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

Exchange program with women's style forums

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Kent Wang, Jun 5, 2005.

  1. Kent Wang

    Kent Wang Senior member Dubiously Honored Affiliate Vendor

    Messages:
    5,720
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    London
    We already have a handful of female posters here, but I think it would be a fabulous idea if we started an exchange program with a women's style forum. That way we can get valuable opinion from women and they too can benefit from our thoughts.

    We'll have to draw up some rules (number 1: no creepiness) and then send out a delegation. I want do this with some formality, so I'd like to solicit some opinions here first, draw up a delegation, and then we'll post a thread on the women's forum soliciting their interest in a mutual exchange program. I'd rather not have any one jump the gun, start posting some creepy or insensitive stuff and get the ladies hostile to our presence.

    So who thinks this program is a good idea? Are you interested in joining the official delegation?

    Does anyone know which forum we shoud go to? Just like it takes a bit of experience to know the differences between AA and SF, perhaps someone more informed can identify an appropriate women's forum.
     
  2. dah328

    dah328 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,603
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but, uh, of the women I know, I would trust vanishingly few of them to give me good style advice.
     
  3. hopkins_student

    hopkins_student Senior member

    Messages:
    3,218
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Agreed.
     
  4. Kent Wang

    Kent Wang Senior member Dubiously Honored Affiliate Vendor

    Messages:
    5,720
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    London
    I wouldn't trust most men either, just the ones that post here. I'd imagine that women that post on style forums would be a lot more smarter.
     
  5. hopkins_student

    hopkins_student Senior member

    Messages:
    3,218
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I disagree not only with your grammar but also with your word choice. It has not been my experience that intelligence, or rather the lack thereof is the cause of poor taste.
     
  6. dah328

    dah328 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,603
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    We generally self-select here based on some level of interest. Almost every woman I know is interested in fashion, so that doesn't work so well.
     
  7. aybojs

    aybojs Senior member

    Messages:
    957
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    At least from what I've seen on fashion message boards, most of the women who post there are just the female equivalent of your Abercrombie-obsessed frat boy types... in other words, not exactly the best fit for the forum. Plus I (and I think I'm not close to being alone on this) really couldn't care less about women's clothing, nor is my interest in clothing primarily the product of wanting to appeal to your average female.
     
  8. discostu004

    discostu004 Senior member Affiliate Vendor

    Messages:
    1,805
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    7,908 Feet, Colorado
    replace "vanishingly few" with "none" and that's my opinion
     
  9. Stu

    Stu Senior member

    Messages:
    2,351
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    Princeton
    Amen brother. With apologies to Jill, who seems to be a glaring exception, just about all the women I know, including my wife (who doesn't read this forum and will never see this [​IMG] ) have not a clue. They think the Ralph Lauren pony player is chic.
     
  10. gorgekko

    gorgekko Senior member

    Messages:
    2,121
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Location:
    The Dominion of Canada
    I quite agree with you. I have little desire to hear the opinions of nearly every woman when it comes to fashion.
     
  11. Roy

    Roy Senior member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I never take women with me when shopping.

    I might get into an argument about fabric selection and not get out alive. I'd rather trust my own sense of style.
     
  12. Kent Wang

    Kent Wang Senior member Dubiously Honored Affiliate Vendor

    Messages:
    5,720
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    London
    Ouch. Well I'm officially scrapping the idea then. Let's forget all about this.
     
  13. Luc-Emmanuel

    Luc-Emmanuel Senior member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Paris, France
    the dark side of the style forum, a bunch of mysoginists. Wow, I never thought you could all be so close minded.

    Luc
     
  14. aybojs

    aybojs Senior member

    Messages:
    957
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    How is it misogynist for members of a discussion group devoted to a specific field of expertise to request that someone not solicit outside intervention and opinions from laypeople without knowledge of that field? I wouldn't be interested in recruiting pickup truck enthusiasts for a sports car forum or heavy metal enthusiasts for a classical musicians' forum, to use two hypothetical examples, so why should this be any different?

    The motivation is to keep the forum's signal-to-noise ratio high like it currently is, not act on any sexist impulses. Besides, it's not as if we act rudely to female posters who choose to come here and participate; the few who post regularly are all well-liked. The point is that the overwhelming majority are not interested or knowledgable in this subject (which isn't in any way sexist to assume since it's inherent that enthusiasts of men's clothing are predominantly male and vice versa for women), and there wouldn't be much benefit in a forum seeking expert advice on the subject to solicit the opinions of those without familiarity of it.
     
  15. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,412
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Another point of view.

