| Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 14:09  |
|
Forum Friends,
Conspiracy theories usually get a quick glance from me, and I shove them aside. I don’t buy into them 99.9% of the time.
The demise of elegance in the USA, including the almost total disappearance of stockings and sheer nylon worn by females, IS IMHO, part of a grand conspiracy rooted in greed.
The confluence of managers hi-jacking capitalism in the USA from shareholders and stakeholders, increased time demands on workers, as well as mothers releasing parenting responsibilities to day cares & kids’ peers, have combined to kill elegant female presentation.
Executive suite scandals, the collapse of the USA's largest public accounting firm, pensions stolen from employee after employee, value stolen from stockholders (owners) by falsified financial reports, are all symptoms of the greed and arrogance that generate short-term results that increase senior managers’ pay. CEO compensation in the USA has jumped from 40 times the company’s average pay to more than 280 times what the average worker makes.
New-wave managers in the USA whine about the lack of skills among workers and how skills deficiencies murder profits. Yet, these same managers have cut USA spending on corporate skills training by more than 55 percent since the start of the decade. (Source: American Society of Training and Development – a.k.a. ASTD)
So, you say, how does this tie into the dearth of stockings in America?
In a trade off intended to get American white-collar workers to work more hours and accept lesser pay increases, senior managers started the casual attire syndrome. American workers gave their bosses longer hours and smaller raises for the hope of job security and the right to dress down.
Jeans, sneakers, and tee-shirt are accepted attire for workers in more than 40 percent of Fortune 1000 headquarters buildings. Business casual has been redefined more times in the past five years than the number of firms that have restated earnings for “cooked” books.
Stockholders stand by watching the value of their investments shrink as the system of capital formation in the USA is put under increased stress from executive theft after executive theft. Wall Street appears aligned with corrupt managers while it continues to reach into the pockets of investors.
Some investors harbor a sense of confidence because they believe Dubya is looking after them. The next White House initiative to rein in the ethics issues on Wall Street and in executive suites will be the first of Dubya’s second term. Dubya is so hung up on his “Guest Worker Program” that he refuses to enforce laws he swore he’d uphold. “Guest Workers” -an euphemism for cheap workers intended to suppress competition for labor - have driven down the incomes of the US "blue collar" worker.
I believe my wife when she says wearing stockings to work is too much trouble. I understand why dumbed-down dress is needed by working mothers that drop kids at daycare at 6:30 AM and race like Mario Andretti to beat the 6:30 PM deadline when their kids turn into pumpkins at day care.
Stockings and sheer hosiery are associated with elegance. Elegance is dying a rapid death in the USA, and the fate of US Capitalism could be held up by a twice-washed 7-denier stocking. Executive suite greed is driving two major dynamics that prevent women from wearing stockings and sheer hosiery.
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 16:05  |
|
" I believe my wife when she says wearing stockings to work is too much trouble. I understand why dumbed-down dress is needed by working mothers that drop kids at daycare at 6:30 AM and race like Mario Andretti to beat the 6:30 PM deadline when their kids turn into pumpkins at day care".
Not always the case Rebel - just as the vast majority of people would'nt turn out of a morning bare-footed, some women see the donning of stockings and suspender belt as part and parcel of the normal getting dressed routine each day - rarer these days, granted - but prevalent in the 1950's I guess when women did'nt have the luxury of ' easier options ' 
" Stockings and sheer hosiery are associated with elegance ".
This leads to the misconception that women should only wear stockings and suspenders for ' special occassions '. For me, it's the type of stockings worn that indicate true elegance and signals
that ' special attention ' has been given to the wearing of such.
By that, I mean I would be shocked if my partner did'nt wear some type of suspendered stockings virtually each day, but I would be doubly shocked if she wore fully fashioned nylons for work Monday - Friday .... Those ' Special stockings ' IMHO are definitely the ones associated with ' elegance ', and as such, are saved up to be worn when the occassion merits elegant dress, not for everyday wear. 
[Updated on: Wed, 28 December 2005 16:12]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 16:12 |
|
|
Well put Rebel. It has been my growing concern that the gap between the CEO/Super rich and the rest of America - middle class - is gettting so large that this country is truly headed for trouble. Dubya's policies have only served to make the situation worse. I am amazed at how many of middle class to poor folks in all those red states voted for Dubya twice. I worry about the kind of country my two kids (9 y/o and 6 y/o) will have after college.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 16:19 |
|
Women still have the choice to dress well or not. And they often choose not to.
