They have been indoctrinated by The Man to look down on you. And I'm pretty sure that The Man is the guy in the Men's Warehouse commercials.
You're gonna like the way you look. I guarantee it.
I would hate you in that situation, because I hate social-norm-induced sweating. But this may be part of why I'm not a lawyer-- the truly tort-a-licious are different from you and me.
I hate social-norm-induced sweating
Umm...
I've never understood all the suit-hate, at least in the autumn/winter. Wool suit pants are softer, warmer, and more comfortable than jeans - the only advantage of jeans is that you're less reluctant to mess them up, but I really don't spend all that much time at work playing in the mud. And the shirt/suitjacket combination gets you comfortably through a very wide range of temperatures, particularly if you throw in a scarf for outdoors.
If we're talking about the summer, or someplace that's always hot, jeans still suck -- nothing compares to a nice cotton skirt or dress.
For raw status, rather than comfort, the person in a suit wins a head-to-head status confrontation, barring circumstances where the two people are already placed in a hierarchy (Bill Gates confronting a besuited minion). You can say that you prefer being able to wear jeans and not worry about status, but not worrying about status isn't the same thing as having it.
tort-a-licious
This, I like.
I do think it's different for women. What really suck aren't suit pants, but ties.
For raw status, rather than comfort, the person in a suit wins a head-to-head status confrontation
Really? This is my question. Assuming (and this is hypothetical, since I have no idea what these people make) that two people make roughly the same amount of money, isn't the one who gets to wear jeans to work higher in the status hierarchy?
Assuming (and this is hypothetical, since I have no idea what these people make) that two people make roughly the same amount of money, isn't the one who gets to wear jeans to work higher in the status hierarchy?
No. The one who makes a lot of money and gets to wear jeans is a nerd. Nerds never have as much status as Muffy and Biff.
I think, in the larger societal hierarchy, law-talkin' guys are higher than intarwebs.
Former attorney says: jealous. The younger attorneys, blindingly so.
Since class in America is subjective, you both get to look down on the other. Is this a great country or what?
I think it depends on the section of the country that you're in. In NYC, suits matter. But that's a result of the sad truth that in NYC, I-bankers really are Masters of the Universe. In DC, it's probably lobbyists who rule the earth, so more casual suits are the thing. Boston - I could see suits being for losers. West Coast - esp. in the Bay Area, where geeks are gods - I could definitely see suits being for losers.
Part of it is also a function of who easily your job allows for differentiation in abilities.
As a woman, I have more latitude in what I can wear and still count as business-dress - it's not as simple as the suit/anything else line that men have. For me, at least, when dealing with people outside my own office, the closer what I'm wearing is to a standard business suit (menswear style jacket, either straight skirt or pants in a matching fabric) the more likely it is that people will defer to me (do what I ask promptly, listen with attention when I speak). I don't think this is a gender issue here, I think people are really habituated to defer to the suit.
(Now, the jeans-wearer may be more comfortable, and happier in his work. I just think that his putting on a suit will increase the chances that other people will defer to him.)
Assuming (and this is hypothetical, since I have no idea what these people make) that two people make roughly the same amount of money, isn't the one who gets to wear jeans to work higher in the status hierarchy?
If two horses finish a race in a tie, there's a sense in which the one carrying more weight is really faster -- it came out even despite a handicap. That doesn't mean that the lead weights helped it go faster. The suit gives you more status -- if you can maintain the same status without it, that's great, but it doesn't mean that the jeans are a higher-status marker, just like the lead weights don't give the horse more speed.
Err... "how" not "who"; I'm not even reading the rest for w-lfs-n Checking.
Timbot, I have no idea what your second paragraph means, but I think your first paragraph is right. Which might explain why Bay Area Moira says suits suck, and NY Lizard thinks they're fine.
Ah, LB, I think you're looking at status in a broader context than I intended. Yes, if besuited dude and I go to a store, he'll be favored, but I'm asking just about the dynamic in the elevator between two people who both know the other has a professional job.
I've never understood all the suit-hate
For me, it's about the prep time. The jeans outfit usually doesn't involve ironing, and might not require shaving. I can be jeans-presentable within about ten minutes of waking up. If I have to put on a suit and tie, it'll take closer to 30. That's time I could have spent sleeping or having breakfast.
It depends on where you wear the suit in Boston. Work and stuff is ok. But my sister, her friend and I were in a bar on Friday night, and a group of seven guys came in wearing suits. This is a community bar (cramped and noisy), so of course everyone stopped and turned to look. I mean, who wears a suit out to get wasted?
