Slatterns, Bluestockings and DotCom Slobs

Slatterns, Bluestockings and DotCom Slobs
by Eileen M. Ciesla

Here is a word that has gone out of common usage and is in grave need of resurrection: slovenly.

Here are a few more: slatternly, dowdy, draggled and blowsy.

The attire sported in the modern office, moved from scruffily and severely ugly in the "Me Decade" of the 1970s, enjoyed a respite of merry, peacock gaudy in the 1980s and then settled on schmatta chic in the 1990s. The Millennium is up for grabs. If I could influence the next decade I'd begin by suggesting that if you are unable to sort surgical scrubs from pajamas from running gear then you should either be employed in a hospital or unemployed altogether.

The following people are far better dressed on an average working day, than the average graduate of a state school with a bachelors in finance and accounting, working at a brokerage:

Postal workers
UPS drivers
Amtrak employees, including ticket sales agents and train conductors
Airline employees
Security Guards
Busboys

And on an average working day, the following people are far more dapper and nattily attired than the average graduate of a state school with a bachelors in finance and accounting at a company dinner.

The Concierge of a big chain hotel
The attendant at the bathroom in the Plaza Hotel
The ushers in Carnegie Hall
The head waiter at a Portuguese Restaurant in Newark, NJ.
My father's barber

In short, snappy casual has become crappily careless. The reasons for this are many. The roots of comfortable dressing go back to the 'doin' my own thing 70s' and got a heap of help in the 1990s which were arguably a fashion (and social) tribute to the decade of all things ugly and cynical. Add in a bit of dot-com fever and you get a nation of young people slumming in psychedelic colored lycra/cotton blends and clumping about in ridiculously ugly shoes.

Is there really anything wrong with being excessively comfortable all the time? Yes. In fact it's terribly wrong. When one takes on a certain position in the world, takes on the practice of medicine, law, banking, brokerage, science or engineering, one becomes a professional. The clothes one wears indicates how much respect one has for oneself and for one's clients. Certainly, I would be reluctant to go to a doctor who enters the examining room in sweatpants, a college T-shirt and basketball sneakers.

Similarly, am I going to hand over my portfolio to a broker who greets me with a nose ring, industrial rave gear, and hair that is alternatively yellow and pink? No. I would immediately assume the broker is a certifiable idiot, a dangerous risk taker, a user of illicit substances and may be funneling my money to finance coca leaf production in climates south.

As offices across America, in every kind of industry opt to move from suits and ties to snappy casual to dot-com slobbery, there is antiquated charm in watching Katherine Hepburn and Lauren Bacall march about their offices in smart dresses, pearls and pants suits . Examining my own closet, I find it is filled with what Banana Republic and J. Crew market as wardrobe basics: all things stretchy, plain, and unlined. I may dress "fashionably", but what does that really say in this age of pure democracy of dress?

It's gotten so that I can wear the same thing to a Catholic Mass, to work, out to dinner, to the theater (movie and otherwise), food shopping, and poolside at my neighbor's annual summer block party.

I detect three fashion influences driving the current comfort craze.

Dotcom Dressing

Wearing loose dungarees, tight shirts and clunky, orthopedic shoes indicates three things 1) general lack of respect for oneself or others 2) being isolated at work, like any good geek. 3) blindness. In the "new economy", the image of a typical dotcomer is a Gen-Xer who is so brilliant, so innovative and so efficient that he can make up his own rules. He is moving fast, talking fast, and thinking fast and does not have time for the effete nonsense of proper attire. Suits and Ties? That's old school ...for gray hairs who sit around checking ticker tape in oak paneled offices. Real time attire is by its nature, by necessity, comfortable and athletic. And practically speaking, who dresses up to move from their bed to their study. If a large amount of one's work is done in the confines of an apartment or in an office where clients never arrive, then what's the harm in drawstring pants and Teva sandals?

However, many companies have decided the hip, easy dressing of the new economy is a factor that competes for employees. In other words, many offices have agreed to drop their formerly strict dress codes for more relaxed ones in an effort to hold onto their young employees, who may be tempted away from the suit and tie world of investment banking by the shiny, stretchy fabrics sported by dot-comers. Of course, why one would leave a job at a major investment bank that potentially pays $250K for one that pays $30K and cannot predict its earnings nor make sense of last year's revenue for the sake of being able to wear denim, is not clear.

Clintonian Casual

Gary Aldrich noted in his book, Unlimited Access , that Bill Clinton often (shockingly) came to work in the Oval Office in his running attire. His staff members walked around in shorts and sneakers, and sometimes, without underwear. The anti-Reagan brought the decorum of the White House down to the level of not just any old frat house, but an Arkansas pigsty. Clintonian casual is a combination of 1970s 'socialist sloppy' and white trash tacky. Hillary the anti-Jackie Kennedy, entered stage left in 1992 with a headband and alot of unspoken scorn for all preceding American First Ladies (What did they do anyway except bake cookies, redecorate, entertain and read to little children? And remember, she's not just some little ole' first lady, now.) She has rounded out her dubious tenure in dowdy, dark pants suits for the purposes of appearing slightly more serious (militant) on the campaign trail (warpath). Whereas Hillary is a radical bluestocking gone professional, Bill is simply unbridled arrogance meets bad taste. He is the essence of cocky casual.

Fashion Ave. Commie Kitsch

One cannot help but notice the androgyny factor in the fashions of the 1990s. The sight of standard issue black pants, black t-shirts, black shoes and a clean-shaven head often graces the Calvin Klein/Kenneth Cole/Benetton advertisements of The New York Times Sunday magazine, not to mention the streets of the same City. It takes a moment for one to decide upon the sex of the model/ urban denizen. Dressing like something between a cast member of Star Trek and a Chinese peasant has been in style for quite a few years. And there can only be one reason for doing something like this: to equalize the sexes and democratize the population. i.e. cultural Communism.

Yes, that's right, the fashion plates of this look were taken straight from Lenin's lost text; "How to Topple the Bourgeoisie by Proper Application of Textiles." And the seminal socialist classic, "Proletariat Chic: Grey is for Everybody. Color is for Capitalist Running Dogs."

For years, fashion designers have been foisting the waif and the dandy upon us. And now the images have merged and birthed the unisex creature who not only sells ugly clothes but offers a vacuous, post-modern, social message. Though often this sort of shapeless attire is mainly seen on the coasts and finds little appeal among the more traditional South and heartland, one cannot understate the psychological impact this has on the trend-slavish youth. It's depressing to wear, ugly to look at, and deliberately so. The unisex look is the uniform of the church of secular humanism, a perverse take on clerical garb. The kids just look scary, dirty, and hideous. And the older folks look drawn, angry and pale and freakish.

The tide will turn of course. Fashions come and go. Once we wake up from the haze of this strange decade we will look around the disheveled room, and discover we've been sleeping, eating and working in the same prole threads, and feeling pretty raunchy. And, without warning, high style and pressed clothing will make a comeback. Perhaps women will rediscover slips, undergarments and hosiery and men will wear pants that fit properly. Then at last we may finally put an end to the sloppy retro fashions of-all-things-better-left-in-mothballs, college dorms, Arkansas pigstys and in Soho thrift shops.