Midst my ramblings on the Interwebs, I came across this intriguing Slate piece that states the very saying Do What You Love is one of the innumerable privileges that certain people enjoy and others don’t. The piece resonated to a certain extent, mainly because emotionally-hijacking slogans that are squishy and succinct always make me suspicious. And so I propose a different slogan: Do What You Can.
Why not do what you love? Because what you love is a very changeable thing. And frankly, probably involves sitting on the couch a lot, eating ludicrous quantities of chips while drinking growler upon growler of beer (at least, in my fantasy). What and even who you love is not usually something emotional. Emotions help, of course, as does a reasonable amount of chemistry between you and a person or an occupation/hobby, but love mainly consists of the decision to love something. And so I think Do What You Can is much better, because doing what I can is something I can choose to do and even enjoy, because I am capable enough to do it in the first place.
We can’t simply Do What We Do Best, because most of us aren’t really amazing at any one thing. Everyone has a particular strength in a given area, but the way the human genome and the realities of modern life collaborate means that many skill-sets can overlap. Putting in enough time in a certain field until your skills are rare enough is what can differentiate you from the norm, but that’s not Doing What You Do Best…it’s Doing What You Can until you Do It Best. (I really need to stop with this random capitalization; it’s slowing down the typing speed, and bed is calling.)
So Do What You Can. Force yourself to love it? No need to, rather, take pleasure in what you are capable of doing, and focus and hone whatever is most rewarding. And I literally mean rewarding, either in an emotional, physical, financial or mental sense. That’s where the Slate piece comes in a bit more, as it talks about how many people have to content themselves with NOT doing what they love just to make ends meet. But just because you don’t love it doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy doing something at least moderately well. I do not swim particularly well, but I love swimming, and enjoy it mightily whenever it gets warm enough to take a dip.
And finally, doing what you can is better than doing what you do best because even if life is short, specialization to the point of expertise is only useful to a degree. Everyone would like to be well-rounded, but few put in the effort to truly become so. The day my older brother taught me how to change the oil in a car was rewarding, not for the grime on my fingers or the dirt on my shirt, but because I had acquired one more facet to my skill-set. Learning to cook can improve your life in so many ways it’s rather odd to me whenever I meet someone who doesn’t cook most of their meals. Everyone can do these things, but sometimes we focus too much on what we think our specialty should be, because after all, sometimes we reap the most money from it. Yet money isn’t everything; what you can do is a far better indicator of who you are. Being able to function independently on many levels is not only useful, but also comforting and rewarding. So I say do what you can, and expand what you can do as far as you wish.
It’s easy to decry the lack of quality in today’s mass-produced items. Far better to patronize a local craftsman who puts her heart and soul into her passion, rather than trot down to the closest dollar store, even if the budget is stretched quite a bit by the former option. The craftsman will make something more beautiful, durable and enjoyable than whatever shoddy, cheap option the factory will foist upon you.
And that’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? Quality matters, but quality costs. Durability doesn’t come cheap. Some argue that rich people do actually end up saving more money by buying better-made items that last longer, but those arguments neglect the sizable percentage of people who must live paycheck to paycheck and can’t even afford the necessary initial lump sum.
That last sentence reveals the sad truth that mass production simply works remarkably well. The giant explosion in population and material comfort in the last century was mainly the result of mass production of pretty much everything: medicines, houses, cars, clothes, food, etc. And it’s not as if the items produced were of poor quality. Rather, they are just good enough, or maybe even better than we imagine. After all, not every craftsman is actually very good at his or her job. Industrial mass production may not ensure durability or artistry, but it’s arguable that it could equal the output of smaller producers.
But it’s not a very strong argument. After all, anyone who has plopped down a sizable sum to invest in a quality pair of raw selvedge jeans knows that they simply are more comfortable and longer-lasting than your standard outlet store’s denim. So let’s just assume that individual craftsmen and smaller producers in general make better quality items due to their greater care and devotion and skill. Or if that seems too much a stretch, let’s just presume that instead of being built for turnover, items were built to last. After all, some items are built for rapid turnover; it’s simply how companies thrive, isn’t it? I make much more money for a car dealership and manufacturer if I buy a new car every few years. My clothes rip and tear; my plates crack and shatter; my hardware becomes outdated.
However, there are really only a few arguments in favor of this turnover:
Innovation: Moore’s Law and other inevitable (at least thus far) advances in skill and technology ensure that things will become outdated. Few things can’t be improved in some fashion. My Chromebook is somewhat limited in its hardware; buying a new one for a decent increase in computing power could be justified.
Profit: by spending more money on new, hopefully improved products, I may generate more income for those involved in the products’ creation.
Necessity: unavoidable accidents like tearing a giant hole in the crotch of your jeans (rest in peace, sweet New World-branded, well-worn companion), breakage, spills and the like.
The rub is that none of the above arguments need always apply. They can, but they don’t need to. My Chromebook will be perfectly adequate for the foreseeable future, despite its malfunctioning speakers. My clothes may not be as nice as they used to be, but as long as they are clean and fit reasonably well, I can ignore a small off-color stain or tear. Only a higher degree of necessity would prompt me to replace something I own.
And I’m willing to bet that most people act similarly. After all, most people don’t have enough money to consume conspicuously. Thus, we replace out of necessity, and hence we complain about poor quality that prompts such replacement. And that’s where the craftsmen versus mass producers come into play. We suspect that mass producers purposefully design items to break down…and in many cases, we may be right. The problem is, they do that for a reason, and that is cheaper items are more profitable, because we keep on demanding them.
Any product on a shelf is usually a collusion between a consumer and a producer. We want the lowest possible price for the best quality, and so we and the producers compromise…with the result being mass production. So let’s take away our demand for cheap goods as well. Let’s presume that we have the wherewithal to invest in quality items in every aspect of life. What would that require?
Well, for one, if cars and lamps and cups and chairs were manufactured to the highest possible standards, then everything would be more expensive. But we assumed we’d have the funds, so that’s settled. What next?
Profits would probably narrow for producers/suppliers, because even as prices would rise for consumers, costs of production would rise as well. And population growth and new markets would be increasingly crucial new sources of revenue. The market for innovation would probably become more exacting. After all, why upgrade from an iPhone 5 to 5S unless it has some particularly special feature? Is increased battery life really that crucial?
(At this point, it may be painfully obvious that I am not much of a gadget guy and especially no aficionado of Apple.)
