or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › ◄[MALE GAZE: ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʀᴛᴏʀɪᴀʟ ɪs ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ]►
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

◄[MALE GAZE: ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʀᴛᴏʀɪᴀʟ ɪs ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ]► - Page 8

post #106 of 215

 

post #107 of 215

 

Warning: Transgressive to Puritan Norms! (Click to show)

 

 

 

post #108 of 215
Thread Starter 
pSVpT.jpg
p6F5m.jpg
post #109 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewho13 View Post

I think you're misunderstanding the aim of this thread.

The way I see it, there is a certain archetype of Female Model and Female Style. This archetype is more than just an idealized figure of "woman," but also regulates style into a hierarchy. Most women (and men, too) respond to this hierarchy by negotiating their cultural, ideological, and physical assets with the idealized figure, so that they may be folded into the order of Affirmed Style. This means that they are conditioned to desire a dominant, differentiating, discriminatory sartorial cover-up.

This thread is a space for what might be described as "queer" fashion. It rejects the mainstream, authoritative J. Crew trend that demands traditional patterns, shapes, and affectations, as well as culture-appropriative, body-specific and race-specific prescriptions. This thread offers a space for the shit that is weird and threatening to regulatory mainstream standards. So when you say that this thread is, in a sense, exclusive, you're right—this thread recognizes those forms of women's style that are so often erased by shit like "oh look at those legs," "would smash," and other articulations of typically male desire.

I even kept some of your precious turns of phrase. And one m-dash!

This thread is great, though. Good idea, and good criticism.
post #110 of 215
Goddamn, this is my new favorite thread. Sent the link to my GF, think she'll appreciate the fits/discussion as to the nature of female aesthetics.

That Orwell essay was brilliant.
post #111 of 215

^ It's actually just half the essay, google the rest if you didn't it's worth reading.

post #112 of 215

Maybe, it's because I'm a fan of intellectual jargon; but it literally took me an hour to figure out which was the infamous post that so many deemed to be; "oh, so contrived."

post #113 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJulien View Post

^ It's actually just half the essay, google the rest if you didn't it's worth reading.


I did, great read
post #114 of 215
TH2dZ.jpg



Tomorrow's headline: THREE STILL TRAPPED IN GQ'S MALE GAZE NIGHTMARE!


more as the story develops...
post #115 of 215
Cw3mr.jpg
post #116 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantebykiko View Post

couple of days ago. 

Hope dantebykiko doesn't mind if I cross post this from the Yohji thread...
post #117 of 215
Can we make a similar thread for men?
Not that I know how to frame it, but --> why is it that women dressing in the unconventional ways shown above usually look awesome, while men going the same route would - chances are - look like complete idiots ? Female in weird garb still projects sexuality (at least from male point of view), while a male in weird garb almost certainly does not project power.

If so, is this not a subtle perpetuation of the sexist undertones, regardless of the stated intention? Saying "China is doing well, but the Chinese really need to step up their human rights and environmental game" today surely sounds ostensibly better more enlightened than simply hating the "dirty chinks" (circa 1920s), but is it really that different?
post #118 of 215
I think its because the sexualization and resultant oppressive conditions that come from what gender norms do to women are much more dire. Us dudes have it relatively easy and historically/still are a big part of the oppression. So no one cares about it as much.

However , I think that if you wan't to change how certain presentations are expected of women, then you need to do the same for men. If there is a requirement of masculinity from menswear then I do not think you can remove the insidious implication that those masculine traits must to some degree be more appropriate for men than women.
post #119 of 215
What has been posted here but very rich, very thin, very alluring women in expensive garments? The idea that anything in this thread is even a half-serious comment on...well, anything....is, as someone suggested, a joke.

MC has Recent Non-Sartorialist Looks to view/discuss men's clothing worn by non-forum participants. SW&D's Bright Future Thread includes inspirational sartorial images of hazily-defined 'older dudes'. Check them out.
post #120 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobizor View Post

What has been posted here but very rich, very thin, very alluring women in expensive garments? The idea that anything in this thread is even a half-serious comment on...well, anything....is, as someone suggested, a joke.
MC has Recent Non-Sartorialist Looks to view/discuss men's clothing worn by non-forum participants. SW&D's Bright Future Thread includes inspirational sartorial images of hazily-defined 'older dudes'. Check them out.

Yeah confused.gifcloud.gif

But I think this thread does do some good things. Even if the images we use are of wealthy and attractive women, it still speaks to perhaps a more liberating approach to fashion. In the same way the images of these kinds of rich women are used to do bad things, perhaps this alternative type of imagery gives some answer to that? So yes we do not alleviate the bias that comes with selecting thin and attractive women but maybe the presentation and undersexualization take some of the pressure off. This compared to say a dolce and gabanna runway?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › ◄[MALE GAZE: ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʀᴛᴏʀɪᴀʟ ɪs ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ]►