skirtcafe.org

Coder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:35 pm

crfriend wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:29 pm

moonshadow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:42 am
The good old days certainly weren't always good -- but, and here's the point -- we had hope that we could make them better. Ultimately, we failed: or, more correctly, were were caused to fail by our "leaders".

My intent was not to be all "woe is us" or ask for a pity party. And no - I'm not asking to go back in time to the fashion of the 70's. There were certainly bad aspects of the time.

I really am more interested in what caused the change, or rather complaining that such a change occurred . I suppose I should just slink off and read a book on the subject, but I find this interactive format more interesting than say, reading a tome on "men's fashion of the 70's, and why it got dreadfully boring". We can't discuss skirts all day - at least I can't - so I figured some variety is good when it comes to discussing fashion.

Coder, I think music was largely the cause. Motown, New Romantics, Madchester all had their looks and their followers. Since then music here has largely been swallowed up by corporates. Musicians no longer create their own music which are then picked up by the record labels. Bands are more often created and owned by record labels. It creates an echo chamber because the corporate record labels look to the population for what sells rather than create. Nothing lasts forever, I'm sure it will all come back one day.

Coder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:35 pmMy intent was not to be all "woe is us" or ask for a pity party. And no - I'm not asking to go back in time to the fashion of the 70's. There were certainly bad aspects of the time.

It all depends on what you view as "bad" and why you view it that way. Any time that one is experimenting with things, one risks mistakes and wrong turns -- that's part of the way experiments work. Build on what works and discard that which is clearly a failure.

I really am more interested in what caused the change, or rather complaining that such a change occurred . I suppose I should just slink off and read a book on the subject, but I find this interactive format more interesting than say, reading a tome on "men's fashion of the 70's, and why it got dreadfully boring". We can't discuss skirts all day - at least I can't - so I figured some variety is good when it comes to discussing fashion.

At this juncture, we're really veering away from the world of fashion and entering the realm of sociology, because it's sociology that determines how individuals interpret things. You may not recall the 1980s; I do. In the the early '80s, for some unknown reason, the entire world view hardened up and took a very sharp and nasty turn to the right. The Iranian revolution and subsequent problems likely contributed to it; the "end of the Cold War" -- and especially the way that ended up -- absolutely did with the simultaneous collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States. The rise to power of Reagan in the United States and Thatcher in the UK contributed to it; and the rise of the very far right became re-emergent in Europe. It was a "perfect storm". And our ways of life suffered and our viewpoints were inexorably changed; "fashion" viewpoints became similarly "hard" and brutal because they were tracking the general mentality.

So you cannot look at fashion in a vacuum, and you can't assign "value" or "pass judgment" on styles from different times because you're using your current sentiments to make those judgments. It must be looked at in the context of the time it "lives" (or "lived") in. That's why the younger set laugh so hard at what was viewed as quite nice in the '70s. Detaching one's self from one's present time is hard and thus most people never do it. So we look at a flamboyant outfit from the '70s through the eyes of an Ayatollah (or a Putin).

My condemnation of the atrocious styles of today is as much of an indictment of the time as it is about the "style" itself. Once you watch things for a while, one starts to pick up the decay -- especially if it's not arrested sociologically somehow -- and we've been on this trajectory for 40 years. Moreover, there are a lot of people alive today who post-date the 1980s and cannot have any recollection of the time.

I remember the fashions of the 70's quite well I have worn paisley shirts with wing
tip collars, some were so big that with a gust of wind, you could fly............
One of the 'items' brought forth was P-Hose for men. My wife(newly married) strongly
suggested that I try them out. She went with me to several department stores, seeking
the P-Hose. Too no avail Many of the sales clerks thought we were crazy.
AND
I don't see why politics has to be brought into men's fashion. Fashion is not political and,
frankly, I'm very tired of 'anything/everything wrong in/with fashion' being blamed on politics.

Fashion is about 'Style'. How WE put together an outfit with color, shape, lines, angles,
solid colors, prints or plaids.... What is pleasing to the minds eye. How WE develop our
outward look based on our inner thoughts.

I have observed over the past 20 years at Skirt Cafe', that about 50%(+/-) of the posts
have a political theme running through them. Politics is something that needs to be
avoided at S.C. as THAT WORD has, and will continue to, create(d) flame wars and
division among the members.
This has happened before causing a major split of, and with-in, Tom's Cafe', thus
creating what we now know as Skirt Cafe' and 'X Marks The Scot' - A Kilt Only site.

From Forum Rules
2. No politics, unless related to skirts/kilts.

Government mandate - Pants Only

No religion, unless related to skirts/kilts.

