Man does data-analysis on every piece of clothing he's worn for three years

Originally published at:


Maybe it’s just me, but it took me a couple of seconds to get past my initial reaction to the quoted line “the items may have differing individual footprints” in a discussion of… shoes.


Mine would look like:

100% T-shirts

Broken down further:

60% Star Wars
10% other bands
10% Other nerd/pop culture


Se, after three years, he rediscovered Samuel Vimes’s theory of boots:

[…] But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.


Well, I think he’d say he proved the theory to his own satisfaction.


If only he had an inkling of the clothing expectations for women. It would ruin his Perfect Dude System in seconds. We are required to own all sorts of expensive stupid things we will only wear twice a year, because society. Furthermore, because fashion and more dumb societal expectations, we must upgrade those items periodically to the latest iterations of same. Also dog help you if you’ve gained five pounds since you last wore that thing six months ago, because guess what- womens’ clothing also has a +/-3lb range where it will still fit.

In conclusion, dumb privilege blind “system” is dumb.


He’s not exactly wrong, but here’s where we differ. His fundamental interest is in data, mine is creative. Not everyone is interested in creating rules or cost sheets or optimising everything, some enjoy it as a form of play.


Would ascribe to this except for a caveat around the value adding of fasion when it comes to boots.

Was called a wanker from a friend for wearing RM Williams boots in a working class pub. $400 and wore them every day for 10 years… the Blundstone work boots I’ve had $80 and last 2 years tops. Also the Williams can be repaired for life.

The fashion caveat is that the Blundstones became fashionable, have seen them in Japan for $300. The Doc Martins take this a step (:grin:) further as they were originally a tough and durable working class boot but have never been able to afford them!


In my late teens (before I got my first motorcycle) I used to walk a lot. Probably in the order of ten miles a day.

Anyway, I would wear out a pair of Dr. Martens in about six months. As I got a little more affluent I discovered that two pairs of Dr. Martens worn on alternate days would last much longer than the expected year.

Two pairs of Docs might last two years,whereas in that time a less affluent hardcore perambulator might have destroyed four pairs, one pair at a time.


Wow, thanks.

I guess I got wrapped up in the Dr Martin mythologizing. RM Williams and Blundstones certainly have their iconic status in Australia which is why many Blundstone supporters abandoned the brand when it went off-shore.

Once the Williams wore in I gotta say that they were the most comfortable leather shoe I’ve ever worn:


I still wear Docs because they’re the most comfortable steel toe boots I’ve found for hacking around in the workshop.

But for walking any distance I have a pair of Altberg cop boots and a couple of pairs of Meindl military boots. Both Meindl and Altberg are expensive but are perfect examples of what Vimes was talking about.


I hear you.
I feel x 1000 this re wimmins’ shoes.

At least now we have someone to make a case against Cruel Shoes:

And oh that “Capsule Wardrobe” crap: any human whose job it is to sweat, get dirty, live and/or work outdoors is not going to have a capsule wardrobe unless she’s doing laundry every dang day. (Contained in that capsule wardrobe lifestyle is an argument about class and privilege, along similar lines re “people who shower first thing in the morning and then go to work” vs “people who shower off first thing after they come home from work” but that’s a separate conversation from this.)

My cousin–lithe, with a ballet dancer’s body and was at one point in her life an actual ballet dancer–has over the years talked about how she was afraid of looking “like a frump.” Baggy, shapeless clothes. No style. Mismatched. Ratty. Etc.

(Pretty much exactly like how I dress on most days, :roll_eyes:)

In my navigation of the adult human female world, I have long searched for something akin to a uniform for the more official work contexts where it is obvious that not acting like one cares about some mainstream culture conventions ends up as a significant mark against one’s work record… I give you the idea of Georgia O’Keefe’s “uniform” and an engraved invitation to Disregard the Frump Factor.

That dress she’s wearing is belted, so it’s got some leeway re: one’s ups and downs, weight-wise. It doesn’t have to be tent-like, all the time.

