1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

◄[MALE GAZE: ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʀᴛᴏʀɪᴀʟ ɪs ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ]►

Discussion in 'Streetwear and Denim' started by A Fellow Linguist, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. Auburn

    Auburn Senior member

    Messages:
    188
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Location:
    Germany
    I think there may also be a sort of selection bias occurring here since "fashion" demands a certain financial commitment in order to acquire pieces. Secondly "beautiful" women (the "very thin, very alluring women") are more likely to be photographed simply because it is what "we" as a society desire. This is something that has been discussed to death and doesn't seem likely to change any time soon. I am also not sure that the sexual nature of this, as well as the other thread, can be completely removed either, unless we were to simply post pictures of clothes hanging on clothes hangers. I think we would all agree that the thread is not simply about clothes, but rather about the interaction between garment and wearer.

    On a different note, I'd like to say that although I enjoy the more discussion based atmosphere of this thread, I think it necessary to continue to post in the other thread if only to keep this thread from being an excercise in intellectual masturbation. If this thread represents the anti-mainstream, then I feel it is irresponsible not to confront the mainstream and expose people to new values and ideas.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Wallcloud

    Wallcloud Senior member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    THE FUTURE
    

    Perhaps I do not fully understand what is happening in this thread. If I am entirely off point feel free to ignore or educate me at your whim.

    I do not understand why implying that the masculine traits found in mens clothing are inappropriate traits to be found in womens clothing is insidious or inappropriate. It seems to me that part of the beauty of womens clothing is the attempt to capture the femininity of the women. I feel that even subtly highlighting the sexuality of a woman can be done in a way that is flattering and not entirely vulgar.

    If there is some next level crap I am missing here I wouldnt be surprised. I just wanted to add to the conversation.
     
  3. thewho13

    thewho13 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,648
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Location:
    Boscago
    

    :facepalm:

    I'm too drained to talk about this right now.

    In an unrelated note, as much thought as this thread might inspire, the lack of women's voices (and in particular WOC's voices) along with the voices of all others who suffer in the crosshairs of patriarchy (e.g. trans*, queer racialized/ethnicized, disabled, et al bodies) is extremely glaring.

    That being said, I don't believe this thread can't produce anything interesting or worthwhile. Besides, the onus isn't on AFL (or any others here, for that matter) to deconstruct patriarchy in a thread on a men's fashion forum. We can, at the very least, try to extend the practice of autocritique to more areas of our lives.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. KingJulien

    KingJulien Senior member

    Messages:
    5,358
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    I thought this was just a place to post cool looks without constant interruption from J Crew lookbooks and Kim Kardashian's blog or whatever. The title's ironic, guys.
     
    6 people like this.
  5. A Fellow Linguist

    A Fellow Linguist Senior member

    Messages:
    2,342
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    

    In the conceptual forest everything is simultaneously ironic and unironic.
     
    3 people like this.
  6. Benesyed

    Benesyed Senior member

    Messages:
    5,023
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    


    Except that it is limiting for women (and men) who are attracted to other things. Also, that way of thinking easily extends itself to other realms of outside fashion. Very few people just think in terms of gender bias or gender norms for clothing, they become a way in which other social stereotypes can be reinforced. A woman in a dress is more easily reconciled with images of domestication than an image of a woman in skinhead attire.

    The point is not that women can't embrace these more accepted fashion approaches, the point is that that is already embraced. It is not an issue of vulgarity but trying to pin down women into the feminine when women can also approach beauty from other aesthetics. So if what you mean to say is women's clothing can embrace traditional concepts of the feminine and be beautiful, then yes I agree. If you are saying that that is the best/only way to really emphasize beauty for women, then I disagree and think that thinking in that manner is harmful.

    The way that I think masculinity in mens clothing not being challenged strengthens that sort of thinking is because it says that at the end of the day when women appropriate menswear it is "girls playing with menswear" and that it is still property of men and best left to us.
     
    2 people like this.
  7. Benesyed

    Benesyed Senior member

    Messages:
    5,023
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    

    I'm just giving my intellectual underpinning for wanting to post/looking at posts in this thread
     
  8. kinesthesia

    kinesthesia Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Outside Detroit
    i didn't want to pile on a week ago when i first saw this thread. recent comments have made this more relevant.

    i'd rehash your argument as "femininity is a creation of some establishment and people move towards it."

    so we implicitly have producers and consumers, A and B. Firstly you take it as a sort of lemma that ideas flow unidirectionally and that they flow from A to B. there is no reason to take either of these relationships as being more true then their alternatives. B can control A, totally free market republican wet dream style. and if we discard unidirectional, A and B just interact with each other; after all A and B are not discrete points but collections of independent actors interacting. in addition, why can't there be a shift moment to moment between states? it's not that this idea is false, just that there's nothing in the statement that makes it more true then it's obvious alternatives.

    as a counter argument for why gender rolls exist. there's been a lot of work by evolutionary psychologists and sociologists on explaining facets of culture through the mechanisms of our genes. it's possible that there are advantages, from the viewpoint of a gene and it's propagation, to having things like gender rolls. if this is truer then the other explanations then ultimately the dominance of a single grouping of ideas with respect to "femininity" is just an artifact from the process of evolution. a bubble in the glass.

    now it's tempting to take this argument as a sort of threat to the current social order which thewho is advocating for. (yes thewho is the establishment here) i have been loosely informed that our current moral systems, social order or what ever the fuck you want to call it, still hold up under this sort of assault. i don't really care for moral/philosophical arguments so i'm not at all familiar with, nor do i care to familiarize myself, with them.
     
