The lost art of dressing for the occasion

[Tango Yankee]

And if you mandate that respect be shown, then of what value is that respect? It has not been earned.

This is one of the phrases people like to use that I find highly disrespectful in itself. I believe that it is completely backwards and is used as an excuse to treat everyone around them with disrespect or without at least without respect because no one has "earned" their respect. A highly narcissistic position, to be sure.

I believe that we should always assume everyone around us is worthy of respect and act accordingly. Respect should be something that is lost, not earned. Yes, through actions a person may earn greater respect but there should be a baseline of respect to start with. Without respect we do not have a civilization and I have long maintained that a majority of the problems in the world have their roots in disrespect or at the very least a lack of respect. Respect, good manners, and concern for the other guy are all things that work together to provide the grease that smooths out the interactions in this world. Sadly, we seem to be lacking in all three these days.

Regards,
Tom

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

You make a good point, Lizzie. I feel that there was a lot more self-respect back then. Even the poorest working-class schlubb tried his or her best to make themselves look presentable, neat, respectable and well put-together.

Unlike now.

I agree. I think it's some lame, vain, tryhard attempt to "identify" with the "working man", under the false assumption that working men dress like trash...which terrifyingly, seems to be more and more the case these days.

It's like those people who do the whole 'sagger' 'fashion' or 'fad' or whatever the hell it was...to try and 'identify' with prisoners, 'cause prisoners weren't allowed belts (suicide risk or something), so their pants kept falling off their asses.

Why on earth someone would want to I.D. with prisoners is beyond me. Life in prison is hard as hell. It's lonely, it's depressing, it's boring, and above all, it's incredibly dangerous.

Who on earth ever got it into their heads that that was cool?

It's a bit of a toss-up as to which has poisoned our culture more: the counter culture of the '60s or the hip hop "gangsta" culture of more recent years.

 

[Shangas]

I reckon it's a combination of both, now that you mention it. But because I'm biased, I'll say rap.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it's more the root that's the problem -- a combination of economic hopelessness combined with the "idolization of the Bad Boy." Remember there was a whole gangster-as-folk-hero strain in popular culture during the Depression, but that was more a response to the hopelessness of the economic situation before FDR -- it's no coincidence, I think, that the idea of gangster-as-hero began to fade out as the New Deal took hold, to be replaced by the ideal of the crusading G-Man hero. We don't really have that sense of new hope nowadays, so all that's left for popular "heroes" is thugs and felons who take what they want and damn the consequences.

Add to that the postwar fascination with the swaggering Bad Boy -- the whole biker/greaser/streetcorner loafer/JD fascination of the fifties that's never really left us, combine it with the longhaired pot-smoking dropout image of the sixties, the sullen punks of the seventies, the skaters and stoners of the eighties and nineties, and the modern-day gangbanger, and you've got the roots of what we see today: suburban "rebels" who have no idea what they're rebelling against and don't really care anyway as long as they look "cool" doing it. Not the ingredients for an especially healthy society.

 

[Edward]

I find, as a rule of sorts, that many of these individuals have never considered bespoke tailoring since they are under the impression it costs a great deal of money. I have friends happy to spend £150 on a shirt simply because it has a branding of some once proud supplier of gentleman's attire.

The whole point of the Brand - which gave rise to the trademark - in origin was that the mark was a guarantor of quality, a known entity indicating origin of the brand and what one might expect. At some point, in the mainstream, the brand became the desirable thing in and of itself, and so we get to where we are - Prada, Apple, D&G, Harley Davidson.... so, so many big brands which have little or nothing more to offer in terms of quality, but can command a significant premium simply because there are enough folks out there willing to pay a premium purely for the label. That's free market capitalism. Personally, I've always regarded blind desire for brand alone, or blind loyalty to a given brand whatever, as foolish. Most often, it seems to me, this sort of behaviour simply comes down to insecurity: folks don't trust their own choices, so they defer to a trendy brand label which confers upon the goods (irrespective of actual quality) a desirability than says "this is ok, this is acceptable, you will not be mocked for this product".

lol So true.

