Alt-right and fashion.

Ryan Landry, host of Weimerica Weekly over at Social Matter, recently talked about the decline of standard in men's dress. Many of the points he gives are basic "dress better" tips going around in the men's fashion circle which can be labeled as common sense.

This what I wrote in response -

"Gotta disagree with the (self-tied) bow ties.

Depending on your frame and how fit you are many off-the-rack suits will need to be tailored, so purchase blazers and suits that fit you the best and get them adjusted by a decent tailor. I do agree with less is more, both in flash and quantity.

You also don’t need to spend a lot on clothes that are form fitting (not tight like it’s glued to your skin). Places like Macy’s, JC Penny and J.Crew Factory carry pieces that are usually on sale and are at a price that won’t set you back.

Shoes can cost a penny (Alden, Brooks Brothers) but like above you can find decent shoes at a relatively affordable price at places like DSW. I think the only acceptable seams on a shoe are the cap toe and the wingtip. The seamless look is nice but again this is fashion and personal preference plays a big part in “dressing the part.”

Besides “dressing the part” men need to start working out. Build endurance. Build your strength. If you can participate in a 10K without dying then you’re on the right track. No need to go for a full-marathon. Just get your heart and lungs healthy.

Eat well without going full blown retard by becoming a vegetarian or vegan if you don’t have any digestion issues. Steak every now and then. Chicken that isn’t pumped with hormones. Fresh fish. Greens everyday as a side dish for a meal, be it lunch or dinner. Healthy fats and calories. Eating a pop tart won’t kill [you] once in a while.

So yes, “dress the part” but also take care of body that makes that silhouette."

I'd say this was a nice departure from the usual NRx talk. Conservatism, traditionalism, and dignity aren't initially seen as "sexy" or appealing. The Right has more sound ideas and are more decent than any modernist crap but their appearance on a materialist level leaves something to be desired. Appearance isn't necessarily everything but it helps if you dress "nice."

If conservatism has the ideas then it needs to let go of the baggy, boxy suit and ill-fitted dress shirts and move into a slim suit with a dress shirt whose collar isn't too big. Keep the ideas and concepts but change the look. Conservative women are ahead of the game when it comes to fashion, but conservative  men are sorely lacking in dress. You aren't a beta if you dress well, so dress well.

If there's a couple of men's fashion trends I'm rather annoyed by is the no-break pants and the variations of the "hipster" undercut (which Ryan alludes to in his talk) for hair styles. I like a slight break in my dress pants; no break as possible when it comes to chinos. I use to have the undercut but since it has become so ubiquitous I moved towards a more (Mad Men) traditional hairstyle.

Oh, and go to church every Sunday.

Mind, body and soul.

Sewanee caves into the feminists.

Over at Ivy Style, editor-in-chief Christian created a wonderful post about the joyous day of commencement at the University of the South, or simply known as Sewanee. It's a marvelous tribute to the tightness of the campus and to the well-dressed students.

But all was not well.

The post was so marvelous that Sewanee put it on their facebook page, only for it to be later taken down due to backlash of how the students were described. As Christian writes -

"So I was monitoring Google Analytics and social media today, and Sewanee put up a link to this post on its Facebook page, leading to another giant traffic spike that lasted for several hours.

Initial comments on FB were proud and positive. Then the feminists started complaining. I say feminists because the most vocal used that term in reference to her studies, and said she felt “erased” by the quote from the reader who said the female students in the post from last fall looked “ladylike.”

Several others complained that this post is sexist because of the terms “ladylike” and “fresh-faced and pretty.”

I went out for a couple hours and when I got back the link and discussion thread had been removed from Sewanee’s Facebook page."

The feminists are on every campus, even if it's in The South. It's almost a guarantee that someone will be offended if you give words that are complimentary to a woman that is genteel in nature. I can only assume that this is seen as a sin because, if I wear my feminist cap, unconsciously puts women "in a box" and creates images of a picket fence, marriage and - I dunno - slimness. A housewife may have popped into their feminist head alongside submissiveness. Modern day feminists don't like that.

Maybe they were triggered and thought that Christian's words were hints of sexual harassment.

What else? Fresh-faced and pretty. As suppose to what, hot? Babe? Bangable? Fuckable? Dour?

Maybe those that complained want the words like "independent," "strong," "empowered" as descriptive words instead of "fresh-faced and pretty." There's no doubt in my mind that the "fresh-faced and pretty" women captured in the Sewanee photos would describe themselves as such.

As a guy, I greatly prefer "fresh-faced and pretty." Add in "ladylike" as well. I suggest that you don't erase such a standard, or else you risk the future of young women not knowing was "ladylike" is and what it entails. You also don't want young men who have forgotten what being a gentlemen is, because without a lady, a gentleman would be incomplete - in some way.

EDIT: Since the Ivy Style Sewanee post was taken down from the university's Facebook page, a handful of students have ventured to the site and have expressed their views.

Students, Isabella Lilly and Rachel Head, wrote the following -

Speaking of privilege -

EDIT 4: I've met this mentality before - the scoffing off when someone mentions political correctness. That person was a homosexual. Go figure.

I've written back to most of these losers and I said that opposing views have taken into account the microaggression brigade. The reason why they're mad is because the "fellows" (the clowns, creeps and bores at Ivy Style) won't apologize; C'13 and his crowd are bitter because people actually stand up to their shit. The irony.

Come up with a better argument before you decide to pick a fight with your better-equipped peers online.

 You mad, bro?

I'm not sure what's so "short-sighted" about the article since it really didn't say anything about the university or student body besides acknowledging the sense of community and pride that permeates the pictures. It's obvious that C'13 is not up-to-date on the tracking and discussions about the feminist/microaggression crowd done by conservative blogs (see: College Fix, Minding the Campus) and think tanks (see: Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, YAF) and that the disparages are not without thought. Also note the arrogance of the poster. He believes that Isabella's and Rachel's posts were excellent counters to the article, and that the disparages are shallow.

This fucker actually believes that his indignant side is the "A-Team." He actually thinks that the people who expressed disagreement are in over their heads.

Then we get into some "you've been token up' heavily, eh?" territory.

EDIT 2: Paula Jones cared to join.