Other markets would swell or shrink as income share would shift to compensate for higher prices and better quality. The proportion of income spent on food would probably skyrocket, which would be good news for farmers, since their need to depress prices by growing monocultures in bulk would slacken. Perhaps it wouldn’t be too preposterous to speculate that a taste for quality in furniture, tools and the like would translate into a demand for higher quality food as well. In that case, most mass-produced food that is demonstrably bad for you or poor quality would disappear.
Now, before we can opine upon how such quality standards could come about, let’s offer a quick defense of mass production, because as noted above, it’s not all bad. In many cases, mass production is responsible for reductions in poverty and vast increases in quality of life. The issue here is that as always with advances, some negative effects occurred (because nothing in life is free); namely the shoddiness generated in cost-cutting by substituting worse materials and lesser craftsmanship.
So it would seem that there’s a happy middle ground between the nostalgic vision of the local craftsman with a quaint shop only a short stroll away from your own door, and the mass production facility buried away in an unfamiliar country, and I, for one, think it is in an increased self-reliance and local sourcing.
The coming revolution in small, cheap 3-D printers will probably do three things: one, strike a sizable blow to the production of cheap plastic goods, two, clutter the world with discarded designs and waste plastic, and three, show people just how many household items they could craft to their own specifications. And that’s looking ahead; even now, nearly everyone I know enjoys pursuing a particular hobby or craft in order to save money and tweak things to their particular needs. My sister-in-law makes her own clothes, while my brothers have begun brewing their own beer. Nearly everyone I know saves money by cooking for themselves.
And the next logical step is to reduce dependency on other outside sources of raw materials and household items. Of course, I have neither the time nor the resources to build my own tables and such, but why not contribute to my local (state or town) economy by purchasing something made around here?
The great thing about such local producers is that you generally can visit and inspect the items yourself, rather than trust reviews on Amazon (most of which are probably fake anyway). And not only the quality of the items, but also the person who made them, or at the very least, the factory or production facility where it’s made. Or, perhaps, you can get some clearer information on where it comes from.
For example, every once in awhile I drop by a local farmer’s market because then I get to look the farmer in the eye, see that his frozen ground beef comes from a place not quite 50 miles away, and pay knowing that the money is most likely not disappearing into the international ether. This is a bit of an extreme at times; normally, I’d be just as content buying soap from a factory located nearby, or maybe beer made from hops and brewed locally.
Of course, there are caveats to these issues. I can only type on this Chromebook because the rare earth minerals it contains are found and mined in a few places in the world. Modern manufacturing techniques and cheaper costs of living elsewhere enabled the low price of my tablet. That’s why I think that a compromise between local sourcing, self-reliance (such as making your own food or mending clothes whenever possible) and international production is probably the best option. There’s no need to drastically reverse the trend of production, but there’s also no need to abandon what worked in the past.
The most difficult thing in all of this is that taking the time and energy to find things that are built to last, or building them yourself, is arduous, at first. Like any other virtuous regimen, it takes a while to form and then still requires some effort to maintain (like running every week to stay in shape). But there’s a peculiar pleasure in making your own things that people still crave; something about stamping your own personality on an item is appealing. People point with pride to bargains or their own skill in obtaining a rare item…probably because it adds a personal touch and reflects well.
So why not explore your own talents to a larger degree? Most people can build a small table with a few lumber scraps, sand it down, polish it, and present it with pride as their new coffee table. Others, like myself, focus firmly on the culinary arts. Since we probably already do it, why not kick it up a notch? Various apps and websites are only begging us to start doing more for ourselves, ranging from self-education courses at Coursera to DIY fashion pages on Pinterest.
Perhaps, in the end, it’s the most satisfying thing of all to make something that’s built to last, because so much in this world isn’t, and what’s more, we aren’t. The unknown sculptors of Renaissance statues still live on, in a way that most of us would probably enjoy. We may not be able to sculpt, but why not make something that can at least be passed down through your family?
When I was a kid, my dad, elder siblings and I built a tree-house that still stand in my family’s yard. It’s sturdy, small, comfortable and sufficiently similar to a small tower that one can imagine all manner of scenarios while perched on its roof. For all I know, that tree-house will outlast me…and that’s a good thing.
P.S. There is an issue lurking around the paragraphs above, namely, the morality of consumption when it ties in with trade economics. Some would argue it’s adequate when I pay for goods made in Mexican maquiladoras, as some of my money is going to pay the wages of those who need it. Others would state I should only shop in fair trade shops, where the wages are more equitable. Obviously the latter is preferable, but what if I begin shopping more locally? Am I depriving poor people elsewhere? The even more obvious answer is that rather than sending my money through wasteful channels elsewhere, I am addressing poverty in a more cost-effective fashion by spending my income locally. With fewer channels and layers to travel through, my dollars will count more if they stay in close circulation.
“Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.”
Nobody wants to be poor. It may seem even more drastic to be poor in America, the richest nation on earth, which is why Steinbeck’s phrase stating that poor people in America see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” hits close to home. And perhaps it hits especially close to home this year, as the flurry of articles discussing the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty that greeted January 1st suggested.
Why is the poverty rate still high? Why have we not won the poverty war yet? Inequality is our most pressing and troublesome problem! We shouldn’t pay attention to the poverty rate! Those are some of the commoner themes, and since they all discuss the more obvious and pressing aspects of American poverty quite adequately, yet leave one interesting perspective out, I thought it’d be interesting to kick around the idea nobody seems to have aired: we (meaning us Americans) are all poor and meek, and thus, seem perfectly set to inherit the earth if we so choose.
This isn’t a setup to a religious fulmination. Rather, it’s a simple recognition that we are all poor in spirit most of the time (defining spirit as the non-corporeal human essence, closely tied to conscious rational thought). Few people I know actually do ooze self-satisfied contentment and peace from every pore, like a personal golden-molasses cloud, and one of them is three years old. Most people seem to dwell on a scale of “all right” or “good” to “meh” most of the time. We simply don’t have that electric vivid connection of spirit to eternity, by which I mean a deeply felt and thought recognition of our place and purpose in the world.
This phenomenon is fairly common. If earlier generations didn’t seem to have this problem, it was because they held on to a few core beliefs that were much more popular, and moreover had much harder lives. People who are scrambling for food don’t usually indulge much time in philosophical navel-gazing or existential bemoaning. The instance previous generations did arrive at a similar material status with ample leisure, odd things began to happen.
