Article: Why do People Hate Hipsters

Pompidou said:

In the hat forums at least, there're a lot of "How can I deal with regular people while trying to be myself" sort of posts. We're a minority, and we're not always treated with much respect. If there was no mass culture, you're right, there would be no hipsters as we know them. Of course, if there was no modern culture, there would be no vintagers. We both exist not on our own merits, but in contrast to a majority. We're defined by our differences from the norm. We're both held in some disdain by the modern culture. Take a look at the million cases of hat/hat-wearer abuse on the hat forums for a better idea. We are a subculture. I think that's a good thing. I like the idea of subcultures. Every subculture I can think of right now is defined by its appearance. We could wear all black and be called goths. We could pierce up and dye our hair and whatnot and dress like punks. Skin tight jeans, girly t-shirts and long bangs over the eyes and you might call yourself emo. If you wear clothes from the golden age, you're one of us. Hipsters are just another group. No better, no worse. They all have their reasons for being. For what it's worth, as far as I know, most of those groups don't like one another much either. For some reason, one way small groups stick together is by not liking other small groups. It must just be human nature. I just think they should all get along.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

As I see it, so called "vintageism" for many isn't purely based upon the premise of rebellion or opposition. The hipsters define themselves by negative reactions to the current culture. People who truly appreciate vintage not simply because it's old but because the styles, ideas and ways of being are true to who they are are moving towards something they love. One is a rebellious act done en mass as a sub culture; the other a personal choice made by many who congregate together out of shared passions. But you are correct that we will be judged by how we appear.

scottyrocks said:

Ive read this thread and I dont understand the whole hate thing, and why anyone would even bother to care about why people are wearing peg-legged pants, whether it be for fashion, trending, or social reasons. The 'younger generation' has always been characterized by 'tude-of-the-moment rebelliousness, in whatever fashion or style just happened to grab the first coupla people who adopted them. And older people have usually been puzzled by the young'uns choices, often forgetting that they were once young themselves.

Theres a young teacher in my school who wears hipster-style clothing. He's on the obnoxious side for a variety of reasons but I dont think its because he wears tight-fitting clothing. He'd be the same way no matter what he wore. This just happens to be how he dresses. I dont judge him by his clothes.

Anecdotal, yes, but I generally think the judgment concept is ridiculous simply because youngers have always been this way, just in different costumes. Most of us get over it. Its the way the world works.

Click to expand...

The problem for me is that "youngsters" now seems to apply to people in their 30's. I'm pretty sure that many NYC hipsters are subsidized by their parents. As an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/nyregion/08trustafarians.html

I like Pompidous posts and agree to most points. Like you I also dislike the sight of their style but don't just because they are different.

But you threw the punks and goths in. Well these subcultures also hate Hipsters because they are just careless hedonistic. They like shopping and capitalism and don't seem to be very critical towards society. Unless you think dressing in ugly clothes is subversive in itself.

I imagine iot was the same with emo bashing just some years ago. Not hardcore enough for the punks not "normal" enough for the mainstream. Plus homophobia..which was the worst part of it.

John in Covina said:

Often as we get older the idea of current fashion remains with certain age groups and we move on. Sometimes that is part of what might be described as growing up.

Click to expand...

Bears repeating.

BK: "...if people would go to the effort of trying to understand their motives."

i don't think the motives go much deeper than appearing 'cool'. the fashion industry thrives on creating the anxiety in consumers that they won't look 'on trend' (horrible phrase) and 'current'. the hipster look is just a more select, elitist strand of that same thinking. it's made up of the 'edgier' stuff that the 'normal' consumer would consider too daring, weird or geeky. the 'trashy' aesthetic that seems to dominate the hipster wardrobe is simply a reflection of the nihilistic too-cool-to-give-a-damn-about-anything world-view of the average hipster. why the nihilistic outlook among the cool 18-30-somethings ? that's a much bigger question.

Sincerely-Dee said:

I agree wholly. I've been labelled a hipster once, which I of course vehemently denied. I was annoyed at first but when I really look into in it seems that we are extremely alike. As much as hipsters look down their noses at the world, you can find people on this forum who are exactly the same - if not worse.

Click to expand...

