Monday 29 June 2015

My reply to Nicholas Khaw's piece on the Middle Ground

I always monitor the source of the traffic coming to my blog and interestingly enough, I noticed many people coming to my blog via the Middle Ground blog. Now I always welcome traffic by any means or source, so thanks for that. I like it when people come to my blog and read for themselves what I have to say, what I hate is when people try to misrepresent me or summarize what I am about (and admittedly, that tends to happens on those forums like HWZ). Since this piece by Khaw was dealing with a topic that I had already written two pieces on and he also referred to me directly, I shall do him the courtesy of responding to him directly (and offering a hyperlink back to his blog piece.)
Khaw wrote: Opinions presented are those of the author, who is certain he does not qualify as a gentleman, given his limited wardrobe (if wardrobes are to be a criterion on which a gentleman is made). It must also be stated from the onset that he has never been into pop culture and fashion trends. Which is why he has written this.

As I have explained in my previous piece, whether or not Khaw's wardrobe is inadequate depends entirely on the context of his social life. If what he wears pleases the people around him, if nobody is offended by what he wears - then there clearly isn't a problem. But imagine if say he was invited to a funeral service for a very important person and the mourners were expected to turn up dressed in a certain respectable manner befitting the occasion, then being a gentleman would mean dressing to fit in (and if you don't have the right clothes, either buy something or borrow something). At the end of the day, being a gentleman is about that willingness to always put the needs of others before your own. It's never about how fashionable you are or if you have bought all the trendiest suits from this season's collection. (Incidentally, I really hate some of the Spring-Summer 2015 slim-fit short-cut suit styles, but I digress.)
Is your wardrobe adequate to be a gentleman?

Khaw wrote: There is also this article by a self-proclaimed Brit...

Khaw was referring to this article by yours truly but I wish to take issue with his choice of words. I am British. It's quite simple. I have one passport, it is a British passport. I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. There is really no dispute about whether or not I am British or not. It is a simple fact: either I am a British citizen or I am not and that merely boils down to whether or not I have a British passport: which I do. Now you could perhaps use those words 'self-proclaimed' to cast doubt over the status of someone - for example, for these six guys who claim that they are gentlemen. If you doubt that they are really gentlemen, you can use the term 'self-proclaimed gentlemen' to express your cynicism to question whether or not they should be considered gentlemen. That gives the impression of, "hey those guys may consider themselves to be gentlemen but I am not sure I agree with that, but they are free to claim whatever they want, just don't expect the rest of us to agree with that label they have chosen."

But in my case, there are not ifs or buts about my nationality: I only have one passport and that's my British passport (I gave up my Singaporean passport years ago). Incidentally, you can't self-proclaim to be a citizen of another country if you simply are not a citizen of that country. So by that token, I cannot self-proclaim to be a Singaporean because I do not have Singaporean nationality anymore - it is that simple. In this case, I actually don't think that Khaw was actually questioning my nationality - I suspect it is more a question of semantics; that he was trying to use a phrase he didn't understand properly. Now if you want to argue that I am a self-proclaimed men's fashion expert - then that's fair enough. But as for my nationality, Mr Khaw I'm more than happy to meet you in Singapore and present you with my lovely British passport (and settle the issue of my nationality) - that might teach you a thing or two about semantics.
Here's my passport Selfie for you Mr Khaw.

Khaw wrote:  ...claims the notion of a gentleman is a British construct of class-markers and these people fall short of it especially in authenticity. 

Well, like I explained in both my fist post and my second post: this is simply a question of semantics. Words do not simply pop out of thin air and magically appear in the dictionary: the meaning of words evolve over centuries as the language itself evolve, reflecting the societies who use the word. The word 'gentleman' has been in use since the 11th century, so the concept of what it means to be a gentleman is one that has been constructed over the last thousand years. It is certainly nothing new. So if you are dealing with a concept that has been in use for over a thousand years, you cannot just ignore the fact that you are using an English concept whose meaning has evolved over the centuries. In my last post, I had used the example of two other words: 'model' (as in Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, Tyra Banks, Gisele Bunchen etc) and 'laksa' to show you why it is so important to pay heed to the meaning of words we use.
As for the issue of authenticity, I don't think that's the issue here. As I clearly explained in my second post here, "But if you really aspire to be a true gentleman (the way those six guys from 'The Gentleman's Pride' do), then it goes a lot beyond just having nice clothes. It is about having not just the right attire, but the knowledge and social skills to get along with everyone from prince to pauper. So when it comes to fashion, it is all about wearing the right clothes for the company you keep - not just wearing nice clothes per se: the difference is actually far less subtle than you think. It is one thing to wear clothes that you like, it is quite another to wear something (that you may or may not like) just to please and impress the company that you keep. Such is the difference between being a egotistic fashionista and a considerate gentleman." So by that token, there is no doubt that they are willing to spend money to buy expensive clothes - but does that automatically make them gentleman on the basis of their wardrobe? I don't think so, but all I have to judge them by are their photos and their razor TV video which was less than convincing. 