If you tell off the feminists, accusing them being "PC Stalinists," and refuse to apologize, you're the delicate snowflake according to poster "Ol' Nippy" -

"Me thinks the overly sensitive ones are the clowns calling out the “PC Stalinist” crowd. Who is the real snowflakes here?"

We got cunts who want to throw out all the accusations and then some. They're in the right. They aren't the snowflakes. You can't win because they aren't honest and they don't practice logic.

Clowns? Bores? These are all used to mock, denigrate, and silence the people they deem ill equipped to handle important discussion.

Note: Both C'13 and Paula use "better equipped" when referring those - and I don't who they're referring to - that no doubt feed their psychological imbalance.

EDIT 5: Sewanee student "Paul [Gibson] Naumann" issued this set of posts -

Since the article featured mostly whites (maybe he expected to see more minorities?) he accuses his own campus of having "white male privilege." Given a quick google search and if I can derive anything from his name, Naumann is white himself. As I try to make sense of his first post he's also accusing the article of having racist and classist undertones because it pictures mostly white and well-dressed students.

Naumann is the same student who wrote this student piece back in 2013. The topic? Douchebag frat boys and sexism. The boy even says that men assert their male privilege in the workforce and depend on it to get ahead while females have to work harder. Given his writing ability Naumann has demonstrated that he's a dumbass.

In his article Naumann posits that since the university's Alpha Phi Omega chapter, alongside others, is led by women that "male excellence" is debunked. I was in APO at my university and there were more females than male members, about 70-30 ratio. During my undergraduate years my chapter's president was male and then I later become president. Unless there's an even distribution of male to female at Sewanee's chapter, and that a male lost an executive position to the eventual winner who so happens to be female, Naumann's premise just doesn't work. He then accuses SGA (Student Government Association) of sexism since it's been dominated by males - too closed minded and lazy to elect a female. (Are we talkin' Hillary Clinton here?) That's weird, because Mizzou's SGA's executive board is led by a male. Yes, the Peyton Head who rang a false alarm about seeing a KKK member on campus. Not only does Mizzou has to deal with BLM, but also sexism! Naumann better give the heads-up to Mizzou! Right the wrong! What's strange is that Sewanee has more female students then male. I'm not aware of SGA at Sewanee being accused of male bias in the past, so I think Naumann is seeing things that only he sees due to his poorly developed brain.

Isabella and Rachel probably know each other. C'13 and BB c'17 probably have some ties to said students. Same with Paula. Paul is the perfect white knight.

#FogeyGate

Rare opportunity to purchase American made items.

Something I have noticed but didn't think much of is the items being made to promote POTUS candidates are being made in America.

 I haven't visited each candidate's store (and not every candidate has a POTUS site), but I do know that the official Donald Trump hat is made in America as well as Hillary Clinton's items. Marco Rubio has a "Wake up, America!" cup that is the most neutral item in self-promotion amongst all the items I've seen in any store. Bernie Sanders lets potential buyers know that his own merchandise is specifically union-made.

Artists vs. "Old Navy Exec"

So-called artists are resorting to twitter to express their disdain for a couple of Old Navy toddler shirts encouraging the tiny ones to become astronauts, the next President or some other occupation besides an artist. The horror. Personally, I don't find it offensive and I consider myself artistically inclined. Here's the items that are causing butt-hurt all over the hearts of "artists":

Here's a comeback from an "artist" -

It's a silly comeback because it's clearly a backlash towards "the suits" and it shows the pathetic caricature that "artists" have when thinking about "the suits." Also, I was expecting a more interesting font since this was a response by a professional artist. It's awfully plain looking.

"I'm an artist. I don't cheat people out of money and I know what it mean to be 'human'!"

The shirts were deemed offensive and disrespectful. The anger become so great that Old Navy hase decided to discontinue them.

A similar incident, a day after Memorial Day, when PacSun displayed a shirt with an upside down American flag. Now this I fully understand the outrage for - it's highly idiotic to not display the flag in its correct manner aka not upside down, especially during a week devoted to remembering deceased military men/women. It's like putting the a crucifix upside down after Christmas. I understand hanging the American flag incorrectly, with the stars to the left instead of the right, as an honest mistake but an upside down flag? Yea, I bet an "artist" though it would be a cool/edgy thing to do.

The outrage that these shirts inspired makes me recall the outrage displayed on Yale's campus over an email response saying that students should be deemed responsible for their own costume awareness. Let's just say people had a meltdown and it was embarrassing to those that aren't psychologically and emotionally infantile.

Even better, the outrage is very much the "cousin" of the irritation showed when Marco Rubio said that the USA needed more welders and less philosophers. Again, I am more inclined towards the arts and I studied philosophy during my undergraduate years. I was not offended and I perfectly understood what Rubio was trying to convey. Apparently other degree holders of the liberal arts did not interpret what I interpreted as they delved into self-importance, which isn't too surprising given the modern health of the disciplines that make up the humanities and social sciences.

What I want to know if an Old Navy executive approved of this t-shirt. I want to know because if it wasn't an MBA executive, it's just a blind attack on corporate by mushy brained "artists." An "artist" probably made this print so in a way it could be self-deprecating. Many artists will probably say, "Why would one of ours do such a thing?" Why  not? What replaced the word artist were occupations that are looked upon as highly impressive in today's society. An astronaut. A country's president. Even becoming a company's executive is impressive since it takes years to reach that level.

Yes, the world needs artists. The world also needs astronauts and presidents. The world needs welders as well as philosophers.

As stated before, I'm not offended by these t-shirts and if I were an Old Navy executive deciding whether or not to pull these shirts, I wouldn't. I'd say, "These weren't meant to be offensive. Deal with it. Your occupation isn't sacred and no one's taking your occupation away from you. We're trying to inspire, so stop being a toddler."

Lyrics: Hide Away

Daya, an American pop singer, released a single in August 2015 called "Hide Away."

What's striking about this song is the lyrics which calls for "decent" boys and sexual restraint, at least on the first couple of dates. Nowadays that's a rarity. Here are the words.