  9. YOLO EMSHI

    YOLO EMSHI Senior member

    Messages:
    465
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Location:
    Sadney
    Can we just get some fucking photos in here please?

    All this talk about gender rolls is getting stale
     
  10. noob in 89

    noob in 89 Senior member

    Messages:
    7,665
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    What the fuck is a gender roll...is it something that males graze on?




    : : :
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
    6 people like this.
  11. hendrix

    hendrix Senior member

    Messages:
    9,452
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    

    Not necessarily an artifact yet:
    a) There's no reason to suggest that gender roles don't still advantage in gene propagation.
    b) Even if it were an artifact, i) we may have inbred genetic preference to promote this propagation ii) society as we know it today could be promoting its propagation.

    This is a sorta vestigial unnatural selection - there's probably little advantage for a man to be big and strong and good hunters today, but women still find muscular men attractive.


    I'm not sure that I'm following you here. Are you saying that the standard that people are gravitating towards is changing as well?

    It seems to me like that would be true.
     
  12. MS007

    MS007 Senior member

    Messages:
    745
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    

    The whole reason this thread exists is that some SF regulars wanted to have an exclusive place to post their taste in womans clothing. Its nothing more and nothing less.
    The misleading title and the feminist attitude is only to justify this. If I hadn t called them out you would not find one piece of discussion itt.
     
  13. Zeemon

    Zeemon Senior member

    Messages:
    1,000
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    cyber steeze
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
    4 people like this.
  14. KingJulien

    KingJulien Senior member

    Messages:
    5,358
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    I have a degree in biological anthropology so I feel I should clear something up here: a lot (many would say most) of the ways that humans behave and the things humans do can be described in terms of genetics and evolutionary advantage. Not all of these things are good, and in fact the list includes rape, domestic abuse, infanticide, and whole slew of other behaviors, including reinforcing gender roles. There's been a small handful of matriarchal societies, and I forget the paper but it's essentially accepted among the anthropological community that they're statistically insignificant.

    To the point, it's occasionally advantageous for the propagation of a female's genes for her to murder her child (see Stephen Pinker's paper on it), but that doesn't mean we should accept that in society, and it's the same for gender roles. Evolutionary biology can be used as an explanation for a lot of things, but rarely, if ever, as a justification.
     
    4 people like this.
  15. Benesyed

    Benesyed Senior member

    Messages:
    5,023
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    [​IMG]

    I really liked this
     
  16. jet

    jet Senior member

    Messages:
    20,966
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Location:
    socal
    

    No, it's because you were shitting up the other thread with your shitty taste.
     
    3 people like this.
  17. kinesthesia

    kinesthesia Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Outside Detroit

    the original argument from thewho isn't good enough to just be dropped out there as a statement of fact. the implied premise of control of "them" over "women" is just as valid as the reverse argument where women control the fashion industry. Both of which are just as valid as a flux of control, or no control of one over the other at all.
    since no evidence is presented in the original argument i felt it was sufficient to be very casual in presenting an equal, or more plausible, set of explanations. hence the alternates. at the same time i have to head off the OMG YOUR SAYING RAPE IS OK bullshit by pointing out that fallacious (or less valid) arguments can still have valid/true conclusions. (that because it may be in our genes that we behave so; it isn't necessarily OK that people are forced to behave in a particular way.) kingjulian has a much better way of saying that last part;

    i should have just said that.

    i do personally like the idea that there is no us and them but just a we. a single community that constantly negotiates specifics. in this case what general form and shape constitutes femininity. if this where the best model for how it, i'll call it the fashion industry, works then yes the standards, and even the rules for how the system goes about constructing those standards are constantly shifting. however i can supply no good argument for why this is a better idea then alternatives nor do i have the energy to go about disproving it.
     
  18. MS007

    MS007 Senior member

    Messages:
    745
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    ^^this dude still on my dick?

    And not very sharp either. I didnt even post in the other thread before this one grazed the front page.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. mike868y

    mike868y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Location:
    boston
    guys, shut the fuck up.

    [​IMG]
     
    4 people like this.
  20. spacepope

    spacepope Senior member

    Messages:
    1,645
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Location:
    (◡‿◡✿)
    TIME TO POST SOME MORE FWK

    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TRULY REPREHENSIBLE IMAGE QUALITY​
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by