Suits without ties

[Shyheels]

There is of course an obverse to this topic - ties without suits. I did explore this fashion once, briefly, in my early teens when my aunt and uncle and several cousins came to stay. They were quite rich and very corporate - Uncle was an old Standard Oil man - and their kids all went to military school. You probably get the idea. Anyway, orders came down from on high - stern Uncle, and eldest cousin, by then a lieutenant in the Army - that all would attend church in the morning and ties would be worn. This latter edict was issued with a particularly steely glance in my direction. My mother, who was finding them increasingly obnoxious, left me to deal with that on my own. I did.

I showed up at church in a tie all right - tied around my bare neck since I was also wearing a T-shirt. Uncle didn't like it. Neither did musclebound cousin. I was treated to some highly coloured language right there on the church steps - Auntie, Uncle and eldest cousin all chiming in with abuse, and demonstrating a distinct lack of Christian charity. It might have gone worse for me had not the priest - who read the situation accurately - been so obviously amused. And had not my grandfather - whose tie I had borrowed for this little stunt - given them his cool Patrician what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it stare.

As it was I had to dodge my evil and sadistic 2nd lieutenant cousin for the rest of their visit and make certain I was never cornered or found myself alone with him. 

So much for ties as tokens of manly responsibility

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

I agree, ties should be optional, unless you've chosen to wear a suit.

Your story (fair play to you) makes my point exactly.  You can wear unorthodox neckwear or you can wear the tie without the suit.  Wearing the suit without the tie is just lame.

[Shyheels]

Not at all. Wearing a suit without tie is relaxed, at ease, in control, not uptight. 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

If you're so relaxed why are you wearing a suit?  Next thing you'll be telling me that suit and stubble is acceptable.

[Shyheels]

Not merely acceptable, desirable.

Why wear a suit at all with no tie? Well there's always a chance of an upgrade at check in, but not if you're wearing a tie. You're trying too hard. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Shyheels

[nyenor]

To me the answer seems simple. Not only ban ties, ban suits as well. Surely a smart pair of trousers and a collared shirt with a jacket if necessary are all that is needed for work or play.

[Shyheels]

Hear, hear!

[iggy_ze]

Surely suits are worn to be smart and tidy, wearing a suit with an open neck shirt is just lazy and scruffy. Almost as bad as wearing peep toes with hose.

[Shyheels]

Why have suits at all if they are going to be so prescriptive? 

We've largely dispensed with the waistcoat, why not the tie as well?

why not just have jacket, trousers and shirt?

or you could imagine a suit without a tie being worn by a man in peep toes and hose,..

[Thighbootguy]

13 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

or you could imagine a suit without a tie being worn by a man in peep toes and hose,..

Actually I could, and even with a tie.

[Shyheels]

34 minutes ago, Thighbootguy said:

Actually I could, and even with a tie.

Scary.

Hardly know what to say - that's the with the tie part I'm talking about

[meganiwish]

23 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Not merely acceptable, desirable.

Why wear a suit at all with no tie? Well there's always a chance of an upgrade at check in, but not if you're wearing a tie. You're trying too hard. 

You offer no explanation of why looking hungover is desirable.  The check in thing, I understand it, but it's a sorry comment on what we've become.  When I worked on the check in desk we'd always upgrade the hippie couple, just to annoy the toffs.

Iggy_ze, quite so.  Slob around how you will in the privacy of your own home, but in the open dress with respect to the people around you.  I lament the decline of the waistcoat.

Edited March 28, 2017 by meganiwish

[Shyheels]

I have benefitted several times from that contrary quality check-in staff have when it comes to upgrading the hippie type - presumably to cock a snoot at the toffs in the pointy end, but they never take that too far. You still have to be presentable. But well short of a suit, let alone a three-piece suit. I am trying to recall the last time I saw anybody in a suit-plus-tie in the pointy end of a plane. Suits, yes, but not usually with ties. And more like jacket and trousers, even jeans, than a suit.

On the few occasions that I have been hung-over I was never wearing a suit, either with or without a tie, so your reference to the hung-over look mustn't apply to me!    

The late, unlamented waistcoat was, I suppose, good for keeping your gold pocket watch handy, with the fob chain across your belly. I can't imagine what else it was good for unless it was to encourage a good cleansing sweat on a hot day.

And why do ties have to be so absurd looking - like someone's symbolically got their tongue hanging down their shirtfront. No wonder ties lend themselves to parody - the fish tie springing to mind.

They do offer a welcome splash of colour - I'll concede that point - but otherwise they give us little but a connection with the cookie-cutter company man, and an uptight, buttoned-down and best-forgotten past.  So lets just forget the tie and just open up the colour palette for men instead, eh?

