The loss of occasion

[StanleyVanBuren]

When would they need dress pants & why spend money on something you don't think you'll ever wear?

But this is exactly my point -- at the very least, sooner or later, everyone has a funeral to go to.

 

[Zig2k143]

I've learned long ago never to argue with people...

My father is very very right winged and my uncle is very very left winged. (I have my own opinions)

They argue all the time back and fourth for years and years....

But neither of them has ever convinced the other of anything.

Why argue everyone has their own views.

 

[Dagwood]

Can I say that I agree with everyone re: funerals.

I like this article from the San Diego Union Tribune. A good quote from the article: “'Funeral attire should have an emphasis on timeless style and elegance, not on attention-getting,' says Dianne M. Daniels, an image coach from Norwich, Conn. 'You are not there to attract attention, but to pay your respects to the deceased and support their family.'"

In other words, as long as your attire does not cause a distraction, it should be okay. To quote again from the San Diego article: "'I do have an awful lot of people who apologize to me for what they have on,' Bryce says. People probably shouldn't worry so much, he says. Not once in his 25-plus years in the industry has he heard relatives of the deceased complain about a mourners' attire. They're just grateful for the support.'"

This principle can probably be applied to a lot of areas of life: (1) Don't cause an unnecessary distraction, and (2) people are usually grateful for your support.

 

[StanleyVanBuren]

I've learned long ago never to argue with people...

My father is very very right winged and my uncle is very very left winged. (I have my own opinions)

They argue all the time back and fourth for years and years....

But neither of them has ever convinced the other of anything.

Why argue everyone has their own views.

I'm undecided / on the fence about a great many things and find I can generally learn a lot by hearing both sides presented.

 

[Zig2k143]

I'm undecided / on the fence about a great many things and find I can generally learn a lot by hearing both sides presented.

Sure I'm not saying you are wrong by doing so... I just choose not too.

 

[StanleyVanBuren]

What if the jeans cost $200 and the simple t-shirt is cashmere?

Then they really have no excuse.

 

[dnjan]

Having grown up "poor" (not destitute, but my family qualified for the subsidized lunch program), I think it is safe to say that many poor people would respect the "occaision" of a funeral, and show up wearing the best that they had (out of respect).

The lack of "occaision" is demonstrated by those who would show up in jeans and T-shirt even though they had access to more appropriate clothes (or a very short skirt and/or very low-cut top, etc.).

Another interesting opportunity to see conflicts between attire and occaision is the evening mass on New Year's Eve. Seeing people showing up to mass in their "to the nines" outfits, on the way to a New Year's Eve party. I imagine that some of those dresses are a true test of the priest's celebacy vow during communion.

 

[Paisley]

If it's a funeral, you must know some, if not most, of the people there, and they know you, too. Surely they know that those pants with not that many stains and holes are the best pants that you, the poor but hardworking laborer, own, and that being 21, you outgrew your last suit, bought when you were 18 for your graduation.

 

[Miss Brill]

We can bemoan society's lax standards & the emphasis on individuality, but that is what is being used when people dress vintage. You never saw a 1940s housewife wearing an 1860's hoop skirt, she'd have been laughed at. Jackie Kennedy & Mamie Eisenhower dressed for their times, they kept up with the styles. The freedom we have to wear shorts in public is the same freedom that allows others to dress like Rosie the Riveter. People were not allowed personal fashion quirks, now we are. Who gets to decide which decade's fashions are acceptable? Why not make the goverment issue everyone a proper uniform that conforms to certain standards?

 

[Lady Day]

We can bemoan society's lax standards & the emphasis on individuality, but that is what is being used when people dress vintage. You never saw a 1940s housewife wearing an 1860's hoop skirt, she'd have been laughed at. Jackie Kennedy & Mamie Eisenhower dressed for their times, they kept up with the styles. The freedom we have to wear shorts in public is the same freedom that allows others to dress like Rosie the Riveter. People were not allowed personal fashion quirks, now we are. Who gets to decide which decade's fashions are acceptable? Why not make the goverment issue everyone a proper uniform that conforms to certain standards?

This has nothing to do with dressing for the occasion.

LD

 

[carebear]

Erm....

In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.

Thats 12% of the population that are up against that wall. All the time.

Pointless trying to change people who only ever wish with all their heart to find fault in others.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

May I suggest that perhaps those people are worried, and quite rightly so, about -eating- and getting to work...

Of course they should go buy some slacks....that would improve their life....

Pointless to discuss...with people who only ever wish to find fault with others...

Care to look at the actual dollar amount that defines poverty in this country is? In 1997 by your link it was $15K.

Care to price a suit or slacks/jacket or dress is at Goodwill in comparison? It's about $20 as of last week.

Heck, care to look at what proportion of income that defines "poverty" in the past 10-20 years versus median is now, versus the past? That I don't know, but I know the proportion has grown.

Now take into account the EITC and other benefits that exist now that didn't exist 20/30/50/100 years ago.

Funny that my parents, grandparents and great-grand parents somehow always managed to own at least one "wedding/funeral suit" when proportions of "poverty" income to Fed. AMI were much, much lower than they are today.

Being "poor" is no excuse, then or now, for not having the ability to dress, act or live appropriately. It always comes down to making the decision to dress, act or live appropriately.

