What's new

Tyranny of menwear fora

Good read for anyone on their sartorial journey

By ALEXANDER ACIMAN

It is an observation I have seen in the pages of GQ and Esquire, in blogs and tweets and retweets: American men are dressing better these days. It's true that they are certainly paying more attention to what they wear. But are men really looking better?

A brief dig into the roots of this sartorial proverb is easy enough. The rapid proliferation of men's style photographs (or #menswear, as it's known on the Web) began with a phenomenon called street style—the photographing and posting of outlandishly but carefully attired men on the sidewalks of cities like Manhattan, London and Milan. The ascent of street style marked the death of the elegant and understated suit, and opened the gates to burgundy velvet Doc Martens, double-layered silk scarves and chinos rolled halfway up the calf, cuffs crinkled for that extra dash of insouciance.

The unsuspecting victims of this #menswear craze are the guys who never paid much attention to the way they dressed to begin with. Thirty years ago the only men susceptible to fads were the few who read magazines like Vogue Hommes and went to the shows in Paris. Now, anyone with a lunch break—or anyone whose girlfriend has a lunch break—can log onto Tumblr and subject himself to incessant criticism of dressing normally.

Average young men—in the male of the species, interest in fashion dies at middle age—have become so overwhelmed by images of the flamboyant that they find their own clothing shamefully deficient. The solution? To look acceptable, dress exactly as the Internet tells you.

One of the greatest culprits is the fetishization of what the online world calls "individual style": the purposeful unbuckling of monkstrap shoes, mismatched cufflinks, button-down shirts with only one collar point fastened and, perhaps most absurd, the unbuttoning of jacket cuff buttons (a practice intended only for showing off one's functioning cuff buttons). These idiosyncrasies are so wildly circulated that they've become standard issue: No cuff button is left fastened, no monkstrap is buckled. Individuality has become a uniform.

Marcello Mastroianni didn't crib his style from fashion magazines.

The second force behind the flattening of men's style is the notion of "style rules." Magazines command that a man's shirt cuff must not extend more than a quarter-inch from his jacket, so I regularly see New Yorkers on crowded trains reach into the sweaty armpits of their blazers to pull their sleeves back—never mind that every James Bond from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig managed not to fret over an inch or more of visible shirt cuff. Men are told to cuff their selvedge jeans to show off the hemmed internal fabric, as though, like some freemason clan, having the right jeans will get you into a secret men's club.

There are so many photos of men saddling one arm of their sunglasses over the breast pocket of their blazers that Ray-Bans seem as common an ornament as pocket squares.

And perhaps the most laughable of these style rules is the notion that men must match the color of their belts to that of their shoes to Pantone precision. Men seem to equate going out without matching belt and shoes to leaving the house without underwear.

The hunger for belt-matching and the pandemic of cuff-unbuttoning has not only left every man in New York City looking like a salesperson at J. Crew, but it has also prevented men from knowing or learning what they actually want. The "well-dressed" urban man does not have desires or tastes. He rolls up his jeans without knowing why. He does not belong to a club, and yet he wears club ties with fake crests.

Forgoing fashion is a prerequisite for elegance. Marcello Mastroianni chose the cloth for his suits because he liked it, not because he read in Mr. Porter's Journal that Glen Plaid was the pattern of the month. Foppery can thrive alongside subtlety. As Beau Brummell, the first dandy, once said: "If people turn to look at you on the street, you are not well dressed, but either too stiff, too tight, or too fashionable."

The current #menswear disease is perhaps best summarized by the abundance of men wearing wing tips and other dress shoes with no socks. For two years I have seen magazines rave about the sockless look. Feet cannot bear it, but a stylish man these days never obeys his instincts, nor falters at the threat of blisters.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 … ttop_email
 
Last edited:
I won't lie, I have fallen victim to the near middle-aged urge to dress better, but mine is less about conformity and more about not showing up to weddings in khakis and a polo. Also tired of the only thing I have to wear to a funeral of formal situation is a dress uniform which generally puts far too much attention on me. Though I have seen this become an issue, even in Arkansas. The number of men I see walking around wearing a very nice jacket, v-cut tshirt, jeans (two rolls in the cuffs), and wingtips with no socks is insane. I just don't get it. My general ideas towards fashion over the last 3/4 of my life have been utilitarian, before that, mommy and daddy picked the clothes, I had no choice.
 
Have not looked at a copy of Esquire or GQ in awhile, but the folks on the forae I do watch on wardroom (here, Style Forum and Ask Andy) cringe when the likes of the above are mentioned or shown. But then I a member of the B&B Fogie Club and about to celebrate my 74th birthday! No socks with wingtips, indeed!!! What ever happened to "bella figura"?
 
any notion suggesting that american men have ever (not) looked good is dumb. young mr alexander a. needs to get his nose out of overly new yorky fashion rags and get with the program.

lesson 1. - nyc ≠ usa.
 
