Mens and Womens Perception of Style

[zamb]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris

[quote user="Fuuma"]

My take on Johnny's comment is that if someone is absolutely obsessive about an object and will learn about the most minute details of its construction, history, etc. while actively looking for other people to discuss those notions with then he's a "geek" while a person that mostly hoards a huge collection of the items than it's a more intuitive approach. I wouldn't go as far as calling it fetichism as it definitely involve a transposition of the item in the realm of sexuality or even a merging of the item and Sexuality. My criticism of this would be that we're entering the area of gender cliches, with the typical men: childish&analytical / women superficial&intuitive.

[/quote]

Fetishism? HHMMM............

Never thought about that aspect of it.

but for the record, i dont have sex (or a sexual obsession) with my shoes!, or anything, anyone else for that matter, I am Celibate.

but i also view shoes from this pespective, as minute details, such as Bad stitching, one foot shaping slightly different from the other etc......can make or break a purchase for me!

[Servo2000]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris

[quote user="zamb"][quote user="Fuuma"]


My take on Johnny's comment is that if someone is absolutely obsessive about an object and will learn about the most minute details of its construction, history, etc. while actively looking for other people to discuss those notions with then he's a "geek" while a person that mostly hoards a huge collection of the items than it's a more intuitive approach. I wouldn't go as far as calling it fetichism as it definitely involve a transposition of the item in the realm of sexuality or even a merging of the item and Sexuality. My criticism of this would be that we're entering the area of gender cliches, with the typical men: childish&analytical / women superficial&intuitive.

[/quote]

Fetishism? HHMMM............

Never thought about that aspect of it.

but for the record, i dont have sex (or a sexual obsession) with my shoes!, or anything, anyone else for that matter, I am Celibate.

but i also view shoes from this pespective, as minute details, such as Bad stitching, one foot shaping slightly different from the other etc......can make or break a purchase for me!

[/quote]

Not having sex, or a sexual obsession, doesn't to me necessarily imply that they are not a fetish object. I don't know enough about the subject (something I've never read about in depth or barely at all, unfortunately, it's an interesting subject to say the least), butthat's a distinction that doesn't seem to be apparent.The purchase and need for manypairs of shoes could be a fetish in itself that may not be sexually "obsessive" in nature.

Then again, I litereally do not know what I am talking about.

[Faust]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris

[quote user="Johnny"]

.

Faust your re-iteration of the point I was making isn?t accurate ? not ?some people? ? I was definitely drawing a gender distinction. Is your view that there is nothing more to what I was saying than just ?some people like one thing and others like another and some like both?? I?m not sure that is a good point, put like that. Your observation about tFS is interesting too in this context. The reason you, and others I think, went off tFS is that it was becoming all about star style and not enough about designers and collections. And, as you say, it?s mostly women. So is there omething to the distinction or not?

[/quote]

Exactly, I am not sure that it is the sex of the person that determines its presence on the forums about style. tFS is still more about fashion than both SFs by a mile - and it's a much wider scope than these boards, and its mostly female. I think it is a good point. Look at SuperFuture - it's all guys, but their discussion boils down to "where do I buy this, because I think it makes me look good/or it is trendy." Styleforum is similar in its dynamic, but a lot of it is about taioled clothing. There exist discussion on both about the merits of denim and fine craftmanship, but I think they are very few and far between. So, if there is no discussion about what goes into the product, than it become about the product as a means to an end, which is to look good. BTW, there are plenty of other boards on fashion where there are a lot of females.

I guess what I am trying to say is that lines have been blurred. There are many more magazines for men now, many more menswear designers, more marketing oriented at men, etc. I think the information that both sexes now get is leveling out somewhat. So, it used to be mostly women who looked at the next thing to wear to look good - men are now joining in, too. Of course, in much of the USA, for example, the view I expressed earlier still dominates - men don't give a damn about how they look, so women dress them however they please.

I guess what I am also trying to say is that sex maybe too broad of a stoke to point out the differences between how people behave in terms of style. But that's just for me. I have always tended to look at history of a particular country and the class system. I guess I'm a Marxist fashion critic. [:D]

I think you may have something going with the collector's point though. You could say that before men spent their money on collecting (trains, stamps, etc.) things or improving things (car mods, audio systems, etc.), and maybe now clothes are joining the realm of collecting/improving.

[zamb]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris



OK guys, these are the definition(s) of Fetish,

feel free to allow them to influence the discussion

fet·ish also fet·ich (ftsh, ftsh)

n.

1.
An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers,
especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic
religious practices.

2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.

3.
Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body,
that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual
gratification.