Edited March 28, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

They have to be absurd looking so that when you make someone wear on you're making them wear something absurd.

[Heelster]

So therefore, one must wear an absurd looking tie - - - - an absurd noose in more ways than one - - how ironic.

 

[Shyheels]

3 hours ago, meganiwish said:

They have to be absurd looking so that when you make someone wear on you're making them wear something absurd.

Que?

 

[Shyheels]

If absurdity is the point, the necktie certainly accomplishes that. But surely, absurdity has many guises that are far more entertaining than the necktie. Why not pursue one of them and make them de rigueur for the well-dressed man? What about, say, bringing back the old powdered wig? They used to be popular, on every head. Or ruffled collars like Sir Walter Raleigh used to wear.  Or tri-corner has, or cuirasses or monocles? Why set such stock on an overpriced ribbon of silk? 

[meganiwish]

You speak as though I'd consider the wig unthinkable.  Not in the least.  I think the tricorn hat is a fine thing, and the ruff.  It's no bad thing for those who pretend to any level of power to be reminded of their own absurdity.  In one of the volumes of his autobiography Clive James admits, 'I was able to see the ridiculous in everything but myself.'

[Shyheels]

7 hours ago, meganiwish said:

You speak as though I'd consider the wig unthinkable.  Not in the least.  I think the tricorn hat is a fine thing, and the ruff.  It's no bad thing for those who pretend to any level of power to be reminded of their own absurdity.  In one of the volumes of his autobiography Clive James admits, 'I was able to see the ridiculous in everything but myself.'

I am reminded of the time Nelson Bunker Hunt was awarded the annual Dunce Prize (for his spectacularly failed attempt to corner the silver market) by a university student's club in Dallas - Hunt's hometown - and he unexpectedly turned up to claim his award at the ceremony, wearing his prized dunce cap while he gave a hilarious speech thanking the world's banks without whom the award would not have been possible.

So now neckties are reminders to the great and powerful of their own absurdity? Aren't we shifting a bit here? Wasn't it just last week that ties were symbols of responsibility? 

Sounds to me like the necktie is fast becoming the sartorial equivalent of the Swiss Army knife: a function to fit each and every occasion and argument.  

I am also still eagerly awaiting word on precisely which item of clothing women in responsibility should be required to wear, either to look absurd or be reminded of the weight of their responsibilities. You declined to provide an answer about heels or stilettos. They would seem to be a natural correlation to neckties. But if it is not stilettos, what is it, or what should it be? 

Getting back to the subject of suits, we must have them, and if, as you say, absurdity is to be part of the deal, what say we bring back zoot suits in lilac, lemon, carnation and coral? Let's at least have some flair 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 So now neckties are reminders to the great and powerful of their own absurdity? Aren't we shifting a bit here? Wasn't it just last week that ties were symbols of responsibility? 

 

 

No, no shift.  I'm rather assuming that you know the meaning of 'responsibilty'.  The foolish don't, they confuse it with power.  To quote from The Wicker Man, 'You come as king and fool, for who but a fool would agree to be king?'

On 23/03/2017 at 2:12 AM, meganiwish said:

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

 

On 23/03/2017 at 2:18 AM, Shyheels said:

I resemble that!

 

I think it wasn't unanswered as such.  I'm working on it, but it's hard because we generally court absurdity less.

[Shyheels]

Men needing more reminding of their responsibilities...

Men courting absurdity more than women...

Oh dear. We wouldn't be stereotyping here now, would we? One hopes not.

Surely being forced into suits, like so many cookie cutter figures, with all the accompanying baggage and being so sharply limited in styles choices and colours, surely that is stereotyping enough.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Oh yes. stereotyping shamelessly, and hitting the nail on the head, I suspect.

When men bewail being limited in style choices, and colours I think of George Melly.  If you're made to wear a suit, WEAR a suit.  Man up, chaps.

[Heelster]

11 minutes ago, meganiwish said:

Oh yes. stereotyping shamelessly, and hitting the nail on the head, I suspect.

When men bewail being limited in style choices, and colours I think of George Melly.  If you're made to wear a suit, WEAR a suit.  Man up, chaps.

Guess I'm lucky then. I have no reason to wear one these days. Nobody is willing to pay me enough salary to warrant wearing one.

[meganiwish]

No, but I bet if you had a job that required you to wear a suit, you'd wear a doozy.

[Heelster]

Just now, meganiwish said:

No, but I bet if you had a job that required you to wear a suit, you'd wear a doozy.

