Exchange program with women's style forums

[dah328]

Specifically, the two women I've been married to had/have good senses of style and have chosen some nice clothes for me. Â I've appreciated it. Â When I've not liked a choice, I've put it as tactfully as possible and it usually works out well. Â And, I'm sure I have less of a clue about women's clothes than women have about men's clothes.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but did they recommend the Vigottis you mentioned earlier?

 

[bachbeet]

dah: If you read my posts re: Vigotti shoes you'd know which one I liked -- the Neal. Cheap shot. And colored with some hostility.

 

[gorgekko]

gorgekko: If you read my post, you'll understand that I was pointing more to the philosophy of allowing self-expression (which was behind the First; after all, Jefferson et al excelled at political philosophy and owed debts to Locke et al) rather than any enforcement of the right and it's use against government intrusion.

Sigh, and if you read my post you saw that I'm not opposed to greater female participation. I'd just rather have a self-selected group that actually knew what they were talking about. I'll take Jill or Fabienne's opinion over most men I know. On the other hand, I'd take the opinion of almost anyone on this forum sooner than I'd take the average women's (and men's for that matter) opinion -- in sartorial matters of course..

So what if you're uncomfortable. (Although I really don't see why it makes you uncomfortable). That's what differing opinions sometimes do. They bring discomfort. And, the upside is that in a true open expressive environment, resolution usually is found. And, sometimes one loses his/her discomforts and finds common ground with others. Self-expression is sneaky like that.

Thanks for the civics lesson. However, I'm only interested in what I would consider to be more qualified opinions. What makes me uncomfortable is that this board could potentially become flooded with people who don't share our values. I've seen far too many forums decline in quality because too many people with dissimiliar philosophies joined and changed the tenor. Let all the women who want to join to do so. But I won't support the active solicitation of a unknown variable who could change the forum to something less valuable then it is. Look, these are my opinions and worth precisely what you paid for them. I've only been on this board since the fall of last year so I hardly consider myself to be a respected member of this community. I merely don't want something I value to change into something that I can live without.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

I think its pretty much a moot point to continue this discussion. If you don't think that SF is "gender diversified" enough for you, you are more than welcome to start your own fora. Hell, I might even stop by, if nothing else - to see the one-upsmanship and fakery that would run rampant throughout such a board. Good luck.

If you just want a woman's perspective on Men's clothing, perhaps when AAAC opens its woman's section, that would be the place to ask. I would just hold on until then, or ask one of our resident ladies as previously suggested.

Unless J is harboring some sort of bombshell of a secret, I don't believe that there is any desire on his part to actively seek out or "join" a larger women's audience. So I'd say you could probably end the debate, and go back to concentrating on the important matters, like what last your shoes are, and is your shirt fused?

 

[Roger]

dah328 Posted on June 26 2005,19:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (Roger @ June 26 2005,09:55)
And third, the few female salespersons in the two major menswear stores in Vancouver (Harry Rosen and Holt Renfrew) are, as a group, generally more thoughtful and usually more tasteful than their male colleagues.  I'd really welcome more female input.

That's like saying that men know lots about dressing well because you've heard these guys on the Style Forum discussing clothing in excruciating detail.  You're basing your opinion of all women on a sampling of some of the most informed women who work at high-end men's stores.

Not quite, dah328.  Instead that statement is one part of some evidence I have observed that suggests that women may have some particularly valuable contributions to make to our sartorial discussions that might be less informed without this input. In fact, what I presented in that one example (of three I gave) can be seen as analogous to the results of a small-scale controlled experiment in which male vs. female salespersons constituted the comparison variable and "quality of sartorial judgment" constituted the outcome variable. In my mind--by my metric--the results revealed a significant difference. The fact that the comparison was between equally-informed salespersons in the same high-end stores rules out the selection bias to which you refer.  Now, of course, this "experiment" was too small to have much generalizability, but it cannot be said to be biased.

 

[Manton]

like what last your shoes are, and is your shirt fused?

My shoes are fused. My ready-to-wear shirts are made on the 22 last.

 

[bachbeet]

gorgekko wrote: "Thanks for the civics lesson. However, I'm only interested in what I would consider to be more qualified opinions. What makes me uncomfortable is that this board could potentially become flooded with people who don't share our values."

You're welcome. And, what you said next shows you needed it. Because that was a very elitist piece of writing. You can substitute those words and attitudes to a guy complaining around 1918 or so about giving women the right to vote. "I'm uncomfortable about sharing the voting booths with people who don't share our values." Or Southerners in the 50s and 60s: "I'd be uncomfortable having my kids share their school buses with other kids who don't share our values." Exactly what are you so uncomfortable about? Maybe you really need to look at your own discomfort. Or does that, in itself, make you uncomfortable?

 

[aybojs]

Except there's a difference between the actions of government in a public environment and the ability of private individuals to make their own choices in a private setting. The analogies you make are flawed because each example also specifically involves an active effort to deny another party of public rights.

Nobody on this board is even remotely advocating banning female opinions or being hostile to female posters, and your not-too-subtle implications of bigotry are groundless and uncalled-for distractions. If any woman should have enough interest to post here, the forum has been more than welcoming. The argument is actually whether the status quo should be redirected by the active solicitiation of outsiders who currently have not had sufficient interest to participate in the forum on their own volition; either direction does not attempt to block anyone from using it.