As far as the wedding, that is one subject I try to stay away from. I had a very simple wedding, my husband got married in his best and only suit. We couldn't afford a rental tux or a new suit. We were starting our lives together. If he hadn't had a suit, it would have been his next best outfit. I wouldn't shame anyone for wanting to save money on their wedding but still have a ceremony. Weddings are incredibly expensive.

Weddings aren't expensive, IMO - what costs are people's expectations of "the done thing", keeping up with the Joneses, having a wedding that will outdo everyone else / be remembered by everyone else..... A wedding can be done on a very small budget indeed. My brother's wedding was really rather lavish, IMO - and done on half the oft-quoted "average" cost. Far too many people spend ridiculous amounts on weddings simply because they are duped into thinking they should. Good for you for not being taken in by the wedding industry!

Out this way all of the tux shops only have tuxes that have open notched lapel jackets.

I'd happily forgive the ugly notch lapel on a DJ (or any number of other sins) if the trade off was an end to this cretinous notion of wearing black tie before 6pm!

The "torn clothing" aesthetic is something I've never understood --

Me neither. I was a metalhead kid, until I grew out of that and turned punk. Still a punk in spirit, though clothes wise I inevitably had to retire to vintage at some point. In all those years, though, I never did once care for the ripped denim aesthetic. I can see where it's coming from, though. In the last instance, the fact that squares like us don't get it is, I believe, precisely the point. I find it healthy that kids rebel through clothing.... and sad that so many nowadays continue to allow The Man to get away with so much because they don't grow beyond rebellion through dress.

Do they really have a choice? I know Lizzie makes her own clothes, but even saying she's one in a million in that regard would be an understatement. Its about as common a skill as tanning ones own leather or raising ones own crops. Truly, a skill from decades we'll never see again. You want to wear clothes, you buy what's out there. You want to look good, you buy what people think looks good. People really don't have all that much freedom, when you think about it. It's really hard to be original.

The lack of the requisite skills is certainly an issue nowadays. It's especially difficult for men - we can't all find or afford vintage in our sizes, and the reproduction market for men is really not what it is for ladies - especially if you don't want to wear a repro WW2 uniform, or dress full on rockabilly. This is, IMO, a significant reason as to why so often you'll see vintage events where the girls are immaculate and all the boys, or many of them anyhow, turn up in vintage cut jeans to everything. It's a question of what is available. Making your own for men is, alas, significantly more difficult and expensive at best. I wish not. Some days I serious consider just getting into cross-dressing because it would be so much easier...

 

[LizzieMaine]

The lack of the requisite skills is certainly an issue nowadays. It's especially difficult for men - we can't all find or afford vintage in our sizes, and the reproduction market for men is really not what it is for ladies - especially if you don't want to wear a repro WW2 uniform, or dress full on rockabilly. This is, IMO, a significant reason as to why so often you'll see vintage events where the girls are immaculate and all the boys, or many of them anyhow, turn up in vintage cut jeans to everything. It's a question of what is available. Making your own for men is, alas, significantly more difficult and expensive at best. I wish not. Some days I serious consider just getting into cross-dressing because it would be so much easier...

The thing that amazes me is how quickly these skills have been lost. Just fifty years ago, a sewing machine was a common household appliance, not some sort of specialty gadget for hobbyists. Ready-to-wear clothing was just as available then as it is now -- perhaps even a wider variety of it -- but home sewing was still a mass phenomenon. Even thru the '70s, nearly every daily newspaper had its "Pattern of the Day" feature where you could send in fifty cents and get a working copy of the pattern shown. These features existed because people used them, and I think it's safe to say that every woman my age got at least a basic instruction in sewing during junior-high Home Ec class. So why don't more people sew -- and why don't more people pass this skill down to the next generation?

Some will argue that home sewing died off because women have better things to do nowadays, but I don't think that explanation washes. Stay-at-home mothers were just as busy as the working women of today, if not more so, and yet they found time to sew. I think it's more a case of willfully rejecting a skill that's considered stereotypically "feminine" -- just another example of the deep trench of misogyny that eats thru this supposedly enlightened society. Boys don't want to learn to sew because it's too girly -- and girls don't want to learn to sew for the same reason. It's ridiculous, and as a result of that attitude we have an entire generation rendered completely helpless at the sight of a popped seam or a lost button.

