QUESTION:

Do clothes maketh the man- or woman?

I ask because I am no longer sure.

Used to be, there were certain rules: Some clothes were for work, some for leisure and some for 'going out'. You couldn't for instance wear a sparkly low-cut top to an interview (if you were a woman) nor tees and jeans- if you were a bloke. There were also clear demarcation lines between feminine and masculine.

Yesterday... Dylan was wearing faded torn jeans, a tee, a simple black jumper, a black leather jacket and black lace-up boots. He had a wooly black beannie on his head.

Yesterday... I was wearing faded torn jeans, a singlet, a silver-flecked black jumper, a black coat and... black lace-up boots. And my silver beannie.

We were going to lodge an application to yet another Open for Inspection. Those around us... let's just say they were dressed to impress. Some notion that their neat appearance will instigate thoughts of a neat household... in the barely out of teens 'dressed to inspire trust' agent.

We've joined forces he and I- in thumbing our nose at expectations. Trouble is... we now got us a uniform of sorts. Most days, we wear close-to-identical outfits. (I have still to line up the pairs of boots between us and take a pic. We need a longer corridor.) He owns almost a dozen denim jackets. Sees one, buys it. I am the same with 'quirky ones'. Even our hair is long and loose and curly-messy though his is dark and mine currently blonde. It's a bloody uniform! May as well be wearing suits.

Anyway... It started me down this path. I thought too, how in times past, clothes also were a fair indicator of your position in life- your status in society. Successful or homeless- the differences were visually distinct. But I've now seen billionaires look like hobos and some homeless persons way more well-groomed.

The other day - I forget what I was watching - there was this young bloke with severe bed-hair and several days worth of chin stubble... discussing a possible move to another leading tech company. (We're talking seven figures here.) He was wearing a torn, crumpled tee and a faded vintage denim jacket and white sneakers without socks. Oh, and floral shorts.

What? I notice things. I look around. I don't (as Dylan does) split my screen into four separate windows and 'multitask'.

Anyway. Got me thinking further: Are there two distinct tiers of 'clothes maketh the man'?

The- lets call them offspring of the 1%, (else the young, self-made tech geniuses) they have been freed it seems from this convention. Suits and ties are 'out'. Simple understated attire such as jeans and white tees and sneakers are 'in'. Else, they go for individuality and break conventions outrageously.

Yet further down the ladder- in anything but tech and advertising and possibly 'entertainment'... appropriate and mostly conservative attire still rules- be it in business or social environments. You can't enter a pub here in thongs (flip-flops!) or 'work overalls' or ripped and stained clothing. Some Orhodox priests still frown upon the wearing of 'slacks' by women in their congregations.

Job interviews? The suit comes on, male and female versions. The mantra of "first impressions" persists. Hair neat, face made-up discreetly; else clean-shaven.

I spent some time sitting in at our local courthouse down on the coast. It fascinated me. Young guys up on drink-driving or speeding charges in ill-fitting suits and grotty sneakers, fingers tugging at the too-tight ties. They dressed that way to impress the judge and maybe gain some leniency- not understanding... their ruse was painfully obvious! At the other extreme... young women dressed as though they'd just retuned from a night out- a long and bad one. (Maybe they had.) The judge looking down his spectacled nose and doing that feint nostril twitch- as though he'd smelled something unleasant but was too polite to say so.

I've seen too, more than my fair share of Real Estate Agents of late- the boys and I can pick them out in a crowd of passers-by just by the sameness of their 'look'. They are expected to exude 'professionalism and trust' (They are kidding themselves.) 

Anyway. Why were we comfortable with Steve Jobs expounding on this or that and why did we admire him, and why did we not judge him by his attire? He didn't wear 'power suits' or discrete silk ties and his appearance wasn't polished. His jeans and tees certainly belied the brilliance of his mind- were we to go by clothes alone.

Yet we expect and demand 'suitable attire' to be worn by our peers- in whatever position they hold in our shared environment. We trust 'neat' 'proper' 'discreet' and 'expensive'. Anything else smacks of disrespect- toward us and toward others from us. 

But there seems to be a point reached where the "person maketh the clothes". When our value system adjusts and allows us to see beyond first impressions and beyond appearance. It shifts so much in fact it turns on its head: we admire the lack of care for professional appearance! We admired Steve, for shrugging off the suit.

That money is usually the instigator of this... it's the sad truth about us: We allow money to make the man or woman first.