A quick look at her sartorial choices, while remembering that a painter must have freedom of movement, both for a sense of ease and because it’s the sine qua non of brush control:

Here’s link that has a better image of that Marimekko dress, the one I want to talk about:

That Marimekko is not a wrap-dress, but it is still belted.
Or one could wear it unbelted. No matter what my cousin says.
Choice of fabric is key, I think, if one intends to wear these in the aforementioned white-collar office environments

Those wide sleeves may be a bit problematic under a sleeved blazer.

I find decent fully-lined, constructed [long-sleeved] conventional tailored blazers to be merciless about even minor fluctuations in body shape. There are tailored blazers that include lycra (1-2%) but even these, when fitted, are not entirely forgiving either. I saw a sleeveless blazer a few years ago that I thought was… interesting.

I do feel like there’s something portable here from O’Keefe’s example, some kinda takeaway that I am supposed to be paying attention to.

I recently got my sewing machine reconditioned, so I may be taking a foray this summer into pattern-making and re-learning to sew. Taking some inspiration from that O’Keefe-approved Marimekko dress is top of my list. First drafts will be of cheap cotton muslin until I get the fit right.


I have been going shoelace less for close to 20 years now.

Recently I started wearing boots like this and I am a big fan.

Bonus - this style is the kind worn by Stormtoopers and Boba Fett!


For years, I wore men’s tweed blazers over more form-fitting blouses, sweaters, or jewelry like pearls. I’m short-waisted with long arms, so they fit well. The difference in quality and durability was sickening. In fact, I still have a couple in my closet that are decades old. In comparison, the women’s blazers were thin, not as well-constructed, and (of course) lacking in pockets.


Also short-waisted. I hear you totally.
As a cis het woman POC who is untall, I feel the daily friction of obstacles everywhere.

Yesterday, listening to KUT 90.5FM Austin, I heard an ad say something like “in Austin, women dress for dinner, men dress to mow the lawn” (the phrase “Austin-casual” means very different things depending on gender and whether one is playing by the dominant cultural rules which I have largely abandoned).


O the sick sick joke of having one blazer where the flaps provided at pocket level are just flaps with no pockets at all beneath them. Oh ho ho such hilarity.

I eventually gave that jacket away. It was driving me mad.

Several things I learned once I started wearing “menswear” including but not limited to mens’ suit jackets, trousers, mens dress shirts, etc.:

  1. Mens’ clothing costs less to dry clean than the analogous clothing article readily identified as womenswear and it’s not because the shirt I brought in was in any way fancy or fine, it was a pinpoint cotton oxford button down officewear shirt just like my husband’s shirt, only smaller.
  1. Mens’ clothes have pockets that can actually be used as pockets that can carry actual things like Clif Bars or money or a cell phone in them without falling out.
  1. Mens’ clothes last much longer and are better-made than wimmins.
  1. Mens’ clothes are less restrictive.

Any one who doubts the veracity of the term “patriarchy” clearly hasn’t spent much time or thought or lived experience re half the people on this planet, no matter what the national costume is or whether one wears western industrialized countries’ standard-issue “officewear.”

A plug for my favorite overalls so far (half my jobs involve working outside):

added pockets are political article


Same, only tall - which makes other things like skirts a challenge. What’s knee-length or mid-calf on average is not the same on me. I won’t wear what’s called a mini-skirt in public. :woman_shrugging:t4: I kept a clothing database, too, so I wouldn’t forget which combinations worked well, or the ones that seemed like a good idea until some malfunction occurred (like wool worn without a camisole :grimacing:). There were also reminders about the cute shoes that I wanted to set on fire after a day at the office.

That dress vs. casual line reminds me of most times I go out to dinner, or on vacation. I still haven’t completely shed those cultural rules about what to wear when. I’ve got a hat, glove, and scarf collection that began from attending church. Still won’t go into one without something on my head, and it looks like the gloves are back in fashion for awful reasons. Still, it’s funny to recall getting better than average service at restaurants in Mexico or France, because I didn’t turn up in a T-shirt with jeans and sneakers.

Menswear not only helped me save a lot of money in cleaning and replacement costs, but also in accessories. With a jacket and trousers or tailored jeans, I never had to carry a purse. Some people buy them for the look, but for me it was about practicality. Everything I needed could easily fit in two pockets. Another reason why overalls (and jumpsuits with decent pockets) are among my faves in loungewear.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.