More men ought to learn to sew to help dispel this image. After all, sewing machines have lots of gears and belts and levers and cotter-pins to play with, and a sewing machine is a lot less expensive than a motorcycle.

As for the suggestion in your last sentence, well, feel free to join us in the Powder Room. But you'll have to post pictures.

 

[reetpleat]

You make a good point, Lizzie. I feel that there was a lot more self-respect back then. Even the poorest working-class schlubb tried his or her best to make themselves look presentable, neat, respectable and well put-together.

Unlike now.

I agree. I think it's some lame, vain, tryhard attempt to "identify" with the "working man", under the false assumption that working men dress like trash...which terrifyingly, seems to be more and more the case these days.

It's like those people who do the whole 'sagger' 'fashion' or 'fad' or whatever the hell it was...to try and 'identify' with prisoners, 'cause prisoners weren't allowed belts (suicide risk or something), so their pants kept falling off their asses.

Why on earth someone would want to I.D. with prisoners is beyond me. Life in prison is hard as hell. It's lonely, it's depressing, it's boring, and above all, it's incredibly dangerous.

Who on earth ever got it into their heads that that was cool?

Don't foget, though, that while poor working guys tried to dress well, rich kids and rich people led the way in caqsual wear, sporting wear, wearing t shirts and jeans in the 40s was all the rage amongst the middle and upper middle class guys, while the girls took to wearing jeans and bobby socks and their dads dress shirt hanging out.

 

[reetpleat]

Some of the upper-tier nightclubs in CT, and at least one that pretends to be, have dress codes - fairly extensive ones. None are coat and tie places, so the lists are long as its just a bunch of dont's, like no sneakers and such. Not too different than the photo above. I remember googling my shoes to make sure I'd be okay. I had leather shoes on, and there was a ban on patent leather, and I'd never bothered to google what that was prior. Ends up I was okay. The place wasn't worthy of a dress code, but that's another story.

Many dance clubs in the 2000s and today, have dress codes against hip hop wear such as hats, tennis shoes, etc. What they are really doing is trying to screen out a certain type, so as to prevent trouble. Unfortunately, that type in general is black and other minorities. I have no problem with them excluding a certain type of person who happens to be a minority, and i don't blame a club owner for trying to keep a place safe, but i am a little bothered by it.

 

[Wally_Hood]

An establishment posting a dress code seems like an invitation to a lawsuit (nowadays). I wear a suit and tie or slacks, coat, and tie, daily for work, as well as similar dress for church attendance. This is a conscious choice on my part to dress professionally. When I go to a wedding or a funeral, I wear suits; at my mother-in-law's funeral one of her nephews showed up in a t-shirt and some sort of denim pants. It was difficult to not react with- what? alarm? disappointment? I can't say. This was a funeral honoring the memory of a family member and I was convinced in my own mind that the nature of the occasion would indicate your "best" clothing.

That said, as I write this I am wearing cargo shorts, a Hawaiian print shirt, and when I leave the house in about half an hour I'll slip on my flip flops; this is for shopping, going to the movies, running errands, and what not.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I'm shocked that people would dress like that to a funeral. I'm surprised as well at how many people I see in short pants at church. I thought I dressed fairly casually for the occasion, but am told that I'm overdressed. Today, I'm going in an open collared shirt, western jacket, slacks, loafers, a plaid overcoat, and of course my fedora. I thought that was fairly standard church attire (minus the fedora) even by today's standards.

 

[sheeplady]

The thing that amazes me is how quickly these skills have been lost. Just fifty years ago, a sewing machine was a common household appliance, not some sort of specialty gadget for hobbyists. Ready-to-wear clothing was just as available then as it is now -- perhaps even a wider variety of it -- but home sewing was still a mass phenomenon. Even thru the '70s, nearly every daily newspaper had its "Pattern of the Day" feature where you could send in fifty cents and get a working copy of the pattern shown. These features existed because people used them, and I think it's safe to say that every woman my age got at least a basic instruction in sewing during junior-high Home Ec class. So why don't more people sew -- and why don't more people pass this skill down to the next generation?