6 digit salary - - - Oh hell yeah!

[Shyheels]

2 hours ago, meganiwish said:

Oh yes. stereotyping shamelessly, and hitting the nail on the head, I suspect.

When men bewail being limited in style choices, and colours I think of George Melly.  If you're made to wear a suit, WEAR a suit.  Man up, chaps.

And so if women are required to wear heels, they need to cut the emotional nonsense, quit running to Parliament every five minutes crying life is unfair, but should just slip on their heels and off to work they go...

Am I being unfair here? If so, why?

(If I sound like a sexist dinosaur with my phrasing, it is deliberate. I am using hyperbole to press home a point. Being told to 'man up' and accept an obvious unfairness - a coercion imposed by society for no other reason than "just because" - is rather provocative. We hear regularly how women are confined by social mores to dress in certain ways and fashions, and we are regularly told that is fair and unjust and sexist. How can it be anything else when applied to men? Or are women special cases, deserving special treatment? If so, why? What happened to equality? Or are some more equal than others?) 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Well, no, equality means just that.  I agree.  If a man is expected to wear a tie, so should a woman be.  Likewise, if a woman is required to wear stilettos, so must a man be.

As for 'man up', alI was saying was that George Melly didn't wimp around complaining that he couldn't wear this or that.  He just got on with darn well wearing it.

[Shyheels]

3 hours ago, meganiwish said:

Well, no, equality means just that.  I agree.  If a man is expected to wear a tie, so should a woman be.  Likewise, if a woman is required to wear stilettos, so must a man be.

As for 'man up', alI was saying was that George Melly didn't wimp around complaining that he couldn't wear this or that.  He just got on with darn well wearing it.

 

Fine sentiments, re equality, but none of the Parliamentary enquires or petitions make the least reference to the male side of the equation or dress codes that apply to men.  Nada. They are all about women being required to conform to certain dress standards in the world place - dress standards which many women follow by choice, even eagerly.  Don't get me wrong. I am not for compulsion. I just think there should be an awareness that men are compelled to wear certain items of clothing which many would rather not, and that an equal concern be applied, and the issues of men being required to conform to stereotype and wear suits and/or ties and wear only drab colours. 

George Melly wasn't talking about things he couldn't wear, but things he must - there's a big difference. 

[meganiwish]

21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 

Fine sentiments, re equality, but none of the Parliamentary enquires or petitions make the least reference to the male side of the equation or dress codes that apply to men.  Nada. They are all about women being required to conform to certain dress standards in the world place - dress standards which many women follow by choice, even eagerly.  Don't get me wrong. I am not for compulsion. I just think there should be an awareness that men are compelled to wear certain items of clothing which many would rather not, and that an equal concern be applied, and the issues of men being required to conform to stereotype and wear suits and/or ties and wear only drab colours. 

George Melly wasn't talking about things he couldn't wear, but things he must - there's a big difference. 

I don't recall me mentioning any Parliamentary enquiries.  It's a very simple legal issue.  Are men required to wear stilettos, no.  Can women be required to wear stilettos, no.  Are men required to wear a tie, yes.  Are women required to wear a tie, yes, legally.  I don't have an issue with compulsion in a company's dress code, as long as it equally applied.

I'm a bit puzzled by what you say about George Melly.  He didn't talk about what he could wear, he just got on with wearing questionable suits.  Always with a tie.

[Shyheels]

Where is the legal requirement for a woman to wear a tie? For that matter where is the legal requirement for a man to wear one? There isn't one. No such thing. Any more than there is any legal requirement for a woman to wear heels.

There is only an expectation of conformity - an expectation that is stronger than force of law, but which - in the case of ties - applies only to men. Parliament is presently discussing and condemning this expectation of conformity where it applies to women - heels and 'sexist' dress codes. Something is being done. How nice.

If one is to have a parliamentary debate, and possible legislation, to relieve the burden of expectation on women, regarding heels and 'sexist' dress codes, surely it is only fair that similar efforts be made to relieve a similar burden of expectation on men wearing ties, which is equally sexist and equally plays to stereotype - in this case the 1950s breadwinner stereotype.

A simple matter of equality.

As to George Melly - your words, Megan - "If you're made to wear a suit, wear a suit. Man up chaps".

Why should men be MADE to wear a suit? And then be told to "man up" and conform if/when they don't like it?

Perhaps we should say to the outraged women testifying before parliament on the matter of dress codes and heels - "If you're made to wear heels, wear the heels, "man up", Girls, show a little feminine fortitude..."  And then dismiss the whole thing out of hand. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Shyheels