Ladyfashun

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7594
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by nicole » 28 Apr 2017, 12:42

nicole wrote:
Hugh Akston wrote:How would you even button that up?
I imagine you'd put it on as a pullover.
I just noticed that it's actually categorized as a pullover by the designer.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Hugh Akston » 28 Apr 2017, 12:55

nicole wrote:
nicole wrote:
Hugh Akston wrote:How would you even button that up?
I imagine you'd put it on as a pullover.
I just noticed that it's actually categorized as a pullover by the designer.
So the buttons are just there to get yanked off when you lean against something?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21840
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Warren » 28 Apr 2017, 14:54

thoreau wrote:Can anyone explain what is so offensive about the ad that everyone is freaking out about in this article?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... ck-fashion

They portrayed a professor as a woman of color in professional attire. And that is offensive because....?

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job. But that's just so much Get Off My Lawn I guess. After I RTFA my understanding is it's a hate crime to notice how a serious professional woman looks, much less suggest she should care herself.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 566
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by dead_elvis » 28 Apr 2017, 15:04

Warren wrote:
thoreau wrote:Can anyone explain what is so offensive about the ad that everyone is freaking out about in this article?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... ck-fashion

They portrayed a professor as a woman of color in professional attire. And that is offensive because....?

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job. But that's just so much Get Off My Lawn I guess. After I RTFA my understanding is it's a hate crime to notice how a serious professional woman looks, much less suggest she should care herself.
A woman of color fights through all the obstacles only to be rewarded with a jacket that doesn't even have patches on the elbows like the men get. No respect!
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 14514
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by dhex » 28 Apr 2017, 19:48

Warren wrote:My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job.
for 2017 it's pretty formal.

so yes your lawn.
"The sort of passion for the Constitution that in a juster world would require him to introduce himself to all his new neighbors every time he moved." - eric b sans rakim

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 28 Apr 2017, 21:52

dhex wrote:
Warren wrote:My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job.
for 2017 it's pretty formal.

so yes your lawn.
I think it's still fairly common for professional school faculty to wear jackets and ties and whatever is the female equivalent, but male faculty rarely wore ties in the 70s when I was in college and grad school.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3148
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Painboy » 29 Apr 2017, 00:01

dhex wrote:the real crime here is suggesting professors are able to dress that well.
This was my thought. I certainly didn't look at the pic and think "Professor."

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21840
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Warren » 29 Apr 2017, 01:53

Because, Not With That Hair! amiright?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Mo » 29 Apr 2017, 11:34

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
dhex wrote:
Warren wrote:My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job.
for 2017 it's pretty formal.

so yes your lawn.
I think it's still fairly common for professional school faculty to wear jackets and ties and whatever is the female equivalent, but male faculty rarely wore ties in the 70s when I was in college and grad school.
The professors at my MBA program that wore ties were the rare exceptions, rather than the rule. Jackets, sure. But there were more professors that wore jeans than ties.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 14514
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by dhex » 29 Apr 2017, 11:42

upon reflection i think most of the butthurt is over the use of "tenured" rather than the outfit or race of the model; needed a trigger warning.
"The sort of passion for the Constitution that in a juster world would require him to introduce himself to all his new neighbors every time he moved." - eric b sans rakim

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 29 Apr 2017, 12:16

Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
dhex wrote:
Warren wrote:My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job.
for 2017 it's pretty formal.

so yes your lawn.
I think it's still fairly common for professional school faculty to wear jackets and ties and whatever is the female equivalent, but male faculty rarely wore ties in the 70s when I was in college and grad school.
The professors at my MBA program that wore ties were the rare exceptions, rather than the rule. Jackets, sure. But there were more professors that wore jeans than ties.
Sure. I said fairly common, not de rigueur. I'd say the tie to no tie ration at my law school was somewhere around 50/50 back in the early '80s. At that time, and probably still in some places, some MBA programs had dress codes for their students. You want to work on Wall Street or become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Dress for the part. That may be long gone by now, though. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that med schools are still sticklers for ties because of the need to signal clear lines of authority in hospitals. But even there, with so many doctors running around in scrubs, who knows?

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 14514
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by dhex » 29 Apr 2017, 12:37

ties are actually an infection hazard in a hospital setting. some still wear them but they're frowned on in a lot of places (e.g. nicu/peds/ccu/cath/etc)
"The sort of passion for the Constitution that in a juster world would require him to introduce himself to all his new neighbors every time he moved." - eric b sans rakim

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 29 Apr 2017, 12:53

dhex wrote:ties are actually an infection hazard in a hospital setting. some still wear them but they're frowned on in a lot of places (e.g. nicu/peds/ccu/cath/etc)
Yeah, they've got to be fastened securely with a tie bar or such. Still, you see a male med school prof making grand rounds with students, I'll lay 10 to 1 he's wearing a tie.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Mo » 29 Apr 2017, 14:59

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
dhex wrote:
Warren wrote:My first thought was, Such casual clothing is inappropriate to a serious professional job.
for 2017 it's pretty formal.

so yes your lawn.
I think it's still fairly common for professional school faculty to wear jackets and ties and whatever is the female equivalent, but male faculty rarely wore ties in the 70s when I was in college and grad school.
The professors at my MBA program that wore ties were the rare exceptions, rather than the rule. Jackets, sure. But there were more professors that wore jeans than ties.
a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Dress for the part.
Image

Image

Image

When the Southern, former IBM exec isn't wearing a tie, ties are dead. Also, suits stopped being a standard part of Wall Street attire for non- customer facing guys sometime around the turn of the century.

