Some more thoughts about clothing

North Face fleeces and jackets are a common sight in Boston; many college students and young professionals wear them. There is a North Face store on Newbury Street-- I was surprised at first to see such a store in an upscale shopping district, but then I saw the prices for North Face clothing. The store, not surprisingly, is popular with young people, but you will also see middle-aged people shopping there with their children. When Sarge use to visit Boston, we would often drop by REI and Eastern Mountain Sports and check out various items being sold there, including the clothing. Now admittedly in Boston, there is a use for such clothing since it is very cold during the winter. But there is a recent post over at Stuff White People Like mocking the fashion trend and the intentions of those who wear outdoor clothing everywhere.

Why are such clothes popular? For most, is wearing brands like North Face just a way to be both trendy and casual? Or do they perahsp wear them for the specific reasons mentioned at the blog:

The main reason why white people like these clothes is that it allows them to believe that at any moment they could find themselves with a Thule rack on top of their car headed to a national park. It could be 4:00 p.m. on a Saturday when they might get a call “hey man, you know what we need to do? Kayak then camping, right now. I’m on my way to get you, there is no time to change clothes.”

Though it is unlikely that they will receive this call, White people hate the idea of missing an opportunity to enjoy outdoor activities because they weren’t wearing the right clothes.

In that way having outdoor clothing is like having a SUV--it reinforces the illusion that one is not
a neutered office drone, but rather an independent American, whose real identity consists in living the rugged, active, athletic lifestyle, or having the semblance of that.

Indeed, go to a mall like Valley Fair and you will see how often they are found together. North Face clothing especially is popular not only among 'white' people, but with Asians as well, at least here in the Bay Area.

Or it may be that people truly like the appearance as well as the comfort of such clothing. A combination of both aesthetic appeal and utility.

The Denali is a best-seller, though one commentor on the blog, while acknowledging its popularity and profitability, claims, "The local North Face rep says that as a company they 'hate the denali jacket and wish it would 'go away'."



extreme sports

I must admit that I do like the fleeces and vests that are sold at stores like REI. They do provide warmth and usually have plenty of pockets. I do like the ones that have pockets on the inside, though this requires that one opens the jacket or vest in order to gain access to them, and thus exposing one's self to the cold and losing warmth. No wonder it is not a common feature for outdoor clothing. But if they are worn indoors...

As price of heating goes up, it is conceivable that the use of indoor heating will lessen and people will need to find other ways to stay warm indoors during the winter. It's the most economical way of coping with rising energy costs, putting on my layers of clothing, or wearing clothing that is more effective in retaining body heat. Will the 'traditional' suit coat (and the business suit itself, since even thick slacks do not insulate heat well enough) become obsolete in colder climates? Or will they be modified, become thicker somehow? Or would their replacement by sportcoats be sufficient? Will sweaters and hoodies become acceptable attire even in business offices on the East Coast?

I suppose in times of great need or emergencies, no one will be checking with traditional mores regarding clothing before doing what is most practical in ensuring their survival.

In the past did farmers and artisans need to worry about court fashion and the trends there? Or were they encouraged rather to be humble and content with their state in life, and not 'over-dressing'? Do we really have a right to think that our station in life is higher than that of our ancestors, merely because we are admittedly wealthier? How much of our society's wealth has been gained through immoral means, and how much through access to easy energy?

On the East Coast, the dress code for work requires that men should always dress in a shirt, tie, suit, and heavy overcoat during the Winter. What makes the men's jacket and coat more suitable than something from North Face? Not simply the cost, as North Face items are not cheap; a jacket can cost as much as a cheap suit or sports coat, if not more. Rather, it is solely because such attire has been accepted as the 'uniform' or what is appropriate to the dignity of someone working in such an environment. (I do not accept the judgment that the modern men's coat is necessarily better looking than a fleece, though the zippers and the rings attached to the zippers could be eliminated or replaced.)

According to the wikipedia article:

Before 1940 (and again in the 1970s) men preferred snugly-tailored coats and waistcoats, however, since then, the mainstream trend has been for looseness. The waistcoat (vest) was worn until World War II when it disappeared because of cloth rationing, returning in the post-war time.

Are coats that adhere to the body more closely better at retaining heat? If so, would that function not be more important than the fashion of a loose-fitting coat? Protection and decoration are both functions of clothing, but I think the former is more important than the latter. (I include the conveyance of "religious, cultural and social meaning," as put forth by the wiki entry on clothing, under decoration.)

Of course the weakness of a jacket or a fleece is the shortness of the length, but these are short for a reason--to provide greater mobility for the lower body. One has to warm the lower body through other articles of clothing. But if the current political economy is on the way to destroying itself, we'll need less clerks and office works, and more people working with their hands.

