# We modern men have failed as a gender: We're wimps?



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Cribb: Modern men could be wussiest boys in history - thestar.com.

This article is hilariously written, and in most aspects probably painfully true. Worth a read. :lmao:

Do the men here agree or disagree?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Contemporary metrosexuals make me wanna hurl in technicolor...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Real men don't give a damn what a piece of fluff 'news' article says, one way or another.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

_Sting._


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ya think?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Heck, my latest motivation has been learning to cook. :baby:


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Omg! You don't bake?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Chimpur said:


> Omg! You don't bake?


I only cook manly meals.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

This is akin to a Maxim article about 100 Big Manly Things You Must Do. So, what? Am I supposed to wrestle a saber tooth tiger to prove my manliness?

My options are kind of limited here. :lmao:

I'd like to see my manly ancestors manage 20-40 design projects a week without breaking a sweat and still have time for the kids.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Me Tarzan... You Jane...

Yep that is what it takes to me a man in "Professor" McAllister's view...  What a knob? If he were a lawyer he would be disbarred for such hokum... Reminds me of that U of T professor a number of years ago whose study concluded Blacks have bigger wangs and Orientals have little peepee's but are really smart... This is "tabloid" "academics" at it's worst.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Hmmm.... I don't know about this article, but I think there's some truth to the idea that men are getting less manly these days. 

Awful lot of mamma's boys out there, who then expect the wife/girlfriend to then be mamma... lot of way high-maintenance men out there. It's not so masculine.

Was at the construction site the other day, and my construction project manager actually said "Oh, I didn't have time to do my hair this morning." (He was serious.) I was looking at it thinking, you have short hair, what's to do? If you're really that worried about it, put on a hard hat.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Hmmm.... I don't know about this article, but I think there's some truth to the idea that men are getting less manly these days.
> 
> Awful lot of mamma's boys out there, who then expect the wife/girlfriend to then be mamma... lot of way high-maintenance men out there. It's not so masculine.
> 
> Was at the construction site the other day, and my construction project manager actually said "Oh, I didn't have time to do my hair this morning." (He was serious.) I was looking at it thinking, you have short hair, what's to do? If you're really that worried about it, put on a hard hat.


Vanity is not isolated to one sex or the other Sonal... it has been that way throughout the ages.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My hair was never very long, but in my working days it was perhaps two inches long on top and required a comb every morning to make a part. Eleven years back when I retired, I threw that comb away and got a buzz cut. I haven't used a comb since.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Vanity is not isolated to one sex or the other Sonal... it has been that way throughout the ages.


True, but why express concern over it, especially in that context? This is a construction site, not a dance club. Man up and deal with the substandard 'do.

(To be honest, it looked exactly the same to me as when it's 'done'.)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

In a "modern" context...what is the definition of a man's man?

From a historical context...we're no longer allowed to be "real" men as McAllister would interpret it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No more quiche Lorraine??? :-D


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Awful lot of mamma's boys out there, who then expect the wife/girlfriend to then be mamma... lot of way high-maintenance men out there. It's not so masculine.
> 
> .


If I'm not mistaken, you have ties to a culture which has arranged marriages, treats wives as property and in extreme cases murders women for family honour.

I would have thought mothering a metrosexual would be a piece of cake.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

screature said:


> Me Tarzan... You Jane...
> 
> Yep that is what it takes to me a man in "Professor" McAllister's view...  What a knob?


I am sure the study is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Consider this quote from the article:



> We’re even weak at being weaker.
> 
> When it comes to manicured metrosexualism — a calling card of the contemporary male — we’re pale imitations of mid-18th-century men who “showed an extravagance of dress that leaves (modern metrosexual-in-chief David) Beckham looking like a plain Dwayne,” says McAllister.


Saying that past men were better at being wusses kind of gives it away. That and the book's title - "Manthropology"


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Like I said... fluff city.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't look men. Your manliness is draining away as you engage in this topic.

