Casualness

[InzeladunMaster]

In watching old films and such, I kind of like how all the men and women dress up when they go out. I get so sick of the "casualness" in today's society. People go out in their pajamas, it seems like. People go to weddings, funerals, churches, school functions and everything else dressed like they would dress if they were to lounge around all day at home. What happened in society that everyone decided to go casual and lose the sense of decorum society once held?

 

[thormagni]

What happened in society that everyone decided to go casual and lose the sense of decorum society once held?

I suspect that society re-evaluates what it calls formal and informal wear, scaling up or down to fit the societal mores. If we get to the point where we all just wear fig leaves as our everyday wear, then fig leaves with a grapevine will become formal wear.

I mean really, when you think about it, human clothing is pretty universal and the distinctions of "quality" and "class" are completely arbitrary. A pair of pants is a pair of pants. And one pair of pants that fits cover you just as well as another pair of pants. If we were talking about say car tires, the tires that wore out the slowest, were least likely to give out and offered the best handling would be the most valuable tires, right? Why is it with clothing that the most functional, most comfortable and longest-lasting clothes (I'm thinking blue jeans and say, a T-shirt here) are seen as low-class while a pair of thin, expensive and fragile dress pants are seen as upper-class?

Which doesn't even get into the idea of designer clothes, which are generally completely impractical and fragile.

 

[Tomodachi]

Perceived quality of tires and clothing

I mean really, when you think about it, human clothing is pretty universal and the distinctions of "quality" and "class" are completely arbitrary. A pair of pants is a pair of pants. And one pair of pants that fits cover you just as well as another pair of pants. If we were talking about say car tires, the tires that wore out the slowest, were least likely to give out and offered the best handling would be the most valuable tires, right? Why is it with clothing that the most functional, most comfortable and longest-lasting clothes (I'm thinking blue jeans and say, a T-shirt here) are seen as low-class while a pair of thin, expensive and fragile dress pants are seen as upper-class?

Which doesn't even get into the idea of designer clothes, which are generally completely impractical and fragile.

The way I see it, your tire comparison is not exactly true. Tires like clothing are considered "the most valuable" depending on what you are trying to do with them. If you are driving in mud and snow then mud and snow tires are considered most valuable. If you are on a race track then low tread racing tires are considered most valuable. If a person took mud and snow tires onto a race track, they would indeed be considered "low class". In this case the most durable tire(M&S) would not be the "most valuable".

It is the same with clothing. If a person is say roofing his house then t-shirt and jeans would indeed be the "most valuable". If that person tried to roof his house in a tuxedo, he would most likely be viewed as "low class". He would be viewed as not having the means to aquire the proper attire. On the other hand, if a person is going to a dinner party, slacks and a button shirt would be "the most valuable". The purpose of the clothing would not be durability but prettiness(for lack of a better word coming to mind).

Just a thought and different point of view.

 

[thormagni]

If a person is say roofing his house then t-shirt and jeans would indeed be the "most valuable". If that person tried to roof his house in a tuxedo, he would most likely be viewed as "low class".

Well, I think a person roofiing in a tux would be an idiot, but let's not dwell on that, eh

But again, the fanciest, "prettiest" clothing is also generally the most impractical from a physical standpoint. The idea of "prettiest" is entirely a societal construction. Much like the plumage on a peacock, maybe what we humans are saying when we "dress up" is that I have enough resources to expend those frivolously. Wearing a tux or a designer dress is in essence expressing that I have enough resources to choose to purchase and to wear something that has no practical value.

A pair of dress pants do not protect us from the elements better than a pair of sweat pants, they do not cover our nether regions more thorougly than the sweatpants do, they do not have greater stain or tear resistance. A pair of designer jeans has no intrinsic, functional value greater than a pair of off-the-rack, Wal-mart jeans. (Ignoring for a second that some Wal-mart jeans are notoriously flimsy.)

It reminds me of a story I read about the diamond trade. Diamonds have not always been as valuable and coveted as they are today. Especially not as engagement rings. It wasn't until the 20s and 30s that the "diamond engagement ring" tradition was created. And it was created by marketing gurus trying to jack up the prices of DeBeers diamonds. Now almost every Joe Schmo feels they have to fork over two months salary for an appropriate diamond.

Back to Vince's original comment, I think to some extent, the old-time movies and TV shows were engaging in a deliberate distortion. They dressed people up to make them look glamorous and led an entire country of women to believe that they had to dress up in pearls and heels just to make breakfast in the morning and the men had to wear a tie to their job at the auto plant.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I understand what you are saying, but something still smacks me as being disrespectful when I see people dressed in pajamas to go see their kid in a school play without even bothering to put on their "Sunday best." I am not sure it has to do with practicality or comfort, but I think taking the time to put on a "better" set of clothing to go out in public is respectful - and the refusal to do so is a bit disrespectful. Maybe my perspective has been warped by old movies.

 

[chachi]

Realistically, fashion dictates what we wear. And who dictates fashion? It's everyone from Tommy Hilfiger to Teva to Nike to Walmart, the companies making and selling the clothes, not the people wearing them. Those companies have one thing in common. They make casual clothes, not formal ones.

Even as recently as a couple of generations ago, this was not the case. Many more men worked in production (farming, factories and the like) and many less worked in the relatively clean service industry. One income households were more common. Most women owned a sewing machine and could sew at least simple garments. Many more people's clothes were handmade and they had proportionally fewer 'store bought' clothes. So when a formal occasion came up, those fancy clothes were worn then. Today, people's thoughts about clothing are different. I imagine that most of us wear 'better' clothes to work than on the weekends. I know that I do. Our perceptions of clothing have completely been turned around. We get dressed up for work according to dress codes and we lounge around on the weekends in the clothing that Tommy and Nike and Levi's have effectively told us to wear. Those standards will continue to become less formal and those clothes that people will wear will become cheaper and need to be replaced more often. If everyone had a pair of boots and a pair of shoes and had them resoled and didn't buy another pair for ten years, Nike and Adidas and the rest would fall apart. So they create expensive, poorly made, disposable shoes.

Now, why did men fifty years ago wear hats (derbys, fedoras, etc) and (except for baseball hats) now none do?

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

Now, why did men fifty years ago wear hats (derbys, fedoras, etc) and (except for baseball hats) now none do?

Hmmm, lately, I've been wearing a nice $5 walmart hat that looks like it has australian decent. I only get strange looks from the guys who wear cowboy hats.

Also, for Vince and Amanda's wedding I bought a $40+ formal hat.

 

[chachi]

I only get strange looks from the guys who wear cowboy hats.

Cowboy hats are another topic altogether.

OG, you are an exception to this rule. I should never speak in absolutes. Still, they have definitely fallen out of fashion in the last several decades.

 

[Tomodachi]

Hats

Realistically, fashion dictates what we wear. And who dictates fashion? It's everyone from Tommy Hilfiger to Teva to Nike to Walmart, the companies making and selling the clothes, not the people wearing them. Those companies have one thing in common. They make casual clothes, not formal ones.

Now, why did men fifty years ago wear hats (derbys, fedoras, etc) and (except for baseball hats) now none do?

According to your supposition it is because the hat makers told us that is what we should do.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

LOL! That is funny. Maybe hat makers need to invest in some marketing people to get some product placement in movies and TV shows. Same for professional dress folks.