The subtle details of clothing often hide interesting stories. Take a look at the back of your shirts, ever noticed that little loop? You’ll often find it on dress shirts for men, seemingly inconspicuous but with a couple of intriguing purposes you might not have known about.
While dress shirts are typically part of more formal attire, they can also be dressed down for a casual look when paired with the right pants and accessories. But that loop on the back? It wasn’t just arbitrarily placed there.
Originally, it was a thoughtful addition for those hitting the gym frequently. Its purpose? To make hanging the shirt on a hanger a breeze, especially when you’re on the go and need to transition from one place to another without fussing about where to put your shirt.
Interestingly, that little loop had a flirtatious function too. In the past, it was used as a subtle signal of relationship status. If the loop was out and visible, it supposedly indicated that the person was taken, hence not needing to hang around looking for a place to hang their shirt. However, over time, its significance has faded away, becoming just another mundane part of shirt design.
Fashion trends may have evolved dramatically over the last century, but some elements remain unchanged. Men’s clothing, in particular, holds onto certain timeless features. Case in point: the back-of-the-shirt loop.
Often termed a “locker loop” or even a whimsical “fairy loop”, it’s stitched onto most Oxford or button-down shirts. Its primary purpose? Hanging up the shirt. Legend has it that these loops trace back to U.S. sailors who used them to hang their shirts aboard ships.
During the 1960s, they became an integral part of mainstream menswear, especially on college campuses as part of the “preppy” look. Gant, a clothing manufacturer, is often credited with popularizing this button-down style across Ivy League campuses. The man behind the brand initially introduced this shirt design to Yale University’s shop for male students, and from there, its popularity spread far and wide.
Heavily-Tattooed Woman Says It’s “Not Fair” That She Can’t Get A Job
Following a woman’s accusation that TJ Maxx was discriminating against her due to her appearance, a subsequent instance involving a job rejection at the store has generated controversy. 23-year-old Ash Putnam, who goes by @ashxobrien on TikTok, talked about how she was turned down for a part-time job at the store because of her body piercings and tattoos.
Putnam claims that after applying for the job, she got an email a few weeks later rejecting her application. Disappointed by the information, she vented her annoyance on TikTok and sparked a discussion on discrimination in employment.
Putnam’s initial grievance was with the impersonality of getting an email rejection instead of a call. Even though this is standard procedure for big businesses, she thought it was disrespectful considering how hard she worked to apply for the position.
When Putnam went to her neighborhood TJ Maxx to personally find out why she was rejected, a staff member informed her that she didn’t have enough experience for the role. Despite the employee’s insistence to the contrary, she suspected that her tattoos had a big influence on the choice.
Putnam stressed that, despite her unhappiness, she wasn’t necessarily in need of the work and was just looking for extra money to help her pay off debt faster. She thought it was unjust, though, that her tattoos appeared to be a deciding factor in her employability.
Putnam has obvious tattoos of images associated with Satanism, including a Leviathan Cross and a goat that symbolizes the god Baphomet. Thousands of TikTok users commented on her post, implying that her tattoos probably affected the decision, even though it’s unclear whether hiring supervisors noticed them when she applied.
Visible tattoos, according to some reviewers, may be viewed as unprofessional, particularly in jobs where employees interact with customers like those at TJ Maxx. Others brought out the difficulty of finding a job for young folks without any prior work experience if employers value experience over potential.
The event brought up more general concerns about how society views physical alterations and employment procedures. Putnam questioned why having a tattoo should prevent someone from getting a job, given that many tattoo bearers are quite skilled workers.
Putnam’s tattoos may not have had a direct impact on her rejection, but the event brings attention to the ongoing discussion over appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. It’s critical to think about how hiring procedures may be more inclusive and equal for all candidates, regardless of appearance, as the conversation continues.
Leave a Reply