_Out of here to recharge my manliness._


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Man up, all y'all! Abandon this thread afore it's too late!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I say we all form a posse, go find Peter McAllister and give him a real good beatin'.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> I say we all form a posse, go find Peter McAllister and give him a real good beatin'.


Can't. I might break a nail. :lmao:


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Define 'manly'. I think the definitions are skewed.

Anyway, give me a mature man any day, over a 'manly man'. 

Here's a good definition:

_"In positive terms, we can state that psychological maturity entails finding greater satisfaction in giving than in receiving; having a capacity to form satisfying and permanent loyalties; being primarily a creative, contributing person; having learned to profit from experience; having a freedom from fear (anxiety) with a resulting true serenity and not a pseudo absence of tension; and accepting and making the most of unchangeable reality when it confronts one."_ - William C. Menninger


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Can't. I might break a nail. :lmao:


:lmao: Too true and I might mess up my hair.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Define 'manly'. I think the definitions are skewed...


+1 Exactly. He obviously has a presupposition as to what constitutes/defines "manliness" and in his case it is obviously stuck in the stone age.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Y'all are losing your man glands!

_This message typed on behalf of Macfury by a female._


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Y'all are losing your man glands!
> 
> _This message typed on behalf of Macfury by a female._


Really... ya think so?!?! Choose the weapon... Bring it on....

And my woman can beat up your woman...


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

So how far back do we need to go to find an example of an era where more men were more man?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

A Leafs fan - very unmanly.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

The article is based on previous traditional roles, however I have to agree with Sonal to some degree. Many (not all) men aren't necessarily losing their manliness, their just not men, they're boys in mens' clothing. I see men not understanding what they did wrong.... They probably weren't being a man who was responsible enough to think about anyone else but himself. I think it's more about self-confidence, the ability to initiate in being responsible, respect, consideration, and integrity... lacking that is.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

singingcrow said:


> The article is based on previous traditional roles, however I have to agree with Sonal to some degree. Many (not all) men aren't necessarily losing their manliness, their just not men, they're boys in mens' clothing. I see men not understanding what they did wrong.... They probably weren't being a man who was responsible enough to think about anyone else but himself. I think it's more about self-confidence, the ability to initiate in being responsible, respect, consideration, and integrity... lacking that is.


Good post! It seems to me that I see both men and women everywhere who just don't seem to have grown up. They revel in immaturity and expect others to deal with the consequences of their actions. It seems more prevalent in men, in my observance, but this delayed adolescence is not the sole preserve of men. The qualities you mention, responsibility, respect, consideration and integrity are what makes a boy a man, or a person an adult, not the ability to wrestle your prey to the ground.

I'm 53 and I still feel like I'm learning what these things really mean, I suppose it takes a lifetime, but I see many my age and older who don't seem to have a clue what these things even are. They might be stronger than me or more macho, but they still remind me of big children, not adults.

While I think it's important not to lose touch with the fun and energy that adolescents and youth possess, if one wants to be an adult, responsibility and integrity need to be learned. I feel like this article was written by someone who doesn't understand this and equates manhood merely with physical strength.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Good post! It seems to me that I see both men and women everywhere who just don't seem to have grown up. They revel in immaturity and expect others to deal with the consequences of their actions. It seems more prevalent in men, in my observance, but this delayed adolescence is not the sole preserve of men. The qualities you mention, responsibility, respect, consideration and integrity are what makes a boy a man, or a person an adult, not the ability to wrestle your prey to the ground.
> 
> I'm 53 and I still feel like I'm learning what these things really mean, I suppose it takes a lifetime, but I see many my age and older who don't seem to have a clue what these things even are. They might be stronger than me or more macho, but they still remind me of big children, not adults.
> 
> While I think it's important not to lose touch with the fun and energy that adolescents and youth possess, if one wants to be an adult, responsibility and integrity need to be learned. I feel like this article was written by someone who doesn't understand this and equates manhood merely with physical strength.


