I just accidentally came across an article on why Menswear thinks it’s really unfair that people only talk about womenswear, and it was such a good LOL I had to write a response. 🙂

Look at the primary highlight picture. Those are guys in plaid suits. I think those things have been around for at least a century. They’re not even of an original cut and style! Who wants to talk about generic fashion that’s been around for more than a century?

Wait, I apologize. There’s a guy in some flowery suit who is out of focus. Obviously, they don’t even have taste for innovation if they’re focusing on the drones in the picture. But Don Cherry and his suits and outdo this guy any time. Besides, that blurry guy’s flower suit was neither that practical nor original. Seems someone just wanted to get a suit done in a fabric not often used to make suits. In both cases, if that’s your sense of taste, who would want to talk about it?

There’s a graph about how menswear have outgrown womenwear by 0.2% over the past 10 years. Definitely not statistically significant, or compensating for margin of error in measuring, to be claiming “outgrown”. I suppose matching womenswear growth in percentage is a notable accomplishment, but the next graph spoils the data manipulation. It’s about the “base”, or from where you started. To exaggerate so the point can be clearer, let’s say menswear sale was worth $1 ten years ago. The lack of originality I see out there, I’d bet some men swear that’s all it’s worth. That aside, 50% growth means it only has to be worth $1.50 today. If you had started with $1 billion as a base, you’d need to get to $150 billion today for the same growth. The relative size of the two industries, $460 billion for menswear and $700 billion for womenswear, illustrates my point. It’s only a percentage growth that menswear is able to match womenswear. In absolute dollar values, not even close!

Don’t forget men still have more of the money than women. 🙂

Then came the “original” menswear picture display to show there’s some originality in it. Oh, God!

I’m sorry, but I don’t have any non-derogatory adjectives I can use to describe it. It’s womenswear put on men and it looks (choose your own derogatory adjective here). Originality? That’s not originality. That’s not even borrowing. That’s just clothes swapping, aside from the occasional tweak like putting buttons on the right like traditional menswear that keeps it from being classified just simply as crossdressing.

Is that the only way menswear have to try and divert attention from womenswear, but putting womenswear on men?

That’s pathetic. At least do some of the stuff I do. Dress shirts worn outside, with non-pointy collars, some asymmetric, yokes and pictures on them, practically shaped pockets, symbolic designs, etc.  that is practical to wear in many common real life situations like work, play, social gatherings of varying degrees of formality. None of it is purely original, no. Fashion is rarely that, any more.  It may not be everybody’s style, but it’s not grotesque to the general public, and they recognize right away I am not wearing general menswear. But at least it’s not the same old cut suit, maybe just fitted tighter or looser, in same old fabrics, etc. That is, looking at, the untrained eye can’t tell it’s anything different than what men’s been wearing for the past half a century or more.

So until menswear can do better than that, shut up with the boyish jealousy! Look at womenswear, learn from it, and do something about it to earn the talk!