And how! If there are two strains of the vintage community I cannot abide, they are those who want to "go back and live in the Fifties or earlier, before all those ghastly foreigners came here and ruined everything", and the "we're so much better than everyone else" element. I don't really see what it is that makes people fail to grasp that other people might have a different, off-mainstream idea about what looks cool, and want to run with that... If we refuse to tolerate their difference, why should anyone not point the finger (and worse) at us?

For me, what I don't get about what is being identified as the 'hipster' subculture is the 'ironic' bit. I mean, I know irony, I love kitsch.... but I do struggle to fathom why anyone would go the length of deliberately dressing in what they considered to be a poor taste way, getting an 'ironic' haircut, and so on.... seems a strange way to amuse yourself to me, but if that's what they want, who am I to object? What I object to is not their manner of dress (I think it looks daft, but they likely think the same of me. And - aside from, perhaps, the issue of durability - the notion that one set of clothes is or can be judged as being in any way superior that another is nothing more than a social construct), but the attitude that comes with it. Nathan Barely was a genius satire of the whole Shoreditch scene, as applicable now as it was back when it was made. Superficiality as a key personal trait bores me very quickly. Hedonism likewise. Ultimately, though, there's a world of difference between someone who dresses in a certain way because they want to, and someone who does it to expose how square and dull you are. Used to be a guy turned up every year at an academic conference in which I have been involved. It's a very broad church in dress styles - some of us fully suit, others go casual, and nobody questions it - academia writ large, really. Thing is, this guy would show up in a washed out, ratty old T shirt, holey jeans and flip flops, wander around qutonig Jello Biafra for effect, and simply exude smugness at how cool he was, not like us squares who 'conformed' by looking like we hadn't woken up in a skip after the night before in the same clothes in which we showed up at the conference. Thing is, you get that in every group. People always remember the negative when they encounter it as an outsider. My views of Liverpool city are very negative (based largely on having coins thrown at me for 'looking weird', being surrounded, with friends, at a bus stop and pushed around by identikit scallies) - doubtlessly unfairly so. I don't assume all vintage people are arrogant, elitist idiots based on the few who undoubtedly are, mainly because I have seen the other side of it, I am aware what a minority they are.

LizzieMaine said:

Here's a thought -- if the current, modern culture somehow ceased to exist, would not also hipsterism? Isn't it a subculture -- like many subcultures -- that is defined pretty much exclusively by its "ironic opposition" to the existing mass culture? So isn't a hipster absolutely dependent on contemporary mass culture for his very existence? Without it, without the very thing he claims to oppose, isn't he just the sound of one hand clapping?

I don't really see vintageism as being like that -- for many vintage folks, the current mass culture could cease to exist tomorrow without affecting them or their worldview in the least. Many of us are less interested in critiquing modern culture than we are in simply avoiding it.

Click to expand...

I think you're right to quite some degree.... that said, I have met quite a few vintage folks whose self image depends entirely upon seeing themselves as being in opposition to the prevaling, modern culture.

Mr Badger said:

Aesthetically, modern fashions are remixing vintage styles in what FL-ers, as peeps who are into form and content, find contextually confusing or, in some cases, downright offensive.

Succeeding generations always do this, with all areas of popular culture – for instance, a young guest DJ at one of our nights played great music, all of which we knew, but in a way that made sense to her generation, rather than ours. Same records, different order.

Most youngsters just buy clothes to fit with their peer group, as John pointed out. When I was a teen, we all wore tight black jeans with big belts, pointed Beatle boots, corduroy jackets and tab-collared shirts or thick-striped t-shirts – with 'bowl' haircuts topping it off – to reflect our love of 1960s beat / R&B / garage music... luckily, I realised that this didn't suit me, so as I investigated the cultural roots of my teen obsessions, I also discovered clothing more suitable for my 6' 4" frame... as our group of friends splintered, geographically, some lost interest in clothes but got way into ever-more esoteric music, others changed their styles (1940s, tailor-mades, rockabilly, hepcat jazzers, etc) and their musical tastes, and others just got married, had kids and found that they weren't really interested in keeping up with any of it... that's life, innit?

Personally, none of my friends round here take much of an interest in clothes, and no doubt think I'm a bit odd, in the same way that we may think hipsters are. I must say that I still meet a great number of really fine human beans who are coming at life from completely opposite viewpoints to myself, and I wouldn't presume to judge them by their trousers, or whatever. It's my hang-up, not theirs... having said that, I still wince when I see some large-footed teen in a pair of grey skinny jeans – they look like an old golf club in silhouette!