    I think that having a larger female presence on the forum will have a moderating effect on some of our, um, dogmatic tendencies, especially on the main forum. Take, for example, the oft repeated contention that bowties are the only correct neckwear for black tie events. Whether that is true or not, the plain truth is that bowties have fallen out of flavour as daywear for a very simple reason, they look like crap compared to a good long tie, on most men. Does this suddenly change when we (men) put on penguin suits

    In general, I've found that within the industry and without, women tend to be much less fettered by "rules" and the need to be "correct," and are more willing to trust their intuition. On the other hand, the generally conservative nature of many posters on the main forum would act to curb theses sometimes excessive impulses. Not a bad match, I think.
     
  16. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    This is because, at least since the Renaissance and perhaps before, women's clothes have been less tradional and "rule bound" than men's.  The three great influences on clothing in the West have been military uniforms, sporting clothes, and court costume -- all of them regularized and even rigid forms of dress.  It is a fact of history (whatever one may think of the justice of that fact) that the first two had almost no impact on women's fashions, at least not until the 20th century, fo the simple reason that women hardly ever wore either.  Also, women's court dress was much less rigid and rule-bound than men's.  It was acceptable for them to "cut loose" in terms of color, pattern, design and details to a much greater extent than men could.

    Thus, for women, there are no rules and there is no "correct."  Not in the same way that these concepts apply to men.
     
  17. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,412
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    (LA Guy @ June 06 2005,11:19) In general, I've found that within the industry and without, women tend to be much less fettered by "rules" and the need to be "correct," and are more willing to trust their intuition.
    This is because, at least since the Renaissance and perhaps before, women's clothes have been less tradional and "rule bound" than men's. Â The three great influences on clothing in the West have been military uniforms, sporting clothes, and court costume -- all of them regularized and even rigid forms of dress. Â It is a fact of history (whatever one may think of the justice of that fact) that the first two had almost no impact on women's fashions, at least not until the 20th century, fo the simple reason that women hardly ever wore either. Â Also, women's court dress was much less rigid and rule-bound than men's. Â It was acceptable for them to "cut loose" in terms of color, pattern, design and details to a much greater extent than men could. Thus, for women, there are no rules and there is no "correct." Â Not in the same way that these concepts apply to men.
    I agree with you. I don't see any disagreement between our opinions, unless you are inferring from the history of men's fashion makes the "rules" model of approaching it the normative one.
     
  18. Stu

    Stu Senior member

    Messages:
    2,351
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    Princeton
    Not close-minded. Married. [​IMG]
     
  19. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    Normative in the sense of binding moral obligation, like prohibitions against theft and murder?  Of course not.  Normative in the sense that, within the context of the clothing we wear "right now" (from the 20s until the lounge suit era ends, whenever that may be), we ought to wear certain things and ought not wear others? ... Maybe.

    Certainly the traditional "rules" are what I personally like.  No secret there.  I think that style of dress is aesthetically pleasing, perhaps only because it has been drubbed into us (me) through history, though I think it is more than that.  I would use an architecture analogy.  No one would argue that there is anything "normative" or natural about (say) classical form or Tudor revival.  Yet each style works on its own terms.  Putting a parapet or half-timbering on a neo-classical building would not only be "wrong," it would also look bad.  Adding columns to a Tudor house would be really wrong and look really bad. Etc.  Ditto wearing a long tie with a dinner jacket.  Within the established form, it is "wrong" (certainly) and it looks bad (at least to me).
     
  20. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,412
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    (LA Guy @ June 06 2005,11:52) unless you are inferring from the history of men's fashion makes the "rules" model of approaching it the normative one.
    Normative in the sense of binding moral obligation, like prohibitions against theft and murder? Â Of course not. Â Normative in the sense that, within the context of the clothing we wear "right now" (from the 20s until the lounge suit era ends, whenever that may be), we ought to wear certain things and ought not wear others? ... Maybe. Certainly the traditional "rules" are what I personally like. Â No secret there. Â I think that style of dress is aesthetically pleasing, perhaps only because it has been drubbed into us (me) through history, though I think it is more than that. Â I would use an architecture analogy. Â No one would argue that there is anything "normative" or natural about (say) classical form or Tudor revival. Â Yet each style works on its own terms. Â Putting a parapet or half-timbering on a neo-classical building would not only be "wrong," it would also look bad. Â Adding columns to a Tudor house would be really wrong and look really bad. Etc. Â Ditto wearing a long tie with a dinner jacket. Â Within the established form, it is "wrong" (certainly) and it looks bad (at least to me).
    You know which sense of normative I meant [​IMG] To build on your architectural analogy, I think that one of the problems with one of the problems with sartorial "rules" is that they discount or ignore certain forms of architecture altogether, depression era craftsman houses, for example. To express a personal dislike of a particular style of dress is different from discounting its importance and validity.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by