Some will argue that home sewing died off because women have better things to do nowadays, but I don't think that explanation washes. Stay-at-home mothers were just as busy as the working women of today, if not more so, and yet they found time to sew. I think it's more a case of willfully rejecting a skill that's considered stereotypically "feminine" -- just another example of the deep trench of misogyny that eats thru this supposedly enlightened society. Boys don't want to learn to sew because it's too girly -- and girls don't want to learn to sew for the same reason. It's ridiculous, and as a result of that attitude we have an entire generation rendered completely helpless at the sight of a popped seam or a lost button.

More men ought to learn to sew to help dispel this image. After all, sewing machines have lots of gears and belts and levers and cotter-pins to play with, and a sewing machine is a lot less expensive than a motorcycle.

As for the suggestion in your last sentence, well, feel free to join us in the Powder Room. But you'll have to post pictures.

Well, home ec isn't taught any more. Even of my fellow 4-Hers (who received several years of sewing instruction) I am the only one I know who still sews. I'm pretty sure that my husband's and I's schools were the last "hold outs" for home ec curriculum, they stopped teaching the one course they offered in the middle school (age 12) in the 90s.

There was a time when sewing for me was cost prohibitive- I could buy relatively nice clothes off the rack for very little money. Now the quality has sunk so low, the fit is all messed up (do they understand women's bodies have curves?), and all the fibers have gone synthetic, it's become cheaper again to sew for the quality/fit at least. Although I dread the day when I need to sew everything I wear, because I hate sewing blouses. But I fear that day is coming.

I offered to sew my husband a blazer one time, because I had a pattern. After he spent 10 minutes explaining to me why this would be a very bad idea (men's clothes are the devil to make, apparently) I rescinded my offer.

 

[scottyrocks]

The funny thing is that people who actually did that kind of work would have been appalled at the thought of walking the streets in tattered work clothing. My grandfather worked hard his whole life -- fixing engines, working on the docks -- and I never once saw him in tattered clothes. When his work clothes were damaged, they were carefully repaired. To his generation, the sight of tattered, raggedy clothes denoted one thing -- a tramp clown in the circus, or a comedy bum in a movie or vaudeville show. Even the actual hobos of the era at least made the effort to patch holes in their clothing.

As I say, it makes no sense to me except as a contrived attempt to look "authentic," with authenticity defined by the standards of the helplessly self-hating middle class.

And it doesn't even look authentic.

Around here, teenage girls wear carefully and precisely ripped clothes, jeans in particular. The tears are done on patterns that I have never had occur to any of my jeans in all the years I've been doing auto and motorcycle repairs, and home and commercial construction.

And speaking of which, tears in blue jeans are nothing but an inconvenience when working 50 stories above the street carrying heavy materials or working with a circular saw. Every time you bend your leg and part of you gets caught up in the hole of the tear, and you do this over and over again all day long, it becomes pretty darn annoying, and you go home and toss those pants out and wear others the next day with no damage.

I guess if your idea of physical activity is walking in the mall, torn jeans are just fine.

 

[SGT Rocket]

I remember my mom sewing patches on my jeans in the 1970's, when I was in primary/elementary school. I also remember some fabric glue she had and, when she had little time (she was a single mom), she would try to glue them on.

My wife knows how to sew, and has offered to sew stuff up for me (a hole in a crotch or something). I learned how to sew, but not well, my first stint in the army in the late 1980's. Now, I'm trying to do more sewing to get my skill up; at least I try to sew when needed.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, home ec isn't taught any more. Even of my fellow 4-Hers (who received several years of sewing instruction) I am the only one I know who still sews. I'm pretty sure that my husband's and I's schools were the last "hold outs" for home ec curriculum, they stopped teaching the one course they offered in the middle school (age 12) in the 90s.

It's the same way here -- and the question I keep asking is "Why?" I usually get some mumbled answer about "the need to keep classes relevant to the needs of today's students," but that's the purest unrefined bunk. Knowing how to keep your clothing in repair is irrelevant? Knowing how to prepare food is irrelevant? Knowing how to maintain your living space is irrelevant? I don't buy that argument for a second. What it is is just as I said it was -- a cultural prejudice against anything considered stereotypically "feminine", even if both sexes are required to take the course.