Click to expand...

ha, true, true.... What I don't get is why they insist (much like the hip hoppers, though their jeans are much baggier) on wearing the waistband below their bumcheeks. Surely it must be dreadfully uncomfortable? They always look like little penguins to me, waddling around with the crotch of their trews round their knees. I suppose in part it's the fact that, not to be overly graphic, but... so many skinny jeans are cut for the ladies?

Son_of_Atropos said:

John highlights my point that suits have a historical pedigree. People are still wearing suits after hundreds of years. If people are still wearing hipster dress in a hundred years then there is some value to it. Otherwise it is just a trend.

Click to expand...

I'm loathe to consider longevity as a mark of social worth; without getting into hyperbole, there are a lot of very unpleasant social trends and prejudices that lasted for centuries - longevity didn't make those acceptable to me. In any case, it seems to me to be rather stretching a point to suggest the contemporary lounge suit goes back 'hundreds' of years; we might as well say 'trousers' go back hundreds of years.

As we grow up often our focus changes and we begin to see value in other things. As an analogy a good friend of mine was always a sports car enthusiast but a few years ago he got a ride in a nice new Cadillac and said that the comfort was starting to appeal to him more these days.

PrettySquareGal said:

Interesting.

As I see it, so called "vintageism" for many isn't purely based upon the premise of rebellion or opposition. The hipsters define themselves by negative reactions to the current culture. People who truly appreciate vintage not simply because it's old but because the styles, ideas and ways of being are true to who they are are moving towards something they love.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps even not moving at all. Some of us who are viewed as "rebels against modern culture" are actually called that simply because we've stuck with the beliefs, attitudes, and aesthetics that we were raised with. We've made no conscious decision to "rebel" at all -- we've simply stayed where we've always stood, and the world considers us rebels for not being carried along by the tide. We're rebels only because we refuse to follow the rest of the world in its rebellion against *our* culture. Those of us who fit that description have more in common with the Amish than we do with the hipsters.

But then, my ancestors were Loyalists. It runs in the family.

John in Covina said:

Often as we get older the idea of current fashion remains with certain age groups and we move on. Sometimes that is part of what might be described as growing up.

Click to expand...

If this were true as an over-arching statement, and vintage clothes have some inheirant classic superiority over other clothing, then why is anyone over 65 years of age not still wearing what they wore at the time they 'grew up'?

Sorry, they who lived through that time obviously do not find any everlasting value in wearing a suit or a dress.....otherwise we wouldnt see them all in the 'uniform' of old age, Khaki trousers and a polo shirt for old men, and the ubiquitous pantset for old women. They are mainstream people who one would think, valued quality in their lives, etc.

That we choose to step back and emulate them, makes us a subculture, no less valid or invalid then any other subculture in existance.

And for those here that think they are all each being a glorious flower of individuality, then why did you join a group (even if just online) of people who share the same values. Newsflash: Subcultures band together and have a commonality. Just like we can spot a vintage dresser in the street, a goth can spot another goth, even dressed down.

If you were truly 'doing your own thing', you wouldn't be here with the rest of us, talking about it.....

"If there are two strains of the vintage community I cannot abide, they are those who want to "go back and live in the Fifties or earlier, before all those ghastly foreigners came here and ruined everything", and the "we're so much better than everyone else" element."

The first part i have not really seen that much here as in regards to foreigners, but the second can be seen in varying degrees. Few people that join a group do so because the group is worse than everyone else. It's part of the idea of IN Groups and OUT Groups, as a dynamic in social groups that occurs. It is seen in high school as cliques, groups that form for sports teams and various clubs or cheerleaders. The focus of the group becomes a binding tie for the members and it takes on an importance that may be out of proportion to the actual or true importance. It is part of self definition and gives purpose to the daily activities of that person.

What happens is we see other groups and look at the zeal for things such as a type of style or fashion and it's outside of our value system. It then seems silly. Like the pants below the butt style, it seems as ridiculous as having a style where you leave your pants zipper open and pull your underwear out the front.

I'd say that most vintage lovers tend to have an affinity for styles that would coincide with a more "adult" look than youth orientated. There is a dispersion in using the term juvenile but we have a tendency to see a clinging to youth culture later in life that at a point does not serve one well.

