Originally Posted by MS007
You guys realize, that it doesn't get much more sexist then to exclude certain
styles/clothes from a thread, because you don't like them and then call this
thread ... the sartorial is political? Even more since this thread evolved from
the "What I'd like a girl to wear thread", for which one at least could have argued in
favor of such a behaviour because it was clearly subjective and diverse,
until some members complained that there are certain styles not to be liked on a
really don't know what is more ironical here, the Beaton strip or the fact that
the OP actually believes he is feminist.
lol@ the call for a dubious censor. Don t worry, I ll leave you alone. Gotta love SF double standards.
A couple of questions:
1. Have you ever heard girls say "Channing Tatum has such good style"?
2. Have you ever looked at a Jcrew lookbook and wondered "what is the point of all this?"?
I.e. (1) people have been confusing sexy chick
with good styling
. This is sexist because it promotes the fact that dressing is something that can only be measured by men's sexual gaze. There's also the fact that dressing "sexy" as defined by today's standards is incredibly limited by outdated norms and theories. We've all heard the MC logic that a suit emphasises the male physique by building up the shoulders and narrowing the waist; I don't care. There are more ways of being sexy than that. Movement, hints of body shape, imagination etc etc. We are also intellectual creatures. The mind is more sexy than most of the pretensions of clothes - we see past shoulder pads, ridiculous pushup bras and fake tits. It doesn't turn us on.
i.e. (2) While there's nothing wrong with dressing as the girl next door or whatever, how many pictures of this do we need to see? It's also interesting to think why the "girl next door" look is so attractive in the first place.
This is coming from someone with no education in feminism, literature or any arts at all.Edited by hendrix - 8/16/12 at 4:56pm