It's amazing how a thread spilts into various subjects that have absolutely no relevance to the original thread.
On the alternative subjects of 'suits' and 'dress code for clubs', from my personal perspective having (a) worn a suit to work for the last 15 years of my life and (b) run a door and 'club' night, I think you need to put the context, the wearing of appropriate attire down to the individual's interpretation of knowing what to wear and when!
I fully support the thread of Tony relating the story of his grandfather and his pride in his attire whilst working for and representing his employer; that of which I have had personal pride in doing so whilst representing the various companies I have worked whilst being a so-called 'suit' and the industry I work in.
On the flip side, I also appreciate the irrevelance of 'suited' attire in terms of club/bars entry that seems to afflict suburban club/bar owners. Let's face it, they've not exactly got their finger on the pulse, have they? I mean; entry to club/bar based on wearing a suit or at the minimum shirt, trousers and shoes based on current popular/youth culture is a complete joke! If it were me, I'd either move from the incestuous back-of-beyond town or not go out ever again.
You cannot dismiss either types of attire, provided they are worn in the right context and relevance to the appropriate occassion.
The reason why some clubs/bars are brand specific ie. Burberry, Stone Island, Aquascutum et al, is because where I come from (Cardiff) it's football hooligan attire. It's wore as a 'bad of honour', so lets face it, would you as a club owner want that in your club/bar.
Part 1 (Just got told off by the forum for submitting a message that’s too long, lol):
I honestly don't see a difference in clothes (or at least try not to, and definitely try not to be judgemental about it) - people should be free to wear what they want to wear, express themselves how they want to, and be an individual (if that means wearing a suit, then fair dinkum) and not be discriminated against. My dig, if you like, against suits, was not about suits themselves per say, more the way our society interprets one form of dress as being worthy of more respect than others, or more accurately - the person who wears a particular form of clothing automatically gains respect, despite the person actually wearing them. What?!? How does that work? I honestly don't understand.
I think it's deep rooted in the great social divide - classes, if you like. In times past, and even now, clothes have been a prominent statement of social status - that is, the more expensive the clothes you wear, the higher up in the social hierarchy you must be, and therefore by implication, the more respectable you must be (quite how that works, still baffles me). Lower social and economic classes have probably aspired to mimic this, and therefore, what you wear has been seen as being incredibly important. If your clothes _look_ the part, i.e. a cheaper suit, then your seen as aspiring to be like one of the “more respectable”, middle to upper classes. Thus, the more expensive (looking) the clothes you wear, the higher up the social scale you must be, and obviously a jolly good chap. Those who wear Hessian sacks, on the other hand, are evidently not making an effort and therefore merely bounders and cads to be frowned upon.
To me, this view (or society's view) is fetid pile of repugnant elephant turd of the highest putridity. It's a big Netto carrier bag of haemorrhoids. It's petty, and farcical. The fact that clothes should define character the _that_ extent is absurd. Obviously, an individual will express themselves in the way they dress - certain styles (skaters, goths, sporty types, "smart-casual", farmers, whatever), to fit into a certain group, or fashion, but by no means should that define the sort of person they are. Just because I wear baggy cords, skate shoes and a hooded top, it does not mean I instantly qualify to be a miscreant, a bad person, lazy, profoundly obtuse, or someone who doesn't care about their job et cetera, et cetera, and so on and so forth - in the same way that a suit doesn't mean that the person wearing it automatically qualifies to be a good sport, respectable, trustworthy, and all the other positive, honourable characteristics which seem to be associated with that form of dress. (As a side note, surely there are many more negative traits associated with suits in this modern society? Just looks at politicians, bank managers, estate agents, arms dealers, sales people, arsey managers, CEOs of corporations such as Nestle, Nike, etc – surely most of those are not seen as respectable, trustworthy pillars of society?).