Boys seem to like the girls who laugh at anything
The ones who get undressed before the second date
Girls seem to like the boys who don't appreciate
all the money and the time that it takes
to be fly as a mother
Got my both eyes out for Mr Right
Yeah, see I just don't know where to find them
but I hope they all come out tonight

Where do the good boys go to hide away, hide away
I'm a good, good girl who needs a little company
Looking high and low, someone hardly know
Where do the good boys go to hide away, hide away

Boys seem to like the girls who like to kiss and tell;
Talking them up about things that do so well
I want to find a boy who is down for the chase
putting in the time that it takes
To be fly as a mother
To supply all of my hearts amends
Suit and tie 'cause undercover
He's gonna save a life like superman

In the music video the dads are portrayed as overprotective, but in a funny and lovable way.

The "Where do the good boys to hide away, hide away," part can mean two different things. The first, the audience can reason that the boys are driven away from the dads who chase away boys they deem unworthy - or just any boy in general in order to shield their baby girl. The second interpretation, without the visuals, is literally. Daya is upset that modern dating has devolved into a give-and-take where if you want to "get it," you can "get it," that it's just a matter of finding someone willing to shed their clothes, open their legs and open their mouth for the member. I'd even say that this critical look at dating has a sense yearning for "the good old days" where women, though 'chased' after, found men who courted their possible life partner. Their 'invisible chastity' belt was their dignity and self-respect, all with the aid of social norms.

I'll also commend the music video for being quite uneventful. There wasn't any make-out scenes with tongues intertwined. No implied sex or nudity. It just featured a girl going out on the date (hopefully not ruined by the overprotective dads) and enjoying herself. Food. Bowling. A pool party where the swimmers keep swimsuits on, just enjoying each others company and their youth. It's the fathers that worry.

The line -

Girls seem to like the boys who don't appreciate
all the money and the time that it takes
to be fly as a mother

 reverberates with me. In the past couple few years I'm gotten into men's style. Though the lyrics tell about the effort to get ready for a date sartorially, which I think it's safe to say everyone does, I'm wondering about our everyday dress when not at work. In some circles jeans are a no-no, like the trad/ivy circle. The trad/ivy circle is seen as conservative dress to the likes of the more metrosexual GQ circles. I like what both have to offer since I don't consider myself belonging to one group for personal style. Fitting jeans that aren't baggy; wearing a button-down with the right length (wearing a dress shirt as a casual shirt, untuck, is sloppy; wearing sneakers on certain occasions and opting for brogues instead etc. are just some of the things I've "upgraded" to since I graduated from college where my style was an eyesore (a dear miss kindly said she was glad I ditched my pre-distressed baggy jeans after we met up a year after graduation).

Within a society whose moral standards haven't actually progressed, but devolved, and where dress standards have also gone south, I am pleased to know this song exists. It touches on a couple of issues that have been in my mind for quite some time.

The bridge is sound. It's made by Modernism.

Go ahead. It's like when Indiana Jones took a "leap of faith" in the Last Crusade.

Okay, not really.

Exhibit A

Jim: Anal sex may be gross at first, but don't knock it until you try it. You can actually make the anus feel like the vagina if you go at it enough times, and with enough lube; it's all about conditioning the rectal canal to open up in order to accommodate the penis.

John: So how about reusing your socks twice if your feet haven't perspired and if the socks aren't covered in dirt?

Jim: That's gross. I'd never do that.

Accurate beyond belief.

This excerpt from an article written by Peter Hitchens is how I felt when I subscribed to liberal views during my teenage years. I get that this same snobbery is alive & well in other liberals.

The liberal mindset isn't hard to figure out when it comes to their impressions of non-urban places and non-progressives. I'll list them.

• The military is for the stupid. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Coasties can't think for themselves. They're the epitome of the "yes" man, taking orders, never questioning them.
•  The military is the mafia for the greedy business and oil men. The reason why wars start is for profit - military personnel are killers, killing innocent civilians and mistaking people who defend their country as "the bad guys." They are the henchmen for the CEOs.
• Rural places are devoid of culture, filled with narrow-minded people. These people are called rednecks, hicks or townies. 
• Rural places are filled with ignorant people, racist people, sexist people and homophobic people. 
• State universities, for the most part, are people who weren't smart enough to get into the Ivies, a top private or an elite LAC. Don't even mention community college.
• People in rural places drive trucks. Lamborghini they are not.
• Those in rural places and suburbs shop at malls and where clothes that are devoid of uniqueness. These malls are also filled with moms and dads with strollers, screaming kids and annoying teenagers.
• Suburban teenagers have no fashion sense. They dress in Ugg boots, North Face jackets and crowd Starbucks. They then attend a sate university and move to the city to be known as a "Chad & Trixie."
• Rural and suburbs tend to favor sports as a way of entertainment. Sports mostly appeals to the unsophisticated; soccer/football is the exception because Europe likes it. Soccer/football is the one sport that open-minded and intelligent crowd prefer unlike the brain bashing American football.
• Suburbs is a soulless place. Same architecture in the more newly developed divisions. 
• The suburbs is car centric with little options for quality stores. Target, Walmart and K-mart are looked at as places where you can find the ever popular overtly patriotic, heavy weight and dimwitted American.
• Many of those who work in the suburbs work 9-5 jobs, doing boring soul sucking tasks. For example, car insurance, retail, food services etc.These are uncreative jobs, if not dead end.
• If you work a corporate job aka cubicle farm worker then your the second best example of the "yes" man.
• The suburbs is the sign of dead dreams: Married with children. Instead of trips to Paris and canoeing in Canada's lakes, it's trips to Disney World and cross-country minivan trips to The World's Largest Yarn Ball.

If anyone cares to disagree, there's the comment section. I'd be more than happy to discuss this entry.

Fashion doesn't make sense.

When you observe certain subcultures. Take the hipsters (current style is a mixture of skate & urban wear aka street wear) and  the yuppies (east coast influence). 

I've seen this in LA - beanie + flannel (or sweater) - when it's 65+ degrees, then people dressed, when it's below 20' with no hat and heels in both Chicago and NYC.

Why? 

