got me thinking about what I wear and why I wear it. Which caused me to haul out the camera and take a picture of what I was wearing today. Today, specifically, I am wearing the following:
A blue polo shirt, which I got at JC Penney. It’s the house brand polo, and I think it cost me $20
A pair of Levi’s 505 Regular Fit Jeans, which cost around $40;
Fruit of the Loom underwear, not from the Breaking Bad collection, which I think are like $15
No shoes and socks at the moment, but if I were wearing them, they would be standard athletic socks ($10 for 10 pair) and the casual brown shoes I bought at Sears about a month ago for about $60.
And that’s it, unless you incl as a rule I don’t usually wear other jewelry or accessories.
What I am wearing today is generally representative of what I wear on any day, both for work (writing and also making appearances) and for just existing. Occasionally I will swap out the polo for a henley or a t-shirt (if I am at a convention and/or not planning to leave my house that day the latter is more likely), but the Levi’s tend to be a staple, and I tend to wear jeans for more than any other type of trouser. I do have suits and other more formal clothes, but I wear them rarely.
Why do I wear what I do? There are several reasons.
1. I am by no stretch of the imagination a clothes horse, nor do clothes really interest or engage me beyond the most cursory way. So I tend to buy clothes that are basic, non-flashy, easy to find and replace and, to a certain extent, status-neutral (which actually means “generically North American middle-class”).
2. With that said, I dislike being a billboard for clothesmakers, which means when it comes to shirts in particular, I actively avoid clothes with brand identifiers on them. This tends to direct me toward house brands, which also have the advantage of generally being cheaper.
3. With that said, I do have one strong brand preference: Levi’s. This is entirely due to early childhood brand indoctrination, since in the world of late-70s, early-80s Southern California elementary and middle schools, there was a definite hierarchy of jeans, which went: Levi’s, Lee, Wrangler and everything else (hot tip: Don’t get caught dead in Tuffskins) (There were designer jeans too, but those were for girls, and there was an entirely different hierarchy there).
As an adult, I recognize this brand identification is largely garbage, but at the same time I still can’t bring myself to put on a pair of Lee or Wrangler jeans. So well done, Levi’s marketers.
4. This get-up has been the basic male uniform for every job I’ve had as an adult: Journalist in the early 90s, AOL minion in the mid-90s, and freelance writer/author from 1998 onward. Additionally, in the business circles I currently frequent — publishing, tech and film/TV — the jeans-and-polo look works just fine, especially because in each case there I am identified as a “creative,” and creatives are given credit if they show up in clothing without obvious food stains on them.
There is a whole discussion to be had here about why “casual” is the standard uniform for all these industries (short form: it’s intentional sartorial messaging from these industries that they are status-less meritocracies concerned only about contribution, not class or other social hierarchies — which, incidentally, is contemptible nonsense) but I will avoid going too much into detail about that at the moment and simply note that since it works for my own clothing choices, I’m happy it’s there.
Indeed, because this is the basic uniform for a middle-class male and several high-value industries have adopted it as a standard look, short of events where formal business wear is explicitly requested or expected, as a middle-aged, generally non-skeevy-looking white dude, this look it gains me entry to almost everywhere I want or need to go. Conversely, almost anywhere I am, no one would argue that I didn’t have a right to be there.
I know this is true because this is my experience in the world. I go to meetings in this get-up an I go out to meals in this get up and get a table. If being more dressed up is expected, I clothes are not my thing but I know enough to dress well when I have to. But on a day-to-day basis, this look, coupled with society’s baseline assumptions when it comes to race/gender/class, works for me I’d say 95% of the time.
6. And that other 5% of the time? Well, here’s the thing with that: I don’t have to care what people think — which is to say that other people’s negative social judgment of me based on appearance is almost entirely immaterial to how I get to live my life. This is also due to race/gender/ some of it is also due to my personal situation and me being who I am as a person.
Now, as it happens, I am interested in when people look me up and down, take in the sartorial gestalt, and make choices about how to respond to me based on it. I think it’s fascinating, and frequently amusing, and sometimes I have fun playing with it. This is particularly the case when, from time to time, I go out looking like a slob — unshaven, hair askew to varying degrees, wearing a some crappy t-shirt — and lose the advantages of the “middle class casual” look.
But it’s well worth noting that the reason I find it interesting and amusing is that by and large it doesn’t have any real negative effect on me. My systematic and personal advantages mean that nearly all disadvantages posed by someone judging me on my appearance are temporary and light. This is also why I find it amusing to post deeply unflattering pictures of myself online (see the one to the right as an example); I don’t have to worry about the negative side-effects of doing so. People who actually are judged on their appearance, and for whom that judgment will have a material effect on their life, don’t have the same luxury to be unconcerned as I do. What’s interesting and amusing to me is a matter of stress and anxiety for others.
A much shorter version of all the above is that I can put on $120 worth of clothes and shoes and be taken seriously almost anywhere I might want to go. So that’s what I do. Not everyone gets to do it. These facts are worth thinking about.
Taunting the tauntable since 1998
John Scalzi, proprietor
Whatever Days
October 2013
Whatarchives
Whatarchives
Select Month
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
April 2002
March 2002
Administrivia
The Big Idea
What's the Big Idea? Authors explaining the the big ideas behind their latest works, in their own words.
Authors/Editors/Publicists: for information on how to participate, click
Whatever Just Happened
Random Whatever
-- and you'll be taken to a random Whatever entry in the archive. Which one will you get? Got me!
Scalzi Elsewhere on the Internet
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.Need help? Ask USQ
Farmers are not seeking help: what does service provision have to do with it?
Vayro, C. and Brownlow, C. and Ireland, M. and March, S.
Farmers are not seeking help: what does service provision have to do with it?
In: 14th World Rural Health Conference (Wonca 2017), 29 Apr-2 May 2017, Cairns, QLD.
Text (Poster)
Wonca Farmers services poster.pdf
Official URL:
AimThe rate of suicide in farmers is twice that of the general population.
Help-seeking from health professionals, if this occurs in a timely manner, can significantly minimise the negative consequences of mental ill-health. However, it has now been demonstrated that farmers as a group are reluctant to seek help for mental ill-health, which likely contributes to this problem. Previous research has demonstrated that General Practitioners are the most commonly visited health professional in rural farming areas, however, they are under-utilised as a means of seeking help. This research aimed to examine the potential barriers and facilitators of mental health help-seeking in farmers, that relate to the provision of service from the perspective of farmers. MethodsThe present research draws on findings from semi‐structured interviews with 10 farmers residing in Queensland. The techniques of Braun and Clarke (2006) were used to guide the thematic analysis.
ResultsSeveral key factors relating to services were identified as having the potential to directly or indirectly influence mental health help-seeking. These include: how services are marketed/packaged and delivered, availability and accessibility, continuity of care, having ‘knowledgeable bush practitioners’ as well as perception of good outcomes. ConclusionIt is expected that this research will create a better understanding of the farmers’ perspective relating to service provision for the purpose of seeking help for mental health. The outcomes have implications for developing and providing interventions for farmers to promote services for the purpose of mental health help-seeking as well as create awareness in service provider and other stakeholders of issues that prevent timely help-seeking.
Item Type:
Conference or Workshop Item (Commonwealth Reporting Category E)
Item Status:
Live Archive
Faculty / Department / School:
Current - Institute for Resilient Regions
Date Deposited:
Last Modified:
Uncontrolled Keywords:
mental health services
Fields of Research :
Socio-Economic Objective:
Actions (login required)
Archive Repository Staff Only