courtesy of ‘Shooting Nouns’
Oh George. I have never understood your fashion crusade. Sure, you’re a bright guy, you’re even a baseball fan (even if you do like the Cubs), but now you just sound like you belong on a porch, swinging your cane at these kids today with your hatred for the denim-wearing crowd.
It’s all about context, Mr. Will. Wearing jeans to see the President? Epic fail. Wearing jeans to the office where you will just sit and write all day? Where’s the harm? You may not have noticed it in your single wearing, but a good pair of your favorite jeans are far more comfortable than your average suit pants or khakis. And, if you work a desk or a phone, there’s no harm in wearing a great shirt and a good jacket with a pair of jeans at a casual event.
No one’s arguing for the abolition of the 3-piece suit, George. But calling jeans a misuse of freedom? I hardly know where to go with that, except to wonder if perhaps you got up on the wrong side of reality before you wrote that polemic.
What do you say, DC, jeans as anathema? Or jeans as acceptable?
I’m a dotcom refugee. Jeans are my BIRTHRIGHT, dammit.
I am astonished that a supposed small-government conservative could manage to type the phrase “abuse of freedom,” even tongue-in-cheek. I almost stopped reading the article at that point, I was so offended by the turn of phrase.
George Will is a pretty sharp dresser but I think he is wrong here. There is nothing wrong with blue jeans, in my opinion. Some cases call for more formal dress and I think younger folks are not clear about what those situations are but blue jeans are not the problem.
Me, I don’t own any blue jeans because I cannot afford to buy clothes I can’t also wear to work, where I do not wear blue jeans. That means I have lots of old trousers I use when working in the yard, helping someone move, etc. Khakis are just fine with me for almost all occasions and are even more flexible than jeans that way. But that’s my preference, at least until the pants-optional movement catches on.
I think George Will is bemoaning the lack of people dressing well and putting forth a good public image as opposed to denim in its own right. I would agree with the author in the case that many people don’t know the context and therefore show up in Jeans when Khakis would be appropriate, or don’t even own a suit (at least one, c’mon people).
However, a three piece and a top hat at all times? Subtract 100 years and maybe so. My great-grandfather who lived about that time was a dairy worker in the Bay Area of California. He wore a suit to work, changed into his work clothes in the company locker room (as did everyone else) and after work changed back into his suit and went home.
Those days are long gone.
For the record, I’d totally wear jeans to meet the President. I won’t compromise who I am just because it’s some politico. :)
George has a pole up his a$$ and would benefit from incorporating his supposed free market libertarian type thought to not telling other people how to live their lives … Oh, I forgot… that’s what contemporary so-called “conservatives” live for.
Ben – are you your blue jeans? How is changing your trousers compromising who you are?
Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.
One (older) man’s opinion. George needs to enter the 21st Century. And I find it highly amusing to see a flash ad for WoW in the right column next to his disparaging comments about ‘gamers.’
Carl – jeans are a part of who I am; I wear them almost exclusively (I don’t even wear shorts), unless forced to wear other pants by rigid business codes. (Hence why I do mostly freelance writing now.) I tend to see it as a branding of myself. Us recluse writers are like that. ;)
Good enough for The Satorialist, good enough for me. http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-streetraphael-lorenzini-florence.html
First they came for the denim wearers, And I didn’t speak up because I didn’t wear denim;
And then they came for the khaki wearers, And I didn’t speak up because I didn’t wear khaki;
And then they came for the gabardine wearers, And I didn’t speak up because, really, what the hell is gabardine anyway?;
And then . . . they came for the crotchless, edible panty wearers. . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
What good is freedom, if you’re not in a nice pair of jeans