Personally my own style is a mixture of what is called hipster and yuppie, maybe even prep, then add in a dash of "classical" men's wear, but I sure as heck wear the appropriate clothing dictated by the weather. If I find myself outside in warm weather for a certain duration I'll probably wear a baseball cap and either a button-down oxford, a t-shirt or polo. If it's cold outside I'll be definitely wearing a wool hat, gloves, a heavy coat and some sort of boot. When I go swimming I'll wear swimming trunks. If I do any type of athletic I'll wear athletic shorts and an athletic t-shirt, sports glasses and the gym/basketball shoes.

And when I take a shower I take all my clothes off.

Joggers and Butt Hurt

 Not joggers, but joggers. 

Over at dappered.com's forum - called threads.com - a discussion on the worth and usage of the latest fashion bottoms, known as "joggers" (they're really sweatpants because, just by looking at them, they aren't remotely functional for actual jogging) some butt hurt posters in favor of them just couldn't take the archaic notion of criticism and judgment.

"LEAVE MY JOGGERS ALONE!"

There was probably two posts, in total, that outright rejected the joggers on the first page; the rest were just thoughts on "the history of sweatpants," but we can't have that, so poster "wheresbrando" deems it a "melt down" as the sheep follow in throwing the tiresome "conservative" and "insular" cards.

There were some non-brat like posts -

A forum is a place to discuss things - in this case people who have an interest in men's fashion, not just to gather around and play "you're my buddy!"

But the butt hurts wouldn't have it!

Childish name calling vs. condescending and arrogant "little less risk averse." Considering Miami is equally as casual in fashion - you won't see many suits or pencil skirts - as, say, L.A., joggers would be more prone to be worn. Wearing joggers in Miami or like cities wouldn't be considered a "risk" since many of the clothing is dictated by the weather and fashion culture (casual) : light, less fabric, comfortable. A fashion risk would be creating a work outfit around joggers if the work apparel is business casual.

"Bravery" in wearing joggers and being "less risk averse" when it comes to fashion ... In a city that's rather casually in wear to begin with - keep it up "useknifeonly." Don't ever take philosophy courses -- you'd be horrible at them.

That's what the forum is for, and that's what was being discussed, bud.

User "useknifeonly" is just miffed at these "conservative" fashion folks.

"It's those darn precedents that dictate you stuffy types! What a bunch of followers you are!"

Is there still hope?

Nah. Just more butt hurt.

"You don't know me, old man!" Considering "useknifeonly" wrote all that out, I'd think he is defending joggers even if he wouldn't wear one himself. The logic and debating skills is strong with this one.

But aesthetics and feel good.

Of course, there's the relieved exclamation of "YOU GET ME!" in such a discussion, as like-minded person swoops down upon the oppressed and misunderstood hero of expression and love; other exclamations are "Ugh," or "THIS!" generally used by the butt hurt.

All is not lost, not entirely, though.

When it comes to trends there is no logic or explanation needed, just feelings and warm sentiments of "like." Fair enough. No wonder most fashion trends, when looked at in retrospect, are both embarrassing and laughable.

The poster "ryn" mentions statistics. The "feelings" types tend to like numbers, they just use them when it's convenient. Remember, it's all about feelings and non-justification.

Considering Allen Edmunds is a considered a classic (you can say the shoe was a trend at first, that later turned into a staple in the men's fashion universe) and considering that overalls have their history similar to blue jeans, I consider that a poor comparison when one is defending the existence of joggers.

Wow, the horror of someone thinking some trends are "better" than others. I guess everything isn't equal or "whatev." In an industry that relies on trends (things catching onto the public and the public consuming/buying them) and shallowness (body type, skin color, blemish free, height, curves vs no curves) the horror that someone may want to dig deeper than "I like." The horror, "usetheknifeonly." This is a guy is tired of the "better this, better that" when it's the natural thing, usually one of the firs steps to do, when judging a particular article of clothing.

Who knew that justification would be such a ridiculous thing to ask for or to expect when it comes to personal fashion choices, at least when asked? Apparently it's quite rude ... But all those not in favor of joggers, according the logic displayed by users like "usetheknife," should keep their mouth closed. Those in favor? They're just victims of meanness and insular thinking. If someone asked me "Why?" on a certain item I am wearing I'd like to think I'd give them a decent enough answer besides "Cause me like." Know thy self better than the initial feeling of "like."

I'm not implying that joggers do not have a place in the fashion scene - mostly street wear types - I just found it incredibly ironic that those who have an interest in fashion are the ones proudly proclaiming to others to be "open-minded" and "take risks" when they get defensive and seem to be unable to discuss any possible functionality of a jogger.

With all that said and done, I do see a few functions that joggers can be competently used in: lounging around the pad, to-and-from the gym when it's cold enough outside (in fact, I'll be purchasing a pair for this very reason) or maybe a quick trip to the mall during the weekday. I wouldn't advise to wear one to the bars or clubs, or anything that would be deemed "entertainment" or any social gatherings. 

You can find the entire discussion here.

What's my process when I pick out clothes to wear? My thinking puts pragmatism above anything else.

1. Wear I'm going. Will it be work, gym, wedding, night-out-on-the-town, social gathering (themed, casual, business casual), running errands around town, outdoor activity?
2. The weather. Is it hot? How hot? Cold? How cold? Will there be rain later in the day? It is snowing?
3.  Fit & drape. Not as crucial as the first two, but it's nipping at their heels.
4. How modern it is in style.
5. Color, pattern, texture.

With those reasons listed, I'd put joggers under "gym pants" and "lounge wear." I may wear it when I walk the dog, or maybe a quick trip to the market (big maybe), but that's if I'm too lazy to put on jeans or a pair of chinos

Quickly, what did user "useknifeonly" said about the first reason? "... each of those essentially is just a specific way of dressing that has been accepted by a precedent that was set and then followed by everyone else ... " And what exactly is your point? That the standard of dressing for those situations are meaningless and just "a bunch of rules made up by non-risk takers"? You got a better precedent to offer and to follow? If you do, why is it better? I bet "useknifeonly" wears a suit to a wedding. I bet he wears appropriate work out clothes to the gym. I bet he wears no clothes when he has sex. Wait, is sex confined to the bedroom just some weird rule set by prudes who want to stifle affection and ones own sexuality? People should have sex on the street, the subway, in the classroom and in parks where everyone can see. Sex is beautiful! If you think it's "icky' then that's your opinion, and you're just jealous because you ain't getting any! Don't be a prude. Sex is just sex - don't like it, look away! I digress ...