In imperial Rome, emperors began to go insane, or indulge in the most fantastic of luxuries and vices. In Renaissance Europe, noblemen and noblewomen sought to fill their poverty of spirit with scheming and extravagance, while those who were truly poor were too harried to worry about spirit. The supposedly idyllic 1950s era in America led to the deep divisions and ugly bared underside of society in the 1960s.
Thus the vicious divide cuts us in two. We have an indefinable itch to matter, belong, connect and share. Yet we connect and share to what we can touch and taste and see because we’re chained to our physicality. It’s much easier to prove to ourselves we matter when we can see we own things that other people care about, like beauty or an excellent bar or a sprawling mansion. Yet when we achieve these things, we realize that nothing matters to others for very long unless they also can possess it, and if it doesn’t connect us or make us belong, then it also doesn’t matter to us.
(Why don’t millionaires hang out with those in much, much lower tax brackets? After all, it’s not as if personalities differ so dramatically; many millionaires and billionaires have fairly modest tastes.)
Hence the happy medium. Those who are just wealthy enough to avoid the constant scramble to survive, yet not so wealthy that they possess things beyond the reach of most, possibly have it best. A study has indicated happiness levels related to income reach their peak potential at $75,000 a year. But not for very long, and not certainly.
The reasons for that are rooted once again in the fact we are physical beings with superior reasoning powers (I’d use the word souls, but humanity’s higher brain function alone suffices to establish the point). We’re trammeled by time, and thus age, decay and finally die, while having spent most of our lives working to obtain that security that allows the happy medium. And while that work may be a scramble at times, or a constant fear for an unlucky sizable percentage of humanity, because we are fairly negative creatures we worry about it constantly.
And thus we discuss the poverty rate. Not only from sheer altruistic concern, but also from reasonable supposition that if we can improve the lot of our fellow women and men it’ll improve our lot as well if something were to go wrong. Plus, enriching your neighbor may possibly enrich you. Show someone the power of compounding interest, and they’ll save more, which in turn can drive up her or his fiscal health and spending power; a person who spends a bit more locally makes a difference, even if we can’t quite see it in action.
Show someone the effect on their hillside topsoil of cutting down several trees, planting monocultures and mowing with a tractor, and they’ll probably act to conserve their soil. People aren’t foolish or wasteful on purpose all the time. Generally we all want to be happy and successful and useful. Unfortunately, we don’t always stop to consider the impact of our actions, or how best to achieve happiness, or even know how to do so. Sometimes we think that the only way to get ahead is to push others down. But there are few situations in life that are zero-sum games.
It all comes down to the perception of time. A good deed done has ripple effects beyond what we can possibly hope to even imagine, and yet, they have a measurable impact not only on your mood but also on the mood of those around you. For the effect they have on your mood alone, they are worth doing…beyond the immediate altruistic motivation, of course. So how does this tie back into being meek?
Well, the fact is that meek possesses a negative connotation these days. We think of meek as weak, as the ultimate in passivity. And yet the actual dictionary definition of meek renders “quiet” and “gentle” before submissive…and is submissive such a bad thing, in and of itself? We all submit every hour of our lives to many things that are not bad at all, but rather are somewhat admirable; for instance, letting an elderly person take our seat on the bus. That is submitting to an other’s desire, yet we do it without a thought. Submission isn’t a bad word; but it’s treated as such.
And yet, isn’t being meek what could yield all the results desired from the issues we saw above? If I was more meek, to take the only immediate subject of which I have intimate knowledge, perhaps I would not only give up my bus seat, but perhaps I would also calmly submit to someone’s frustration at work. Perhaps I’d respond to some angry outburst with calm patience, or perhaps I’d hesitate from taking a long hot shower, thinking of my roommate or neighbors who may be more weary and desirous of a scalding soak than I. Would those measures really matter, in the long run? Perhaps not, and yet, perhaps they might.
They’d probably make me happier, for one. To hearken back to the point I made earlier about how we are all poor in spirit, or meek most of the time anyways, it seems pretty natural, at least. It’s not about letting go of your needs or what you deserve, but rather about calmly accepting the fact that others’ needs are equal to your own. It’s quite difficult, at least for me; I routinely will sit on the bus after standing and working all day and not want to give my seat up, or will take a long hot shower to shave and soak just to have some time to relax. Basically I resent the slightest intrusion on what I thought would be a free evening…but these are such small matters.
Everyone has far greater matters that they deal with every day, and everyone makes sacrifices daily that are usually greater than the ones I contemplate. But it’s hard to visualize the ripple effects of our actions, because we have rather limited brains and imaginations. I cannot imagine what a kind word may do to a stranger…or even if I do, my imagination is rarely up to the task of becoming a habit. It takes 21-66 days to form such a habit, and I rarely have the fortitude to establish such a practice.
But that is only due to my lack of knowledge and foresight. It’s due to my lack of perception of the importance of cycles; that which seems difficult now will seem very easy soon enough…and yet difficult once more in a little while longer. Recognizing all the factors that make habits difficult to obtain makes them those same difficulties bearable. Understanding that such habits are what build to success over time is much harder, as we all crave external recognition and yet internal recognition is all we often get.
Yet within that internal validation lies the ultimate validation of effort. Doing a job well, simply because doing it well is pleasing and worthwhile, is what really is satisfying in the end. That recognition and internal validation is powerful enough to solve the difficulties within the issues listed above. I’ll be satisfied with fewer hot showers, or only cold showers, or less meat, or maybe little to no bathing at all (at some point, I’m fairly sure that there would be public outcry), if only that means that no coal is burnt to provide energy for my building. I’ll gripe and moan to an nigh-unbearable extent, but eventually I’ll forget what hour-long hot soaks felt like, and I’ll barely miss them. (The nice perks of our inconstant brains.)
(Of course, if my building’s energy source is renewable, I’m perfectly content to turn my bathroom into a den of decadence.)
And this lack of consumption is not to simply punish. Rather, it is a practiced restraint so that natural and human resources are not overdrawn. The benefits of this are obvious; with surplus of supply and lack of use, prices go down and markets correct. Fewer people eating meat means fewer feedlots and factory farms. The more people carefully repair their gadgets and devices instead of simply tossing them in the waste bin, then the more we can conserve rare-earth metals and reduce groundwater.
Interlude
The above may sound like a rant of a vaguely moralistic Luddite. However, I am not against over-consumption, as anyone who’s seen me near a bag of salt-and-pepper chips can attest. I’ll happily over-consume many things: sunlight, swimming, books, movies, and more. The thing is, everyone knows the obvious truth facing today’s society: a sizable portion over-consumes nonrenewable resources because it’s easier than consuming just enough. In fact, what really is just enough? I don’t know, because that’s a pretty difficult measure to determine. A person with a medical issue simply needs to consume more energy and resources than I do, which is perfectly fair. It seems that we’ll simply have to determine on an individual basis what consumption is actually justifiable.