The no socks with dress shoes look drives me up a wall. I read Esquire and occasionally I'll peruse GQ. Whenever I see the adverts showing men not wearing socks I grumble. I'm a fan of fashion to some extent but socks should be worn with dress shoes! Even if they have characters on them or are vibrantly colored and don't coordinate at all. Like those from the Happy Socks line.
 
For some reason, I always thought that matching one's belt to shoes was a classic "rule" of general dressing, not a modern one. Does anyone have more insight into this?

Edit: I seem to remember reading, in Alan Flussers "Style and the Man" book that they generally should match. (Could be mistaken, can't find the book right now!) I take his opinion strongly, as he seems to have his good advice.
 
Last edited:
I've always matched a belt with my shoes, and not because I read the rule in a magazine or blog, it just felt right and anything else just looks wrong. One is less likely to make these kind of mistakes if one learns the difference between fashion and style.
 
I think the belt-matching thing isn't about having the same general color, but an EXACT match. A lot of shoe makers will sell belts dyed the same color (and often with similar pattern/brouging) to match a certain model of shoe. While neat, its ver silly to assume that it's required or even better to match.
 
If it weren't for the other posters confirming their loathing for the "sockless look" I would never have believed for a second that it actually existed.

I also find the notion of unbuckled monkstraps and intentionally half-buttoned-down collars so ludicrous as to almost defy imagining -- surely there aren't morons actually doing this on the streets, are there?
 
Generally the takeaway from this article should be to look at the concepts, and don't get hung up on the specifics. If you need a "formula" then you don't understand the underlying concept. If you like to match your belt and shoes, by all means do so. If you don't, don't. It's not any sort of "rule".

Anyway, just a little something to think about if anyone wants to delve a little deeper into the esoteric discussion of clothes.
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
Interesting article, but I think it oversimplifies, and misses the difference between the fashion mags (and fashion blogs) on the one side, and online-forum-dominated internet-based "groupthink" about what makes proper dress ... the "i-gent" movement, if you will.

The Fashion Industry makes money by selling us new outfits twice a year, every year. Fashion magasines make money by having new content every month. Neither of them can do much of this if we stick with the tried-and-true classics that look good ... they exist to steer us toward newness.

When I saw the title "tyranny of menswear fora" ... I thought not of GQ and The Sartorialist (to my mind, now useful for little other than the occasional photos of hot chicks) but of online chat forums like Styleforum, Ask Andy, Fedora Lounge ... heck, this spot right here, if we're big enough to "matter" (probably not). Those places tend toward a disdain for the constantly-shifting goalposts of the Fashion Industry/Magasines/Blogs and look toward something more long-lasting ... but have their own pet projects, pet peeves, personal "style icon heroes and villains", and favourite manufacturers and artisans (many of whom never get a mention in GQ.) Those forums (or "forae", I guess, if one wants to go all latin-scholar-y on us) have their own internal dynamics which develop style "rules" of their own ... often times these are oversimplifications and exaggerations of longstanding "rules" from the past, and sometimes it's more new and internet-related.

That would have been a more interesting article, compared to "GQ has a lot of silly fashion advice in it".

For some reason, I always thought that matching one's belt to shoes was a classic "rule" of general dressing, not a modern one. Does anyone have more insight into this?

Edit: I seem to remember reading, in Alan Flussers "Style and the Man" book that they generally should match. (Could be mistaken, can't find the book right now!) I take his opinion strongly, as he seems to have his good advice.

IMHO, the "rule" applies only so far as to say "don't wear a black leather belt with brown leather shoes, or vice versa". With browns, as long as it's in the general neighbourhood of similar colour/tone/darkness, you are fine, so avoid a very light tan and a dark chocolate brown.
 

musicman1951

three-tu-tu, three-tu-tu
proxy.php
I guess I'm showing my age, but I've grown tired of models who look like they're in their little brother's cloths.
 
Avoid trends. That's where the trouble starts. Also, dress to your station in life. I'm not saying start dressing like grandpa when you're 40, but please don't wear American Eagle or Hollister either. And wear clothes that fit, i.e. try things on and/ or find a great tailor. And spend money on shoes. Nice ones. Several pair. And yes, match leathers. For the guys 40+, google pictures of George Clooney, Pierce Brosnan or Tom Selleck. What do you see? Simple, well-fitting quality clothing that accentuates the men in the clothing. Clothing should not wear you. Boy, can I ramble. And exfoliate, use sunscreen and a retinol-based night cream. Yes, guys, you!
 
If it weren't for the other posters confirming their loathing for the "sockless look" I would never have believed for a second that it actually existed.

I also find the notion of unbuckled monkstraps and intentionally half-buttoned-down collars so ludicrous as to almost defy imagining -- surely there aren't morons actually doing this on the streets, are there?


Ha... Yeah.... If I actually saw that, I'd judge the wearer. I've never seen it, but I absolutely believed it to be done when I read it.
 
Top Bottom