the art of boredom
Month
I met up with a fellow menswear writer last night and as inevitably happens in that situation, we geeked out like only two guys can do when they have a shared passion for a subject. For most men, that subject would be sport or cars or women, for us it was fashion. We waxed lyrical about writers, publications, designers and models for a good few hours, with some speculation, gossip and battle stories thrown in along the way. At one point in the conversation he dropped the term “Straight Guilt”. Fascinated, I asked him to explain. Here’s what he said (and I’m paraphrasing): “It’s when you’ve got a straight menswear writer who feels guilty that he writes about fashion so he has to apologize, over-compensate or prove his manhood at every given opportunity. It’s why you see so many boob shots all over men’s style blogs or sites run by straight guys, and so many sport or hip hop or hyper-masculine references all over everything. Because if you don’t make it clear at all times that you’re straight – and, more importantly, if you’re trying to appeal to the straight market and they don’t understand that liking what you like is acceptable and straight too – then the whole system will fall over.”
I mulled this over for a few moments before deciding it was the most brilliant concept I’ve heard in a long time. Over on my Tumblr, I have an ask me anything section where people can literally ask me anything they choose. Probably 60% of the questions go something like this: “Are you gay?” “I can never figure this out… Do you like boys or girls?” “What’s your deal? Are you a homo or what?” “lol do u do boyz?” 99% of the time, I don’t answer those questions – does my being straight or gay relate to the job I do? I don’t think so. But some people can’t seem to get their heads around the idea of a potentially straight guy who writes about men’s fashion or – God forbid – male models.
The blame can’t be placed on the chest-beating menswear bloggers/editors or those redneck members of the audience. It’s a collective consciousness type deal. There’s big talk of societal progression but the evidence speaks for itself. Is there a solution? Who knows. No doubt it’ll change with time. But come on. It’s 2011. Who’d’ve thought it would still be considered gay to like fashion?
And for the record, I ain’t apologizing for nothin’.
”—Isaac (via howtotalktogirlsatparties)Three years ago, the street-style movement felt like a mini revolution. Guys like The Sartorialist used a digital camera, a blog, and photographs of real people with real style to upend the closed clique that is the fashion world. Suddenly, instead of looking to the runways for inspiration, the style-minded started stealing ideas from online photos snapped on the world’s hippest streets. It was fresh, it was democratic, it was inspired. But now it just feels lame.
Here’s why: When the street-style trend went nuclear, all the accidental “Who, me?” unselfconsciousness that once made it so fresh was tainted. The streets became the runway. Next thing you know, wannabe style icons are stalking Sartorialist-favored avenues, hoping to be photographed. And—even worse—the fashionistas loitering outside the shows in Europe transformed from insiders who live the life into try-hards working overtime to get photographed. What everyone quickly learned is that the best way to get noticed is to go over the top—to identify every trend and pile them all on at once.
These days, the supposed cool kids look like straight-up jackasses. It’s like, dude, why is your tie tucked, your collar askew, your pant rolled, your sleeves cut off, your jacket double-breasted, and your pocket square poufing so high it’s licking your earlobes…all at the same time? You know it’s bad when bros are making Kanye West seem like a bastion of restrained taste.
So what does all this mean to those of us who want to look stylish without becoming fashion victims? Be careful when imitating what you see on the blogs, and remember to take it one trend at a time. Avoid the temptation to go full Salvador Dalí. If you’ve got on blue-soled shoes, maybe you don’t need a matching blue bolo tie. If your trousers are artfully rolled, maybe you don’t need to tuck in your tie. And for the love of God, don’t make somebody stop you in the street to tell you that your ankle bandannas are showing.
”—Will Welch (via howtotalktogirlsatparties)I read a lot about rules for men, specifically on how to dress. There are some solid guidelines but in general they come across as more than moderately pedantic. It seems like it’s becoming this arms race to see who has the coolest gear and who has the best tailor.
All of these rules and absurd calls for authenticity are getting out of hand. Like every college kid stunting on the quads in a soft shoulder cotton jacket is living like an Italian heir? Or the kids in Redwings and 400 oz. denim aren’t walking to get iced coffees but actually on their way to backbreaking and soul destroying work in factories that would make Upton Sinclair shudder? On some level, in this modern day and age, it all is dress up.
I don’t get the growing seriousness of the menswear set these days. I know most of it is in jest and we have FYMW to keep us all in check. (You best protect your neck…tie?) I mean, tailored clothing is just as aspirational as workwear is nostalgic. Wearing a jacket with handset shoulders, two inch cuff trousers, and the most Neapolitan of Neapolitan spread collars to go to class with girls in juicy sweatpants doesn’t really make much more sense than wearing workboots and denim to sit in a cubicle all day. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.
You wear it because you like it. Because you like the way you feel when you slip that soft shoulder on and pull the silk around your neck. You like the feel of the leather that’s been breaking in over the course of years as you pull your boots on. And you like that the fades, tears, and patches on your jeans are from your life. Whether the tear is from the time you narrowly avoided getting crushed by a diabolical primitive booby trap to pilfer a priceless artifact or you just clumsily walked too close to the door jam and snagged your pants on it.
So no tips on how to be a man and no more pedantic lists of what every man should own or how every man should dress.
#menswearmanifesto?