Khaw wrote: He also amusingly claims that some of their outfits are “garishly mismatched” and “weird”.

Please. calling their outfits weird is already very much an understatement! Their outfits are garishly mismatched - it is their waistcoats in particular that I take issue with. If your waistcoat is made of a different material from your suit, then it is clear that the waistcoat doesn't match your suit. Now that is a risky choice to make in terms of putting together a formal ensemble - perhaps if you are trying to make some kind of fashion statement in terms of breaking conventional rules, if you were trying to be a fashion rebel, then fair enough, please go ahead; in fact why not go all the way and do the Lady Gaga thing and wear a dress made of meat. But were these garishly mismatched waistcoats meant to be an outrageous fashion statement? Judging by the photos, no - they were not a fashion statement but rather an attempt to look elegant and it seems they are oblivious to the effect it had on the impression they were giving the viewer.
There is a big church I pass regularly on my way to the gym - I cycle and that church happens to be at the traffic lights where I often have to stop. Now recently, I stopped at the lights when I think there was a wedding going on, as the church was non-smoking, there was a guy in the carpark outside the church smoking. He was clearly attending a formal event like a wedding and was wearing a garishly mismatched waistcoas. Now the impression I got was that he were obviously trying to make an effort to be formal for the occasion but was oblivious to just how badly he came across: it looked as if he had either borrowed the waistcoat from a friend or had picked it up for a few pounds from the local charity shop. When you clearly wear something that doesn't match, the first impression you give others is, "didn't you look at yourself in the mirror when you got dressed?" Another valid impression would be, "you couldn't afford to buy anything that actually matched, could you?" And finally, "do you realize how wrong it looks?" It's not about looking weird - a badly mismatched piece of clothing can really damage the impression you give others.

Khaw wrote: Nonetheless, they stand undeterred and in (attempted? Good attempt, say I) gentleman fashion, replied that they “would like to extend an invitation to those people [their critics] to hang out with us and they can decide after that”.

Well, Khaw is entitled to his opinion of course and by the same token, I am entitled to disagree with him. My opinion is that these guys are pretty clueless in their attempts at gentlemanly fashion and they come across as egotistic fashionistas rather than true gentlemen who understand fashion. There's nothing wrong with being an egotistic fashionista if that's what you are - by all means make a fashion statement, but that's not the same as being a gentleman when it comes to your fashion. Like I said before, it's a question of semantics, let's choose the right word to describe these guys. As for the invitation to change my opinion, well I've already passed judgement on their fashion sense and have judged how 'classy' they are based on their Razor TV video; would spending an hour or two in their company change my mind? I doubt it somehow but hey, I am going to be in Singapore this summer (August 2015)!
Do you have class? Are you a gentleman? Let me be the judge.

Khaw wrote: I postulate that there is a commercial angle to this. They want to be ‘influencers’ in the mould of Xiaxue, providing a male alternative in this influential industry dominated by females.

This was something I had raised in my first article as well - however, if you were a business, you would be very cagey about choosing these guys to endorse any kind of product at this stage simply because the majority of the comments on social media about them are still negative. Until they have a big enough following and receive far more favourable reactions on social media, then it strongly reduces their commercial appeal at this stage. Are they onto something? Possibly, but a lot more work needs to be done from a sales & marketing point of view before they can be as successful as Xiaxue when it comes to being an influencer. This is marketing 101 - if you receive a negative reaction, you need to change your image and approach instead of getting all defensive about the situation. It all boils down to profit vs loss at the end of the day. Will being associated with these guys bring a profit or a loss to your business?
Will you want your brand name to be associated with these guys?

Khaw wrote: Whether or not they are gentleman of the authentic mould does not matter, as long as there are people who aspired to look and dress like them.

