Maimon, The Outcast

I'm continuing to learn as I make my way through books about Maimonides.  As I said, he can't win.  He was too smart, too unique, too out of step with the Jews, too definite and without compromise.  He threatened too many people; and the traditional Kabbalistic/Ashkenazic/Gaonic ways of life were against him.  He wanted for the Jews, what the Jews didn't want. His intentions were the best--for the glory of Hashem (God), and "all Israel."  However, "all Israel" wasn't on the bandwagon with him.

One of his fundamental goals was to organize and settle the totality of age-old Talmudic dissension, controversy, and dispute, henceforth and forever more; essentially, he wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff, deleting argument from Jewish law (halacha); he wanted the Jewish world to be able to cleanly and easily grasp the crux of the law without having to stumble and meander through all the arguments preceding it.  The Jews, however, problematic and divisive to the core, had to argue with someone, so they disputed Maimon instead of Talmud--exactly what he was trying to eradicate!!!

The Jews needed to stick with what they knew--Talmud the old-fashioned way; a "mishmash" of debate. Interestingly, the Jews accepted Judah ha Nasi and his Mishneh; they accepted Joseph Karo and the Shulchan Aruch (Set Table--rules of behavior).  But when Maimon came along in between the two, isolated there in the southern Sephardic/assimilated Graeco-Roman-Moslem world, it was a "Thanks but no thanks."  Maimon was perceived as being too radical.

I love Maimonides.  I understand why he wasn't accepted.  I respect that.  He wasn't wrong; he was different.  He was writing for "the Bunch," and at the same time, he wasn't one of them.  Remember about community--how one has to fall in line.  How community keeps one in line if one falls out, or ultimately rejects him, altogether.  Snius, snius--(Modesty, modesty: Humility). 

That's the answer.  Right there.  Maimon didn't fit the mold.  It wasn't that he was arrogant, or mean, or anything that was a negative.  He was just different, and too bright to know or reckon with how deeply his work and persona impacted others.  He was aware of others' disdain regarding him, and their arguments concerning his dedication to rational discourse. Yet, he hoped that in time--the future--Jewish perspective no longer would be personally directed at him, and objectively would swing toward his way of thinking, instead. It did not.

His was THE greatest mind during all of the Middle Ages (not just amidst the Jews, but everyone)--on a par with Einstein, easily; albeit much better rounded than an Einstein.  Maimonides was a freak, an outcast; too brilliant for the masses--even the educated masses--to grasp. Astounding man.

The truth is, the Jews didn't want him because his expediency, clarity, and organization of thought threatened their established, dithering ways. Maimon, in his zeal for codification and rationalism, was about more than just regimenting the Talmud and Jewish law.  Ironically, and Jewishly, he was about unraveling the "Jewish mind" without realizing it.  He wanted a kind of linear thinking, in a Jewish world that was ponderously circular in ideology and thought. Essentially, he wanted the Jews to think like the Greeks: they were not able, as they were Jews.  There is a fundamental difference between the two cultures in terms of mindset.  This is one element that Maimonides was unable to grasp, in my opinion; quite possibly because he was Jewish, himself.

Perhaps, one could say the Greek mind was about, "either this or that." The Jew is about, "Well, maybe a little this and maybe a little that; but then again, maybe not..."   For the Greek, everything has to add up mathematically; for the Jew, there are always two possibilities; unless there is need for one more.

Alas, Aristotle and Maimon, of the crisp and decisive Greek mentality, must have had fits regarding such willy nilly back and forth discussions and debates.

Thus, Maimon became read and studied as a Jewish philosopher, and a commentator on Jewish law.  His effort to re-write and define the Talmud, was acknowledged, but not rendered authoritative. A first-rate second-stringer at best, others were studied long before him--if he is studied at all. He ran rings around every single Jewish scholar who ever lived.  Even now. But it didn't matter.  He wasn't part of the Bunch.  And that, in Judaism as with all tribes, is the bottom line.

I read about him with tears in my eyes.  It is so hard to be different.  It really is very lonely at the top...

"Hypers, Nancy!" George ejaculated. Response: Political Incorrectness In Nancy Drew Books

[ The followimg post is a response to an article : Was Nancy Drew Politically Incorrect? ]

In every single thing I do, I am a detective.  Some people call that "doing one's homework."  From the moment I arise until I drop, I am a grade-A busybody; whether it is about medicine, law, education, business, or just trying to survive in today's world.

Nancy Drew's, some in first editions (yes, really), have a place of honor on my bookshelves.  I have them printed on cheaper paper for the sake of saving money to support the Second World War; I have them with R.H. Tandy's marvelous illustrations both in glossy black and whites printed from 1929 through the '30's, in pen and ink's from the late '30's and '40's, in their colored covers.  I also have the later illustrators who cheapened and simplified Nancy's style and persona.  It was R.H. Tandy who gave her her beauty.  Not to mention that of chums, Helen Corning, Bess Marvin, and George Fayne; with loyal housekeeper, Hannah Gruen, and Dad--Carson Drew. Remember???

The books, complete with running boards on automobiles that required blankets for "motoring" as there were yet to be car heaters; a whopping speed limit of 20 miles per hour; rumble seats in roadsters; or "electrical ice-boxes" as the term "refrigerator' was brand new; were also very real. That is to say, the books reflected the times in which they were written, as the author states.

There neither was nor is absolutely nothing wrong with them.  Nothing.

As several of the folks commented below, it wasn't about "racism" or "anti-Semitism'" in those days.  It was about reality: The way things were.  That's called "HISTORY."   The books, with the nom de plume of Carolyn Keene, were well written--for third and fourth graders--full of fun vocabulary, settings, adventures, and new things for young girls who wanted to be grown-up's.  In those days, when a girl like Nancy was 16, she was already running a household and solving mysteries.  As the books progressed, and our society was ever more protective of its children, Nancy's age upped to 18.  She had to be more mature to do all of those things; it wasn't so much about time passing, as it was about our society becoming less mature.

The bigotry and prejudice, if one wants to look for it, is there--"good and plenty."  But you know, it's how things were.  As the author writes, rather than hide reality from children, talk with them about it.  Learn from it.  Be glad that Nancy offers so much in so many dimensions--historically, politically, socially, culturally--in addition to the simple plots that were ever so adventuresome!  I still "blush to the fingertips" when something exciting is upon me. Don't you??

If one wants to address the 'Drew books, rather than frown upon the culture of the times, one might also take a look at Nancy as a top-drawer feminist--in fact, as are all of the women in these books.  Take Mr. Drew's sister: Eloise Drew, unmarried, a career woman, and living quite successfully in New York.  I believe Aunt Lou was a practicing attorney, and helped Nancy on more than one case...  See, it wasn't about deliberate attacks on this group or that; again, it was about society, commentary, the culture; and authors who used--yes--the ideal Girl Scout, as the epitome of the role model for Nancy's character.

This author did a very good job of discussing the slants in Nancy's world.  I have little doubt that those same slants were in far more books and series--e.g.: Mark Twain--than just Nancy Drew.  Hide the truth of the times, and they will re-live themselves.  Expose them for what they were, and they're valuable  lessons.

Nancy Drew is one of The Best aspects of my life.  She is alive and well, and with me every single day.  I am so glad that the author was as generous as she was, and wise.  Sometimes, people aren't so kind.  I have no patience with the politically correct: It's one thing to be courteous, polite, and civil. It's quite another to hide the truth, and live in a world that isn't or wasn't, or will never be: That is not Nancy Drew; it is the Emperor's New Clothes.

Moses ben Maimon: Cool Dude

"I got a crush on you, Sweetie Pie.  All the day and night-time, hear me sigh..."

