>>532364 Not that guy but in my opinion: -It is hot -It is more constricting if it is a well fitting suit (maybe this is me just having shitty suits) -Takes more maintenance than casual clothes (dry clean, ironing, etc) -More expensive
Historical question: back when suits were standard how much did they cost relative to people's income? My main reason for not wearing them is my job doesn't require them and they'd cost like 4x what my jeans and shirt cost. Were they always this expensive?
do you mean to say why do people dress less formal today? That's because societal pressures and acceptable fashion changes, and today it's becoming more casual on average. There are still plenty of industries where employees dress very formal, depending on the culture of the corporation. I've had jobs where I wore a suit and tie everyday and others where I just needed a polo shirt and khakis.
Also your idea that time and formality of fashion is correlated is silly. Look no further than college football in America, most CFB fans know that stadium attendees typically dress in super casual fan gear. Except for the college students in the Southeast. For whatever reason they tend to dress up like they're going to a fucking cocktail party. This is entirely based of peer pressure developing different trends in different areas.
The introduction of disposable low quality clothing with the fall of the clothing tariff barriers in the 1970s and 1980s. This provided the means for people to dress badly.
The consciousness around dressing badly was provided by a bourgeois idolisation of individual working class resistance in the 1960s (as opposed to collective). The motorcyclist, the rocker, the hippie and the drug dealer replaced the equivalent past celebrations of working class resisters: the nihilist, the labour man, the well dressed minstrel (I'm using this racist phrasing deliberately), the worker made good publican.
Why the bourgeoisie dress badly is because they're stupid slutty cunts who need to hire fashionistas to tell them how to look like prats. As a prole, I know how to look like a prat naturally.
>>534666 That's true. Same for hats. Anyone who owns a working class hat from before the 1960's knows that it was made to be durable and worn all the time, basically like a baseball cap except much, much, much higher quality.
>>534683 You can still get flat caps. It is harder to get a decent city hat though. Summer hats are impossible.
I find the best way to get a "suit" is a tweed jacket from the chinese industries and jeans.
People also forget, of course, that shirts used to have "clip on" collars and cuffs, and that most working class men were basically wearing a button up long sleeved t-shirt over their singlet, because they couldn't afford frogged cuffs and collars.
>>535309 I mean they were very well ventilated, very durable, and you could shape them,you could twist or bend the bill into one shape and back again and it would stay, they'd last a lifetime etc. It's basically like comparing a pair of work shoes from then to a pair of basketball shoes today.
>>531847 Kinda tangential to the point, but a dumbass in one of my classes thought a photo of striking workers in Italy during WWI was staged because all of them were wearing suits. He also kept droning on about whatever the fuck all the time.
>>531847 If you showed that photo to the Victorians they would consider it just as uncouth. Long ties were not in fashion and an unstarched collar without a properly fitted waste-coat was the mark of a vagrant. These people legit look liek hobos from just a generation back.
>>535795 This point deteriorates once you take into account culture.
Suit and tie in a modernistic culture is more formal than Victorian garb in a Victorian culture.
However, sweat pants and hoodies in a contemporary culture is absolutely impoverished compared to what you think 'suit and tie in a Victorian culture' would be.
There is no real way around the fact that fashion has collapsed in on itself. Not in the sense that people don't dress 'fashionably', but that the whole idea of dressing nice has atrophied.
As an example, anons in this thread are going off about how suits are uncomfortable. How they're over-restrictive and unbreathable. But if you had the serotonin flowing through your mind from believing that you were 'dressing nice', you wouldn't even notice. You would just feel above it. In the same way as when you were a child restless in your bed and you began to notice every last itch on your body as opposed to feeling actually tired where things of that nature don't even surface and you fall fast asleep.
That is to say, that people suffer from a lack of pride in the way they dress these days. This is further confirmed when, as there is no pride, there is no shame, and so people dress outrageously, almost as if the closest they can get to ugly is what they feel is fashionable.
>>535896 I would agree that this applies to the middle and lower classes today, but I think it directly correlates to class-consciousness.
The New Middle Class in the western world has been taught to shun "snobbishness" and upper-class airs unlike in the past when behaving and dressing as respectably as those above you was a sign of civility.
If you go to a more class-perceptive society like say a New York or London firm and want to be taken seriously you would be dressing in suits or dresses. Same goes for politics or high-brow entertainment.
I think that OUR sharp dresses do live up to past standards, with the exception of forgoing hats altogether and occasionally not having a suit fitted to measure.
Women in any respectable function or event tend to dress in period appropriate formality for the most part, more so than men even.
>>535922 I'm obviously speaking in terms of averages. Not just what can exist but what 'does' exist.
What you're saying is like looking at parts of an organism which a cancer has yet to metastasise and claiming that the cancer therefore doesn't exist. Obviously the most robust portions of that organism will be the last to metastasise.
When you look at the bigger picture, what I'm saying becomes undeniably true.
>>535976 I'm not disagreeing with you, I am just saying its related to cultural attitudes towards "classiness" which includes manner of dress. Its not that we don't have comparable "high" dressing standards, simple that we do apply those standards to our day-to-day life because it would come off as supercilious to others.
In formal dress scenarios the opposite is true, but the average person rarely is put into that social position so is unaccustomed to that manner of dress.
>>531847 I don't think people should be walking around in suits all the time but the lack of decorum is astounding. Every time I go to Mass, I see people in t-shirts, shorts, jeans, short dresses, heels, etc. They have no sense of propriety.
Protestant "churches" are even worse a lot of the time. I have seen people walk out of Protestant churches in sports jerseys.
>>536004 I guess all I was trying to say was that it was an zoo animal rather than a completely extinct animal. All the pieces are there it just takes a social swing back towards conservative standards of daily dress rather than muh speshial snowflake expression. The irony being that snowflake hipsters would be the first to revert to this level of dressiness and be ridiculed for being nu-fedora.
>>533073 >Were they always this expensive? Probably not so much. You see, look at your gramps old pictures and even working-class men thru the western world had a couple of suits at least. The difference is that 1. Man-hours were cheaper, so you'd had more tailors and related occupations per capita. 2. There were cheap fabrics as much as they exist today. So you see men that can afford some level of tailoring while keeping the costs down by using cheap fabrics. Today you can't have the first.
You're crying over spilt milk but I understand it. The sad part is that the majority of society would probably love to go back to 1950s and before fashion. Every guy I know loves wearing suits and things like 50s pinup fashion and 20s flapper styles are worshipped by women now. The problem is that there is no way to return to that level of decorum without it being artificial and weird. The first casual dressers were greasy hairy hippies and were berated for their choices much like the average greasy hairy fedoralord would be today.
>>538014 >The difference is that the fabric on those suits probably was the cheapest one. I think that one issue is that the least expensive fabrics then are not the least expensive fabrics now. Those suits were probably still 100% wool, whereas now the cheapest are shitty looking polyester blends. It's impossible for wool prices to compete with the prices of fabrics that you can make by mixing two chemicals that are byproducts of refining crude oil. Similarly for the hats, those hats are a lot nicer than most of the hats fedoralords wear just by the nature of their production.
Another issue is that these men had wives, sisters, daughters or tailor friends who could alter their suits so they don't look like complete shit. That there's no longer as big a focus on women learning that type of thing, clothing like that gets more impractical and expensive to wear and maintain.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.