meganiwish

Suits without ties

100 posts in this topic

I rather like a man in a suit, but he has to shave properly and, surely, a tie is a must.  It seems that the modern way is to wear a suit with an open neck shirt.  I think it's a bit tragic.  Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tie is nothing more than a noose one puts around his own neck - - - 

I got married in 1986 - - - - nuff said.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a dead heat have to do with wearing a suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be laws against the wearing of this ridiculous piece of 'fashion'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nyenor said:

There should be laws against the wearing of this ridiculous piece of 'fashion'.

Agreed! 

We should take it up with parliament - over here they are already fired up about the wearing of heels by women, and keen to banish wherever possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shyheels - that would not be the first time that has been attempted. I recall a few years ago that a member of the Russian Parliament wanted to do the same thing as he considered them a 'health hazard, due I think, to the dangers of injured ankles. personally, as man who for more than sixty years has absolutely loved seeing women in heels, maybe a law should be considered making them, along with skirts, compulsory wearing for women. (Well one can always dream!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compulsion is never a good thing - be it for ties or heels. Freedom of personal expression is far more desirable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, meganiwish said:

I rather like a man in a suit, but he has to shave properly and, surely, a tie is a must. 

I actually have a couple of suits (Jacket and Skirt) and after having worn a beard for years, I now like to be clean shaven and always am when I go out.  As for a tie... I'll wear a scarf but a tie is too much of a reminder of Donald J. :penitent:

:wavey:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thighbootguy said:

I actually have a couple of suits (Jacket and Skirt) and after having worn a beard for years, I now like to be clean shaven and always am when I go out.  As for a tie... I'll wear a scarf but a tie is too much of a reminder of Donald J. :penitent:

:wavey:

You're quite right, I should have said 'neckwear' rather than 'tie'.

21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Agreed! 

We should take it up with parliament - over here they are already fired up about the wearing of heels by women, and keen to banish wherever possible. 

Except when they're keen to force the wearing, as the case in parliament was.

The socio-psychology of clothing is interesting.  The British police uniform https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=J%2b%2fXA9lw&id=A9DADD371061D4CEA6ACC18AE6F92262FB5ECA4C&q=british+policeman&simid=607996585441496961&selectedIndex=5&ajaxhist=0 grew out of them originally being in tail coats with top hats.  The tail coat was what servants wore and the top hat what masters wore.  The message was deliberate, the police are servants with authority.  Similarly today, a suit speaks authority.  The tie, as Heelster says, is a noose, a sign of responsibility.  It's unacceptably presumptuous to claim authority and refuse responsibility.  If you don't want to wear neckwear, don't wear a suit.  If you're Prime Minister or President, put a tie on.  It's part of the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hmmm. Does that cut both ways? Stilettos certainly suggest authority. Should they be required, considered part of the job, for female CEOs and world leaders? To be sure, many empowered women wear them - just walk into any high-powered law office - so should stilettos be considered de rigueur as ties are for men? Discuss.

And how do you see a noose as a sign of responsibility? Unless you are the hangman, putting it on someone else, surely it is a symbol of the ultimate submission. The guy who actually wears the noose is doomed.

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megan - - yes, I'll agree that if your a CEO of a multi-billion company, or a political figure such as President, then it is appropriate to wear the uniform of this distinction regardless of comfort.

When I go into a steel mill, I have to wear items that by no means are comfortable, but they are required for my physical protection - - - comes with the job.

When I worked in a 60+ person cubicle farm with no windows to the outside, it seems pretty ridiculous to wear dress pants, button down shirt and a tie just to push paperwork.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't normally stick my head in this section of the forum, but I've been out with the flu for the last few days, and what else have I got to do but butt in here and give my opinion? I personally have never minded wearing a tie at all, as long at the fit of the shirt collar is proper. That's where the tricky bit comes, especially for someone my size. You see, I really need a 15 1/2 neck to really feel comfortable, but every shirt manufactured for the masses on the planet has got sleeves several inches too long for my arms at the proper size neck. Luckily, my mother, in her younger days, could take care of this for me, and now I have a friend who does it.

Additionally, off-the-rack ties are made for taller men. I have to have a good 4-6 inches taken out of mine so that they don't hang down in a Trump-esque manner. Other than that, I got no problem with ties.