I guess what I'm trying to say (and articulating it particularly badly as usual!), is that we shouldn't be judging others to that extent simply by the clothes they wear. Surely clothes cannot determine personality to that order. Or at least, we cannot determine the deep personality traits of others from the way they dress. Personally, I refuse to conform to this ridiculous notion - I won't dress "smartly" for work - it makes me feel physically and mentally uncomfortable – it’s not me. I go to work to do a job. I work hard at that job. I do NOT go to work to impress my colleagues with impeccable clothes, and I certainly don't see a catwalk in reception each morning. Why should others discriminate against me (and others) for simply not conforming to an acceptable form of dress, when I work just as hard, and in some cases harder than others?
I imagine that all reads like a jumbled mess of ideas, lol!
Very true Hodge, but unfortunately we do, and I have to do it professionally everyday at work.
I HAVE to inspect the trainees and I have to comment on their state of dress. As far as the services go, your state of dress is a good indicator of character and of personal standards.
The logic goes like this: A person dresses like a sack of crap. His shoes are scuffed and dirty. His shirt is unironed. His tie is a nasty 70's porn star style. His trousers have more lines in them that Kings Cross Station.
The perception is that the person who has no pride in his dress has no pride in his work. He is slapdash in his dress and deportment, his self-discipline is similarly slapdash.
Personally I know some flipping fantastic technicians and engineers who have worked and done wonders in the RAF, but have looked like sh1t, but still the perception is there.
Oh and despirately trying to get this thread back on some sort of track:
I am a developmental trainer in the RAF. I teach team awareness techniques, communication skills, developing potential, and fostering self-discipline.
(I am available for consultancy work. I'll undercut ANY quote you are given! ;-) )
I have been in the RAF for nearly 16 year, and am hanging on by the skin of my teeth to get my pension, in 6 years time, when I intend to retire and do nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Before my present post I was an Engineering Technician Avionics, workng on Tornado F3 fast jets, fixing the airbourn radar and then working on an ECM equipment but I can't tell you about that or I'd have to eat you. All.
My wife is currently studying to become a teacher and has just started her PGCE.
Alex, slightly different in the forces isnt it. As you say self discipline is important and turn out _can_ be an indicator of that, but just as important is the ability to follow a simple order. If a standard is set it should be achieved by everyone.
I dont have an opinion on what people wear, I just dont see how someone wearing one thing can be judged above or below someone wearing something else. I would imagine most people here feel the same to greater or lesser degrees.
I agree with everything you say about judging people by what they wear, and I also agree that it may well have something to do with the throwback class system. I really think though that socially, dressing smartly is also a way of expressing respect to others.
An example of that is wearing smart clothes to funerals, weddings and the like. It is all very well dressing just how you feel, but it could be disrespectfull in such circumstances.
I still think however that the club dress code has absolutely NOTHING to do with snobbery or class, or being judgemental about others. I still think it is based on the psychology that a person is far less likely to cause trouble dressed in better clothes. Blood, vomit and other bodily fluids just don't look fashionable!
Having said that, some "casual" clothes these days are anything but cheap!
I make the occasional posting having been on OM since the earliest beginnings, there's often as many postings in a day as there used to be in a month. Can't remember how I found the site.
I'm in the middle 30's, live nr Barnsley and work as a Business Analyst. I'm on the hills most w\ends either mtn biking, walking or cycling.
I'm Chris, although not the one who reviews in TGO, or this one.
I'm 27 and i've only recently got into walking and outdoor stuff in general, blame Ray Mears, who i'm off to walk with this weekend!
I fund my gear fetish with a job as a web developer in Manchester, just down the road from Old Trafford (spits). I like to get up to the Lakes whenever i can, failing that it's the Peaks, although i grew up in Marple so it's a bit too much like going back home again...
Any posts i make are usually questions about gear, as i don't really feel i'm any kind of authority on anything yet!
Spare time-wise, i go out on occasion, the rest of the time i waste my life on computer games.
I have climbed in the UK and Alps, trekked in UK, the Alps and Spain. I haven't climbed anything to epic in the last couple of years as I can't find anyone either crazy enough, or with enough bottle.
Have a passion for Scotland - as that is where my family comes from and would retire to a 'wee croft' tomorrow given enough lottery money.
I earn an honest crust by working on the website of a well know Outdoor retailer...