We're not acting like 50's parents trying to ban black children from public schools; think of it more as parents of trying to set up a study group for their children to improve academic performance and choosing not to invite the kids who are more interested in playing football or working in shop class than in studying academics. The latter groups of children don't lose anything as a result of that; they can pursue their own interests and continue to be educated at school. The parents and the former group of children get their desire to create an environment free from distractions, where they can focus better on their academic interests. If you still have problems with that scenario, then I would add the reminder that freedom of association is also covered in the First Amendment.

To use a hypothetical scenario, say I have computer trouble and take it to a local user group for advice on how to fix it. In those circumstances, the outside interjection of an opinion from a person there who actually has never seen the insides of a computer but just thinks they look cool would not be some unique and beautiful flower, it's simply a incorrect opinion that is distracting and potentially harmful to my situation. Of course clothing issues are less critical and certainly more subjective, but the point of the matter is that it's silly for a group whose primary function is to provide informed discussion and advice to solicit input disinterested or inexperienced parties (and inherently raise the value of their opinions by implying that our forum is somehow lacking by not having those opinions in its current state).

Notice how I didn't advocate shutting anyone up; of course I encourage open discussion and believe that anyone should be allowed to express his opinion and have it challenged with equal openness if it is deemed wrong. However, it's a waste of time to pursue a move that would artificially increase the noise:signal ratio on the forum (this is not necessarily an attack on female opinions, just saying that any mass attempt to bring new users will result in this, and that one targeted specifically at people outside the forum's realm of interest/knowledge will show this effect in greater proportions). I use this forum as a refuge from places like GQ and AskMen that are dominated by misleading opinions from people with only superficial interests in clothing and next to no interest or knowledge of the technical end, history, or industry, and frankly, I'm just happy with the status quo.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Except there's a difference between the actions of government in a public environment and the ability of private individuals to make their own choices in a private setting. The analogies you make are flawed because each example also specifically involves an active effort to deny another party of public rights.

Nobody on this board is even remotely advocating banning female opinions or being hostile to female posters, and your not-too-subtle implications of bigotry are groundless and uncalled-for distractions. If any woman should have enough interest to post here, the forum has been more than welcoming. The argument is actually whether the status quo should be redirected by the active solicitiation of outsiders who currently have not had sufficient interest to participate in the forum on their own volition; either direction does not attempt to block anyone from using it.

We're not acting like 50's parents trying to ban black children from public schools; think of it more as parents of trying to set up a study group for their children to improve academic performance and choosing not to invite the kids who are more interested in playing football or working in shop class than in studying academics. The latter groups of children don't lose anything as a result of that; they can pursue their own interests and continue to be educated at school. The parents and the former group of children get their desire to create an environment free from distractions, where they can focus better on their academic interests. If you still have problems with that scenario, then I would add the reminder that freedom of association is also covered in the First Amendment.

To use a hypothetical scenario, say I have computer trouble and take it to a local user group for advice on how to fix it. In those circumstances, the outside interjection of an opinion from a person there who actually has never seen the insides of a computer but just thinks they look cool would not be some unique and beautiful flower, it's simply a incorrect opinion that is distracting and potentially harmful to my situation. Of course clothing issues are less critical and certainly more subjective, but the point of the matter is that it's silly for a group whose primary function is to provide informed discussion and advice to solicit input disinterested or inexperienced parties (and inherently raise the value of their opinions by implying that our forum is somehow lacking by not having those opinions in its current state).

Notice how I didn't advocate shutting anyone up; of course I encourage open discussion and believe that anyone should be allowed to express his opinion and have it challenged with equal openness if it is deemed wrong. However, it's a waste of time to pursue a move that would artificially increase the noise:signal ratio on the forum (this is not necessarily an attack on female opinions, just saying that any mass attempt to bring new users will result in this, and that one targeted specifically at people outside the forum's realm of interest/knowledge will show this effect in greater proportions). I use this forum as a refuge from places like GQ and AskMen that are dominated by misleading opinions from people with only superficial interests in clothing and next to no interest or knowledge of the technical end, history, or industry, and frankly, I'm just happy with the status quo.

Amen...

 

[bachbeet]

ayboj: I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I am more interested in what's going on with a particular person in this thread. Not the actions or inactions of government or bigots. And my comment was NOT uncalled-for. If you don't detect some rather narrow views towards what women have to contribute in what some of the posters have been saying, then you aren't really very sensitive to what they're saying. When gorgekko says he's uncomfortable, he is revealing that same feeling that I analogized to in those people who said those things in those situations/times.

In short, I'm interested in seeing if some of these posters will gain some insights into what's going on inside themselves. And, of course, I believe one way to do that is with powerful self-expression.

 

[gorgekko]

You're welcome. And, what you said next shows you needed it. Because that was a very elitist piece of writing. You can substitute those words and attitudes to a guy complaining around 1918 or so about giving women the right to vote. "I'm uncomfortable about sharing the voting booths with people who don't share our values." Or Southerners in the 50s and 60s: "I'd be uncomfortable having my kids share their school buses with other kids who don't share our values." Exactly what are you so uncomfortable about? Maybe you really need to look at your own discomfort. Or does that, in itself, make you uncomfortable?

They have decaf coffee you know. If you want to link what I wrote to the subjugation of womanhood or minorities, fine, be my guest but your replies are getting more nonsensical each time you post. Perhaps next time you can compare what I wrote to Mein Kampf or something. See, by being opposed to actively soliciting women to join Style Forum, I'm also echoing a pogrom against the Jews because they didn't have a voice in the Third Reich.