America gives every appearance of being a nation besotted with trashiness – divorce, illegitimacy, casual Fridays. —P. J. O’Rourke
Just where do we draw the line for what is appropriate for professional business attire
Walk into most any office today and notice how people are dressed. When one compares what is acceptable professional attire in today’s environment, it is difficult to image that less than 50 years ago there was no such thing as casual Fridays. White-collar workers actually work starched shirts with white collars. Women wore dresses or, at the very least, a well-accessorised pantsuit, and that was only acceptable when the outdoor temperatures were frigid.
My father didn’t even own a pair of jeans until the 1980s, and then it was a practical purchase, not one of comfort. He hated those jeans.
The first week I was working at a funeral home in college, I was given the task of mowing the tiny bit of grass in front of the building. I asked if I could go back to the dorm and change into more appropriate clothing. I was told, “No, we’re professional. You need to learn to do everything in a suit and tie.” So, I did.
Looking around, I see only a handful of places where strict professional dress codes are still in place: courtrooms, newscasts (only applies to the talent behind the desk), award shows, and, to this day, funeral homes. Everywhere else has gone casual, not just on Friday, but every day of the week. Even worse, a number of casual offices still observe Casual Fridays. How does one get more casual than casual?
What happened to our sense of decorum and professionalism? When did we stop taking pride in how we dress on a daily basis? Why is even Casual Friday too much of a strain for some people?
Blame the leisure suit. Blame former President Jimmy Carter. Blame that whole self-awareness movement. Blame Lululemon.
Men’s leisure suits were an attempt in the 1970s to add some style and flair to men’s wear. Lapels went wide. Ties went fat. Fabrics went synthetic. Good taste went out the fucking window. Half-way through that decade, the ties were dropped in favor of pattern-printed silk shirts that were left unbuttoned far, far, too often. Those who are old enough to remember comedians Stave Martin and Dan Akroyd’s skits as “two wild and crazy guys” know what I mean. There was still a nod toward appropriate dress as they were, technically still suits, and depending on the year, matching vests as well. Still, they classify as one of the worst mistakes fashion has ever conceived.
Jimmy Carter was one of the few presidents elected who was not a politician or lawyer by trade. Born and raised in Plains, Georgia, part of Mr. Carter’s appeal to this day is that he’s still basically a peanut farmer. He’s a down-to-earth, hard-working, no-nonsense kind of person with enough natural charm to make anyone comfortable. Being a farmer, though, he was unaccustomed to wearing a suit. He hadn’t often worn one as governor of Georgia, and during those moments when he was not meeting with other heads of state, he didn’t particularly enjoy wearing a suit at the White House. As a result, the White House dress code was relaxed. The seed for Casual Friday had been planted.
When the White House relaxed, the entire nation followed suit, so to speak. I still remember starting school in the fall of 1977 and being told that bluejeans were now acceptable attire. That move alone was shocking. It was during this period that the concept of Casual Friday was first introduced. No one actually intended to “dress down” the entire week, but since Fridays tend to have fewer client meetings and a less critical atmosphere, the move seemed reasonably safe.
Then came the whole self-awareness movement in the late 80s and early 90s. Having survived the suffocating strictness of the Reagan years and pretending to be something we weren’t, Americans began to “get in touch” with their individuality. Being off-trend became trendy. Khaki was everywhere because it was more professional than bluejeans but more comfortable than a suit. Men stopped wearing ties because the open shirt collar was “more relatable.” Women stopped wearing heels and sandals became a really big thing.
Then, some idiot invented the flip-flop. Born from the Southern California surf culture, with which we were all enamored, shoe companies took a serious hit as the nation decided it wanted to be as close to barefoot as possible. To this day, I know far too many people whose entire shoe wardrobe consists only of flip-flops. Many of you may even remember the controversy in 2005 when members of Northwestern University’s national championship women’s lacrosse team wore flip-flops to the White House. Granted, they were nicer than your every-day flip-flops, but they were still flip-flops. Casual Friday had taken over.
Now, Casual Friday is going a little further. Not content with casual button-up shirts and loose-fitting slacks from H&M, “athleisure” is beginning to leave the yoga studio and creep into the workplace. An article published yesterday by Bloomberg confirms the trend. Sales of activewear are up 15 percent while much of the higher-end fashion industry languishes in the doldrums. With celebrities like Beyoncè pushing athleisure with her Ivy Park line, more people are trying to figure out ways to go from the office to the gym or the yoga studio without having to carry a gym bag.
This new form of Casual Friday might not be quite so bothersome if people only worked out after leaving the office, but that’s not the case. More people workout in the morning or during their lunch break. They sweat. Then, for reasons I can only chalk up to oxygen deprivation during their workout, these otherwise-sane people think they can just toss a long sweater or t-shirt over their workout clothes and be fine. No, I’m sorry, you stink and your hands are sweaty. Take a fucking shower and change clothes, please.
An inconvenient turn of events left me eating lunch at The Cracker Barrel yesterday, something I had not planned on doing when I left the house wearing slacks that, in my opinion, were a little too loose. As I looked around the dining room, I noticed an interesting dichotomy. Women approximately my age or older were all dressed in a manner we might have considered casual back in the 70s, but was nonetheless quite well styled with appropriate accessories, their hair coifed, and gentle applications of makeup. Younger women, however, were all wearing jeans, or yoga pants, or shorts, all with flip-flops, no makeup, and their hair tossed in something that might have been a bun or a ponytail but somehow not quite either. The difference between the generations was startling.