Mr. Maimon as I call him, whose name was Moses, son of Maimon (also a distinguished rabbi) additionally is referred to as RaMBam (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon), or Maimonides.  He lived around the Mediterranean--Spain, Morocco, Palestine, Egypt--from 1135 or 1138, until his death, in 1204.  He was a fox.

He was beyond brilliant, and he was a Renaissance man before there was a Renaissance.  He belonged with the likes of Leonardo, Copernicus, Galileo, and as many greats of the future as one can recall.  St. Thomas Aquinas was inspired by Maimonides and used his work to better understand nature, science, and the realm of God in Christianity. Maimon was without question, the greatest thinker of the Middle Ages. Even today, it's difficult to find an equal who would match the genius and this remarkable and truly worldly philosopher.

Mr. Maimon, in addition to writing extensive commentary on the Mishnah--part of the Hebrew Talmud or books of law based on the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah--and organizing virtually all of said Jewish law until that time--was actually a physician, a scientist, an astronomer, a nutritionist, and a worldly philosopher.  He practiced medicine, was court physician to Al Qadi al Fadil, whose father was the incomparable Saladin--magnificent medieval ruler.

Word has it, dates aside, that King Richard the Lion Heart, in the midst of his travels during the Crusades, wanted Maimonides in his own court; but that for the times, Maimon felt his safety was in better hands with the Muslims.  Remember, this was the time of the Crusades, and expulsions/executions of Jews throughout the European civilized world. Strange bedfellows, eh?

As a physician, Maimonides was dedicated to medication, cures for multiple diseases and conditions, and pharmacological study as well as its organization.  The Maimonidean Oath for doctors, is practiced today. His methodology was a precursor for pharmaceutical practice.  He was a health nut, and was firm about diet and exercise.  The famous portrait of him that most see, is a contrivance no doubt, and has been duplicated multiple times.

However, Maimon could not have been heavy-set, or beefy in construct, as it wasn't who he was, nutritionally.  Rather than looking like Chef Boyardee, Moses Maimonides had to have been slender. He walked back and forth to his offices from his home, on a daily basis, saw patients, saw the Vizier in his palace, wrote voluminously, corresponded, spoke publicly and traveled to do so, and led a very active and full life with little time for food or rest.  It's difficult to imagine that Mr. Maimon would be anything but slim.

He was a student of Greece, Rome, and Islam, living in that geographical area.  He was not familiar with northern European thought or influence to any great extent.

His hero was Aristotle: pure and simple. There were others such as Averroes.  But the Greeks were his mentors.  He had virtually no contemporaries with whom he consulted; and virtually no Jews.   Reason was always his guide; nature was his companion.  Maimon wasn't just a Jewish philosopher who sat in a room and contemplated.  He was out and about with the people, working for a living.  He was involved with what he wrote, he practiced what he thought.  His ideas were based not only on his readings, but on his experiences in the real world.

In all of Judaism, I cannot think of a better role model for myself.  Mr. Maimon tried to re-construct Judaism in order to make the spiritual, rational.  He tried to justify God's role in a scientific world.  He did not have the backing of the kind of power or money to be able to do that; but what he left Judaism and the rest of those who were familiar with him--the western medieval world as a whole, and centuries beyond--was a dedication to a God of rational--again, rather than spiritual--existence and rationale that made such a universe possible.

He appeared to some to be arrogant and self-centered.  Instead, it's more likely that he was just himself, and so far above others' ability to comprehend him, that the appearance of superiority was really just honesty. As they say, "It isn't bragging if it's the truth..."

He was quick-tempered, had no patience for idiocy or foolishness; he was not interested in people who couldn't "connect the dots." He did his best to withhold unkindnesses toward others in personal meetings; however, he was candid in his writings or when he confided with certain contemporaries, re: what he felt to be blatant stupidity.  He was schooled in multiple languages, and was at home in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, just for openers.

He had to have had an eidetic/photographic memory.  He was funny, witty, had fine senses of humor, sarcasm, and wit; he was very kind, patient with those who were ingenuous and mattered; he was dedicated, responsible, and wise.  In short, he was simply "the best of the best."

When he died, Mr. Maimon's books were burned by many, despite the honor and homage that he received when he was alive.  The fierce discipline to maintain a rational point of view toward God, rather than a simpler unquestioning other-worldly spiritual one, was simply too difficult and too abstract for most to manage.  People wanted a personal god who attended them.  Maimon's in actuality, did not.

Maimon understood that God could not be all of the anthropomorphic components that the Hebrew Scriptures espoused; and he also understood that God, out of respect for humanity, could not intervene in lives; thus, he felt that prayer was really for he who prayed, and not for God, at all.  There was nothing God, as Maimon defined Him, could do.  In order for man to have free will, God could not intervene, deus ex machina, in a person's life. Rather God was present as form, rather than matter--the Greeks--the essences of all.  It was a tough road for the average Joe in the marketplace or herding the flocks.

Again, make no mistake: Moses ben Maimon was one of the greatest innovators that the world has ever known.  He did his best to organize Judaism--the origin of Western religion and thus one of the initial elements of Western civilization-- into something intelligent and tangible.  Rather than tons and tons of arguments, dissensions, and loose documents from the past, Jewish law for the first time, became a practical guide that could be followed. He did the same with medicine, science, diet, pharmacology, nature, preventative medicine, and with God.  He cared, he tried, he did his best.  He was an incredibly sensitive man who was highly in tune, whether or not he appeared that way on the surface.  He worked at all things until he died.  He was devoted to improving the world:  His way, certainly; but isn't that the way we all are... I will speak of him again.

I am fortunate enough to have many heroes.  Today, people don't believe in heroes.  Without heroes, there is no society to emulate, no goals, no role models, no understanding of what could be, no direction or a value system; a warning signal that is a presage regarding the end of a culture.  However, Moses ben Maimon, is as real and heroic to my mind, as any individual whoever lived.

A Rose By Any Other Name: The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) Broadcaster

This article was originally written  for the above paper in June of 1991.  What is interesting is that not much as changed in almost 23 years.  People are still trying to figure out what to call themselves, hoping their labels will forecast how they ought to be judged.  The reality, of course, is that it is the individual who matters; the nomenclature and stereotypes will come and go.  Also, society will judge as it wishes, and all the fancy labels in the world cannot change what the public wants to think, once the public makes up its mind...  

I read, with some interest, Ms. Kailes' February, 1991 article on the use of language.  I don't disagree with the author and her viewpoint, but lately, I find so may people concerned with what to call each other; I wonder if the focus isn't shifting away from how to treat each other.

The American Indian/Redskin is now the docile Native American; the Oriental has morphed to the Asian; the once Colored then Negro then Black has become the African American; the Mexican is now the Hispanic or Latino, depending on specific geography of origin, despite sameness of language.

For awhile, the Deaf were the Hearing Impaired until it was decided that the oral Deaf would remain Hearing Impaired, and the signing Deaf would return to their original name and be just Deaf.  The handicapped want to be the disabled, or the challenged.

I wonder how the cultural anthropologists and sociologists manage to keep up!

The problem with "disabled" is the implication of time and brokenness/non-usable-ness; i.e., once one used to be able, but now because of circumstance, he is dis-abled.  The original meaning of the prefix "dis" (not) implies apart-ness, a whole no longer complete or now in two or more pieces.

A cup with the handle broken off is disabled.  A sink whose faucet has been disconnected is disabled.  A man whose leg has been amputated is disabled. There is a sense of time having passed.  There is an implication that that which was once useful and whole is no longer so; function is non-operable.

My daughter as born with multiple medical involvements.  No time passed; nothing happened to her that transformed her from a whole into parts.  I don't think of her as "dis," or "not."  Most of her parts work all right; some of her parts operate on a partial basis.  I don't recall abilities once hers, that are no more.  I do think of her as handicapped, as there are clearly tasks with which she needs special help; she always has and will require significant assistance.