Back to the Main Point
The thing about equalizing consumption is that it benefits everyone in the long run. Right now, there’s a sizable drought in parts of California, and thousands of people are cutting back on water consumption.
By HAEYOUN PARK Source: U.S. Drought Monitor (copied from the New York Times website)
Isn’t that being submissive? Aren’t they all submitting to the collective need? It may seem an obvious foregone conclusion that people cut back in times of need, but my point is that being meek is not something that is alien to us, and frankly, it is something that needs to be omnipresent in our lives.
Meekly acknowledging the demands of millions of others around us and subsuming individual needs at times is what we all do already, and it’s what’ll conserve what really matters in the end…the earth. All that we hold dear derives from two sources: human capital and the earth. We don’t take the former for granted. The meek don’t presume to take the latter for granted.
And to wrap it all up and return tenuously to the introduction, such conservation and responsible consumption is what could possibly renew the poverty of spirit that being meek supposedly engenders. If I take the time to note the quality of the soil in the pots on my patio, and I devote a few minutes every day to watering and caring for them, then I’ll feel that much more rooted to my apartment block, and neighborhood, and the earth in general. Sure, it’ll be tedious and taxing at times, but that is how value is created: sweat and devotion of our scarce time.
As for the issue of poverty, that is far too complex for me to tackle. I will make this observation, however, that is virtually a recap of what Wendell Berry has been saying for decades: poverty wouldn’t be such a pressing issue if each person could at least be assured of strong connections to their place and neighborhood and neighbors, as well as a small patch of land on which they could grow some food. He’s not alone; I’ve written about Roy Prosterman before, who advocates for land rights worldwide, which has done much to end poverty in many regions. And it makes sense. If I have a small piece of land to call my own on which I can at least reside or raise some animals or grow some crops, if I am unemployed, at the very least I may have a chance at still producing the food I require. There are a whole host of other benefits, such as community interaction, neighborliness, psychological and physical health.
The last benefit, of course, is responsible conservation, as everyone has the motivation to take good care of their own property. And such conservation may be meek, because it implies careful tending of your own property, and a reduction in what we are accustomed to…but we will have inherited the earth.
P.S. The above is mainly focused on the environmental and social aspects of meekness, yet after reading an excellent post from adfinesterrae, I recalled the possibly more positive aspect of meekness: it really is the quietness of authority and strength choosing when and where to exert that strength, or even relinquishing it for the general good.
Whoever coined the phrase “control of women’s bodies” had a moment of pure genius; there is no phrase more guaranteed to make a man feel uncomfortable (based on a careful randomized controlled trial of my gut feelings). And its use in this article is perfectly placed, right after some gentle illustration/introduction to the supposed conservative position and its subsequent takedown.
Except the argument doesn’t quite hold together. The article seems to postulate that sisters and by extension women in the household are expected to do more gender-stereotyped tasks, such as cleaning, cooking, sweeping, etc. And this is based on one study. And apparently exposure to gender stereotyping translates into conservative views later in life, which actually stem from the desire to control women’s sexuality.
What about sweeping out the garage in order to attempt some wood carving? What about helping cook freezer meals? What about helping my mom assemble railroad ties in order to create raised beds for a garden? My sisters and I have all done these together.
The thing about most such tasks, and why they are terrible examples of gender stereotyping, is that they are actually rather neutral. Men and women interchangeably swap tasks when need arises, only specializing due to traditional societal roles. The traditional category of “housework” isn’t so easy to define after all; the tasks I cite above wouldn’t fall under housework, but aren’t they? Maintaining the garden outside to feed the household sounds rather like preparing food in an even earlier stage, which would usually fall under housework. Many such tasks are still only stereotyped as such because researchers and journalists presume they are, and perpetuate erroneous thinking. The difficulty with category assignation isn’t the first difficulty that the study doesn’t quite address. The researchers themselves admit to another sizable limitation of the study; no control for the gender of the siblings does not inspire great confidence.
The next example of erroneous thinking in this article relates to the immediate jump to control of women’s sexuality. The article bridges the gap with some fuzzy statements about religious tradition seeking to control women’s sexuality, and then even accusing Mr. Obama of perpetuating silly overbearing fatherly roles. The religious tradition link doesn’t quite make sense. Which religious tradition is this? To be equally fuzzy, only one, possibly two commandments in the usual suspect, Judaeo-Christian tradition, speak of coveting a neighbor’s wife outright (which seems like more of a man-shaming offense than anything else; after all, it’s not as if the commandment tells women not to covet others’ husbands, which suggests men are the focus not because they are the solution but because they are the problem). One would presume that the practice of male celibacy is overt control of male sexuality…where are the complaints re patriarchy trying to control male sexuality?
And if we take the simple secular roles of father and brother, I’m not entirely sure that the well-known impulse of fathers and brothers to protect their sisters is to prevent them having sex. After all, it’s not as if brothers and fathers prevent association with guys at all; usually they only wish to control for the quality of the gents. In nearly all the families that I know, fathers happily send daughters off to college where they can exercise their freedom, and only will interfere, to take one recent example from my personal experience, if said daughter asks about the suitability of a guy. I see no evidence of fearful control there. Perhaps there’s more exertion of control or rules in high school…and given the age range of high-schoolers, I’d say that some restriction is usually warranted.
There’s a great human impulse to find darkness as well as light, and sometimes we overextend ourselves to find subtle, malicious instincts where there really are none. I think that this is one of those cases. I can’t think of a single brother or father who really cares about his sister or daughter’s choice to have a relationship. But I do know that they care very deeply about whom that relationship is with, mainly because, much like Douthat states in his article, they care about the future and safety of the person they care about.
At this point, some might say that I am back to being just like Douthat, and focusing on sex-hungry men. I’m not so sure of that conclusion; I couldn’t care less about who dates my sisters, as long as they are decent people who make them happy and suit them well. In the end, it’s up to my sisters. I don’t control them, and they don’t control me. I can advise and suggest, and only at the utmost may intervene, but it’s up to them. They’ll be fine without my supposedly patriarchal, repressive concern, but I see no issue with them having recourse to it if they wish.
