Posted on 07/12/2015 8:44:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Fridays Washington Post hyped a new trend in fashion on the front of the Style section. The headline was His. Hers. Theirs. Whoevers. In an increasingly genderless fashion industry, if the blouse fits, wear it. Fashion writer Robin Givhan championed designers who are asking Why are clothes assigned a gender at all? The story began:
The end of gender is near.
Menswear designers are on a mission to eradicate it. Some are going full bore, wielding lace shirts and floppy, grandma blouses like cultural grenades. Others are taking a stealth approach, quietly chiseling away the boundaries between masculinity and femininity through non-traditional retail, models and silhouettes.
...And when New York hosts its first mens fashion season in recent memory next week, one can only expect more of the same. The over-arching message: Gender is a mood, a metaphor, an anachronism.
That might seem true on a runway in New York or Paris or Milan. But to look at lacy mens dress shirts and suits that look like turquoise-blue curtains, will this sell at Sears in Nebraska? Givhan knows that theres a limit to what men (and women who love some machismo) would accept. But she kept shaking the pom-poms:
This determination to eradicate gender, however, is broader than ever, with significant establishment heft behind it. The push is coming from corporate-owned design houses, publicly traded companies, major department stores and even IT wonks.
She admitted Almost certainly, every idea wont endure. But menswear will have moved forward ever farther away from the oppressive confines of gray, Glen plaid and button-downs. These days, what can seem oppressive is the progressive itch to blow gender distinctions to bits.
They’ve been at it a long time, cutting away taste and style a chip at a time. People used to wish to be considered stylish and beautiful or handsome, but now the wish is to be near nude and ostentatious as well as ridiculous. Still can’t beat “Classic.”
Leftist insanity
She said no, not that kind of a top...she meant the kind you wear. I asked her what she meant. So she pointed to a a man's shirt.
I said those aren't tops, those are shirts. She said what's the difference? I said men don't wear tops, they wear SHIRTS!! Tops, like the kind she meant, are for women.
I think nutty female women and male homos are driving this unisex look. It was actually started decades ago and flopped miserably. It will flop miserably again.
We canna always wear breeks...
That’s because you are very sneaky.
LOL
I like the way you think...
> Why are clothes assigned a gender at all?
Are they really this stupid?
So tell me, why is that a good thing and what is your definition of good? These rabid leftists never define their terms, hoping everyone just accepts what is proffered as truth. Nonsense!
They’re gonna turn us all into lumberjacks?
A Carhartt kilt? Awesome.
Idiots can wear whatever they want and I can laugh at them wherever I want...and point.
Hmmmm...... Where did I file that nude photo of Helen Thomas?
Ha! That’s such a clever question for them.
“...now the maxi dress is popular.”
Yes they really are. There are a couple of women in my office who often wear long skirts, down to their shoes.
I still remember a woman I saw in NY years ago, long skirts were not in style at that time. It was summer and she was wearing a bright yellow sleaveless shirt dress style dress and the skirt was down to her ankles. It was some kind of linen/cotten blend material I’d guess. She was a very dark skinned black woman, petite, great figure, she looked like fantastic.
Celebrate 1 Corinthians 6:9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.