Our school district here offers subjects like Film Theory as electives -- and I'm hard pressed to see how something like that is more relevant to the needs of today's students than basic life skills. Bunk, bunk, bunk.

 

[sheeplady]

It's the same way here -- and the question I keep asking is "Why?" I usually get some mumbled answer about "the need to keep classes relevant to the needs of today's students," but that's the purest unrefined bunk. Knowing how to keep your clothing in repair is irrelevant? Knowing how to prepare food is irrelevant? Knowing how to maintain your living space is irrelevant? I don't buy that argument for a second. What it is is just as I said it was -- a cultural prejudice against anything considered stereotypically "feminine", even if both sexes are required to take the course.

Our school district here offers subjects like Film Theory as electives -- and I'm hard pressed to see how something like that is more relevant to the needs of today's students than basic life skills. Bunk, bunk, bunk.

I think they replaced most of the "useful skills" with how to take tests or classes that will get you into college. They don't teach home ec, they don't teach nutrition, they don't teach finance, and they don't even teach shop or business classes anymore. But every student should take calculus because it's so important.

I can tell you I cook, work with finances, and manage my home every day of my life. I haven't used calculus since I took my final exam in Calculus 201. I've taught advanced statistics at the doctorate level (to non-statistics students), but still, never ever used a single piece of calculus.

 

[Bob_Fixico]

I remember having holes and rips in my jeans when I was younger. They came from working on the farm they were patched with iron on patches and rips were sewn. I walked the excess lenghth off of hand me down clothes. Now those clothes were for working on the farm. School had a dress code clean and crisp clothes button shirts jeans or slacks worn with a belt and shirt must be tucked in. Girls wore dresses and skirts only up a modest lenght of the back of the knee an no lower than the ankle. For girls at the time tight shirts and sweaters were fround on a lose fitting jacket or lose fitting sweater was mandatory. I dont know what happened everywhere else in th 1960's and 70's but when I left home I got a culture shock.

Myself I stuck with what I knew. Clean crisp pants shirt long sleeve goes with tie. Short sleeve no tie but tie was to be worn with jacket. But even when I was in my twenties in 1980 something I got respect from my seniors and my pears because they thought I knew what I was doing because I seemed to dress the part of someone in charge.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think they replaced most of the "useful skills" with how to take tests or classes that will get you into college. They don't teach home ec, they don't teach nutrition, they don't teach finance, and they don't even teach shop or business classes anymore. But every student should take calculus because it's so important.

We have an education system, apparently, that's focused entirely on getting middle-class kids into a "prestigious college." But what happens to them once they're *out* of that college, well, who cares? Seems to me that's a society more concerned with satisfying the ego of the parents than assuring the well-being of the progeny.

(I don't even know what calculus is -- I know it's some kind of umpety-ump math, but that's as far as my awareness of it goes. It's a wonder I can function at all in the modern world.)

 

[Edward]

I was just reminded of the day when one of our headmasters, approaching retirement announced that on the one non-uniform day we had that year, jeans would not be acceptable (this in the mid late eighties, when denim was very much in fashion and a fair chunk of kids there would have been unlikely to own anything else outside of their school uniform). Bless him, he realised the next day that he'd misread, and the school rule by then was no ripped denim, and he had the wherewithal to announce a correction. That was the end of our Great Act of Rebellion (turning up en mass in jeans), of course. lol

The thing that amazes me is how quickly these skills have been lost. Just fifty years ago, a sewing machine was a common household appliance, not some sort of specialty gadget for hobbyists. Ready-to-wear clothing was just as available then as it is now -- perhaps even a wider variety of it -- but home sewing was still a mass phenomenon. Even thru the '70s, nearly every daily newspaper had its "Pattern of the Day" feature where you could send in fifty cents and get a working copy of the pattern shown. These features existed because people used them, and I think it's safe to say that every woman my age got at least a basic instruction in sewing during junior-high Home Ec class. So why don't more people sew -- and why don't more people pass this skill down to the next generation?

Some will argue that home sewing died off because women have better things to do nowadays, but I don't think that explanation washes. Stay-at-home mothers were just as busy as the working women of today, if not more so, and yet they found time to sew. I think it's more a case of willfully rejecting a skill that's considered stereotypically "feminine" -- just another example of the deep trench of misogyny that eats thru this supposedly enlightened society. Boys don't want to learn to sew because it's too girly -- and girls don't want to learn to sew for the same reason. It's ridiculous, and as a result of that attitude we have an entire generation rendered completely helpless at the sight of a popped seam or a lost button.