Casual Friday has its place, and one should be free to wear clothes that are comfortable. Yet, I cannot help but mourn the loss of professionalism in how we dress. I feel sad when people no longer take any pride in how they dress on a daily basis, or the manner in which they present themselves in public. I’ll even admit to being biased against people I meet whose choice of clothing is grossly inappropriate. When I shake someone’s hand for the first time, a cold and sweaty palm are not what I want to encounter.
It’s Friday, and there’s no reason to not be casual about it, but good taste has a limit. Please try to not cross that line.
When Good Judgement Matters
Property may be destroyed and money may lose its purchasing power; but, character, health, knowledge and good judgement will always be in demand under all conditions. —Roger Babson
We don’t always exercise good judgement, and for many that’s okay, but for a few such errors are unforgivable
We all make errors in judgement; most are not terribly big and their impact does not extend beyond ourselves. No big deal, right? We learn our lesson and, more often than not, avoid making the same mistake again.
Other times, though, those errors in judgement are more critical. For a photographer, they most often come down to whether or not we take a specific shot. We don’t always have time to mull over the consequences or poll all the parties involved. You see something happening, something you know is significant, and you have to make a decision. Now. Without consultation. It is in those moments that character and good judgement matter.
While we can excuse ourselves, and each other, of momentary lapses in judgement, we expect more from our world’s leaders. In fact, good judgement and character are two of the most fundamental characteristics we typically demand of anyone holding public office. Being a leader inherently involves making decisions under pressure, using careful diplomacy and selecting just the right vocabulary without implying undue aggression. Without some manner of care and good judgement, we could easily find ourselves in conflicts we could easily lose.
Consider the kerfluffle currently surrounding the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Normally a very careful person, she is typically aware that any statement she makes publicly is likely to be dissected differently by everyone listening. Apparently, though, her personal opinions don’t always match her official statements. At least, that seems to be the case as she was recorded being critical of Chinese diplomats during their visit to Great Britain last year. The circumstances, a garden party at Buckingham Palace, in a light rain, were such that the queen quite likely was not aware that she was being recorded. When she agrees with a senior police officer that the behaviour of the Chinese toward British ambassador Barbara Woodward was rude, the whole world took notice. As small and unassuming a statement as it was, made in what was assumed to be a private conversation, the result could have long-term detrimental effect on UK-Chinese relations.
That’s not the only matter of judgement that has blown up in the face of our British friends of late. Just prior to an international summit in London on political corruption in government, Prime Minister David Cameron was heard telling Queen Elizabeth that two countries attending the summit, Nigeria and Afghanistan, are “possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world.” Never mind that the Prime Minister’s statement was correct. In Transparency International’s 2015 corruption perception index, Afghanistan lists near the bottom at 167, ahead of only Somalia and North Korea, Nigeria was at 136. Yet, 10 Downing Street has spent the time since attempting to walk back the statement and one can imagine that introductions at the summit this morning were likely quite tense.
Every decision we make reflects upon who we are as a person and our judgement reveals the truth of our character. Can we be trusted to tell the truth when it matters? Will we make the correct decision in a critical situation? Those matters of judgement are important when what one does has the potential to affect millions of people. One needn’t even be an elected official for those moments of critical thinking have to be precise and correct.
For example, counterfeiting of luxury fashion brands is a global problem costing billions of dollars. Battling the problem has proven challenging as the ability to crack down on pirates in Asian countries, especially China, has been difficult. So, when Washington, D. C.-based International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition admitted Chinese Internet super company Alibaba to the group last month, more than a few companies were upset. Both Gucci and Michael Kors have left the coalition, and others may follow. Why? Many of those same companies are suing Alibaba in federal court for “knowingly encouraging and profiting from the sale of counterfeit goods on its e-commerce platforms,” according to the Associated Press. Admitting Alibaba was a judgement call by the IACC that may ultimately affect the price of luxury goods around the world if that decision proves to impede a solution to counterfeiting.
Then, there’s the case of Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry. Apparently Mr. Henry uses Twitter’s direct messaging feature to chat back and forth with his followers. One of those followers happened to be a stripper in Las Vegas. After several exchanges, she invited Mr. Henry to visit her at the club where she works. He did. So far, no harm, no foul, assuming Mr. Henry was being honest with his wife. A lot of married guys go to strip clubs. But then, the two took the relationship further into a full-blown affair that lasted over a year. Then, both InTouch and the National Enquirer got a hold of the story. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it’s a private matter for Mr. Henry to address with his family, no?
Apparently not. Ed’s boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes told the Washington Post, “This raises serious questions about Ed’s lack of judgement, especially given his position as a journalist.” As much as I often dislike Mr. Ailes, he understands the true gravity of the situation. In his position as a White House correspondent, Mr. Henry has to make quite and critical decisions as to which stories are important and which are not. He influences the information and perspective of news delivered to millions of people. If his judgement is lacking anywhere then one has to question whether he is making similar mistakes on the job.
As I said at the beginning, for the millions of us who are not public servants, who are not responsible for dispensing critical information, whose actions are not likely to affect global markets, our errors in judgement affect very few people and very few people have any reason to care. When those errors are committed by someone who holds an element of public trust, however, no matter what it may be, those judgement calls become extremely important.
We are looking at one of the nastiest presidential elections ever this year. When we consider the judgement of the two leading participants in that race, we have every reason to be worried. One has been married three times, and on at least one of those occasions was nothing short of cruel in dispatching his wife. Another has played light and loose with classified information and implemented policies and procedures that, at the very least, challenged foreign relations and, possibly, might have contributed to the endangerment of American lives abroad.
Good judgement matters. Even the head of Fox News knows good judgement matters. Do we really want to elect a president whose judgements have repeatedly been grossly and dangerously flawed? Don’t we deserve better?
You know we do.
Share this:
Like this: