Even if you are wearing ancient hand-me-downs, you can make sure to wear CLEAN ancient hand-me-downs.
That was the rule for several generations.
I happen to think it is a very good rule.
But having clean pajamas does NOT make it acceptable to wear in public.
Sweatpants are in the same class. It is not unreasonable to require adults to wear pants with flys.
Zippers and buttons and hooks are not all that difficult.
Make an effort.
The mentally “challenged” (gawd, I hate that term) get excused. Why do you want to pass for a “mentally challenged” person?
Those who wear pajamas to pick up their children are breaking all kinds of norms and rules.
And a lot of those looks take a lot of work. A lot more work and money than Donna Reed’s dress and pearls. The only reason you find her look more “dignified” is that it’s old and your mind tells you that it’s upper class. Literally classy. Not because she’s taken any more effort or pride in her look.
Perhaps what you truly mourn is the invention of permanent press.
I’ve worked at a very large university for 25 years and never once seen anyone out in pajama bottoms. If I worked in a setting where everyone wore suits and the kind of clothes that have to be dry cleaned, I’d do so, too. I used to have that kind of job when I was in a different department. Now, thank goodness, I’m in a different department with a much better job, much more responsibility, much better pay, and no expectations to wear dress clothes. The directors wear jeans. The folks with doctorate degrees wear jeans. My boss wears jeans and so does hers.
I’m not dirty. My clothes aren’t wrinkled. I accessorize, wear makeup, use a little cologne–but I’m definitely in jeans. Yes, one salesman made the mistake of snidely remarking that it “must be casual Wednesday.” Which turned the thirty minutes I’d allotted him into approximately three. The smart money is on listening to how much a person knows rather than what they look like they might know
I have extended family whose motto was something like “present yourself in a way so nobody thinks badly of you”. In decades past it meant no jeans/casual pants if you were outside the house. It’s now relaxed but the older members still bristle if they see the younger members dressing in what they consider to be “too casual except for home” clothes.
My husband also grew up in such a household. He’s the only person I know who can maintain an air of formality while wearing cargo pants. He gets on my case every so often because I own so few office-casual type clothing (hey, I have a work uniform!)
I thought of this thread last night. I had already changed from my jeans into sweatpants to cook dinner, and I realized I forgot to go to the store for eggs. So, I had to choose between going as I was in sweatpants or putting my jeans back on. I kept the sweatpants on, grabbed my wallet and went to the store in sweatpants. I can count on one hand how many times I’ve gone out in public (other than on walks with the dog) in sweatpants. Oh well, I wasn’t worried about impressing anyone at the local grocery store, and I was in and out in five minutes. And the grocery store is different than work or a courtroom.
I don’t think people wearing casual clothes necessarily “don’t take pride” in how they look.
I actually remember as an undergrad going out to buy new pajamas because of the trend to wear pajama bottoms to early morning classes. The trend wasn’t just to wear whatever you happened to sleep in (which in my case had been old gym clothes) but rather to wear brightly colored novelty pajama pants paired with a clever tee shirt. If you look closely at these “slovenly” young pajama wearers, you’ll see many of them are actually well made-up and have taken care with their outfit.
In other words, the “problem” isn’t so much that people have stopped caring how they look. It’s that they’ve chosen a look that you don’t happen to find appealing. That’s something that happens to pretty much every generation.
It’s amazing to me that so many people have a big up their ass about others wearing sweat pants. I’ll make sure to point out how pathetic they are in my depression support group. That way, those losers will look sharper for our next meeting.
ETA: Unless, of course, if they’re mentally challenged. I’ll let them know they get pass, all the while being shunned for their disability in the first place.
How you dress is a social signal. With the pendulum swinging to “casual for everything”, you can use that to your own advantage.
I wear a suit and tie to work. The difference in how people react to me is remarkable. Because everybody knows, although some deny, that the signal being sent is “this is serious. It is not a social occasion, it is not entertainment. This is work, and work is serious, and I am taking the occasion seriously.”
It doesn’t mean we can’t goof around or make jokes. But the default is that the better dressed person is higher-status than those who are dressed casually. And by “better dressed” I mean wearing a social signal like a tie, not that your jeans cost more than mine.
“Wear whatever you are comfortable, that looks professional” is the rule where I work. Fine with me - I am comfortable in my suit, it looks professional, and I am equally comfortable with people thinking I am in charge because I am not wearing a polo shirt, even if their jeans cost more than my first car.
No doubt some people carefully purchase designer pajamas specifically to go out in.