But yes, Rebel; the rest is right on. The gap between rich and poor is getting wider and the middle class is fading out.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 16:21 |
|
The gap between the classes was accelerated in the UK once the nationalised industries here were ' given ' to the private sector ... now it's all about shareholder profits and nothing about service and fair pricing .... unless you can afford it 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 16:37 |
|
|
Same here, Dirk. Same here.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 16:41 |
|
Whilst I am a TRUE BELIEVER in CAPITALISM... I too see a widening gap in the Haves and Have Nots. And I do think that is reflected in how people perceive themselves and their own perception has to do with much of how they act and dress.
When I first read this, I thought....NNNNAHHHH... Then I got to thinking about it... Maybe Rebel has something here.
But, I also think many women just don't want to bother. I could probably give up the jacket and tie for work, but after 25 years of working in these, I feel it deliniates when I am and am not working. I enjoy at least trying to look professional.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 17:28 |
|
US work ethic and the ongoing compeition to "keep up with the Jones" has put career ahead of many other important things - such as family, friends, and self. People are constantly pushed to work more hours, take more work home, and to choose career over staying at home to raise a family. All of this causes a lot of people to put certain details aside because of lack of time. I agree, it is much easier for me to skip my morning shave and put on kahkis and a golf shirt, than it is to shave, shine my shoes, put on a suit, dress shirt, tie, cufflinks, etc. To me, it is worth it and makes me feel like a million bucks - even thought most people in my office think its a waste of time and money.
My wife sees it much the same way and invests the couple extra minutes to get her makeup just so, to put on a skirt and blouse or a dress, to select the right hosiery and heels.
As I look around at kids/teens, in many cases it is a reflection of their parents. Parents dress like slobs, the kids do too. Of course there are the rebelious kids who do it just to piss their parents off too. The other influence in the teen/young adult arena is Hollywood, but we have kicked that one around enough in other threads, so I won't go off on that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 21:09 |
|
FFRHT_Fetish:
Hit it right on the head. Good job, and I agree.
It does take lots to own the House that is now $500,000 that was $250,000 and everyone live in a $100,000 home 10 years ago. But, we all have to have more. Or so it seems.
The US Work Ethic is one thing that keeps the economy going, and I am not sure the world isn't pushing us to work harder, and want more so we do work harder. We just keep putting on the Yoke..
Anyway, I do hope that some of the sloppy slobby kids grow out of it.
Very good observations.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 21:58 |
|
I came to England from Canada because taxes are so high in Canada and Thatcher brought them down here. And now the average income in the UK is higher than that in Canada. Besides, not just women, but everyone dresses better here in the UK and stockings are much more popular among women in this country.
As I was born in England my first real experience of casual dress was in Canada and I found it to be an American influence and nothing to do with capitalism. Casual dress started there in the 1960s, even before stockings went out of style because of that Southern American man, Rebel, who invented pantyhose (yes, it was a man, not a woman).
Frankly, I don't see how your argument hangs together. The working class is what is disappearing, not the middle class, at least in this country. If there is a "lower" class it has been bred by the nanny state and what we call benefits but you call welfare. The fraud part of it is not well enough policed.
Meanwhile, the move to casual wear that started in America really fell over the cliff with the advent of the woman's polyester pant suit - and accelerated downhill from there so that it's now perfectly okay for both women and men to wear pajamas in the street (I think you call them track suits) as day to day outdoors wear.
But back to capitalism, at least the manufacture of stockings never seem to have been nationalised! Can you imagine what might have happened had that been the case?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 28 December 2005 22:05 |
|
Executive suite scandals, the collapse of the USA's largest public accounting firm, pensions stolen from employee after employee, value stolen from stockholders (owners) by falsified financial reports, are all symptoms of the greed and arrogance that generate short-term results that increase senior managers’ pay. CEO compensation in the USA has jumped from 40 times the company’s average pay to more than 280 times what the average worker makes.
Thank's Rebel,I can personally relate to this paragraph, as many can I'm sure. I worked, sweat, burned and bled in the Steel Mills for 34 years. I'm not snivelling or crying, I loved my work as a professional steel maker. Getting burned was an accepted part of the job. What broke my heart and the heart of many blue collar supervisors like myself was after retiring with a safety net of a large sum of money we worked our asses off for, was to see in many cases 50% of what we had was snatched out from under us. That part of getting burned was quite upsetting. The above mentioned managers and executives played with and altered the lives of many people. A fine or stay in prison is a slap on the wrist compared to what the universe may have in store for them. Intentionally hurting innocent people and disrupting the path of their lives is a grave thing to do. None of them would ever had been sorry had they not been caught.
