George Will: Stop wearing blue jeans, you juvenile rabble

posted at 6:45 pm on April 16, 2009 by Allahpundit

The most painful line, the one where it slips into outright self-parody, is where grandpa George urges us to dress more like Fred Astaire and Grace Kelly. I’m almost disappointed he didn’t say Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford. Anyone know where I go to get my recession tux?

Says Treacher in the comments to the Headlines thread, “His next column is all about the dangers of Elvis Presley record albums.”

Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults (“Seinfeld,” “Two and a Half Men”) and cartoons for adults (“King of the Hill”). Seventy-five percent of American “gamers” — people who play video games — are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six — so far — “Batman” adventures and “Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps,” coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy’s catechism of leveling — thou shalt not dress better than society’s most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism — of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

At TNR, Jonathan Chait reminds us that Will wrote a column last year knocking Obama for his, ahem, elitism and evident disdain for “middle-class American culture.” Among the many other vices of today’s piece, it’s simply wrong on the merits: The ubiquity of jeans might have its origin in a bourgeois imitation of working-class “authenticity,” but for most adults I think that association’s been lost in the mists of time. When I think blue-collar, I think of various types of uniforms, not of Levi’s. The virtue of jeans, as Ace says, is simply that they’re comfortable and essentially fashion-proof insofar as they can be worn with almost anything and in various social situations. If Will likes to spend time mixing and matching with his haberdasher, good for him, but most people — men especially — can’t be bothered.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Wow, how irrelevant can a guy be? This is the standard bearer for irrelevant I think.

Jeans = evil. Ok, so I guess Madhoff wore jeans all the time, right?

I bet ole’ Clinton was wearing jeans when getting head in the ovary oval office too!

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin? Both avid jeans wearers obviously!

And all those jews in Israel! My god allah, all those jeans!

I curse this buffoon with polyester for all eternity.

Spiritk9 on April 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Priceless. Next to this post is a Rivet du Cru Jeans advertisement.

Very nicely done. :)

Midas on April 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Do you wear jeans to church, or a funeral, or wedding? If you do, that’s disrespectful.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

The last two destinations? Agreed. But how is wearing jeans to church disrespectful? Disrespectful to whom?

baldilocks on April 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

Andy, are you a manic-depressive?

baldilocks on April 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

I’ll tell you one thing though, I get sick of seeing denim on people in church. This is one area where the ol’ guy is right. People dress for church like they’re going to a stadium (at least Catholics do) and it pisses me off. I know, I should be more CHARITABLE.

Rosmerta on April 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Will’s strange column shows how culturally out-of-touch being a sixtysomething Oxford graduate and Beltway pundit of many decades’ standing can make someone; he’s become Edmund Burke channeling Mr. Blackwell (if I had as much coin as Will, I’d also dress more like Fred Astaire in Burberry tweed, ascots, and Brioni suits). On cultural issues, the man’s a walking SNL skit-in short, a High Tory wanker.

Travis Bickle on April 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Denim is the carefully calculated costume of

moms and dads who want to be ready for anything.

Connie on April 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Denim is the “uniform” I wear when I’m doing dirty work and don’t want to ruin my good clothes.

Not that George Will would know anything about that. That’s what the help is for.

BKennedy on April 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Look, the man roots for the Cubs, who last won a World Series in 1908, when just about everybody went to baseball games dressed in approved George Will attire.

jon1979 on April 17, 2009 at 1:09 AM

I’ll tell you one thing though, I get sick of seeing denim on people in church. This is one area where the ol’ guy is right. People dress for church like they’re going to a stadium (at least Catholics do) and it pisses me off. I know, I should be more CHARITABLE.

Rosmerta on April 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

I have no recollection of any passage in the Bible that says you need to “dress up” to worship. It seems to me that Jesus accepted the lepers, the destitute, the very dregs of society. He held them in much higher esteem then the well dressed Pharisees.

Dressing “appropriately” for worship is a construction of man, not of God. I can agree with dressing appropriately for a wedding or funeral because that is showing respect for human expectations in a ceremony that is for humans. But God never placed any need on such trivial matters. God cares about our heart, not our clothing.

Hawthorne on April 17, 2009 at 1:29 AM

I think that what George Will was trying to say is basically what Diana West said in “The Death of the Grown Up”.

JohnJ on April 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Hmmm, now that you mention it, I’m not sure if it was a coincidence or not, but that’s about (exactly) the same time I stopped reading her column. Before that I was a regular reader. Maybe I subconsciously lost interest when I realized how little respect she had for people like me.

FloatingRock on April 17, 2009 at 1:51 AM

The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get. I already have enough issues with the current standard bearers of conservatism with their single issue rants with little substance, and now this joker has decided that it’s really all about the clothes.

Krydor on April 16, 2009 at 10:59 PM

At least their not demanding that our women wear burkas—
yet…

FloatingRock on April 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM

But I am pretty sure that anyone who wears a bow tie as often as Mr. Will probably shouldn’t be giving fashion tips.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM

It would be a pity, indeed. If your conservative commentators were to rule fashion then no one would make the proper politics and it would be so much for American fashion, and American politics.

