Freedom of Fashion

Post Reply New Topic

I came upon this article which expresses condemnation (from a university teacher, mind you) for people who wear sweatpants in public. The reasons and arguments he provided may seem absurd and infringing on the rights of others to choose what they wear, but one thing that is widely accepted is that the world is generally shallow and judges people based on what they wear.

Do you believe he makes a good point that sweatpants shouldn't be worn in public unless you're working out or doing sports? Does wearing sweatpants regularly indicate that one is a lazy bum or has low self-esteem? Do you believe it is ok to wear sweatpants to school or university or work even? What about other clothes? What are the limits and conditions that you believe should be applied when it comes to the freedom of fashion?

Discuss.

Thank god I live where there is no fashion.I see sweat pants and wear them all the time.
Comfort rules here in Ark.Hell Yeah.
I wear other stuff,but I am not ever wearing anything uncomfortable again,ever.I was the kid that needed tags cut off,seams in socks had to be perfect or I would scream and kick my shoes off.If it's not soft,I'm not wearing it,period.

That article is nothing more than a tirade. It does not present a rational argument -- just puff opinion.

To the topic of "fashion", what you wear tends to indicate your social status. People judge you based on your appearance. Those who are better dressed are treated with more respect and consideration than those who are not.

On a side note, I find the phrase "freedom of fashion" repulsive. The topic of sweat pants is well suited for his blog title -- not for emotionally charged verbage.

No. What he does is list some attributes which he says "people" assume about sweatpants wearers. Like this.....


Some people certainly do assume that. He does. Perhaps some of his colleagues do too, and other professionals. But that is irrelevent to the college student. The students don't care what is a cultural signifier to their professors. They care about what is a cultural signifier to their fellow students- more specifically to that subset of students they most identify with. The author really doesn't get that. As shown here.....



It confounds him because he assumes that what he sees as a signifier of "lazy and dim" is shared by his students. And it may be by some students but not the ones those girls identify with. They wear makeup and sweatpants because they are broadcasting a message but that message is meant to be recieved by their fellow students. That he doesn't pick up the message they are sending is not relevent to them. So his rant is also irrelevent to them.




That depends entirely on the enviroment in which they are worn. It would mean that (in this case) if a professor wore them. But not the students. It is all situational. This professor needs to pop over to the Sociology Department to ask one of his colleagues about clothing as a cultural signifier (there is probably even a course by that name being offered). The sociology professors are better equipped to figure out why the female students are wearing makeup and sweatpants simultaneously. This guy is in over his head.


To school or university, yes, as a student, not as a professor. To work? That depends entirely on where you work, what your job is there, and what the culture of your workplace is. It's situational.



The limits and conditions should be those that are required by decency laws (covering genitals etc.) and safety laws (such as requiring shoes in various places). Beyond that, it is entirely situational. What you wear to work depends on the dress code at work. What you wear to school depends on the same. I doubt that most colleges have dress codes beyond the decency and safety requirements found in all public buildings (and all public places for decency laws). The caveat of course is that if you wear things that are controversial (such as a swastika), expect some pushback from the public. But I don't think that should be disallowed. People have the right to wear offensive things (such as swastikas) and other people have the right to hate on them for it, just so long as that hating on them doesn't get physical.

Things that just look odd or annoying to some segments of the public. They are free to rant (as this guy did) and other people are free to ignore those rants.

And this guy claims to be a "college professor."

In an academic paper I'm sure he would use "his or her", "he or she". I don't doubt the guy knows that's the proper form. But this is a blog post so I think it's ok and to use the third person plural as a gender neutral. I do it too. The rules are a lot looser for posts than for papers. Third person plural as gender neutral is increasingly common in informal speech and writing.

Shakespeare used the singular "they."

It's Schrodinger's gender: until we know one way or the other, the subject in question is both and neither.

Wait,okay,I'm stupid here,hate grammar,makes me want to hit my head on the desk.What's wrong with "they"?and I know I used bad punctuation also,I don't think that way.

"They" is a PC, feminazi takeover of English because it replaces "he" as the assumed gender of an unknown or unspecified individual. (/sarcasm)

Seriously, 'they' has only been in use for about 40 or 50 years, and afaIk it started when women started to protest that any unknown be 'given the benefit of the doubt' by being assumed to be male. It is truly not traditional formal English, but its use has become so widespread that it's effectively standard now.

I thought it meant a group of people of any sex.people say"they're"going to have a birthday party.I never thought of it being either male or female,just plural.

I wear loose sweatpants very often and sometimes I even wear them in public, so do many people around these parts of WA. The general weather here permits more sweat pant wearing:) Secretly, I think we'd all like to wear sweatpants in public, they are so darn comfy after all. I'm looking forward to it getting colder again, sweatpants will be seen on 1/10 people in public surely.

Interesting how you overlook that his article seems way more emotionally charged "verbage" than the title here.

I wasn't even being emotional when I came up with the title.

I'm not a sweatpant wearer myself, but I don't have a problem with them. I agree that the appropriateness of wearing them is dependent on the social context. The professor is a professional and shouldn't wear sweatpants to lecture. A student is in a more casual atmosphere.

If I can bring yoga pants to the table I have to say I'm against them. They really are too revealing. God forbid men start wearing them - that would be distracting.

That wasn't an attack. It was simply my opinion of the phrase. It seems like "freedom of" and "freedom from" are the flavor of the decade when it comes to politics, philosophy, and religion.

I did, in fact, state that the article was nothing more than a tirade. This would indicate that the verbage was not overlooked.

That's the original meaning - that's why it's considered (by some) to be 'improper English' when it's used as a stand-in for a single person of unknown or unspecified gender.