Ms. Kailes refers to the term "handicapped" as being a derogatory one; it calls to her mind the individual on the street corner with cap in hand, begging.

(In truth, the hand in the cap--not the other way around--was an aspect of horse racing, many years ago in Great Britain; the jockeys, vying for the most advantageous place on the track, would draw numbers out of a cap; hence, the derivation of the word.  He who drew the best number, had the inside path; he who drew the worst number was stuck with the outside path and a greater likelihood of losing the race.  The good or ill fortune of the horse's position around the track was a result of the jockey's "hand-i-the-cap.")

In sports today, golfers and bowlers have handicaps; horse racing still awards handicaps; there is a handicap in betting. There is no shame in the word, or in the use.  Rather, the condemnation is in peoples' opinions.

Recently, I met a physician who denied both terms.  He liked the idea of the "exceptional body"  instead of either "disabled" or "handicapped." My, I thought, my little girl is only eight, and already, she's up there with Madonna and Marilyn Monroe.

I keep wondering when Jews are going to change their names.  Anti-Semitism increased by 18% this year; it certainly would be a good time to enhance self-image, and the concept of the altered "handle" is very much in vogue.  I was considering the possibility of "American Moses-ite..."
*
If changing the name or label of an individual or a group assists with positive group or self-identity, I'm all for it.  If that same change also heightens the awareness and sensitivity levels of the broader society, I'm in favor of that, too.

I just hope people understand the old adage, "Actions speak louder than words."  Terms don't start out with positive or negative connotations, only objective denotations.  The former is imposed by the response from society. Once "queer" meant to be odd, and "gay" meant to be happy.  Now, both connote homosexuality--one negatively, one positively.

If "disabled" is more palatable than "handicapped," then let it be so.  If the larger community is more comfortable in accepting the disabled rather than the handicapped, I guess I think that's fine.  If individuals would rather be identified as "disabled," instead of "handicapped," I support that, too.  Often, it's not what the word means that counts; rather it's what the word implies.

The choice of this term or that is not what is most important, but rather that we are taking the time to care about our places and our acceptance in this world.  We are demanding to be recognized with a sense of pride and integrity.  As long as accomplishments measure up to the demands for verbal dignity, there should be no problem.

The Unhemmed Skirt: Fashionable Young Women of the 21st Century

Yesterday, we had a showing re: the sale of the building: The Wesleyans (Methodists, as you no doubt know). A group called Mosaic, which I think is their outreach program for downtrodden urban centers... seem like nice folks.

Toward the end of the showing, one gal is talking with Tom, my broker, in my office, and they're reviewing codes, etc. I'm sitting there, working. The girl is a slender tall, black woman with perfectly matched everything and fun black braided, woven hair. Jewelry, etc. all pinks and wines and puces... Little bowed Pappagallo ballerina flats with bugle beads and sequins. Again, exactingly attired.

Except for one thing: She was wearing a tea-length, tiered, cotton/gauze/muslin dyed skirt (remember those?) in the softest shade of burgundy--how nice. It went beautifully. However, each tier had tons of loose threads hanging from it. Tons. The hem was missing altogether: It simply wasn't. Just raw cloth that looked as though a heel had gotten caught in the stitching, pulled out the entire thing. It was hanging jaggedly, with more threads, all the way around.

Ghastly.

Here was this absolutely lovely girl, dressed to the nine's, with threads hanging everywhere... I couldn't take it. I simply couldn't.

Thus: While she was talking with Tom about the codes, laws, remodeling the bathrooms for the handicapped, etc., regarding moving an outreach church into my building, I quietly took out my shears and clipped the threads on her skirt. Not the tiers because there were too many threads on every layer around the skirt; I worried i might be sued for sexual harassment if I felt my way up from mid-calf to hips. But I did take the wad of muslin that was the large, gathered long skirt hem,, and I continued clipping away. Tons of burgundy shavings fell to the floor.

Interestingly, neither Tom nor the young woman missed a beat in their conversation. I just went on trimming. I can't tell you how happy it made me to see that Mess disappear.

When I was finished, the girl said to me, "You know my mother can't stand this skirt. She doesn't think it should have these threads, either. But this is the way I bought it."

I said to her, "Your mother is right. It's terrible. You're a pretty girl, delightfully dressed, and the skirt looks like it got caught around the center post in the washing machine." I went on, "I bet you paid extra for the manufacturer not to hem the skirt, or finish off the edges."

She confessed it was indeed costly.

I told her that now, she looked 100% better, she still had all the hanging mess on the tiers of the skirt, but that at least the hem wasn't in shreds any more; it was still raw unfinished cloth, so that she could feel as Bohemian as she wished without the stragglers, dripping down. She looked at me.

I said, "You'll thank me later."

Tom, who has been on oxygen since he met me, and has to keep slapping himself to reassure that I'm for real, rather fainted after this. Being raised with the sisters in Ohio Catholic schools, he is not used to my wanton flagrancy...

When he left, he said they would never buy the building...
***

Today, we got an offer from said church, for the highest amount, yet. Higher than any of the previously interested folks. Tom was in a swoon. He said he'd never in 30 years had three simultaneous offers on a single building. He couldn't believe it. Thing is, they want me out in three weeks and I have orders to finish.

Oy.

Tom says I can pay them rent. I said, "Listen, Tom. I'll pay the taxes, the utilities, the bills, for as long as I'm there; I will be out by the 4th of August or sooner. But I have to have time for my customers."

He said, "You'll have to pay rent."

I said, "Tell the gal that instead of rent, I'll finish clipping the threads on the skirt. No charge. That that alone should take care of it."

He said, "No, really. What can you pay in rent?"

I said, "Yes, really. I'll pay all the bills for as long as I'm there, and I'll fix her skirt. Start there. Then, we'll see if we need to negotiate." And that.was.that.

I'll let you know what ensues.
***

That's also why I guess I can't work at Macy's, should I want to go back to retailing. My time has come and gone... If a customer were to come in hideously attired in my opinion, or if new merchandise were to arrive that wasn't right, I would just take a scissor and cut away, or throw away. The store and the customer would be much better off for my assistance. I have no doubt. The thing is, I'm not sure management or the customer would agree. Even though I know they would "thank me later..."

Accommodations: UniformMarketNews.com

Originally, uniforms were meant to be worn by a single class of people:  Healthy, youthful-to-middle-aged men.  They were homogeneous, built pretty much the same, and lived about 46 years.    

Depending on the service required, a uniform was designed for a particular duty and rank.  A sailor wore a different outfit than an infantry man; a seaman wore a different outfit than the captain.  Basically however, things were pretty much the same.  The old joke is that uniforms used to be made in two sizes: Too big and too small.  There were stock sizes, little custom tailoring or adjustability, and no stretch fabrics as everything was made from natural fibers, and standard designs.

The word uniform meant "one shape," as it does today.  Uniform apparel was about identity of task and duty.  It also served as a protection.  Nothing more.  It was not a fashion statement; nor was it meant for comfort.  It was utilitarian, and it was worn with great pride.  It was one of the aspects of the profession that a man valued most--the apparel that went with the job.

It didn't matter whether a uniform was meant for land or sea, town or country.  Many of the uniforms were made by kinfolk, the local seamstresses, tailors, undertakers, or the leather tanner.  For the military, there were groups of people who labored for this purpose. 

It wasn't until later that women had uniforms, and they were different.  First of all, women were built differently; also, they did different things.  Usually classified as domestics, working women generally wore uniforms to indicate a kitchen, hospital, restaurant, or chores done in the inside of a home. 

