or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Non-Rule "Rules"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Non-Rule "Rules" - Page 43

post #631 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post

While I similarly appreciate the first part of the comment, wrt to the second, I've got to ask: Oh, yeah? And what would that be? (Please explain without descending into jingoist cliches, you already slipped one...)
Also: discussing clothing and clothing convenitions without touching their class - i.e. by definition political - connotations is like discussing hamburgers without discussing the need to raise and kill a cow.

What relevance did Adam Smith's views on progressive taxation have to the points you were making about clothing?
post #632 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I've resolved to stay out of CE for the rest of the year, so I have no opinion.

Wisdom to emulate. But not in a white shirt.
post #633 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

What relevance did Adam Smith's views on progressive taxation have to the points you were making about clothing?

Actually, quite a direct relevance, given that the point I was making/extending was that a lot of the 'rules' to a large extent arbitrary and frivolous:

1) In discussing the necessities of life, he acknowledges that some of them are not a necessity in strictly physical sense, but the product of social class conventions that establish the "least common denominator" of dress expected by even the lowest classes --> meaning literally that, e.g. a Scottsman, would not be able to function socially without shoes.

2) Even with this broad definition of necesity, he identified the realm of "luxuries" (e.g. "accounterments" or maybe just lots and lots of shoes). Whatever that is, they are "non-essentials" - the nature does not require them for life, and custom doesn't render it "indecent" to not have them.

3) Taxes on consummable commodities (which are either "necessities" or "luxuries") are one form of taxation he considered particularly unjust, because it imposes greater tax burden on the poor who expend most of their income on "necessities", thus

4) He advocated progressive taxation on wages, but especially so on "rents" and "profits" which constitute the primary income of the rich (something that any semi-educated far right politician ought to remember before assuming that Adam Smith was a neoliberal - lol)

here is the actual continuation of the quote:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get
food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life
occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the
best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents,
therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not,
perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more
than in that proportion."


5) although he obviously anticipated it, he probably could not envision the extent to which the tax burden is shifted on the middle class, not only through regressive taxation, but also through establishing unreasonable dress codes and expectations of "proper dress", which middle class schmucs have to meet from their ever dwindling salaries - in the process further enriching the retailers and designers peddling this shit. ==> while it is a sort of a parlour game at SF to whine about the poor state of business dress, in reality most large organizations have formal or informal dress codes, complience with which costs money, and non-compliance costs direct or indirect disciplinary action

6) SF is clearly populated with homies whose taxes are way, way, way too low (my own included)
(Hence, the cognitive dissonance. One day I will be free from this shit icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif )smile.gif
Edited by SamSpade - 8/15/12 at 3:54pm
post #634 of 769
Starting with the most obvious, 6) is clearly your own opinion and belongs in CE.
post #635 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Starting with the most obvious, 6) is clearly your own opinion and belongs in CE.

True, but that's why it is tongue in cheek. Peace.smile.gif
post #636 of 769
It is possible to be interested in Men's fashion, even men's "Classic Style", be totally aware of its classist origins and subtext, and still enjoy it by retaining your ability to temper said subtexts with taste,individuality, and conscious purchasing.

It's not what happens, but it is possible.
post #637 of 769
Manton, please to do some manscaping of this threak...
post #638 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

It is possible to be interested in Men's fashion, even men's "Classic Style", be totally aware of its classist origins and subtext, and still enjoy it by retaining your ability to temper said subtexts with taste,individuality, and conscious purchasing.
It's not what happens, but it is possible.

I needed to hear that smile.gif
post #639 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post


The same applies to "clothes for every occasion", and multiple suits, that were "established" as the standard for the middle class after WWII. I say established, because a lot of this was a purely marketing invention: rapidly scalling up production, with no markets to absorb it. Most men only had 1-2 pair of shoes (1 "nicer" pair for work, one pair - most likely military surplus - for everything else), and were perfectly happy with them. Come along the marketing douchebags: "Hey, I've got an idea: why don't we implant in their heads the notion that they are doomed to social and business failure unless they have bulging wardrobes of shirts, suits, and shoes?"

Oh hell, if most of my male co-workers--at least in the latter years of my career--had spent appreciably less on their wardrobes, they'd have been arrested for indecent exposure!
post #640 of 769

Well, to post a rule of my own:

 

Except for ties, I only ever buy solids. No patterned anything (shirts, trousers, jackets, socks, etc). I guess I just prefer the simplicity of being totally color-blocked. But I find solid-colored ties boring. 

post #641 of 769
2 sleeve buttons only for sportcoats and suit jackets. I first tried this on some 3/2 sack sportcoats a few years ago and liked it so much that I've had all my jacket sleeves finished that way since. 1st buttonhole sewn 1.5'' from the end of sleeve and 1'' between the 1st and 2nd buttonholes. Leaving the (empty) width of a button (approx. 3cm) between the 2 buttons makes them spaced too far apart imo. Yes, I know it's only a difference of 5mm.
post #642 of 769
Interesting...

I met this one guy who uses the same bespoke tailor as myself, super nice guy, ended up talking for a few hours, anyway, he doesn't get any buttons or buttonholes on his jacket sleeves until he has worn them and dry cleaned them over the course of a year in fear that they will be placed and stretch/shrink and such. I don't know if I could leave my house knowing I didn't have any cuff buttons on my jacket sleeves.
post #643 of 769
Long-term thinker. Delayed gratification. I bet his retirement nest egg is rockin'
post #644 of 769
He seemed, from talking with him at least, that he has enough suits and toys to hold him over until the newly-buttoned ones are Christened.
post #645 of 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

he doesn't get any buttons or buttonholes on his jacket sleeves until he has worn them and dry cleaned them over the course of a year in fear that they will be placed and stretch/shrink and such.

Now that's pretty OCD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

He seemed, from talking with him at least, that he has enough suits and toys to hold him over until the newly-buttoned ones are Christened.

Sure, but he still makes himself wear the new ones w/o buttons for a year.

confused.gif

Wait, it seems that it's what the cool kids do...





New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Non-Rule "Rules"