PercyB on April 17, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Didn’t Iowahawk recently do a brilliant parody of people like this?

Sam Sneed on April 17, 2009 at 5:50 AM

Hawthorne on April 17, 2009 at 1:29 AM

At the risk of irritating people by repeating, in large part, my earlier post, there is certainly some evidence that speaks to the contrary. In Exodus, His instructions for building the Tabernacle were very specific, down to the fabric, colors, and metals for each part (He was also pretty specific about who was allowed where, and the details of the various rituals to be performed). If He cared so much about the minute details of the construction and decor of the Tabernacle, I’m not sure we’re on solid ground to say He doesn’t care about what we wear to church. It’s often a false dichotomy to say, ”He’d rather I be in church in blue jeans than not at all,” because these are not the only options for most of us. Only the person in church knows why he is dressing the way he does–I doubt it is more okay to wear clothing trying to “outdo” your fellow worshiper, than to dress casually because it is your preference–both appear to be focusing on the self, rather than on God. But, only God knows the condition of each of our hearts as we are in (or out of) His house.

DrMagnolias on April 17, 2009 at 6:13 AM

At least their not demanding that our women wear burkas—
yet…

FloatingRock on April 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM

There was another commenter (not you) who said it’s morally wrong to judge the appearance of someone’s clothes, which seems to be the general attitude here. If that’s true then how can you object to someone wearing a burka? That’s just more judgementalism.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 7:46 AM

There was another commenter (not you) who said it’s morally wrong to judge the appearance of someone’s clothes, which seems to be the general attitude here. If that’s true then how can you object to someone wearing a burka? That’s just more judgementalism.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 7:46 AM

I read a lot of comments in a lot of threads and I don’t see that complaint here. I see lots of negativity toward Islamo-Nazi radicalism, but burkas per se,…no. I’m not saying you won’t find a couple in the thousands of comments submitted, but not as a rule. Should I not be judgmental of homicide bombers or Islamist cabbies who shoot their own daughters to death? Is that OK with you?

SKYFOX on April 17, 2009 at 8:01 AM

I read a lot of comments in a lot of threads and I don’t see that complaint here.

Here it is, from upthread:

I don’t care how you dress or how you feel about the dress of others. On the other hand I do care when people judge the worth of an individual by the threads he or she covers themselves with . . . such a thought process is shallow, elitist, morally wrong and blatantly stupid.

rplat on April 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Should I not be judgmental of homicide bombers or Islamist cabbies who shoot their own daughters to death? Is that OK with you?

Did you read the thread? I’m arguing against the principle of non-judgementalism. However I would like to know how people who think its morally wrong to make judgements reconcile this with their opposition to all things jihadist. If they were 100% consisent then they wouldn’t oppose jihadism at all, just as liberals (who are consistent) don’t oppose it.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 8:10 AM

and cartoons for adults

Um… the classic Warner Bros. cartoons were made for adults. Just because something is drawn doesn’t mean it must be for children.

mankai on April 17, 2009 at 8:27 AM

People aren’t wearing enough hats.

toliver on April 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Um… the classic Warner Bros. cartoons were made for adults. Just because something is drawn doesn’t mean it must be for children.

mankai on April 17, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Got that right — I sure wouldn’t screen Fritz the Cat for my kids.

Oh, and Will needs to loosen his bowtie a little bit. I wear jeans almost every day because they are comfortable and functional. It’s hard to coach Little League in a Savile Row suit and I really don’t really feel the need to channel Connie Mack.

Mr. D on April 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Mr Will’s biggest problem will end when his mother quits dressing him.

Hazmat on April 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Did you read the thread? I’m arguing against the principle of non-judgementalism. However I would like to know how people who think its morally wrong to make judgements reconcile this with their opposition to all things jihadist. If they were 100% consisent then they wouldn’t oppose jihadism at all, just as liberals (who are consistent) don’t oppose it.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 8:10 AM

You’ve overgeneralized but the question can be resolved by a very simplistic cognitive conclusion . . . if it disadvantages, demeans, harms or kills other people its wrong, if it doesn’t it’s not. Judgements are necessary and proper but they should at least meet the aforementioned criterion.

rplat on April 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM


There was another commenter (not you) who said it’s morally wrong to judge the appearance of someone’s clothes, which seems to be the general attitude here. If that’s true then how can you object to someone wearing a burka? That’s just more judgementalism.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 7:46 AM

Burkas are rarely worn by choice. Women don’t wear woolen tents unless they are afraid their nominal “husband” will beat the crap out of them for not wearing said woolen tent.

It’s not a judgement call regarding fashion. They are a literal symbol of oppression. Nice red herring, though.

Krydor on April 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Burkas are rarely worn by choice.

How do you know that? Islamic women could be just as dedicated to their religion as the menfolk.