I know I'm grateful that I've got a wonderful wife that still enjoys dressing like a lady. I don't think there is anything the world could throw in her path that would change her thinking concerning stockings. I'm very happy about that.
Everyone have a Happy New Year!
Bill P.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Thu, 29 December 2005 00:45 |
|
Sorry Rebel, but while I respect your right to voice your opinion, I think you're looking for conspiracies where none exist. The dearth of stockings is due to nothing more than the changing attitude of society. It used to be, for example, that men would not be seen in public in the post-WWII era without a hat. People had a more formal sense of society then - they respected themselves and others and dressed accordingly. There were more rigid standards as to what was socially acceptable, i.e., women were expected to wear appropriate "foundation" garments and proper etiquette was expected in social situations. Women wore stockings because it was considered the social norm.
The sixties changed all that. Anti-establishment became the cry of the day. Women were "liberated" from their binding undergarments. Fashion designers anxious to capitalize on the trend shortened hemlines and told women it was now acceptable to show their legs. With shorter hemlines came pantyhose - not because of any conspiracy to eliminate stockings, but simply because necessity is the mother of invention, i.e., it was simply not practical to wear a mini-skirt with suspenders and hose. In short, the pendulum swung from one extreme to the other.
Today elegance has for the most part been replaced by comfort. Stockings are considered obsolete and something your grandmother once wore. Most women see no reason to revert to them, just like most men would not see fit to don a hat resembling their grandfather's. There is no conspiracy here or blame attributed to corporate pirates. Stockings have simply gone the way of the starched collar. They served their purpose at one time, but have been replaced in the name of progress and advancement.
The good news is that pendulums have a way of swinging back again once they reach their apex. We all need to work on raising the standards of social norms back to where they once were. The maybe we might see a return to elegance. JMHO.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Thu, 29 December 2005 14:04 |
|
|
I think this is a very interesting discussion - and although I do not believe in a direct causal link between the recent development in capitalism and the decline of the nylon stocking I still think that the occurence of both phenomena within the same historical context is not a coincidence. Modern capitalism stems from classic liberalism of the late 18th century. The first half of the 20th century saw the breakthrough of the culturally tremendously influential movement of functionalism. Although many of the functionalists were originally critical towards capitalism and oriented towards socialism, they still believed firmly in the process of modernization through rationalization - and in the long run this idea of modernization through rationalization has shown itself to be perfectly compatible with capitallism. Now, with regard to the invention of nylon and nylon stockings they happen to appear on stage together with the upcoming functionalism - and indeed the superiority of the nylon stocking is linked to functionalism and capitalism: they were cheaper and easier to mass produce that the old silk stockings. Exactly the same could be said about the development in women's lingerie, where nylon and other new materials were also used. But of course the process of rationalization and the spread of functionalism in various forms did not stop with the invention of the nylon stockings. Inevitably it had to come to question the rationale behind stockings - and inevitably it had to realize that it is not there. Which made the feminists of the 60s liberate themselves of their girdles and stockings - and here we are...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Thu, 29 December 2005 18:42 |
|
AND FURTHER, was the formation of the Crab Nebula in fact a form of natural backlash created by the negative energy released into the universe by women who refused their husband's gifts of RHT's?
Well, damn it, I think so!
Sorry Rebel, I couldn't help that one. You really are so sweet!
Love,
Kari
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Thu, 29 December 2005 22:53 |
|
I have looked at every angle I could to understand what has happened to our american feminine culture and I have simply come to these conclusions:
1)The average woman of today loves to feel comfortable.
2)The average woman of today does not want to be looked at in any way that could show that she is "overly" sexy.
3)The average woman of today does follow a great deal of peer pressure (weather she admits this or not, it is true).
4)Here is the big one: The average woman of today does not think wearing stockings OR pantyhose is comfortable!
What the rest of us think is not relevant and will not change any of these current attitudes!
PLEASE UNDERSTAND..I AM TALKING ABOUT THE AVERAGE WOMAN OF TODAY! There are still many woman on there that look and dress elegantly regardless of what the rest of society does. Thank god for them!Thank god for them!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 09:56 |
|
If you will pardon, I think the original post is somewhat of a stretch, to say the least. IMHO it borders on the ridiculous.
