Journal perfessor multigeek's Journal: clothing 7
A couple of my fellow male geeks have posted stuff recently about clothes and I admit that I am confused.
Guys, clothes are language! This is hackable code and it lets you hack, in a small way, the behaviors of the people around you. Think about all the classic bits of social engineering that have come down in large part to three things: bits of "insider info" that make you seem already "trusted", general language and manner, and clothes. How many accounts of MIT and Caltech hacks linger on the PacTel maintenance outfit they scrounged or the one guy they dressed up in a perfect suit and got right into the target's headquarters?
Sure, this stuff is arbitrary. So are plenty of commands. God knows Linus T. has been clear enough about his occasional willful behavior. It's just code. Learn it, play with it. It will cost you no more then a few hundred to get seriously into the game and getting into it at all takes no more then hairgel, pressed slacks, and polished shoes.
I mean, hey, I own something like forty t-shirts (mostly black) and spend plenty of time in jeans. There is certainly much satisfaction in taking the easy route. But please dump the xtra larges unless you actually are extra large.
Anyway, sorry about the rant, but I just don't see any reasonable cost-benefit argument that justifies the determined On This Point I Make My Stand statements from so many geeks. And yes, I've spent enough of my life with, as Cringley once described them, Great Stinking Gods of Programming to have lost patience with the "I am physically repulsive and thus virtuous" types.
To close with a fun example, back in days of yore, when I was still a college student and the Eighties were in full swing, a group of us once had reason to want to mess with somebody (this was a BAAAAAD person). We ended up doing quite a few things but one aspect of our most committed evening of mayhem involved a substantial clothes component. We were going to pick this entity up at her John Bircher Republican (in other words hard core, stomp them hippies, we shoulda nuked the commies right winger) grandparents. We all piled into a friend's Seventies Volvo station wagon and headed up to meet her. But first we got ready. We showed up there as the embodiment of her grandparent's worst nightmares.
One of us dressed as a suburban hair band idiot, with headband, AC-DC t-shirt, leather jacket.
Another became the classic rich Jewish girl from the Philadephia Main Line (cashmere sweater, makeup, perfect little shoes)
Another was in full hippie regalia, with granny glasses, patterned bell bottom pants, paisley shirt, boots.
And I became the walking brainfuck. Ya see, these were wealthy, educated folks so I knew that they would catch the refs. So I put on a conservative (Hart, Shaffner&Marx) grey pinstripe suit, wingtips, appropriate accessories, and, well, Reed t-shirt. If you're a Portlander you may have seen one of these. they say "Atheism, Communism, Free Love" and they were sold at the college book store. I don't remember what else I did but I do remember that I did a few equally clashing finishing touches.
When we showed up they were flabbergasted. We blew their minds without saying a word. And yeah, it was a great deal of fun. Suffice to say that we ended up in their living room for over an hour (yes, they really did have a huge bronze eagle on the wall and an American flag across from it right over the Remington sculpture) and the double-takes never stopped. And all while sitting ther quietly talking to each other, mostly about our route back and other mundane stuff.
All from some hunks of fabric properly deployed.
Rustin
Yah but (Score:1)
Items have conflicting names and uses, sizes are un standardized across the board, systems of measurements vary, and no two manufacturers who even agree to the same standard actually put out products with the same numerical interpretations.
Styles constantly change in un logical ways, often times forcing the user to wear uncomfortable and non-functional clothing solely for the purpose of appeasing others.
But at least I am Male, being dressed up means nothing worse then some possibly mildly tight shoes, and even then not if I shop carefully enough.
Females on the other hand, ouch.
Not only are the various articles of clothing cold, but the shoe styles can cause permanent harm to the foot, and sizes have no meaning what so ever, at least as a male I can measure around my waist and know what size I am!
Re:Yah but (Score:2)
The system was designed non-sensicaly(sp). Actually, oddly enough, no it wasn't. It is more accurate to say that you're dealing with a combination of legacy systems and decisions made for users with priorties other than yours. First of all, if you want to know the logic behind many clothes choices (such as uncomfortable, hard to clean white business shirts for men) you should check out Thorsten Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. He nails it again and again. Sure, this stuff is annoying. It's meant to be. Only by being difficult to deal with can it "properly" convey the sort of wealth and ease that business clothes are supposed to project. On a related front, the sack suit is meant to be anonymous and bulky. Like the huge puffy coats long popular in ghettos around America, they convey a sense of threat and mass. The silhouette may not be fun to wear, but it sends good lizard brain signals.
