Ideological and Historical Roots of anti-Suit Hatred

[Dr Doran]

Let's face it, at least 99% of the guys out there wearing suits are squares. How can the public react but negatively?

...

That look, and all those 'business rules', are what need to go away for the suit to become socially acceptable again.

Regards,

Jack

Ninety-nine? That's a little harsh! Some of them are not necessarily guys I want to hang out with badly, but some are OK, I'm sure, just not very hip or cool.

Perhaps (in regard to the second of your points which I have appended above) business casual will result in the disappearance of the suit from the business world, and at THAT point, the cool people will wear them again?

 

[reetpleat]

Doran, you know I love ya, but with all due respect, i would have to disagree to a large extent. I m a guy that was wearing vintage suits 15 years ago. I am no stranger to the love of a nice suit. But I would suggest that a suit is completely arbitrary. There is no inherant goodness or badness in a suit. Just the sartorial meaning placed upon it, good and bad.

Now, if you are talking about neatness versus slovenlyness, that is a different story. One might consider a kid in the LA bario in a carefully ironed white t shirt and ironed jeans and meticulously cleaned white tennis shoes. is he not the paragon of fastidious neatness?

There are certainly class issues. As far back as the twenties and thirties, white upper class kids were donning sportswear, while black porters and laborers were donning sharp suits for a night on the town.

At any rate, I see no decline in the changes. Just change. As for manners and politeness, that is a story of pluses and minuses too. For every guy who doesn't hold the door for a woman, there is a guy who is out protesting for civil rights for an oppressed minority. I will take the latter, than you.

As far as clothing, I welcome an era in which I can wear a vintage suit and not be ostracised the way I might be if I were back in the forties wearing civil war attire.

Keep in mind, that the reason, especially in Berkley, that the suit and business attire, the man, etc has a negative connotation, is that in the sixties, the suit stood for the status quo that dragged us into a very unpopular war, the end result of which was a questioning of everything society had to offer. I suggest, it was valid, and a healthy distrust of the status quo is very important as afar as I am concerned. If that tars suits, then so be it. I will not let that stop me from donning my suits.

Then again, I wear vintage forties, and most of the people I know wear vintage forties or sixties, which are still seen as cool and hip. To be honest, if wearing a modern suit is looked down upon ,I don't really care. Not my thing. Suits have always been a statement of anti establishment for me as a vintage wearer.

 

[reetpleat]

Well, yes...but out of envy. And that great-looking lady gets branded as a so-called "f*g hag".

I don't really know, but ask Senator jack if he is often accused of being gay. I would wager his suits get him more attention from the ladies than anything else does.

But then again, that is New York. But i suspect he would have the same results in Berkley. I know it worked for Augustin Estrella whenever we went out in SF.

 

[reetpleat]

one current demonstration of this discussion is the most recent series of ads by McDonalds. The supposition that any patron of a coffee shop would gladly shed all pretense of culture in favor of gossip rags, football, and tshirts if only they could is the cornerstone of this campaign. Of the root causes listed, I would put this one firmly under the catagory of assuming that dressing well means being a fraud.

Frankly, I am completely turned off by it and cannot think of why any company, even a fast food chain, would want to become the patron saint of sloth but that seems to be the goal. No matter, the coffee at the corner shop is much better and I prefer to frequent mom and pop establishments over chains.

For those fortunate to have missed it, here is a link:
http://www.slashfood.com/2008/09/25/mcdonalds-poser-coffee-commercials/

Typical American anti eliteism, anti intellectualism, and populism. We really are very funny.

 

[reetpleat]

Let's face it, at least 99% of the guys out there wearing suits are squares. How can the public react but negatively? You see them on Wall Street in their bland Armani / Hugo Boss nightmares, about their necks the yellow or pink power tie, the one item that's done more to kill the suit as stepping out clothing than any other. It screams stockbroker and who, especially in these times, wants to party around them? But walk down the street in a narrow mod suit and tie, and certainly no one's going to mistake you for 'The Man'.

I've found that, generally, people do get it, though. They know a cool suit/look when they see it. They can't help but comment positively, but that ain't gonna happen when you walk around emulating Donald Trump. That look, and all those 'business rules', are what need to go away for the suit to become socially acceptable again.