See here and here.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Lileks absolutely destroys Will on this here

sluhser589 on April 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM

And people wonder why conservatives have a difficult time…it is these “Georgetown” conservatives that think just like the liberals…if you don’t go to the “proper” schools, if you don’t wear the proper clothes, if you pronounce “patio” only one way or “Porsche”, or “neither”, then you are not worthy or acceptable.
Hey George, I know hundreds of farmers, who from daybreak to sunset don’t dress like you…and I would trust them with my life, before I trust most anyone sitting at a desk, expounding on what “men” should wear.
George Will, I have put you in the “entertainment” file, and not in the “news” file.
So much happening in the U.S., and it is all caused by denim…

right2bright on April 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM

So please explain to me why the Children of the 30’s wore “jeans”? Give me a break.. jeans have been around for way over a century … it isn’t like they are going away.

Thank a Farmer!!!

upinak on April 16, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Both of my parents were born in the 1930s, and grew up in the Midwest. Plenty of farming going on in that part of the country. However, I know for a fact that jeans were NOT allowed to be worn in school or in any other serious occasion, and both went to public schools (graduating from high school in the mid-1950s).

As my father told me when I was a teenager, “In high school boys wore slacks, dress shoes, and buttoned long and short-sleeved shirts; jeans were not allowed. Girls wore short and long-sleeved tops and dresses or long skirts.”

eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Can hardly wait for his discussion on which underpants to wear…

albill on April 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM

This thread still has traction?

All I can add is this:

I hope George Will never has to encounter a teenage boy with his pants deliberately hiked down south of his butt displaying his boxers for all the world to see. Or a teenage girl with so many piercing in her tongue and lip you can’t understand what she is saying.

Disturb the Universe on April 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM

PercyB on April 17, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Sink me! This is precisely why I always where a waistcoat, ruffled shirt and powdered wig. No one ever accused Thomas Jefferson on not being a real man.

Nosferightu on April 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM

So, what does this mean for those of us to whom wearing jeans is a step in the formal direction?

Count to 10 on April 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM

portlandon on April 16, 2009 at 7:46 PM

If you were really from Oregon, you’d know that it is “KETCHUP”. I don’t think we can trust you any more.

innominatus on April 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM

slowly hands over his Oregon Drivers license….

Proof:
Burgerville!
Enchanted Forrest!
Pop (not soda)
Bud Clark
Blazer Believer
Saturday Market
MLK Blvd used to be Union Ave.

Can I keep my Oregon Citizenship? Please?

portlandon on April 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM

yummmmm Burgerville.

darcee on April 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I think that Will’s comments and observations about how people dress and carry themselves these days are reflective of a larger point — the overall decline in standards.

And it’s something that ought to be thought about more thoroughly…

eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I predict that sweatpants or pajamas will replace blue jeans as the popular dress of choice and the remaining blue jeans wearers will act all high and mighty about how the pajama wearers are ruining society.

Buddahpundit on April 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I won’t be taking any attire or masculinity advice from George Will.

He is a woman trapped in a man’s body.

He can have bow-ties and baseball.

I will stick with jeans, camo, guns, boxing and car racing.

molonlabe28 on April 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Almost noon. George has a couple more hours of relaxation before yelling at the neighbor kids to get off the lawn.

moxie_neanderthal on April 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Both of my parents were born in the 1930s, and grew up in the Midwest. Plenty of farming going on in that part of the country. However, I know for a fact that jeans were NOT allowed to be worn in school or in any other serious occasion, and both went to public schools (graduating from high school in the mid-1950s).

eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM

The difference between then and now is not that people are wearing farming/ranching clothes to school, it’s that these are no longer farming/ranching clothes. The decline of the farming lifestyle through automation and conglomeration into farm companies instead of farm families means that less people need jeans for that purpose.

We haven’t lowered the status of society, we’ve raised the status of jeans. Isn’t that what conservatives stand for…raising your status by capitalizing on your own virtues? Who says it can’t apply to clothes as well?

James on April 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

How do you know that? Islamic women could be just as dedicated to their religion as the menfolk.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM

The problem is that the burkas cover the bruises given to them when they express a desire not to wear them.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

This makes that old SNL skit “George F. Will’s Sports Machine” even better.

JimRich on April 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Wait, gamers shouldn’t be allowed to vote because their juvenile and sophomoric, right? Aside from being unconstitutional (and an erroneous stereotype), gamers are perhaps one of the most literate of American subcultures. Maybe we should put an age limit on voter requirements and maybe we won’t get senile people like Will to vote for the wrong candidate.

Cr4sh Dummy on April 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM

eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Really.. that is interesting. Would you like to speak to my 80 something yr old grandparents who were taught in a 1 room school house in Ohio and Kentuky, who couldn’t afford “dress clothes” and were Farm Children.

Don’t be snide, your Parents must have lived near a city or a larger town. Where my all my grandparents lived, bibs were the norm (boy or girl) due to the depression and the fact they were also having problems from drought. And if the “girls” were lucky to have a dress, it was usually made from hand-me-down bed sheets, table cloth or other items.

I wish they would have come up to Alaska like other Farmers during the 30′s. No one gives you hell for looking the way you do, because there is no reason too. The only time you get “picked on” is if you have moose blood on your clothes and didn’t wash them.

upinak on April 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Quoi?

Considérez s’il vous plaît le fait d’accepter mon apologie.