As someone who grew up in this era, who knows history, and as a crossdresser who has worn all this stuff, male and female (okay, never wore Platform shoes), I have a unique prospective.
If you look at the social origins of today's fashions (a legitimate topic) you will see they go back to the early 1960's. Capitalist greed had little to do with it. Indeed many major industries, such as women's hats and corsetry, were devastated by the changes in fashions.
And no, pantyhose were NOT invented by a man. They came out of British designer Mary Quant's miniskirt. She targeted the post-WW2 Baby Boomer generation, now reaching adulthood with large quantities of disposable cash. In looking for something dramatic to set off her short skirts, she went to the theatrical costume industry for brightly colored tights. These had formerly been worn only by Shakespearean actors and department store Christmas elves. The ability to replicate these in nylon came out of a new type of industrial weaving machine that was developed to create artificial heart valves and had been used to create seamless stockings in the late 1950's.
It is pointless to discuss all the changes in women's lifestyles over the past forty years, and how they have impacted fashion. A woman now is expected to be an equal, if not sole, provider for the family.
If you want to blame someone for them, blame lawyers and not capitalists. Most of them came about because of some lawsuit or other. Even Brown v Board of Education (the first success of the Civil Rights Movement) opened the way for other groups to file
further lawsuits. These were the reason many doorways were opened to minorities, but also why things like Dress Codes (male and female) were done away with. You no longer could dismiss an employee on a whim.
As to changes in the economy, that is the result of the five decade armed truce of the Cold War. This saw the creation of state-sponsored advances in technology and its transfer to the Third World. The Capitalist nations were victorious BECAUSE of Capitalism, not in spite of it. The directed economies of Communist states were unable to keep up.
The long term consequences of technology transfer to the Third World are not yet in. But who would say that our own lives in the West have not been improved by technology?
Getting back to fashion. Girdles, garter belts and pantyhose are all a nuisance. Stockings are expensive and easily wrecked. Women have worn slacks/trousers as much as their society permitted. Blue jeans entered women's wardrobes in WW2. Even back in the 1950's, a young woman might wear jeans or capri pants casually in suburbia.
What this all means are that stockings now are an OPTION. That's it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 16:09 |
|
Forum Friends,
Thank you for your comments and discussion on my post.
Please understand that I did not intend to slam Capitalism -- I am an avowed Capitalist.
What I slammed, and remain terribly concerned with, is the hi-jacking of Capitalism by senior managers. The influence of stockholders has waned -- as has stockholders returns.
There is a very direct connection between the dress-down concessions managers suggested in the late 90's, and the sloppy attire today.
There is a very direct connection between the increased work loads in white collar environments and relaxed workplace dress standards with elegant attire.
There is also a very direct connection between the stress of meeting ever-escalating performance standards and meeting family and day care obligations.
There is a very direct connection between corporate scandals, erased pension programs, executive compensation, and executive arrogance. This goes a step further and impacts customer service, and customer loyalty.
How do you feel after disconnecting from the customer service department of a company you do business with at home when the people on the other end of the line have accents so thick that you can't understand them? How do you feel about your business relationship when the outsourced customer service rep crosses a line of politeness in your culture that is acceptable in the country where you called for service?
All the idiotic managerial moves to reduce short-term expenses seem to end up costing companies many times over the expense of reacquiring a good business relationship.
The bottom line of my thoughts is that Capitalism in the USA is getting squeezed from the top, the bottom, and the lower middle. Global 2000 company executives are using Other People's Money to create their own wealth. I wonder what the outcome will be when investors and workers rebel.
As an investor, and a white-collar wage slave, I am irritated and concerned. My lack of sophistication about the changes brought on by fund managers concerns me that they have aligned with senior executives in a mutually-beneficial conspiracy to get rich at the expense of everyone else.
Would someone with a large portfolio and sophisticated knowledge of fund management please offer their opinion?
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 16:36 |
|
I have enjoyed all of these comments as well, especially my own about the Crab Nebula which I think was my best of the week!  
So then, pantyhose and stockings are still taking a beating with this mythology that they are uncomfortable.
As a daily wearer of either, I can tell you that they are not unless we do not enjoy the feeling of our own femininity.
Pantyhose continue to serve the original purpose of my wearing them with very short skirts and held up by the elastic or fabric waistband. If I need them with a dress, I hold them up with a belt on the outside.
Stockings are lovely and in my own estimation provide a portion of the feelings which I require as a woman to function in my work as well as within my social realm.