Miss Neecerie said:

If this were true as an over-arching statement, and vintage clothes have some inheirant classic superiority over other clothing, then why is anyone over 65 years of age not still wearing what they wore at the time they 'grew up'?

Sorry, they who lived through that time obviously do not find any everlasting value in wearing a suit or a dress.....otherwise we wouldnt see them all in the 'uniform' of old age, Khaki trousers and a polo shirt for old men, and the ubiquitous pantset for old women. They are mainstream people who one would think, valued quality in their lives, etc.

That we choose to step back and emulate them, makes us a subculture, no less valid or invalid then any other subculture in existance.

And for those here that think they are all each being a glorious flower of individuality, then why did you join a group (even if just online) of people who share the same values. Newsflash: Subcultures band together and have a commonality. Just like we can spot a vintage dresser in the street, a goth can spot another goth, even dressed down.

If you were truly 'doing your own thing', you wouldn't be here with the rest of us, talking about it.....

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't spell that out well - I meant as we get older we move out of the that style. We move thru these age groups. I was meaning that the age group say of 12-15 and 16-19 20-22 23-25 etc. each has a set of fashion needs and desires, then as we move out of that early age group to a later one our fashion needs and desires change. But that say the age group of 15-20 is where the needs and desires have a different meaning and value than one reaching say 40-45 years old.

John in Covina said:

I guess I didn't spell that out well - I meant as we get older we move out of the that style. We move thru these age groups. I was meaning that the age group say of 12-15 and 16-19 20-22 23-25 etc. each has a set of fashion needs and desires, then as we move out of that early age group to a later one our fashion needs and desires change. But that say the age group of 15-20 is where the needs and desires have a different meaning and value than one reaching say 40-45 years old.

Click to expand...

No...I got what you meant in that part.

But when combined with 'suits have history' etc. and the discussions of vintage being a 'better way' of dressing......they are classics, etc.

if that were true, then people who once wore them, would just continue to do so til death.....

Miss Neecerie said:

If this were true as an over-arching statement, and vintage clothes have some inheirant classic superiority over other clothing, then why is anyone over 65 years of age not still wearing what they wore at the time they 'grew up'?

Sorry, they who lived through that time obviously do not find any everlasting value in wearing a suit or a dress.....otherwise we wouldnt see them all in the 'uniform' of old age

Click to expand...

They do, at least where I'm from.

Miss Neecerie said:

No...I got what you meant in that part. But when combined with 'suits have history' etc. and the discussions of vintage being a 'better way' of dressing......they are classics, etc. If that were true, then people who once wore them, would just continue to do so til death.....

Click to expand...

There are some that do, when I was younger and it was not hip to wear an Elvis hair cut some guys never gave it up and the style was too youthful for them.

Sometimes women dress too youthful and it loses both its appeal and their dignity.

Age we are in a age where people are clinging to their youth i think we see some loss of the concept of dignity. It is lost on some maybe.

I look on the styles of the past and see something that simply looks right to my eye and looks better for some things.

Much of today seems like endless derivatives and tired.

P.J. O'Rourke said in an article that he went back to his college some 20 odd years later and was surprised to see that many were emulating the late 60's to early 70's quasi hippie in both dress styles and music. He said it was like a time warp and that he could not help but think that if the same had occurred when he went to college people would have been walking around in zoot suits and listening to Bix Biederbeck.

Here's a thought. Kids do goofy things to challenge the norm.

What if "hipsters" are the white urban response to hip-hop? A celebration of a different era. The 70s are just more accessible to them than the 30s.

There's a culling season on Hipsters in my part of the world, just to keep their numbers under control. I know it's rather severe measures by Local Govt., but it does seem to have had good results so far according to local and regional press coverage.

Miss Neecerie said:

Sorry, they who lived through that time obviously do not find any everlasting value in wearing a suit or a dress.....otherwise we wouldnt see them all in the 'uniform' of old age, Khaki trousers and a polo shirt for old men, and the ubiquitous pantset for old women. They are mainstream people who one would think, valued quality in their lives, etc.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting thing I have seen across a number of subcultures, not least in vintage. At a rockabilly gig nowadays, the folks you'll see dressed forties and fifties are very much not the people who lived back then. At a Sex Pistols show, the kids who turn up in bondage trews or dressed up as Sid Vicious for the most part aren't even old enough to have bought Dookie when it came out.... I guess if you live through something once, you're that much less likely to be interested in reprising it. I wouldn't be seen dead in Eighties fashions, myself.