Loxodonta on April 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM

eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM

BTW I remember my grandmother telling me how she use to make the soles of her siblings shoes out of glue (gluing the tops of the shoes back on) and the old cardbord (which was very heavy duty) Movie Boards her Dad would bring in from town, which was over a day away from where they lived.

If that isn’t “dirt poor”, I don’t know what is. Not everyone was as lucky as some.

upinak on April 17, 2009 at 11:58 AM

If that isn’t “dirt poor”, I don’t know what is. Not everyone was as lucky as some.

upinak

Of course, that was a generation that knew how to make it, make do or do without.

SKYFOX on April 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Of course, that was a generation that knew how to make it, make do or do without.

SKYFOX on April 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Exactly SKY. I don’t make fun or put down people who don’t wear teh “Finest” because you really don’t know who is what.

My Best friends family…. God I love them. Look like the Hill Billies your parents warned you about, as in they look “inbred”. Freaking MULTI MILLIONAIRES! The wear the holey gross jeans, ripped shirts, not a haircut in a long time…. but you should SEE their house! And they are the nicest people.

I don’t jusge people on how they look… you never know who you are going to meet.

upinak on April 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM

The last two destinations? Agreed. But how is wearing jeans to church disrespectful? Disrespectful to whom?

baldilocks on April 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

It’s not. I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t care if someone wore jeans to church.

As for me, I wear them every day to work. I teach 4 year olds and I need the comfort and durability of jeans. And besides, I’m almost 40 and still look 25. I’ll wear them as long as I can get away with it.

pullingmyhairout on April 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM

MLK Blvd used to be Union Ave.

Can I keep my Oregon Citizenship? Please?

portlandon

No. It’s still Union Ave. Or Milk Jar blvd if you are in a snarky mood.

And that other road is still Harbor Blvd … I don’t care how much money the Naito’s hand to f*cking Democrats …

And Clark needs to be beaten to death with that statue.

Only cal’tards even say MLK.

Kristopher on April 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM

This is one area where the ol’ guy is right. People dress for church like they’re going to a stadium (at least Catholics do) and it pisses me off.

I agree… and I’m Catholic… and I wear jeans to Mass (sometimes). When I do, I’m usually one of the best dressed there.
I don’t think Will is calling denim wearers “evil”, I just think he recognizes that our culture is only going in one direction. Down. Our language, our appearance, and our social intercourse are all descending to the point that if you don’t look, sound, and act like a crack dealer, you’re considered “un-cool”.

edgehead on April 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM

As a child, I was told that I had to dress my best to go into God’s house, strictly out of respect to the diety. This meant that I took extra time and effort to be especially presentable to Him/Her/It. Not withstanding that God is omnipresent, you should present your most respectful appearance. Why should you look better for your boss than for your diety? If jeans and coveralls are your best appearance, sobeit.

Now I have to put on my tuxedo to bring some cows into the corral for market.

Old Country Boy on April 17, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I feel so ashamed of how I dress. My God, I’m north of sixty and I still have 3 or 4 pairs of Levi’s in my closet. I don’t know how i’ve come to this. I’m just an old tacky turd.

Ernest on April 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Only a truly and completely neutered metrosexual would take offense to someone wearing jeans.

Run along now, Georgie-Boy – and don’t forget your man-purse!

barton on April 17, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Jeans are boring.

I have been wearing jeans since I was five years old – enough! When I turned fifty, I burned my jeans and graduated to grown-up pants – North Face cargoes.

(Don’t even think about Dockers)

lonesomecharlie on April 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Ah, is this what happens when a three martini lunch starts at 9am?

I can picture going out to field camp wearing a three piece suit… suuuure… even the old straight-laced Brits knew better than that and wore khaki.

Ever have to work with folks in a press-room? Have you seen what ink does to wool when sloshed around in gallon quantities? Then there is the whole computer part where you spend time grubbing around between desks and fishing cable through conduit and the other half explaining software to an over-educated, over-dressed, under smart, PHB. Right after fishing said cables around for an hour or two.

PHBs got the perfect place for lovely suits: meetings.

Lots of meetings.

I went to those in jeans, too, to remind the PHBs that I was the technical guy working with the press-room folks to get our product out to the warfighter in a timely fashion. I was working for a living, not pushing paper around. Got the ‘no nonsense, cut the crap’ concept across… worked, too. Jeans I can abuse, but a suit?

I think those three martinis aren’t enough… another round on the hour, every hour for the poor old fart, please.

ajacksonian on April 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM

ajacksonian on April 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Can you imagine if he would have said T-Shirts?

Sorry, I can’t draw my bow in a “dress shirt”, it would be like watching the hulk, minus the green paint.

upinak on April 17, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I always thought of George Will as more of a “substance” guy than a “style” guy. Geez. Who really cares? If George Will wrote his columns in his home office while wearing nothing but his tighty whities, I couldn’t care less as long as they’re substantive articles.

Kevin from Ohio in V on April 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM

But how is wearing jeans to church disrespectful? Disrespectful to whom?

baldilocks on April 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

Christian brothers and sisters, please let’s not have this argument. There are two viewpoints on the matter. Both have validity. In simple terms, they are:
1. God deserves our best, including our best clothes.
2. God is no respecter of persons, and by wearing our nicest clothes we make obvious who is prosperous and “important” and who is not.