(via tinaratedtinaapproved)
No sooner than 5 minutes after I posted that last bit I come across this. Exactly.
We are in the middle of an epidemic. And by we, I mean women. And by epidemic I mean this: men everywhere have stopped asking us, “does this look okay?” Slowly but surely, the once highly regarded woman’s opinion is slipping in the ranks as a sartorial standard. My lady comrades and I are entirely confounded.
The source of my personal anxiety is rooted in a fanatical appreciation for menswear which itself stems my fanatical appreciation for my Italian heritage. As a descendent of southern Italian tailors, I was raised by men who respected a finely made suit the way they respected a finely made meal: it was only good in the presence of others, and with a woman’s touch.
In Italy, arguably the cradle of menswear culture, this mentality was lived out daily, through the tradition of la passeggiata, or “the walk,” wherein gents would casually stroll together, regaled in their finest garb, through the town’s central piazza. Sure, the intention was to project a finely crafted image to society, but it was equally about turning the head of a finely crafted lady. The passeggiata was both appreciation of the allure of style and the most elegant and flattering of courting rituals.
Now, here we are, and the modern man’s dressing custom has become a staunchly bro-ish affair. Cubicle mates and menswear bloggers are his new targets to impress. It’s a dress-by-numbers approach and the feminine perspective is seemingly no longer in the game, benched in what once was a two-team sport.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m thrilled that dudes are trading their flip-flops for double-monks. Men are giving a sartorial damn, a development that merits a grand celebration. Please do parade, unabashedly, in your bench-made footwear! Clad yourself in that double breasted Boglioli! But do so with this in mind: If the reblog has been the yardstick by which you’ve been measuring your swag, the ladies in your life can tell—and they’re not impressed. Because nothing can replace the well-bestowed compliments of a woman and nothing will ever be as authentic, distinctive or dashing, as a man’s endeavors to seek out her opinion.
This is great editorial and I applaud the OP in her efforts to call out this “epidemic” but her argument seems rather trite and lacking, and I’ll probably get some flack for this.
…the once highly regarded woman’s opinion is slipping in the ranks as a sartorial standard.
Gee, I wonder why that is?! It certainly may have been customary in generations past, but these days most women* no longer possess an authoritative eye in the sartorial affairs of men. More often than not they’ll provide ill advice on what they think looks good or fits well to their equally ill-advised boyfriend, S/O, male friend, etc. So it’s no wonder why men come knocking on the door of popular menswear blogs in droves. They’re not looking to impress other menswear bloggers any more than women are trying to court them. (c'mon, when was the last time you’ve heard a woman fawn over a menswear blogger in real life? exactly)
*It should be noted that Marisa Zupan, the OP, in my opinion, falls under the minority of women who’d probably be able to dress a man well, thus providing advice of substance to the man in need (considering she’s a contributor for the new menswear site/store Park & Bond).
Pennies given.
Standard & Poor’s downgrade of America’s debt couldn’t come at a worse time. The result is likely to be higher borrowing costs for the government at all levels, and higher interest on your variable-rate mortgage, your auto loan, your credit card loans, and every other penny you borrow.
Why did S&P do it?
Not because America failed to pay its creditors on time. As you may have noticed, we avoided a default.
And not because we might fail to pay our bills at the end of 2012 if tea-party Republicans again hold the nation hostage when their votes will next be needed to raise the debt ceiling. This is a legitimate worry and might have been grounds for a downgrade, but it’s not S&P’s rationale.
S&P has downgraded the U.S. because it doesn’t think we’re on track to reduce the nation’s debt enough to satisfy S&P — and we’re not doing it in a way S&P prefers.
Here’s what S&P said: “The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” S&P also blames what it considers to be weakened “effectiveness, stability, and predictability” of U.S. policy making and political institutions.
Pardon me for asking, but who gave Standard & Poor’s the authority to tell America how much debt it has to shed, and how?
If we pay our bills, we’re a good credit risk. If we don’t, or aren’t likely to, we’re a bad credit risk. When, how, and by how much we bring down the long term debt — or, more accurately, the ratio of debt to GDP — is none of S&P’s business.
S&P’s intrusion into American politics is also ironic because, as I pointed out recently, much of our current debt is directly or indirectly due to S&P’s failures (along with the failures of the two other major credit-rating agencies — Fitch and Moody’s) to do their jobs before the financial meltdown. Until the eve of the collapse S&P gave triple-A ratings to some of the Street’s riskiest packages of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
Had S&P done its job and warned investors how much risk Wall Street was taking on, the housing and debt bubbles wouldn’t have become so large – and their bursts wouldn’t have brought down much of the economy. You and I and other taxpayers wouldn’t have had to bail out Wall Street; millions of Americans would now be working now instead of collecting unemployment insurance; the government wouldn’t have had to inject the economy with a massive stimulus to save millions of other jobs; and far more tax revenue would now be pouring into the Treasury from individuals and businesses doing better than they are now.
In other words, had Standard & Poor’s done its job over the last decade, today’s budget deficit would be far smaller and the nation’s future debt wouldn’t look so menacing.
We’d all be better off had S&P done the job it was supposed to do, then. We’ve paid a hefty price for its nonfeasance.
A pity S&P is not even doing its job now. We’ll be paying another hefty price for its malfeasance today.