I am one of many that says its a package deal.....My $0.02:
I voted yes, but before anyone starts hating hear me out...
In my mind, being a gentleman is more than just how you treat other people (although that should be the primary part of it). Treating others with courtesy and respect, acting with honesty and integrity, and the like make you a decent human being. However, being a gentleman requires a certain well-roundedness that goes beyond these things. A gentleman should be educated (though this need not be formally or at least not much). A gentleman should hold convictions but be well-informed enough to know why he holds his convictions and understand why others hold the convictions they hold. He should demonstrate care for his appearance and personal habits to a reasonable degree. He should be able to converse with a wide range of people in a genuine fashion.
I'm not saying that being a gentleman requires being at least upper middle class (whatever that means) or making a certain income annually or owning a closet full of Italian suits, a drawer full of Swiss watches, or a garage full of German cars. I don't think it's about money at all, really. Some people spend a lot of money to look like thugs and gang bangers while others spend very modest amounts and look very sharp. I suppose there would be cases where someone has fallen upon very hard times and cannot afford decent clothes at all, but this surely is an exception that proves the rule. If a person is disheveled and unkempt because he is destitute that's one thing, but if he's disheveled and unkempt because he doesn't care, that's another.
I'm not saying that a plumber or a farmer or a biker is exempt from being a gentleman. If he is doing the best he can within his means and taking thought for how he presents himself then he can make the cut in my books. He doesn't need to look like the guy in Green Acres doing manual labour in a three-piece suit.
At the same time, I felt compelled to vote yes because I believe that being considered a gentleman is a "package deal" as someone has already put it. I believe appearance matters and that being a slob is not compatible with being a gentleman. By "slob" I mean not the person who legitimately cannot improve his appearance, but the person who could but doesn't bother to try.
I think we are right to criticize the 18th/19th century European aristocratic ideal of gentlemanliness that focused excessively on the externals like noble birth, owning land, having servants, dressing a certain way, etc. But I think we also need to be caution of proposing a lowest-common-denominator 20th/21st century North American democratic ideal that only requires you to be a nice person such that everyone gets to be a gentleman as long as he fulfills some very basic ideals.
If we are going to say that gentlemanliness has at its core a code of conduct, ought that not to work itself out in a broad (indeed every) area of life?
Is clothing or grooming a requirement to define a gentleman?
- Thread starter Rockminer
- Start date
I am one of many that says its a package deal.....
I think there are all sorts wearing all sorts who act like "gentlemen," but it's a package deal, including class, wealth, etc. I don't mind that I may not be one, depending upon your perspective. It's just not that important to me.
- Thread starter
- #103
I'd like to explore this "expected by a civilized society" image you speak of. There has to be an awful lot of dress ideas that would pass this scrutiny. Give me a list of acceptable dress that would be acceptable throughout civilized society.
- Thread starter
- #104
Isn't that exactly what you're doing be insisting that clothing plays a role? You've gone from saying that it's not a requirement to be a gentleman, to listing people who don't qualify based on dress (post 99).
My point has been that the bulk of society doesn't care that the definition mentions clothing anymore than they give a darn that it mentions Noble birth almost immediately, they choose to use the word as a general term. We can debate whether or not society uses the word correctly, but ultimately the word will be used however society wishes to use it.
You're not wrong for insisting that certain clothing plays a part, anymore than i'm wrong for insisting that absolutely no one can even get in the door if they don't come from noble birth. Adhering to the strict definition is fine as long as you stick to all of it. I don't see anyone that believes a certain clothing style is a requirement or expected saying that Noble birth is just as important. My guess is because virtually no one would qualify if we used that part of the definition, so it's easy to just kick it to the curb and move on, but the same people will go to the mat on something as superficial as a certain society style of clothing.
Neither side is wrong, it's just that the strict definition people, having to do with Noble birth, wealth, clothing, etc are in the minority IMO.
The word is used by the bulk of society however they decide to use it, whether it meets the true definition or not. It's been my opinion from the start that it is used like the definition MrLara posted, and clothing doesn't matter anymore than Noble birth.
