Monday, February 23, 2015

Major Rhetorical Argument for 1960s Fashion for Men and Boys

A common misconception in our communities has been that men's clothes are identical-looking so therefore their fashion never changed. The article points that argument to be valid, but only to a certain extent. If one is attentive enough, men styles in men's fashion have drastically changed over the years. The Author, Paul Phillips, draws attention to men's pants who have always had the relaxed loose fit style that changed in 1964 to be sport-like and tighter around the waist. Many other modifications, such as the peacoat, point to men's fashion becoming more "effeminate". Phillips claims that all the restyles we have seen all root to the fashion of the Beatles, or anything from London. The evolution is unseen in our eyes however, seeing a man wearing a silk scarf in the 1960s was extremely feminine.
As stated previously, the stereotype of the unvarying mens fashion may point to the the lack of care toward looks. It is then arguable that the 1960s not only feminized mens fashion but changed men in their essence to be more concerned of their outward appearance. A possible sexism remark is available concerning superficiality and feminine roles, however that is left for the reader to discern. On the other hand, the blog hopes for the connections between this article and the "why modest men get the brush-off women" to be noticed for men's desire for success  rather than men's feminine appearance. The second article argues that men tend to be more "noticed" if arrogant or egotistic however, I am trying to note that men may approach this attention seeking using their outward show rather than a frowned upon attitude.

-Sameh Boulos
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. UnknownFebruary 23, 2015 at 6:42 PM

    1) A few minor typos ("perviously," "modification(s)," etc.
    2) Thank you for linking to the definition of effeminate! Super helpful.
    3) Nice linking the word "article" to the article itself, but I think it would also be helpful to include the title and author of the article.
    4) Could state your thesis a little more clearly. Otherwise nice job

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rhetorical AnalysisFebruary 23, 2015 at 7:57 PM

    The point the author is trying to make is that men's clothing has changed over time, even though many would disagree. You did a good job answering most of the questions that Rhetorical Situation should answer, like the people involved (men and their fashion choices in the 60s) and the audience this article is for (men, but also perhaps to women who have this viewpoint the author is trying to refute). The exigence could have been stated more clearly though. Why is the author compelled to speak out when he does? Clearly he disagrees that men's fashion has not changed, but why is he writing the article when he does/doesn't and what happens once he does? I do like how you said there is a possible sexism remark that the audience gets to discern, maybe you could state what the remark is. Overall you did a fantastic job linking to many different things which makes reading this post more interesting.
    -Priyal Patel

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)