We've covered that, many times over.

These topics were banned because they lead to endless flame wars.

Every one here has contributed, in one form or another, to this thread drift.

Now, how many 'new' sites/forums, will be created because of political drift at S.C
HOW MANY

Uncle Al

Uncle Al wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:13 pm[...] AND
I don't see why politics has to be brought into men's fashion. Fashion is not political and, frankly, I'm very tired of 'anything/everything wrong in/with fashion' being blamed on politics.

The problem is that the world around us interferes with all aspects of our very human lives. Thus, it cannot really be removed completely from conversation. It is part and parcel of what is known as sociology, and that was the thrust of my argument.

The genius about the matter is how we behave towards one another at the end of the day. If we disagree on specifics, then we disagree on specifics. That does not mean that we cannot be cordial or even friends. It merely means that we disagree on certain things. That latter facet has, sadly, been one of the fatalities of the recent years.

Fashion is about 'Style'. How WE put together an outfit with color, shape, lines, angles, solid colors, prints or plaids.... What is pleasing to the minds eye. How WE develop our outward look based on our inner thoughts.

Indeed, and that's what it rightfully ought to be, but our entire perspective is warped by the times we live in. That was the thrust of my observation. It was not intended as a rant. Had it been, it would have been vastly more forceful.

I’ve only skimmed the responses, to give myself more credit than I deserve.

I turned 20 in 1970 so I’d say I had a ringside seat for what happened in the’70’s. To put it a little cryptically I’d say, “Follow the money.” To put it politically, I’d say, “Ronald Reagan.”

If you look at the economy in the 1970’s into the’80’s there was a succession of recessions. In that environment you first wanted to fit in before you stood out.

This was exacerbated by the monopolization of wealth that has occurred over the last 40-some years. Thanks to the Republican tax cuts for the rich that started during the Reagan administration, the 1% have vacuumed up nearly all of the new wealth that has been created in the US since 1980. A little has gone to the next 9% and droplets have gone to everyone else.

In that kind of environment, most people will go along to get along.

Two things are breaking the stranglehold of conformity; the Covid-19 lockdown and Gen Z.

But at the end of the day, like the beginning, what 95% of the men wear shouldn’t concern you one bit, because I can tell you from my own experience as a guy who goes to work everyday in a dress that over 94% of them don’t care what YOU wear.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:11 am But at the end of the day, like the beginning, what 95% of the men wear shouldn’t concern you one bit, because I can tell you from my own experience as a guy who goes to work everyday in a dress that over 94% of them don’t care what YOU wear.

I try not to care - I don't dress for other men anyhow, but I do "concern" myself with how others (men, women) may perceive me. I'm growing out of that mindset - slowly - but it would be nice for everyone if things loosened up a bit.


The recession comments make sense to me - and there's even the Hemline index to consider (I find it kinda silly). It seems nowadays we tend to see styles that cluster into different groups - this article says as much:

https://www.instyle.com/fashion/clothin ... index-real

By the 1990s, there was more of an emphasis on dressing for specific style groups, such as grunge, rave culture, and punk, rather than debating shorter or longer styles.

So, is the Hemline Index real and does it exist in 2020? Not exactly. But, do we gravitate toward certain styles to reflect our mood or the status of the world — economy included? Yes, and we’ll likely continue to do so for many years to come.

I'd jut like to add some points,

moonshadow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:42 am Well this is a depressing thread.

You rather surprised me with this one Moon.
Do you now think all our wittering should be warm, positive and upbeat?

The past, no matter the decade, was never perfect but people refer to the depression and world war eras as the "good old days".
I don't quite get it but it isn't total ******** either.
Skirts for men weren't a big thing in the 70s and after our 50 revolutions round the shiny thing, we are only marginally better off.
There was some optimism then where we really believed that things "could only get better"
I'd even go as far to say that there are still places on this bit of rock where a man in a skirt can be arrested and incarcerated.
David's figure of 94% not caring is likely about right but there is a difference between this and real acceptance. If 50% of the people openly accept your choices then count yourself lucky.
Just because outright hostility doesn't happen in our neighbourhoods doesn't mean the same everywhere else.

Steve.

Uncle Al wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:13 pm One of the 'items' brought forth was P-Hose for men. My wife(newly married) strongly
suggested that I try them out. She went with me to several department stores, seeking
the P-Hose. Too no avail Many of the sales clerks thought we were crazy.

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fPKPTcU3z0

I swear there was some other to-do about (American) football players wearing those during games in those times, but I haven't had enough coffee to go find it right now.