Oh, and overalls look mightily fine on women depending on how they wear 'em. On men? If you aren't a farmer or a painter (painting dry walls and such), please refrain.

Snow and its "power." Trendy stuff and its "power."

More like effect it has on me. It lifts up my soul, just a tad, when I'm feeling down or when I'm troubled. Time slows down for me.

Unlike rain.

Now onto a narcissistic, first-world "problem" of mine.

Back in December I was deciding to get new snow boots. Where I live when it snows it snows. It's not as bad, as say Minnesota, or the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (U.P. for short). I went onto L.L. Bean's site to weigh my options of their heralded  "8 winter boots. I was late to the party. The size I wanted was back ordered until May. I checked other widths to see if they too were back ordered. Sure enough, they were - till April or June. It even made the news, here and here.

This sort of back order I never experienced before. I mostly order online when I can because my sizes are hard to find in a normal brick & mortar store.

Since today it's snowing it reminded me of this "problem." I re-visited the site to relive that "da fuq" moment.

I knew they were immensely popular amongst those who A) have worn them all their lives in conditions that called for it - sort of like a trusted brand in families that might stick to a certain dishwasher or washing machine or car, or B) the more fashion conscious crowd. I don't necessarily fall into the latter because I actually need these types of boots where I live; I just want to "upgrade" my old boots so I did my research which led to the L.L. Bean boot.

This back order urges me to question: Of those that do purchase them for their intended wear (snow, rain), how many purchase them that do not live in places where such boots are necessary? (I saw pictures of people wearing these in a pile of leaves, and some - obviously made for a fashion site/blog - wearing them on a bridge with no snow, rain ... Or leaves, wearing blazers. In the picture it looked like a mild 55 degrees.) So when people like me, when met with days with several feet of snow, need them they're SOL.

According to boston.com -

 Why the increase in sales? Well, blame teens and millennials.

“Younger people are buying them. They’re all over college campuses and high schools,” Beem said. “Without changing anything, they’re back in style.”

You see that little white cloud hovering over states like Illinois, Indiana and Michigan? Those are the places that actually need winter boots like the L.L. Bean boot. How many hipsters live in said states? Besides the city of Chicago, not many I bet.  States like Main and Vermont need them. The New England region? Yes. People in San Francisco? No. Seattle or Portland? Not really, unless you live in small towns that are nearer the wilderness. L.A.? No. NYC? Okay, sure. College campuses where it doesn't snow heavily during winter? You don't need them.

It's a good thing people who wear fake eye glasses don't back order the style I want. 

Plenty HumanWear: Brand

Inspired By All -

PLENTY HUMANWEAR is a streetwear company for men and women which first got inspired by the lifestyle put forward by counter-cultural sports such as snowboard, skateboard and surf. We are also highly influenced by all artists who could die for an idea, who live solely to create and who, just like riders, grow to the beat of their passions.

Again with the "artists" + ideas + passion cards.

The thing is I like streetwear; during certain night outs and if the occasion calls for it I'll wear what's considered streetwear. But what I'm finding, when I peruse street wear brands and their philosophy is that besides the font on their logos, they blend in together. I see it when a new raw jean company opens and pulls the heritage/tradition line ... like the half dozen companies before them did. Way to practice individuality. I thought the head of marketing gave you the memo that heritage/tradition line has been used, abused and recycled before the owners decided to practice their indignation towards mall brands and fashion conformity (not that streetwear brands & the people that make them are devoid of this dreaded conformity, oh the irony).

I Banish You!

On a sartorial site, which I frequent, called Dappered I was banned for a comment that, I think, was a bit too confrontational for the site's owner.

It was on this article.  Before I pressed "submit" I re-read the combox guidelines:

"Because accepting college or high school as your peak is pathetic."

 - Joe, from dappered.com

Joe, people like are what I like to call douchebags, cowards and pussies. Yea, I know you lift but you're still all said things.

I knew what I was about to submit wasn't the type the owner was accustomed in dealing with, but I took the "Write only what you'd say to a person's face," seriously because I would have said what I wrote if he, the site owner - Joe, said what he wrote with the tone he wrote it in. I guess Joe didn't really appreciate my candor. After all, he is the site owner - the man - the boss - the umpire - god - so he automatically has the upper hand, having the last word. If he responded back I know that others would've backed him up.

I understand the the gist of what he was saying, but I disagreed with it (now I'm not sure what "alternative" I could have proposed since it wasn't about articles of clothing, shoes or watches). I basically said that he sounded bitter and, from my experience, that many who did fit the "bro" archetype or the ones that seemed to really like college are doing okay career wise. (My comment was deleted so I have no proof of what I exactly type up.)

But I'm a bit perplexed because the archetype of the "too dumb to even cook eggs and never amounted to anything" is the high school football star (see Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite), not this guy:

                                 

Before it was "You'll get 'em in college" to the nerds in high school. Now it's "you'll get 'em after college" to people like Joe. What's next, "You'll get 'em in retirement"? It seems the Joes of the world got tired of "You'll get 'em in college" and needed another scapegoat to tell the world "Suckers! I showed you!" Enter "College. Meh."

It has evolved from "You'll be working for me," to "You'll be an office drone while I'm not." From being a superior to another, it's being your own superior. In other words: I am my own god.

As for the "bros", one "bro" (probably the  most stereotypical "bro" I know who was also President of his fraternity, and was also my high school's valedictorian) was a medical student at Case Western and is now interning; another was hired by PWC; two entered law school -- one at Case Western and one at Florida; one decided to be involved in the Greek Life administration so he enrolled in Florida State for his masters; a "bro" I was in in high school band with attended Illinois for law. There have been other career success stories from my own fraternity -- alumni achieving impressive things in their chosen career path.

If I take into yearly salaries as "winning" then I bet, once the budding lawyers finish school & are hired by a firm, all those I mentioned above will be earning much more than Joe when he reaches his mid 30s. Or I could take into intellectual rigor. But I won't, at least when it comes to yearly salary, when measuring "success" because I don't see salary as a sound way of gauging "You showed 'em!"