Hosiery mills have learned to produce gorgeous examples of both as evidenced by the ranges in the shop and the flat seamed pantyhose available from Wolford, Victoria's Secret, Preston & York, DKNY and several others which I can recommend.
This is not a matter of politics, but one of our personal decisions. I do not wish to dress like a man and that is the primary fact.
Love,
Kari
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 20:40 |
|
| Quote |
I came to England from Canada because taxes are so high in Canada and Thatcher brought them down here. And now the average income in the UK is higher than that in Canada. Besides, not just women, but everyone dresses better here in the UK and stockings are much more popular among women in this country.
|
Are wages any higher in the UK than Canada? The perception I have of Canada is that it has a much higher standard of living than us in the UK and better public services such as public transport. The British public transport network is a very unfunny joke, frankly.
And for privatising that, we must thank the post-Thatcher Tories who tried to make the transport system profitable (when there's no way) and saw it cut engineering and safety margins, leading to more trail crashes as a result of poor engineering. This is what happens when something as important as rail engineering and track maintenance are put out to the lowest price bidder.
But I digress. I don't think personally, UK Gent that the women of Britain wear stockings any more than anyone else. I think British women wear a lot of trousers because they are quicker to put on in the rush-rush mornings.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 21:15 |
|
| Mich wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 20:40 |
| Quote |
Besides, not just women, but everyone dresses better here in the UK and stockings are much more popular among women in this country.
|
But I digress. I don't think personally, UK Gent that the women of Britain wear stockings any more than anyone else. I think British women wear a lot of trousers because they are quicker to put on in the rush-rush mornings.
|
I've got to agree with UK Gent on this one. Personally, I'd expect, per head of female population, that the UK is at the very top of the stockings-wearing
' league ' taking into account the many comments on SHQ and the net in general over time; It would also seem that the USA is well down that league table - amazing when you think that nylon stockings eminated from that very country back in the 1940's
The difficulty I have is understanding quite why the ' founders ' have ' floundered ' on the stockings- wearing scene far more drastically than here in the UK.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 21:51 |
|
| Rebel wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 16:09 |
Please understand that I did not intend to slam Capitalism -- I am an avowed Capitalist.
What I slammed, and remain terribly concerned with, is the hi-jacking of Capitalism by senior managers. The influence of stockholders has waned -- as has stockholders returns.
Rebel
|
Yes! The stockholders should have understood that they were in fact something much bigger: stockingholders! 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Fri, 30 December 2005 23:36 |
|
Dear Mich,
While I agree with much of what you say:-
"And for privatising that, we must thank the post-Thatcher Tories who tried to make the transport system profitable (when there's no way) and saw it cut engineering and safety margins, leading to more trail crashes as a result of poor engineering. This is what happens when something as important as rail engineering and track maintenance are put out to the lowest price bidder."
I am quite certain that a really privately run transport system can be profitable: it was so before the 1947 Nationalisation, and probably would have been subsequently,had not the Major Government (?) gone for the ludicrous notion of splitting track from trains. Prior to Nationalisation, GWR, LMS, LNER, and SR all worked, were profitable, and were engaged in development. Post-nationalisation, the story of British Rail is one of (badly) managed decline: think Beeching! Just because the railways in Germany work well and/or 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' does not mean that only a State can run Transport. When buses were de-regulated (we lived in Sussex at the time) it meant a wonderful plethora of available public transport (anyone for nationalising Taxis?), much as in my Cornish childhood the existence of other buses than 'Western National' kept Western National on their toes.
Franz
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 09:22 |
|
| Quote |
Just because the railways in Germany work well and/or 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' does not mean that only a State can run Transport.
|
Mussolini's trains ran pretty much as they had before he took power. It is just that he controlled anyone who might say differently. German trains run on time because:
1. They were built as part of a single military-oriented system.
2. Germans, as a group (always a dangerous way to categorize people) are an industrious, conscientious and workaholic people.