This is just one of those issues where men of goodwill can simply disagree. In virtually every town in America you can surely find a church whose dress philosophy is agreeable to you.

If a Church is preaching the word, don’t get in their way; if they’re not, attire is the least of their problems. Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees? “You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Full disclosure: I wear jeans to Sunday NIGHT and Wednesday services, dockers or better Sunday morning.

RegularJoe on April 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM

I watch PBS… in my jeans.

regal on April 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM

If you want an affectation, how about a bow tie and round-rimmed glasses. What does THAT mean.

Paul-Cincy on April 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM

How do you know that? Islamic women could be just as dedicated to their religion as the menfolk.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Well, there’s this country called Afghanistan where they still, to this day, beat the crap out of women who expose skin. Then, there’s this other country called Saudi something or another that let a girls school burn to the ground, with girls inside, because they weren’t properly covered.

Oddly, the big time coverer uppers also happen to be Wahabbi…

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the thread at hand.

Krydor on April 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM

To George Will, David Frum, Kathleen Parker and all the other East-Coast “elites” who want to dictate everyhting from what we wear to who we should nominate for our Party:

S.T.F.U. You are all irrelevant.

Thanks, that’s all.

Norwegian on April 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM

I don’t get the big condemnation of jeans in particular, but I get the criticism of dressing too casually for certain events. This is a big pet peeve of mine. Dressing in neat, clean, well tailored clothes that are slightly better than the ones one would wear to clean the toilet shows that you respect the event you are attending and the people who will be there. There’s nothing tackier than the guy who can’t be bothered to put on a clean shirt, iron his pants and remove his hat for a funeral. Or Church. Or a social event. Demonstrate your respect by showing that the occassion is worth the effort of simple grooming, for crying out loud. If it’s not about you, stop the self-indulgent, childish excuses of “that’s just not me” or “sweatpants are more comfortable.”

Gahhhhh!!!!! Decorum and respect, people. What happened to it?

Rant over.

patriette on April 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Hmmm, seems like there are other, more pressing issues that he could spend his time writing about. Blue jeans? WTF!

lionheart on April 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM

…will someone with a better command of the language than I please lend me a hand here….

…is it possible that there’s a word in English which is stronger than “snob” in referring to the disdain a person might have and show for those he deems less…er…well…correct than himself? I don’t mean adding an auxillary word to “snob”, as in “f**king snob”, but an actual word.

…no?

…maybe I’ll just go ahead and coin one: what a georgewill this guy is!

Example, from his column:

Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

…so, he’s advocating that we can judge character by appearances…hmmmm….

…now, Mr. Will may pine for the days of “Leave It To Beaver” when Ward was hardly ever seen without a suit, unless it was to be seen in a ’50′s version of a polo shirt and pressed slacks….

…and Mr. Will goes on to admit that he actually owns a pair of jeans, apparently in a bid either to make fun of himself or, more likely, to heap further scorn on his “inferiors” as he links it to a birthday party where a song containing the words “redneck mothers” in the title was featured, but no matter….

…maybe he’s just sad that people don’t knuckle their foreheads at the nobility any more, ’cause they’re all wearing Levis…hard to be a faux aristocrat in today’s environment….

I was taught by my worldly-wise and cagey — and, incidently, working-class, mechanics-uniform-wearing father — that you should beware of guys in suits. The worlds biggest pimps wear suits. Lawyers wear suits. Salesmen dealing in automobiles of questionable provenance wear suits.

Furthermore, and less related to me, Henry David Thoreau warns us to eschew jobs which require us to purchase a new suit of clothes. So, there are arguments against Mr. Will’s point of view.

I can see his point, though. He, and the other opinion whore he quotes rail, among other things, against people who buy pre-distressed jeans. They only want to look like they’ve done a job of work in their lives, instead of their actually ever only commuting to and from a “McMansion” to a cubicle somewhere, and who only sweat when they’re trying to stair-master their way to the other side of that extra piece of birthday cake they indulged in.

I see this point. He’s denouncing posers…as we might all be wise to do. If you’re a suburban yuppie geek, dress like it. It’ll shine through, anyway, but give us all a break by dressing the part, so’s we can avoid you at a distance.

…er…by way of clarity: a) a “McMansion” is an over-priced track-built stucco monstrosity with “mow-strips” on either side and a microscopic yard front and back), and b) an “opinion whore” is another coined word, being defined as someone whose opinion is available for sale…with the implication that I don’t personally agree with that opinion.

What I think twists Mr. Will’s nipples, and which now necessitates the coining of “georgewill”, is that it’s his class which is taking up the denim. They’re the smart set, you see, and should know better. All of those “rednecks” out there (a mainstreamed term in quotations here to emphasize the bile it raises in Mr. Will’s throat) can dress as they please, go to as many tea parties as they please, etc…but for the professional class to dress down is heresy!

