Do clothes make the man? Or woman?

Hardly anyone is uptight about fashion anymore. Today there is a very simple and universal standard: just wear clothes that are comfortable and reasonably clean. 

We don't circulate in public much because of the pandemic these days. Someday we'll all remember Willie's Super Valu as a bastion for being in some proximity to our fellow man in these trying times. And as I go through the door there these days, as I observe my fellow man, I'm struck by how fashion is irrelevant. This is a positive observation to make. Why would we want to live any other way? Today it's about comfort and practicality. 

Comfort generally means clothes that are loose-fitting. Of course, loose-fitting has taken over as such the norm, people don't even look at it that way any more. It's like the fish swimming along, seeing some younger fish and saying to them "nice water here." And the little fish respond: "what's water?" 

We live in times when "unisex" is quite acceptable. It's acceptable to the point where it's like water to the fish - nothing distinctive to point out. It's quite notable how fashion standards have disappeared for church. Your average Willie's shopper could sidle over for church on Sunday and be totally accepted. Sweat shirt or sweat pants? No sweat. 

I remember when "relaxed fit" pants first started getting marketed. Ah, but then it wasn't long before still another iteration came along: "loose fit." So you'd be shopping at J.C. Penney and see such labels. But would we even shop at J.C. Penney anymore? Is it a dinosaur? Is it extinct yet? We gained the habit of making clothes purchases at "big box" stores with the huge benefit of not having a store clerk wait on you. "Can I help you?" 

Well, these people were on hand as employees and just followed their instinct for wanting to seem busy. And they probably didn't realize how so many customers just wanted to be left alone. I do not wish to consider a purchase of underwear with a clerk's eyes fixated on me. So I became much more comfortable spending my money at a place where I could "free graze." 

Tight shorts of "Magnum P.I."

What about pants that were neither "relaxed" nor "loose" fit? We got a category called "classic fit." There are always those whose physique is trim or athletic enough that they still find practical the "Starsky and Hutch" look. That's where your pants look like they are painted on. I could grimace as I think back to the '70s when this kind of appearance was considered desirable. 

We'd look at pictures of men from the 1940s with very loose pants hitched up high on the waist and think "boy, that's dated!" I remember a photo of the big band leader Artie Shaw who reflected this. 

Fashion is strange: our norm at a particular time invites not a shrug. When it ceases being the norm and a few years pass, we look at the photos and are almost inclined to laugh. We're tempted to do that now when remembering dance floor attire of the disco age. Platform shoes, wild colors. A young man could be a "stud" then, a clown now. 

Remember when "Austin Powers" made the "peace" sign and got immediately mocked by some people at a nearby table? Convention gives way to obsolescence. 

But my overriding point as I pen these thoughts, is that today there is little if any sense of "fashion" in the historic context. To repeat: clothing is simply about comfort and practicality, and it has gotten to the point where gender doesn't matter anymore. A person my age can be rather shocked by this. But is there any reason to object? 

We are liberated from the old gender stereotypes and expectations, step by step. We learn that the California legislature is considering a bill that would ban larger department stores from having separate "boys" and "girls" sections for clothing. Oh, and for toys too. We might be skeptical that the hard hand of the state needs to get involved in such things. But the news item shows just how powerful the force of evolution is in our culture. 

I assure you that even with "unisex" clothing, heterosexual boys will have absolutely no trouble being attracted to certain females. 

So why jump through hoops setting fashion expectations according to gender? The California bill would prohibit the use of signage within each undivided area indicating that particular items are for either girls or for boys. 

The Target chain began eliminating gender-based signage in toy sections starting in 2015. Girls should not have to feel awkward or stigmatized choosing toy items that may for some reason have been associated with boys. Example from my youth: Lincoln Logs.

I personally welcome all the new trends. And I observe this as a 66-year-old with memories of a gender-conscious culture where norms and boundaries were most definitely encouraged. 

Do male varsity athletes in school still dress up in suits and ties on a day when a game is scheduled in the evening? I was troubled by this because it put such athletes on a pedestal compared to the rest of us. I didn't mind that we cheered for them. Their athletic talents were worthy of notice. But the suits-and-ties thing during the day seemed rather pointless, as if a caste system was being recognized. 

Boomers like me most certainly remember how "blue jeans" were once considered so edgy. Or dangerous? They were a violation of dress code in many schools. So puzzling. Isn't the purpose of a pair of pants to just cover your legs? I mean, just utilitarian? They should be clean and not real worn-looking, perhaps. 

Some kids did find it fashionable to have the worn look, maybe even with a well-placed hole like in the knee. For what purpose? At that age, did we really need a rhyme or reason? Some jeans were sold "pre-washed" - remember? So they wouldn't look "new," because your peers might sniff at a "new" look. Again, why? 

So, blue jeans were viewed with suspicion, which should make us ask "why?" Well, those were times when kids could be restless, wanting to shake off the shackles of adult standards like how we had to fight a big foreign war every few years, like it was a rite of passage. My generation got turned inside out by the Vietnam war. Man, did I ever soak in the zeitgeist of that time for the youth. 

Blue jeans could be seen as a sign of rebellion. One theory is that this grew out of motorcycle movies. Kids wore jeans as a badge of restlessness and non-conformity. This assumes that all jeans-wearers were so motivated - stupid of course. A neat-looking pair of jeans simply means you're "dressed." Why couldn't I have been left alone? 

Church on Sunday! Holy cow, let's consider that, consider how men wore suits, ties and dress slacks. And, if you as a kid decided to put on your dress slacks on a school day, you ran the risk of being teased for being "dressed up." Strange how our minds can meander with such judgments. 

A breakthrough came with the advent of "Dockers," a true revolution because these pants could be accepted anywhere. So OK, but why did we need a transformational development like this? It's just clothing, man. 

So today we are out of our confused and uptight abyss and simply wear clothing that feels comfortable, no arbitrary male/female fashion statements. And to repeat: heterosexual males need no help identifying women that interest them, n'est-ce pas?

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com