• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Rant: Modern Burberry is Crap

stuffedsuperdud

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
789
Reaction score
2,031
DWW is being a polite academic but I'm a rude angry goon, so:

Apparently, a lot of them do. Happily, we can vote with our wallets against the trend.

Yes, yes we can.

Pardon me while I roll my eyeballs into my cerebellum you self-important Gary. Guess what? A bunch of rich woke (or more likely, faux woke) ***** voting with their trust funds while CM boys wait for Spier and Mackay's next BOXING20 code is exactly how we got here. Welcome to capitalism. I don't agree with it in general, and the "fashion industry" is a particularly loathsome endeavor somewhere between ivory and human trafficking in its you're-going-to-hell-for-that factor, but them's the rules.

And then the elephant in the room, which you so elegantly seek to ignore:
Identity politics have infested the fashion industry, and people with a political agenda seek to eradicate the distinction between the feminine and the masculine.

JHC who hurt you? It kinda seems like you're mad about something else, probably along the lines of how it's no longer okay to act like Don Draper on his worst day, and decided to shove words into people's mouths so that you and Rocinante can go for a ride. Spoiler: The fashion industry doesn't give a **** about how woke or anti-woke you are. It just wants to burn up material resources and Third World populations in its insatiable quest for more money. If some SJW wants clothes, so be it; they'll sell them something expensive, androgynous, and Made in Bangladesh. Your problem isn't that the fashion industry disagrees with you politically. Your problem is that some woke asshole has more disposable money than you do. See above.
 

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
6,065
Reaction score
10,017
You've just attached vague notions of what you believe to be masculine and applied it to everyone. You've not given any real indication as to what you believe is this platonic ideal of the masculine.

Are kilts masculine? What about the people who believe that a true man should work with his hands and his clothing should reflect utilitarianism, the clothes shouldn't speak to the gender of the wearer? There's plenty who believe that dressing well is a feminine pursuit. By that metric everything on this forum lacks in masculinity.

I am not trying to articulate a philosophical vision of the masculine that is applicable at all times, in all places. I am making an aesthetic argument: one of taste.

I could go more philosophical (it is my job to do so) but I am not interested in that right now.

Are kilts masculine: In the context of Scottish traditional dress, they sure are. Especially with the military origins and traditions, they speak to a masculine archetype in respect to Scottish culture.

Should men only work their hands: Working class labour is not the only element of masculinity. It is indeed masculine on some level - where the work is hard and strenuous and requires sufficient masculine will to produce - but it is certainly not the only part of it. Some of the great men of history have been military men and thinkers, neither of which "work with their hands". I wouldn't say only the worker is masculine, as the aristocrats of society were not workers, and in many epochs (not all) were closest to the paragons of masculinity. Other times, amusingly, the military-governmental and scholarly classes definitely veered away from the masculine. See: 18th century France for a degeneration of a knightly-aristocracy into a bunch of courtiers. Contrast that with the masculinity of gentlemen like Admiral Lord Wellington.

I would say that an over emphasis on appearance is a mark of vanity, which is a feminine trait. Dressing well is good. Being obsessed with dressing well can be problematic both for one's masculinity and for one's shape of life. There is definitely a point where you need to be like, "Am I only focusing on externals?"
 

BPL Esq

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
299
Reaction score
384
Pardon me while I roll my eyeballs into my cerebellum you self-important Gary. Guess what? A bunch of rich woke (or more likely, faux woke) ***** voting with their trust funds while CM boys wait for Spier and Mackay's next BOXING20 code is exactly how we got here. Welcome to capitalism. I don't agree with it in general, and the "fashion industry" is a particularly loathsome endeavor somewhere between ivory and human trafficking in its you're-going-to-hell-for-that factor, but them's the rules.

Uh, what? "Vote with your wallet" is a very common phrase meaning that you direct your spending toward companies making what you approve of and away from those who aren't, or at least not buying the stuff you find objectionable in the hope that others follow suit and reduced demand changes the company's course.

It has nothing to do with having a lot of money or a trust fund or whatever insane meaning you read into it. All I meant by my comment is that apparently a good number of guys want the more androgynous stuff, and that if you don't like the trend toward that sort of thing, you should spend your money on other items from companies making the sort of thing you do like. I have no idea how that makes me a "self-important Gary."

Your comment was somewhat difficult to follow, so I apologize if I have misunderstood.
 

Phileas Fogg

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
4,467
Yeah, Bowie was definitely bad ass in that respect.

I don’t know if it’s still open, and given the last year doubtful, but I believe there’s a David Bowie exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum.

I saw it when it opened in Chicago about 4-5 years ago. It made me appreciate just how much of a complete artist he was.