Above comments are from teachers I had long ago who had either rode on or studied these rail systems in detail.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 11:24 |
|
Well, I cannot understand why the british railway network is such a mess. It is almost always overcrowded, dirty and they never put enough carriages on at peak times. It is also more often than not late.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 14:27 |
|
| Mich wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 20:40 |
| Quote |
I came to England from Canada because taxes are so high in Canada and Thatcher brought them down here. And now the average income in the UK is higher than that in Canada. Besides, not just women, but everyone dresses better here in the UK and stockings are much more popular among women in this country.
|
Are wages any higher in the UK than Canada? The perception I have of Canada is that it has a much higher standard of living than us in the UK and better public services such as public transport. The British public transport network is a very unfunny joke, frankly.
|
Mich, yes. I am afraid your perception is now well out of date. I used to live in Canada when the standard of living there was much much higher than pauper UK. But the UK now ranks No. 10 in terms of Gross National Income per capita at $33,940 while Canada has fallen to No. 19 at $28,390 - the UK is now fully 20% ahead of Canada. The US is No. 4 at $44,400 by the way - slowly approaching double that of pauper Canada. How things changed under several years of Thatcher government. The UK also beats out France, Germany, Italy and Ireland by the way, as well as the Netherlands and Belgium by the way.
But I digress. I do enjoy living back in a country where cabinet ministers and television personalities as well as just plain ordinary models have all been known publicly to favour wearing stockings, and women in general are more feminine than in North America but still keep their confidence - no offense meant to our American and Canadian colleagues.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 14:57 |
|
Nyloned legs,
Sure, the regional differences in the USA reflect different attire. I can drive 150 miles west from Atlanta to Birmingham, AL and see more women attired in sheer nylon. Trends are slower to reach secondary cities in the USA.
At a business meeting I attended in Chicago (northern USA Midwest) two weeks ago, one of five ladies participating wore sheer hosiery. My walk through the offices of this very well-known bank yielded no evidence that the overall number of sheer hosiery wearers even approached one in five ladies. (I acknowledge one office is not representative, even though banks are knows for more conservative attire.)
My point in this thread was to connect senior management's greed to relaxing workplace dress standards. The compromise of "comfort attire" has been traded with longer hours, greater performance pressures, and smaller pay raises so "Mr. Big Cheese" can pile on larger stock options, bigger bonuses, and golden parachutes when he gets canned.
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 17:01 |
|
... sorry to harp on about it, Mich, but the answer is Nationalisation: once the railways were nationalised, they became 'public property', and instantly vandalism increased (throwing the light-bulbs and the loo-paper out of the windows; scratching the glass, writing on the paint, slashing the upholstery - 'It's ours, so we can do what we like with it.')Meanwhile, the service declined: Porters on Stations all miraculously disappeared as soon as the bell sounded to announce that the train had passed the 'home' signal ('It's demeaning to carry peoples' luggage; we can skive and still get fully paid.') The Unions demanded ever higher wages for their members, so man-power had to be cut, plummeting levels of service even lower; smaller stations soon became entirely unmanned, allowing for even more vandalism to take place. Where once, e.g. Southern Railways had competed with Great Western, each keeping either 'on its toes', vying for custom, whether in passengers or freight (look at an old map of the South West, and see how often GWR and SR aimed at the same destinations via different routes) with a single 'Company' there was no longer this spur, investment halted, development disappeared, and before long the unlamented Dr. Beeching set about closing stations and branch-lines, leaving whole swathes of the Country bereft of Rail transport altogether (cf. Flanders & Swann's 'The Slow Train'...). GWR Stationmasters had been accustomed to catechising staff on the Regulations regularly, and the Company was notorious for counting 'every lump of coal, every drop of oil': this all went under public ownership, as indeed, Stationmasters were to.
We human beings are always capable of making a mess of things, but if you want a real intergalactic pile-up of a mess of things, get the politicians and bureaucrats to run them!
Franz
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 17:35 |
|
Rebel,
You may wish to read this study concerning dress in the workplace: http://www.kon.org/urc/maloney.html
(I would quote areas of it, but it is too long). But like mehombre said, "there is no conspiracy". I truly believe it was a change in the attitudes of society in general. Don't try to look into this too deeply. Personally some of us (including myself)just have a problem seeing people dressed casual even in formal situations. Many of these same people could look many times more attractive.
But like I said, it is my point of view and my way of looking at things. I also think 4 door cars are ugly...even though they are way more convenient and functional that two doors. I think average rock music today took a wrong turn from what it was even just 15 years ago. All in all, I guess I belong back in time....oh well......