Coder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:35 pm

crfriend wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:29 pm

moonshadow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:42 am
The good old days certainly weren't always good -- but, and here's the point -- we had hope that we could make them better. Ultimately, we failed: or, more correctly, were were caused to fail by our "leaders".

My intent was not to be all "woe is us" or ask for a pity party. And no - I'm not asking to go back in time to the fashion of the 70's. There were certainly bad aspects of the time.

I really am more interested in what caused the change, or rather complaining that such a change occurred . I suppose I should just slink off and read a book on the subject, but I find this interactive format more interesting than say, reading a tome on "men's fashion of the 70's, and why it got dreadfully boring". We can't discuss skirts all day - at least I can't - so I figured some variety is good when it comes to discussing fashion.

I think the change from 70’s fashion occurred because it kinda looks ridiculous. No offense to anyone who loved it but in the pictures BM posted, the top two look utterly goofy. The bottom picture looks equally goofy. Again, this is just my opinion, may no one take offense and accuse me of biting criticism. My opinion doesn’t mean it’s right nor wrong.

I wonder if men’s fashion keeps having these somewhat dramatic shifts because it just doesn’t look good. People wear stuff because the proverbial “they” suggest it’s the rage. But it lacks staying power cause the Emperor eventually awakens from his stupor and sees what he looks like. So fashion keeps changing.

If you really think of classic mens fashion with staying power, the tux comes to mind. And with that, a man in a kilt that has all the accoutrements also comes to mind.

Perhaps we are all still searching for that look for men that is “classic” but not super dressed up.

Cause honestly, when I go out, most of the men I see dress like slobs in goblin mode

All fashion is "goofy" or just plain bloody awful to someone.
Even in 75, I was 17 then, I wouldn't have gone near the gear BM illustrated.
As for the "emperor", he came to his senses when he was made to realise that he was stark naked by an ignorant little boy.
The clothes he was wearing may be best left to the imagination but they would have been at the very height of the fashion of his time and mind.
Kilts and the "Kilt Outfit" are fine if they are kept in perspective, but if that becomes the benchmark for alternative menswear we have lost.
Goofy or whatever, the seventies were a time of exploration and potential for change in so many ways, not just skirts for men.
However, in that aspect alone, the legacy is wasted as soon as we accept one uniform for another.
Perhaps we already have, like the good little boys that we were raised to be.
Steve.

ScotL wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:42 amI think the change from 70’s fashion occurred because it kinda looks ridiculous. No offense to anyone who loved it but in the pictures BM posted, the top two look utterly goofy. The bottom picture looks equally goofy. Again, this is just my opinion, may no one take offense and accuse me of biting criticism. My opinion doesn’t mean it’s right nor wrong.

The problem here is that you're using modern viewpoints to analyse historical context -- and that always fails. It fails because the modern viewpoint has none of the context and knowledge that was present at that time and thus cannot properly interpret things.

A good example of this is the modern attempt to rewrite history in the USA and paint the early country as little more than a pile of racist bigots when it comes to slavery. What everyone conveniently forgets is that at the time of the founding of the United States owning slaves was still common and accepted as a practise. It fell out of favour in Europe during the latter part of the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries, and by that time half of the US had pinned their entire economic system on it. Does this make it inherently wrong? The modern perspective is unequivocally (and rather shrilly), "YES!"; however, what happens when you use the thinking of the people then? Things get vastly more complex.

The same concepts apply to most of history; one needs to understand the time and the minds of the time before one can make value judgments on it -- and that goes for fashion as much as social values. Just trashing it outright as "ridiculous" is merely silly.

crfriend wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:23 pm

ScotL wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:42 amI think the change from 70’s fashion occurred because it kinda looks ridiculous. No offense to anyone who loved it but in the pictures BM posted, the top two look utterly goofy. The bottom picture looks equally goofy. Again, this is just my opinion, may no one take offense and accuse me of biting criticism. My opinion doesn’t mean it’s right nor wrong.

The problem here is that you're using modern viewpoints to analyse historical context -- and that always fails. It fails because the modern viewpoint has none of the context and knowledge that was present at that time and thus cannot properly interpret things.

Yep! Some of the styles back then might have been regarded as goofy by the businessmen in suits - but enough people wore them for that not to be the case, and they are even a signifier of the time that lasts until this very day, so they could not have been goofy to a large portion of the population. They had some impact. Do I think they look great in a modern context? Not entirely - but the modern era allows for more exploration and if you like something from that era you can certainly wear it.

The funny thing is, if I wanted to go out decked in 70's hippie clothes, I'd get more stares than I do now wearing a skirt.

