◄[MALE GAZE: ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʀᴛᴏʀɪᴀʟ ɪs ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ]► - Page 3

Can we get someone Dubiously Honoured in here?

I've always found FWK to be a cool take on women's clothing because it features virtually the exact same fabrics and garments as the main men's line. Can anyone think of some other brands/designers that do this?

 

FWK best season

Edited by spacepope - 8/16/12 at 2:04pm

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
girl.
I
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.

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. More than just an idealized representation of "woman," this sublime object serves as a regulatory and hierarchical mechanism; beneath the weight of this regulating gaze, most women (and men, too) respond by attempting to negotiate their cultural, ideological, physical (affected) assets with the idealized figure so that they may be folded into the order of Affirmed Style—which is to say 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—among a myriad culture-appropriative as well as body- and race-specific prescriptions—traditional patterns, shapes, and affectations. What this thread offers is a space for the shit that is, according to the regulatory mainstream standards, weird and threatening (to its order). So when you say that this thread is, in a sense, exclusive, you're right—this thread is constituted by the need to recognize 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.

"English" major, really. But Lit Crit (psychoanalysis, queer theory, crt, ethics, etc.) is my bread and butter—or, as of the past year, that's where all of my energy has been directed. How could you tell?


Edit: @urthwhyte, If you're interested in making a point, go for it in an actual response man. You kind of just sound like another fool with an aversion to "overwrought sentences," which is basically code for "I don't like long sentences with any sense of style, especially if they use big words." Deal with it.
Edited by thewho13 - 8/16/12 at 4:54pm

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

There is also the legitimate concern that, by focusing on these (less visible) styles, we risk simply shifting that gaze from the "girl next door" to what is essentially high-end obscurantist fashion. It's a concern that warrants constant checking.

To be honest I don't really care to seperate the threads. People need to be exposed to good stuff.

does it really though? plenty of black tights + heels ITT.

I'm stepping short of saying that's a bad thing, just want to make the point that there's rarely any fit, male or female, that doesn't have a bit of gaze about it.

As long as it's got some other interesting features I'm happy.

This is absolutely fantastic.

Assuming that you cannot in fact escape any ideological double-binds, there's still value in presenting a space for what Who's describing as outre fashunz. That's not to say that the body is non-existent, because it's not and it likely can't be, and Hendrix is right on the money. This, simply, is not the thread for the shit your ex-girlfriend wears. End of story.

Can we sticky Hendrix's and Who13's posts, AFL?

i doubt this more with every passing day. embrace the incivility, Son of Simian
Edited by the shah - 8/16/12 at 5:56pm