I could keep going but you get the idea. As I said in my post, clothes are language. They *have* to deviate from basic function if they are to have a large "vocabulary". Ask most women about things like lipstick and they will very quickly free you from any notion that this stuff is meant to be "efficient" in any comfort-oriented sense. Its purpose does exist and it is to convey messages both conscious and subliminal. While it has been partially superceded on the particulars, Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape is a good primer on some of the low-level stuff.
Items have conflicting names and uses, sizes are un standardized across the board, systems of measurements vary, and no two manufacturers who even agree to the same standard actually put out products with the same numerical interpretations.
Now, first of all, this stuff just isn't that big a deal in men's stuff (yet) and secondly, people's body shape varies. I went to the home store of Brooks Brothers once with a few hundred in my pocket and an urge to turn it into a suit. After two-plus hours of annoyance the salesfolks concluded (accurately as far as I can tell) that there was no such thing as a suit in the entire store that would fit me properly. I went off, bought a few Italian suits that fit me just fine and went on with my life. Were the measurements "wrong" at B.B.? No. But as any tailor can tell you, there is no way to size clothing with just one or two numbers and be done. Better to find whose stuff in meant for your body type and deal with it.
By temperment, I'm a preppie, sack suit kinda guy. I wear loafers to take out the garbage. But preppie suits aren't meant for somebody with my build. So be it. Move on.
It is unreasonable to expect all clothing of a given marked size to be cut exactly the same and, in fact, folks like me would be utterly screwed if it were. Again, learn your body and find what fits well on it. How far back does your neck go? How long are your arms? How do you stand? Do you have any significant asymetricalities, and if so, what are they? Again, I recommend Lands' End. In fact, you might want to sign up for the print catalog as it is a middlin' decent free primer on clothes issues.
Styles constantly change in un logical ways, often times forcing the user to wear uncomfortable and non-functional clothing solely for the purpose of appeasing others. Yep, That is much of style's purpose. It must change as it is meant to convey change, novelty, and exclusivity. But again, tell me, what about the standard preppie uniform of baggie trousers, button down shirts, loafers or oxfords (these days Rockports or equiv.), and sports jacket has significantly changed since the Nineteen Twenties?
Same since the Fifties for the "greaser" wardrobe of t-shirt, jeans, heavy leather shoes, leather jacket, and slicked down hair.
Same since the Seventies for the hippie-techie look of ponytail, jeans, random shirt, etc.
Same since the Eighties for "classic" punk or "grunge" (which I might add, was quite common in the late Seventies, it just wasn't a big deal). I'm sorry, but I can easily point out any number of mens' styles where clothes bought before you were born would look just fine today, worn in the same way, in the same places.
You're a guy. You're not "forced" to do anything much at all. Unless these entries have been a front for Rosia all along (which, admittedly, would be both fascinating and very cool) you don't have much in the way of practical impediments to going out to The Gap tomorrow and buying all the clothes you'll need for the next twenty years, barring changes in weight and catastrophic accidents.
As for patterns, well, they hide dirt better, allow subtle color effects that can be very handy, more closely approximate the complexity and texture of the natural world, and are some of the most explicit chances for all that language stuff that I keep harping on. Polka dots *say* something. Each genuine Scottish plaid *means* something. You're not going to get me into any plaid tie but Drummond, 'cause it's the only one that I'm entitled to wear. Same (originally and still for us conservatives) for rep ties (I will wear ONE and that is the Franklin School's).
Pattern is a huge thing and even I am not arrogant enough to take it on in any depth in a forum like this.
And yes, I admit, women's clothing is a whole other thing. For crying out loud, many of them change size and shape every few weeks and then back again (or not). Gadzooks! But even there, it is a learnable skill. It was my experience back when I was on the edges of the fashion world that *everybody* who wanted to and was good at fashion could look "good" any time they wanted. They could also look threatening, compellingly hip, sexy, even smart if you didn't talk to them. It had very little to do with what genetics had handed them. It had a lot to do with their fluency and toolsets.
Anyway, I hope that this all helps. My only last advice is to repeat what I said earlier. Give Rosia a budget and let her pick a few things out for you. Then wear them. Even if you think that they're foolish. If clothing is such trivial bullshit then you're not taking much of a risk, are you? And if it *is* a big deal, then hadn't you better get started experimenting?
Good luck,
Rustin
*As I'm sending out all these letters for my timeline poster I understand better and better the McCartney song "Paperback Writer". For those of us without a natural talent for it, selling is hard!
Figuring out a reply (Score:2, Interesting)
I was talking with my art teacher and a couple of people from class the conclusion was reached that it is a fact of human life that people judge based on apperance and that you should work the system the best you could. Hard to admit, but yes it's true.