Regards,

Jack

Hear hear.

 

[H.Johnson]

I've been reading this with interest. I think that things are very different in different countries of the world and for different age groups.

In many Asian countries, if you are 'of substance' whatever age you are you would expect to wear a suit for anything but the most leisurely activities. Even at a horse race, for instance. Wearing jeans 'in town' is almost unknown - unless you're a tourist.

In Britain it's an age thing. Nobody raises an eyebrow if a man in his 60s or 70s wears a suit on any occasion but if he wears jeans and a teeshirt he will probably get comments to the effect that he is too old to wear them.

 

[Senator Jack]

I don't really know, but ask Senator jack if he is often accused of being gay.

Oh yeah, the NY contingent is generally thought to be flaming.

 

[Feraud]

But I would suggest that a suit is completely arbitrary. There is no inherant goodness or badness in a suit. Just the sartorial meaning placed upon it, good and bad.

This should be a Fedora Lounge masthead.

 

[Subvet642]

It's strange to read about negative perceptions surrounding suits, and the wearing of said suits. In Boston, at least in my own experience, most people appreciate style and neatness, generally. Regardless of the particular genre, a neat, well-put together appearance is appreciated. Whether one dress in suits, modern or vintage (or blending of both), Hip-Hop, Bohemian or what have you, attention to detail makes all the difference. I've seen people in suits look like slobs, and kids in matching ball cap, jersey and sneakers with jeans, look sharp. Furthermore, the use of nasty invective in this town is quite likely to go from zero to physical in a heartbeat, and therefore is to be discouraged.

 

[Fletch]

i) The Union. On my kitchen table is the latest issue of SOLIDARITY, the Union newsletter. I respect Unions. However, a thread running through the rhetoric of the magazine is that the "Suits" are to be distrusted. They always lie and cheat The Working Man out of his wage. Is this accurate now? Perhaps in the 1930s. I am not certain.

Let's call the roll...

Mr. Reuther, UAW: NO

Mr. Beck, Teamsters: NO

Mr. Dubinsky, ILGWU: NO

Mr. Lewis, UMW, CIO: NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NOOOOOO

 

[Sefton]

All good examples, but what about now? Would any current union leaders show up dressed like that to a meeting with the rank and file?

 

[reetpleat]

Oh yeah, the NY contingent is generally thought to be flaming.

Well, come to thinking of it, dressing well may well suggest gayness to many people, as it should. Gay men do tend to be pretty stylish, but i still stand by my point that I will be it does not interfere with your hetero activities where the ladies are concerned.

 

[Tomasso]

Gay men do tend to be pretty stylish,

I'd say more fashionable than stylish.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Hmmm... I have a lot to say in this thread... I just need to sit down and think for a bit.


It's a great thread for starters.

 

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by reetpleat
Gay men do tend to be pretty stylish,
I'd say more fashionable than stylish.

That's true. Male gayness today seems to be about being super-social: partying, gossiping, following fame and trends. Fashion would outrank style in that way of thinking.

 

[ortega76]

Oh yeah, the NY contingent is generally thought to be flaming.

No way. I've seen some of the pics of the ladies involved with the NY offices. UN-BE-LIEVABLE! The ladies are gorgeous, glamorous, brilliant and able to hold their liquour. I am in shock.

 

[Lamplight]

7.) The "putting on airs" problem. Thankfully, only half of my family comes from a philistinish background to whom doing almost anything constitutes "putting on airs."

You've bought a convertible? - Oh my, you're putting on airs.
Going to college? - Who do you think you are? Are you putting on airs? Decided you don't believe in invisible beings? - Who are you to say that? You're putting on airs. NEXT THING YOU'LL SAY YOU'RE GOING TO WRITE A NOVEL.

You just described almost everyone I know.

 

[Diamondback]

I guess it's a good thing that dueling has gone out of style, too.

Why? All I'm saying is that pepper-spray is 1. fundamentally "defensive" rather than "offensive" like a busted bottle, and 2. is more "humane" in "civilized"*snort* eyes 'cause it inflicts pain but no injury.

