cute but not cute for you

[schiaparelli]

lately i've been fascinated with a hyperfeminine aesthetic—very girly, very pink, very youthful, very OTT kind of stuff that manages to avoid the male gaze and a sense of being lolita wear or young-cutesy-nubile-nymph shit just by having an exacting and overwhelming commitment to a girliness constructed by other women for other women

alternate aesthetic phrase—"cute but not cute for you"

[khayandhi]

[schiaparelli]

yes yes yes! it's a topic that is super fascinating to me, the reclamation of the the feminine as territory that can be controlled and moderated by women, independent of certain heteronormative expectations of what women should be to men

i think i'm interested in this too bc my attitude about explicit femininity and womanhood has changed a lot lately—i've recognized that a lot of my preferences for androgyny and menswear-inspired womenswear are products of a society that pitches masculine norms as superior to feminine norms. so with that realization has come this need to renegotiate how i feel about femininity and celebrate it more and find the expressive qualities it has

love your example of "natural makeup" because this is something i was just discussing with a friend today! there is this odd interplay between a societal/masculine desire for women to be beautiful in a particular way, but also perform and attain that beauty in a low-key "natural" "not trying too hard" "effortless" "cool girl" way—the end goal is required but the work involved is denigrated

tl;dr i want to wear simone rocha garms

[khayandhi]

[schiaparelli]

[khayandhi]

[ramseames]

can't say a lot in a rep comment but what I would add is that I think you're really underestimating the amount of dudes, participating in internet fashun and otherwise, that are dressing expressedly for women and then along with that the level to which men (especially those who come to fashion forums to learn how to dress in a way that will make them appealing to women) are insecure

[p__]

[schiaparelli]

[fechner]

[germinal]

I split this conversation into its own thread so it has room to flourish uninterrupted by flintstone posts. Hope no one minds.

[titkitten]

[parastexis]

essential viewing about the male gaze, cut into 4 parts, but not cut for you

[youtube]m1GI8mNU5Sg&index=2&list=PLlhSx0L1hpaGKfq1qXe1vWUhG1EgIN9Yf[/youtube]

[schiaparelli]

[une_impasse]

this whole thread is amazing, and the various shades of pink resulting from up voting is absolutely killing me

[mellownyellow]

HI THIS IS GREAT I LOVE THIS

To tag on to the fashion advertising conversation -

There is no mistaking the fact that men and women are portrayed in very different problematic ways in (fashion) advertising - some of the imagery for Rudi Gernreich’s unisex clothing come to mind. Even though the clothing is the same, it's not exactly a gender neutral shoot:


And even more offensively, things like , the legendary kate moss & mark wahlberg CK campaign and most of the ads AA put out in Dov Charney’s time.

I looked a bit into gender advertising (it seems fascinating!) and was fascinated by the notion that advertising fuels gender relations - that seems very true. However, I find it extremely troubling (and aggravating) that in a book that deals this specific topic (Disclaimer: havent read it in its entirety, going off on Wikipedia here) the author seems to claim that portrayals of women in advertising (Touching self, Caressing an object, Lying on the floor, Sitting on a bed or chair, Eyes closed, Not alert, Confused, Vulnerable, Body contorted, Dressed like a child, Holding an object or a man for support, Sexy and sexually available, Seductive, Playful, Careless) are positions of submissiveness and powerlessness. These states of being are not problematic, nor are their portrayal, and in my eyes the issue is rather the societal construct surrounding these images.

After all, it is not these acts that are submissive and powerless, but rather that the fact they are acts traditionally done by women makes them to be perceived as such. I am convinced that there is immense power and empowerment in sexuality, nurturing, intimacy, caressing, playfulness, vulnerability (regardless of whether they are being done/posed as by women or men) and am not opposed to these acts being portrayed. After all, women (all people) are sometimes strong, sometimes not, sometimes sexual and sometimes not. I absolutely wont go as far as to say that an ad campaign that plays into these themes is problematic in and on its own - is that not just another way of prescribing should-be’s and shouldn’t be's to women?

I do really wish there was (and hope there will be) more diversity in fashion advertising. I am tired of being shown these tropes over and over again but rather than pick apart images that use them (a subset of which can still convey great power), like the Prada campaign, which I think is very lovely in its intimacy and vulnerability, I would like to celebrate and encourage the occasions on which we get to see more interesting advertising. An album of images that portray women in an interesting way:



And to add some images that portray men in a non-traditional way:

[schiaparelli]

[bels]

I always "liked" (Obviously it's not actually possible to take advertising seriously) this jdub shot:



and this Prada one:



(x post to advertising thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=221&hilit=advert#p6000)

[wolflarsen]

[khayandhi]

[Cowboy]

As a clarification is this a feminism (as a whole) thread or feminism (in regards to solely aesthetics) thread?

[titkitten]

[Cowboy]

http://aaaaarg.fail/upload/jennifer-m-j ... ance-1.pdf

a book worth skimming through

prior post oopsie sorry schia etc

[schiaparelli]