And for those here that think they are all each being a glorious flower of individuality, then why did you join a group (even if just online) of people who share the same values. Newsflash: Subcultures band together and have a commonality. Just like we can spot a vintage dresser in the street, a goth can spot another goth, even dressed down.

If you were truly 'doing your own thing', you wouldn't be here with the rest of us, talking about it.....

Click to expand...

Meh, I'm an individual, just like everybody else.

John in Covina said:

"If there are two strains of the vintage community I cannot abide, they are those who want to "go back and live in the Fifties or earlier, before all those ghastly foreigners came here and ruined everything", and the "we're so much better than everyone else" element."

The first part i have not really seen that much here as in regards to foreigners, but the second can be seen in varying degrees.

Click to expand...

It's something I don't think I've ever seen on the Lounge. It's primarily a British thing. Very much a minority but there are the occasional flashes of it which are definitely worrying when seen in combination with the likes of the BNP (Neo-Nazis) pushing their nonsense about only people with roots in Britain "pre-1948" (ie pre Windrush.... ie white folks) should be here, or can be properly called British. I don't want to get into politics here, but I think we an all agree that's not the sort of thing with which we want to identify.

griffer said:

Here's a thought. Kids do goofy things to challenge the norm.

What if "hipsters" are the white urban response to hip-hop? A celebration of a different era. The 70s are just more accessible to them than the 30s.

Click to expand...

It's certainly a similar tribal thing. And you know, the fact that squares like us just don't get it.... well, isn't that the point? Part of me thinks those kids would be doing something entirely wrong if we old people were totally down with them.

It's the 70s thing where you are, then? Interesting... here it's the 80s predominantly. It is, of course, wholly to be expected that the 80s would come back. for years fashion has been about revival - there really only are so many widths you can make a lapel. Also, nostalgia tends to take root in a generation most strongly where it is for a time just before their own, in my experience anyhow. When we hit a generation that weren't old enough to have their own memories of the Eighties, it is inevitable that they would really jump on it as a "vintage" revival thing. Well, that combined with a generation of designers whose own youth was in the Eighties, taking that as an inspiration...

The really odd thing about the Eighties Revivial in mainstream fashion in the UK is that it seems already to have lasted twice as long as the Eighties!

Hi

I had a LOT of trouble with the last post. I graduated from High School in 1979, and after the 1960's beatnik, 1970's hippy, and 1979's disco look, the 1980's looked like "regular clothes" to me. My GAWD, I had golden plaid bell bottom pants in the early 1970's.

For me the 1980's were preppy, at least Don Johnson didn't wear leisure suits.

Later

PrettySquareGal said:

The problem for me is that "youngsters" now seems to apply to people in their 30's. I'm pretty sure that many NYC hipsters are subsidized by their parents. As an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/nyregion/08trustafarians.html

Click to expand...

Age-related activities seem to have gone haywire in the last dozen years, give or take. We see, and talk about this, a lot here. Guys of all ages dressing like kids, to one degree or another, no one wearing the kinds of clothes to go out shopping, for instance, that our Dads wore only even as far back as the 60s.

Men in their thirties are not always all grown up. Subcultures are sub because not a lot of people belong to them compared to the general populace. Of course, this varies from subculture to subculture.

George Carlin did a bit many years ago where he said that why is it every few years you look back and wonder what you were thinking. When youre 18, and have your stuff together, you look back at when you were sixteen and think, what was I, crazy? And then when youre 21, and youve got your stuff together, you look back at when you were 18 and think, what was i, crazy?

The point is, we never stop evolving. Some of us take longer to go through our stages. Most of us never stop. Thats how we grow.

With the economics of the last few years, many people are relying on their elders for (financial) help. When a thrity-something is out on his own, whether subsidized by his parents or not, it is not usual for the parents to be controlling many or any aspects of the 'kid's' life.

I think way too much thought got put into analysing hipsters. There are a few out there trying to make a statement. I think most are just identity challenged individuals and emo kids that are now evolving into bright, happy, and weird rather than dark, miserable, and weird. The skinny jeans stuck around, the mood changed. The big secret is: most are just kids looking to belong, even if it is something where they stand out. Hence, the Holier-than-thou attitude and smugness. Its just a front.