Because women didn't go off to war, didn't march in parades or drive plows on a regular basis, their uniforms were primarily self-made to suit their individual needs; either that, or there would be a local seamstress that would fashion an upstairs maid's outfit, or cook's apron.

The twentieth century brought more and more women into the forefront.  Accommodations and compromises had to be made.  Wars, transportation and communication brought countries, societies, cultures and classes, closer and closer together.  Uniforms changed. 

Yesterday's cook's aprons are today's unisex chefs' coats.  They even come in pink, with button-reversal for girls.  What a woman wore to serve is no longer the dress with an apron and little cap, but a golf shirt and slacks.  Today, those who work inside the home are in T-shirts or cobbler aprons; the black dress with lace collar and cuffs is no more.  

The biggest change is that women work right beside the men--in the military, in agriculture, within industry, in hospitality, or corporate.  You name it, and women are there.  They are estheticians, welders, and everything in between.  Not infrequently, they are pregnant and that necessitates maternity uniforms.

Women  require similar designs, fabrics, attractiveness, and the same protection as men.  How much femininity is added and how much remains masculine.  How close do women's price points compare with men's?  If men's  industrial pants sell five or six times more pairs than women's, does the price point remain the same for the lower volume of women's pants?  Does it go up?  They are not any more difficult to make, but what about cost, per size and per pattern?  Is this discrimination even if styles for them sell one-fifth the quantity?

If it weren't enough to have women outfitted, the next accommodation was the larger and taller sizes.  Better nutrition, a more affluent economy, improved technology, all seem pointed to bigger bodies.  The first step was oversize for men--fuller sizes.  The 2x, and gradual increase to 5 or 6x, and more...  When it became clear that men grew up as well as out, long body garments and arm lengths evolved: Plus two inches, plus four inches plus six inches...  No more high-water- pants, or skimpy sleeves.  Just big and tall.

Women?   There are women's  plus sizes, and of course petites on the other end of the spectrum.  Societies all over the world have become so diverse, that every uniform has to be made for him and her, for tall and short, for fat and thin, and unisex if possible. 

Some uniform manufacturers choose to add multiple stylings and sizes in order to accommodate this huge variety of demographic diversification.   Some have slashed their lines tremendously, salvaging only their most popular colors and best-selling styles.  Then, they offer multiple choices but within fewer items, overall.  Some have decided not to buy into diversification and just continue doing what they do best with the size patterns they have, in styles that work.

  Catalogues have become thinner as manufacturers draw their lines in the sand, defining what their specialties are; others have sprung up to fill the gaps where some fall short.  When one contemplates all that the history of uniforms tells us, how we as a species are evolving, it's amazing!  The paradox is that the more we realize how different we are, the more accommodations we make remain the same. 

Measure Twice, Cut Once: UniformMarketNews.com

It used to be that no matter what we did, we had to do it better:  "Good, better, best; never let it rest--until your good is better, and your better best."  A manufacturer would smile contentedly as he finished an order and quip, "Perfect is good enough."  But, today, the stressed salesman snaps at his impatient customers, "We can give you cheap, quick, or good: Pick two.  You can't have all three!"  In today's world, guess which two most people pick.

Over the last few weeks, I have spoken with several companies:  One was doing ceremonial coats for a specialty group.  Five men with five unique measurements all fitting into size 5xl, one way or another.  Each was more specially shaped than the one before.  Directions were impeccable, fabric was magnificent, embroidery was superb, the pattern perfect. Cutters and sewing operators with years of experience were lined up to present these gentlemen with five perfect coats.  It was to be a collective work of uniform magnificence.  What happened?  Despite explicit instructions, their wives took the measurements, instead of the fellows going to skilled tailors.  Guess what? 

One guy had sleeves that came up to his elbows, because the back was too narrow by five inches.  One forgot that the abdomen doesn't disappear when the coat goes on, and his 59 inch stomach acted as a "front porch," left hanging between  his two 64 inch "side verandas."  Another gentleman's spouse didn't know where her husband's waist was, buried somewhere in his rotund figure; thus, the top of the coat looked like it had an empire waist, also about three inches too short at the hem.  The best is that the guys got the coats, didn't try them on, had them ornately embroidered for an unmentionable amount of money, and only afterward realized that the coats had to be trashed!

Then, there was the police department.  The secretary took down the specifics on this one, claiming she was an alteration lady on the side.  From our military uniform source, I surmise that her skills were very "on the side."  The coats were standard Marine Corps design, braided by hand with edge cord, all around.  In 100% wool elastique, they cost a pretty penny, as first class military coats do.  It turned out the gal had measured one fellow's coat three inches too long, and the entire coat had to be ripped out, cut down, re-lined, re-braided.  The pants for a different officer were criticized as being made far too small for his large, muscular thighs.  The salesman was told that his customer couldn't get the pants on.  When the officer was re-measured for new pants, his thighs were actually an inch narrower than originally thought; it was his seat that was two inches too small.  On it went...

A restaurateur complained that his 3xl gal was wearing a jumper and pinafore apron that were too short regarding the waist length, and asked the manufacturer if it would mind re-designing the pattern  to accommodate this woman's rather large bosom.  The manufacturer explained that an entirely new pattern had to be drafted, graded, etc., and that a custom pattern  for one uniquely built size 3xl would cost a fortune, suggesting an alteration lady, instead.  But no mind.  The gal was taken with a seizure of modesty, refused to get measured and as a result, the owner of the eatery sent the lady's old uniform to the manufacturer, with instructions to make her new uniforms just the same as the old but with a longer bodice.  How much longer, he couldn't say.  No one knows to this day.

Finally, there is the theatrical producer who needed Johnny-on-the-spot costumes for his dancers: Two weeks' notice, four different fabrications, three different garments per uniform to outfit the entire cast.  All were ritz and glitz, goods that were more slippery and clingy than skin on a snake, and so thin the garments couldn't be made up without fusing, lining, and heaven knows what.  Okay.  For skilled manufacturers of theme park attire, no worries, right?   But oop, when the stage manager gave the sewing operators their instructions, he forgot to reveal that there were two different styles of jackets rather than one; the wrong color fabric had been listed on the purchase order for one entire group of dancers (there were three groups); the fabric (which was really meant for flimsy bowties,  not coats and pants ) was 20 inches too narrow; he had forgotten to order one fabric, while short on the other three; and the fellow didn't include the custom-designed patterns.  Oh, yes, pant hem lengths were left out of the measurements, too.

So there you are.  Why accuracy matters.  Which reminds me, a well-known tailor recently came across a new tape measure that started at three inches, rather than at zero.  Have you ever taken a measurement that was three inches larger than the person's actual size?  Try it in your own business, sometime.  But    remember to measure twice, and cut only once. 

More Can Be Better: UniformMarketNews.Com

I have been struggling for some months with baggy triceps, a ballooning bosom, burgeoning waistline, bulbous buttocks, and blossoming thighs.  What to do, what to do…  At last, I have unwillingly joined the millions in our society who classify themselves as “plus.”  It’s a whole new world: A kind of confirming nod we give to one another in passing that not unlike pregnancy or having grey hair, reveals a secret society. We’re all part of a certain bunch:  Big beautiful women…   Yes, men, too (although it doesn’t seem to phase them as much, if at all).

Anyone who is in the custom uniform business, tailoring, or alterations, is used to the steady trickle of folks who require a special fit—not infrequently because of oversize.  Once in a while, my father would jokingly say that he would need to get a pattern from Omar the Tentmaker. 

Lately, however, it’s been one plus size after another, and sometimes entire orders.  Recently, a group of Midwesterners ordered 60 polo shirts—half 2XL and half 4XL—all with 8” added to the length to cover the fronts and rears of strong, hearty farmhands who wear size 58 pants.