Mr. Will has made a career out of stating that he loves his country and its traditions, but, like Sec. Napolitano, also increasingly shows considerable disgust for the people he’s apt to bump into while walking abroad in that country. He likes the concept of America…it’s the content that frosts his little testes….

This is a phenomenon not, unfortunately, the least bit rare today. People become as theoretical and ephemeral as the political bilge that we toss around. Increasingly, people are becoming “demographics”. Mr. Will is comfortable in his, evidently, save for this sartorial sacrilege. It’s the “lower orders”, and the attempts of his peers to ape them, which irks him.

…the next step down the food chain will be for pundits to begin to refer to us as “masses”…when they do, it’s time for the torches and the pitchforks, neighbors…as we’ll then have been demoted to the level of barnyard animals….

I wonder what Mr. Will thinks of Texans? Denim is practically the “state fabric”. It wouldn’t be hard, on any day in practically any weather, to find a man or woman strolling about in Wrangler cowboy-cuts with knife-edge creases pressed in, their ensembles not complete until they’ve accented with enough silver on their belts and hat bands to buy a top-of-the-line Armani, topped off with a hat that’d cost a mortgage payment most places.

When Mr. Buckley stood athwart the path of history and shouted “Stop!” (or “slow down” or “whoa” or whatever he’s supposed to’ve said), he was hoping to save the best and most constructive of tradition to educate and center the future. Mr. Will, apparently, wishes here to stand athwart the path of either fashion or individual comfort and shout “Not without my permission!”, which seems to me a peevish attempt at an Andy Rooney immitation.

Conservative and conformist both begin with “c”. There the similarity ends.

Puritan1648 on April 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I think that Will’s comments and observations about how people dress and carry themselves these days are reflective of a larger point — the overall decline in standards….

eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:56 AM

…and who sets the standards?

I think that the standards which need addressing are standards of veracity and discourse — witness Olby and the mainstream press — and save standards of dress matching occasion for a later day.

I must say, addressing this as a topic, that the standards of public discourse, particularly as regards vocabulary, has coarsened over the last generation. It isn’t that these college-educated idiots pepper their patois with vulgarity, hoping to insinuate themselves with “the common people”…it’s that, to anyone who’s actually had to swear to get things done (Army, Navy, Marines, construction site, police station, family reunion), these posers aren’t very good at it. Vulgar self-expression is an art form. They’re just not very good at it.

…refer to the scene in Rostand’s “Cyrano” beginning with “your nose is…rather large”, and you’ll see my point.

If you were raised safely in a cosy little stucco castle in suburbia, and you aspire to be a hedge fund manager, only try to pass yourself off in public as a longshoreman or a drill sergeant once you’re sufficiently skilled in the arcane and precise rules of profanity. Using the “F-word” to punctuate things is like over-salting your food…it just doesn’t work all the time.

As to proper church wear, consider the congregation. The Almighty looks past your pretentions.

Puritan1648 on April 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM

You should not wear jeans to everything. Neither should you wear dress clothes to everything as Mr. Will suggests. Mr. Will could not have meant this seriously.

Church does call for better attire. Respect is shown by the clothes you wear. When you are on a first date do you wear the most worn ugliest outfit? What do you wear to a job interview and why?

Neither should church be a place to display wealth through clothing only respect for yourself, others around you, and the God who made you.

I wish they would require office attire more in public schools. I actually think our school district is better than it was several years ago with my oldest kids. How can a high schooler be expected to understand that office attire is different from the clothes one would wear to a rodeo or a rock concert, or the beach?

I once went to a school function and I swear there was a girl with so little clothes that I had a hard time not staring! I was afraid that little string shirt she had on would fall off any minute. All it would have took was a pull on the bow…

And another time at my son’s play it was part of a script that a girl rip off her shirt and throw it into the audience! At a high school performance! (She later showed up as a visitor in a Sunday School class I was teaching. She was introduced as the girl who went topless in the play.) I never could remember her name…

Our district seems to have tightened up some. My 6th grader got sent to the office for wearing flip flops… Such inconsistency…

petunia on April 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Well, there’s this country called Afghanistan where they still, to this day, beat the crap out of women who expose skin.

Huh, I thought that country had been liberated.

aengus on April 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM

What a pompous elite snob arsehole. Felix Unger type?

I really take issue with the slam about video gamers. I’ve been playing video games since way back – remember the old Atari game system? I maintained a 4.0 GPA at school – hmmmm, think he has a lame argument there? Games keep your mind alive, contrary to what many seem to think. To me, its kind of like a crossword puzzle, jigsaw puzzle or reading a book. And this whiny biotch suggests I’m not fit to vote? Wonder what he thinks I should be doing in my spare time – working more so I can pay more taxes?

I dressed up for business every workday for years and man, I got tired of wearing heels – they will mess up your feet, not to mention the expense of women’s business clothes and the drycleaning. I now work at home (yes, I feel blessed) and I wear jeans every day, or sometimes my pajamas if I feel like it and ooooh aaahhh no bra! (And yes, for the trolls, I do brush my teeth and floss.) I bet this jerk couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag. In fact, I bet even Getalife could argue him under the table.