If you get a chance to see it, definitely do so.
 

stuffedsuperdud

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
789
Reaction score
2,031
Uh, what? "Vote with your wallet" is a very common phrase meaning that you direct your spending toward companies making what you approve of and away from those who aren't, or at least not buying the stuff you find objectionable in the hope that others follow suit and reduced demand changes the company's course.

It has nothing to do with having a lot of money or a trust fund or whatever insane meaning you read into it. All I meant by my comment is that apparently a good number of guys want the more androgynous stuff, and that if you don't like the trend toward that sort of thing, you should spend your money on other items from companies making the sort of thing you do like. I have no idea how that makes me a "self-important Gary."

Your comment was somewhat difficult to follow, so I apologize if I have misunderstood.

No need to apologize; I'm generally the belligerent one who ought to be apologizing to everyone else (but I won't, because of sheer stubbornness). I agree that you should just buy what you want, but my point is that it's silly and overly self-righteous to think that our few dollars will make any noticeable change in the fashion industry's direction; that is dictated by people, or rather, a giant collective easily-manipulated mob of people who together have exponentially more dollars, AKA votes, than we do. Otherwise, suits and ties wouldn't be on life support.

I maintain that this has everything to do with $ and the mob's fickle whims, and little to do with actual politics aside from the fact that fashion like everything else exists in a capitalist world that also happens to have politics.
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
69,979
Personally think people should dress stylishly, and stylishness has little to do with whether someone dresses masculine or feminine. A lot of hashtag menswear stuff does not look stylish to me. Some guys dress femininely, and they do it stylishly. Some guys dress masculine and it looks stylish. Bad aesthetics offend me more than transgressions against gender norms.

A lot of what I like is when someone is mixing masculine and feminine references in a way that looks sexy. Being able to do that takes a certain kind of verve. It's not a strict CM look -- although sometimes it can be on the right person. Hard to describe. Yves Saint Laurent had a lot of this energy in the 1970s.


4c11a0aae0fde8076585220735ec7b9b.jpg




Some dandies also look good in their clothes. There's a nice play here between the masculinity of this V-shaped silhouette and the dandiness of the choices.


EbzxHdAUYAATSF1.jpeg



This might be considered a feminine look today because of how fashion-forward it is in today's context. And yet, I think it's great. The boots and glasses make it. Plus the turtleneck. It's somehow between masculine and feminine.


EkqpSBgUcAAov39.jpeg



Some of my favorite casualwear rides the line between masculine and feminine. I also think it looks more stylish than some very conservative, masculine CM looks. A lot of CM doesn't do well without a tailored jacket, hence why we're in such a bad situation with business casual (the worst of all looks, IMO)


EqjO0CXVoAA25BP.jpg
EqjO6LHVQAIryef.jpg



Many of those silhouettes derive from what's happening right now in womenswear

EqjOxaAUwAEOmuz.jpeg
EsoPQ1ZUwAA_0I1.jpeg
 

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
6,065
Reaction score
10,017
I don’t know if it’s still open, and given the last year doubtful, but I believe there’s a David Bowie exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum.

I saw it when it opened in Chicago about 4-5 years ago. It made me appreciate just how much of a complete artist he was.

If you get a chance to see it, definitely do so.

I would definitely like to do so next time I'm back home. Thanks for making it known to me.
 

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
6,065
Reaction score
10,017
I think one element of style that I have not touched upon, but which is important to me: dressing well is in some sense about "honour" in the social sense. Looking good raises one's social standing in the eyes of others. This is important for gaining a degree of social capital, of being able to present oneself as "someone".

I dress with an aim for people to think, "Oh, this guy isn't a schlub. This guy is something more than that."

As irrational as it might be, an important part of rhetoric is not just logos, but ethos, and one's appearance factors into ethos as an element of that persuasion. It is important, because people judge people in part on appearances, and it eases the social interactions I wish to have.

Example: In my academic position, I dress with a certain seriousness and style that speaks to being professorial. I want to "look" the part, so people take me seriously, and my students even get a sense of "oh, this is serious, he doesn't look like an idiot."
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
69,979
I think one element of style that I have not touched upon, but which is important to me: dressing well is in some sense about "honour" in the social sense. Looking good raises one's social standing in the eyes of others. This is important for gaining a degree of social capital, of being able to present oneself as "someone".

I dress with an aim for people to think, "Oh, this guy isn't a schlub. This guy is something more than that."

As irrational as it might be, an important part of rhetoric is not just logos, but ethos, and one's appearance factors into ethos as an element of that persuasion. It is important, because people judge people in part on appearances, and it eases the social interactions I wish to have.

Example: In my academic position, I dress with a certain seriousness and style that speaks to being professorial. I want to "look" the part, so people take me seriously, and my students even get a sense of "oh, this is serious, he doesn't look like an idiot."

