interesting to me that polo shirts are rooted in sport (polo,...
derek guy@dieworkwear
65 views
Mar 15, 2026
~2 min read
1
interesting to me that polo shirts are rooted in sport (polo, tennis, and golf) but seen are more respectable and even quasi-business attire simply bc upper class white men played these sports. football jerseys, basketball shorts, and women's athleisure are seen differently
x.com/GadSaad/status…
x.com/GadSaad/status…
2
I'm surprised anyone disagrees with this. The growth of my social media account and root of my legitimacy is purely in the fact that I know how the ruling classes in Britain, Italy, and the United States dressed during the 20th century.
When Vivek Ramaswamy and Pete Hegseth wear tan shoes with navy suits, I can say "this looks like shit to most people because it's not how King Charles and Gianni Agenlli would have dressed." When Kash Patel puts contrast buttonholes on his suits, I can say it's wrong because the ruling classes across these countries during that period would have never chosen such a thing.
You read this as legitimate purely because you accept the legitimacy of these classes in forming our sense of aesthetics. Someone who has no interest in these classes — such as Paul Harden and Yohji Yamamoto — rightly disregards all of these notions and makes tailoring according to different rules.
The polo shirt is no different. The spread of the polo shirt is a story about how a pullover garment migrated from the polo fields played by British imperialists to tennis legends in France and eventually to the golfing middle classes in the United States. This is entirely a story about race, class, and gender. Football jerseys and basketball shorts don't enjoy such history, and thus they are not seen as legitimate business clothes.
The difference between me and other menswear writers is that: 1) I make this history and dynamic transparent and 2) I don't think the white upper class are the sole source for cultural legitimacy. There are many legitimate aesthetics that have nothing to do with this class, such as biker gear, workwear, punk and rap aesthetics, etc.
I just think it's weird to shit on contemporary women's athleisure while wearing a polo shirt, one of the original pieces of athleisure, albeit primarily worn by upper class white men.
When Vivek Ramaswamy and Pete Hegseth wear tan shoes with navy suits, I can say "this looks like shit to most people because it's not how King Charles and Gianni Agenlli would have dressed." When Kash Patel puts contrast buttonholes on his suits, I can say it's wrong because the ruling classes across these countries during that period would have never chosen such a thing.
You read this as legitimate purely because you accept the legitimacy of these classes in forming our sense of aesthetics. Someone who has no interest in these classes — such as Paul Harden and Yohji Yamamoto — rightly disregards all of these notions and makes tailoring according to different rules.
The polo shirt is no different. The spread of the polo shirt is a story about how a pullover garment migrated from the polo fields played by British imperialists to tennis legends in France and eventually to the golfing middle classes in the United States. This is entirely a story about race, class, and gender. Football jerseys and basketball shorts don't enjoy such history, and thus they are not seen as legitimate business clothes.
The difference between me and other menswear writers is that: 1) I make this history and dynamic transparent and 2) I don't think the white upper class are the sole source for cultural legitimacy. There are many legitimate aesthetics that have nothing to do with this class, such as biker gear, workwear, punk and rap aesthetics, etc.
I just think it's weird to shit on contemporary women's athleisure while wearing a polo shirt, one of the original pieces of athleisure, albeit primarily worn by upper class white men.