By now I’m sure everyone’s either seen or at least heard about American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert’s racy performance at the AMA show. I haven’t seen it myself and honestly have no desire to, but the event, among a great many other things, have given me pause to consider what all of this means at a time when guys in general have taken it on the chin from a larger cultural standpoint.
First of all, let me say that I am happy for Mr. Lambert’s success and wish him a long and prosperous career. From all that I’ve read about him, he seems to possess legitimate singing talent-and making it big in the Music Business is no small feat, regardless of one’s private life.
That said however, from that which I’ve gleaned in the news reports about Lambert’s recent performance, I must say that I was put off by it-not because he’s Gay, but because it reeks of sensationalism and the kind of pandering that a Man of his caliber shouldn’t even have to consider doing. It reeks of Low Class behavior in the worst way.
Comparing Lambert with other known, or at least widely rumored to be gay Male performers, like Liberace, Luther Vandross or Rock Hudson, is like comparing night to day. Like I said, it was widely rumored if not known outright that these Men were gay, yet they never used it as a kind of “pass” with which to trade on their talents. If anything, these Men represented the best of their art and craft, a kind of refinement, dignity and gentlemanly grace that is fast becoming a thing of the past in a Tucker Max/Thug Life Age.
Which leads me to the next point-that it is truly sad that we live in a time where a Man has to be looked at sideways if he actually cares about his appearance, likes to look nice, has any fashion sense or has any appreciation for art; that the term “That’s So Gay!” has become a part of the American pop cultural lexicon. All of these things have become associated with “Gayness” in what, a generation, if that? Former President Bill Clinton was derisively called a “Metrosexual” for his liking for expensive haircuts on Air Force One; Presidential hopeful John Edwards received similar treatment for his similar interest in his hair.
When I was coming of age, in the late 80s and early 90s, it was a real sign of growing up if you had a copy of GQ magazine lying around in plain view of visitors at your crib; today, I doubt most younger guys even know what GQ IS. At one point in my life I owned roughly 30 suits and all that came with them-ties, shirts (ALWAYS french-cuff), overcoats, hats, belts, suspenders, shoes-I’ve actually had several ladies (including the current one, LOL) seriously complain that all my clothes were “crowding their space”, and that shopping with me was worse than shopping for themselves. Yet I don’t have a Gay bone in my body. I just like to look good.
Something very bad has happened in the national culture where Nat King Cole & Frank Sinatra morphs into either Adam Lambert or Lil Wayne. And, please don’t get me wrong, I’m not against freedom of expression nor am I a prude; just simply noting that we’ve seemed to turn our collective backs on the idea that being Manly and being Gentlemanly could and often did go hand in hand. Today, the former means being a Jerk and an Asshole; the latter has been relegated to the preserve of the Stonewall Inn.
I’ve known Men-grownassed Men-in my life who’s NEVER owned a suit. Not even one for when, God forbid, they die. I’ve known Men who’s never been on the inside of a Men’s clothing store that actually sells suits, not sneakers and the like. Who don’t know what their shirt size is. Who don’t even wears a watch-an important fashion staple in its own right, what, less than a half century ago? Nearly everyday I get some youngbuck (or worse, a much older guy) asking me for the time, because they see my watch.
It’s sad.
And I think this sentiment that I’m sharing, has even permeated the thinking of the Hip Hop Moguls turned fashion designers in the past few years. Recently I was in Brooklyn’s famed Fulton St Shopping District to do a bit of shopping and stopped at a very nice Men’s clothing store; to my surprise, ALL of the suits I picked out were made by the famous Hip Hop-inspired fashion houses: Mecca, Sean John, Roc-A-Wear and Phat Farm. The next day I noticed rapper 50 Cent on the Rachel Ray show wearing a very nice steel grey suit chatting it up. And he’s not alone – Jay-Z and Sean “P.Diddy” Combs have been seen out and about more in suits and more casual attire than the standard urban B-Boy fare more common to rappers.
Some of you may recall my recent post Are You A Slob?-it was featured at the online Men’s magazine The Spearhead. Could you believe that I was attacked by some of the readers for “being gay”? After you get finished laughing at the ridiculous premise, it kind of makes you sad that the very idea of not looking like a slob is akin to having a love affair with Judy Garland or something.
Wow.
