Just a thought on the mind set of men and women at the turn of the last century.

[Larry124]

Yes, let’s return to the days of yore. A world lit only by fire.

Life expectancy for men was 45.6 years, for women 49.9.
Likely from an excess of clothing.

Infant mortality?
Educational level?
Length of workweek?
Retirement prospects?

"Mindset" on race and gender and other social issues?

They lived in their manner in their times.

Let us live in ours.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Yes, let’s return to the days of yore. A world lit only by fire.

Life expectancy for men was 45.6 years, for women 49.9.
Likely from an excess of clothing.

Infant mortality?
Educational level?
Length of workweek?
Retirement prospects?

"Mindset" on race and gender and other social issues?

They lived in their manner in their times.

Let us live in ours.

I quite agree with your last two sentences, although I fail to see why graceful behavior and a certain elegance of manners should not transcend generational differences. Simply because our grandparents may have held different views than those popularly expressed today doesn't, in my opinion, excuse the common vulgarity one regularly encounters on street corners, in places of worship, and in film and on television.

[macwilkin]

I quite agree with your last two sentences, although I fail to see why graceful behavior and a certain elegance of manners should not transcend generational differences. Simply because our grandparents may have held different views than those popularly expressed today doesn't, in my opinion, excuse the common vulgarity one regularly encounters on street corners, in places of worship, and in film and on television.

Hear, Hear!

T.

[tulloch]

Hear, Hear!

T.

I second that.

[thescot]

Hear, Hear!

T.

I couldn't agree more.

Pointing out that in the past people weren't perfect does nothing to negate the argument--which had nothing to do with the objections--that people today are basically slobs with poor manners and habits. Wearing clothing which is condusive to only to mud wrestling and jogging does not make one more advanced than his forebears; it only makes him appear sloppy.

Surely one can see that a youthful pride in a slovenly appearance is not in any way socially or morally superior to all other choices of dress. I could point out that the crime rates, murder rates, and general civility were much better than today, but those facts have nothing to do with dress.

And I can assure you that dressing well was not restricted to the white collar classes or people of means in decades past. Even in the late 1800s, my grandfather's uncle, who was a carpenter, would don a suit to go to work. There, he would change into his work clothes, build whatever it was he was working on (and this without power tools, it was draw knives and hand saws), then he would change back into his suit before returning home. My grandfather the railroad engineer, never went to town with a coat and tie.

And the stated life expectancy of 1906 takes in to account the high rate of infant mortality of the day, so it gives a false impression that most folks died in their 40s. Fact is, if you made it past early childhood, you were likely to live well in to your 60s or 70s.

Kind of like today!

[macwilkin]

I couldn't agree more.

Pointing out that in the past people weren't perfect does nothing to negate the argument--which had nothing to do with the objections--that people today are basically slobs with poor manners and habits. Wearing clothing which is condusive to only to mud wrestling and jogging does not make one more advanced than his forebears; it only makes him appear sloppy.

Surely one can see that a youthful pride in a slovenly appearance is not in any way socially or morally superior to all other choices of dress. I could point out that the crime rates, murder rates, and general civility were much better than today, but those facts have nothing to do with dress.

And I can assure you that dressing well was not restricted to the white collar classes or people of means in decades past. Even in the late 1800s, my grandfather's uncle, who was a carpenter, would don a suit to go to work. There, he would change into his work clothes, build whatever it was he was working on (and this without power tools, it was draw knives and hand saws), then he would change back into his suit before returning home. My grandfather the railroad engineer, never went to town with a coat and tie.

And the stated life expectancy of 1906 takes in to account the high rate of infant mortality of the day, so it gives a false impression that most folks died in their 40s. Fact is, if you made it past early childhood, you were likely to live well in to your 60s or 70s.

Kind of like today!

My grandfather was the same way, Jim -- an Iowa farmer who owned more than one suit for church, lodge meetings, etc.

I always think of Robert Burns in discussions like this; while Burns was most certainly a puir Ayrshire ploughboy with dung on his boots, he was also able to dress to the nines when needed when visiting Edinburgh, attending lodge, etc.

T.

[davedove]

I think a big part of it is the general understanding of "time and place." Too many people now feel that the same clothes will work in any situation. I will agree that perhaps sometimes previous generations may have taken it too far (e.g suits at the beach), but current generations have taken it to the opposite extreme (e.g. workout clothes anyplace except when you're working out).

Personally, since I most often eat in very casual restaurants, I don't dress up for eating dinner. But, if I'm going someplace special, I dress for it.

Some of the things that used to be done, like wearing a jacket and tie to a ball game, don't make much sense to me, but neither does wearing your ratty sweats when you going to the theater.