I don't know what Joe's, or the those that favored the article, experiences were in college (honestly, this all sounds like people complaining about high school, but it's not ... It's about college) but I have a feeling he's the one constantly comparing himself to those who may be more sartorial than he is; he just seems the type to look up to/admire "cool guys" that managed to rake in uber amounts of money in very niche (cool) fields, like fashion or the movie industry. Some of his posts - that aren't necessarily related to fashion - just come across trying way too hard to be "casual cool."

Others who did enjoy their college years (I think they did), but weren't involved in the Greek system, seem to be doing okay as well. All are gainfully employed - one's an accountant; one works as an engineering consultant; a couple as music teachers; my own sibling is a financial consultant and many were recently married. One has two kids already and she's in her late twenties; she decided to become a homemaker even though she's a college graduate. Some of these people went to schools that are known for massive school spirit such as Notre Dame. The accountant attended NIU, which is known as a party school. I'd be surprised if she said "meh" when asked about her uni years; she seemed to like the party culture & the school itself. They were all career oriented.

I have heard the "best years of your life" in reference to college, which I thought was a bit shallow, but I took it as "this four short years, make the most of it, and don't screw up." Don't screw up. Yea, the pressure is on. Many of my peers- okay, upon thinking about it, almost all - that attended college looked at it as a major step to having a livelihood. It was seen as the gateway to the working world that their parents didn't have (most of the kids I went to grade school and high school with came from blue collar working families whose parents didn't hold college degrees). 

Now, compare this to Joe. It's just too perfect of a situation; he just falls into the hands of my past posts. It's comical, really.

The owner, Joe, worked a 9-5 job, quit and opened his own site known as Dappered (as linked above). I read an interview of Joe and his tone was the usual "I'm my own boss" self-masturbation. Good for you, Joe, really. But not good for you because, when confronted about questionable opinion pieces, you have demonstrated that you are not open to (generally constructive) criticism. You either ban or let your lap dogs finish the job.

Maybe that's why so many of these "ditch the white collar job and open your own blog and/or youtube channel" seem like insecure bitches on a personal level with egos at least a foot taller than their actual height. It's not that they were too good for the "white collar job", it's just that the job wasn't paying them enough attention to their own (perceived) specialness.  

Late last year, around the last quarter, I was at my godmother's place. My mother and her were talking about jobs; they said "A job is a job (in reference to doing a job that isn't your 'dream' job)" and that one should be thankful for it, after all, one could be unemployed or working as a prostitute (my words, not theirs). Hockey player Andrew Shaw wears a black bracelet dedicated to the iron workers, some are his childhood friends, of the Canadian town he grew up in.

If the new frontier for modernism is smugness filled with contempt for all the "office drones" and "normal jobs", and one pats himself on the back because "he escaped", then what a lousy new frontier.

"That's it?!" I'd say.

It's not like such people escaped from a concentration camp (but bet your bottom dollar they'd make their story into something grand). 

It's still domesticated in a way, if you aren't a travel blogger, since fashion/fitness/beauty bloggers work at home. It's ironic.

"Doing what you love" (as your main job) is insanely overrated. I suppose this is what modernism has wrought, but "doing what you love" is just the start of this self-entitled mentality that is so pervasive and potent amongst those under 35.

UPDATE (4/13/15): Since the site owner of dappered.com re-posted his "It Gets Better" piece  (he re-posts
articles that he thinks have 'good' insights) I can't help but compare it to the actual "It Gets Better" campaign that was directed at the LGBT community but then later added anti-bullying as a way to kinda-not-really save face when confronted about "How about all the kids are bullied that don't fall under the LGBT alphabet soup?" In the modernists mind they want to show up the perceived injustice they have face - directly or indirectly - they want revenge. If it ain't high school then it's college. But wait, college is like high school to them so they turn to life after college -- but guess what, they usually make a living in niche industries like entertainment or fashion with other equally insecure and indignant people. It's like, wait for it, high school!

When hipsters and so called "rule breakers" create their own (clothing) brand + company.

Do they think the invented the concept of 'business' or are they just absurdly arrogant and pretentious? I think all three. 

So I'm "into" fashion. Ever since I upgraded my jeans - since the ones I replaced I had no interest in wearing anymore and I wanted to update the material used and the fit; in other words, to purchase a modern looking pair of jeans - I slowly eased my way into becoming a more discerning consumer when it comes to buying articles of clothing. I pay attention to fit and drape. I pay attention to what the article of clothing is made out of.

I also noticed the attitude that came with this niche interest (at least for men). If the clothing line that's made in the USA and has a site, I tend to visit it for a peek. That peeking then becomes perusing through almost every tab. I educate myself about what the company "is all about."

Take the clothing company Everlane.  It believes in being transparent so that the customers know why the price of their article of clothing is priced the way it is. I think that's quite a good business philosophy. Jump over to their "Jobs" section, though. 

Here's what bugs me:

Always Ask Why

We constantly challenge the status quo. Nothing is worse than complacency, and as a brand our culture is to dissect every single decision we make at every level of the company.
We know our customers are also rule breakers and questioners, so we hope this philosophy is palpable in the products and choices we make. And by all means, challenge us too.

Okay, what status quo? In the business world in general? In the fashion world? There are many status quos (I bet there are status quos within Everlane ... ). As for complacency -- well, they sure seem smug about themselves in general. Keep reading so find out why I think this way about them.

Rule breakers? Questioners? That's like proclaiming you're a "free thinker" or some rebel without a cause (but with a cause). 

And this is my 'favorite':

They say you should start a business that you wish already existed, so we quit our day jobs.

Now this isn't so much advocating for entrepreneurship as it's quietly jabbing so called "day jobs"  and all the (many, many, many ... ) people who work (and are fine with working) "day jobs." You could even say those who work at Everland, the non-owners are working their own "day jobs." Unless they work at night in order to avoid such a label. This I doubt.

Then there's this:

 Dear rule breakers, questioners, straight-A students who skipped class: We want you.