Men are weighing in like cattle, and the women are right there with them.   This spring, alone, we had two different orders for military and fire personnel, where the gals had 67” waists.  Waists!  Imagine the chests and the seats… 

We had a call for a size 72 coat from a Shriner.  Another gent requested that we come to his house to measure and fit some jumpsuits, because he couldn’t squeeze his way out the door to come to us.  There’s a cavalry order going out where the average frock coat for the battalion is a 48Long. 

I’m not trying to make fun or ridicule.  Rather, I’m pointing out where a significant portion of our population’s sizing is headed.  Just as so many of our manufacturers for ready-to-wear have, of late, instituted petites and very small sizes to suit a particular frame, they’ve also gone to bigger and bigger sizing in order to accommodate both men and women in the workplace. 

Look at Edwards: It has two different fits of slacks for women.  It overhauled styling, and broadened its patterns.  There was a reason for it, in addition to staying current with the times.  A woman’s size is for a different figure than a misses—it’s rounder and fuller in all the important spots.  As baby boomers expand into midlife and younger women reap the rewards of the voluminous junk food culture, who wants to deal with the reality that she’s grown two sizes larger? 

Edwards has also re-sized its blazers.  It used to be that as the sizes grew, a pattern design that was lean to begin with, just got wider and longer all around like a set of nested boxes.  Now redesigned and re-proportioned, the larger sizes fit as well as the smaller.  Bravo!  In tandem, its blouses are mushrooming to sizes 28 and 30, and yes, made with Spandex in the fabrics for just a bit of easy stretch.  Sweaters for men and women are going up and up and up to a 5XL.

The sizes are getting larger for in-stock items, everywhere.  Red Kap carries up to a size 68 in a man’s jean.  Think about it.  While size 54 is standard bill o’fare for most pant styles, the larger sizes are available. Shirts go all the way to a 6XL with available lengths in extra plus 4,” 6” or 8” for oversize and non-stock.   For a guy to wear a shirt with a plus 8” tail is either to say he’s very very big, or it’s almost like putting him into a dress—the shirt is that long at 40.”

Dickies, Carhardt, Cabella—wow!  They’re out to capture the retail trade in uniform design, and make no bones about carrying the larger sizes.  One can find their brands with many uniform retailers, as well as in catalogues and online—they sell direct to the consumer as well as wholesale.    

Big Top Tees has been around for 20 years.  Who would’ve thought this little company that custom-manufactures knit garments for big and tall would last?  The truth is, business—and sizing—are booming.  Because oversize is all Big Top makes, it can manufacture for fewer dollars what bigger companies have to charge significantly more for—and, in far less time.  From T’s, they’ve diversified to fleece, polos, Henley’s, and other knit tops.

Broder and San Mar—two of the larger wholesale sportswear distributors—are carrying T-shirts in tall’s as the bigger manufacturers, such as Gildan, are catching on.  The larger sizes are becoming commonplace.  What used to be a range of S-XL went to 2XL, 3XL, and 4XL.  Now, many of the alpha sized companies go up to 5XL and 6XL without missing a beat.  Yes, the jacket trade is going in the same direction, too.

Scrubs and labcoats are made in 4XL, 5XL, and larger.  Pants and tops in solids and cute itty-bitty prints that fold around mammoth bodies—Fashion Seal, Medgear, Landau, Cherokee—all of them.  Aprons in bib and cobbler styles come in XL’s; there are even styles that are designed for fuller chests and hips, having added fabric to the tops and waists.  Fame makes three or four aprons that come from a tuxedo pattern and look terrific, while at the same time don’t fold into a woman’s fuller cleavage.

Our country as a whole has become a nation of wider and taller individuals: Whether it’s that some men are exercising and have athletic builds requiring looser sleeves and broader shoulders; or other guys who are portly’s or stout’s; whether it’s larger young women, or older gals who are experiencing “let-go” in every direction—the manufacturers are increasing their size ranges, and paying more attention to comfort and attractiveness, there’s no question. 

Nothing is worse than a heavier person who is wearing apparel that is too small and too tight with bulges, and buttons that are popped open, or that is too short and rides up.  “Sleek and Chic” is the motto, and no matter the build or the girth, with easy-fit, flattering designs that accommodate all sizes, and experienced sales reps, more really can be better.

Survival Skills In A Tough Economy: UniformMarketNews.com

(Note: This article was never published, nor was I paid for it, as Uniform Markets' felt the article was too negative.  In truth, it was perfectly correct and accurate.)

If you're reading this and you're like most of us, you're probably saying your prayers at night, and struggling plenty by day: The uniform industry, like many of those in today's world, is feeling heat from the huge economic meltdown.  Unlike jobs in technology, healthcare, the military, maintenance, or educational sectors, which are considered sacrosanct and necessary, the entire American market is in jeopardy; the apparel and uniform sectors are hanging by a thread.  Only those with the cleverest of survival plans, abilities to be flexible and roll with the punches will survive the shakedown.

If one goes online, looks in the Yellow Pages, or watches the ads in the newspapers, it will become readily apparent that under the heading of "Uniforms," there are not a lot of choices available.  Part of that is because not everyone wears a uniform and it’s a smaller niche industry; the other reason is that there just aren't that many of us around any more.  Tip: Consider partnering with a larger company.

Chances are that if you go out to dinner, you'll find your servers in T-shirts, polo shirts, or white dress shirts—basic and no frills.  They will all have been made off-shore.  If they need a cover-up, it's quite possibly an apron—also less expensive if purchased from an off-shore company that manufactures by the thousands.   If you check pants, it's the same: Off-shore.  It doesn't matter whether they're industrial, chefwear, casual or dress.  For the most part, it's off-shore manufactured slacks that are being worn. Tip: Sell off-shore merchandise as well as "Made in the U.S.A."

What is also noticeable is that fewer and fewer establishments are purchasing uniforms at all.  Employees are asked to purchase their own garments within certain guidelines.  Uniforms are no longer desired, save a cover-up to protect an employee's street-clothes, if even that.  While the littler mom-n'-pop shops are cutting out uniforms altogether, even the bigger companies are honing down.   Tip: Think aprons and vests.

Larger establishments are leaving the rental business as a means of handling their uniforms, and returning to the concept of purchasing the garments while letting the employees launder their own.  One large Sheraton hotel in Colorado is reported to have cut its uniform costs by $100,000 per year, as a result of returning to purchasing their garments instead of renting them.  Tip: If you're a renter, offer the alternative of buying.

Embroidery and silk-screening are the good news and the bad news in the uniform business.  One can look at them as the ribbon around the uniform package—good looking identity by offering a logo on low-cost garments, rather than higher priced uniforms that offer the identity by themselves.  Or, one can do away with the identity imprints as being too costly, and merely use a style, a color, or an accessory such as a hat, scarf or tie—one less aspect again on which to spend extra dollars.  Tip: Be familiar with alternative accessories.

As businesses go out of business, as corporations become more casual, as mergers rid themselves of duplication, as salaries and budgets become less instead of more, the question of how the uniform will survive, is a very real one.  It used to be, of course, that mostly service people wore them.  It also used to be that there were very few choices of garments available, and styles, colors, and fabrics from which to choose were limited.  A waitress looked like a waitress, a chef looked like a chef, a nurse looked like a nurse, and a doctor looked like a doctor.  Today, there are literally big-box stores for medical and kitchen wear.  It will be interesting to see how they do as time goes forward. Tip: Think about adding garments for the service industry in your inventory.

The entire state of California expects to go under in a couple of months, the real estate and banking industries are dying on the vine, and the automobile industry is in the soup.  If they go under, the ripple effect in terms of the economy will stagger businesses everywhere.  What does this forecast about uniforms—an added burden on company budgets?   Can't bank personnel just wear their own clothes?  Can't eateries?  Do liquor stores and mall personnel, or department stores really need an entire ensemble, when a single article will do just fine?  Tip: Think inexpensive, practical, and clever.  