I feel sorry for this tightly wrapped man – seems like he sweats the small stuff a bit too much. Does he think that life should be full of drudgery, like we are here on earth to pay some kind of penance? Does he know how to have fun? You can wear anything you like; doesn’t mean you don’t have intelligence. Didn’t John the Baptist wear clothes made of camel hair or something?

fullogas on April 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM

I don’t know that it’s all that awful to wish that folks don’t dress like slobs or for adults not to mimic their kids’ attire.

A blurb from the site of Diana West, author og “The Death of the Grown-Up” reads:
“Once, there was a world without teenagers. Literally, “teenager,” the word itself, doesn’t pop into the lexicon much before 1941. That means that for all but this most recent period of history, there were children and there were adults. Children in their teen years aspired to adulthood; significantly, they didn’t aspire to adolescence. Certainly, men and women didn’t aspire to remain teenagers.
Today, turning thirteen, instead of bringing children closer to an adult world, launches them into a teen universe. And due to the hold our culture has placed on the maturation process, that’s where they’re likely to find the adults.”

whatcat on April 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Sigh…..

jeans are comfortable. I wear them because I feel at ease in them whether I’m in the lawyers office, out shopping, or working in the yard. (different jeans for yardwork, doh)

The only time I wear something else, and that’s not a for-sure thing either, is if I have to appear in court. If you can’t respect my right to feel comfortable in whatever fits my butt and doesn’t look dirty or smell like sweat, then I don’t respect your dockers or bow tie. Blow me.

And IF I did go to church, I’d probably wear jeans. Got a problem with that? Take it up with god, bother me and you might get hurt.

Spiritk9 on April 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Our country is going straight to hell and this moron is concerned about people wearing jeans? Hey dummy!!!! Look over there and watch your boy Obama destroying America. Forget the kid and his daddy in their jeans. What a sissy you are Mr. Will. You need an atomic wedgie. Straighten that twist right out.

UnEasyRider on April 17, 2009 at 4:34 PM

patriette on April 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM

I am going to spamalot in jeans. Seriously, who would go to spamalot in anything BUT jeans?

upinak on April 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM

And George Will can go take a flying leap off a short ledge above a deep chasm IMAO. He’s a freaking beltway elitist. Scroom. On my day off I’ll wear jeans anywhere. (Hell, I wear ‘em anywhere any day. {^_-} I don’t have anybody I “must impress with my attire”. I dress for comfort not impression. I leave PERFORMANCE as the measurement criterion not appearance.)

{^_^}

herself on April 17, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Elitists lack tact during economic downturn.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche. This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don’t wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly.

“symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche”–Blame the pervasive criminal attacks on individuals who “stand out” from the crowd. Who wouldn’t wear denim outside in order to blend in.

Mary Pickford, Grace Kelly, Jackie O.
Look again, it’s MICHELLE OBAMA!
the reason for the flap

J.Crew

maverick muse on April 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Sorry George…nosoupforyou!!!

jerrytbg on April 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM

DrMagnolias on April 17, 2009 at 6:13 AM

Such things might matter if you are Jewish. But Christians left all that behind through the blood of the Lamb of God. The sacrifice of Jesus absolved us of all the old laws, rituals, and trappings. You need to concentrate your argument on the New Testament if you are going to convince a Christian.

Hawthorne on April 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM

The home he lives in, the car he drives, the road he drives on, the office he works in, the pen he writes with, the paper he writes on, the phone he talks on, the soap he uses, the food he eats, etc, etc. All products of the little people for which the elite has so much disdain but makes their cushy life possible. Good thing for him we are not still in the jungle. That big old lion would catch and eat him and his kind first……………….As Lynryd Skynryd might say…….I hope George Will will remember, a common man don’t need him around anyhow…………

jims on April 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Maquis on April 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Je m’inquiète de vous, je vous manque, et j’espère que vous vous sentez bien.

Loxodonta on April 17, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Look, the man roots for the Cubs, who last won a World Series in 1908, when just about everybody went to baseball games dressed in approved George Will attire.

jon1979 on April 17, 2009 at 1:09 AM

As ridiculous as Wills column is, I have to admit that it is neat to see so many people dressed up just for a baseball game. I remember 10-15 years ago, all of the elderly I would see outside of the house were dapper in their dress. People really do dress like bums these days.

but I live in jeans because they are so damn comfortable.

Daemonocracy on April 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM

I guess that dinner with Obama convinced you.

Call the fashion police DUDE, where’s my geekness!

Kini on April 18, 2009 at 3:21 AM

Hawthorne on April 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM

I’m sorry for the late response–I was away. I disagree with concentrating on the New Testament for two reasons: 1. The nature of God is unchanging, so if the rules were based on His nature (what He considers important), they probably have not changed, and 2. Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5: 17). I recognize that Christians are liberated from legalism, but we need to be careful when we say what does or does not matter to God. The challenge, at least for me, is to understand which rules were context-driven, and which were immutable. I will never pretend to be a Biblical scholar–I simply try my best to understand the evidence. My belief that such things matter to God will be unchanged until I see compelling evidence to the contrary; however, I do want to reiterate my point that only God knows the condition of our hearts, and why we choose what we do.

