Fair point!
> Because whether you're talking about someone who discards entire wardrobes at the end of every season
I would assume these people buy high-end garments, and you'll find more boutique second hand stores that will take it. I suspect, if somebody is that devoted to fashion, it's more of a hobby or a passion, and I think we're all allowed a few vices, splurges, and wasteful pleasures.
> or someone who rotates the same very-few items until they no longer fit
I think the natural end point for heavily worn clothes would be as a rag?
The lesson that I took from this article is that being a male computer engineer[1], and thus having social approval to look however the hell I want, is a great perk that I do not explicitly value enough. In fact, it is because I don't have to think about what I wear- I literally have a rotation of shirts and pants/shorts and just pick whatever is next in each category- that the perk is so large and I undervalue it so much.
[1]: It helps that I fit into essentially every dominant caste category for my local region, I suspect, but my sample sizes are small enough here that I won't comment about that. My sample sizes on female computer engineers is large enough that I feel comfortable saying that they are held to higher standards of dress than I am.
She’s a geeky engineer at heart just like you and me.
Shed happily cycle through the same few things but even as a scientist and health care provider not working in, say, marketing she gets judged hard on her clothes.
It’s cost her promotions.
It sucks and thank you for recognizing one of our subconscious privileges.
We're not in a time in history where this is considered an acceptable solution for women, as we (species) are all about expressing individuality.
The range of variations in acceptable men's dress may be much narrower, and men may be less likely to be viewed negatively for consistently choosing near-identical points within the range, but there are pretty specific expectations for men which change over time and in different contexts and subcultures, and men are still judged very harshly for not making contextually correct selections.
Uniforms aren't given the respect they deserve.
It's semi-widely understood that fashion norms are purposefully exclusionary, that changing routinely and unpredictably imposes ongoing costs that keep outgroups out.
"Formality" norms are not like this. They don't tend to change particularly quickly (though which norm is preferred in a given "context" can change if the context flip-flops), and they're not normally intended to be hard to "follow". They substitute for formal induction as a way to signal that, yes, while I don't actually know any of you, I share enough basic culture with you that we can reasonably expect to be communicating with other in ways that we both know how to deal with. (This is something you get to feel strongly when you try to work your way into doing business with people with whom you don't share enough basic culture to reasonably expect to be communicating on the same wavelength.)
And yes, some people do get left out that the rigors of the norm, but the alternative to having formality norms isn't that everyone is now willing to deal with everyone else. If people aren't openly advertising what social protocols they're ready to speak, you're still going to have to negotiate them once you get to the meeting, with substantial chance of failure. The alternative looks more like refusing to deal with people who you can't find someone you trust to vouch for, which, well, is indeed what tends to happen when trying to do business cross-culturally.
This used to be a super-common middle class (and under, I suppose) habit, at least in the US.
But synthetics make shitty rags, so that rules out a high percentage of modern cheap clothes of the sort that don't tend to get repaired or sold used, and material costs are so low that more people can easily afford to just buy cotton rags that'll perform better than strips of denim or old cotton t-shirts. Plus I don't think people do things that call for nigh-disposable cloth rags as much anymore (in our house they were mostly used for cleaning up engine grease or motor oil, but folks worked on their own cars and lawnmowers and such a lot more back then, and they were all ICE, not electric)
This is what I do, but I read somewhere that old clothes make bad rags due to losing texture over the years of use and washing and especially fabric conditioner making clothes progressively less water absorbent.
Why would they stop fitting?
Also elasticity wears out. Poorly fit shirts that are worn out look pretty sloppy. And I say this as someone who wears poorly fit clothing that is worn out.
Still, are you suggesting that clothes should be kept forever?
Because whether you're talking about someone who discards entire wardrobes at the end of every season, or someone who rotates the same very-few items until they no longer fit, at some point people still need to do something with old clothes.