As with all mass-produced clothing, I would complain more about their mass production than with their appearance or design or class associations, and the standardized sizes that result in a lack of a proper fit for body types varying too much from the 'norm.' And then there is the prominent display of the corporate name and logo. Do we really need this kind of branding? Isn't our society saturated with enough advertising as it is?

If only our political economy would support the tailoring of clothing for individuals--either within the household or by local tailors in the town.

Beyond the articles of clothing themselves, we should examine the costs involved in their production. And are these being made overseas under just working conditions? If not, it would seem that we should not patronize the companies that exploit human beings in such a way. Or we should at least protest their practices.

But if there such concerns were not present, would it be right otherwise to wear such clothing? We return again to the question of what's been traditionally accepted and required by society, or those who have power over others and trend-setters.

There is also the question of whether having unisex clothing is appropriate. It seems that the same design for North Face jackets and vests is employed for both men and women? The only difference may be the colors that are available for each sex. If there were a strict demarcation by color that might be sufficient, but certain colors, such as black, are used for both sexes. What distinguishes them, then?

Why is it important to distinguish women and men? Doesn't a 'practical mentality,' which I seem to extol above, justify the unisex design? If a fleece keeps you warm, then why shouldn't both men and women wear it? But does a piece of clothing have to have the same appearance in order to maintain its functionality? I do not think this is the case. And while clothing does hide the body, it also should reveal something about the one wearing it. It covers the female body, and yet somehow conveys the femininity of the wearer.

Women lose out when they replace their femininity with a distorted masculinity, distorted in the sense that they cannot be men, but only imitate poorly, and also because the ideal of masculinity that they are encouraged to imitate may in itself be wrong. It is no surprise that cultural conservatives, like Cardinal Siri, have seen the emergence of unisex clothing as an attack on femininity and a form of misogny, rather than a herald of egalitarianism as its supporters would suggest.

One may wish to dispute whether women should have the same sort of 'active' lifestyle as men, even to the extent of embracing the same 'extreme' sports or outdoor activities. (And hence whether there is a need for them to have the same kinds of outerwear.) Certainly one can separate sports such as running and cross-country skiing and mountain climbing from leisurely activities like walking or hiking, where parity of physical activity between the sexes is more readily achieved. But if we are to return to a home economy, it seems that women laboring at home will need clothing that fulfills the function of protection to the same extent as the clothing worn by men laboring at home, as all will be working indoors and outdoors. Again, what is needed is a harmony between protection and decoration.

Women often wear outerwear like North Face fleeces with jeans or khaki pants, or worse, in the opinion of Pete Takeshi and others, capris. As far as I know, North Face and the other companies are not the creators of the unisex trend, but they are certainly following and reinforcing it. Given the youth of the company, the original owners and designers probably never even considered designing distinctive clothing for men and women--that probably was not part of the cultural thinking of the time.

With the distinction between the sexes as revealed in some forms of clothing being lost, is our clothing evidence of our barbarism, despite our advanced material and technical culture?


On hats and coats:

Hmmm... Bonnie Blue Cap for sale... I definitely prefer canvas baseball caps (or those made out of some sturdy fabric) to the ones made of mesh (the stereotypical trucker cap)? There's Prince Harry's "We do bad things to bad people" hat, by Tactical Tailor. Still, while baseball caps are often associated with members of the military (and paramilitary), they are also worn by young uncultured males today (Wimps and Barbarians), both indoors and outdoors, backwards and off to the side.

How is it different, say from a kepi? Are the differences in perception due more to the culture and its associations? I read somewhere that the kepi was looked down upon, but was nonetheless popular. Was it the "baseball cap" of its time? I don't think it was forbidden. (See the wiki entry for kepi on why it may have been looked down upon.)

What about wear a cricket cap everywhere? It is associated with schoolboy uniforms in the U.K. How cheap is the material out of which a typical cricket cap is made? This brings up a question--what should be considered refined clothing? Is it based primarily on the value of material used to make it? The scarcity of the raw materials (for example, silk for a long time was rather expensive)? Or the labor that is required to produce it? Or the quality and desirability of the material itself? (Desirability is usually related to the value, but there is not always a direct relation?)

Hrm... more about hats... what were the quality of foraging caps like in the 1860s? And of today's replicas? Are they comparable? Or are today's replicas actually better than the kepis of the 1860s in that regard? Confederate kepi.

What about an adult's cricket hat?

As for coats... the New Scot likes wool pea coats. KK got one too last year. What is the kind of coat, with the straight (tooth-shaped) buttons called? KK must know what I'm talking about.

Edit: I found out that she doesn't... I'll have to keep an eye out for the coat next time I'm shopping at Burlington Coat Factory so I can find out the name. Or maybe the wiki entry on coats can help. HAHA -- it's the duffle coat. Great!

Hah... Started this one on March 15. I didn't actually finish it until near the end of May.