The Obsidian
48 Comments
Well I think one thing you forget is that many men don’t wear suits in the work place anymore.
So the only purpose a suit would have is for interviews and some special events. I think in the past many men were introduced to gentlemanly fashion out of necessity in the work place. So when a man went out to dinner, he was probably in a suit, because that is what he was wearing all day.
Today’s man wear a suit, primarily because he wants to look nice in a similar way to how women like to look nice. The behavior isn’t wrong, but what motivates the behavior is very different than men of the past.
Reminds of this quote from Fight Club.
“Fight Club became the reason to cut
your hair short or trim your fingernails.”
If you look at trends in male hair styles for example.
Throughout history male hair styles were driven primarily out of necessity, not out of innate desires.
Men have historically not had “innate desire” to look good in this way. At least not the way women have.
An example from my own life…
I recently got porcelain veneers(similar to what Brad Pitt/Denzel Washington have)…the guy who did it immediately assumed I was a public speaker or some sort of powerful business person, mainly because he had never had a male client who wasn’t in a situation that called for perfect teeth wanting them….to be honest I got the veneers put on, because before I learned about game, I rationalized that my teeth were the reason I never got laid.
Point is, he couldn’t imagine a man who innately desires to look good.
Even for us black men I think the main reason why many of us wear suits, is to be seen in elevated status relative to white men…at least subconsciously.
Also don’t forget many black men including myself grew up in female dominated homes and may subconsciously share the same values as women.
The rawness had a good article on this.
http://therawness.com/myth-of-the-ghetto-alpha-male/
TG
Hear,hear! My father, born in 1918 and still stylin’, taught his six sons Swank in spades. Yea, even unto my youngest nephew-six and sharp as a tack. Atrocious that most young skells can’t even drag themselves to Value Village. But then again I’m staring 50 in the face.
TG, Hey Man, thanks for chiming in. I think something we both hadn’t considered was the role the Black Church has played in what it is I’m talking about; for one thing, as I’m sure you know, the Black Church was more than a religious thing, but a kind of focal point for so many things in the Black community. For example, until very recently in history, Black Men had few real leadership outlets; the Church allowed him to assume some mantle of leadership, either by being the Pastor/Preacher or by being a Deacon, which in many ways was just as important as being a Preacher itself was. Lots of Black Men dressed the part, regardless of their station in life.
The Obsidian
I like to look good, but I stop well short of being ‘metro’; but still better than most men. Of course a certain level of imperfection; a ‘rough around the edges’ look can be stylish in itself.
The whole bruhaha over being well dressed and groomed among men I think stems from the idea of masculine recalcitrance. It is part of their aloof demeanor. Philosophically they view it as part of their “Asshole Game”; I don’t give a fuck what you think Frame.
That is fundamentally flawed thinking though. The entire idea behind that masculine recalcitrance is that you find yourself as more important; of higher status than others. Not that you don’t care about anything at all.
There is a lot to be said for displaying resourcefulness. That is a big part of human sexual selection. A person’s ability to get by in the world. Being slovenly doesn’t meet that criteria.
I also couldn’t find “Are You a Slob?” over at the Spearhead.
I wore suits for years at work and was glad when the day came that we stopped wearing them. I now mostly wear separates and no tie (unless on business trips out of the country to places where men still wear ties for business). And when I am off duty, I am casual and comfortable. Not slovenly, mind you, but comfortable. Having attended Catholic schools for 12 years with uniforms, and having had to wear a suit for quite a few years when I started working, I’m quite enjoying the dividend of being able to dress more comfortably and casually and really don’t feel the need to play dress up.
Nova, You make an interesting point. Until recently in America history, Black Men enmasse didn’t have as much of a chance to “dress up” for work, so I think this may play a role in things historically. On the other hand, for many Whites, the whole “dressing down” is seen as a way of throwing off conformity, which goes all the way back to the 50s. I think these two dynamics are certainly a part of the mix.
The Obsidian
That could be a factor, too, but I have to say I don’t see it as throwing off conformity, myself, but rather as comfort. I loathe ties and have from the time I was a kid — not because they felt conformist, but because they felt stupid and uncomfortable.
Nova, Yea, it certainly could be a factor. At any rate, it is very noticeable the differences btw say, Black churchgoers and White ones-the former group is almost always decked out to the nines, where the other group flipflops and the like are commonplace. I would think that has to say something about how the two groups perceive things in this regard.
