Discussions about the fashion industry thread

[LA Guy]

I think there's a lot of smart fashion writing, but the point of Man Repeller isn't to give you some smart analytical take on gender identity and clothing. It's a fun, whimsical blog designed to give you style inspiration. I don't think that necessarily means the person behind the site has to be dumb. People can compartmentalize themselves for different roles in their life. And people can consume "dumb" things and still be smart.

There's good, analytical, and even scholarly fashion writing out there. A lot of it is just dry and boring, and not very interesting to people outside that field.

I think that that's a bit disingenuous. While you may contend that it was just a fun, whimsical blog, that's definitely not what it was billed as. If it were, then no one would have cared about the whole Marchesa and traditional wedding thing, for example. It was meant to be a whole lot more than Jian De Leon saying that everything is fire, for example, I think that that was pretty much described in the GQ article that you originally quoted.

re. fashion "scholarship", the things that I've read just seem... out of date even as they come out, like a paper the results of which were relevant at a conference a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places. I'm happy to be shown something I would find worthwhile,.

 

[dieworkwear]

I think that that's a bit disingenuous. While you may contend that it was just a fun, whimsical blog, that's definitely not what it was billed as. If it were, then no one would have cared about the whole Marchesa and traditional wedding thing, for example. It was meant to be a whole lot more than Jian De Leon saying that everything is fire, for example, I think that that was pretty much described in the GQ article that you originally quoted.

re. fashion "scholarship", the things that I've read just seem... out of date even as they come out, like a paper the results of which were relevant at a conference a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places. I'm happy to be shown something I would find worthwhile,.

I'm not sure what you mean. Man Repller was billed as feminist for promoting clothes that weren't about attracting the male gaze. But being feminist doesn't mean you have to be Gloria Steinem.

 

[clee1982]

I don’t understand your question

typo should have been

what's the expectation, like people stopping buying other things and just start buying these guys?

 

[Sartorium]

I'd say she's intelligent too, but this is the fashion industry... people are only "so" intelligent if you know what I mean. It's a job that rewards hustle and savvy over lots of formal education.

I think what you're describing is one kind of intelligence, but not the kind that would succeed in formal education. I think there's a huge bias in society in general towards analytical intelligence over other kinds of intelligences. You're describing someone whose brain grasped a problem and was able to intuit a productive solution.

I think the problem is more that the kind of intelligence she had didn't translate to the kind of intelligence necessary to be the CEO of a company (thinking here of the Outdoor Voices girl, don't know much about Man Repeller), and a bunch of stakeholders were unable to tell the difference between different kinds of "brain success magic" until it was too late. Like when people listen to Kanye's ideas instead of his beats, or Jordan Peterson.

 

[LA Guy]

I think what you're describing is one kind of intelligence, but not the kind that would succeed in formal education. I think there's a huge bias in society in general towards analytical intelligence over other kinds of intelligences. You're describing someone whose brain grasped a problem and was able to intuit a productive solution.

I think the problem is more that the kind of intelligence she had didn't translate to the kind of intelligence necessary to be the CEO of a company (thinking here of the Outdoor Voices girl, don't know much about Man Repeller), and a bunch of stakeholders were unable to tell the difference between different kinds of "brain success magic" until it was too late. Like when people listen to Kanye's ideas instead of his beats, or Jordan Peterson.

In the barrage of tests that are used to inaccurately, but usefully, measure intelligence, some of there things are already taken into account. For example, many children with ADHD have high cognitive ability but low executive function. There is not really a delineation between “streetsmart” and “booksmart” - it’s more like differing combinations of mental facilities then undergoing different types of training. There are plenty of people who might have the temperament to be a CEO, but without mentors and training, it could where a lot of people fall down. I expect that the entire “girl boss” thing is especially hard because of the added expectations on what are really neophyte leaders.

Kanye doesn’t seem to have a very disciplined mind, but I don’t think that he is crazy or stupid. That said, his lack of mental discipline can make him sound crazy since he is constantly flitting from one idea to another. And because he uses colorful metaphors about alternate dimensions, it’s easy to make him sound crazy in sound bites.

 

[Fuuma]

I think that that's a bit disingenuous. While you may contend that it was just a fun, whimsical blog, that's definitely not what it was billed as. If it were, then no one would have cared about the whole Marchesa and traditional wedding thing, for example. It was meant to be a whole lot more than Jian De Leon saying that everything is fire, for example, I think that that was pretty much described in the GQ article that you originally quoted.

re. fashion "scholarship", the things that I've read just seem... out of date even as they come out, like a paper the results of which were relevant at a conference a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places. I'm happy to be shown something I would find worthwhile,.

I think I posted a few theory book one time that were "ok", I'm not sure you'd like them or anything but I can look if you really want (you're basically right so...).

The discussion about intelligence (a super vague concept) IMHO is irrelevant here. If it amounts to a social fact it is a wave that goes beyond a person so the typical PMC hyper fetishization of intelligence*, already shaky beyond belief, is really of no matter in such a socially driven arc.

*this is very common in the circles where we (we've met a few times I don't think i'm projecting) circulate with and originated from. I'd see it more as an analytical flaw (excessive personnalism) than anything to take into account, after all the same academic people are absolutely not overtaken with that idea when they're discussing wider social phenomena.

 

[LA Guy]

I think I posted a few theory book one time that were "ok", I'm not sure you'd like them or anything but I can look if you really want (you're basically right so...).

