Dickheads (2015)

Let's get rid of ties! I have always hated them and thought they were moronic.

This is one of the first pieces of long form editorial on fashion I have ever enjoyed. Great writing.

> The fly (which is invisible) is a bourgeois innovation, much unlike earlier aristocratic styles, such as the European codpiece, that often drew explicit attention to the genital region. This is the one part of the male body whose contours are entirely effaced. If hiding something is a way of declaring it a form of power, then hiding the male genitals is a way of declaring masculinity itself a form of power

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/After_Ha...

tangential recommendation: if you might enjoy somewhat dark historical fiction & the politics of working with and around the above aristocratic codpiece-wearer, with frequently witty banter, Hilary Mantel's Thomas Cromwell trilogy may be for you: https://www.goodreads.com/series/75450-thomas-cromwell-trilo...

This was a fun and beguiling little read.

I noticed more ideological leaks forming in the article the further I read. Of course Foucault is always the great give away. The trite little attacks on men at the end seal the deal.

> If hiding something is a way of declaring it a form of power, then hiding the male genitals is a way of declaring masculinity itself a form of power.

This really was the high of the article for me. Exactly what combination would be needed for the author to declare that male clothing is neutral on masculine power?

Genitals exposed -> Aggressive declaration of masculine power. Genitals hidden -> Passive aggressive declaration of masculine power.

I'm going to guess that genitals hinted-at-but-in-a-careful-balanced-way is going to be calculatedly aggressive declaration of male power. The author makes some excellent points about status and clothing, but the throwaway lines on the patriarchy are wonderfully monomaniacal.