DrMagnolias on April 18, 2009 at 8:14 AM

George,

Relax everything will be OK. Now get back on the meds!

Northstar on April 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM

SENILE Stop calling him a conservative he’s
turned SENILE since his man McCain got his ass thumped.
Quit listening to this dumbass when he started dissing Sarah the only thing that saved McCain from total humiliation.

dhunter on April 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM


It’s not elitist either. I was looking at old photos of my great-grandparents today. They were very well-dressed despite being poor. If they couldn’t afford elegant-looking clothes they made them.
aengus on April 16, 2009 at 12:45 PM

+1
Great point. It’s not about being wealthy. It’s possible to look nice without having much money.

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I like the article. I like George Will in general I think he speaks well and I agree with his views often. And I agree with his views here. I think that the manner in which people dress says something about the health of the culture. I think it’s healthy when people think a bit about how they dress. And it seems like blue jeans have become more and more prevalent in our society.
But I’m guilty. I wear jeans probably more than I should.

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM


I say, wear what you want but appreciate that how you dress and how you groom yourself does impact on what people think about you and can actually impact on your success in business.

Y-not on April 16, 2009 at 7:18 PM

+1
Exactly

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM

recently, when the 1960s hipster elite utterly transformed the culture.
aengus on April 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM

I think most of us get your point. But doesn’t it at all seem a bit silly that in today’s society where unwed pregnancies, gangs, deadbeat dads, and people snorking on welfare checks are a growing segment of the population that blue jeans are presented as the problem? Maybe I’m having a humorless Thursday and did not see George joking. I consider many things to be disrespectful, but the few relatives that wore jeans at my wedding were not on the list.
BakerAllie on April 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM

I don’t think blue jeans are being presented as the problem. But the prevalence of jeans could be a manifestation of the problems in society, problems which are also characterized by the troubled groups that you mention. It’s possible to speculate that there is a correlation somewhere. People dressing down, dressing informally, people treating the government informally, treating pregnancy informally. A casual approach to dress has carried over to our relationships with others. Has this happened for everyone as individuals? No. But there may be a trend in larger scope, in broader terms.
Disclaimer – I’ve been lazily wearing jeans more than I should.

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM

DrMagnolias on April 16, 2009 at 8:28 PM

+1

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I hate to drag God into these discussions, but now that it’s been done…here goes. :) I would never presume to speak for God, but I do believe He expects reverence in His house. Some evidence that He might care about details is in His very specific instructions in Exodus for building the Tabernacle, down to the fabric, colors, and metals for each part. Although it is difficult for me to imagine that He would damn someone for eternity for wearing jeans in church, I don’t think people who say that such things don’t matter at all to God are on the most solid ground. And, often it’s a false dichotomy–”He’d rather I be in church in blue jeans than not at all,” as if these are the only options. But, it is up to God to judge the condition of each of our hearts, and my focus needs to be my own heart.
DrMagnolias on April 16, 2009 at 9:31 PM

+1
I want to be careful here, because I know people who are very active in the church who wear jeans to worship services, and I don’t want to offend anyone.
Jesus loves us and cares about the intentions of our heart. – No denying it. But when I dress for church, my manner of dress is an outward manifestation of the internal struggle to be more like Christ and work on improving myself. Others may feel that since Christ is all about love that He accepts them regardless of how they dress. But Christ was about more than love and acceptance. He wants us to try to be more than who we are. He loves us even when we fail, but He wants us to try. Wearing jeans just seems to suggest that no effort is called for. But we never achieve perfection. We need to keep working toward it. Understanding that Christ is with us on the journey, loving us, but it’s still a journey. And I think that dressing for church is a show of respect for the sacrifice Christ made for me. Christ sacrificed Himself in such a profound way. The least I can do is come out of my comfort zone a bit when I worship.
That’s just my two cents. And I’m trying to keep an open mind about this issue.

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM

….
We haven’t lowered the status of society, we’ve raised the status of jeans. Isn’t that what conservatives stand for…raising your status by capitalizing on your own virtues? Who says it can’t apply to clothes as well?
James on April 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

That’s an interesting point. I don’t know if I agree, but it’s a view that I haven’t seen before.

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM

gxpgxp on April 16, 2009 at 9:19 PM
DrMagnolias on April 16, 2009 at 10:06 PM
jr.ewing.78 on April 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM
eanax on April 17, 2009 at 10:56 AM

+1

tartan on April 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM

my favorite part about this whole thing was seeing that picture of him in the green and yellow. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say he is more passionate about the Packers than denim.

bombos on April 19, 2009 at 11:31 PM

I don’t feel like writing it all over again, so I’ll direct you to comment #135 at the boss’s site for my take-down of Will’s fashionless diatribe.

The main points:
1) Those who pay $150, give or take, for their designer jeans surely would have a bone or two to pick with him.
2) Jeans allow us to be a much more flexible society today. I didn’t say it like this, but we didn’t exactly get down on the carpet and play with our kids 150 years ago.
3) George Will could have the fashion police called on him for the offenses seen in that picture of him in yellow pants and green shirt.

flutejpl on April 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4