A well-dressed person should know that it’s Karl Lagerfeld.
:o
I like dressing up, and I’d never leave the house in pjs, but sitting around the house in pearls and and heels is totally ridiculous. Speaking of – ever wear pantyhose or heels? Try it for a day, then come back and say a hostess should do that for a party.
My grandfathers were blue collar workers. I think they probably wore ties to church or suits on special occassions, but everyday wear was khakis and ordinary work-shirts. In fact, I think the only time I can remember seeing my maternal grandfather in a suit (other than pictures) was when he died.
And I’ve seen pictures of my grandmothers back in the fifties. They might have worn dresses, but they were plain, cotton house dresses, with aprons for day to day activities. Nothing like Donna Reed. That kind of thing was for special occassions. (And let me tell you, my maternal grandmother definitely had style!) But for everyday? Nope.
Some of that is class, though. My grandmothers no doubt wore the same cotton house dresses you’re talking about- but their days were mostly spent in the house and perhaps grocery shopping. If they left the house for any other reason, whether to go department store shopping or to visit their sister or to play bingo , the nicer dresses and shoes came out. And my very vague memories of the “pearls and heels around the house” TV shows was that those women were not the type to be in the house all day - they’d be off running the PTA or the hospital fundraiser or lunching/playing cards with friends while the kids were in school - not my grandmothers’ life at all. Same thing for the blue-collar men of that generation and before in my family. If they left their house for anything other than running errands or work , they were wearing a tie and jacket three seasons of the year. Wearing the same sort of clothes for evenings and weekends no matter what you were doing ( whether you were working around the house or watching TV or going to the movies) didn’t really start till my parents’ generation.
Yes…from what I know (unless my family and their friends were just weird), housewives tended to wear what we later derogatorily called “muu-muu’s” around the house. Unless they had to go out to the store or post office. Housedresses. The modern-day equivalent would be a t-shirt and yoga pants, or staying in your pj’s till you get the dirty work done (which is what I tend to do). Even on errands, they might change out of the housedress but still have their hair in curlers with a scarf over it, or the like. Today, that would be the 3-second bun.
Candid photos of my grandparents and great-grandparents often showed the men in a t-shirt (undershirt) and chinos, or short-sleeved dress shirt and dress pants. Women worehttp://www.globaltextiles.com/html/images/upload/tradeleads/527/526919.jpg these things around the house, or something like a halter and capris.
Edit: This would be in Indiana, 1940s-1970s.
I absolutely hate tat frigging quote. It’s a vile and judgmental piece of shit. As someone who has done the rounds of various support groups for depression, a lot of the people there wear sweats. Why? Because they’re struggling with mental health issues and really don’t need society looking down their nose at them. Good to see ol’ Karl never has a problem kicking a dog when it’s down. Asshole.
And I agree with the others… PJs are a bit too much, but if you’re clean and otherwise presentable, it shouldn’t matter. Lord knows that I’ll never got back to wearing hose again.
I can’t wait for the youngun’s to find out about the use of a smoking jacket.
Then we can discuss the “Fainting Room” (later, a “Sewing Room”).
I remember my mother spending at least an hour putting on her best dress, cosmetics (which she called her “war paint”) and - believe it or not - White Gloves.
To go shopping at the fancy department store downtown.
This was the same outfit worn to Sunday Services.
I never even remember seeing “jeans” or “dungarees” in the store we frequented.
Pants made of canvas were simply NOT acceptable for middle class white people.
They reeked of “factory” or “farm” - not acceptable outside those environs.
OK, I’m super casual but even I will draw the line at wearing the cat’s pajamas in public.
Well, if you’re not going to trust a species that spends 80% of its time asleep about PJs, who will you trust? 
This is the big social issue.The OP uses modern concepts , asking about personal pride in how one dresses. But in ancient times( ie. until the changes of the 1960’s), people did not judge you by your personal issues…They judged you, themselves, and everyone they met, by their social class.
Today, we know that everybody is pretty much equal.
But it used to be totally different. If you were poor/low class, you had to be careful, and often did not dare to speak to a person above your class
For example: today, at school every child gets treated equally, (or else the parents file a lawsuit).
But back then, you could openly laugh at and ridicule, say, retards or the handicapped.
And you could openly treat lots of people with disdain, if they were below your station in life.
If you were low-class, you were simply not respectable.And everybody was very very much aware of which class they were.
The lowest classes were the niggers/“colored people”, who deserved no respect.
The next lowest class were country bumpkins, farmers, factory workers, etc.
Then there was the respectable middle class, and far above them, the “city fathers”, the elite who lived in huge houses and owned half the town.
That’s why people dressed so carefully–it was to show what class you were, so that when you were out in public, you would be treated with respect by others. Your social class determined your value as a human being.
Today, we value people as individuals. Even if they wear pyjamas in public.
[bolding added]
Ummm…
Let’s not go Too Far with this “equal” crap. Pajamas in public SHOULD be ostracized.
By all right-thinking persons.
Or we like to think that we know that.
Not everybody wearing sweatpants is depressed. Just like not everybody buying gluten free hot dogs is a celiac.
Um, what?? This made absolute zero sense. It’s only gonna make less sense if I try to figure out what this person was talking about. Anyone else wanna try? 
What’s so hard to figure out?
In the old days you could tell one’s social position by dress, for the most part, except of course for certain service industries where dressy uniforms indicated subservience.
Today - thanks in large part to tech I think, you can’t do that anymore. Here in Silicon Valley car salesmen learned pretty early that the guy walking up in faded jeans and a sweatshirt might have tens of millions of bucks, and had better not be blown off because of his dress. When I started you wore a suit to give a paper - now we’ve figured out that the material is just as good if you present it in way less formal attire.
Around here at least we judge people by what they do and what they say, not by how they look.
And we save lots of money on wardrobe also.
Went out to dinner this evening, a nice tapas place, we were all wearing blouses and capris with sandals (beach town) and most everyone else was dressed the same. Then a man (probably 50 or so) came in wearing a rank/dirty/torn tank top and shorts that looked like he’d cleaned the parking lot with them… as I’ve said, I really don’t care what you wear, but he looked very out of place and stood out unfavorably because of that.
If anyone thinks that people are still not judged by the way they present themselves sartorially, they might be mistaken. Sure, in certain circles / industries people might look past these things amongst themselves, but I find it hard to believe there isn’t still a pervasive amount of classism out there. I think it’s actually, sadly a sort of manifestation of human nature. Or, maybe not human nature but still a sort of subconscious indicator of an individual’s standing / worth in the community. Isn’t that why there are sites like The People at Walmart, or whatever?
Back in the late 1960s, the Episcopal priest and Zen Buddhist Alan Watts pointed out that the European-style men’s suit was horribly inappropriate to the summertime climate of most major North American cities. He recommended the Mexican Guayabera shirt as an alternative for comfortable formal wear. You look sharp, and don’t wilt in the humidity of a New York or Chicago afternoon.
See DOES IT MATTER: ESSAYS ON MAN’S RELATION TO MATERIALITY.
I agree, suits are not day to day now and the general level of ‘dressing up’ is a bit lower, but people still take cues from how someone dresses. You might not be able to exactly place someone’s profession and social class by their outfit and what condition it is in any more, but the idea that no one pays attention to social class now is just silly. Also, trends change - if you took someone in 1885 clothes and dropped them down in 1950, they would look badly out of place, and 2015 is as far from 1950 in the other direction. Interestingly, I think most 1950s garb would blend in reasonably well - you’d be overdressed and a bit retro, but wouldn’t really look like you were in a costume drama. I can’t see 1885 stuff passing in 1950 nearly as well.