The Fight For Our PJs

When I first saw the kerfuffle developing around John Harwood's report of a White House Advisor saying "they [bloggers] should get out of their PJ's and put on some clothes and get out in the world," I pretty much planned to avoid it. There was a certain "oh no, not again" quality to the whole thing and a "why bother" aspect to responding that seemed paramount.

But a sense of impending deadline, the choice of not posting anything at all yesterday, and a slightly off-kilter sense of humor combined yesterday to push me to toss off what I figured was a cute, idiosyncratic point of taking the comment apart not for the politics, but for the fashion - a defense of pajamas, and the more relaxed life they imply as compared to an uptight, bound up life in the corporate world of suits and "seriousness."

And two unexpected things happened - one is that my dear J in B got on me for being unserious, and the other is that I got angrier as the whole thing didn't go away.

So now - a little pissed and a little more serious - I'd like to make the point again, more vigorously: there's nothing wrong with "blogging in PJs" and we (the blogger nation) need to stop feeling down and defensive when it's brought up. In every sense - from our relaxed lifestyles to our passionate writings to our political impact - we are winning. And we should act like it. Defend the pajamas! Embrace the pajamas! Pajama people rule!

For one thing, we could point out that the White House has had to seriously walk back the unnamed advisor and the comment. As Jane Hamsher reported - yes, she's a blogger who does reporting - the White House's director of internet outreach sent a long e-mail to try and smooth out the controversy (and Jane's right, you can't have it both ways on that).Politicians are learning, slowly, that blogging is not just some fringe, out there element but a reality of life in the internet age, capable of impacting politics at the most basic levels: from fundraising to issue advocacy to candidate engagement. What was this August's "Town Hall" fracas but an internet driven - possibly "astroturfed" - but still locally driven, internet based activism?

I have my issues with the "netroots" and I think we should, always, be realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished via the internet alone. But still. Our acts of blogging - of putting out passionately written pieces on politics, culture and everything else - are world changing, thought provoking, and individually life changing exercises. That has to matter. And it does. And we should be proud, and grateful, for the opportunity to do it.

And the beauty of blogging - of writing, really - is that it is the rare activity you can do privately, intimately even, in the privacy of your own home, any way you wish. Painting, I suppose, is a similar exercise... composing music, perhaps. All of these really are expressions, ultimately, of a creative spirit. I like blogging, as many do, because I'm passionate about the causes I care about deeply. But I love blogging - and this place I've created - because it challenges me to grow as a writer. Because of this thing (a monster, at times), I write nearly every day; I certainly think about writign every day in a way I rarely did before.  That's life changing - for me, anyway - and in some ways, it changes the whole world. People are finding their voices... and speaking up.

So yeah, I do, seriously, think that blogging, and a life less tied to rigid structures and expectations is "winning" in the sense that more people, more people who never had the option before them, can choose to step back, or away from society's pressures to conform. And what follows from it is not just an exchange of ideas... but a whole alternative approach to living. You could stay home, where what you like, go where you want to go. We're too easily cowed - we blogger types - by stupid, stereotyped descriptions of us as homebound, lonely, dirty people who don't bathe or dress. We want to defend ourselves, I think, by insisting that we do bathe and dress... instead of challenging the whole conception. I have a life, and a job even, where I don't have to wash my hair! I get to wear comfy clothes! I get to do what I love! Whee!!!

Until we can stand up and fight for what we do - and embrace our difference - we will be dismissed, in stupid sentences by people who think they are the "serious" ones and we are dilettantes. Until we can say "yeah, sometimes I write in my pajamas... and then I write 'fuck you, Mr. Suit'" - or something less vividly challenging, if that's your cup of tea (tea! every day!) - until we can wear our PJs wth pride and defend them as pasisonately as we defend the Public Option, we're nowhere.

A lot of the response, since Harwood's report surfaced - has focused on the White House, on the politics of gay rights and progressive issues and really swept aside the more personal, frank insult buried in the comment, the part that goes to the core of who we are and what we do. The politics are important... but so are we. And this is not an issue of right or left - conservative bloggers created "Pajamas Media" for goodness sake, in response to just such insinuations about being "pajama clad losers." Let's not be losers... and let's fight for the notion that the PJs are the outifits for the winners. Get comfortable. And soldier on.

Comments

[jinb]

So blogging in your PJ's is now paying your bills?

Otherwise, it seems to me you have a "hobby" (not a job) that allows you to stay in your PJ's (again, inside, one hopes :))

[weboy]

You are a hard one, aren't you?

I have a blog. It's not a "hobby" and while I hope, one day, to make a living at it, that day is not now. That doesn't make it, or me, of less value... but I think the point yes, is that there' more to this, and to life, than money. And things that don't necessarily make us rich, but satisfy us in other ways, have value.

[jinb]

Now you're misrepresenting my position; I've never said that money is the root of all value, and that things that don't make us rich have none. Further, I've never argued for a correlation between a crisp white shirt and seriousness.

However, you're playing fast and loose with terms here. You're basing this theory about relaxed attitudes at the "workplace" on an example from your own life that isn't, in fact, set in an actual workplace.

[weboy]

I'm not sure where things got crossed here... but clearly, we're speaking of different things. We've worked in the same places, on occasion, and as far as I know, we both have "dress casual workplaces", which is my first point about the places where suits are still required. I don't work in them... do you? Would you? Do you really want to? I'm thinking no, and not just because they might not want you - or us - either.

