What has happened to society?

[Dixon Cannon]

In a sense, we have our own 'Fedora Lounge' "Blue Law" - the ban on political discussion.

In a great thread like this one, it cuts out one whole aspect of the equation, thus limiting the discussion. One can't talk about societies without mentioning the political philosophy of that society. It's impossible to talk about society if you can't bring up the political dynamics that steer society.

Without broaching "politics", I will say that since the early 20th Century a change in political philosophy in this country and abroad has played greatly into bringing us to the society that we now endure. Dare I say, for most individuals in our a society, a complete lack of political philosophy has allowed many to be shepherded into and within the society that we now endure.

I'll let a better authority speak outside of the Fedora Lounge for those who have a real interest in the subject of this thread; Judge Andrew Napolitano in his newest book 'A Nation Of Sheep'. I believe the title sums it up nicely!

-dixon cannon

 

[kokopelli]

Relative

I believe you've hit on something there. Dress is/should be appropriate to the occasion. That being said, a lot depends on lifestyle and/or where you go/live. I have no "ratty jeans", "torn shirts" or "tennis shoes". I just don't have a use for them. I also have no suits, dress pants, ties or other types dress of clothing some folks wear and look good in, I would add. I don't work in a business office, I'm not in politics and rarely frequent five star restaurants.

I sport Stetson's, Luccheses, Levi 501s, Scully jackets, roper dress shirts. I hold the door for folks, especially women, I refer to people as sir and ma'am, I don't annoy people with my country tunes. I don't throw my beer bottles (or anything else) on the side of the road, I let people "in" in traffic, I smile and say please and thank you, etc... you get the idea. I also travel across this great land and meet people everywhere, more often that now they treat me the same way.

My point is, what's wrong with my 501's? They are new, clean and pressed and what does that have to do with manners? Manners has nothing to do with wearing a suit and tie; around where I live, more likely boots, Stetson and jeans.. Ron

I for one do not assess the golden era some like to call it by the movies. I also know as Twitch said, there are always exceptions to every rule. That being said I for one and I don't think most here would suggest that the norm was also the view of appropriate dress and manners as those put forth by so-called polite society. in fact I do not consider many of those polite as they treated anyone below them as less than human beings.

Dress is a relative term I suppose. I do not dress vintage, I won no vintage suits. I do wear dress hats as I have done for 20+ years. What I mean and I think most will agree, dress is appropriate for the occasion. For instance, when I go out for dinner I dress in something presentable for appropriateness. I don't wear a torn up tshirt and ratty jeans as I might working in the yard. I take my hat off when sitting in a restaurant, regardless of whether it's a nice establishment or a table in a diner.

I thank people who assist me or bring me something and treat my elders respectfully. We dress appropriately for church out of respect and my kids dress as I say they must. Now that doesn't mean they aren't free to express themselves, but there has to be some rules as well.

 

[warbird]

I believe you've hit on something there. Dress is/should be appropriate to the occasion. That being said, a lot depends on lifestyle and/or where you go/live. I have no "ratty jeans", "torn shirts" or "tennis shoes". I just don't have a use for them. I also have no suits, dress pants, ties or other types dress of clothing some folks wear and look good in, I would add. I don't work in a business office, I'm not in politics and rarely frequent five star restaurants.

I sport Stetson's, Luccheses, Levi 501s, Scully jackets, roper dress shirts. I hold the door for folks, especially women, I refer to people as sir and ma'am, I don't annoy people with my country tunes. I don't throw my beer bottles (or anything else) on the side of the road, I let people "in" in traffic, I smile and say please and thank you, etc... you get the idea. I also travel across this great land and meet people everywhere, more often that now they treat me the same way.

My point is, what's wrong with my 501's? They are new, clean and pressed and what does that have to do with manners? Manners has nothing to do with wearing a suit and tie; around where I live, more likely boots, Stetson and jeans.. Ron

Thanks for your post. I would agree that it's the manner in which one holds themselves and the way clothes are worn as well. I find nothing wrong with the way you say you dress and I think your manners exhibit a person who has consideration for their fellow man.

For what its worth I have probably 10 pair of boots. I wear them proudly.

 

[kokopelli]

It did go that way

It did go that way didn't it.. Just about everything I hold sacred has been added to the blame list by one side or the other..

You're right. it took another couple posts or so before i realised the thread was doomed.

For the record:

My 1968 statement was a joke; that being the date where many would argue the final descent began due to various things that culminated that year around the world.

I had no idea these laws were called "Blue Laws". We had & have similar laws.

bk

 

[warbird]

It did go that way didn't it.. Just about everything I hold sacred has been added to the blame list by one side or the other..

I think indeed you do not hold them sacred. You certainly have manners and dress like you know who you are and wear clothing that is respectful of yourself and others who come in contact with you.

