- May 7, 2007
- Reaction score
I totally understand this common refrain, and I know the rest of your post places emphases on "overt" displays of dressing. And yet, though I find myself somewhat agreeing with it, I also can't see it and find too many exceptions to it, particularly since we are talking about men in general.At least in Western societies, I think it's always been considered odd for men to have an interest in clothing. Men are supposed to dedicate their lives to higher pursuits, such as a life of the mind.
How, for example, would we classify an 80s/90s skinhead (disclaimer: I know nothing of skinhead culture and don't care, by which I mean, I know it's varied, but I'm thinking very stereotypically here, but also somewhat empirically). You know, you have the uniform - the nylon aviator, the white tee, the suspenders, the jeans, the docs, and then of course the white or red laces (right down to the laces!). All of these speak to an explicit, intentional, concerted, and decidedly non-sprezzatura sartorial assemblage going on here. You can repeat this same observation in any one of a number of other (sub)genres of male dressing.
What then would men not having an interest in clothing look like?