or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › New york times article is on line
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New york times article is on line - Page 4

post #46 of 68
New Member here, thanks to the New York Times. I'm looking forward to getting some valuable information here. For what it's worth, as an outsider, the article didn't at all leave me with the impression of this site being a 'bargain hunter's haven' or anything like that. It rather left an impression of a group of people fiercely dedicated to exploring the finer points of men's fashion.
post #47 of 68
Quote:
New Member here, thanks to the New York Times.  I'm looking forward to getting some valuable information here. For what it's worth, as an outsider, the article didn't at all leave me with the impression of this site being a 'bargain hunter's haven' or anything like that.  It rather left an impression of a group of people fiercely dedicated to exploring the finer points of men's fashion.
"Fashion" is a dirty word to many of us here; a term best suited to the way the fairer sex tries to dress, i.e., "in the latest fashion". I think most us prefer "style." That is why some of have 20 year-old shoes English shoes that we keep getting refurbished. Heck, at that age they are just getting broken in and are starting to conform to our feet. Right, guys?
post #48 of 68
Ken-- Try "thirty-five-year-old shoes" and you'd be closer to the truth. But Leo Jay's "fiercely dedicated" is right on the money. Welcome.
post #49 of 68
Actually, that sounds pretty sexist when it claims that women are somehow less interested in the construction than men. There are probably a few hundred active members here; most people probably only posted a few times. That doesn't make us representative of most men. It just reinforces the sterotypes that women are more superficial, and why they shouldn't do certain jobs. After all, I'm sure there most be some forums similar to this for women. At the very least, they would be talking bout sewing patterns and such.
post #50 of 68
the claim about women may or may not be true. the point was to contrast the attitude here on styleforum with that of a more superficial aesthetic, which some presume to be the primary mode of women. the fashion vs style argument (especially vis-a-vis the sexes) probably belongs on another thread. you'll find people in various camps here with regard to the 'style' vs. 'fashion' nomenclature and attitude. ***edit: and the topic of whether there is a similar forum for women's clothing has been brought up, and the only answer i've seen is that, indeed, the women's sites tend to focus on fashion trends as opposed to construction, less temporal rules of style, etc.
post #51 of 68
Quote:
 popular culture has made much of the urban woman's affinity for Manolo Blahniks and other variants of the $515 stiletto.
Manolas are legendary from "Sex in the City" Does that mean perhaps "Style in the City" starring Steve and Andy   or maybe- "Dressing the apple " with Steve and Andy? <warm smile> Congrats Gentlemen. Respectfully,  John I wanna be a queststar or your pet or something on the show
post #52 of 68
I was going to make the point in my original post that with the exception of a few very high end traditional designers, the womenswear industry on the whole tends to be more concerned with 'fashion' than construction.  I don't believe that that assertion necessarily reflects a "sexist" assumption that women are more "superficial" -- I think it just speaks to the practicalities of the way women tend to wear their clothing: why build something to last for 20 years when it's going to be worn for a single season before being sent to the thrift shop?   To be sure, much of men's 'fashion' is similarly disposable, but at least on the high end of suits, shirts and shoes, these items are generally considered to be wearable for many a year, so they tend to be constructed accordingly.
post #53 of 68
I've met many, many women interested in fashion, and significantly fewer men. Excepting actual professionals, and then usually professionals involved in the creative side of the industry (designers and buyers, for example), I've never met a fashionista with the depth and breadth of knowledge of the men.
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Actually, that sounds pretty sexist when it claims that women are somehow less interested in the construction than men. There are probably a few hundred active members here; most people probably only posted a few times. That doesn't make us representative of most men. It just reinforces the sterotypes that women are more superficial, and why they shouldn't do certain jobs. After all, I'm sure there most be some forums similar to this for women. At the very least, they would be talking bout sewing patterns and such.
I don't know about being more "superficial." It is just a different way of thinking about things. Why are so many more women for Kerry, than men, for example? There was a prior post about women wanting "really in" and "cute," with respect to clothes and the handful of us nuts who post here being perfectionists. It implied that many of us would be happier wearing Dad's old, but refurbished, Savile Row sportcoat, than the latest "item" from Prada, Versace or Gucci.
post #55 of 68
Quote:
I was going to make the point in my original post that with the exception of a few very high end traditional designers, the womenswear industry on the whole tends to be more concerned with 'fashion' than construction.  I don't believe that that assertion necessarily reflects a "sexist" assumption that women are more "superficial" -- I think it just speaks to the practicalities of the way women tend to wear their clothing: why build something to last for 20 years when it's going to be worn for a single season before being sent to the thrift shop?   To be sure, much of men's 'fashion' is similarly disposable, but at least on the high end of suits, shirts and shoes, these items are generally considered to be wearable for many a year, so they tend to be constructed accordingly.
Welcome aboard Leo - I agree with your point about women's fashion being designed for a shorter period of time, although there are certain classic designers whose work does seem to last longer (i.e. Chanel suits). I'm in the category that prefers the term "style" over "fashion" because I believe that style lasts while fashions change. Anyhow - hope you enjoy the forum and a hearty welcome to you and all other NYT readers. Bradford
post #56 of 68
Quote:
Ok, there will be no more defamatory posts about the various companies. It was funny, but just leave it alone. I don't need any lawsuits. And BTW as of right now there have been ~13 new members signed up since the article came online. We'll see how many stay of course. Welcome new members.
Correct me if I am wrong J, but 75 new members in the last 24 hours...
post #57 of 68
I believe you are correct there, and there are another 77 or so in the pipeline of 'applied but awaiting authorization'. Some of those will not finish auth, some put a fake email and re-applied using a real one, etc.- that's usually the way those work. If I wanted to feel extra cool I could approve them all manually and have 150-some new members, but most would never actually show up. So far, I'm impressed with the relative lack of trolls in the new ranks. Thanks for quality exposure, Ginia & the NYT.
post #58 of 68
The thing that irked about the description of how we were all professionals irked me because it just seemed unnecessairly elitist. It just seems that any new influx, any new blood, would be like the people she described- professionals, consultants, lawyers, etc... There's nothing wrong with being a lawyer, but it would be great if we could get a more diverse membership, and that we all also discuss casual wear as well. We all talk about how this forum can help the greater public, but people aren't having problems dressing up in a suit. That's a pretty safe uniform. Its when people try to dress without wearing a suit that you get all those disasters on the street.
post #59 of 68
Can someone scan the article, for those without a physical copy? Online, everyone looks like Steve B. and Larry Kudlow...  
post #60 of 68
Hey - there is a post dedicated to this topic on the Men's Health Style Board. Seems they are upset that they weren't mentioned in the article. Not to be a snob, but if the article had mentioned them, wouldn't it have to say, "another online forum commonly deals with questions such as 'dude, what faux-vintage t-shirt goes best with my new ripped Abercrombie jeans' and also includes approximately 137 posts on shaving your genitals and other body parts."   Bradford
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › New york times article is on line