Devil’s advocate against my own points above: I do not intend to suggest more men shouldn’t do housework. Chores and work should be equitably distributed. However, the work should include the day jobs as well. If both the mother and father work full-time jobs, then it makes sense that the housework should be split evenly. Yet if the mom is stay-at-home, and the dad works, or vice versa, it does make sense the parent at home does the lion’s share of the housework during the day. It’s fairly simple labor distribution. Yet, as I can attest from personal experience, once the breadwinner arrives home, they shouldn’t be exempted from housework.
Mr. Walsh makes some good points; his style is a tad more inflammatory than my own, but that’s a mere quibble. He rightly points out the possible flaws with the entrance of women into the military, and the downgrade of fitness standards in order to accommodate certain numbers of female Marines. And of course he goes on to explain his position more fully, mainly pointing out how men are better suited for combat, and culminating with his avowal of how he needs his wife and daughter in their given roles, and they need him in his given role.
The argument is one that will be retreaded endlessly over the next few weeks, without any doubt, but what’s interesting is how exactly this phenomenon is mainly rooted in lazy thinking. Why is true equality such a difficult notion to grasp?
What it really comes down to is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic evaluations. We have a difficult time grasping the fact that each person is intrinsically equal to any other, even when they are extrinsically different. Now, Mr. Walsh is certainly right with regard to the physical and psychological demands of combat suiting men better. I might add that that is one small niche of human capability in which men are arguably extrinsically superior to women. Men are, on average, taller, faster, stronger and in general capable of greater fitness.
(Caveat: rather than repeat to tedious length the statistical hedging “on average” and “usually” let’s just presume that whenever I say men are superior in field combat or women elsewhere, I mean that on average.)
The lazy thinking comes into play at this crucial instant. Just because men are better suited for those combat demands doesn’t mean that they are better suited for all combat demands. Who’s to say a female doctor can’t operate behind the lines, away from those specific field duties, but within a sphere in which arguably they are superior? Why can’t a woman be a general? Surely it’s not as if we NEED women to be foot soldiers when it’s easier for men. (Some women will qualify physically, for after all, not all female Marines failed the fitness tests, and if they pass, then obviously those qualified can serve in the front lines).
It’s an obvious point, but one that is sometimes missed, again due to lazy thinking. Superiority in one niche does not imply superiority in others, but if you miss the intrinsic/extrinsic divide, then it’s easy to fall into that trap.
So, should policymakers instill gender diversity requirements in traditionally male-dominated fields? I don’t think so, at least, not in most fields. Many fields have evolved to be the way they are due to their unique strictures. Field combat, for example, where male strength and fitness levels confer an undeniable advantage. However, there are certainly other male-dominated fields such as day trading that could possibly benefit from a dilution of testosterone. I personally would trust my mother with being more diplomatic than myself when it comes to tense conversations and negotiation most of the time, so why not have more female diplomats, to take another example?
It’s not about requiring and thereby forcing equality; it’s about recognizing the intrinsic equality and value of actions despite their different fields. Men excel in field combat and other situations; women excel in communication processing between the analytic and the intuitive. The value of these actions is intrinsically equal even if extrinsically the need for them shifts considerably depending on the situation.
Thus, requirements that mandate so-called equality may do more harm than good, by allowing a standard that engenders other standards that will inevitably decay because anything administered and created by humans is flawed. It’s all right to have some gender imbalance in some fields. Yet at the same time, such discrepancy must be balanced with recognition of the value of other tasks and fields. There shouldn’t be any barriers to entry beyond sheer merit and ability. This means that perhaps some women will pass the fitness levels, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some men won’t, and that is also fine.
Of course, such barriers are never perfect because they can be rigged and are inevitably biased anyway, but they are better than the alternative. And if we are aware of how easy it is to slip into lazily thinking field combat is the only necessary military sphere due to its sheer current media presence, then hopefully we can avoid the inherent biases in such meritocracy.
Final note: at this point, I realized some may say that such true equality is difficult and not possible simply because even if intrinsic equality of actions is recognized, everyday society won’t acknowledge such intrinsic equality, being based on extrinsic qualities. To which I respond that nominally we all acknowledge intrinsic equality, and the only way to correct such perception is to remove the adverb. After all, we ARE society, aren’t we?
The only handicap to being on top of the food chain is that it invariably inflates your sense of importance and ego. Our planetary dominance encourages us to think that our big brains can handle most anything, when, in reality, they are quite limited. And, unfortunately, I forget this all the time.
Take the case of stereotypes, or really, most biases. Biases and stereotypes are not only evolutionary leftovers, but even more insidious than that, they are evolutionary leftovers designed to ease caloric expenditure. Taking the time to avoid filing someone away as a type doesn’t feel good; but being filed away yourself also doesn’t feel good.
At this point, the lackadaisical, non-judgmental dollop of my brain is preening sedately, conscious of how much effort it exerts to stand out and treat each person as whomever they wish to be, without any judgment at all as to what they might be like.
Of course, that is lazy as well, only in a different fashion. Truly exerting your mind in judgment doesn’t mean withholding it entirely. Rather, exertion entails a careful, calm, considered judgment of what people say and do and what that might say about them. The thing is one can’t simply cease that exertion, ever. Judgment is flawed in its finality; few things are eternal in this world, and so my opinions shouldn’t be. People are surprising. They change as they age, or simply become ever more deeply entrenched in their own character, revealing interesting depths and facets never even suspected…mainly because I was probably absorbed in my own affairs.
This is the most difficult one of all. Since you are the only person who has complete control over what you say and do and think, it is easy to remain self-focused, and indeed, is rather necessary. The devil is in the details, or rather, how you perceive the objects and persons interacting with you. Just because there are limitless variables in the world doesn’t mean you can’t put yourself in their place. People may be surprising, but we are all people, and thus are fairly predictable. We want to avoid pain, we’ll flock together for protection like a herd of antelope, and so on.
After all, the entire fashion industry is based on how predictably people want to look like each other.
Evaluating something is difficult unless you have a criteria. Evaluation of someone is even harder unless you have a criteria. Yet since the only way to make sense of the world is to evaluate it, there are all sorts of cognitive shortcuts and biases to make it easier. The only issue that then arises is when the shortcuts and biases themselves are flawed. And I don’t know about you, but for me, this most often arises in the case of extrinsic versus intrinsic valuations.
Pope Francis has recently been lauded and chided for his latest encylical, Evangelium Gaudium. I don’t intend to go in depth re the encylical; as I am woefully unprepared to do so. However, what I have read thus far seems to fumble with the same case of extrinsic and intrinsic. And no wonder: we’re not exactly well equipped to deal with the issue, having brains that are trained to compare and choose.