Wait what? I never said that. I am sticking to my opinion that if they can afford it then they should make that effort to present themselves accordingly. Its a package deal.
That listing of people that i mentioned, a homeless person, gothic, prison garb are all just examples of people that based on their image or style [ which may be unacceptable by many] can be nice people but based on their image and groom may not meet the expectations of a gentleman by society.
- Thread starter
- #107
But if the majority of society agreed that clothing wasn't a requirement, couldn't I rewrite your sentence above and be correct.
"That listing of people that i mentioned, a homeless person, gothic, prison garb are all just examples of people that based on their image or style [ which is acceptable by many] can be nice people and based on their image and groom meet the expectations of a gentleman by society.
I've always said that if people do their best, then that's good enough for me. I'm just not willing to exclude entire groups of people based on style anymore than I am to exclude almost all of them for not being born into the correct family.
No, that is not what i am implying, how many times i am going to make my point. I used that group of people from Tim Mcd post #66.
I was using that group since you also misconstrued his post to which he objected post #84
Here is his objection to your reply:
" I think think that you have taken my reply to your specific scenarios, removed context and taken those to an extreme (reductio ad absurdum). I think that this thread is about 5 posts away from proving Godwin's Law.
I am utterly at a loss as to the point you are trying to make about "clothing determining if someone has the ability to do things for people" as I thought the question posed in the OP was whether clothes and grooming are requirement to define a Gentlman.
"
I agree and been stating that all along, but if a person intentionally or carelessly don't make an effort then they not being a gentleman. Most of the group that i quoted from Time mcd fits that mold.
- Thread starter
- #110
I didn't misconstrue anything IMO.
He specifically said this
Then gave specifics clothing styles that didn't qualify .
You agreed with him. but you're telling me that you don't think it's a requirement, and then giving me the same examples of people who don't qualify.
If a poor man is gentleman like, he is not a poor gentlemanly person. He is a gentleman.
- Thread starter
- #112
How many people in society would you say intentionally, or carelessly don't make an effort to do the best they can with what they have? Now we're getting to such a small percentage of people that'it's not even worth talking about. And couldn't that minute number be applied across the board? Why are we singling out people who wear black, and people who don't qualify simply because they don't have a home? What does not having a home have to do with clothing choices?
Wait what? I never said it's not a requirement, I said it's a requirement but if they can afford it.
What? I never mentioned colors.
I meant a homeless bum living in the streets [that doesn't care about his image or appearance to society ] ...not homeless as in temporary displacement.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #116
So you would agree with this statement.
"As long as each man does the best he can with what he has available,clothing wise, he qualifies as a gentleman if the other requirements are met as well"
"As long as each man does the best he can with what he has available,clothing wise, he qualifies as a gentleman if the other requirements are met as well"
Why must everything in society, including the definition of "gentleman," be driven down to the lease common denominator?
I think the democratization of "gentleman" is like handing out trophies to all the kids just for playing.
I think the democratization of "gentleman" is like handing out trophies to all the kids just for playing.
- Thread starter
- #118
Since I have this new shiny custom title to live up to, let me try and answer your question. For better or worse that word is being used, by society today, in a way that some see as driven down. I'm not saying that people are wrong for thinking that, it's just that there are a lot of things that are in the definition that have been driven down over the years, not just clothing. I don't see anyone standing up for a man of good family, breeding, or social position, a male personal servant, or a man of independent income that doesn't work for a living. Again, I'm fine if we want to place all of these definitions on someone before we call them a Gentleman, but it seems that the bulk of society has used that word incorrectly. We either need to stand up and say the word is being used wrong, or accept that it has changed over time, whether we like it or not.
I guess there's a "classical" usage and a "modern" usage.
- Thread starter
- #120
I agree. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time. The people who believe the classical usage aren't wrong they're just in the minority, and there's nothing wrong with that either.
In the end, the classical definition people will have their list, the modern definition people will have their list, and the earth will continue to rotate. This whole discussion started after I made a statement regarding the modern definition and defended it from that perspective. This particular thread started when someone asked me to start a poll because he thought it would be 90% yes vote.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