However, that fact doesn’t invalidate the thesis - that overall, the trend is towards not caring as much about one’s appearance in public.
Obviously, there will always be people who do care, and care very much; even following the latest trends and fads to “casual”, they aren’t really “casual”, but merely fashionable - but for every pajama-wearing hipster in designer bottoms, I’m guessing there are ten folks who just see this trend as permission to not shower and change when they wake up and go out to do things.
It’s the latter I tend to see buying stuff at the corner store in the morning.
You make some interesting points. So, if the brightly colored novelty pajama pants were purchased not with the intent to sleep in but to wear as actual pants, are they still considered pajamas? :dubious: I get what you’re saying but knowing they didn’t actually sleep in them the night before really doesn’t make it that much better (IMO of course).
This sounds like something only a white guy would say. Sorry. I know how bad that sounds, but it’s 100% true. Ony a white guy can wear ratty clothes and still be handed the keys to a sports car with no question.
Try doing that as a black guy, though. Try catching a cab as a black guy dressed like a bum and see what happens. (Hell, try catching a cab as a well-dressed black guy and see what happens).
Most women are also held to a different standard. Especially if they are overweight.
If I had kids, I don’t think I’d want them to grow up thinking they can get away with dressng any ole way. I’m proudly non-conformist (and I’m the complete opposite of a fashion plate, truly). But it doesn’t make any sense to pretend things that aren’t in evidence. The rules aren’t the same for the privileged versus non-prileged. We can wish this wasn’t true, but it doesn’t change the reality.
Re pajamas wearers. Of course they care how they look. I’m 100% certain that most of them would object to wearing a tutu in lieu of their pj’s. They wear pj’s because they are communicating to likeminded folks “hey, I’m one of you!” Which is how most of us dress, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.
I think you are discounting the impact of sheer laziness and uncaring.
I once read in an anthropology text that there have always, since the beginning of time, been various reasons for wearing clothes. A totally non-exhaustive list:
(1) Protection from the elements and bugs. No-one wears PJs outside in a Canadian winter - at least, in a normal Canadian winter. No-one wears a bikini outside in rural Canada in blackfly season … at least, not twice.
(2) Comfort and convenience. A terrycloth robe is better for lounging about in from to the TV, than a three-piece suit and tie. I don’t give a shit that it is ratty, because my cat doesn’t care.
(3) Display - money, sexual allure, rebelliousness, whatevah. I may wear clothes that are totally useless for protection, if they show off my butt to best advantage, and show that I’m rocking with the latest style (well in theory at least ).
(4) Conformity. Like a school uniform; or perhaps ensuring your hipster cred is intact. Or a business suit in a job interview.
Thing is, not every factor weighs as important to every person at every time, and the same clothes can have more than one function. A person may wear a business suit to conform, but at the same time, display his or her wealth and style with the particular cut and expense of the suit.
Now, I can completely understand how someone could wear PJs, which are typically worn mostly for “comfort”, for either “display” (as even sven has asserted) or for “conformity” (as you have asserted).
However, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar: and in the case of PJs worn outside, the fact that it is sorta fashionable, just opens the door for those who value comfort and convenience over display or conformity: I doubt folks bleary-eyed buying milk and cigs at the corner store care much for either.
The message is that their comfort and convenience matters more than conformity to social norms of behavior. Which some may be cool with, and others think goes too far.
Around here the “white” guy is probably Chinese or Indian.
I’m not talking about being dressed like a bum, unless your bums have relatively high standards. I’m talking about being dressed like people in the '50s would dress for the weekend. Or non-white-collar types would wear during the week. Clothes that in the old days would be a signal that you can’t afford a sports car, but which today tells one nothing at all.
I doubt many people feel pride in not dressing like a homeless person in public. The difference between now and 50 years ago is that people around here at least don’t correlate dress and achievement, so someone thinking they will be more respected by wearing a suit will be sorely disappointed.
Women around here wear a wide variety of things. Nobody channels Donna Reed.
And I was unaware that black guys who are reasonably dressed don’t have problems getting cabs. That’s a problem that is not going to get solved by a wardrobe upgrade.
Since I’m talking to a white guy, I don’t see why this matters. I’ve heard the same sentiment expressed by other white guys. I’ve seen white guys dress “any ole way” who think that means everyone else can do the same thing. But it’s not true. If I dressed in a t-shirt and jeans, people would judge me negatively. Because I’m 1) not white (or a model minority) and 2) I’m a woman. Only folks who aren’t working uphill against negative stereotypes can afford to dress down.