Once again, I don't quite agree with that for a simple reason: I simply don't believe anyone is going to look at these guys and think, "wow these guys are so amazing, from now on, I am going dress like them from now on!" Either you already take a keen interest in fashion the way I do and already have an impressive wardrobe, or you just don't give two hoots about fashion. Stumbling across these guys on social media isn't going to change your mind either way. Indeed, all of you would have already had feelings about fashion before these guys came along last week - you would have already been buying clothes for years and have clearly defined tastes about what you like and don't like when it comes to fashion. To be able to influence others in terms of altering their fashion choices takes a lot more than that.
What inspires you to alter your fashion sense?

Khaw wrote:  Some people might take to heart the higher calling of the (supposed) virtues of gentlemanliness rather than wallow in superficial dress. 

Again, I'm afraid I have to disagree and for good reason too. Is anyone going to suddenly awaken to the virtues of gentlemanly behaviour just because of these guys on social media? Hell no. I'm 39 this year, I've been around long enough to have had the pleasure of meeting some really nice people and the displeasure of having to deal with some nasty assholes along the way. Some of us learnt good manners from our parents - we were taught to be polite from an early age whilst others learnt through experience that you usually can get the best out of those around you by being polite with them (as opposed to being rude, demanding or impatient) with them. Either way, whether we have good manners or not depends a lot on the experiences we have had over a lifetime (your family, your education, your work environment, your social circles, your spouse etc) and these experiences shape the kind of people we have become. Thus hoping that such a social media campaign can have an impact on an individual's behaviour is naive at best.
Are you nice to people or rude with them?

Khaw wrote:  Just because a group of people claim that gentlemanliness includes certain aspects that you disagree with, does not mean that the concept of gentlemanliness is irrevocably altered.

No, it is again a question of semantics. So if I may, I would like to refer you to the example I gave you previously with another word, 'model'. Allow me to quote myself from the previous post on this: if you were told Katie is a model, then would assume that Katie is able to get paid work as a model, be it either posing in ads for print, strutting down the catwalk or acting in various advertising campaigns for TV/cinema/internet. What if you then found out that Katie is actually quite overweight and decidedly unattractive, she has never ever been paid to pose for a photo, that her pictures have never ever appeared in a print ad before and she has never ever set foot on a catwalk before - that all Katie has ever done was posted her selfies onto Instagram? Surely there is some element of deception here (or at least exaggeration) in claiming that Katie is a model: perhaps Katie would like to be one and dreams of becoming a working model one day, but it would be dishonest to describe her as one as she does not fit the criteria of a model.
So in that case study, just because Katie has used the word 'model' incorrectly by describing herself as a model doesn't change the meaning of the word 'model' or does it alter anything about the modelling industry, Instead, it just means that Katie is a self-delusional liar who has the cheek to claim to be something that she is clearly not. At best, it is a gross exaggeration, at worst, it is a blatant lie. It is not a good idea to try to single-handedly change the meaning of a word or a concept: such is the nature of language: there are rules to be followed. If you misuse a word, people are either going to assume that you're a liar or you are struggling with the language (thus you've used the wrong word because you don't quite know what it means). Either way, using the wrong word to describe yourself is never a good idea as it is just going to lead to others having a poor impression of you either way.

There you go, that's my response to Mr Khaw's article - was I gentle with Nicholas Khaw? Clearly not. But then again, I was not gentle with these six guys from the Gentleman's Pride either - such is the nature of social media I'm afraid. If you are brave enough to put yourself out there on social media, well, then be prepared to be judged by those who come across your piece. If you're not happy with that, then it's probably wiser to keep your opinions to yourself and not broadcast it on the internet. Let me know what you think, please leave a comment below - many thanks for reading!

3 comments:

  1. I think you were gentle enough. I've seen you really go off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lagi ada follow up: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/limpehs-school-of-blogging-respecting.html

      Delete
  2. The style most heavily influencing the looks of some of the guys in PrideSG would be the rockabilly style popular in the US of A in the 50s to 60s. At least based on their undercuts and pompadours this is what i conclude. http://www.fashionbeans.com/2014/mens-aw14-fashion-trend-rockabilly-style/

    Is this the "Gentleman" style? I doubt so since that word has always had a British origin and connections. They would look right at home in a Mad Men sort of world but at some high society British social event they would just look very weird.

    ReplyDelete