Richard Warren
Practically Family
- Messages
- 682
- Location
- Bay City
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Praising business casual?
- Thread starter Richard Warren
- Start date
theinterchange
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,673
- Location
- Why do you ask?
Well, that was time wasted. [huh]
I hope the author was being cheeky when he wrote that.
Randy
I hope the author was being cheeky when he wrote that.
Randy
Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 25,081
- Location
- London, UK
Meh. Funny how the label can change one's pereption.... call some of what passes as "business casual" simply "casual" round here and there'd be folks queuing up to laud it over "what passes for casual nowadays..." lol
I guess there are industries where it doesn't matter what you wear.... I can see it from both sides. I understood well the friend who bemoaned having to dress formally in an office where he never encountered clinets other than on the phone, yet equally I also feel it can contribute to a professional environment which ultimately impacts on the quality of service the client receives....
As an academic lawyer who has had much contact with the IT industry over the years, I've seen manys a Jobs-type. The thing that strikes me is how, well, conformist it has become to dress in a certain nonconformist way. I'm not gonig to condemn Jobs for dressing the way he wants, naturally; it just amuses me when anyone consiers it particularly out of the ordinary or rebellious. I've no idea how Jobs feels about it, of course..... Though it does seem to me that Apple being so much a lifestyle brand, it's in his interest to market himself with a 'Mr Casual' image. Let's face it, any brand where people queue up at midnight to buy the latest gadget, often without any real awareness of exactly what it will be - Hello, iPad - or despite its limitations - hello, iPhone - is very much a lifestyle brand, so the Big Dog has to have an image that jives with that....
What bothers me sometimes is not the clothing choice, but the attitude behind it. Sure, you can have elitists in fine tailored suits.... but equally, they come in ratty jeans to. There used to be a guy on the academic conference circuit here in the UK would show up at events where everyone else was tidily dressed, many of us, but not by any means all, in suits, many in tidy casual wear. This guy showed up in flip flops, a washed-out, shapeless t shirt and ratty jeans... and it was extremely obvious that far from simply not being a clothes person, this was a calculated snook at us squares, a "look at me, I'm so much cooler than you, I on't need to conform to your petty dress codes".... That was no individualism, that was simply childishness.
The article linked to, well, the author is entitled to their opinion, but it seems to me that anyone who discounts suits / traditional workwear on grounds that they are somehow restrictive or unimaginitve has simply never worn a suit worthy of the name!
I guess there are industries where it doesn't matter what you wear.... I can see it from both sides. I understood well the friend who bemoaned having to dress formally in an office where he never encountered clinets other than on the phone, yet equally I also feel it can contribute to a professional environment which ultimately impacts on the quality of service the client receives....
As an academic lawyer who has had much contact with the IT industry over the years, I've seen manys a Jobs-type. The thing that strikes me is how, well, conformist it has become to dress in a certain nonconformist way. I'm not gonig to condemn Jobs for dressing the way he wants, naturally; it just amuses me when anyone consiers it particularly out of the ordinary or rebellious. I've no idea how Jobs feels about it, of course..... Though it does seem to me that Apple being so much a lifestyle brand, it's in his interest to market himself with a 'Mr Casual' image. Let's face it, any brand where people queue up at midnight to buy the latest gadget, often without any real awareness of exactly what it will be - Hello, iPad - or despite its limitations - hello, iPhone - is very much a lifestyle brand, so the Big Dog has to have an image that jives with that....
What bothers me sometimes is not the clothing choice, but the attitude behind it. Sure, you can have elitists in fine tailored suits.... but equally, they come in ratty jeans to. There used to be a guy on the academic conference circuit here in the UK would show up at events where everyone else was tidily dressed, many of us, but not by any means all, in suits, many in tidy casual wear. This guy showed up in flip flops, a washed-out, shapeless t shirt and ratty jeans... and it was extremely obvious that far from simply not being a clothes person, this was a calculated snook at us squares, a "look at me, I'm so much cooler than you, I on't need to conform to your petty dress codes".... That was no individualism, that was simply childishness.
The article linked to, well, the author is entitled to their opinion, but it seems to me that anyone who discounts suits / traditional workwear on grounds that they are somehow restrictive or unimaginitve has simply never worn a suit worthy of the name!
Featured products
-
Alden 403 Moc Toe Boot - Brown Chromexcel - $680 The classic "Indy" style Alden Boot in the classic Horween brown Chromexcel. -
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - #395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. -
Himel Bros. - The Ross Mk. 1 Leather Jacket Classic D-pocket motorcycle/aviator style jacket.