This seems a very wussy line of thought to me. I suggest you take up tatting and forget all about delusions of manhood.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> If I'm not mistaken, you have ties to a culture which has arranged marriages, treats wives as property and in extreme cases murders women for family honour.
> 
> I would have thought mothering a metrosexual would be a piece of cake.


Is there an option C? 

I agree with singingcrow's more eloquent response.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Heh. I believe it is natural evolution at work; the survival of the most likely to attract and maintain a mate. 

I’d prefer a “wimpy” appropriately groomed and self-confident metrosexual male over an odiferous, slovenly and aggressive he-man male. (Never mistake a “laid-back” personal hygiene and grooming regimen as manly, unless it’s _single_ manly.) 

I find it hilarious when some big tough he-men refuse to wear a pink shirt (or anything in their opinion that is too “fancy/femmy”) for fear that someone might be confused about their sexuality. Really? Snort! That action speaks louder than anything they might choose to wear.

Likewise, I admire the confidence of a guy that can comfortably choose to wear a pink shirt without being afraid of what someone else might think.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Heh. I believe it is natural evolution at work; the survival of the most likely to attract and maintain a mate.
> 
> I’d prefer a “wimpy” appropriately groomed and self-confident metrosexual male over an odiferous, slovenly and aggressive he-man male. (Never mistake a “laid-back” personal hygiene and grooming regimen as manly, unless it’s _single_ manly.)
> 
> ...


Rigidity of thought and behaviour are often the result of fear. The truth about so many of the overtly macho types is that they are deathly afraid of a lot of things, things they can't even allow themselves to think about. There's a reason it is called ****-_phobia_. These types become like the George Constanza character in Seinfeld worrying about the possibility that "it moved". (I won't explain the reference -- Google it, if you don't know.)

Any man who is confidently self-aware will have no reason to worry that something they wear might look feminine to someone else. They'll wear it if they like it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I wear any damn thing I like and any damn time I like and it doesn't bother me one little bit.

Hell, I've even been know to cry the odd time.

That's me on the left.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I wear any damn thing I like and any damn time I like and it doesn't bother me one little bit.
> 
> Hell, I've even been know to cry the odd time.
> 
> That's me on the left.


Nice bikini, SINC! 

I'd be a little worried about your buddy there though, he appears to have the "wandering hands".


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> I wear any damn thing I like and any damn time I like and it doesn't bother me one little bit.
> 
> Hell, I've even been know to cry the odd time.
> 
> That's me on the left.


Woot! And now I'm cryin' laughin'! BAAAAAaahahahahah!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Nice bikini, SINC!
> 
> I'd be a little worried about your buddy there though, he appears to have the "wandering hands".


Who? Barney? He's harmless.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Who? Barney? He's harmless.


OK, but I think he was clearly enamoured with your stunning beach-bod. He wasn't trying to ply you with liquor, was he?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Uh, no, I mixed those caesars. The guy can chop and haul wood, a valuable companion when I'm sitting by he fire staying warm. And to think he does it for a caesar.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> Who? Barney? He's harmless.


Mostly harmless....until he starts singing his theme song, over and over and over...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4 said:


> Heh. I believe it is natural evolution at work; the survival of the most likely to attract and maintain a mate.
> 
> I’d prefer a “wimpy” appropriately groomed and self-confident metrosexual male over an odiferous, slovenly and aggressive he-man male. (Never mistake a “laid-back” personal hygiene and grooming regimen as manly, unless it’s _single_ manly.)


Cleanliness is not the defining factor. You've got clean MEN and dirty MEN. CLEAN wimps and DIRTY wimps.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Just to further complicate things:

A husband's inner femme - thestar.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Just to further complicate things:
> 
> A husband's inner femme - thestar.com


Only a failed man would write like that.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I continue to be surprised that this kind of crap is given any sort of credence in a modern world!

Each person is an individual - different from each and every other. Any sort of attempt to group people is profiling and prejudice.


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Only a failed man would write like that.