More men ought to learn to sew to help dispel this image. After all, sewing machines have lots of gears and belts and levers and cotter-pins to play with, and a sewing machine is a lot less expensive than a motorcycle.

As for the suggestion in your last sentence, well, feel free to join us in the Powder Room. But you'll have to post pictures.

The advent of cheap. disposable fashion, I believe. Most people care significantly less about what they wear than the likes of us; most nowadays don't care about sticking with one thing rather than following the vagaries of fashion. That being the case, why would they go to the effort - or, indeed, additional expense - of making something for themselves when they can buy it for buttons, wear it six months, then clear it out for the next thing? I'd like to see that change - not least because of the sort of appalling trade practices in which the contemporary fashion world indulges - but it'll be a long battle.

Many dance clubs in the 2000s and today, have dress codes against hip hop wear such as hats, tennis shoes, etc. What they are really doing is trying to screen out a certain type, so as to prevent trouble. Unfortunately, that type in general is black and other minorities. I have no problem with them excluding a certain type of person who happens to be a minority, and i don't blame a club owner for trying to keep a place safe, but i am a little bothered by it.

I agree that the motivation is to keep out troublemakers. Same reason so many clubs these days won't admit large single-gender groups, or often require "behaviour bonds" as a returnable deposit if they do. (Use to be those rules were all aimed at males, but increasingly they apply to women also as clubs realise hen nights are typically far worse behaved on average). Within the City of London, there are places that won't admit anyone in a collar and tie, due to the misbehaviour of city boys. It'd be nice to think that a place could survive only attracting the sort of folks at whom it is aimed and not having to keep anyone out, but in reality that's not the case. I do think there is also something to be said for preserving an "atmosphere", though, through dress code. Clearly that can be taken to silly extremes (I did hear of one vintage night in years past collapsing after they took it to crazy levels - refusing admittance to those wearing brown in town, for instance), but nevertheless.... There was (I believe still is) a big club here in London called School Disco. Everyone comes in school uniform (or dressed as a teacher), and the music was all 80s / early 90s pop and so on - replicating the school discos of the era that the promoters were from. A number of copyist nights happened, but they never took off - and, of course, school uniform disco nights were nothing new. But these folks made a go of it - on a Saturday night they used to have three thousand people in there - and at least half that again outside trying to get in. They were very strict on dress code, which was a big part of their success. So many of the copyists let just anyone in, which totally killed the illusion. I do firmly believe this had a lot to do with their success.

I'm shocked that people would dress like that to a funeral. I'm surprised as well at how many people I see in short pants at church. I thought I dressed fairly casually for the occasion, but am told that I'm overdressed. Today, I'm going in an open collared shirt, western jacket, slacks, loafers, a plaid overcoat, and of course my fedora. I thought that was fairly standard church attire (minus the fedora) even by today's standards.

I'm shocked any time I see a grown man in short trousers. Personally, I dress for church but I do like that the one I attend has no dress code, and draws a real mix of what people wear. There is a time and a place for enforcing a dress code, but that is not, I feel, it. I grew up attending church in Northern Ireland, in places where you really would be judged if you showed up in a pair of jeans. I've known a few people in my time who might have considered gonig to a church but felt they wouldn't be welcome with the way they dressed, and didn't own a suit or whatever. Does seem to me to rather defeat the point. [huh]

 

[sheeplady]

(I don't even know what calculus is -- I know it's some kind of umpety-ump math, but that's as far as my awareness of it goes. It's a wonder I can function at all in the modern world.)

That's probably the best explanation of calculus I've ever read. (Runs and hides from the math experts.)

 

[Bob_Fixico]

Miss Lizzie and Miss Sheeplady you ladies have it right. I just asked my wife about it or rather to remind me. Our sons wanted to take shop in school but that was only offered in the vocational curriculum not in college preparitory. Business math "finance" and home economics was only offered in the vocational classes. Needless to say my two eldest sons did not go to college.