I wore big lapels and flared trousers, possibly a little after they were fashionable. I remember some of my contemporaries getting mildly into New Romantics, and I wish I'd had the nerve to join in...

crfriend wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:23 pm The problem here is that you're using modern viewpoints to analyse historical context -- and that always fails. It fails because the modern viewpoint has none of the context and knowledge that was present at that time and thus cannot properly interpret things.

The other example seen here was the mini-skirts on the original Star Trek. Now people see repression, but a the time the mini-skirt was seen as a symbol of female empowerment.

The past is like a foreign country, they do things differently there - L. P. Hartley

crfriend wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:23 pm A good example of this is the modern attempt to rewrite history in the USA and paint the early country as little more than a pile of racist bigots when it comes to slavery.

I don't know about the US, but here in it NL it's only recently that serious research has happened into how the world worked back then. There was the idea that NL had a golden age powered by slavery, but if you look at the details the only people that benefited where the rich people and it's questionable how much. The rest of the population lived in situations no better than slaves. We just don't call that slavery. They said there were no slaves in Europe, but occasionally young black children were brought over as household helps, the colour being an interesting curiosity to show friends. Didn't call that slavery either.

It's mostly a function of the digitisation of all the records of the time, meaning that even ordinary people can do serious research into the past without having to spend months physically trawling through archives. Simple searches and ML models are within the reach of ordinary people. The result is a history much more nuanced that what appears in the history books. And that's for the better.

crfriend wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:23 pm

ScotL wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:42 amI think the change from 70’s fashion occurred because it kinda looks ridiculous. No offense to anyone who loved it but in the pictures BM posted, the top two look utterly goofy. The bottom picture looks equally goofy. Again, this is just my opinion, may no one take offense and accuse me of biting criticism. My opinion doesn’t mean it’s right nor wrong.

The problem here is that you're using modern viewpoints to analyse historical context -- and that always fails. It fails because the modern viewpoint has none of the context and knowledge that was present at that time and thus cannot properly interpret things.

A good example of this is the modern attempt to rewrite history in the USA and paint the early country as little more than a pile of racist bigots when it comes to slavery. What everyone conveniently forgets is that at the time of the founding of the United States owning slaves was still common and accepted as a practise. It fell out of favour in Europe during the latter part of the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries, and by that time half of the US had pinned their entire economic system on it. Does this make it inherently wrong? The modern perspective is unequivocally (and rather shrilly), "YES!"; however, what happens when you use the thinking of the people then? Things get vastly more complex.

The same concepts apply to most of history; one needs to understand the time and the minds of the time before one can make value judgments on it -- and that goes for fashion as much as social values. Just trashing it outright as "ridiculous" is merely silly.

Carl! Read the last two sentences of the words you quoted from me. These are my opinions. Opinions are not right nor wrong, only opinions. I do not know how else to make that any clearer despite writing this in plain language. Stating that my opinion is wrong is inflammatory.

I won’t assume, but will ask. Please complete this sentence. Seventies fashion is _______. Beautiful? Stylish? What? I’m genuinely interested in how you think of that fashion.

To me and to others I’ve spoken to, it looks ridiculous today. Again, MY OPINION.

Of course in the seventies, it was high fashion. I appreciate the effort then and love it that they wore it. But I think it looks silly NOW. My post was to attempt to debate why it’s not still in vogue. There’s nothing wrong with the clothing nor style. But today, it would probably attract more attention than a guy in a modern skirt. I am not “trashing” the look then but am suggesting the look now does not have staying power. If it did, we wouldn’t refer to it as clothing from the seventies.

I’m wondering if people were drawn to seventies fashion because it was so different than the Beaver Cleaver clean cut, buzz cut, strait laced male attire. That would be wonderful. There’s nothing wrong with expression. But like all fashion, what’s in vogue is difficult to define who gets to make those rules. To me it seems more like fashion happens, most of us follow like lemmings and then we get to look back at it in the current age and evaluate. In my mind, experimentation is awesome and necessary but doesn’t always result in a Nobel Prize.

Some, people look back and like. Some, people look back and are aghast. But they wore it because it was in vogue.

Again, it does not mean the fashion is wrong or the movement was misguided. I look at it as the Experiment it is. You try something and if it doesn’t work, you move on. But I still appreciate their effort.

That’s what I’m trying to say. The seventies fashion to me seem like an experiment that just didn’t work. And yes, in my opinion (that is neither right nor wrong nor a failure), I and others regard it as silly and ridiculous now. My opinion. You have your opinion that is valid but again neither right nor wrong nor a failure to contemplate everything or anything.