You have manners because that is respectful to your fellow man and you do so because you don not want to be thought of by your family or others as trashy. You know as well as I do, there are many in our area who dress similarly to us, as I said I have plenty of jeans and boots, but who wear them shabbily and who act like they never were taught manner 1. There's a big difference here my friend. It isn't about suits and dinner jackets.

 

[kokopelli]

Good man

Good man.. and I will certainly agree that "ratty dress" is just that. Thongs were never meant to be outside pants and "parts" should not normally protrude over the top of the bra! My wife and I often observe folks and shudder. I don't know where the sloppy-ness and vulgarity of dress comes from, but the actual lack of manners are worse.. Ron

PS: I've noticed that if I do my best "southern cowboy" I normally get the best of service and 99% of the people smile (or laugh)... In either case "they ain't mad or causing trouble"..

Thanks for your post. I would agree that it's the manner in which one holds themselves and the way clothes are worn as well. I find nothing wrong with the way you say you dress and I think your manners exhibit a person who has consideration for their fellow man.

For what its worth I have probably 10 pair of boots. I wear them proudly.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

It is my understanding that a "Blue" law is one that while still on the books is antuiquated, and no longer enforced.

For example it is legal to drive a herd of livestock through the streets of downtown Seattle.

It has never been taken off the books, but no one has done it for quite some time either.


I have a very different view on times, change, the reason why and the probable outcome.

The date of the change was April 23, 1963.
It's only going to get weirder from here.

Reference "Windswept House" by Fr. Malachai Martin

Your milage may vary

 

[kokopelli]

Correct

You are correct. I was referring to freedom, youth, women (can't leave that out) religion/prayer, beer and NASCAR! It's all in the delivery, isn't it.. Ron

I think indeed you do not hold them sacred. You certainly have manners and dress like you know who you are and wear clothing that is respectful of yourself and others who come in contact with you.

You have manners because that is respectful to your fellow man and you do so because you don not want to be thought of by your family or others and trashy. You know as well as I do, there are many in our area who dress similarly to us, as I said I have plenty of jeans and boots, but who wear them shabbily and who act like they never were taught manner 1. There's a big difference here my friend. It isn't about suits and dinner jackets.

 

[warbird]

You are correct. I was referring to freedom, youth, women (can't leave that out) religion/prayer, beer and NASCAR! It's all in the delivery, isn't it.. Ron

This is why conversations of such are good in my book. You see we really weren't far off from one another after all.

 

[Haversack]

One factor that has fed the increasing casualness in dressing is how much less expensive clothing in general has gotten over the past seventy years. It has already been mentioned that most people in the 1930s had fewer clothes than today. This was because in reletive terms, few could afford a large wardrobe. (Living in a 1910 house, I can attest to the small size of the three closets it contains.)

When people began to be able to afford more clothes, the preceived value of clothing decreased. "Make and mend", darning, patching, reweaving have all become rare, (or rarified), skills as people found it easier to replace rather than repair. Today some clothing is even marketed as being disposable.

Accompaning the greater affordability of clothing there has also been a decrease in the quality of "mid-range clothes"*. Slow incremental changes in technology, manufacturing, materials and marketing have not only decreased the produciton cost of mid-range goods, they have also decreased the level of what is considered acceptable quality. Consider the opinions of folks here on the superior quality of vintage felt, jacket cut, canvasing, et. al. We have seen this race to the bottom occur in other markets as mid-level purveyors of decent quality goods are undercut by ultra-low cost purveyors of cheap, barely passable goods. As mid-level purveyors and goods disappear, you end up with most people only familiar with goods whose preeminent quality is that they were made with the lowest production cost. Hence, if "good" clothes worn for business or formal ocassions are ill-fitting and uncomfortable, there might be a tendency to wear them as little as possible.

Haversack.
*I am excluding high-end clothing and bottom of the barrel, poorly made clothes. On the one hand, high quality is still available if one has the means, willingness, and knowledge to find and pay for it. On the other hand, the technical changes of the past 70 years have probably improved bottom-of-the-barrel clothes.

 

[kokopelli]

Yes

OK.. I relent.. This thread has been sort-a like some versions of the prayer.. The ones that say and then he decended into Hades.. It has in fact came almost full circle.. I do like it when things end in a happy manner. It's tougher in this format that over a beer and a wing Ron

This is why conversations of such are good in my book. You see we really weren't far off from one another after all.

 

[warbird]

OK.. I relent.. This thread has been sort-a like some versions of the prayer.. The ones that say and then he decended into Hades.. It has in fact came almost full circle.. I do like it when things end in a happy manner. It's tougher in this format that over a beer and a wing Ron

Indeed and I never turn down a chance at a beer and wings. I'll be in east Tennessee soon. We'll meet up for said consumption.

