necktie (n.) is, as a symbolically displaced penis, a sign of masculinity, which explains why men who wear bow ties are universally taken to be nerds.

David Graeber on Necktie

necktie

silk

dad joke

silkworm

cactus

function

knot

ghost

bowtie

tailor

William Shakespeare

dream

job interview

one-liner

trivia

WTF Origins

hanging out

Let's make like a . . . 

Cockney Rhyming Slang

a tie is basically an arrow pointing toward the crotch.

is just an awful, skinny little front-cape.

a tie is just an awful, skinny little front-cape.

bow tie

power tie

bridge

confusion

connection

equality

leash

line

relation

relationship

rope

sleeper

string

suit

tuxedo

boss

Father's Day

short-sleeved shirt

necktie paradox

clip-on tie

dry cleaning

Adam's apple

cockney rhyming slang

let's make like a  . . .

riddle

WTF origins

dress code

Windsor knot

Air Force 1

apron

armor

athleisure

babydoll

ball gown

bandana

baseball cap

bathrobe

beanie

belt buckle

beret

Bermuda shorts

bermudas

big shoes

bikini

black armband

black clothing

blazer

blindfold

blouse

bomber jacket

bootcut

boxer briefs

boxers

boyfriend jeans

bra strap

briefs

bulletproof vest

burka

burqas

button down

button fly

cap and gown

capris

capsule wardrobe

cardigan

cargo pants

cargo shorts

chaps

chest protector

belt

boots

button

camouflage

businessman

father

modern man

neck

office job

shirt

is, as a symbolically displaced penis, a sign of masculinity, which explains why men who wear bow ties are universally taken to be nerds.

Hey, this would explain a lot—why men who wear bow ties are universally taken to be nerds, for example. True, a bow tie could be taken for a pair of testicles. But even so, bow ties are small, and they point in entirely the wrong direction. Mafiosi wear ties that are too fat and colorful; dissipated sophisticates wear thin ties; cowboys wear string ties that produce the effect you might expect from wearing a bow tie and a regular tie at the same time—ordinarily, this would be too unsubtle, but cowboys are mythic he-men who can get away with it. (James Bond can also get away with a bow tie, but then he’s basically just a giant penis anyway.)

is a curious object in that it is uncomfortable and serves no immediate function. It doesn’t hold your trousers up or keep you warm.

No doubt, part of the objection to the tie is to the pure arbitrariness of the thing. A tie serves no function. It doesn’t hold your trousers up or keep you warm. But at the same time, it’s uncomfortable, so much so that putting it on does somehow feel like a gesture of submission, a reluctant pledge of allegiance to everything the suit is supposed to represent.

is a phallic symbol, and as such, a decorative accentuating of the masculine organ just as earrings, lipstick, eyeshadow, etc tend to highlight feminine receptive organs.

But let’s examine other forms of decoration allowed in formal attire and see if a larger pattern of sartorial power begins to emerge. Decoration that’s specific to women (earrings, lipstick, eyeshadow, etc.) tends to highlight the receptive organs. Permissible men’s jewelry—rings, cuff links, fancy watches—tends to accentuate the hands. This is, of course, consistent: it is through the hands that one acts upon the world. There’s also the tie clip, but that’s not really a problem. The tie and the cuff links seem to fulfill their functions in parallel, each adding a little decoration to tighten a spot where human flesh sticks out, namely the neck and wrists. They also help seal off the exposed bits from the remainder of the body, which remains effaced, its contours largely invisible.

is a symbolic displacement of the penis, only an intellectualized penis, dangling not from one’s sexual-based crotch but from one’s power-based head.

This is the one part of the male body whose contours are entirely effaced. If hiding something is a way of declaring it a form of power, then hiding the male genitals is a way of declaring masculinity itself a form of power. It’s not just that the tie sits on precisely the spot that, in women’s formal wear, tends to be the most sexualized (the cleavage). A tie resembles a penis in shape, and points directly at it. Couldn’t we say that a tie is really a symbolic displacement of the penis, only an intellectualized penis, dangling not from one’s crotch but from one’s head, chosen from among an almost infinite variety of other ties by an act of mental will?

 marks a final act of closure. It’s the act that transforms all those items into a suit, with all the suit implies, whether it’s the power of the boardroom or the ceremonial formalities of weddings and funerals.

Somehow, it feels as if tying the necktie around your neck marks a final act of closure. It’s the act that transforms all those items into a suit, with all the suit implies, whether it’s the power of the boardroom or the ceremonial formalities of weddings and funerals—that whole world of official business over which men in suits invariably preside.

is both the quintessential symbol of the stiff and formal suit and also it’s very opposite - the only place where one can add color or otherwise express oneself a little.

Still, if you think more about it, there’s something peculiar going on here—a kind of paradox. Yes, a tie embodies the message of the suit, but in many ways it’s the very opposite. After all, the rest of the suit is almost entirely bereft of decorative elements. Suits tend to be dark, sober, boring. Ties are supposed to be the exception. The tie is the one place where you’re allowed to add a little color, to express yourself a little. Why, then, should the one thing that’s least like the rest of the suit somehow feel like it embodies the message of the whole?

is symbolic of the phallus, and by extension, it is symbolic of a male compensation-fantasy grounded in the notion that men create society publicly and out in the world just as women’s powers of creation lie in the private sphere.

You can take it from here. But let me end with a last observation about gender. As an anthropologist, I am aware that one of the most common features of patriarchy—and this is true in a surprising number of places, from Africa to Sweden to New Guinea—is some idea that women produce naturally (they bear children) and that men produce culturally (they create society). Stated outright, this is an obvious lie—pretty much everywhere you go you can find women doing most of the work of producing society too. So the message of the patriarchs has to be communicated obliquely. And I suspect that traditional formal clothing is one such statement. Think of it this way: if none of us wore any clothes, then it would be the male genitalia sticking out visibly, while women’s would remain largely hidden. Maybe the entire point of formal attire to invert this possibility, to say, “Yes, in nature, it is women who have mysterious hidden powers of creation, but once we get all dressed and civilized, it’s precisely the other way around”.

Definitions HQ