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 17:59 |
|
Nationalization meant that railways were run by civil servants who had little interest in, or understanding of, running railways. Hence Beeching. However, I'm not convinced that competition, or the lack of it, was ever the problem. Direct competition for passengers can only really work on the very popular long-distance flows, like between London and Scotland. Local rural and commuter traffic is mostly a natural monopoly --- it is difficult to see how direct competition for passengers between Abergavenny and Hereford, or between Oxford and Banbury, would work. I like the convenience of buying a ticket for a particular destination and just getting on the next train bound for it, without having to worry about whether it's the correct train operator . Direct passenger competition would also mess up the through-ticketing arrangements that mean there is a fare for every pair of stations with only one booking at your first station --- since provision of through tickets means that train companies have to cooperate rather than compete.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 18:26 |
|
| Quote |
the Company was notorious for counting 'every lump of coal, every drop of oil': this all went under public ownership
|
Are you sure? The Beeching cuts were largely caused by a beancounting mentality. Beeching decided that only profitable lines should be run, and sought to close all lines that were not, according to the accounting rules he was using. However, profitability was based only on journeys made on the branch lines themselves --- Beeching completely failed to take account of the role of branch lines as feeders into the main lines.
Also while British Rail wasn't the most cost-effective organization in the world, the modern privatized railway is no model of efficiency either, when you consider the huge amount of money frittered away on all the accountants and management consultants needed to sustain the convoluted privatization scheme dreamed up by the Tory government in the early 1990s. Perhaps market forces generate efficiency, and maybe public services need reform. But the main beneficiaries of the UK governmental obsession (under both Tory and Labour governments) with market forces are the sort of people who swoon at the sound of corporate buzzwords and salivate at the sight of a PowerPoint presentation.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 19:06 |
|
|
MEN..........!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sat, 31 December 2005 19:25 |
|
|
Stockings - a nice covering on a lady's legs...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sun, 01 January 2006 00:36 |
|
prev,
I read the entire article. Much of it was excellent. Much of it was simply acdemia trash since the research did not reflect accepted probability standards, was completed five years ago, and was based on work-studing students employed in an academic environment -- not a business environment.
I work in the HR software industry and interect with Jackson Lewis and Deloitte. Deloitte focuses it practice on Global 2000 organizations, while I manage a a practice focused on companies with 500-2500 EE's.
Productivity has increased since the start of the dress-down movement. However, I've seen no credible studies to tie dress-down to increased productivity.
Thanks for pointing to a good reference.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Sun, 01 January 2006 12:31 |
|
I also thought the article was interesting, but it comes to no conclusion, which is how all such studies result. Just indentifies a need for further studies.
Ignoring the tenuious connection to stockings (which really takes us out of the area of this group) something changed in business and government in the last twenty years. Many people blamed Ronald Reagan or Maggie Thatcher, but it was probably the changeover to a service economy from an industrial one. How do you measure success? Or, more correctly, how do you justify your own existance as a manager?
I laughed when I read about how relaxed dress codes were supposed to improve management-employee communications. The LAST thing ANY manager wanted was to know ANYTHING about what was really going on! They just wanted numbers they could play with to make themselves look good. They were only going to have the job a short time anyway, before either moving on or being restructured. The only thing that could be agreed on was workforce reduction. "Off-shoreing" or those annoying "Press Button One for English, Pusado Button Dos por Espanol" stuff.
Whatever it took to insulate management from reality.
As far as dress codes go, and they mostly apply to women, there was/is a resistance to their reimposition. I remember the 1990's when white-collar women went to work in smart business suits, nylons and sneakers(=UK trainers). Their heels were left under desks at work. Complete contempt for whatever image their employers wanted of them. I knew a young woman manager who had been transferred from a Casual Dress creative environment to a operational one. Her first two weeks she wore a black cocktail dress to work. The same one, every day. And not dry-cleaned during that time either.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 04 January 2006 16:19 |
|
A friend of mine once commented that capitalism encourages divorce--not consciously perhaps, but because splitting people up means they have to buy two televisions, two refrigerators, two houses, etc. The nudge in the direction of divorce comes from the capitalistic notion that THINGS are the source of happiness, not relationships. Just buy the right car, or the right drug, the right widget, and youll be dancing with joy. So people work long hours to buy more things and have less time for the real pleasures of life. People are often called "consumers" in America, by politicians. And, to go back to our topic here, "consumers" dont really need stockings, they just need to work ever more hours and buy ever more high ticket items. Which of course creates, at least in the U.S., another burgeoning industry, the storage industry. Peoples garages are so full of stored things, there's no room for the car, and soon they have to rent "rooms" to store more things....
