Atlanta is discussing how to waste more law enforcement time and dollars by making it against the law to wear saggy, baggy pants that ride so low your underwear show(s).
This effort should be stopped at once. Baggy pants and flashy drawers may be offensive to some, but saggy pants serve a purpose.
When the Puritans ran colonial America, they did all sorts of practical things to warn citizens of public danger. My favorite was making female aldulterers wear a scarlet letter "A" embroidered on their dress. This practice was highlighted in a colonial bestseller, "The Scarlet Letter." It also made it easier for low-rent men to identify shameless hussies.
Baggy pants serve almost the same purpose. You see someone wearing them, you automatically know the guy (or girl) is an unemployed, undereducated moron. And probably someone you want to avoid, unless you're looking to score some dope or stolen jewelry.
There's just one problem. Sooner or later, anybody caught laughing at baggy-panted losers may is bound to be accused of fashion profiling and sent to sensitivity school. Who needs that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
We can't assume anything about the work habits or character traits of someone based on their style of dress. It's pretty funny to here people who are...advanced in age...get serious about how youth are dressing. The same people who are complaining about baggy pants have all made questionable fashion choices at one time or another. Stop judging people for being young and dressing in ways older people find inappropriate. I can't wait for the youth of today to grow up and complain about the next generation's fasion choices.
"We can't assume anything about the work habits or character traits of someone based on their style of dress."
Indeed? Why is it, then, that the over-pierced, uber-tattooed 20-something with the variegated hair tends to get the job at the deli, not the bank or the law firm or the principal's office?
Don't know if my 43 years qualifies as "advanced in age," but I am offended by the baggy pants crowd simply because I do not wish to be forced to see other people's derrieres as I walk down the street. Apparently, that's a choice I don't get to make in this youngster's world!
Some of those Uber-pierced/tattoed people have really good jobs and make lots of money (doing tattos and piercing, among other things). But, that wasn't the question to begin with...
Someone who wears baggy pants in their off could very well dress professionally by day and have a great job. You are making a generalization and generalizations are ALWAYS wrong. That's why you can't assume these kinds of things.
It's not like you can see anyone's butt anyway. You can see their underwear, but that's still clothing. Seems the real problem is you don't get the style so you get "offended". I'm sure your parents were offended by skin-tight jeans and mini-skirts (whether you wore them or not).
And, yes, 43 does qualify you for advanced age.
Are you related to Alex?
No, the problem is not a "style" issue, it's a "public decency" issue and a "modesty" issue. That's a hard one to explain to folks who didn't ever learn it at home. Let me ask you to be very clear about your worldview: Society should have no standard for what is acceptable public dress. Correct?
And you say some baggy pants wearers could dress well and have great jobs by day? (That sounds very much like a generalization, but you said generalizations are ALWAYS wrong.)
But OK. Let's have it your way and assume such characters do exist. Super! Point me to a few, please. I await your examples ...
I am, by the way, fortunate to be married to Mr. McRae, who is probably having a cow that I'm messing around on his blog, but I think he's being too soft on you out of courtesy. I want to see if you are up to the task of defending your remarks.
I never made a statement on what I think society's standard of dress should be, but for the record you should be able to dress pretty much anyway you want, baggy pants and short skirts included. I don't think society's standard for dress should be yours. I like how you try to pin me for having no standards since I don't share your standards.
I'm not sure you understnad what a generalization is...if I had said, "Everyone who wears baggy pants is can be assumed to be undereducated and unemployeed." That would be a generalization. I simply stated that it is possible for some people to dress in a way YOU find inapproriate and hold down a job, be educated, and even dress in ways YOU might find acceptable (at times). That's not a generalization (the word 'some'automatically disqualitfies it from being a generalization...had I said 'all' you might have something). I know plenty of people who hold down jobs and are educated and dress in ways you find inappropriate. Just because you don't know any personally doesn't mean they don't exist.
All I am saying, and all I've said from the beginning, is that you can't assume things about ALL people who dress a certain way. To say all people who dress a certain way are a certain way is a generalization that is dead wrong. That's the bottom line. You can't assume these things. I think the reason you do assume these things is because you can't relate and you obviously never interact with people who dress this way.
To prove this wrong, you will have to find some way to prove that all people who wear baggy pants are the same in respect to education and employment. Good Luck!
Is it a coincidence that many of the people who take offense to baggy pants are older while those that accept it are younger? There is an age issue here and it's big. I admit that the reason I accept baggy pants is partly due to my age and when I grew up. You should admit the same because it's definitely a factor.
Post a Comment