4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

[laika]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris



I didn't realize this thread had picked up (and gotten off track in a most delightful way).[:)]

Some fetish facts, which I have come across in my studies:

?Fetish? comes from
the Latin facticius [/i](meaning, ?manufactured?),
by way of the medieval Portuguese feitiço[/i],
which developed into the West African pidgin fetisso[/i] in the 16^th/17^th centuries. It was used by Portuguese sailors to
describe the ?abnormal? and ?irrational? attachment of West Africans to material
objects?objects which, as Zam?s definition says, were ?believed to have magical
or spiritual powers.?

The interesting thing for us, I think, is that the fetish has
very capitalist origins. Basically, the
sailors who were trading with the West Africans, couldn?t understand the
seemingly arbitrary relationship of the natives to objects. (Arbitrary meaning not mediated by exchange value;
i.e., these objects were not prized as commodities.)

So, to put it very crudely, the West Africans were
considered by the traders to be the ultimate materialists?materialists because
they did not view objects abstractly/rationally as values to be exchanged; but
rather, perceived them as powerful and animate entities in their own
right. One could perhaps say that their
attachment to material objects was unmediated. (ahem, Faust)

The concept of the fetish, as we understand it today with
all of its negative connotations (materialism among them), was invented in this
context. The twisted thing is, that it
was founded on a paradox: The Europeans believed in a pre-capitalist utopia
where people were unfettered and uncontaminated by objects (hence our negative
use of the word ?materialism?); when in fact, the state of things prior to
capitalism was a state in which things were prized in themselves[/i] rather than as commodities to be exchanged. To put it simply again, people had much
closer relationships with their things, especially those things which were worn
on the body. Objects were not just
commodities, but things with a ?name, a personality, a past.?

I apologize for being so academic, but I don?t know how else
to explain what I mean, which is that words like ?fetish? and ?materialist,?
as we commonly understand them, were invented in exploitative contexts; and, when used negatively, are already weighted
with a mindset that has been conditioned by capitalism. So Zam, being called a materialist, in this light, is really not so bad!

Faust, all of this is glossed in the first few pages of that
article I gave you, so you can correct me if I?ve messed up the story.

I hope no one minds my sorting out thoughts on SZ...[:$] (geek retreats into her cave) [8-|]

[zamb]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris



/\ thanks for the article laika,

I want to ask a question though,

If materialism is so bad, as we know it now, what is it that makes it bad, and what other state of things, when compared to it, is better.?

[laika]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris



You're welcome, zam, and thanks for the response. Your definition motivated me!

What I was trying to say, is that materialism--attachment to material objects--isn't inherently bad. There's nothing wrong with loving your shoes, or even collecting them, because you prize their material qualities. (These being their materials, the labor that goes into their craftsmanship as crystallized in their form, etc.)

What's bad, to me, (and to Marx), is a state of things in which our relationship to our possessions is mediated by something as abstract as the market. When we prize things for status, cost, or exhange value, rather than as things that are precious in themselves. In this sense, the present state of things is a regression from true materialism--which is simply an unmediated relationship to objects.

As for a better state of things, all I can say is that it would not be capitalist! Pre- or Post-, I don't know.

I hope that makes sense...let me know if it doesn't....

[zamb]

Re: Veronique Branquinho Womens FW07/08 - Paris

[quote user="laika"]


You're welcome, zam, and thanks for the response. Your definition motivated me!

What I was trying to say, is that materialism--attachment to material objects--isn't inherently bad. There's nothing wrong with loving your shoes, or even collecting them, because you prize their material qualities. (These being their materials, the labor that goes into their craftsmanship as crystallized in their form, etc.)

What's bad, to me, (and to Marx), is a state of things in which our relationship to our possessions is mediated by something as abstract as the market. When we prize things for status, cost, or exhange value, rather than as things that are precious in themselves. In this sense, the present state of things is a regression from true materialism--which is simply an unmediated relationship to objects.

As for a better state of things, all I can say is that it would not be capitalist! Pre- or Post-, I don't know.

I hope that makes sense...let me know if it doesn't....

Sorry for the delayed response, ive been a bit busy lately,

Yes i understyand what you are saying, even though my view on it is somewhat different.

it was Kant who (intellectually)validated the idea of things being valuable within themselves and i do agree on this.

However, I am not against prizing things because of status, cost, exchange value etc, what i am against is when in some people eyes the things they prize become more valuable than the people around them, and some peoples attitute that their wealth, nice clothes, etc puts them above the common man , I mean, we all use the toilet, rich or poor, we all get sick, we all feel pain, we all love, so whats the difference, a few dollars? a bigger house?

I am a very abitious person, and i desire to be rich(er) one day, but i never want to lose sight of the fact that in the end it doesnt guarantee me living longer (or happier) than the homeless person on the street

[/quote]