Clothes No Longer ‘Make the Man,’ or the Woman Either
Published in Marietta Daily Journal Sept. 4, 2016
I’m sorry, but the way people are
dressing these days is driving me nuts.
Appropriate dress has always indicated respect for a particular occasion
or perhaps particular guests. If a bunch
of 1960’s farmers up and down Old Highway 80 in central Mississippi consider it
proper to “dress up” a bit for church, or a wedding, or a funeral, then surely
today’s more educated and refined folks could pay similar respects.
I know, it all depends on one’s
raising. But before you start judging me
for judging others, let me hasten to add that I’m not arguing for tuxedos or
long, flowing gowns or even for coats and ties.
No, I’m arguing against something,
namely the exposed bosoms of women, the accentuated, blue jean-clasped
derrieres of teenage girls and women alike, and hairy legs of men of all ages.
Please don’t consider me creepy for
bringing it all up or for noticing it in the first place. Anybody reading this newspaper knows what I’m
talking about, which is the loss of grace and self-respect, not to mention
respect for others.
Why do judges wear robes? Why do graduates wear them? Why do TV news anchors look nice? Why don’t brides just saunter down the aisle
in cut-off jeans while chewing gum? (I’m
a little afraid for that last sentence to appear in print. People these days get crazy ideas and will do
anything for fun.) Anyhow, need I say
more about the chaotic, libertine state of American dress?
More and more people are caring less
and less about their appearance. No, I
take that back. They do care how they
look, and they want to look like others.
In other words, people want to be “in,” not “out.” I’m talking about adults.
Since the advent of youth culture
which I’m placing in 1956 and for which I’m primarily blaming Elvis Presley
(hey, I loved him too), youth have always insisted on being “in,” not
“out.” Funny thing, though: for exactly
6 decades teenagers have clamored for individuality and have hailed
non-conformity, all the while conforming to their peers in dress and
lingo. So much for individuality and
non-conformity.
But teenagers are young. We should understand their desire to be
accepted and should tolerate (some) of their testing of limits. However, people age 20 to 95 are not
teenagers. Somebody help me tell them.
Several years ago while in
Nashville, TN I attended a large suburban church. Worshippers were of all ages, all styles of
dress, and all smiles. The minister
happened to be wearing a coat and tie.
One year later at the same church, worshippers
were still dressing in all styles, and were still comprised of all ages. The minister looked different. Same man, but instead of coat and tie, his
garb – I wouldn’t lie about a minister – was flip-flops, shorts, and a beach
shirt. But for his spiked hair, I would
have thought my former college mate, Jimmy Buffett, was approaching the
platform.
The minister’s new “in” look didn’t
change his message or its sincere, passionate delivery, but I did have trouble
getting my mind off Jimmy Buffett’s gentle ballad, “Come Monday.” (Google it, but don’t Google any of his other
songs.)
More importantly, I couldn’t get my
mind off one of Chaucer’s best lines, “If gold rusts, what then will iron
do?” That is, in this case, if leaders
insist on being “in,” what do they expect their listeners to do?
I know, I know. Their goal is to “reach” people, whether the
reachers are ministers, politicians, or teachers. No concept has ever been so stretched or so
flawed. The poor can’t help the poor,
the addict can’t help the addict, and the man in a ditch can’t help another man
in the ditch. True, one must get in the
ditch to help someone in it, but you don’t stay in the ditch. Nor do you have to dress like a drunk to pull
a drunk out of the ditch. Ask successful
veteran teachers, who love both their work and those in their charge, if
they’ve had to dress or talk like their charges.
Our rush to casualness is calculated
and fairly recent. With it has come the
capitulation of adults to youthful tastes and habits. Instead of forming and informing our
children’s tastes, we have adopted their tastes. If a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,
then adults should say so to youth instead of wallowing with them in the
ordinary.
Today we are not helping our
offspring aim high. Casualness,
calculated or not, is the enemy of excellence. And casualness is winning.
Roger
Hines
8/31/16
No comments:
Post a Comment