In any event, its very well known that Black Men for example, tend to “peacock” better than do White Men, on average. Some have offered reasons for this, including those along HBD lines. What are your thoughts and observations, historically, on this?
The Obsidian
Excellent advice, which I wish I had the good sense to follow when I was younger.
When I was 30 I got a job with a consulting firm in Washington DC. A friend gave me John Molloy’s “Dress for Success” as a going away/good luck gift, and I worked at it within my budget. Unfortunately, I got transferred to CA so my new wardrobe didn’t get used a whole lot since it didn’t fit in with the local culture there.
Today I wear polo shirts in the summer, and plaid flannels and corduroy pants in the winter. I’m close enough to retirement that I don’t give a shit about stuff like that, even my wife’ teasing me about it.
One other observation: if you shop on Fulton Street, expect merchandise to reflect local preferences. For the stuff you want, you’d be better off at home. Furthermore, as a Philadelphian you know would save a lot since neither PA nor NJ impose sales tax on clothing purchases.
Try the Short Hills Mall next time.
I think it probably has more of a socioeconomic source. In the white community, I think things have become very “common man” oriented — that is, hierarchy and the outward appearances of it are not commonly displayed any longer. Sure, people have their BMW SUVs and so on, but the mode of dress is more or less the same across classes, in terms of being casual and so on — although the *quality* of clothing differs. This is the ethos of egalitarianism that pervades white society, despite the very clear material lack of egalitarianism. We may not all be middle class, but we all sure try to act like we are. I can’t remember the last time I heard a white person refer to themselves as “upper class” — it would be like calling onself a leper or a child molester.
The black community doesn’t seem to have that same sense of “leveling” as has happened in the white community, probably because it has so long been dominated by the underclass.
Isn’t this a good example of cultural territory being conquered and taken over by women?
What I’m trying to say is that women tend to “take over” whatever technological or cultural inventions that men invent.
For example rock music was a manly activity, and now we see alot of female rock musicians. Perhaps women has also “conquered fashion” and therefore we as men are unconsciously treating it as less desirable for men?
American Pop Culture caters to the lowest common denominator (that covers almost every citizen in this country about now) and it is EXTREMELY low class.
Smiley Cyrus who is what – all of 15 or 16? – performed a ho routine and her “proud parents” applauded from the audience. Unfortunately no one takes into account that 9, 10, 11 and 12 year olds watch these performances and “look up to” the performers as “role models”.
Disgusting.
Now, now, DADT. Cyrus wasn’t pole dancing. She was merely dancing with a pole. Can’t you see the difference?
Watching “Precious” right now. Are there really moms in the ‘hood like that one???
Tiger’s Wife Changed Her Story
http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/28/tiger-woods-elin-nordegren-crash-suv-cops-story-florida-highway-patrol/
As we first reported, Tiger had a conversation with a friend yesterday, in which he said his wife had confronted him over reports he was involved with another woman … and that his wife scratched his face up during the argument. Tiger told the friend he then left the house, started driving off and his wife then came out with a golf club, striking the vehicle. Tiger then became distracted and hit the hydrant and then a nearby tree.
The moral of that, Lucifer is – DON’T CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE.
(then you won’t have to worry about gettin’ hurt)
Yep, DADT, because that’s exactly what you’d say if the sexes were reversed, right?
Obsidian,
Read this article about how misandrist groups have diverted stimulus funds towards their pet causes (and away from infrastructure-building that might employ men), thus deepening the mancession :
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=2
TFH,
Yup, I’m very familiar with CHS’ Weekly Standard piece. As we’ve both agreed, it will be very interesting to see how the coming decade will shake itself out in the run up to 2020.
The Obsidian
A black woman’s review of “Precious” here:
http://www.blackyouthproject.com/blog/2009/11/i-saw-the-movie-precious-but-what-about-her-mother-mary/
And more comments by disappointed black women below. Why does Tyler Perry always seek to portray black women/mothers in a bad light?
DADT, If you’re interested in a compelling review of Precious, please see Ricky Raw’s three part series at his blog The Rawness. I’ve also discussed Oprah in a recent post here at TOF.
