Thing is: I think she started this because she was getting too old to model women's wear. So that adds a layer of complexity on to this.
I don't fancy spending the next month trying to get librarian out of the carpet.
Spike ,'Chosen'
Natter 72: We Were Unprepared for This
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
le nubian - Nov 18, 2013 4:51:28 pm PST #12372 of 30000
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."
§ ita § - Nov 18, 2013 4:55:15 pm PST #12373 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Which I think is perfectly fine! Why shouldn't she be able to model menswear? The importance of gender to some people doesn't have to extend to or apply in the same way to other people, and she isn't saying or doing anything about anyone else's life, is she?
I remember some criticism of one of the male models that was modeling womenswear, but clearly I have no idea if the same people object. I don't think it was the same reason at the most specific level, but there was a degree of "don't make light of the gender binary, this is life or death to some people" which I think is encroaching on their lack of gender giving a big enough fuck.
Jesse - Nov 18, 2013 5:01:04 pm PST #12374 of 30000
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
It really annoys me that she refers to herself and other people refer to her as a "male model." She is a woman modelling menswear.
§ ita § - Nov 18, 2013 5:08:12 pm PST #12375 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I don't think modelling menswear is sufficient, but male model is incorrect. Which is why my initial post was so awkward with the masculinely in it--she's not modelling menswear for women's bodies, she's modelling it for men. Just not as a man.
Jesse - Nov 18, 2013 5:21:33 pm PST #12376 of 30000
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I think menswear model is sufficient, myself.
§ ita § - Nov 18, 2013 5:34:16 pm PST #12377 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think menswear model is sufficient, myself.
I subscribe entirely to feminine menswear, and I think the difference is material. Her market is your boyfriend, not you.
eta: and there have been plenty of women wearing menswear before whose audience was you
Amy - Nov 18, 2013 5:44:02 pm PST #12378 of 30000
Because books.
Speaking of menswear, I want a pair of black penny loafers with more than a trace of heel that are more men's style than women's, and wow, are they hard to find.
§ ita § - Nov 18, 2013 5:54:36 pm PST #12379 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I am so convinced I can see Mrs Florrick's fake hair now...I can't even see Beyonce's weave.
-t - Nov 18, 2013 5:55:45 pm PST #12380 of 30000
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Amy: [link]
Jesse - Nov 18, 2013 5:58:14 pm PST #12381 of 30000
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I subscribe entirely to feminine menswear, and I think the difference is material. Her market is your boyfriend, not you.
Not in Fashion, though. There's no such thing as a woman wearing a men's suit marketed to women. Karlie Kloss in a pantsuit is wearing a very different pantsuit. Anyway, she's obviously modeling in the men's section, but is just as obviously not male.