Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Danny Tse, Apr 20, 2009.
"Yankee", as in American. Never seen Clerks?
Possibly in America, but a sudden drop in hat usage around the world?
Not a very good example to use since most golf courses ban denim!
^^ And why would anyone want to wear demin while playing golf??
And to those who don't care what this guy is saying; I don't think the rest of us exactly care, I'm just angered by the fact that he's posting an antiquated and highly offensive opinion in a major newspaper.
He has every right to his opinion, but I think his vocalization of that opinion is pretty sleazy.
What he's also missing is the fact that his beloved business suit also came about as the result of the loosening of attire standards in the 19th century. I'm sure there were plenty of stick up their posterior sorts back then who similarly decried the loss of their beloved ruffs and velvet pantaloons.
I can't speak about the rest of the world but it is not "possibly" for the US, it is a fact that hat sales dropped drastically when JFK became president.
Actually the "JFK killed the hat" story is an urban myth.
snopes.com: John F. Kennedy's Hat
In fact, photos of JFK at his inauguration clearly show him wearing a top hat the whole time.
Sorry but I'm going to say Snopes is wrong because their basic premise is wrong. They make the leap that one event was the cause in order to make their argument when in fact the hat industry cites his regular forgoing of wearing a hat as a factor in the decline.
Certainly the trend had started before his Presidency but his actions helped put the trend of going hatless over the top.
So a poltical journalist doesn't like it when people wear denim jeans and everyone who does is "a immature slob" ???
Well then ...
"Hi my name is Duggie, and I'm a slob" ...
I guess tomorrow when I go to work on the construction site, I'm going to where my 3-piece suit and best silk tie and see how long they last ...
Khakis last half as long and cost twice as much as jeans. Suit-pants may as well have a "do not buy" tag on them along with their "do not wash - dry clean only" tag, since besides the inability to wash them, they aren't suitable for walking outdoors -- they're only good in a controlled-temperature environment (they can be freezing when worn outdoors, or, if wool, terribly hot, and can't stop wind). And moreover, they are even more fragile and expensive than khakis. Bend down on one knee to unplug something from your power-strip, and there goes the knee of the suit-pants.
Only someone overpaid, like a top-executive, or an overpaid pundit, could justify wearing pants that require more care and have more limitations of use than a corset.
Anyway, maybe he doesn't realize that people who wear jeans are usually NOT "dressing down" -- they're dressing up. Jeans come in all kinds of cuts, and finding ones that complement your appearance is not easy. It takes time and consideration to find the right jeans.
And there is a great equalizing force in jeans -- since the cost ranges from $10 at OldNavy to a thousand bucks at Macys, and the $10 ones are SOMETIMES even better than the expensive ones. Point being, anyone who tries, can look good in jeans. You don't have to be a millionaire to look good in jeans.
When I was a kid suits came with two pairs of pants. It was obvious that the pants would take the brunt of the wear. But of course companies found they could make more money by selling one jacket one pair pants. Sort of like planned obsolescence.
And yet here we all are, linking and distributing the article and talking about it. Looks like George wrote exactly the article an op-ed wants.
True. But it was writen and published for all the wrong reasons. But what else is new?
Andy Rooney make equally asinine rants every single week on national televsion on a respected news program. As dumb as Will's article is, I guess I can give him some slack.
And anything that keeps him from writing about baseball is OK by me
Ya but we all know Rooney's rants are shtick but Will was supposed to be taken a bit more seriously. Or, maybe Michael Reuben was right. Not so respected anymore.
You've hit on what I think is a BIG reason why jeans are so popular--low maintenance! You don't have to get them pressed or dry cleaned, they're not fragile, etc. Suits are a lot of bother.
I disagree. The reception part of a wedding should be considered informal, if you're not part of the wedding party. I mean, once all the drinking and dancing starts up, the shirts get untucked, the ties fly off, any hair that was specifically styled for the wedding is ruined...mostly it ends up as something just north of a college toga party. If I'm going to have to deal with the drunk who wanders around the dance floor spilling his drink on anyone in his path, I'd rather he spilled it on my jeans and not my far more expensive and far more fragile dress pants.
As for the rest of the article...meh. I don't put much stock in "standards" as far as dress goes. I've known plenty of people who dress in a "proper" manner and talking with them is like talking to a varnished door. Looks pretty, doesn't add much to the conversation. On the flip side, I know plenty of people who wear sweat pants to restaurants and they can be colorful, thoughtful and entertaining...and vice versa.
If George Will wants to call people who wear denim immature slobs, then I have the opinion that he is just a stuffed-shirt blowhard who can't adapt to changes. Seems fair.
That's kind of backwards thinking, don't you think? You're going to dress down for a reception on the off chance that someone may spill a drink on your pants? If some drunk ruins my pants, I make him pay to claen/replace them; I don't "play it safe" by dressing down.