The struggle for the manbag is over. At the root of the struggle was a fundamental question about the nature of bags and what it means to be a man. How does one man acquire a bag and still lay claim to his masculinity? Does he drop down $200+ for an accessory that has been labeled women’s territory for the greater portion of his life? NO! Spending that much money for a bag means that you don’t know what true value is and you’re probably fiscally irresponsible as a man, no matter how much you make. As a woman, it means you’re stylish. But still, for me, it got to a point where I didn’t want a manbag but needed one. That point was when I had to hold my camera the whole day (annoying). All my pockets were filled. Keys, phone, wallet, ipod, headphones, pocket square. There was absolutely no room.

So how’d I get one without compromising myself? Easy, it was waiting for me at home. I saw it on the floor wrapped in plastic with Paris Hilton on the tag. I asked my mom if I could have it, she said sure. Where’d she get it? It came with this perfume set that she probably bought at Macy’s. Do I mind that the bag is part of Paris Hilton’s “Heir” line? No! In a time when manbags are still questionable, there’s not a big distinction between the design of a manbag and the design of a woman’s bag. For the most part, they’re all designed to look good on girls. Some of them just happen to look acceptable on men.

So I came up with some of the following formulas for keeping your manhood in check…

Desire for a manbag + a $200 Hermes carry-all = NOT (man)HOOD

Necessity of a manbag + fear of being a girl + Nike Duffel Bag = Misguided but still decidedly ‘HOOD

Necessity of a manbag + knowledge of true value + free stylish ambiguously unisex Paris Hilton purse =

SO ‘HOOD!!!

NOTE: None of this ideology applies to vacation luggage.

Browse Timeline

• « viv&ingrid
• » THE QUEUE

Comments ( 3 )

Add a Comment