The Obsidian
Obsidian,
One thing I am worried about is that feminism is very profitable for governments, and thus they have an vested interest in maintaining it.
This could make things persist or worsen for far longer than if just market forces on women were to take effect.
TFH, Understood-but, we’ve both agreed, coming to the same or similar conclusions via completely differing methods, that corrections on the various markets is inevitable in any event, regardless how hard the gov’t tries to keep things going-IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
Yes?
The Obsidian
Yes?
Yes, that is correct.
Reading a few too many horror stories of institutionalized misandry (and reading too many sky-is-falling comments at The Spearhead) makes me waver, which it should not.
Our focus should simply be to not get ensnared in the various trap, both active (court) and passive (Betatude).
On a similar note of market forces, two areas of bloated costs in the US – healthcare and education, both have articles today itself on CNN Finance about how globalization is forcing down costs :
Insurers embrace medical tourism :
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/28/when-thailand-is-in-network-u-s-employers-embrace-medical-to/#continued
All you can learn for $29/month online :
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/20/smallbusiness/edufire.fsb/index.htm
Tiger Woods ‘told friend his wife had gone ghetto on him’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/tigerwoods/6683141/Tiger-Woods-told-friend-his-wife-had-gone-ghetto-on-him.html
Tiger Woods told a friend hours before his night-time car crash that his wife Elin Nordegren had “gone ghetto” on him, according to reports.
People don’t wear watches because punctuality has gone out of style. I’m sometimes surprised by how casual some people look at Mass. There was a girl there today with a dirty t-shirt and some old jeans. And I know she’s not poor because the rest of her family looked well-kept. My dad would’ve whipped my butt for that.
B&G, Yes, what you say is true; still, in comparison with the more “Black” churches, like say, Baptist ones, even today you’re much more likely to find folk decked out-not so much at the White churches. Hmm.
The Obsidian
I think it varies, really. Some of the mainline Protestant ones still have a lot of well-dressed white folks on Sunday morning. In the Orthodox Church I would say it’s generational: the older folks tend to be wearing ties, while younger ones will often go tieless but perhaps wear a jacket, while some of the even younger folks will be even more casual. So there seems to be a generational thing as well.
I go to a predominantly black Baptist church sometimes and I’m always amazed at the clothes. And the hats!
In the Roman Catholic Church there’s three groups: slovenly, modest but dowdy, and modest but stylish. I’m seeing more and more women wearing headscarves at church, too. Never saw that as a kid but it’s apparently making a comeback, even among the younger women.
B&G, Nova, Clearly, it doesn’t take an egghead to see that there’s a huge difference btw the White and Black churches in terms of dress and appearance; as B&G noted, Black Women do the darned thing with the “Church Crowns”, aka the stylish and often very elaborate hats, and that’s just for starters. Easter Sunday is like one big fashion show in Black America.
Like I said, some have speculated as to why this difference is; some have suggested that not only is it cultural, but perhaps even genetic. I’m still on the fence, but what I DO know, is that Black folks overall tend to dress better than Whites when it comes to church. Why?
What do you think?
The Obsidian
I think it’s for the reasons I said above — the dominant culture among American whites currently is to mainstream downward — that is, we all try to seem like we are relaxed middle class Americans. Anything showy is considered up-tight and snobby. There are, of course, remaining pockets of true snobbery, but for the most part most upper middle income whites want to look like “everyman” rather than as a member of some kind of elite.
Black culture does not appear to be this way — there appears to be less of an emphasis on everyone trying to appear and act like an “everyman”. So they dress up to show off — and that’s accepted and admired, whereas among whites it really isn’t in this culture.
Nova, Yes, I’ve been giving the weird and odd American view of “class” a lot of thought lately and plan to write more about it. Many Whites just want to give the appearance of an “everyman” yet they have no problems partaking of all the bennies of their station, in a whole number of ways.
As for African Americans, well I think at least part of their thing with bling, if I may put it that way, was bcause historically we were left out from getting said bling for so long, that it’s a major achievement on a host of levels to have the outer trappings of having “made it”.
The Obsidian
That could be.
Among whites it certainly is paradoxical — I mean you have upper income whites driving mercedes SUVs but wearing sweatpants and a baseball cap. It’s a very odd mixture.
Nova, Yes, in a sense it’s part of the “SWPL” culture, of which I am sure you are familiar. Some say its part of the guilt that comes with being so conspicuously advantaged. Perhaps.