For me, it's about the prep time.
Huh, and for me that operates in the opposite direction. If I'm going to wear something more casual, it has to be moderately fashiony/matchy; in a lot offices where a guy can wear jeans and a t-shirt, a woman would still look odd unless she was in something that could be described as an outfit. As a complete slob, I find the thinking involved in coordinating a little knit top, casual pants, and shoes much more of an effort than Suit. Shirt.
Ogged is right on the tie. That's the real pain.
I think most law offices in NYC are now business-casual; I know mine is. For some reason, this doesn't include well-groomed (i.e. not ripped), well-fitting jeans. Which is frankly just silly, because at that point we're talking about the distinction between two different types of fabric, and one is professional while the other is not.
Well, it's symbolic, and that's all that dress-codes ever are. My firm is business casual all summer, and business the rest of the year. I actually prefer it, both because it means that I have to do less worrying about fashionableness (or more realistically, worrying that I'm being judged as unkempt or unprofessional because of insufficient fashionableness) and because as a youngish woman, I can use all the status edge I can get.
LB, interestingly (or maybe not so), the female attorneys in my office who get ahead most quickly are the ones who are the most fashionably-dressed. As opposed to the ones who wear suits every day.
Which no doubt speaks to the institutional sexism in places like this, but I'm sure you don't need an education on that.
Well -- you have the freedom to put on a suit should you choose, or you can go in jeans. They, on the other hand, are more or less forced by social constraint into suits. So at first glance you are a priori better off than they are.
Unless there is some correlation between jobs that require suits and jobs that are highly prestigious. (Which for the most part there is). In which case (i.e. in reality) they can look down at you because they know, by simple virtue of the fact that you are not wearing a suit, that your job is not prestigious and that your existence means little to nothing.
That has some initial plausibility, JT, but what, in fact, are the prestigious jobs that require suits?
Tell me about it. (Moderate snarling noises.)
As someone with very little interest in or skill with fashion, the more formal the office is, the smaller the gap. In a nice suit and a shirt, I'm doing okay, even if not as well as another woman with a just-so fashiony outfit. In a casual office, I look comparatively much worse in chinos and a sweater than she does in a different, more casual, but still just-so fashiony outfit. The formality flattens out the scope for competition.
Ah. I guess that's about the size of things here, too.
I think the no jeans rule goes back to the whole "only ranchers and miners wear jeans" idea.
I actually like the suit (the suit sans tie is tops for me), since I have no earthly idea what looks fashionable otherwise. It's basically "look good for dummies."
Suits aren't that bad. Ties can be a pain. But the suit fabric tends to be very confortable. And, it makes it easy to get dressed.
NorCal has been business casual for a while now. It really depends on client expectations. If clients generally like or are favorably influenced by you wearing a suit, then you wear a suit. If clients generally dislike or are unfavorably influenced by you wearing a suit, then you don't wear a suit.
contra Timbot, I would say that DC is much more suit-driven than NYC.
If you work in a govt. office, you always have to wear a suit, no matter what level you're at; in NYC, the BSDs in I-banking only wear suits when meeting with clients, and never if you're an analyst/research/trader.
And DC is very anti-fashion, near as I can tell.
Yeah D.C. seems suit-conscious, but in a different way than N.Y. I remember reading an interview with a tailor who makes custom suits, and he somewhat wistfully remarked that Washingtonians only wanted the standard 100 or 110 sack cloth suits, not the shiny mob-style suits you see in New York (or Vegas, for that matter.) So, suits yes, stylish no.
I think you're confusing the signifier with the signified. As a guy who used to wear expensive suits, I can tell you I am jealous that you get more comfy signifiying threads but (to the extent I am status-seeking) I am disdainful of what your threads signify (which is one reason I don't wear them).
Wow. This answer is pompous on so many levels.
jealous or disdainful
Both. I have to wear at least business casual. Those who wish to climb the ladder at this office wear suits. The only people I envy are the bike messengers. But more for their life-style than for their (admittedly highly interesting) outfits.
For me, it's about the prep time. The jeans outfit usually doesn't involve ironing, and might not require shaving.
