Welcome to our newest regular roundup feature: The Sunday Swag Report (TSSR). We have scoured the Internet to bring you some of the most interesting, informative, funny, etc. style articles from the past couple of weeks.
POINT OF VIEW
T: The New York Times Style Magazine explores questions of power, sexuality and gender being raised in recent menwear collections. While the article does use a lot of binary language to talk about gender, it is still an interesting read because it begs the question “Is menswear easier to transgress?” Furthermore, dapperQ has noted that in the movement to dismantle binaries many are dressing in whatever makes them comfortable and blurring the lines between “menswear” and “womenswear” and “feminine” and “masculine.” Even off the runway, traditional “menswear” has been incorporating patterns, colors, and designs (such as florals, clutches, sequins, etc.) that were once typically associated with “womenswear.” This article features some of the designers who are really pushing the envelope even further with respect to transgressing notions of femininity. The author, Alexander Fury, also acknowledges the sociocultural/political power of clothing noting, “Clothes are politicized objects, a sartorial billboard, a manifesto on your back. You can still be arrested for wearing the wrong thing in the wrong place — and, beyond the laws of basic public decency, that’s because people often don’t want to hear what your garments are telling them.” Read the full article here.
EMPOWERMENT
Shoes with a side of misogyny? No thanks! Bing of Qwear took aim at sexism in menswear advertising in “8 Simple Things That Can Make Advertising Less Harmful for Your Health.” While the article uses hilarious snarky humor to critique the industry, Bing’s analysis and recommendations are effective and on point. The examples provided in the article exemplify why more progressive, inclusive blogs like Qwear and dapperQ are so important to our community. Read the full article here.
POINT OF VIEW
WARNING WARNING WARNING: The Guardian‘s article “Why is so little space given to menswear? Too few men care” is riddled with gendered language. But, we still feel it can challenge our readers to think about the way gender norms and expectations have influenced masculine and feminine attire. In the article, the author attempts to answer a reader question about why the publication does not pay more attention to “menswear.” The answer can best be summed up with the article’s overall conclusion; “But the real problem is that we are all caught in a vicious circle when it comes to menswear: men tend to be conservative in their clothes – therefore menswear designers make conservative or, as rebellion, crazy clothes – therefore men don’t like to read about men’s fashion – therefore they stick with their conservative clothes.” We ask our readers to take this a step further and think about what this means for the “unconventionally masculine” consumer. Why is masculine attire more conservative? Is it stifling? What does it say about the way society uses fashion to define and perpetuate notions of masculinity and femininity? How does this hurt or help the industry, especially businesses that are entering the market to serve masculine presenting women, gender nonconformists, and trans* identified individuals? Read the full article here and get to pondering.
