During the early 20th century, when labor was more divided by gender, the US Dept. of Agriculture organized youth clubs orientated around developing certain skills. Chief among them were clothing clubs, which taught young girls how to cut, mend, and sew clothing.
In her book The Lost Art of Dress, historian Linda Przybyszewski estimates that more than 324,000 girls participated in clothing clubs (cooking clubs were a distant second with half as many members). The US gov also funded home economics education, which taught similar skills.
The US Dept of Agriculture also published guides on how to spot quality clothing and take care of things you own. The guides were surprisingly sophisticated. This guide on men's suits talked about fabrics like gabardine, serge, covert, and tropical worsted.
Here is the guide for men's shirts (they recommended that you buy a full-cut shirt, not a slim fit). Note the page showing different weaves: broadcloth, oxford, chambray, etc. You don't even get this kind of info in men's fashion magazines nowadays.
It's hard to overstate the impact of this education. Not only were consumers more informed, but people at home knew how to mend clothing or repurpose things they no longer wore. There was a *culture* of repair, such that people bought and kept things for longer.
I recently spoke with fashion critic and StyleZeitgeist founder Eugene Rabkin, who lamented the "deskilling of consumers." We all know about the deskilling of workers—the way automation or division of labor can deskill workers such as craftsmen, putting them on an assembly line.
Rabkin believes a similar thing has happened to consumers. Many today are less educated about how to buy and care for quality goods. Privately-owned media enterprises have done a poor job of filling in this space, as they focus on trends, celebrities, and industry news.
"But Derek," you say, "I think the original poster was talking about the government *making* clothes. Surely, they're bad at that!"
Not true. In fact, much of menswear can be traced back to the US Dept of Defense.
After all, it was the US military that came with the A-1 and A-2 bombers; MA-1 flight jackets; B-3 and B-6 shearlings; M43, M51, and M65 Army jackets; N-3B and M-51 parkas; and naval-issued peacoats. These things are still available in thrift shops today bc they're so well made.
These designs have also inspired countless designers, who reinterpret them in different materials, details, and designs. Such remixes can be cool ... but the originals are also great and widely available at military surplus depots and thrift shops.
In some ways, the quality of military clothing has deteriorated with time, as technology makes it possible to cut corners. For instance, 1950s and '60s Army chinos and fatigues were made from pure cotton, which made them more breathable and allowed them to fade in nicer ways.
Starting in the 1980s, the US gov switched to a poly blend to save money. Unfortunately, this fabric doesn't develop the nice fades you see below. They also changed the cut, so the pants fit more like Dickies, rather than the wider pre-1980s silhouette.
When it comes to the US government's involvement in clothing, perhaps the most important has been the creation of American jobs. US gov contracts still require that clothes be made at US factories. This has helped prop up plants like the former Hickey Freeman factory.
My point: the state can be used for good. It's not true that the private sector is always better. A lot of development and even capitalist structures required incredible state involvement. I recommend checking out these two books.
But on the matter of clothing—which is not unlike other areas of our lives—the government has been a positive force in ways that often goes unrecognized. I bet if you look through your closet now, you will find some things that some government helped develop.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Not true. I'll give you some examples of when styles crossed over from womenswear to menswear, and how men have worn straight-up womenswear or just feminine styles in cool ways. 🧵
We should first recognize that gender codes are socially constructed. Clothing is not inherently masculine or feminine—codes are contextual and can change over time. Aristocratic men once wore bright red heels. Then they became womenswear until that notion was challenged again.
Plenty of things started on the womenswear side of the aisle before crossing over into men's. Prior to the 20th century, men carried pocket watches and only women wore wristwatches. The humble t-shirt began as the top of union suits, which was once considered women's underwear.
I don't know anything about womenswear, but I've noticed that women's tailoring is typically free of the problems I commonly see on men. I had dinner with a bespoke tailor last night who explained why this may be so. A thread for those interested. 🧵
Disclosure: I don't know how the patterns were drafted for the clothes featured in this thread. That would make a big difference in how they should be judged. But for the purpose of this thread, I'll assume they're ready-to-wear or designer (i.e., adjusted off a block pattern).
One thing I notice is that women's tailoring typically features a high armhole. For instance, at last year's DNC, every politician who made a speech raised their hand at some point. On men, this typically resulted in their jacket lifting. But not so on women.
First, some basics. It's easier to dress like this if you involve some kind of activity. I suggest going out to a nice restaurant or bar. Or going to a party or an evening show. You can also dress like this just to have fun in the city (e.g., going to the museum).
Another thing: there are elements in this outfit that may be harder to pull off, such as the hair-on-hide coat. Can you try? Yes, of course, but it's more of a statement piece. Needs the right haircut/ personal vibe.
It's interesting to see how gender in aesthetics is constantly a moving target. Will explain how four outfits from today's Todd Snyder FW25 show were once considered very masculine, but now may not because men perform disinterest in clothes. 🧵
The first is straightforward: single-breasted, notch lapel suit made from grey herringbone tweed. My guess is that this model is wearing a size up for styling purposes (gives him some swagger). The cut you'll try in-store will probably be a little slimmer.
Of course, tweed is that prickly woolen that British men once wore while playing sport in the countryside. It used to be that men's wardrobes were strictly divided between town (London) and country, but such rules broke down over time. Hence the phrase "tweed in the city."
Before Europeans landed in North America, the Pacific Northwest was populated by the Coast Salish people, who had been here for thousands of years. During the 19th century, many made a living by selling woven blankets to traders. The blankets typically featured geometric designs.
Business dried up in the late 19th century as the market was flooded with Hudson Bay Point blankets, so Coast Salish people picked up knitting needles. This was the birth of the Cowichan sweater, which combined old Coast Salish weaving practices with European knitting techniques.
If you're based in the US and shop a lot online, you may know that packages declared under $800 usually arrive without taxes. According to Reuters, in addition to the 25% Canada tariff, Trump is also canceling this de minimis tax exemption for Canadian imports. 🧵
This will be quite expensive for guys who are into menswear. For instance, Spier & Mackay is popular among guys who are budget-conscious but want quality tailoring. Their $400 suits will now arrive with $100 tax bill.
Naked and Famous is also super popular because they're an easy, relatively accessible entry point into the world of raw denim. Most of their jeans are around $250, so those will arrive with a $63 tax bill.