Only a failed man would write like that.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

One thing I think is lost on a lot of modern men is chivalry. Whens the last time you saw a guy open a door for a woman? Or stand up and greet a woman who enters the room? I suppose chivalry is mostly done out of respect; but theres respect for the person you're doing things for and also respect for yourself in being polite and considerate of others. I'm not saying we should all take off our jackets and lay them across puddles and snow for women... but just basic courtesy is lost on many!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Only a failed man would write like that.


Your slip is showing, mrjimmy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Your slip is showing, mrjimmy.


Thanks for noticing. Do you like what you see?


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Farout!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Thanks for noticing. Do you like what you see?


Frankly, no.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Chimpur said:


> One thing I think is lost on a lot of modern men is chivalry. Whens the last time you saw a guy open a door for a woman? Or stand up and greet a woman who enters the room? I suppose chivalry is mostly done out of respect; but theres respect for the person you're doing things for and also respect for yourself in being polite and considerate of others. I'm not saying we should all take off our jackets and lay them across puddles and snow for women... but just basic courtesy is lost on many!


I don't like the (small-c) word chivalry used to describe what you're referring to ... I realize it's used that way but the traditional meaning is the (large-C) Chivalry, or Knights Code, a social contract of days gone by.

The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a code of ethics that governed behaviour and the result of obeying that code both showed respect and garnered respect. How one behaved around and towards women was just part of it.

I also don't think that it's the kind of behaviour that will necessarily garner respect from the modern woman ... some might, perhaps her mother will, but others see it as condescending. If you watch classic movies, you see the gestures but it's not explained why, so you might not even notice it when it's happening.

Sometimes the plot hinges on a social cue ... a woman might declare she has 'the vapours" and fans herself, or faints. What do you make of that?

It means she farted, everyone can smell it, and she has to leave the room immediately. Her only reasonable social response is to imply she is gravely ill, but everyone ... including the audience ... knows she's fine and just observing a social more.

Now, if she just faints, it means she is really sick, often it means she's pregnant. If you don't know the cues, you miss something important.

The audience, at the time the film was made, of course, knew exactly what is going on, and why. Sometimes this even affects modern viewers understanding of the plot and actions in the film. A great example is the jacket across the puddle ... audiences in the early 20th century saw this for what it was ... a joke, a parody, something Jim Carey might do in a comedy flick but that no real man ever would.

In the 50's and 70's older adults still got the joke, their children didn't though, and it became a cliche of a cliche.

In modern movies set in classic time (say, the 1930's) they just ignore all the usual social mores that absolutely would have had to be in a film that was both set and filmed in the same year, and the script is written like 21st century people would behave. Trust me, no adult alive today would last 5 minutes somehow transported to 1930 without his behaviour and ignorance of social mores giving him or her away.

The reality is a bit more complex ... there is a time and place for the kind of gestures you describe, but the opportunity to find oneself in those kinds of social situations is exceedingly rare today.

A young man could go a year or more without encountering one. Suffice it to say it's considered formal behaviour now, and formal situations are becoming rare. 50 years ago any time a couple was out in public was a formal situation, so men opened doors for women, and so on.

It might be useful to compare that time with today: you can wear shorts in the evening, even while at a resturaunt, or go dining without a jacket and tie, or simply be in public without a hat.

80 years ago you went fishing in a jacket and tie.

The world has changed, as it always does, and I think most people would rather not go back; there is much that we are well and good to be rid of as well as a few things, such as those you describe, that some may miss.

I don't know many women who would think it's appropriate to be called a slut because she was seen smoking on the street, but that's also part of that code of behaviour we've left behind since the 60's.

Today, where every third 20-something grew up with no father in their life, it's hardly a surprise that young men (and young women) have only the skills their mother could teach them as their tools to make their way in the world.

If your father didn't tell you, would you know which side of the walk you should be on when out on a date? Do you know now? 

In other words, it's not just about opening doors, and if you failed to properly display one part you may as well have not bothered with the rest ... you're marked as uncouth, crude and common with a single transgression, men and women alike.

I don't think anyone, perhaps even you, would want to go back to those days.