Marc Chevalier
Gone Home
- Messages
- 18,192
- Location
- Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
.
Regardless of the article itself, this comment about it is great:
"The President and Congress wear suit and tie every day and are the least productive people I can think of."
lol :eusa_clap
Another comment [edited by me due to strong language]:
"The suit and tie stopped being respectable. We saw through the camouflage.
People realized that many types of corrupt lawyers, MBA wielding failure machines, and politicians wore suits and ties as well [and began to connect one with the other]. Being called a 'suit' is nearly a cuss-word today. Suits became seen as the costume of scoundrels out to rip you off, steal your idea, bankrupt your bank, bring a nuisance lawsuit against you, raise your taxes every year or sentence you to prison for smoking a blunt.
Women threw off the corset and burned the bra. Men should shred the tie forever. It's really nothing more than a 400 year old fashion craze, anyway. Kill it ... just as punk rock 'mercy killed' the 1970s."
Me? I don't attribute suit and tie-wearing per se with moral/ethical rectitude, or vice-versa. If you wear a t-shirt to a non-casual wedding, then that's inconsiderate of you. If you wear a suit to a casual weekend get-together at the beach --and you're not arriving there directly from work, a more formal event, or church-- then that's inconsiderate of you, too. Dressing inappropriately casual or inappropriately formal --if done intentionally-- are, IMO, equally selfish and offensive behaviors.
I like suits, ties, etc., but I wouldn't be caught dead wearing them at an event whose hosts are comfortable with guests wearing khakis, shorts and flip-flops. It would be selfish and inconsiderate of me to do so.
.
Regardless of the article itself, this comment about it is great:
"The President and Congress wear suit and tie every day and are the least productive people I can think of."
lol :eusa_clap
Another comment [edited by me due to strong language]:
"The suit and tie stopped being respectable. We saw through the camouflage.
People realized that many types of corrupt lawyers, MBA wielding failure machines, and politicians wore suits and ties as well [and began to connect one with the other]. Being called a 'suit' is nearly a cuss-word today. Suits became seen as the costume of scoundrels out to rip you off, steal your idea, bankrupt your bank, bring a nuisance lawsuit against you, raise your taxes every year or sentence you to prison for smoking a blunt.
Women threw off the corset and burned the bra. Men should shred the tie forever. It's really nothing more than a 400 year old fashion craze, anyway. Kill it ... just as punk rock 'mercy killed' the 1970s."
Me? I don't attribute suit and tie-wearing per se with moral/ethical rectitude, or vice-versa. If you wear a t-shirt to a non-casual wedding, then that's inconsiderate of you. If you wear a suit to a casual weekend get-together at the beach --and you're not arriving there directly from work, a more formal event, or church-- then that's inconsiderate of you, too. Dressing inappropriately casual or inappropriately formal --if done intentionally-- are, IMO, equally selfish and offensive behaviors.
I like suits, ties, etc., but I wouldn't be caught dead wearing them at an event whose hosts are comfortable with guests wearing khakis, shorts and flip-flops. It would be selfish and inconsiderate of me to do so.
.
theinterchange
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,673
- Location
- Why do you ask?
Marc Chevalier said:
Then don't come to any of my parties, I'd never be comfortable with guests wearing flip-flops.
[a pet peeve of mine]Randy
Marc Chevalier
Gone Home
- Messages
- 18,192
- Location
- Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
theinterchange said:Then don't come to any of my parties, I'd never be comfortable with guests wearing flip-flops.
Understood ... but let me clarify what I said before. If hosts were holding a party and were content--or even preferred-- that their guests wear shorts and flip-flops, then I wouldn't wear a suit and tie there.
Conversely, I wouldn't wear flip-flops to your party ... specifically because you, the host, wouldn't want your guests to arrive that way.
.
theinterchange
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,673
- Location
- Why do you ask?
Marc Chevalier said:
Understood you loud and clear. I should have added another smiley to drive home the jokey manner I intended.
Randy
MisterGrey
Practically Family
- Messages
- 526
- Location
- Texas, USA
Just had to rip into this one...
Has anyone here ever actually met someone-- face to face-- who referred to them, or anyone else, as a "suit"? The only place I've seen the word used is in online editorials and on message boards with a political slant in a certain direction, where it was used along with other pseudo-inflammatory rhetoric specifically tailored (no pun intended) to make the author appear to be politically conscious and socially aware.
I could likewise say that jeans and t-shirts became the costume of do-nothing stoners who preached social change before either selling out or spending the rest of their lives doing nothing. For every Steve Jobs there's a burned-out hippe, just as for every corrupt CEO there's a Tom Wolfe.