Second, I could go on, at length, about the question of more formal dressing and class, which I think is a big aspect to our work lives and our culture that's changed as suit dressing has decreased... that really is a bigger point that I don't think is required here. My simpler, and smaller point is simply that both there's nothing wrong with a writing life that allows one to work at home, as one pleases, and that, culturally, the move to more freedom, not less, is what's really holding sway. I'm not sure if you're sour with me for claiming that there's more freedom in a lifestyle that includes blogging or if you're mad because there is, but it's not available to most people (e.g., say, you). The former it seems to me is kind of self evident; the latter is certainly a fair point about today's economic conditions, but I think there's a wide swath of voices blogging to suggest that where there's a will - and a modest sum of money - there's a way.

[jinb]

I'm not sure if you're sour with me for claiming that there's more freedom in a lifestyle that includes blogging or if you're mad because there is, but it's not available to most people (e.g., say, you).

Neither. Not mad in the least. Just think you're wrong to invent a trend where you've no evidence there is one.

[weboy]

The relaxation of workplace dress codes is indeed a significant cultural trend, whether you count the "work" people do in blogging from home - or wherever they do it - or not. Many office settings which used to require suit and tie no longer do (in part, you can trace this to the expanded role of women moving into the work force), and a wide swath of service professions either don't now, or never did. And we know that workers are attracted to, and prefer, opportunities to work in more casual settings. That is what I mean when I say we're winning - the pressure is for more relaxed dressing, not less.

And yes, the original comment is offensive just for implying a value judgment on who people are based on what they wear. Pjamas, jeans, slacks and a t-shirt... why does someone get to imply that, because you write in a bathrobe it's not somehow real writing, or real work? Which means I should, probably, go back and talk about dress codes and class issues, because maybe that point is less obvious than I think.

[jinb]

I'd like to see the statistics backing up the claims in your last comment's first paragraph; thanks...otherwise feels like you're making something up based on your own limited experience.

[jinb]

I guess my general problem with your take on all of this is your allowing yourself to be baited by anon-white-house source. Where you usually see grays and nuances, you seem quite determined here to force one side (and only one side) of an issue here. Not your normal MO.

[weboy]

I'll have to research haerd numbers, but the growth of business casual dressing as a workplace trend has been going on since at least thye nineties and is, if you google it, prewtty much taken as a given. Check a department store's suit department and you're sure to discover that the space for suits on a selling fllor has been substantially reduced from historical levels (which is why Men's Wearhouse and such operate primarily as suit discounters). The demand has dropped off significantly, and few men feel pressured to wear suits nearly anywhere, for anything (except for some work environmentrs, primarily finance and law, from what I've gathered). Really, I'm not making that part up. And the base comments idiocy, it seems to me, is not about shades of gray or nbuance of some sort. It's offensive, however you'd like to slice it... I just like to slice it with a pair of sewing shears. :)

[jinb]

circles circles...it's not offensive because of the PJ line, though LOL...I can agree with you it's offensive though, is that enough to end this?

[Jennifer]

First I'll mention that I'm not a statistic kind of girl so I have none to offer but I can tell you culturally and from my own visual experiences in and around Manhattan-most industries have gone casual, which I think is a shame.

And this is what I worte originally:
WOW! I was just going to tell you to please leave my suits alone. Like you I get to do what I love and have a created a life for myself full of my passions, creativity, and challenge but I do it in suits!! Though to be honest, I'm not sure if I worked at home would I be more casual.

What bothers me most is the loss of standards in the workplace as so many offices and industries have gone casual and have been that way for years. Even some of the departments stores have gone casual. Barneys and Bloomingdales no longer require suits though I'm thrilled that my husband who works at Barneys chooses to. We both love to wear them as they look polished and elegant and does that for the wearer as well-who doesn't want to look polished and elegant? For both sexes but especially for women there are so many ways to be creative with a jacket skirt or pant that offers a panache that a T-shirt and jeans never will.

I think the industries that have not gone casual such as banking or the White House have trouble with their employees not liking suits because they all wear the same navy suit, white shirt and red tie. If I had to wear the same thing every day which was the same thing as everyone else I would grow to hate it too. Maybe that's how to solve their particular problem-let each person wear a dressed up outfit that truly suits each wearer?

[jinb]

Thanks for your input, Jennifer...I guess I'm saying there are suits, whatever "casual" means and then PJ's. Are most of the Manhattan industries full of PJ-wearers now?

I would add that the original anon-white-house-staffer never even mentioned the word suits; that weboy and others assumed it.

[Jennifer]

As weboy often says, "these are my options"? So a suit or pyjamas? There are so many options in between and no there are very few pyjama wearing office workers (though in my office there are way too many sweatpant wearers and to me they are the equivalent pajamas). I must have missed the part of the discussion that defined casual as pyjamas and in today's business world casual is pretty clear unlike the early years. On women, stylish jeans with a flowy top and jacket and for men a shirt with or without a jacket is what so many are wearing today and that is only one layer. I could go on if you like but just so everyone knows-even I sometimes wear casual clothes to work though I would hard pressed to find anyone would would confuse my Chanel jacket with vintage pencil leg Levi's and Yves Saint Laurent heels with pyjamas.