We are not going to change that, so we need to change with it.

Courtesy begins at home; and there's a reason why the modern world is cruder and less polite than before. Unless you have some miracle up your sleeve, I don't see that changing without taking away freedoms our society isn't prepared to lose.

The best thing to do is to be courteous yourself, and stop worrying about what you can't change ... and you can't change what others do.

Somewhat more on topic, it seems to me that once you're old enough to actually grow up and be a man, only wimps worry about whether they're men or not. And for those who are somehow unclear on this one, trust me ... women want you to be a man.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Chimpur said:


> One thing I think is lost on a lot of modern men is chivalry. Whens the last time you saw a guy open a door for a woman? Or stand up and greet a woman who enters the room?


I see people open and hold doors all the time; for men too. Why is it only polite to do things for women and not men?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I just throw on epic battle music when I'm attacking the odd cleaning jobs around the house. That makes me feel manly enough.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide said:


> It might be useful to compare that time with today: you can wear shorts in the evening, even while at a resturaunt, or go dining without a jacket and tie, or simply be in public without a hat.
> 
> 80 years ago you went fishing in a jacket and tie.
> 
> The world has changed, as it always does, and I think most people would rather not go back...


I'd rather go back. Watching an older TV Show or movie with men wearing suits, ties and hats provides an infinitely more palatable aesthetic than what I see today.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'd rather go back. Watching an older TV Show or movie with men wearing suits, ties and hats provides an infinitely more palatable aesthetic than what I see today.


There is no accounting for taste it is a personal matter... however, I have to say I am personally glad that I don't have to live by the dress codes of yesteryear.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Same here. In a big way!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Frankly, no.


That's not what your eyes are saying.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Same here. In a big way!


Down-dresser!



mrjimmy said:


> That's not what your eyes are saying.


Huh, did some ugly old broad just say something?.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Huh, did some ugly old broad just say something?.


:lmao:


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm perfectly okay with the trend that has men dressing more informally, since it means that I don't have to wear a corset....

But I'm not sure that I can be okay with Mantyhose.
The next big thing from Europe: mantyhose | Beauty School | torontolife.com

MANTYHOSE: In Defense of Men in Tights - Philadelphia Magazine - phillymag.com


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> I'm perfectly okay with the trend that has men dressing more informally, since it means that I don't have to wear a corset....
> 
> But I'm not sure that I can be okay with Mantyhose.
> The next big thing from Europe: mantyhose | Beauty School | torontolife.com
> ...


They look like expensive and fancy long johns. When I go out to use my snowblower, I wear long johns, and I am not ashamed to admit it to anyone. Still, replace my Stanfield's with Mantyhose???????? "Death before Dishonor" shall be inscribed on my tombstone if you see me switch.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Down-dresser!


Stiff old suit!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember Man-T-Hose being sold as a gag gift in joke shops--but they had a rather obvious pouch in the centre.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Stiff old suit!


Vagabond!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> They look like expensive and fancy long johns. When I go out to use my snowblower, I wear long johns, and I am not ashamed to admit it to anyone. Still, replace my Stanfield's with Mantyhose???????? "Death before Dishonor" shall be inscribed on my tombstone if you see me switch.


I hate long johns, never wear them. I prefer fleece-lined jeans when you need something extra to keep warm.

If it's cold outside, get a 1-piece insulated work suit ... they are not expensive, maybe $80 ... and put that over whatever you're wearing. You can pay more, if you shop at the wrong stores, but whatever. In Western Canada go to Peavy Mart; in Eastern Canada you might be stuck with the overpriced versions at Mark's Work Wearhouse.

Look for side zippers to well above the knee (you really want them right up to the hip, above the pocket of your inside pants) and it will take you about 20 seconds to put it on or off, and you will be toasty warm in any weather above about -20C. Make sure all three main zippers (leg, chest) are 2-way. For colder than that, dress warmer underneath.