The discussion about intelligence (a super vague concept) IMHO is irrelevant here. If it amounts to a social fact it is a wave that goes beyond a person so the typical PMC hyper fetishization of intelligence*, already shaky beyond belief, is really of no matter in such a socially driven arc.

*this is very common in the circles where we (we've met a few times I don't think i'm projecting) circulate with and originated from. I'd see it more as an analytical flaw (excessive personnalism) than anything to take into account, after all the same academic people are absolutely not overtaken with that idea when they're discussing wider social phenomena.

Yeah, I'd be interested. The problem that I've found is really in two areas:
1) There are very few scholars in the area that are up to date on fashion enough to write anything meaningful.
2) The lexicon (rather than the language) of fashion moves considerably faster than academic work.

Anyway, sure, I'd be interested.

 

[Fuuma]

Yeah, I'd be interested. The problem that I've found is really in two areas:
1) There are very few scholars in the area that are up to date on fashion enough to write anything meaningful.
2) The lexicon (rather than the language) of fashion moves considerably faster than academic work.

Anyway, sure, I'd be interested.

Fashion: A Philosophy: Svendsen, Lars, Irons, John: 9781861892911: Amazon.com: Books

Fashion: A Philosophy [Svendsen, Lars, Irons, John] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Fashion: A Philosophy

www.amazon.com

This wasn't bad, the problem is the usual one right: criticism of various art/design forms is so indebted to literary criticism that it doesn't seem like a serious, independent discipline. Even cinema suffers from that problem.

 

[LA Guy]

I'm not sure what you mean. Man Repller was billed as feminist for promoting clothes that weren't about attracting the male gaze. But being feminist doesn't mean you have to be Gloria Steinem.

That seems lie a cop out. If you brand is political, you can't evade questioning by reverting to "Well, it's just a fun, irreverent blog with outfit inspos."

 

[Fuuma]

That seems lie a cop out. If you brand is political, you can't evade questioning by reverting to "Well, it's just a fun, irreverent blog with outfit inspos."

No need to brand it, I mean "the personal is political" has been a fixture of feminism for decades. For a counterpoint read Christopher Lasch https://www.amazon.com/Women-Common...her+lasch+women&qid=1607227456&s=books&sr=1-1

 

[dieworkwear]

That seems lie a cop out. If you brand is political, you can't evade questioning by reverting to "Well, it's just a fun, irreverent blog with outfit inspos."

I don't think her brand was political though? I think it was more about "dressing for yourself," which could be seen as a certain brand of feminism. Leandra is basically known for posting stuff like this







The whole idea was poking fun at the idea that she was dressing in ways that repel men (if you already know this, sorry for the explanation). That, in turn, was branded as a kind of self-empowering, feminist thing to do because it was centered on the woman, not her value in the eyes of men. If you believe in the whole "the personal is political," then this form of dress is political even if you're just engaging in fun whimsy.

Man Repeller can be fun, irreverent, whimsical, kooky, etc. It can also be feminist. But being branded as feminist and liberating doesn't mean you have to pen long essays about feminism like Bell Hooks or Gloria Steinem.

Being in the womenswear space, however, it's hard not to be political in some way in the last four years given the MeToo movement. I think she can be criticized for not engaging with those issues in more meaningful ways (specifically BLM). But Man Repeller was not supposed to be a space for scholarly essays. I don't know if you read their site, but it's basically like any fashion site, just with more kooky-ness. As someone who worked there said at the end of Rachel's essay, she wished that was expanded into queer, androgynous, and other forms of non-conformist dress. But that's still about fun style and not some deep dive into what gender identity means.

 

[Fuuma]

I believe he's saying it was just there and unavoidable so avoiding discussing it was seen as a choice, that goes of course beyond the economic conditions the brand was facing and the inside power dynamic and into the symbolic realm.

 

[dieworkwear]

I believe he's saying it was just there and unavoidable so avoiding discussing it was seen as a choice, that goes of course beyond the economic conditions the brand was facing and the inside power dynamic and into the symbolic realm.

Are you addressing me?

My only point was that it seems unfair to judge a woman's intelligence based on her writing on a fashion website. She may or may not be smart, but it seems unfair to judge it based on essays about 10 fall essentials and how to wear certain clothes. Man Repeller was not a space for deep scholarly essays, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who work there aren't smart.

This seems ... highly judgemental? People compartmentalize themselves all the time for certain things. Just because you see one tiny slice of a person online through one very small space doesn't mean you know the person.

 

[Fuuma]

Are you addressing me?

My only point was that it seems unfair to judge a woman's intelligence based on her writing on a fashion website. She may or may not be smart, but it seems unfair to judge it based on essays about 10 fall essentials and how to wear certain clothes. Man Repeller was not a space for deep scholarly essays, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who work there aren't smart.

This seems ... highly judgemental? People compartmentalize themselves all the time for certain things. Just because you see one tiny slice of a person online through one very small space doesn't mean you know the person.

Oh yeah sorry, it was a reply to your post. As indicated in my reply to laguy I think the intelligence discussion has no place here or basically anywhere and is just a PMC myth/blindspot. System over people and all that.I know several people, mostly women, that have had to be in the public eye related to fashion and it is extremely hard not to appear stupid or snobbish and i'd fail misererably so there's also that.

 

[dieworkwear]

If you look at my Twitter feed, it's all stupid memes and dumb jokes. If you were to just look at my Twitter feed and know nothing about me, you'd think I was pretty stupid. But in real life, I am pretty stupid.