As to the pattern thing...I strongly dislike wearing lables of any kind, literal or figurative. So, my tendency is toward solid colors, or basic patterns like pinstripes or paisly, (floral patterns are right out, along with pale pink, bright pink or pink of any sort) Color wise I lean toward blue, followed by green, black, deep red and neutrals (brown, kacki, cream, white, etc)
Also, clothing ties in strongly with body image issues. When I wear something that flatters, I walk differently (for example jeans vs. skirt ), but finding the good stuff is the hard part. Going to regular everyday stores, and having nothing fit does not a happy girly make. Then going Lane Bryant because no other stores work and having to pay double because there was no other choice. Or there is also the whole loosing weight thing and having your whole wardrobe become consecutivly baggier and spending money on new stuff only to know that you will have to replace it in a couple of months anyway leads to not buying much at all in the interim, and just daydreaming of the options that will be avalible in the future (mmm , yes the options). (Have I rambled enough, I think not)
So clothing is ones language of portraying an image without saying a word. It can be manipulated to fit the situation and desired reaction. But to what legnths should a person go to, to fit a certain mold that is outside their definition of self, or how does one properly convey themselves with a limited vocabulary (clothing wise).
Re:Figuring out a reply (Score:2)
That having been said, if it were up to me, Janeane Garafalo would be the fashion icon of half of America and Stevie Nicks (as in "I intend to play with this and have fun and you're just going to have to deal with it") the fashion icon of the other half. Would that it were so. You and I have delved into the murky and upsetting waters of body image and social messages before and I think that we're pretty safely on similar ground there.
Just for a bit of perspective, at this very moment I have dress shirts hanging to dry from Today's Man, J. Crew, some place in Chinatown, a place in Harlem, the Gap, a Peruvian street vendor, a place that makes custom shirts (the only shirt I own with a proper cuff length), and HM. In other words, wherever I found good stuff. It is all hanging from two rods and being blasted by multiple fans as that is as close as I intend to get to ironing them. After all, isn't that what linen is for? Nobody *expects* it to be neat. As for the pinpoints and buttondowns, I've worked hard to perfect an image of the scruffy preppie and as long as the parts all match I do fine.
I don't know what to say. (Now there's a first!) I've always envied women the vast and mutable arrays of clothing choices that they've got. Seven friggin' years of private school didn't leave me feeling any more bestowed with options; I'll tell you that much. But in truth, at this point in my life I don't think that I would trade. I've figured out (a few years of semi-living with girlfriends will do that) that comparatively, for women, all the many aspects of dealing with appearance and their bodies add up to a part-time job. Bleagh! We've got it muuuuch easier.
Does it help to be an engineer? Will it get easier as you move up the ranks? I do know that some engineers I've known have developed the most remarkable ability to always have it seem like they had to go on site that day. You know, "woulda worn a suit, but getting down into the pit and checking the welds just made that impossible. Sigh!" I know that as a techie I would use the excuse of needing to be able to climb up into raised ceilings and down under people's desks.
The only reliable thing, though, seems to be what I've mentioned above. Wear relatively casual stuff but with classic and very upscale shoes/belt/watch (and in your case, jewelry) and with the casual stuff being more styled then the local average. Classic stuff, done right.
All the little things like doing a trim and neat fold when putting up one's cuffs. Fold, crease, check, pull taut, fold again. That seems to count too. Anyway, I can't do the subject justice. It's 1:08 AM and I'm supposed to be doing respectable stuff tomorrow.
And, after all, I though that you were going to go out and rollerblade today. Get sea air, all that. How did that go?
Off to brush my teeth and hope for a quick response,
Rustin
Re:Figuring out a reply (Score:2)
totally gratutious and unfair statement (Score:2)
I just happen to know a jewelry designer on 2nd street . .
Retreating quickly to a neutral position,
Rustin
Re:totally gratutious and unfair statement (Score:1)
As to the rollerblade thing. Yep, I went this morning, post rush hour, bladed for an hour or so, contemplated about reading by the shoreline for a while, realized that it was getting into the prime skin cancer part of the day, called my Dad to see what he was up to and then met him for lunch up the coast at Neptune's Net for some seafood and good conversation. All in all a great afternoon. And tomorrow's working out to be pretty good as well. I'm taking my sister to see StarWars II at the Imax up at Universal Citywalk. She hasn't seen the movie yet and was quite upset that I didn't bring her with me, seeing that I was able to see it opening night at Mann's Chinese theater. She was also pissed because Frodo was two groups behind me in line and I didn't get an autograph for her.
And at 1:something in the AM, go to sleep,