Me neither. But it doesn’t matter. A black guy dressed in the same casual clothes as a white guy will be judged more harshly. You may be able to walk up to a salesperson and command respect while wearing a t-shirt and jeans. A black guy won’t. A woman probably wouldn’t either. So when you say “we save lots of money on wardrobe”, it kinda pisses me off. I see with my own eyes that only certain people enjoy this benefit. “We” does not include everyone.
But not a whole lot can get away with dressing down the same way that guys can.
I’m not an expert in racial discrimination. But I’m guessing a black guy in a three-piece suit has a easier time catching a cab than a black guy wearing jeans and t-shirt. A “wardrobe upgrade” isn’t going to solve racial discrimination. But it can make it a lot less frequent for any given individual.
Is anyone else getting a bit of a **Starving Artist **vibe from our new friend, Charlie?
His point was simple. In the golden age of the '50s, conformity was king. You dressed, not as you believe, to take pride in oneself, but rather to send the signal to everyone around you what social strata you belong to.
We do the same damn thing today. There are just a heck of a lot more acceptable options. We don’t just have coloreds, poor whites, and rich whites. Now we have hipsters, wall street execs (not to be confused with silicon valley execs, apparently), SAHM/soccer moms, goth kids, southern belles, gym rats, yuppies, hippies, yippies, etc… etc… And within all these groups, the acceptable wardrobe will be totally different depending on the situation.
I’m a lawyer, a mother, and a “formerly in shape” athlete. I wear a suit to work, because, lawyer. For drinks out with casual acquaintances, I’ll wear nice jeans or slacks, a necklace and make-up. For drinks in with my close friends, anything from yoga pants to pajama jeans are the norm (and no make-up). For soccer games, I myself will wear athletic gear, including “GASP” sweatpants… (I must be depressed every time I play soccer and it’s cold out).
And when I drag two kids (under 4) to the grocery store, you bet your ass I’m in the most comfortable clothes I have. The last thing I am trying to signal in that situation is pride or social status… the only thing I’m trying to signal is please dear god get me out of here before things go pear-shaped.
We’re not talking about me. I’m old, so while I under-dress for my father’s world I overdress for here (khakis and collar shirts - I dislike T-shirts.) That is not to get respect of the outside world. The woefully few black engineers I’ve worked with dressed exactly like white or Indian or Chinese or Korean or Hispanic engineers.
Central Pennsylvania, huh? Not a lot of Internet millionaires there. I’m not saying that people here are automatically less judgmental but that they’ve learned to be because rich people dress down and ruin the signal. It’s not true everywhere - DC is a lot dressier than San Jose. And it is not true in all industries. When my son-in-law was in law school he was indoctrinated with dress up or else. But in engineering people no longer wear suits even when giving keynote addresses at large conferences.
Maybe things are better with Uber, but the stories I’ve read complaining about this, IIRC, involved people heading home from shows or dinner that made me think they were well dressed. Not that looking gangsta would help. But maybe things are better now.
What happened is that Donna and Alex both work now, so no one’s at home to do the amount of starching and ironing 50s era clothing required to look sharp.
I grew up in the 40s and early 50a. My mom wouoldnt dream of going beyond the front yard without dressing up in a nice dress, proper shoes with high heels, a hat, and some jewelry and makeup. That[s to go shopping or visiting friends. My dad worked in a factory, and wore slit-pocket pants, oxford shoes and a button shirt with collar to work. I don’t think I ever saw him oudoors without a hat on, with a brim, not a casual cap.
When I got my first jobs as a radio DJ in the late 50s, DJs working a shift during business hours had to wear a jacket and tie to work, but after 5 pm, casual was OK.
When I was in college in the mid 50s, girls were not allowed to wear shorts on campus, it had to be a skirt over the knees, or neat slacks. That’s at a public state university, not a private college. Profs exercised the authority to impose a moderate dress code in their classrooms, but none required neckties.
What you see of fashion and dress from B/W TV from the 50s reflected a social norm – there was nothing unusual about what Beaver and Wally wore around the house, nor their parents. Many people did not grow out of this. If I leave my apartment for any reason, just to go to my mailbox, I wear long pants, proper shoes, a button shirt. My wives, even if going to WalMart, would put on something at least tidy and look in the mirror before leaving the house.
It’s not about personal pride. It’s about the fact that, whether you like it or not, people judge you by your appearance, and it never hurts to raise the estimation of yourself in the eyes of people you might need to interact with along the way.
No-one wears a bikini outside in rural Canada in blackfly season … at least, not twice.
