Background here. Short version: Nordstrom is selling pre-muddied pants for $425, because fashion? I’m also not sure if the pants will just stop getting muddy after you wash them, assuming that you wash them. ‘Dry cleaning’ likewise seems like an oxymoron, here – Anyway, I’ve seen a bunch of people talk about the abstract issues here, including the important issue of what this says about how we think of physical labor, and its place in our society.
However, I’m not going to discuss that. Instead, I’m going to ask this question: Do we really want people who can afford to, and would, spend $425 on a pair of pre-muddied pants to have so much disposable income? – I feel that couching the problem in such terms will help us come to the reasonable conclusion that encouraging these people to voluntarily and happily hand over their money for a product this objectively innocuous is preferable to having them spend that money on something no less idiotic, but considerably more pernicious.
Moe Lane
PS: I am not going to stand in the way of people who merely wish to mock the pants-buyers. That’s fair. Maybe some of them will learn a lesson from all of this.
I am to understand that these pants are made to look like they are muddy, not that they are muddy. That said…
.
I feel the same way about this as I feel about pre-shredded jeans: What’s the point? Isn’t it a lot more fun to make them mud-stain than buying them pre-stain?
I dunno, man. Do college kids still gather on the campus hillsides after the spring rain and play coed touch football until everybody’s caked in mud? – Because that was a cherished tradition, in my day.
…almost thirty years ago.
For some reason, this reminds me of the story from a few years ago about the “New trend” of guys going to clubs and bars wearing their work shirt/uniform. The idea was that they were displaying to the onlooking ladies that they were gainfully employed and would hence signal to the ladies that they would not be a black hole for their money and emotions.
–
Then I thought this was a slightly off comparison. This is more like you borrowing your employed friend’s work shirt. You are not displaying what you actually are, but rather what you want to appear to be.
–
I will also point out the disturbing thing about all of this. Namely, that this shows a truly sad lack of respect. One of the things about the 1950’s culture and back about wearing suit and tie was not just appearing to be respectable but having that self respect that you would not go out looking uppresentable.
–
Still going back to this idea: usually these fashion trends can be marked down (as can most) to trying to get the opposite gender to want to spend time with you, IYKWIM.
Some of the jeans I seen at the University are little more than fishnets which, in retrospect, likely have an equally desired effect.
I remember the acid-washed jeans kick. My thought was, jeez, I try to make my pants last as long as possible…
That 50s ethos is overstated.
It was a big deal in the cities, yes.
But less so in rural areas. People dressed up for social gatherings. But suit and tie weren’t commonly worn outside of church. And even there, dress pants and a tie were more common. My grandfather was a pillar of the community, and I don’t think he ever owned a suit.
I am speaking more of the suit and tie as an idea. Even in rural areas where people did not own suits, they still tried to look respectable when they went out in public.
Fools. Money. Parted. Mission accomplished.
And not a moment too soon.
In the immortal words of Cake…
.
“Is it you or your parents in this income tax bracket?”
.
Mew