In other news, men don't wear suits and hats to baseball games anymore.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Sandy » 29 Apr 2017, 16:13

Amazing number of people wear suits in DC, but it is phenomenally conservative here in everything except politics.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20996
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by JasonL » 30 Apr 2017, 08:47

Boston based financial services was one of the last holdouts and that's changed. Our home offices dropped ties 2 years ago.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Jennifer » 01 May 2017, 16:21

It really is kinda weird that suits-for-men have been de rigueur for as long as they have: a mode of dress which made perfect sense in Victorian England -- a chilly northern country without central heating -- becoming and remaining a requirement even in places where the weather is almost never cool enough for that to be comfortable?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20996
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by JasonL » 01 May 2017, 16:25

Jennifer wrote:It really is kinda weird that suits-for-men have been de rigueur for as long as they have: a mode of dress which made perfect sense in Victorian England -- a chilly northern country without central heating -- becoming and remaining a requirement even in places where the weather is almost never cool enough for that to be comfortable?
NYC, Boston, and Philly due to history and stuff got to tell the rest of us how to dress for a long while. It was culturally where Real Business happened so if you wanted to be taken seriously you looked like that. Now people give fewer shts.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Jennifer » 01 May 2017, 16:37

If nothing else, it would be nice if the Silicon Valley/tech CEOs (or whoever) move us away from the notion that "professional/respectable dress" has to be distinct from (and less comfortable than) "ordinary everyday dress."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Sandy » 01 May 2017, 17:14

Jennifer wrote:If nothing else, it would be nice if the Silicon Valley/tech CEOs (or whoever) move us away from the notion that "professional/respectable dress" has to be distinct from (and less comfortable than) "ordinary everyday dress."
That's been the most positive contribution of Silicon Valley culture, actually.

OK, and the consumer-accessible technology, but really the other thing.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Mo » 01 May 2017, 17:23

Jennifer wrote:If nothing else, it would be nice if the Silicon Valley/tech CEOs (or whoever) move us away from the notion that "professional/respectable dress" has to be distinct from (and less comfortable than) "ordinary everyday dress."
The thing is, it wasn't always the case. "Ordinary everyday dress" was just as fussy as office dress (see image of baseball game below). It's just that everyday dress got more casual, while office attire didn't. Now we're returning to the mean. Incidentally, that's part of what's killing apparel retailers. You no longer need 2 wardrobes, at most you need 1.5.

Image
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21840
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Warren » 01 May 2017, 17:33

That crowd looks kind of old for a baseball game. I only see one face that might be considered a child.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Jennifer » 01 May 2017, 17:37

Mo wrote:
Jennifer wrote:If nothing else, it would be nice if the Silicon Valley/tech CEOs (or whoever) move us away from the notion that "professional/respectable dress" has to be distinct from (and less comfortable than) "ordinary everyday dress."
The thing is, it wasn't always the case. "Ordinary everyday dress" was just as fussy as office dress (see image of baseball game below). It's just that everyday dress got more casual, while office attire didn't. Now we're returning to the mean. Incidentally, that's part of what's killing apparel retailers. You no longer need 2 wardrobes, at most you need 1.5.

Image
True, but I wonder how much that idea (specifically, that even going to a baseball game or whatever requires one to "dress up") was a holdover from the historical norm where most people had only the one outfit you'd wear every day until it wore out, whereas slightly more prosperous people would have at least two outfits -- your everyday clothes and your "Sunday best." And then, of course, if you're actually going to go out and associate or be seen with people outside your immediate family, you'd dress up in your Sunday best rather than your common everyday work clothes.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Jennifer » 27 May 2017, 17:01

The Atlanta heat and sun intensity is resulting in actual changes to the general "appearance" and fashion sense I've had since -- well, since becoming an adult. I still have long hair but basically never wear it loose during the warm season anymore, because that's essentially the same thing as going out with a fur cape covering my back; I wear not merely a ponytail (held with a wide barrette, not an elastic) but a high ponytail, high enough that the hair covering the nape of my neck doesn't actually touch it, but instead leaves space for airflow and perspiration evaporation. I've also been wearing wide-brimmed hats to keep the sun off my face. Which leads to a conundrum: a barretted ponytail high enough to fall over the curve of my head (and thus not lay flat against the nape of my neck) is a ponytail too high for the barrette to comfortably fit beneath a hat.

I've also acquired a collection of very loose-fitting (read: too big for me) long-sleeved lightweight shirts which I wear not as shirts but as jackets, over short-sleeved or sleeveless shirts, to protect my arms from the sun. I'm amused by the complete seasonal reversal of clothing matters: used to be, going outside in summer was easy, but going outside in winter was time-consuming because I first had to put on several additional accessories to protect myself from the cold (scarf, coat, hat, etc.); now, going outside in winter is easy, but going outside in summer is time-consuming because I first have to put on several additional accessories to protect myself from the sun (hat, sunglasses, jacket-shirt, etc.).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Ladyfashun

Post by Jennifer » 27 May 2017, 17:07

Also -- this is a related observation from the times I've gone through the super-trendy / cool-kid neighborhoods in Atlanta -- how the fuck do Southern Goths pull it off? The whole "black velvet/black leather/black everything" look is easy to pull off in places like New England, where it's chilly nine months out of every twelve, and heavy or heavy-ish face makeup is also easy where you know you won't immediately sweat it all off the second you step outside. How do these Atlanta goth kids pull it off, though? Did I, like, completely miss some new technological development of sleek portable air conditioners sewn into people's clothes? Thank Zod I outgrew my "all is darkness" phase well before coming down here.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jadagul, Kolohe and 2 guests