Stockings, and the kind of leisurely pleasures they represent, have no place in this world. Those of you--my wife, fortunately, included--who take the time to dress well are actually rebels against conformity, rebels against Capitalism...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 04 January 2006 18:27 |
|
| D.N. Stuefloten wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 16:19 |
Stockings, and the kind of leisurely pleasures they represent, have no place in this world.
|
Not sure why you're ' pigeon-holing ' stockings this way D.N - just as I put a pair of socks on each morning, whether for work or on a recreation day ..I don't think twice about it (it's just part and parcel of everyday life)so some women pull on their stockings daily, in much the same nonchalant manner ( well, that's how it is in my house  ). Sure, there are ' special ' times (when the FF's come out) but it's not some type of ' ceremony ' and it does'nt have to be restricted to glamour nights out ... a trip down to the ' local ' can equally warrant such attention ..depends on the wearers mood perhaps
The more you try to persuade people that stockings are just for ' special occassions', the less women will wear in general 
[Updated on: Wed, 04 January 2006 18:33]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Wed, 04 January 2006 22:52 |
|
Dirk, my wife, like yours, puts on stockings virtually every day, along with her waist-cincher, her high heels, her makeup. (I've seen her pulling weeds in the garden, in full regalia.) Anyone can do this, just as we men, indeed, pull on our socks. But still, the kind of leisurely pleasure, the sort of life-style where dressing well is a natural and expected part of your life--that hardly exists any more, as people rush through their breakfasts, race to their jobs (or groan their way through a couple hours of freeway traffic). But all the more power, and accolades, to those special women who do take the time...and the men who take the time to appreciate it...
D.N. Stuefloten
http://dnstuefloten.com
http://webdelsol.com/Artifacts
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is the dearth of stockings tied to the death of US Capitalism? |
Thu, 05 January 2006 02:59 |
|
| Paula CD wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 09:56 |
If you will pardon, I think the original post is somewhat of a stretch, to say the least. IMHO it borders on the ridiculous.
As someone who grew up in this era, who knows history, and as a crossdresser who has worn all this stuff, male and female (okay, never wore Platform shoes), I have a unique prospective.
If you look at the social origins of today's fashions (a legitimate topic) you will see they go back to the early 1960's. Capitalist greed had little to do with it. Indeed many major industries, such as women's hats and corsetry, were devastated by the changes in fashions.
And no, pantyhose were NOT invented by a man. They came out of British designer Mary Quant's miniskirt. She targeted the post-WW2 Baby Boomer generation, now reaching adulthood with large quantities of disposable cash. In looking for something dramatic to set off her short skirts, she went to the theatrical costume industry for brightly colored tights. These had formerly been worn only by Shakespearean actors and department store Christmas elves. The ability to replicate these in nylon came out of a new type of industrial weaving machine that was developed to create artificial heart valves and had been used to create seamless stockings in the late 1950's.
It is pointless to discuss all the changes in women's lifestyles over the past forty years, and how they have impacted fashion. A woman now is expected to be an equal, if not sole, provider for the family.
If you want to blame someone for them, blame lawyers and not capitalists. Most of them came about because of some lawsuit or other. Even Brown v Board of Education (the first success of the Civil Rights Movement) opened the way for other groups to file
further lawsuits. These were the reason many doorways were opened to minorities, but also why things like Dress Codes (male and female) were done away with. You no longer could dismiss an employee on a whim.
As to changes in the economy, that is the result of the five decade armed truce of the Cold War. This saw the creation of state-sponsored advances in technology and its transfer to the Third World. The Capitalist nations were victorious BECAUSE of Capitalism, not in spite of it. The directed economies of Communist states were unable to keep up.
The long term consequences of technology transfer to the Third World are not yet in. But who would say that our own lives in the West have not been improved by technology?
Getting back to fashion. Girdles, garter belts and pantyhose are all a nuisance. Stockings are expensive and easily wrecked. Women have worn slacks/trousers as much as their society permitted. Blue jeans entered women's wardrobes in WW2. Even back in the 1950's, a young woman might wear jeans or capri pants casually in suburbia.
What this all means are that stockings now are an OPTION. That's it.
|
There is not a lot I would disagree with except to say that the wearing of tights and trousers are older than WW2. During the roaring 20s women were wearing all sorts of things. Women wearing blue jeans for certain tasks probably goes back even further. When mini skirts first appeared in the 1920s, a lot of women wore them with ballerina tights.
|
|
|
| | |
Current time: Sun Jul 6 06:39:29 BST 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02345 seconds |