 "Too cool for school" type of brilliance. Gotcha. What's next, "Dear swimmers who breath under water without choking. We want you."? So no "goodie two-shoes" need apply - you just don't fit the image and the atmosphere. No people who respect the rules, even those who may question them from time to time, yet, for the most part, understand why they're there in the first place.  

Enter PacSun. I was in one of their outlet stores getting some of colorful/fun socks and I noticed a banner hanging. It was a nice banner. Simple in design. It also had this written on it:

Is PacSun, and those in the fashion industry in California, claiming that this mindset is strictly their own, and that only in Ca. that such an ideal reality exists? I know it's for marketing, to get the young adults or whoever to buy their stuff and to buy into such an mindset. It's similar to the Empire State of Mind (see: Jay-Z and Alicia Key's song to learn all about it, or just talk to any transplant to the island of Manhattan or some trendy Brooklyn neighborhood). I haven't come across any clothing company located in the Midwest or South that holds this type of obnoxious mindset.

Now let me break this "Golden State of Mind" down a bit.

First, diversity. I have a feeling they mean ethnic diversity (maybe whoever was in charge of this banner just threw in the word 'diversity' simply because it sounds good and fits the narrative); but here's the thing: all the major metros and cities of Ca. are majorly segregated into ethnic enclaves. The east side of LA isn't the west side, for sure. Bloods and Crips still exist in LA and the last time I heard they weren't recruiting white or Latino kids. Most of the uber wealthy actors live in affluent neighborhoods away from the middle class suburbs, which (these affluent neighborhoods) are gated communities. I know there's a big population of Asians, but, at least in San Francisco, most the middle class Asians tend to live near each other. I mean, Daley City is approximately 50% Asian. And that's a stone throw away from the city of San Francisco.

Second, creativity. Okay, there's the Bay Area where tech is dominant; LA where entertainment (mainly movies) is the "theme." Add in the surf & skate clothing culture as well. There's Napa Valley in the NoCal which ads to the agricultural power to the state. I'm not sure if you count that as creativity, though. There's more weight in the creativity aspect of this #gsom.

Third, optimism. If you mean #YOLO and stupidly naive, then yes, there is plenty of that in LA and San Fran.

Fourth, do whatever you want wherever. That's a bit ironic because most of the time those that buy into this type of mentality - this whole "Golden State of Mind" - if they aren't already living in LA, NYC or SF they want in on those cities. So this 'anywhere' is mainly (self) restricted to said cities (I've touched upon this city 'thing' on a past post). 

Though not a clothing, a rum brand: Sailor Jerry. Oh Dear L_rd make it stop. Maaakkke iiittt stttoooppp! (Not the making of the rum, but the marketing.) I wasn't even aware of this marketing mentality until a couple of weeks ago.

Right away the narcissism is pouring out of the page, literally. What do you mean? Here:

People who are true to themselves may have scars, enemies and unpaid bills but they don't have regrets.

The people we respect and admire have one thing in common. At some point in their lives, they turned away from the crowd and followed their own path. They ignore what's considered normal and instead live in pursuit of what makes them feel most alive.

Here's to life outside the lines.

First paragraph is undeniable vacuous and screams "asshole." It's practically romanticizing and advocating for this narcissistic and arrogant "Fuck You" mentality. This type of attitude only survives in certain subcultures such as the tattoo world and movie world, and other worlds that commonly intersect with said subcultures. I don't think anyone who has unpaid bills would be all "I have no regrets in life and my life is MY life! Take me or leave me!" They'd probably be trying to pay that bill before it gets any bigger. If they had "enemies" they probably did something rude enough to make them into an asshole. I know by "scars" they  mean it metaphorically; that is "I've been hurt personally but now I'm better, and I'm the winner" sort of way. Hate to break it to ya, Sailor Jerry, I think almost anyone can claim this in one way or another. 

Second paragraph is hugely ironic. Now, there are personal portraits (vids/interviews no longer than one minute) of various people:

Mikey B's is bar owner and his vid description says: "He's a crusader who ditched the white collar bull to start his own bar where the only music you'll hear comes from his personal collection. A born prankster, he lives life on his own terms. "If I dream it up, I have to prove that I can do it. The biggest motivator is when someone tells me no."'

Jenny Parry's vid description notes "is a model and actress, embodies the free-spirited lifestyle we champion .... she also has the phrase "Keep Me Wild" inked on her forefinger."

Imogen is a silversmith living in LA. She owns her own jewelry shop. Probably the least obnoxious story amongst those taped.

Last, Daniel Mar. Mar is, like Mikey B., a bar owner, and fixes cars in his spare time.

Two bartenders with tattoos. A model & actress. A (female) silversmith and jewelry maker. In a way, "their own bosses." No 'white collar BS' as Mikey B.'s description confidently claims.

Now, if you put them all in a dusty saloon drinking Sailor Jerry they probably wouldn't stand out since they most likely have similar outlooks on life and in politics. They even dress alike as well. If you think Yuppies were victims of conformity then this group, well, excluding Imogen, would be the at the other end of the plague of conformity.  I remember in my sociology theory class (Ahem! Everlane, I went to class), a couple of the students and the professor were talking about non-conformity, and that being a 'non-conformist' one tends to enter a subculture that has its own status quos and "party line" thinking. I guess the marketing department of Sailor Jerry either did not have this discussion or maybe it did not personally dawn on them.

"Here's to life outside the lines." Most of the of people "outside the lines" either don't have health insurance and want it, so they seek out jobs that give them such access. The last time I heard any reference to "life outside the lines" were people living as crack whores, gang members and making means in highly questionable  ways. This slogan wasn't romanticized as well; it was to put seriousness into the issue.

Then there's the "ethos" part.

As soon as you push for people to stay inside the lines, there will always be people bold enough, stubborn enough, brave enough to live outside them.

We support all manner of creative individuals. And that's not restricted to musicians and tattoo artists. The creative life is one where you follow what's inside you rather than what's pushed on you from society, your family, the media and all the other things in the world that try to tell us who we're supposed to be and what we're supposed to do.

In our humble opinion, it's a better, more interesting world when everyone pursues whatever the hell they wish to pursue.