Rough definition of extrinsic value: that which a thing or person or place does, that is of value. And an even rough definition of intrinsic value is not quite the opposite, but rather the complement: what a thing or person or place simply is. (Note: I don’t pretend to be more than a street philosopher, so I am well aware these definitions aren’t perfect but at least they are workable.)
And the problem I constantly encounter is that it’s hard for me to distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic when it comes to people. Animals, tools, places, toys, books, and countless other items are easily evaluated. The Chromebook which I am currently typing on is intrinsically valuable to the tune of $249, according to its original price tag. However, its extrinsic value is potentially much greater, as I may create something of great worth with it. Someone’s pet dog is a different, thornier matter. The dog was purchased for a sum of money, but the sum of money is only the barest estimate of what that animal may mean to someone.
Such systems of measurement as prices and hours of labor and all are necessary in order for the world to function, yet they can lead to clouding of thought, as in the case of Pope Francis’ encyclical. The Pope is focused mainly with the intrinsic value of people. And in his view, every single person on earth is intrinsically equal, as each person has an immortal soul. Yes, the extrinsic value and well-being of many people may have increased over the past few decades…but has the opinion of their intrinsic value improved?
But once you think about it, even if that statement seems a perfect no-brainer on the surface, how often do we really operate under that assumption? I, for one, often fluctuate between acknowledging such intrinsic worth and mistaking it for somehow being less than someone’s extrinsic worth. I see an executive or engineer on the freeway driving an expensive Mercedes that cost more than my college education, and I see a hobo wandering the median beyond him, and I must admit that I do mistakenly assume at times the woman in the Mercedes is worth more. I certainly feel that I should care more about the Mercedes driver more than the hobo, even if I should feel more for the hobo. (Somehow, exerting emotion feels compensatory, although I’m sure the hobo would probably appreciate $20 more.)
Extrinsically speaking, she may well be. She may produce hundreds of thousands of dollars’ value every year with her specialized skills, far more than whatever the hobo may produce. But she and the hobo are intrinsically worth exactly the same. And this is the difficult issue the Pope grapples with: the world and society treat the woman with much greater respect than the hobo, because it’s easy to deal with the extrinsic. (And it’s not a bad thing to do so; if it’s the only thing you can afford, sending good vibes or praying or whatever use of your time you choose to offer to those you deem less fortunate, which is after all valuable to you, is definitely noble in many ways.)
The economic value that I can produce in an hour’s worth of tutoring is roughly $40, according to what the markets, that fluid collection of crowds, determine. (And they’re usually pretty trustworthy.) That’s an easy number. Numbers in general are easy: $37,000 a year, $15 a share, etc. But we can’t really place a price on a human life, although we are forced to quite often for decent reasons.
Yet we can’t rely on that type of thinking in real life. Reality demands a higher order of thinking; a juggling of intrinsic and extrinsic value. I acknowledge it at times, but I mix it up quite often. It’s frankly exhausting to do so. But simply because it’s so easy to neglect the extrinsic, the Pope emphasizes it. Of the two values, intrinsic value is the value that dare not speak its name. (To egregiously misquote and misappropriate.)
“Pain is gain,” or so they say. It seems an entirely pointless motto, because most pain feels fruitless when experienced. The only reason we go through pain in the first place is if the rewards seem suitable, e.g., exercise, diet, athletic training regimen, hours of study.
But pain is unavoidable. “Life is pain, highness,” Wesley says in The Princess Bride, and although he is understandably bitter in that moment, it’s rather true. And unlike most unavoidable things, we don’t prepare for pain much at all. Of course, in some areas, we do. Exercise is the careful exposure to pain in order to withstand greater pain later. It’s an odd way to phrase it, but I hope that my walking and running and standing at my desk will hopefully result in less heartburn and clogged arteries later in life, or rather, less pain now instead of more pain later.
So why do we not prepare for the inevitable pain to come?
Well, a fair case could be made that we can’t possibly comprehend what pain we’ll endure, so why prepare? This seems a bit shortsighted; after all, we know romance, death, hard work and more will assuredly be in our future.. I contend that we actually can prepare for those events to a large extent. Pain is ameliorated by understanding and empathy; being able to reason the whys and whats and hows of something that hurts is what eases the blow. Inexplicable suffering, like that of victims of natural disasters, is what simply can’t be eased. We are driven to understand and fix, but unfortunately, there are limits to what we can do. However, there are far fewer limits to our conscious reasoning and control over ourselves.
And so by increasing our sensitive empathy, we can prepare for whatever may come (and of course, there are always side benefits to such an empathetic increase). Ride the bus instead of driving, so you get up close and personal with the smelly, overly friendly, or overtly violent and creepy people whose sweat pants unsuccessfully try to cover everything. Walk through the cold shirtless when you toss your trash in the dumpster, as if you were like me and only remember to take the trash out when all of your clothes are in the wash. Look that homeless person in the eye. No matter how stressful the holidays sadly get, or how difficult your family may be, put yourself in their place. That odd friend of yours whose posts you unsubscribed to? Don’t do them the silent discourtesy of blocking them; they have as much a right to air their opinions and be heard as you do, even if you consider their opinions twaddle.
(Please note that these are personal aspirations on my part; it’s not as if I actually succeed in all the above, except for the laundry thing.)
That last point is especially pertinent. Others have spoken of the danger of filter bubbles, but it’s easy to forget how seductive they are. We want to avoid the pain of being wrong and/or the cognitive effort of defending or adopting ideas. It may not seem like a type of pain, but it is, for it is uncomfortable. Yet being uncomfortable is what we were born into, even though we spend our whole lives striving for comfort.
Life and the natural world is a finely tuned order of chaos. That phrase seems clunky and deliberately contradictory, yet it does capture our messy, disorganized, painful, immensely complex and intoxicating reality. We come into the world through great pain, and most of us leave in it, and the in between is rarely blissful. Another way of looking at the issue is that without the burden of pain, the highs of happiness would not stand out quite so sharply. And we haven’t even discussed the ennobling effect of forcing oneself to be strong enough to grimly march forward despite what may befall.
So far, the value of facing such pain is necessarily highly qualitative and personal. Some face much greater struggles with pain than others; others are more naturally gifted in such areas. Perhaps it’s better to avoid pain unless absolutely necessary. The only things we have in common is the certitude of facing pain and human existence. Nobody except ourselves know exactly what we’ll gain from facing or preparing for our pain. However, it seems logical that exertion of our store of willpower increases the likelihood of withstanding pain, no matter how great it is.