Several of the manufacturers and retailers here in the United States are out of business.  Others are barely managing, as one owner of a factory that's been in business for over a century, said the other day.  "Production is down to three days a week," she confessed.  "People are making do, and no one wants to buy.”  

A customer who had long bought a particular product for his Shrine accessories is now ready to change the product and purchase Canadian, NAFTA and customs be hanged.  "It's half the price," he defended.  "Even though the quality isn't nearly as good as American, we can't afford the real McCoy any longer."  Tip: Offer alternatives.  Think outside the box.  Never say "never."

The trick of it, if there’s any "trick" at all, is to survive however one can. 

If it means pounding the pavement, cold calling, follow-up calls, using the Internet, having flyers or sandwich boards on the street, do it. If working out of your home, shortening your hours, cutting your personnel, cuts down on the overhead, do it.  If you need to streamline your telephones and technology in order to save dollars per month, do it.  Tip: Advertise like crazy and think do-it-yourself tactics.

Whatever it takes, either commit yourself to the long haul, or think about getting out.   Be careful not to drive your business, your credit, and your capital into the ground on a last-ditch hope that you might make it.  Last but not least, be sure you get a minimum payment of 50% up front, and the balance pre-paid before delivery.  Even the best customers these days are huge risks.  The bigger the customer, the greater the loss for you if he defaults.

Is Green The Color of Money?--UniformMarketNews.Com

Going “green:” Environmental protection from the decadence of technology in order to allow our natural resources to breathe again.   Today’s conscientious society, in developing entire new lines of clothing, is at once saving the planet from careless abandon during our parents’ generation, and hoping to garner a fortune in the manufacturing business at the same time.  Let us review…

In order to maintain itself, the uniform industry has to dedicate itself to a few steadfast principles: Economy, durability, longevity, practicality, and attractive appearance.   As things currently exist, few to none of these aspects that are so necessary in a top notch uniform are real possibilities in an organic garment.  Perhaps they will be accessible one day—even sooner rather than later—but for now, there is a choice to be made between the two. 

Let’s take economy.  The cost of organic fibers is anywhere from two to four times greater than standardized fabric.  For virgin plants, there have to be customized agricultural procedures, with special protection from bugs but without using bug sprays, or isolated fields that don’t utilize practiced protective measures.  At this point in time, these methods of growth and harvesting are minimal in volume compared to standard horticultural techniques; thus, enormously expensive.  A tough sell in the marketplace. 

There is currently a need and desire for processing new plants that heretofore were not used for fabrics, but now are—corn or bamboo, for example, which take enormous amounts of costly dilution in order to become usable as woven fibers.  Imagine that folks are now craving to wear garments made out of what used to be used for building houses, bridges, and flooring.  It’s a great idea, but the procedures are neither cheap, easy, nor as environmentally friendly as one would think.

Most of the organics come in very neutral tones, and in order to dye them (are we insisting on organic dyes, which themselves are limited and add up monetarily?) we’re again limited in overall palette selection.  Every time we want to dye organic goods, it’s an additional process with specialized chemistry.  The dollar signs increase, and the customer has to make choices.   You can purchase a swell set of scrubs, for instance, 100% organic cotton or hemp in the neutral tones of ivory and olive, for just $80.00, or a poly cotton set in the color of your choice for $24.00.  Who can afford it?

Durability and longevity are critical in the uniform industry.  It’s vital that garments last as long as possible before replacement.  There are several really attractive fabrics in the organics—knits, charmeuses, silks, corduroys, open weaves, to name a few.  For garments that need these kinds of materials: t-shirts, blouses, jackets, diapers, etc., organics are terrific.  But by and large, the uniform business is not made up of such commodities, whereas the seasonal, quixotic and short-lived fashion industry is. 

Rather, sturdy uniforms that are built to be cool, inexpensive, and last over time with as little care as possible, are what is required.  With the exception of the jutes and burlaps, it’s going to be difficult to find an organic weave that is as strong as it is long lasting.  And between us, who wants to wear  apparel made of burlap? 

Hemp is a very durable fiber, but the weave is loose, and it doesn’t hold.  It’s more gauze-like.  Tencel wrinkles and stains like crazy.  Cotton has never been strong; denim wears out quickly—look at any pair of blue jeans at the knees.  While it’s true that organic t-shirts for restaurants, or organic smocks for spas would be perfect choices, the overall tenacity of the garments just isn’t there.

The practicality of organics in the uniform industry is probably the most important issue of all.  Populations have only come upon technology in garment manufacturing during the last 60-100 years, depending upon one’s point of view.  Before that, there were no polyesters, no fabric treatments, no blends.  There were no special soaps, dyes, treatments, or chemicals. 

While it’s true that there was ignorance about the prevalence of existing metals, such as lead or mercury, it really wasn’t until the 20^th century that things stopped being “organic.”  The simple reason for the infusion of chemistry into our lives was that advancing technology was able to make our world easier and more comfortable by treating fabrics in such a way as to give them greater strength.   Before that, mothers stayed home and scrubbed with their washboards, mended if there was a hole, ironed after the clothes had dried on the line outside, and people had lower expectations, just being grateful to have anything to wear at all.

Today, when we ask for wicking, which is the process of drawing extra moisture away from the skin and absorbing it into the cloth in order to stay cool and sweat-free, we are seeking greater comfort for ourselves.  Technology is responsible for such a procedure.  It’s not organic.  Neither are soil-resistant finishes, wrinkle-free, nor permanent press treatments.  If you like water repellent rain coats, better forget about them—not to mention water proof.  All of these stay-warm light weight fabrics such as Gortex:  They’re o.u.t.  The nylons, like Supplex?  The stretches as in Spandex?  Nope.  Not those either.  In fact, the entire recreational/sports world will have a big problem going green, in spite of active wear soy pants, or polar fleece sweatshirts made out of recycled bottles.

Finally, the appearance of a uniform is critical, because it sets the visual tone of identity for the group it represents.  It’s difficult to find organic fibers that have a crisp, bandbox look, and where the colors are vibrant and cheerful rather than more earth-toned and subdued.  Instead, most of them appear limp, saggy, baggy, and used.  For many, this look will speak up and say, “Look at me!  I’m green!”  For others, it will be a costly reminder of dull, drab, and impractical.  It will be very interesting to see where the trend takes us.      

      

Anchors Away--Offshore Manufacturing: Article for UniformMarketNews.com

It’s nothing new that these days Americans are buying offshore merchandise by the billions of dollars.  Uniforms are no exception.  Any uniform manufacturer—any article of clothing used for uniforms and sold by a manufacturer or a distributor—that has any sort of volume to it at all, is made overseas.

There is no question that the world grows smaller by the nano-second.  That the United States has multiple trade treaties and tariff agreements with other countries, either pending or in effect, is undeniable.  It is absolutely true that cheaper goods purchased overseas have allowed millions of American citizens to have a better quality of life, just as it is also true that our economy has been pumped heartily by those who shop for offshore-made goods—not only at the Wal-Mart’s, K-Mart’s, and Target’s—but at the Penney’s, Sears’, Macy’s, Saks, Neiman’s, and Nordstrom’s, too.

We can debate and argue about geo-politics and economic forecasts from now until Doomsday, but the bottom line is that things aren’t going to go backward; if any changes occur in our present economic situation, they will only be to further the global economy. 

It used to be that supply and demand was a local, regional, or even national issue.  Now, it has expanded to an international one.  Manufacturing is in the midst of a huge revolution; the dust nowhere near settling.  What is so is that production is about the survival of the fittest.  It used to be that the United States filled that bill and came out on top.  Now, it no longer does for many reasons.  Sadly, we are the worse off for it.