For me, it is the reverse. Because I typically wear a jacket and tie, I can get away with not shaving and still look respectable. Were I to wear more casual clothing, I would feel a greater need to shave everyday, as well as other time-consuming stuff like getting haircuts more often, etc. Also, if you are used to putting on a tie every day (not a full business suit, mind you, just a tie and sport coat), you can select one and put it on much more quickly than the time it takes to shave. Also, if you wear a sport coat, you can get away with a somewhat-wrinkled shirt, because the coat covers the wrinkles, so there is no need to iron anything.
"I've never understood all the suit-hate, at least in the autumn/winter. Wool suit pants are softer, warmer, and more comfortable than jeans - the only advantage of jeans is that you're less reluctant to mess them up, but I really don't spend all that much time at work playing in the mud."
Wool makes me sweat like mad if I even think about it, let alone am in the same room with it. Put me in a wool suit, and you have a puddle of perspiration with some wool soaking in the middle of it. And the puddle is jittering constantly, because of the non-stop unbearable itching.
Jeans and cotton are lovely and soft and wonderful.
Ties don't particularly bother me; overly small collar-sizes do.
And, incidentally, it's not easy to find clothes of any sort when you're short and dumpy.
What's wrong with ties, Joe and ogged? I'm down with ties. My Alter Ego is all correct about the time it takes to put on a tie versus shave, and I hardly ever wear ties.
But then, I'd be down with suits if the nice ones didn't cost so butt-ass much and if wearing a suit didn't associate one with the type of person (eg, I-bankers, lawyers, Chet) who wears a suit.
THe person with the higher status is the one to whom it never occurs to wonder about comparable status.
Jeans are nice. I like suits, too. I do believe that nice wool pants are much more comfy than even $100 jeans. Ties are fine as well.
Let it be noted that w-lfs-n and I commented at the same time.
SCMT and tweedledopey,
I've noticed a real change in Boston. I moved back here about 6 months ago. I hadn't been here regularly since about 1998. There is so much more business casual than there used to be, although lawyers still tend to wear suits.
I should also say that I don't have the negative suit-guy (Chet) stereotype. But then, I don't live in an urban area.
I have a hard time getting shirts that fit perfectly right around my neck. Buttoning the top button tends to be constricting by itself. And, the tie doesn't help.
If I'm going to wear something more casual, it has to be moderately fashiony/matchy.
LB's 100% right about this. I'm in school now (hurrah for wearing whatever I want!), but when I was working it was much easier to wear a suit; they are generally flattering and acceptable. If the dress code was business casual it was a lot harder; it's not impossible to negotiate the gap between looking ultra-fashionable (and thus overly trendy and unprofessional) or local librarian-dumpy, which is what nice pants and a polo-type or button-down shirt does instantly to me.
Plus, like b-wo said, if you're in a suit, you can get away with less than perfect grooming everywhere else. If you dress down, everything else has to be polished.
I don't shave my face, though.
What about the guys who work in their pajamas? I guess you don't see them as often, but I'm jealous of those dudes.
My husband works at home. He's generally in shorts rather than pajamas, but he doesn't wear a shirt to work from May to November. Our conversations as I get dressed for work in the morning tend to revolve around the theme that he sucks, and it's no fair.
he doesn't wear a shirt to work from May to November
Don't you live somewhere where it's cold in November sometimes?
Not in the windowless room with eight million watts of computers where he works. I assume he wears shirts when he leaves the apartment.
I like the way ties look, but there's (a) the neck issue which I share with Joe O and (b) the feeling of being generally constricted all day long. It's fine on special occasions, but for every day wear, it harms my Chi.
BG, this was at The People's Republik in Cambridge. Not a jacket-and-tie place (you been there?).
As for me, I haven't worn jeans in years. Didn't wear them in college or high school. Pretty much always wore khakis (disclaimer: I went to a private school that required long pants and a tie). After doing the near-suit almost every day for four years (more if you count middle school), I found that I could get ready in the morning rather quickly. The tie only adds maybe a minute or so. The major time difference is in care for the clothes. Dry-cleaning or ironing requires more effort than most other clothes.
As for my love of khaki, I find them much more comfortable than jeans.
Yeah D.C. seems suit-conscious, but in a different way than N.Y. I remember reading an interview with a tailor who makes custom suits, and he somewhat wistfully remarked that Washingtonians only wanted the standard 100 or 110 sack cloth suits, not the shiny mob-style suits you see in New York (or Vegas, for that matter.
This is really what I should have said about DC. It's not that they don't wear suits, it's that they wear suits badly. I think they're trying to go for more casual suits than you see in NYC. Hell, I don't know. There really aren't many places where you'll see more good money spent on bad clothing than DC. Everyone looks like they're wearing neutered versions of a real suit.