A relevant example from a recent popular listing is helpful; mentally strong people do not needlessly expose themselves to pain, but rather accept its positive aspects. Now, here is where I feel I should sneak in a sizable caveat: I do not mean for this article to come off as a lecture, more as something I myself aspire to. I haven’t experienced much pain in my life, being quite fortunate, but as I am human, I’ve experienced some, and so I speak with what knowledge I have.
The above paragraphs seem excessively dour for the holiday season, but bear with me. Amid all this talk of accepting and learning to prepare for pain, it’s easy to forget the upside. By preparing for pain, we are exercising the fundamental human virtue: hope. Such preparation is the essence of hope. Even if done begrudgingly, or with complaints, every moment we face pain, we only do so because consciously or unconsciously we know there is something better ahead. Everyone does this, albeit most unconsciously. It’s quite staggering to see how the world runs through the billions of individual efforts, enduring the little pains along the way, simply through a persevering hope. Endurance of even the most humdrum of pains to simply go about your job is a perfectly fundamental exercise of hope you may never realize you even practice.
Summer will come again after a long, dark, cold fall and winter and damp spring. Simply because the majority of days may be mediocre to boring, with sharp moments of pain, the minority of happiness and agony will blare like trumpets in your memory. It is difficult to overcome negativity; after all, we are prone to the belief bad is stronger than good. But that means we must prepare for such pain and plan ahead all the more.
And in this case, even in the dim, dark December days in Seattle, that something is the promise of Christmas and an unrealized New Year full of promise and possibility. Of course, it’ll be filled with painful moments as well, but if there are those who keep moving forward despite their own troubles and fears, and even find time to wish you happy holidays or Merry Christmas or a Happy New Year, that’s when we know what pain truly is. It’s the ugly side of hope.
(I was going to put this in reviews, but honestly, it delves so much into Bond movies in general that it seemed to stand alone.)
What constitutes a James Bond movie is different for everyone. The first few 1960s films established a routine amazing mainly for its spectacular and unvarying success: tall attractive male lead with touch of British dry humor and menace, fine tailored suits, fancy cars, explosions, three acts, anywhere from one to five Bond girls, and exotic locales. There may be minor tweaks re goofy gadgets and variety in chase scenes and the amount of violence (realistic or otherwise), but all in all, the formula has remained the same. And what makes the best James Bond movies is how they update and interpret that basic formula.
To trace the evolution of the Bond series is not so much to evaluate different Bond actors as to ascertain whether the particular movie interprets that formula adequately. Critical consensus displays this admirably: Casino Royale, Skyfall, Goldfinger, and From Russia With Love all are feted for stripping down and sticking to the bare bones of that formula, albeit with extra flourish depending on the film. The actor who plays Bond is crucial, yet only because he is the central element of the formula. A decent Bond like Brosnan couldn’t rescue a movie like Die Another Day that sunk under the weight of its excessive flourishes, for example.
And of those four movies above, I would contend that Skyfall is the best James Bond film yet due to its singular interpretation of that formula. In order to lay out my argument let’s break down the formula further.
1: The lead. Justifiably, people criticize the Bond series for glorifying or promoting Western male imperialistic attitudes. Some films unconsciously do so, others lampoon that attitude, and still others skilfully employ their villains to accuse Bond of arrogance and crimes. Since the Bond movies are clearly escapist, most of that debate seems rather irrelevant to me, but I can accept its validity. Consequently, Skyfall’s focus on James Bond’s personal history and role in a world that no longer has true empires is the canniest treatment of the issue. In the movie, Bond’s motives for staying loyal to MI-6 are laughed at by Raoul Silva, the villain, as he speculates Bond of stubbornly clinging to notions of Queen and country, which were antiquated even in the 1960s.
But Silva misses the point that Skyfall, in building off Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, intends to make. Bond isn’t a spy for Queen and country: he’s a spy because it’s a job that he is uniquely well suited for. He isn’t motivated by patriotism, but by his relationships and paychecks. Casino Royale set this up fairly well, displaying a Bond who is ready to give up service because it’s a soul-killing job and because he found someone. Quantum of Solace showed Bond in turmoil, grimly doing his job because it’s what he does best, after all, and someone needs to do it. Plus, of course, he enjoys it, and although it may turn him into a murdering machine, at least he does it well, and the people who pay him are usually on the right side.
Earlier Bond movies made this point somewhat. The first few Sean Connery films showed Connery as a dashing agent who was devoted to Queen and country, but mostly to winning and personal professional satisfaction. Every Bond movie shows Bond cheerily flouting protocols in favor of personal rewards, either in the form of women or revenge or the thrill of confirming his skill and egotism. Skyfall does this best since it shows the final thing that really ties Bond to his job: his relationship with M, which powers his sense of duty. Is that sense of duty merely the Queen and country, imperialistic attitude? No, it’s merely a sense of duty to his job, which, luckily, usually results in Bond being the good guy.
But not really a good guy, as Skyfall shows. Bond may have a spark of conscience left, but he follows orders more to the letter than ever before, a far cry from the Bond of Casino Royale who disobeyed orders to cruise the Mediterranean. He leaves a comrade to die and uses a woman to get closer to Silva; with regret, of course, but still, he’s a good agent…not a good man.
Earlier Bond movies tried to have it both ways. You’re always supposed to cheer Bond on, but Skyfall made it clear that when we place ourselves in Bond’s position, we do terrible things to people for sometimes unclear reasons. Obviously, it’s all coated in a veneer of panache and snappy sardonic wit and usually clean moral goals (since this is escapism, after all), but Skyfall makes that point better than most.
2: The three acts. Skyfall’s plot has its own issues, but its true success comes with it capping the Daniel Craig trilogy of Bond films; in short, being the perfect third act, or the end to the meta-formula. Other fans have delved into the Bond universe, detailing how James Bond could be a secret identity and code name, and thus continuity between the films is actually ensured, since it’s simply different British agents with similar backgrounds who assume the identity of James Bond. Others ask why we even go to that bother, since they’re just movies. Still others poke holes in the theory, showing how in Skyfall James Bond’s parents’ gravestones are actually shown, and how Lazenby’s wife was killed, but Sean Connery in Diamonds are Forever seems rather ticked off that his wife is dead, and Roger Moore visits Lazenby’s wife’s grave…all of which can be explained away fairly easily by some contorted reasoning.