Wouldn't this be the argument against things such as green oxfords? I think it's fine to dress in a very conservative way, but ideas about professionalism, respect, and seriousness for men basically lead one to conservative business dress (conservative business dress).
 
Last edited:

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
6,065
Reaction score
10,017
I again don't understand how gree oxfords comport with this. How does wearing unusual shoes raise one's honor in the eyes of others? How do green shoes look professional?

I also want to present myself as an individual who is willing to take some risks and who can make things work that, perhaps do not work on every gentleman, but which fit with the image I am presenting. I also like a bit of uniqueness, something that I would do that not everyone would do. Being an individual who is capable of standing out on one level is a good thing: it shows I am not just everyone, but also me, and perhaps critically me.

In other words: I am also seeking an individuality that speaks to the fact that I am not 100% conventional, but which is also not stupid or foolish. Perhaps you disagree on them not being the latter. Great! I am glad you disagree. I like having counter-points to my viewpoints to keep give me some critical feedback.

Also, they work with the clothes I like to wear. Not all my clothes, and I avoid wearing them with those that would clash.
 

Bronze Age Sartorial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
72
Reaction score
52
The fanny pack nonsense has little to to do with breaking gender norms and more to do with pandering to Hypebeasts who want to look like a soccer hooligan from the 90s.
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
69,979
I also want to present myself as an individual who is willing to take some risks and who can make things work that, perhaps do not work on every gentleman, but which fit with the image I am presenting. I also like a bit of uniqueness, something that I would do that not everyone would do. Being an individual who is capable of standing out on one level is a good thing: it shows I am not just everyone, but also me, and perhaps critically me.

But that's basically the measure almost everyone uses here for clothes. I think that's James Laver's theory for fashion - that people dress in ways to signal their belonging to a tribe, but also their individuality within that tribe.

I think most people here dress in a way they think is appropriate for their environment, whatever that environment may be (could be a creative office, a conservative office, a school, etc). And they also try to express some individuality within those bounds.

But these notions you laid out for respectability, seriousness, and honor are basically the grounds for conservative business dress, Manton's term for conservative foulards, dark suits, and dark shoes. Which is a perfectly good uniform, but few people today work in industries where that would not mark you out to be a weirdo, or at least a clotheshorse. If you're in academia, then you know marking yourself as a clotheshorse is generally a negative.

So then most academics revert to business casual if they want to adhere to those norms of respectability, seriousness, etc. You must dress in ways that show you don't have any interest outside of the academy, lest you be considered unfocused. If you show you have an interest in clothes, then you are considered an unserious thinker. But then business casual uniforms are deeply unsatisfying to wear ....
 

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
6,065
Reaction score
10,017
But that's basically the measure almost everyone uses here for clothes. I think that's James Laver's theory for fashion - that people dress in ways to signal their belonging to a tribe, but also their individuality within that tribe.

I think most people here dress in a way they think is appropriate for their environment, whatever that environment may be (could be a creative office, a conservative office, or whatever). And they also try to express some individuality within those bounds.

But these notions you laid out for respectability, seriousness, and honor are basically the grounds for conservative business dress, Manton's term for conservative foulards, dark suits, and dark shoes. Which is a perfectly good uniform, but few people today work in industries where that would not mark you out to be a weirdo, or at least a clotheshorse. If you're in academia, then you know marking yourself as a clotheshorse is generally a negative.

So then most academics revert to business casual if they want to adhere to those norms of respectability, seriousness, etc. You must dress in ways that show you don't have any interest outside of the academy, lest you be considered unfocused. If you show you have an interest in clothes, then you are considered an unserious thinker. But then business casual uniforms are deeply unsatisfying to wear ....

Amusingly, my experience have been somewhat the opposite in academia: dressing well, even with one's own unique flair, has often been associated with the professors who have attained degrees of success and standing in my chosen subdiscipline, in the departments I have been a part of. This is not to say there isn't a standard--a sort of default--around which you build what constitutes as "well dressed", but it is certainly not a disadvantage to be thought of as dressing well, or something that gives you the wrong impression as "unserious". In fact, amusingly, my experience has been that my departments are known as "the departments of men who look well put together". Students and colleagues have openly commented, "You department has a number of people who dress a lot better than most others."

Perhaps this is also because there are many who have veered overly casual even in academia, so the standard is low that because the people I admire look "better than the rest" is amplified. This casual shift, my account, makes these others look bummy and less serious, and the people who I have found most admirable or respectable in my field have not embraced that look.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 36.7%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 59 39.3%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 15 10.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 26 17.3%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 26 17.3%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,126
Messages
10,578,699
Members
223,883
Latest member
FitsPresto
Top