 

[rubyredlocks]

I think what is appropriate is difficult to define.I agree that the times have changed and not everyone has the same definition.A large part of what some think is appropriate is really more about preference.
While some may think that the "funeral guest" showing up in jeans is a faux pas,someone else may just be happy they showed up.

This reminds me of a discussion I had after attending a co-workers wedding.3 of us were having our lunch,when 1 of the girls asked me if I had seen the guest that arrived in head to toe white and if that was bad.I replied that I wasn't sure since black was now considered appropriate,but I'd hate it if anyone showed up to MY wedding in all white.
To which our other friend replied "I'd hate if someone showed up to my wedding in a wedding dress and veil,but anything other than that and I'm just thankful they showed up."I felt properly put in my place and rightly so.

Now,the shallow side of me admits that I do enjoy looking at pretty people in pretty things.I miss the pomp and circumstance that use to be a part of our celebrations,but life changes.Who am I to judge?

 

[jamespowers]

Care to look at the actual dollar amount that defines poverty in this country is? In 1997 by your link it was $15K.

Care to price a suit or slacks/jacket or dress is at Goodwill in comparison? It's about $20 as of last week.

Heck, care to look at what proportion of income that defines "poverty" in the past 10-20 years versus median is now, versus the past? That I don't know, but I know the proportion has grown.

Now take into account the EITC and other benefits that exist now that didn't exist 20/30/50/100 years ago.

Funny that my parents, grandparents and great-grand parents somehow always managed to own at least one "wedding/funeral suit" when proportions of "poverty" income to Fed. AMI were much, much lower than they are today.

Being "poor" is no excuse, then or now, for not having the ability to dress, act or live appropriately. It always comes down to making the decision to dress, act or live appropriately.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Johnnysan]

Being "poor" is no excuse, then or now, for not having the ability to dress, act or live appropriately. It always comes down to making the decision to dress, act or live appropriately.

Add my applause to this one as well! :eusa_clap

 

[warbird]

Care to look at the actual dollar amount that defines poverty in this country is? In 1997 by your link it was $15K.

Care to price a suit or slacks/jacket or dress is at Goodwill in comparison? It's about $20 as of last week.

Heck, care to look at what proportion of income that defines "poverty" in the past 10-20 years versus median is now, versus the past? That I don't know, but I know the proportion has grown.

Now take into account the EITC and other benefits that exist now that didn't exist 20/30/50/100 years ago.

Funny that my parents, grandparents and great-grand parents somehow always managed to own at least one "wedding/funeral suit" when proportions of "poverty" income to Fed. AMI were much, much lower than they are today.

Being "poor" is no excuse, then or now, for not having the ability to dress, act or live appropriately. It always comes down to making the decision to dress, act or live appropriately.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[GeniusInTheLamp]

Care to look at the actual dollar amount that defines poverty in this country is? In 1997 by your link it was $15K.

Care to price a suit or slacks/jacket or dress is at Goodwill in comparison? It's about $20 as of last week.

Heck, care to look at what proportion of income that defines "poverty" in the past 10-20 years versus median is now, versus the past? That I don't know, but I know the proportion has grown.

Now take into account the EITC and other benefits that exist now that didn't exist 20/30/50/100 years ago.

Funny that my parents, grandparents and great-grand parents somehow always managed to own at least one "wedding/funeral suit" when proportions of "poverty" income to Fed. AMI were much, much lower than they are today.

Being "poor" is no excuse, then or now, for not having the ability to dress, act or live appropriately. It always comes down to making the decision to dress, act or live appropriately.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap
(whilst looking at a 1940's picture of my dirt-poor uncles in their suits & ties)

 

[Jovan]

Then they really have no excuse.

QFT.

 

[Paisley]

"The poor" includes a wide variety of people. Some have their own homes and air conditioning(!); others are doing OK working off the books. If we are talking about those who are one step from living on the street, though, I wouldn't expect them to spend anything on fancy duds they won't need again for years.

And I'm sure there were folks of the Golden Era who had nothing but old togs. Maybe they didn't have a camera or want their picture taken.

 

[Feng_Li]

It doesn't seem fair to me to compare a person who cannot do a thing to a person who is perfectly capable and simply refuses. And a person who goes to any length despite his or her circumstances to demonstrate respect is to be commended.

Conversely, the person who is deliberately disrespectful (whether out of malice or apathy) has also made a judgment: he has judged that a person, institution or occasion unworthy of his respect. The recipient is completely within his rights to take offense or be critical.

However, if a person is simply unaware of what he is doing, he is to be gently educated rather than criticized.

I don't find it inherently wrong to criticize, but without leading by example and willingness to teach with compassion, such criticism is unproductive and malicious.

 

[carebear]

"The poor" includes a wide variety of people. Some have their own homes and air conditioning(!); others are doing OK working off the books. If we are talking about those who are one step from living on the street, though, I wouldn't expect them to spend anything on fancy duds they won't need again for years.

And I'm sure there were folks of the Golden Era who had nothing but old togs. Maybe they didn't have a camera or want their picture taken.

Pictures of breadlines. The jackets and hats were battered, but they were there.

You are right though, there's a big difference between the very few people in this countrywho are homeless or near homeless due to no fault of their own and folks who just don't meet some arbitrary government income standard.