But let’s establish the background. Let’s presume that Daniel Craig portrays a brash, bold secret agent in his early thirties who is picked to be the new 007 and James Bond, mainly because of his skills, but it just so happens to be that his real name is James Bond (not that uncommon of a name, actually). That takes care of the back story and continuity. In Casino Royale, he attains 00 status, meets the love of his life, and encounters a huge terrorist ring. The first act, so to speak, which ends in his gradual growth as an agent. In Quantum of Solace, he becomes an even better agent, brutal and ruthless, and takes down the terrorist ring.
Skyfall is the third act, in which Craig’s Bond is now presumed to be in his late thirties or early forties, and it is some years after Quantum of Solace. He is veering fairly close to the age where secret agents (and really all combat soldiers) start assuming desk jobs. Even if you stay in excellent condition, your body simply starts breaking down in your late thirties on average, and Bond worries if he is obsolete, along with M. (This physical concern mirrors his dissatisfaction with his job and the fading allure of what he does, referenced above.)
However, he proves himself once more, showing there’s a place for a 00 even in the 21st century, and the movie ends with a perfect segue into the first few James Bond films: Moneypenny, Q, simple gadgets, and even a male M. Skyfall ties together not only the trilogy, but also (admittedly with holes and gaps along the way) knits together a plausible theory of the entire series, as well as the winning Bond formula in a nutshell. From here on out, Craig’s Bond will be more like Connery’s Bond, with a familiar cast of supporting characters, a firmly closeted past involving a dead wife/lover, and the wit, wisdom, and war-readiness of a seasoned spy.
(Quick edit: On Reddit and elsewhere there are claims that Skyfall shows Bond was human and failed at virtually every mission, and ended the film with the greatest mistake of all: taking his boss alone to an old mansion with no backup. I’m not quite sure how the film consists of Bond’s failures. True, collateral damage occurs, and Bond is reminded that he is human, but he does take out a squad of terrorists, initially capture Silva, defeat the man who shot him in the opening scene, and overall show that even if he makes mistakes, he’s still one of the best agents MI6 has. As for taking M to Skyfall, thematically it fits the close of the trilogy with Bond returning to his roots (and the cinematic Bond Craig returning to the old structure of Q, a male M, Moneypenny, and more). And the move to Skyfall does make sense: there’s less collateral damage. M and Bond don’t know whom Silva has corrupted, so they take refuge in each other. Plus, last but not least, thematically M and Bond have the mother-son relationship Bond never truly had. In essence, she is the most important woman in his life, but in order for him to become an even better secret agent, he has to lose her too, in order to become the Connery Bond.)
3: The acting, cinematography, whatnot. Every single shot in Skyfall could be a painting. Trust me; I’ve seen it far too many times. Daniel Craig has never been more assured as Bond, and even manages to come close to Connery’s levels of charm and menace in scenes with Moneypenny and Silva. Ralph Fiennes and Judi Dench are superb, as to be expected, while Naomi Campbell and Ben Whishaw both take on the familiar roles of Moneypenny and Q with gusto. The action scenes are well-choreographed and filmed, with the usual death-defying Bond stunts still managing to impress.
In short, what I like best about Skyfall is that not only does it serve as a great reboot film of the series (and having Casino Royale as a reboot makes the most sense, with the whole James Bond saga starting over after every 20 films), it also pays homage to the most successful elements of the Bond formula that enabled it to get to 20 films in the first place.
The other day I was shopping for a new pair of pants on Amazon, Frank and Oak, and Bonobos. As I clicked through link after link, hunting for something elegant yet durable (I only buy used jeans at thrift stores, as they are so comfortably, beautifully worn), a horrible realization dawned on me: despite my pretense of being at least somewhat stylish, I hadn’t the least idea of how to differentiate between khakis and chinos.
Consequently, I decided to do a little research, emphasis on the adjective, beginning with the background of both types of pants. As I discovered, khakis and chinos are inextricably intertwined in history, running as parallel as the creases on corduroy.
According to Mr. Porter and Historical Boys’ Clothing, khakis originated when the British army transitioned from scarlet and white uniforms to the stony, dusty khaki uniform, the better to blend into mountainous, desert regions. Given its cheapness, heat tolerance, and durability, the uniforms were made from cotton. And thus the official khaki was born, the word khaki coming from the Urdu word for dust.
(from thehistorybunker.co.uk)
But what about chinos? Chino is a Spanish term for Chinese (confirmed), and once the U.S. acquired the Philippines in the Spanish-American War in the 1890s, China became a major manufacturer of trousers for American troops stationed in the eastern theater. And the name chino gradually came to refer to the tapered pants American troops would tuck into their boots.
Of course, chinos were directly descended from khakis, as they were of similar color and fabric (given that cotton’s properties rendered it useful in tropical climates). And although they were more of a military garb at that time, the World in the world wars eventually made the sight of khaki uniforms and trousers familiar to everyone. ManToMeasure posits that the G.I. Bill was responsible for spreading khakis and chinos in American universities, which then spread into the American way of life, which eventually became substantially influential around the world.
Which leads us to present day, wherein chinos and khakis are sold and classified distinctly. What happened in between?
Well, those original khakis were made from cotton twill, with criss-crossing ridges woven together. No pleat, no fancy ornamentation, merely flat-fronted or tapered pants with a few functional pockets. And chinos were khakis in all but name, originally. However, as time has gone on, ManToMeasure states that chinos are more comfortable and possess fewer pockets than khakis. There is no data in that source to back this up, so I delved into the depths of the Interwebs myself to riddle this out.
(Via sucker4clothes.com)
This is what I discovered: chinos are the slightly more fashionable brothers of khakis, nowadays. What has happened since the GI Bill in the 1940s and 1950s is that chinos, the less-familiar name, were seized upon as the segment of casual cotton pants that could be tinkered with, leading to more tailoring and color experimentation. Nowadays, khakis connote flat-front, un-creased, four-pocketed, light brown cotton pants.
Chinos, on the other hand, although very similar, are more likely to be classified as such when the pants are tapered, slim-fit, brightly colored, or in some other way distinguish themselves beyond the supposedly drab khakis. Hence they are supposedly somewhat more fashionable, according to AskMen.
So there you have it: they’re basically the same, historically speaking, and only differ as a marketing term or classification today. Of course, there are some who claim that chinos differ in the cut of the front, with less overlap between the fly and also fewer pockets on average, but those differences are piddling, and fall under my prior classification.