It is safe to say that if we went to war with the Chinese, we would have to order our military uniforms from them first, in order to dress for the occasion.  Executives, hotel concierges, dignitaries, enormous numbers of corporate individuals in our country wear elegant attire made offshore.  Very few could dress to meet the public if it were up to what’s left of stateside American uniform manufacturing.  The same holds true for industrial, public safety, hospitality wear, medical apparel, and athletic wear.  Even school uniforms are made overseas—what ever happened to motherhood, Uncle Sam, and apple pie?  With the exception of very few companies, and even fewer genres (such as the band uniform business), most garments today are no longer made in this country.

Yes, there are very fine tailors—but fewer of them.  There are excellent cut and sew operations, but so sparse that those which are of value are backlogged with work for weeks and weeks in terms of turnaround time.  There are small companies here and there—maybe ten or twenty at most in the entire country—who still do custom uniforms to specification, for groups such as Shrines, fancy parades, designer restaurants and hotels.  There are a few costumers.  There are those small factories which are affiliated with single garment operations, such as aprons, shirts, certain dress military or fraternal order uniforms.  They keep going.  But even for them, it’s difficult.

Almost everyone who manufactures in the United States today does private label, because it’s another way to survive—making something for someone else, as well as under one’s own name.   It’s a daily struggle, and while some are doing better than others, the apparel business—which has never been easy—is now harder than ever.

It’s not just the manufacturers themselves, but suppliers that are choking, too.  Since so much weaving and dyeing of cloth, production of notions such as thread, buttons, shoulder pads, etc., all come from offshore now; because the machines are also made offshore; because labor and goods are so much cheaper there; why pay customs and freight to bring all of this into the country when it could be utilized where the garments are now being made? 

Relatively speaking, there is so little production here in the ‘States, it’s easier to job goods onto the Mainland in much smaller quantities, rather than to stock giant amounts hoping that some American manufacturer will snap it all up.  American uniform suppliers, as well as American uniform manufacturers are dying on the vine.    

There are two real wrenches in the garment business in this country:  The first is that there is no real labor pool anymore.  Certainly, there are pockets here and there.  But very few Americans know how to sew today.  The two groups who do most of the actual work are either Hispanic or Asian immigrants.  Truth be known, as they become more integrated into our society, they, too, go on to do other things.  Hiring is murder. 

The second wrench is that the cost of production is so high.  Americans demand American wages and so far, others around the world work for much less, and as a result, merchandise is made for much less overseas.  These two issues alone are killing us as we try to compete in our own marketplace.  Our own bigger manufacturers go offshore, making it even harder for those who are smaller and take pride in putting that little red, white, and blue flag inside their garments.

As the trend for uniforms to be made offshore continues, the one small glimmer of light in all of this is that eventually trade balances.  Water seeks its own level.  As the dollar drops, people begin to think about the United States: Suddenly, it’s cheaper to buy merchandise made here than in China or Central America.  As other countries become more prosperous due to American dollars pumping their own economies, their wages and standards of living increase, as well.  Things begin to even out.  The real question is, can American uniform manufacturers and suppliers stay afloat long enough until some sort of prosperity returns?

His and Hers/The Gender Gap: UniformMarketNews.Com

There are more women in the world than men, and women live longer than men.  In some parts of the country, there are more female business owners than male.  There are more women in college than men, and there are more women in professional graduate schools, such as law and medicine, than men.  Simply put, there is every reason to believe that our workforce, where both men and women are working, would have at least as many uniform choices for women as men.  But it doesn’t. 

I talked with one uniform company representative today who said that their sales are 90% male-oriented.  We’re not talking deep-sea diving-suits, here.  This is about high class corporate apparel.  Another one volunteered that it was at least a 2 to 1 shot, men over women in terms of sales in today’s workplace.  The sheer volume of garments, styles, fabrics, and items available to men compared to those accessible to women is amazing.  In general, uniform manufacturers gear themselves to a predominantly male population in spite of the preponderance of female workers.  

The why of it, in addition to the reality that our working class society has evolved more rapidly than the offerings of the uniform manufacturers, is largely that women simply don’t want to look like other women—particularly when a uniform is merely utilitarian and without a sense of style.  As one R.O.T.C. officer said when she tried on her new military togs, “This isn’t just about being in the Army; I want something that shows off my figure!”

 

The good news is that things are changing.  Women are being heard not only on the shop floor but also in the boardroom, and there are signs that “unisex” [politically correct for “it’s really a guy’s, but a woman can get into it, too"] is becoming passé.   The supervisor is finally coming to the reality that the “girls” no longer have to fit into men’s pants.

Uniform companies are adding whole new lines directed at female employees coming into male territory.  VF Industries, for example, has come out with an entire focus on women in their updated Bulwark protective apparel line:  A woman fire fighter or welder?  Edwards Garment Corporation has re-styled all of its pants and skirts not only because of changing styles and times, but because there is a new recognition that women are in the corporate marketplace to stay and want to look attractive as well as appropriate.

Microfibre has been a huge player for both men and women in the uniform world.  Easy to care for, elegant, and soft, it’s a fabric that lends high class to a man, but also a sleek, chic image to a woman: Suits, slacks, skirts, blazers, even blouses, have never looked better.

The styles are more jazzed.  In 2007, the Hardwick Company came out with a drop-dead gorgeous blazer that is long-lined, slimming, and made from a hazelnut Micro-suede.  It couldn’t be more professional and feminine at the same time.

These days, there are baseball hats, jackets, golf shirts, fleece wear and casual apparel for gals.  The cap-sleeved fitted v-neck polo with a Johnny collar is a favorite.  Several companies are manufacturing in ice-cream colors exclusively for women:  Hanes, Bella, Anvil, Alternative, Great Republic, and more.   There are even women’s boxer shorts and leggings. 

Smocks:   It used to be that the only smocks in town were for the barber, the dentist, or the pharmacist.   They all had 3 pockets and a zip front.  Light blue or white.  Period.   Now, there are estheticians—primarily women—who are in the business of bodies and beauty.  Suddenly, the uniforms of the clinicians are more svelte than the street-wear of the clients—every color imaginable and in every style.  Not to stop there, lengthen these smocks to labcoats:  Sleeve variations, belts, gathers, and hemlines.  Science will never be the same.

Hospitality and hotel wear are also narrowing the gap between his and hers.  In addition to matching waiter and waitress, host and hostess, front desk and concierge uniforms, there are back of the house ensembles as well.   Housekeeping is no longer only about the drab prison-inmate styled garb, but is adorned with cool, customized, colorized, and spiffy-looking outfits.  Chef wear has added a touch of the feminine for women; aprons are coming out in new colors and styles that take into account that women have busts, and are entitled to look pretty while working.   It’s an atmosphere where skirts and slacks match pants.  Blazers match coats, and blouses match shirts.  Vests are cut with double sets of patterns—for women and men.

A lot of these styling accommodations have been in existence for quite some time, you say.  That’s true.  But what was a luxury before has become a necessity now; women are insisting on having the same number of choices, colors, patterns, and fabrics, as men.  Instead of the flat, utilitarian will-do humdrum schoolmarm appearance of so many of the uniforms in the past, today’s corporations are focusing on looks that captivate and enhance a woman’s beauty in accordance with her professionalism.

End-users know that appearance can make or break a deal; manufacturers are aware of this and have begun to gear up their feel for fashion and practicality in the workplace.  As the years go forward, let’s see what unfolds.  Will these ventures into gender-pleasing aspects of apparel bring more customers to our industry or will they merely be wasted on a group that still wants to do its own thing—where every girl counts on looking unique and different from her peers?