The Obsidian
That’s probably a part of the underlying reason, but at this point I think it’s also just a cultural expectation, too, quite independent of any sense of guilt. It’s simply become unacceptable socially to behave in a way that suggests you are an elite, even if you clearly are one.
Nova, The question is, WHY is it “socially unacceptable” amongst Whites to act in a way befitting their social upperclass status? I for one am not so convinced this is the case across the board; read Half Sigma for more on this.
Comments?
The Obsidian
The United States is the only country in the world I’ve been to where the higher classes seek to emulate the lower classes. Everywhere else, people are consciously trying to move up and improve themselves.
DADT, Please tell us where you are from originally, and how the class issue was handled there?
Thanks.
The Obsidian
Nova’s right: everyone’s trying to act like they’re just lower-middle class. I have a friend who’s a millionaire and he still wears his favorite ripped jeans and dirty baseball cap. “I’m just one of the guys!” Uh, sure.
I know upper-class people who barely eat with any sort of table manners; they act like they were raised in a barn. They cultivate that impression to look cool.
DADT, that’s because in the US the lower class drives the popular culture. Even among the lower class, everyone tries to emulate the most anti-social among them, the gangstas.
It’s moving into Europe, too. I have a German cousin who’s middle class and listens to gangsta rap.
B&G, The question is, WHY is this so common in both the USA, and now more commonly, in certain parts of Europe? What’s the underlying motivations and reasons for what we see? Also: please see Half Sigma’s views on Class at his site. He gives this under his definitions of “NAM” and “SWPL”.
The Obsidian
WHY is this so common in both the USA, and now more commonly, in certain parts of Europe? What’s the underlying motivations and reasons for what we see?
The underlying reason? It’s the underlying philosophy. The current underlying philosophy of the white west is relativism. Relativism eschews any idea of hierarchy, by definition. It smushes everything down like the blunt side of a knife against a sandwich. And the result is the creation of an egalitarian ethos that similarly smushes everyone down to a least common denominator. This has impacted whites more than blacks because this philosophy comes from white culture, and is likely the final philosophy of white culture, by all appearances.
Nova, Hmm. Interesting theory. Are you familiar with Half Sigma’s writings on class?
The Obsidian
_______________
Obsidian, where are your observations of white church worshippers sloppy/casual dress coming from? Not saying you’re right or wrong about those, but what do you mean by white churches?
An episcopalian church in yuppie Gaithersburg? a southern baptist one in Alabama, or maybe a pentecostal one in Kansas?
I go to an ethnic Roman Catholic parish and the general attire seems very conservative, sometimes on the formal side (men in suits & ties, women in dresses; kids/teens too).
I’m asking because sometimes I pick up, maybe wrongly, on a psychological investment on your part in pointing out real and perceived failings on the part of white folk relative to blacks.
___________________
________________
Novaseeker, intersting theory on intra-white class leveling… but this goes along, paradoxically, with SWPL/Brahmin whites’ extreme contempt for lower class whites.
________________
Nova, Hmm. Interesting theory. Are you familiar with Half Sigma’s writings on class?
Not my schtick, I’m afraid.
I agree with PA, though, that it depends on the church and so on. AS I said, the Orthodox Church I attend in downtown DC has a lot of suits and ties, but younger people more casually dress.
Nova, I’d be very interested to know what your thoughts are of Half Sigma’s take on class.
PA,
My observation of Whites in this regard isn’t scientifically based, but just noticing it over the years. Many of the more Presbyterian/Methodist type White Churches tend to have the more slovenly looking White folk attending, but even if we take what you and Nova say into account that doesn’t change the fact that clearly, at least when it comes to church, Black folks, from coast to coast, like to look good and really do it up.
Now, the question has to be: WHY?
Hmm?
The Obsidian
PA, I go to a majority-white Catholic church. I’ve been to majority-black Catholic churches near here, as well. And there’s a difference even there. It’s a cultural thing, I think.
At the white churches you sometimes see people wearing jeans and t-shirts or women in slacks and a plain sweater. At the black churches they are decked out. They wear clothes most white people would wear to a wedding.
The hats alone are absolutely extraordinary. Like this:
http://www.harlemsheaven.com/church-hats