First paragraph: Whoa! We got a badass over here. What I got from the vids was pure youthful naivety and, again, narcissism. Not of them mentioned helping the poor by volunteering in a soup kitchen, teaching disadvantage kids about cars or seeking out other "bold, stubborn" souls to learn the trade of bartending. It was "Me. Me and Me. And don't you think I'm totally rebellious?"

Second paragraph (probably the most arrogant of them all): So Sailor Jerry would support even the not so good manners of these so called "creative" individuals? I also love the "that's not restricted to ... " Gotta get in those musicians and tattoo artists (Sailor Jerry, of course).  Supposedly the creative life is following "what's inside you rather ..... " The contempt for society is strong here. The contempt is for those who "live inside the lines", the squares and office drones. The non-creatives. Now, it wasn't actually said, but, if one followed the theme it's strongly implied. They're basically confessing that it's all about emotions -- nothing alluding to responsibility or duty. Nothing remotely adult.

What's weird is that this ethos truly believes that they (the company & the people taped) are going one way, while the world - society, their family, the media - is going another.

The media - entertainment in general - more or less, is on the same page as Sailor Jerry's ethos. It's not just in the Top 40 singles (if you listen to the lyrics), but also in the more sophisticated levels such as indie movies that may appear at prestigious film fests (see: Cannes, Sundance) and fashion houses. The people at Sailor Jerry seem ignorant of this. That's really suprsing to me. The influence of the media, at least recently to my knowledge, has changed society because of the naive buying into this #YOLO and extreme individualism cult. leading the young to reject their own family upbringing (if they see it as "too squared or conservative"). The world, at least the USA, is slowly following this Sailor Jerry ethos. Wouldn't that make the people who are seen as Sailor Jerry types (Mikey B. Jenny Parry) not as "bold, stubborn and brave"? It would make them rather square. They would be conforming to the new status quo of "pursue whatever the hell they wish to pursue." Ironic.

Third paragraph: Humble opinion? After all that was said and what came after? I kindly disagree. It wouldn't make the world interesting (the good type of interesting), but instead it would make it into one depraved, (immensely more) narcissistic world. I mean, look to the group of individuals that were rounded up as Sailor Jerry ambassadors - hardly what I'd call interesting save for Imogen. 

If you haven't noticed, all of these companies had some sort of California connection. It must be that "Golden State of Mind" that makes it all so obnoxious and unbearable.

Every attitude (which are similar to one another) that these brands exhibit all sound mightily juvenile. It just doesn't inspire me to be like them; it just makes me step back and reflect on why I see them as tools.

After all that was said, would I still purchase from Everlane? Yes. How about PacSun? Sure. How about Sailor Jerry? Of course - it's my favorite rum.

"I like your product(s). I do not like your people. They are so unlike your product(s)."

Wearing fake glasses

So here's a defense for wearing fake glasses:

…Here is the thing about your non-prescription glasses. They are something you like to wear, just like I love wearing converse sneakers and skinny jeans.  There is no rule anywhere that says you have to be squinty and near-sighted in order to perch plastic frames atop your nose.  If someone comes up to you and says, “God, you are such a stupid with those fake glasses,” just choose one of the following retorts:
a) “Yeah, you’re right…” {take them off, punch yourself dramatically in the eye, squint off into the distance, place glasses back atop your nose}
b) “It’s so funny you say that, because I was just thinking about how important your shirt collar is in helping you function in society.”
c) “Dannielle wears fake glasses and Kristin thinks it’s totally fine and Kristin knows everything.”
d) “I actually create miniature sculptures using cedar wood and a jigsaw, and these protect my eyes from the wood chippings.”
Any way you slice it, you have every right to love glasses and you have every right to wear whatever the hell you want.  Go get those glasses and rock ‘em out.

 It was written over two years ago, but the defense is nothing new from what I've come across when I researched this trend of fake eye glasses in the name of personal fashion, self-esteem and the ultimate: expression (which ties into personal fashion). 

To step away from the defensive tone of the quote, I'd like to say it comes to little surprise that such a pathetic defense is also coupled with the reality that the writer, Kristen, is also the author of book called Everyone Is Gay. I just find this, well, amusing, given my past posts on the subject of homosexuality.

Then there's Dannielle:

Wear whatever you want, and do whatever you need to in order to feel cool and comfortable. We all wanna feel cool… you know?

 Feelings.

Here as well:

 And also, I just cannot imagine someone who needs real glasses getting upset about someone wearing “fake” ones cause glasses can be and often are a fashion statement”

With the hashtag #ThisOurBook a strong sense of entitlement and insecurity resides deep within these two women. I guess the root of the responses offered by both these women are rooted in feelings. Mah Feelings. The book is written in order to help others feel better. Wearing fake glasses is worn in order to make one feel better. Dear God my generation is narcissistic and emotionally fragile as heck.

Oh boy. I should watch myself - I'm becoming insensitive.

Nah. I'd rather be a prick in this situation.  

Now on to Kristin's defense and my response to them:

a) Punching yourself in the eye, therefore causing your eyesight to become blurry won't be fixed with fake glasses. Why? Because they're fake and you never needed them in the first place. You'd need an ice pack to help the swelling go down. Common Sense, dear Kristin. 
b) Comparing a shirt collar to a eye glasses is a faulty comparison. For the most part there isn't a trend where people are wearing "fake" collars to look good or to make them feel better. A collar is practically PART of a shirt.
c) I doubt it.
d) Wear a protective glasses that actual wood sculptures wear. You know, the real thing. It's like me trying to reenact a Bonobos winter photo shoot wearing a $300 sweater while I cut down a tree for the fireplace -- it makes me look like a f_ckin tool. (Please excuse my French.)

Yes, Kristin and those who wear fake glasses, for whatever reason, you people are posers.



I wear real glasses because I need them in order to see. If I don't I won't be able to drive, to read a book without straining my eyes and to do other everyday tasks. Others who don't need them? They wear them for ... wait for it ... wait ... for ... it ...fashion (and to increase their otherwise low self-esteem). Fashion.

Is it okay if I decide to take interest in my own sex for "emotional" reasons even though I'm not bisexual? Why not? I wonder what the reactions would be if I confessed that the reason I'm dating my own sex is because I think it's "cool" and it makes me "feel better." Hmmm.

"Cause I like them."