eventually became something of a badge of honor. So when the Barbies and Kens of today give you a hassle because your lid, skirt or suit doesn’t mesh with today’s “it look”; just remember that anyone can be a clone. Your going the extra distance to do you own thing! It’s who we are, so why be ashamed!

BTW: my last day in my first high school, I intentionally wore my pants inside out, just so I could pick a scrape with the first jag who talked trash…. No one said a word.

 

[GlamourDoll]

I just moved to a new state 2 months ago. It"s rather hot here and most of the girls here wear skanky shorts and tank tops. So, I usually get laughed at or get weird looks. It's rather sad considering most people go for the rockabilly look here. And would think they would be the ones to understand. But it seems like everyone has become so snobby...and for what?

 

[C-dot]

Likewise. The diverse range of opinions makes this place so great. And to be honest this whole website is one of the three contributors to me still wearing vintage clothing every day regardless of what people say.

I'm with you there. I spent a year away from the Lounge, and I was beginning to feel like I was the only one in the world who felt an affinity for the past. Being here reminds me that y'all do exist, even if we don't know each other face to face

So, I usually get laughed at or get weird looks. It's rather sad considering most people go for the rockabilly look here. And would think they would be the ones to understand.

In Arizona? Really?! There is a huge rockabilly scene there, I am surprised!

I understand what you mean. I went to the beach yesterday in my Esther Williams swimsuit and big sunhat, so I got some dirty looks from the bikini-clad girls. (Toronto is full of party girls, though there is a strong subculture in select neighbourhoods.)