OK, have I been living under a rock? Did I go to sleep last night and the vast majority of American women stopped wearing undergarments? I've got it on what I consider to be good authority that for many women, worn correctly and fitted properly, it is much more comfortable to wear a bra than to not wear one.
Not to mention that "bra burnings" are an urban legend.
Because a bunch of troubled artists living in their own filth and abusing heroin are the kind of role models we need to follow to enact socio-sartorial change. Yeah, the movement spawned some pretty good music, but it also spawned a lifestyle of excess and abuse-- pretty much the same kind of thing this fellow is purportedly speaking out against.
And as long as we're on about fashion crazes, can't the same be said for pretty much any article of clothing? For practicality's sake, all we really need are garments to protect the sensitive parts of our bodies-- for most of us, this probably means our bathing suit areas and the bottoms of our feet. Pieces of fabric to cover our legs, ankles, torsos, shoulders, and arms are, essentially, frivolous. In addition to social niceties, we simply like to wear these excessive articles; just as people who wear ties by choice like to wear them.
If you don't want to wear a suit by choice, that's fine and dandy. But to label it as an article of corruption and conformity, and then demand its annihilation, is, well... conformist.
Has anyone here ever actually met someone-- face to face-- who referred to them, or anyone else, as a "suit"? The only place I've seen the word used is in online editorials and on message boards with a political slant in a certain direction, where it was used along with other pseudo-inflammatory rhetoric specifically tailored (no pun intended) to make the author appear to be politically conscious and socially aware.
I could likewise say that jeans and t-shirts became the costume of do-nothing stoners who preached social change before either selling out or spending the rest of their lives doing nothing. For every Steve Jobs there's a burned-out hippe, just as for every corrupt CEO there's a Tom Wolfe.
OK, have I been living under a rock? Did I go to sleep last night and the vast majority of American women stopped wearing undergarments? I've got it on what I consider to be good authority that for many women, worn correctly and fitted properly, it is much more comfortable to wear a bra than to not wear one.
Not to mention that "bra burnings" are an urban legend.
Because a bunch of troubled artists living in their own filth and abusing heroin are the kind of role models we need to follow to enact socio-sartorial change. Yeah, the movement spawned some pretty good music, but it also spawned a lifestyle of excess and abuse-- pretty much the same kind of thing this fellow is purportedly speaking out against.
And as long as we're on about fashion crazes, can't the same be said for pretty much any article of clothing? For practicality's sake, all we really need are garments to protect the sensitive parts of our bodies-- for most of us, this probably means our bathing suit areas and the bottoms of our feet. Pieces of fabric to cover our legs, ankles, torsos, shoulders, and arms are, essentially, frivolous. In addition to social niceties, we simply like to wear these excessive articles; just as people who wear ties by choice like to wear them.
If you don't want to wear a suit by choice, that's fine and dandy. But to label it as an article of corruption and conformity, and then demand its annihilation, is, well... conformist.
Mav
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 413
- Location
- California
What a complete load.
I was in corporateland when "business casual" became popular, mid- 90's. For awhile, I used to blame this for loss of professionalism, decreasing standards of customer service, and general incompetence in the workplace. In other words, causal. I've come to the conclusion that "business casual" is actually symptomatic, as does the author of this piece, indicated by the following quote:
Indeed.
I was in corporateland when "business casual" became popular, mid- 90's. For awhile, I used to blame this for loss of professionalism, decreasing standards of customer service, and general incompetence in the workplace. In other words, causal. I've come to the conclusion that "business casual" is actually symptomatic, as does the author of this piece, indicated by the following quote:
Indeed.
Feraud
Bartender
- Messages
- 17,190
- Location
- Hardlucksville, NY
It's all about the lowest common denominator.
Marc Chevalier
Gone Home
- Messages
- 18,192
- Location
- Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
MisterGrey said:
And I'm very glad you came aboard this thread. Well said, well argued, and a lot of fun to read. Thanks, MisterGrey! :eusa_clap
.
MisterCairo
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 7,005
- Location
- Gads Hill, Ontario
Splunge.
tonypaj
Practically Family
- Messages
- 659
- Location
- Divonne les Bains, France
People in my place of employment consider me a "suit". I hardly ever wear one, but I most definitely dress very differently from the majority of the people there, business casual is formal for us.
I figure this characterization comes from my employer wanting me around (for whatever obscure reason) when money is being discussed...
I figure this characterization comes from my employer wanting me around (for whatever obscure reason) when money is being discussed...