I usually throw the snap-on hoods away or just don't wear it if you can't detach it, since regardless of who makes it, apparently our primitive technology is unable at this point in time to make one that actually fits a human head on someone who is not standing around like a mannequin.

Wear something on your head, and a gaiter is nice to protect your neck and if necessary, your head and face. UnderArmour makes a very good one that you can just have over your neck, or pull over your face, or pull over your head, or pull over your head and face. Whatever the situation calls for.

If you're a woman, somehow momentarily kill that part of your brain that insists on fashionable good looks and just buy good men's socks that fit. You will never find good women's socks that are actually warm, so don't bother trying.

I have a purpose-built extreme cold weather suit ... same one used on Iditarod Dog Sled races ... but it's too hot to wear if you're actually moving, even at sub -40C temps. Good for standing on a dog sled, I guess. I wore it once.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Whoo hoo ..Gordguide, you had me at "fleece-lined jeans" ...those sound very cosy. I didn't know they existed...must seek and acquire.......

Speaking of fleece, and women suspending fashion sense...... a couple of days ago I saw a young woman wearing fleece PJ bottoms in public. Undeniably PJs. Seriously. (Running behind on laundry? Ready for the next nap attack? Went out the door and forgot your pants? What?)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Speaking of fleece, and women suspending fashion sense...... a couple of days ago I saw a young woman wearing fleece PJ bottoms in public. Undeniably PJs. Seriously. (Running behind on laundry? Ready for the next nap attack? Went out the door and forgot your pants? What?)


Quite common in our neck of the woods, everywhere from the mall to downtown to the schools.

I think it's abysmal. 

Don't know of any fleece lined jeans, but I pick up a pair of insulated pants from Costco every winter. They have a lighter lining which I find good for shooting hockey tournaments, when I'm in the rink for 12-14 hour days.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Quite common in our neck of the woods, everywhere from the mall to downtown to the schools.
> 
> I think it's abysmal.


Yep, I've seen this--as well as bedroom slippers at a major Toronto intersection.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I hate long johns, never wear them. I prefer fleece-lined jeans when you need something extra to keep warm." Those are great, gg, but for your weather. Try those in the wet St.John's snow, and you would find that you would not be moving very quickly as you tried to shovel loads of wet snow. I have to admit that I did not know what "Stanfields" were when I came to Canada, but found the use for layers as I was sent into the frontline of snow shoveling once I bought my first home. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Vagabond!


Badge of honor. Thanks.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

KC4 said:


> Speaking of fleece, and women suspending fashion sense...... a couple of days ago I saw a young woman wearing fleece PJ bottoms in public. Undeniably PJs. Seriously. (Running behind on laundry? Ready for the next nap attack? Went out the door and forgot your pants? What?)



Sorry to break this to you, this is not exactly new. I believe this is something that grew out of the general over-casualness of society. I think this mainly started with college and university students.



Also, as discussed earlier in this thread, chivalry (Chivalry) never actually existed. This was a made up romanticism... However, most of what was mentioned was true, not of chivalry, but of the social contract in which people interacted.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

ertman said:


> Sorry to break this to you, this is not exactly new. I believe this is something that grew out of the general over-casualness of society. I think this mainly started with college and university students.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as discussed earlier in this thread, chivalry (Chivalry) never actually existed. This was a made up romanticism... However, most of what was mentioned was true, not of chivalry, but of the social contract in which people interacted.


Yeah, I know it’s not new ertman. I have seen it a few times before. I do a double take every time. Perhaps my age is showing, but I think showing up in public wearing rumpled PJs (which leads me to assume the wearer has not bathed/showered/changed clothing since bedtime) is appallingly lazy. 

I’m no fashionista. I get busted by the fashion police around here on an annoyingly regular basis. But even I would never consider exiting my house in PJs, unless said house is in flames or has suddenly filled with wasps or other unwanted guests. 

The public PJ wearing crowd appears to be predominately female, which only demonstrates that both genders suffer from “laid-back” personal grooming and hygiene practices. Maybe it’s the new grunge look. Ack. Nasty.


----------