My sociopath friend (guy in LA) once said: "Tim, don't carry a knife."

I said "Why? Knives are cool."

He said, "Because, if you use it in a fight, you'll be [thought of as] the bad guy. Carry pepper spray. Because if you use that, you are a gentle civilized guy who was only defending himself from a bad guy."

He's right--although it's usually a good idea to have a small folder, pocketknife or SAK; carrying a Ka-Bar, not so good. See, occasionally a socio can be useful to have around, and we're not always bad-guys!lol

 

[Tango Yankee]

A lot of interesting points!

We've hit on a lot of these points before--the "casualization" of America and the World.

Living in southern Ohio I've found that a sport coat, tie, and dress trousers is thought of as a "suit" by many people.

Thanksgiving before last I decided to dress in such a manner when going to Thanksgiving dinner at my father-in-law's house. When he saw me my F-I-L said "What are you all dressed up for? You going to a wedding or a funeral?" Apparently those are the only two acceptable reasons for donning a tie around here. According to my wife I then insulted her entire family by responding "No, I'm having Thanksgiving Dinner with the family and thought I would dress appropriately." My wife, for what it's worth, had also dressed nicely but wasn't the receipient of any like comments.

But then, I've noticed that it does seem to be more acceptable around here for women to dress nicely. I noticed when I went for jury duty that while I was the only man wearing business casual (and only three or four of us were wearing shirts with collars) a majority of the women had put some effort into a respectful image. The officers of the court were, thank goodness, wearing suits.

I now work for a school that bought out what used to be a local business college. I'm finally working in an environment where I'm not the oddball because I'm wearing a tie. Many of the men who taught for the school for years are in the habit of wearing sport coats and ties; a couple wear suits. The senior leadership of the school, when they're visiting from Kentucky, wear suits. I do still manage to stand out in my own way, though, with touches like saddle shoes.

Oh, and I am still the oddball with my peers--the rest of the IT department tends to wear jeans and polo shirts or tee shirts. The difference isn't that noticable, though, since I'm the only member of the IT department working here in Ohio.

Another note: the mirrors in the restrooms at the school have signs on them saying "Would you hire this person?" I find them somewhat amusing. I understand the point they're trying to make, but I suspect it is completely lost on those who need to get it the most.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Dr Doran]

Doran, you know I love ya, but with all due respect, i would have to disagree to a large extent. I m a guy that was wearing vintage suits 15 years ago. I am no stranger to the love of a nice suit. But I would suggest that a suit is completely arbitrary. There is no inherant goodness or badness in a suit. Just the sartorial meaning placed upon it, good and bad.

Fair enough, I suppose, but that wasn't the point of the initial post, though: I was trying to (somewhat dispassionately) trace the sources for this.

There are certainly class issues. As far back as the twenties and thirties, white upper class kids were donning sportswear, while black porters and laborers were donning sharp suits for a night on the town.

OK, but something tells me that you are glamorizing the latter group a bit when you just spoke about the value-neutrality of the suit.

At any rate, I see no decline in the changes. Just change. As for manners and politeness, that is a story of pluses and minuses too. For every guy who doesn't hold the door for a woman, there is a guy who is out protesting for civil rights for an oppressed minority. I will take the latter, than you.

OK.

As far as clothing, I welcome an era in which I can wear a vintage suit and not be ostracised the way I might be if I were back in the forties wearing civil war attire.

Always a reasonable point.

Keep in mind, that the reason, especially in Berkley, that the suit and business attire, the man, etc has a negative connotation, is that in the sixties, the suit stood for the status quo that dragged us into a very unpopular war, the end result of which was a questioning of everything society had to offer. I suggest, it was valid, and a healthy distrust of the status quo is very important as afar as I am concerned. If that tars suits, then so be it. I will not let that stop me from donning my suits.

Here we differ the most substantively.
I don't see that entire movement as valid and healthy.
I do see sense in questioning that war -- not in the wholesale abandonment of everything their (GI) fathers stood for. I don't think the extent that that movement went was, in the end, healthy.
This is largely a difference in opinion, and it also involves politics. So we can agree to disagree -- and I don't need to tell you that I will always respect your opinion and enjoy communicating with you, because you know that very well.