The perils of being a civilized gentleman
As I was rummaging around the retail venues of our fair land, in the hopes of scoring--on behalf of those whom I've offsprung--good Mother's Day loot I took all convenient opportunities to glance by the men's departments in the hopes there might be something for me to put in my letter to Santa Claus or just purchase outright.
The pickings get slimmer and slimmer at the higher-end department stores. Neiman-Marcus, if I may shout out, is an egregious example. It is currently (at least for those of us saddled with good taste AND a Y chromosome) the purveyor of an æsthetic that can only be called Eurotrash Pimp, or if you go by their own copy, "What the well-dressed panderer is wearing this season at Cap d'Antibes." There is stuff so hideous that it broadcasts its outrageous cost; this, I suspect, is the point.
Further along the scale is the imbecilic advice proffered by their menswear guru. Who offers such pearls of wisdom as "Contrary to what your father always said, plain front trousers--not pleated trousers, make you look slimmer." This, as anyone with a passing knowledge of men's apparel knows, is the most egregious bilge. First of all, you have to realize that nothing looks better (i.e. slimmer) than BEING SLIM. Having said that, your trousers must fit well and then, if you want to maximize your je-ne-sais-quoi, you opt for forward pleated trousers. Then the idiocy is compounded by suggesting--openly!--that trousers oughtn't be cuffed or have ANY break at the instep.
For those of you who purchase apparel for men (be it because you happen to be a fellow tribesman, or are saddled with a sartorially hopeless specimen for a father, sibling, husband, etc.) let me speak plainly. This way lies madness.
Further insanity ensues. Pink ties on pink shirts? As a POWER color? Next thing you know we'll be discussing taupe Nehru jackets and mauve snoods and crinolines as the ultimate in butch outdoorsy-ness. The shoes were another distressing mess. Do not get me started on Tod's ::cough, cough:: "driving shoes" which look like something like the "flats" my grandmother would have worn in the 1970s when she wished to have looked stylish and yet comfortable and also match her very 1970s (i.e. burnt orange) kitchen. The fact the models all look like heroin addicts who have been subjected to either dreadlocks or Edward Scissorhands doesn't help matters any.
In a certain way, these trends all point to those who are--or would like to pass off as--nouveau riche. This allows the average sentient being to give them the widest imaginable berth and for people of discernment to quicken their step in the opposite direction. Were I to be a single, unattached woman, I'd use this as litmus test to determine who would not make a suitable lifetime mate. A man wearing a shirt with multipink DIAGONAL stripes, a pink tie, yellow Paul Smith trousers and orange Tod's driving shoes is not, to be utterly blunt, a man suitable for the tasks of husband and father. This is a man overdosing on hallucinogens attempting to get dressed for a Miami Vice party while blindfolded.
The pickings get slimmer and slimmer at the higher-end department stores. Neiman-Marcus, if I may shout out, is an egregious example. It is currently (at least for those of us saddled with good taste AND a Y chromosome) the purveyor of an æsthetic that can only be called Eurotrash Pimp, or if you go by their own copy, "What the well-dressed panderer is wearing this season at Cap d'Antibes." There is stuff so hideous that it broadcasts its outrageous cost; this, I suspect, is the point.
Further along the scale is the imbecilic advice proffered by their menswear guru. Who offers such pearls of wisdom as "Contrary to what your father always said, plain front trousers--not pleated trousers, make you look slimmer." This, as anyone with a passing knowledge of men's apparel knows, is the most egregious bilge. First of all, you have to realize that nothing looks better (i.e. slimmer) than BEING SLIM. Having said that, your trousers must fit well and then, if you want to maximize your je-ne-sais-quoi, you opt for forward pleated trousers. Then the idiocy is compounded by suggesting--openly!--that trousers oughtn't be cuffed or have ANY break at the instep.
For those of you who purchase apparel for men (be it because you happen to be a fellow tribesman, or are saddled with a sartorially hopeless specimen for a father, sibling, husband, etc.) let me speak plainly. This way lies madness.
Further insanity ensues. Pink ties on pink shirts? As a POWER color? Next thing you know we'll be discussing taupe Nehru jackets and mauve snoods and crinolines as the ultimate in butch outdoorsy-ness. The shoes were another distressing mess. Do not get me started on Tod's ::cough, cough:: "driving shoes" which look like something like the "flats" my grandmother would have worn in the 1970s when she wished to have looked stylish and yet comfortable and also match her very 1970s (i.e. burnt orange) kitchen. The fact the models all look like heroin addicts who have been subjected to either dreadlocks or Edward Scissorhands doesn't help matters any.
In a certain way, these trends all point to those who are--or would like to pass off as--nouveau riche. This allows the average sentient being to give them the widest imaginable berth and for people of discernment to quicken their step in the opposite direction. Were I to be a single, unattached woman, I'd use this as litmus test to determine who would not make a suitable lifetime mate. A man wearing a shirt with multipink DIAGONAL stripes, a pink tie, yellow Paul Smith trousers and orange Tod's driving shoes is not, to be utterly blunt, a man suitable for the tasks of husband and father. This is a man overdosing on hallucinogens attempting to get dressed for a Miami Vice party while blindfolded.
Comments