As an aside, I do my own laundry and my own ironing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

''Tis better to iron than to steel! :cheeky:

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Hmmm. Does that cut both ways? Stilettos certainly suggest authority. Should they be required, considered part of the job, for female CEOs and world leaders? To be sure, many empowered women wear them - just walk into any high-powered law office - so should stilettos be considered de rigueur as ties are for men? Discuss.

And how do you see a noose as a sign of responsibility? Unless you are the hangman, putting it on someone else, surely it is a symbol of the ultimate submission. The guy who actually wears the noose is doomed.

The point is that you choose to wear the trappings of authority, be they suit or stilettos.  There are lots of bizarre things that people wear to show authority.  People wearing suits without ties haven't chosen not to wear a suit, they've chosen not to wear a tie.

What is responsibility if not submission?  If I'm responsible I'm by definition the one who has to answer for it.  When they come looking for answers I have to hold my hands up and say, 'It's a fair cop.'  The suit is the garb of authority, the thing tied around your neck is the reminder that you chose the downside too.

Shyheels, my friend, you understand metaphor, so you know how making someone wear a noose is telling them that you have control over their life.  I'll say again, if you don't want to wear a tie, don't wear a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I understand metaphor all right, but I am not sure I am buying that one. While I have often heard beleaguered men refer to their ties as 'nooses', I have never heard of this being what a tie actually represents. And indeed when I read the long Wikipedia article on the necktie I do not find any reference anywhere to a necktie's being a symbol of a noose or of responsibility. According to the various authors and sources cited in that entry a necktie is an article of fashion, a bit of colour, one which goes in and out of favour and represents, if anything, membership in a certain group - a regiment, a school, a club.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necktie

No mention of nooses, authority or responsibility. But mentions instead of a number of companies - Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Sir Richard Branson banning them since they are symbols of oppression and slavery. The business end of the noose, you might say - and as I did say in my earlier post.

Interestingly there is a section in the piece mentioning health and safety issues with wearing neckties, from constriction of blood vessels in the neck to potentially being vectors for spreading germs to the obvious risks of entanglement if you're working around machinery. Surely there is as a good a case for Parliament to look into the enforced wearing of ties by men as there is for their enquiring into the wearing of heels by women. Neither heels nor ties serve any practical purpose. Both can be said to be purely decorative.  Both come in and out of fashion. Both have potential health issues. Both have their aficionados and their detractors. Some folks love them, others don't. There should be no compulsion to wear either, heels or ties - certainly not just for form's sake and keeping up appearances.

 

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slyheels  - - - it's a noose in my book. Why would anyone want to tie a knot around ones neck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A noose in mine too, lightheartedly speaking. Dreadful things, neckties.

But I do not see them as literally a token of the gallows to remind me of the potential downside to shirking my responsibilities. That's a bit far fetched.

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I understand metaphor all right, but I am not sure I am buying that one. While I have often heard beleaguered men refer to their ties as 'nooses', I have never heard of this being what a tie actually represents. And indeed when I read the long Wikipedia article on the necktie I do not find any reference anywhere to a necktie's being a symbol of a noose or of responsibility. According to the various authors and sources cited in that entry a necktie is an article of fashion, a bit of colour, one which goes in and out of favour and represents, if anything, membership in a certain group - a regiment, a school, a club.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necktie

No mention of nooses, authority or responsibility. But mentions instead of a number of companies - Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Sir Richard Branson banning them since they are symbols of oppression and slavery. The business end of the noose, you might say - and as I did say in my earlier post.

Interestingly there is a section in the piece mentioning health and safety issues with wearing neckties, from constriction of blood vessels in the neck to potentially being vectors for spreading germs to the obvious risks of entanglement if you're working around machinery. Surely there is as a good a case for Parliament to look into the enforced wearing of ties by men as there is for their enquiring into the wearing of heels by women. Neither heels nor ties serve any practical purpose. Both can be said to be purely decorative.  Both come in and out of fashion. Both have potential health issues. Both have their aficionados and their detractors. Some folks love them, others don't. There should be no compulsion to wear either, heels or ties - certainly not just for form's sake and keeping up appearances.

 

 

Well yes, far be it for me to challenge the awesome cultural authority of Wikipedia, or, indeed, the mighty Sir Richard Branson.  I confess to having had original thought.  Burn the witch!

Really?  Your counter argument to mine is that no-one else has said mine before?  You're living in a fool's paradise where everyone's aware of all the social influences they're prey to.  It's unthinkable, of course, that Amazon, Google, Microsoft et al might really have banned ties to make themselves look right on and modern.  Perish the thought.

I don't argue for compulsion  All I say is, if you don't want to wear a tie, don't wear a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nothing wrong with original thought - that's how progress is made. But you ought to say it is original thought - claim the credit as it were - rather than cloud the issue by making it sound as though what you were saying was part of a long-established historical narrative, even to the extent of implying - obliquely - that the origins of your necktie metaphor sprang from the symbolism in a Victorian policeman's uniform. So no, no need to burn the witch, just a request for clarification.

Agreed, Wikipedia should not be considered Gospel on anything but when an entry comes as well cited and footnoted as that one, and on such a historical and generally non-controversial topic, it seems reasonable enough to trust it - especially in a discussion were the opposing party has not presented any cited or footnoted arguments at all, just a bald declaration and one that, frankly, does not appear to hold water. A necktie as a righteous symbol of capital punishment? A token reminder of the gallows to symbolise the idea that we know and have accepted the potential downside to our actions? Really? As I say, original thought is a fine thing, but if you're to carry it forward you ought to provide some evidence. Who, precisely, among necktie wearers, thinks this? 

A necktie is an article of fashion - one whose use comes in and out of vogue, as do the colours, widths and patterns of ties themselves. Branson, Amazon, Google, Apple et al have simply tapped into the zeitgeist of the moment. In the fifties they'd have been buttoned-down, narrow-tie guys and been lauded for it. There are no absolutes here, only trends, novelties and the certainty of seasonal change. But then, that's what fashion is all about.  Monkey see, monkey do.

A suit can certainly be worn without a tie - and in my garlic-and-onions view it damn well ought to be! :cheeky: 

If your secondary argument is one of aesthetics, that a suit is incomplete without a tie, you should then, for consistencies sake, argue that waistcoats should/must be worn as well. What happened there? What became of the good old waistcoat and the three piece suit? Why should that be so heartlessly abandoned after nearly three centuries? Discuss.

 

 

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, at no point did  I make an oblique implication.  I used something factual as an illustration of how psychology works.  It's no use rallying tie wearers because the psychology works by the participants not seeing it.

I can think of no good reason why someone should have to preface an original thought with the claim that it is.  I don't know whether my thoughts are original until they're in the public domain.  That would be arrogance.

I don't deny that the tie is an article of fashion, nor that it changes.  It's the act of wearing it, not the article that matters.  Shyheels, you speak as a man who doesn't like to wear a suit either.  I have no argument with you on that count.  My argument is that the suit is the garb of power and shouldn't be worn without the badge of responsibility.  The fact that none of you wants to wear a tie bears me out.

I wholeheartedly agree on the subject of waistcoats.  Most people look better the more clothes they have on.  I enjoyed Frankie Boyle this week: 'Women view my naked body with the same look of fear that pensioners reserve for snow.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I simply do not see a tie as a badge of responsibility. And I don't think many people do.

If ties mean anything at all they are used to signify membership to a group. Think back to the turn of the last century and the striking coal miners in West Virginia who wore red bandanas around their necks (from which later came the term rednecks) Were they projecting responsibility? Nope. Membership. 

Ditto all those regimental and old school ties. They aren't about responsibility either. They are a symbol of belonging. 

For the vast majority of unaffiliated necktie wearers a tie is the one acceptable way for a male to introduce colour and a sense of personal style into the boardroom or office. Nothing more.

Better still the relaxed informality that allows them not to be worn.

Back to the unanswered question about stilettos - if, as you say, ties are an integral part of high powered office wear, should not stilettos be considered in the same light? Should a power-dressed woman in flats be viewed in the same light as a power-dressed man with an open collar?

 

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belonging to a group involves responsibility.  A group might call any member to account.  The tie reminds the wearer of that.  The regimental and old school tie is all about the responsibility not to disgrace it.  Dodgy etymology doesn't constitute sound argument.

I have no problem with relaxed informality  My problem is with informality with presumptions of power.

The question of stilettos doesn't warrant an answer.  It's not the same issue.  Still I'd agree with you, a power-dressed woman should wear a similar token of submission.  Now that's a more complicated one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Belonging to a group involves many things, any one of which would have equal claim to being the 'true' meaning behind a necktie - exclusivity, arrogance, identity, safety, belonging, etc. etc. But even if you wanted to single out 'responsibility' and declare that to be the overriding character train that is symbolised by the old regimental tie - and I think that is a long bow to draw - you are still left with only a small subset of neckties to which you could reasonably apply that symbolism. And again, I think singling out 'responsibility' as as the single most important trait there is really a stretch. 

And let's face it wearing the old school tie is not about responsibility or not disgracing the alma mater, it's about sending the right signals at a job interview.  

But let's forget about 'identity' ties for a moment. They are only niche anyway. You are still left with the overwhelming numbers of neckties that are unaffiliated,  bought and worn simply because the wearer liked the colour, or it matched his eyes or his wife bought it for him for Father's Day or which some overpaid style guru convinced him was a 'power' tie.

Let's consider the power tie for a moment. Responsibility? Hmmmm. No. The guy who wears a 'power tie' is exactly the sort of corporate head kicker who, at the AGM where he's gaily announcing an eighty trillion pound profit, will announce in the very next breath that the company is slashing eighty thousands jobs to clear the way for greater profits next year. 

Oh, so you say his responsibility is to the shareholders? Well, that's a neat, socially soothing salve and used often - although not in a necktie context - to justify this sort of callous behaviour, but I think everybody knows differently - even the participants themselves.  We all know the power-tie behind the blood-letting is getting himself a whopping bonus for doing just that and within a year or so will be undoubtedly be doing a similar job at another corporation, and earning himself another tidy bonus. He's a mercenary. If he fails, he still generally gets a whopping bonus. It'll be in his contract. Fine print. He doesn't care. He doesn't have to. Just make the numbers. 

So what about the eighty thousand souls left out of a job by this corporate head-kicker? Many of them will be necktie wearers, helpless middle-management types for whom the tie is more literally a noose, a symbol of corporate bondage that has led to nothing but the scrap heap. I'm sorry but where are we seeing responsibility in any of this? If a necktie is a badge of responsibility it is about as authoritative as a plastic sheriff's badge plucked out of a Coco Pops cereal box. 

As for informality and presumptions of power - did you ever see the photo that was taken in the White House situation room the night Osama bin Laden got clipped by the Navy Seals? It's very interesting. In a room full of people in uniforms and suits, President Obama stands out because he is swearing a jumper, and is sitting in a fairly low-down, modest position. Yet no one looking at that photo has any doubt about who is in charge there. And who is responsible. No necktie required.

And yes, the query about the stilettos does require an answer - the parallel is exact. Both are said to be symbols of authority within the corporate kingdom. And while it might be PC to declare stilettos and heels in general to be symbols of submission, I do not think many of the wearers themselves would agree, at least not in the lofty worlds of finance, law and politics.  Here I find myself thinking, for example, of Samantha Powers, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations. A vigorous, strong willed and outspoken woman who knew her own mind, she was also known for wearing killer stilettos.  I don't think she wore them as a sign of submission in a male dominated world.  And being something like 5'10" already she didn't need the height.   

 

 

 

       

Edited by Shyheels
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is 'requirement to wear'.  If you're required to wear a crown it becomes a symbol of your enslavement.  Coronation is just posh shackling.  The same can be true of stilettos.

A necktie isn't a badge of responsibility, it's a reminder of responsibility.  How many more times do you want me to say that?  If you're made to wear it.  If you choose to wear a tie it's a fashion item.  If you choose to wear a suit and not a tie you look like a pillock.

Your Obama reference is spot on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badge of responsibility or reminder of it, either way the necktie seems to fail miserably at its job.

Ties are required far more frequently, and with greater vigour, than stilettos ever are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

 Ties are required far more frequently, and with greater vigour, than stilettos ever are.

 

 

True, and probably rightly so.  Males need more reminding of their responsibility.  Generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, meganiwish said:

True, and probably rightly so.  Males need more reminding of their responsibility.  Generally.

I resemble that! :cheeky:

Sorry for double post - don't know what happened there

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Stilettos hurt your feet.  Ties only hurt your neck.  It's easier to relieve a"pain in the neck" than it is to socialize with sore feet.

Edited by Bubba136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, but you're not supposed to take off your tie - according to Megan - unless, I suppose, you're going to take off the rest of your suit as well, which would certainly make for an interesting cocktail party. :cheeky:

Actually there is quite a list of potential health and safety issues with ties. Get your tie caught in a subway door sometime and see how you fare. Not so bad if you're inside the coach, perhaps, just slow strangulation, but no fun at all if you're still on the platform. These things have happened.

No, ties really need to be optional...

As should stilettos. Nobody should be compelled to wear something they don't like.

At least with stilettos, there is a transformative effect. With ties, it really does feel like one is putting one's head in a noose.

 

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now