There really aren't many places where you'll see more good money spent on bad clothing than DC.
I'd quibble as to how much good money is actually being spent, but the end result is the same.
Is it not possible that they feel indifferent toward you?
From Casablanca:
Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
ok, pro suit people are just wrong. Jeans are more constricting than wool pants, but they irritate the hairs. The trade-off weighs in favor of jeans. Never have I owned linen pants.
Plus, some firms allow jeans, and those are usually the bad ass litigator firms. They get to look down on you in the elevator from both directions.
I like the idea of a world where everybody just wears suits -- I enjoy the aescthetics in old movies, cities full of suited folk -- but where some people get to dress down, I feel foolish dressing up.
Have you pwned linen pants?
Have linen pants pwned you?
In Boston, when I was a kid, the Ritz would kick you out if you weren't wearing a tie. Some people would try the California cashmere turtleneck thing, but they were denied. I miss those days.
bad ass litigator firms.
The small firm I worked at untill January was a moderately bad-ass litigator firm, and had a dress code that I worked out by observation, consisting of two rules:
1) No thongs as outerwear, and
2) Nothing currently on fire.
why would you leave such a place? I mean besides the lure of flaming-thong Friday.
wd -- linen pants have pwned! me for sure.
Low pay (by law-firm standards), and while it wasn't a bad place to be an employee, I was getting close (a couple more years) to partnership, and I did not want to be partners with those guys. Dancing on the fine line between brilliance and malpractice -- they made me nervous.
I now have this image of scary, terribly-bad-ass lawyers sitting around a well-deocrated office, acting quite serious and studious, but wearing swim trunks and bikinis and well-tanned, with surf boards and skateboards littering the hallways.
Smoke rising from the hastily-extinguished pants-fires.
Jarret McNeil wrote a wonderful essay on thongs at work. (Sorry for the crusty Google cache link, but the original is no longer available.)
kick you out if you weren't wearing a tie.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an Ivy League student. But I know the Yale club does that to this day (even if you are attending a continuing legal education event there which is not affiliated with the club at all, but held on its premises), and I'd guess some of the similarly situated clubs do as well.
Re: 54 and 56
Gee, LB, we always say nice things about you here at your former firm. If you want to get personal, there are stories that could be told . . . .
re: 61
Clarification: There is some truth to LB's dress code remarks (I wore sandals to the office for much of August). However, it is a bit much to take such abuse from the woman who, during a huge trial last summer for a client in the top 20 of the Fortune 500, bought the clothes she wore from discount stores on Flatbush Avenue.
Jeans are more constricting than wool pants, but they irritate the hairs.
Try wearing underwear.
When I was a lawyer in a biz casual office I looked down on the lawyers who always had to wear suits. But I also looked down on the accountants who never had to wear suits and seemed to have terrible fashion sense. Even if I were wearing a suit, when I was walking to get my lunch and would see a group of people in suits I would think, "suckers."
Now that I've left the law and am a coach I still tend to look down on the people in suits. But I do not yet aspire to dress like my colleagues in sweatpants and flip flops, who probably look down on me in my khakis.
I think the whole thing is very confusing.
Re: 61
I did say you guys were moderately bad-ass. And Idealist, personally, is the bulwark standing between the firm and all the deadline-missing that would otherwise happen to the brilliant yet ditsy partners there.
Re: 64
Dude, considering that we were working 18 hour days at the trial site, and it was cheaper to buy new clothes than to pay the hotel's prices for laundry, can you blame me?
LB, I am guessing that in 66 you meant Re:63 rather than Re:64? (Though the thought of 18-hour days at trial with no underwear kinda makes me want to get sued.)
bought the clothes she wore from discount stores on Flatbush Avenue.
Better than just swiping the clothes she wore from the discount store, no?
Um, yes. 63.
And the partners would have been very cranky if they'd had to take time off trial prep to bust me out of jail, so I did pay for all the weird diagonally striped blouses I was buying.
Much funnier in response to 64, though.
Put me in a wool suit, and you have a puddle of perspiration with some wool soaking in the middle of it.
I'm a huge sweater, but a really good summer weight wool suit can breathe really well. I'm wearing one today, and I would be perfectly comfortable sitting outside in 85' sun for lunch.
I went 10 years without wearing jeans, too, but I bought a pair that I now wear occasionally. I still prefer khakis, but I also went to a prep school that didn't allow jeans.