 

[kokopelli]

Clothes

My wife and I just moved to a house that has probably over 50 linear feel of closet space... All the space is filled and all closets are full.. I use about five feet of it.. For the most part, my lot works for all seasons and occasions.. My wife, on the other hand does a massive seasonal rotation.. That's the only way the current season will fit in the available space Ron

One factor that has fed the increasing casualness in dressing is how much less expensive clothing in general has gotten over the past seventy years. It has already been mentioned that most people in the 1930s had fewer clothes than today. This was because in reletive terms, few could afford a large wardrobe. (Living in a 1910 house, I can attest to the small size of the three closets it contains.)

When people began to be able to afford more clothes, the preceived value of clothing decreased. "Make and mend", darning, patching, reweaving have all become rare, (or rarified), skills as people found it easier to replace rather than repair. Today some clothing is even marketed as being disposable.

Accompaning the greater affordability of clothing there has also been a decrease in the quality of "mid-range clothes"*. Slow incremental changes in technology, manufacturing, materials and marketing have not only decreased the produciton cost of mid-range goods, they have also decreased the level of what is considered acceptable quality. Consider the opinions of folks here on the superior quality of vintage felt, jacket cut, canvasing, et. al. We have seen this race to the bottom occur in other markets as mid-level purveyors of decent quality goods are undercut by ultra-low cost purveyors of cheap, barely passable goods. As mid-level purveyors and goods disappear, you end up with most people only familiar with goods whose preeminent quality is that they were made with the lowest production cost. Hence, if "good" clothes worn for business or formal ocassions are ill-fitting and uncomfortable, there might be a tendency to wear them as little as possible.

Haversack.
*I am excluding high-end clothing and bottom of the barrel, poorly made clothes. On the one hand, high quality is still available if one has the means, willingness, and knowledge to find and pay for it. On the other hand, the technical changes of the past 70 years have probably improved bottom-of-the-barrel clothes.

 

[Flivver]

I agree that how well a person is dressed is often not related to how they treat others...some dress well simply for vanity or even one-upsmanship.

But I also remember my Depression era Mom telling me that dressing well at school or work shows a certain respect for those around you and for the school or business itself. I think there's some real truth to that.

And I think it's that respect for others that is so often missing in today's society.

 

[Haversack]

Even with the increasing casualness of dressing over the years, clothes still have a language that says what group one belongs to. For some professions, in some regions, there is an interesting sartorial balance to be struck between get-your-hands-dirty pragmatism and presenting yourself as competent professional. Back when I was living in Oregon and working in timber-frame residential design, my work day could see me on a construction site, the framer's workshop, the building department, and a client's office or home all on the same day. My workclothes needed to 'work' in all of these places. Through evolution, I settled on polished leather brogues with Vibram lug soles, pressed Wrangler jeans or wool whipcord trousers - (depending on season), a small plaid or tatersall flannel shirt, an old, (i.e. heavy) Harris tweed jacket, and a wool flat cap. I would carry a muted colour tie to put on or take off as appropriate. (Construction site, workshop - no. Building department, clients - yes) Not too different from what one of the state's recent governors wore. But then he was also a practicing country doctor. Quite a bit different from working at an architectural firm in the City. (The shoes still work though.)

Haversack.
who years ago noted that one could play the flute or play the harp depending on how one dressed.

 

[Foofoogal]

My blue point sort of got sidetracked but it was more of a spending family time suggestion.
During blue law Sunday nothing was opened and I mean nothing that I remember except the hospitals and pharmacies if I remember right.
People were forced to spend time with the kids and hence teach manners. Going to church was a part but also Sunday drives and picnics were also.
We had a consistent routine.
Church, go home and eat pot roast made day before with mashed potatoes, green beans and pineapple salad. After lay around and read the comics and then a Sunday drive in the afternoon.

 

[Martinis at 8]

This thread is building fast. Anyone taking/giving odds on its closure

 

[Feraud]

I have never seen nor read any evidence to suggest society today in terms of morals and values is much (much being a subjective word) different from the past. Whether or not you appreciate not hearing foul language or seeing ugly clothes in public is subjective when your neighbor values the right to earn equal wages or cast a vote.

Movies do not represent life. Newspapers and magazines represent one facet of a given subject. Personal photographs viewed over many years, from groups of families, and social levels may reveal what people wore but not much else in terms of morals and civility.

As for morals and civility? I did not live then and cannot say. Most of us know from experience that clothes do not make the man or woman.

 

[Haversack]

I am not sure if the closure laws are still in effect, but until recently in Germany, (Bavaria in particular), shops are not permitted to be open in the evenings, Saturday afternoons, or Sundays. The exceptions are the first Saturday of the month, the four Saturdays prior to Christmas, and increasingly, Thursday evenings. The primary reason for these closures is to protect family-run retail and ensure that retail workers have time for their families. The laws are not designed to remove temptation from sinners on the Sabbath.

Haversack.
who recently heard that in Indiana, it is illegal to sell automobiles on Sunday. Is this true?

 

[Foofoogal]

I have never seen nor read any evidence to suggest society today in terms of morals and values is much (much being a subjective word) different from the past.

Wow! I can just speak from the decline I see in morals in my own extended family but yes they are certainly different.