Teddy Roosevelt & Illegal Immigration, 1907

Catwalker/Shutterstock.com

One of the tragedies of today’s world--since the last third of the twentieth century--is that we have become adversarial towards one another regarding issues and values that used to be common for all of us.  It used to be that the ideas we now fight over were once givens; and on some of those "givens," our foundation as a nation was built.

The below isn't about obliterating original family, culture, religious heritage, and/or customs.  Our ancestral traditions and beliefs give us history, tradition, and personhood.   The below is about patriotic unity and duty.  It is about chauvinism and nationalism--love of one's country. 

American society also consists of an ancestry of families, culture, heritage and customs that matter; we must not forget that America itself is an entity with traditions, a language, schools, literature, style, values, societal norms and mores that represent our own culture.  These attributes of our everyday life are equally as important as those that we inherited from past generations across our borders and the seas.   If we want to preserve our nation and all it stands for, American values must matter most to each of us. 

America is and always has been the leader of the free world. While not perfect, it stands alone in protecting the rights of others, everywhere.  This is a part of who we are as Americans. 

Nowhere in the world has a society/civilization existed where revolution was led from within--the colonies against England--and where, when the battles ended and leadership taken, was power then given to the people in an orderly fashion, to rule with laws.

George Washington, our first leader, was president for 8 years; he stepped down willingly in order to let others serve--unheard of until that time and still unique in most countries of the world, today. 

America has laws: a constitution, with a bill of rights for every citizen in this country.  Our entire framework is built on the holiness of law.  To defy the law is to defy a major premise of western civilization, and one of the major defining differences between humanity and the animal kingdom.  

Many countries have followed our lead; very few have had the spirit, the determination, the know-how to reach the potential and achieved greatness of America.  

We are by definition a society of immigrants, and we are multi-cultural in origin.  However, when immigrants and multi-culturalists become more invested in themselves and their separate individual rights with regard to their own personal practices, rather than the collective meld of our American heritage, then we are no longer a country with a united common purpose, but a pool of undefined rudderless riff-raff, instead. 

Assimilation is a slippery slope.  The good news is that we learn to get along with others, and appreciate an array of habits and perspectives.  The bad news is that it allows us to become ripe for others to conquer; for us to become another identity under another flag--with other values and other foci.  To deny or ignore this reality is to deny and/or ignore all of human history and human nature.  It will always be about the survival of the fittest. 

The price of freedom is responsibility--not only to us, but to our nation and fellow Americans who, despite so many challenges and imperfections, all these years have fought, worked, and kept our country whole.  Our national motto: E Pluribus Unum—out of many is one; not the other way around. 

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907:  "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.  

But, this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...  There can be no divided allegiance here.  Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.  We have room for but one flag, the American flag...  We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...   And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Paved With Good Intentions: Article for Intermountain Jewish News

I just read your article about the funding challenge for special education in Jewish day schools: $162,000 needed for 11 disabled children; that's almost $15,000 per year, per child. What I want to know: What is the expenditure per child for regular education Jewish day school students, and how many regular education children are there proportionate to these 11 special needs children?

The February 16th article states that this money is specifically for an "inclusive" special education population (children who are included in regular education classrooms with assistance--wherever, whenever, however, with whomever is necessary to bring their individualized learning experiences in line with regular education students).

While inclusion is beneficial for many students, several become overwhelmed and/or frustrated: Some children don't have the cognitive or sensory abilities to participate in the inclusive environment, no matter how many devices or teaching aids are provided; others are not emotionally or behaviorally equipped to handle the rigors and/or pressures of a regular education classroom.

Regular education students and teachers may become negatively impacted in inclusive classrooms because their own teaching and learning capabilities are not patterned for complex special education needs; time that could be spent forging ahead with mainstream academic concepts is traded for accommodation to adaptive learning by the included population. Development of social skills, acceptance, understanding individual differences, are of utmost importance: However, to what extent must academic excellence be sacrificed for their sakes?

Certain state and federal civil rights/special education laws do not bind private schools: They are not enforceable in these classrooms. Hence, while the spirit of Jewish day schools may be to provide "equal opportunity and access under the law," its legal teeth are missing. The good news for special education funding is that not every legality or expenditure has to be met; the bad news for students who are disabled is that not every legality or expenditure has to be met.

The Bush Administration wants to allow federal funding to be funneled towards religiously sponsored benevolent programs. This might be ideal for financing special education in Jewish day schools. However, federal funding mandates federal law enforcement. This necessarily means that along with additional moneys in the Jewish day school coffers, all children must be granted the same rights, privileges, and denials as public school students: To the letter of the law. The very best of intentions and positive educational goals for the disabled may become slippery academic, legal, financial slopes, as private schools have to comply with public education guidelines.

Given there is a genuine desire to allow disabled Jewish children access to an "equal and appropriate [private] education," no matter individual learning requirements or disabilities, these schools would have to carefully evaluate and provide for the specific needs of each child, no matter the cost, no matter the placement in regular, inclusive, mainstream, or self-contained classrooms. Bound by the same rules, private schools would have to provide at an enormous cost, all of the same services that public schools already offer for free.

There must be licensed, accredited special education programs, teachers, para-professionals for every diagnosed disability; evaluative testing, access to medical therapies and learning specialists; psychological evaluations, special education coordinators, augmentative learning curricula, assistive technology; legal staffs for possibilities of mediation, due-process, lawsuits for violation of student and/or parental rights.

Special education is not for the feint of heart. It is not simply a matter of doing a good deed, or writing a check. It is an enormous political, legal, medical, and professionally trained academic undertaking. If the Jewish day schools wish to dedicate themselves to this task in addition to their other priorities, so much the better. But if they do so on the sole basis of good will and the best of intentions, funding will be the least of their difficulties, and all students and teachers alike will be the worse for the endeavor.

Clergy vs. Individuality: Article for Intermountain Jewish News

There have been recent instances of local upset because our rabbis chose to speak their minds publicly.  Like authors, publishers, actors, politicians, and business owners, rabbis have higher visibility and are able to reach more people at once.  They also have a greater responsibility for their public actions and statements.  However, our unique system of government allows freedom of speech for any U.S. citizen; and it is part of a rabbi’s job description to utilize the pulpit, speaking his/her mind on issues felt to be important to Judaism and/or the Jewish community. 

It is wrong to insult, to make negative ad hominem remarks about members of the clergy for speaking and/or doing as they think best (when couched in a responsible and well documented format) in the interest of individuals, the Jewish community, society at large.  It implies a kind of censorship, and it demotes rabbinical leadership to a level of a “rubber stamp” mentality, whereby a rabbi must have permission from the congregation or the community before committing to a point of view.

Denver has a very unique Jewish population: Our diversity of beliefs and practices demands an extraordinary sense of cooperation and respect from our leaders and lay people.  We all need to support one another’s right to express an opinion—so long as that right does not infringe upon another’s—whether we agree with that opinion or not.

Jewish tradition is steeped in argument and debate; dialogue and contradictions are fundamental to Judaic culture.    Talmud, rabbinical Judaism, is the cornerstone of our belief system.  Within that structure, discussions and disagreements abound.  There are not only dissenting opinions and commentaries, but whole schools of learning that differ with one another. 

If our teachers support Gay rights, then we have an obligation to examine why Jews who are in the minority have a responsibility to support Gays, who are also in the minority: If our teachers support a more aggressive Israeli effort against the Palestinians, then we have an obligation to our fellow Jews in Israel to consider more carefully, both sides of the coin.

But to attempt to admonish our religious leaders with attacks of character, merely because we have a personal disagreement with them, is inappropriate.  Individuals are entitled to disagree with each other.  They are also entitled to thoroughly dislike one another.  They are not, however, entitled to insult and demean, merely because of a difference in viewpoint, when that perspective is one of credible intellectual diversity.