Oh, sure. On commercial construction sites developers, architects, bankers, insurers, etc.... are often referred to as suits by the workers. Also, on the trading floors of the financial exchanges you'll hear the term applied to exchange officials, regulators, VIP visitors, etc....MisterGrey said:
And of course for years in Hollywood it's been used as a pejorative directed at producers, accountants, censors, etc.....by the talent.
Carlisle Blues
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,154
- Location
- Beautiful Horse Country
MisterGrey said:
Yes in my practice wearing a suit was expected. My clients included those who wore sports uniforms for a living so I was referred to as "The Suit"...lol
Mountain Man
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 303
- Location
- Fort Bragg, NC
I remember when an office I worked for in the late 80's adopted "casual fridays". You could wear things like a sport shirt, khakis and penny loafers - no jeans or tennis shoes.
One Friday in October, I wore a bright red Pendleton shirt and a pair of khakis, and was walking the 2 blocks from the parking lot to the office, and became conscious of an engine sound in my right ear. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw an early 70's Chrysler Newport with a gray body, a red hood, a blue door, etc. I could also see that it was leaving a smoky trail like a destroyer leaving a smoke screen. It was traveling up Biltmore Avenue at the same speed I was walking.
Thinking the driver was going to ask me for directions, I turned and faced him. A man with a very small head, no teeth and tobacco juice running out the corners of his mouth grinned at me and yelled "Wear 'at RED SHIRT, Mother-F---errrrrr!" And drove off, leaving me standing there with my red shirt on, and my teeth in my mouth.
One Friday in October, I wore a bright red Pendleton shirt and a pair of khakis, and was walking the 2 blocks from the parking lot to the office, and became conscious of an engine sound in my right ear. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw an early 70's Chrysler Newport with a gray body, a red hood, a blue door, etc. I could also see that it was leaving a smoky trail like a destroyer leaving a smoke screen. It was traveling up Biltmore Avenue at the same speed I was walking.
Thinking the driver was going to ask me for directions, I turned and faced him. A man with a very small head, no teeth and tobacco juice running out the corners of his mouth grinned at me and yelled "Wear 'at RED SHIRT, Mother-F---errrrrr!" And drove off, leaving me standing there with my red shirt on, and my teeth in my mouth.
bbshriver
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 180
- Location
- Lexington, NC
MisterGrey said:
Only once, I was getting breakfast in the work cafeteria, and there were some visiting folks from a relocation agency mostly wearing sport-coats. One of the cooks said to another "get ready, there's a bunch of suits outside"
Keep in mind, no-one in my building wears a coat or tie on a regular basis, so the sight of either signifies "visitor" (and thus a little more work for the cafeteria personnel)
This is pretty easy to correlate as I did relating to cars in another forum. The mental image follows what's most visible. You see a hobo in jeans and a t-shirt, and you don't think anything of it. He blends in with every average joe wearing the same thing.
But the person wearing a stylish multi-thousand dollar Armani suit will stand out, it's a visible sign that he's "different". Now lets say you see a few of these guys on TV for some scam, lawsuit, or political scandal (and lets face it, when was the last time you saw TV focus on anything GOOD done by a politician, lawyer or businessman??) you start to draw the stereotype.
Likewise TV will never bother to say "look at this washed up hippie in his jeans and t-shirt" because nobody cares, it's just not interesting. But Steve Jobs IS interesting, and wears the mock turtle and jeans.
Ergo quirky casual=good, impeccable business dress=bad.
It's about what you can see, not about what real life is.
theinterchange
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,673
- Location
- Why do you ask?
I'd wager that after business casual fades, it'll be "business hip-hop" complete with baggy pants and tall flat brimmed caps worn at idiotic looking angles, and most likely a do-rag thrown in. [huh]
This has turned into quite an interesting thread, thanks to the original poster for doing so. :eusa_clap
Randy
This has turned into quite an interesting thread, thanks to the original poster for doing so. :eusa_clap
Randy
texasgirl
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,423
- Location
- Dallas, TX
Here's an interesting article about ties
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sc-biz-0302-ties--20100302,0,2278532.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sc-biz-0302-ties--20100302,0,2278532.story
Alex Oviatt
Practically Family
- Messages
- 515
- Location
- Pasadena, CA
I just don't buy into business casual. I work in an office that is business casual (no jeans) but I always wear a suit. On "casual Fridays" I wear a blazer and flannels, tweed jacket and cavalry twills, hacking jacket and gabardines, etc., but always with a tie--the non-matched aspect is my concession to casual. I notice that our CEO always wears a suit and that is good enough for me. Now, when I come in on the weekend--that is a different story!
