All that fashion means to me is usually a few pages in the paper (or even a whole section) that I can skip, in the same way that I can safely ignore articles on food, wine, holidays and 'lifestyle' generally. Looking at that list I wonder if I read the wrong paper… on Saturdays I spend more time sorting out sections to throw away than I do reading the few bits left behind.

Despite all that, a couple of fashion-related articles in G2 caught my eye this week.

Cycling Fashion 

Today there was a double-page spread about fashion in cycling which reminded me of why I find fashion articles so vacuous and vapid. As an example, how about this:

Popular wisdom may rule out stilettos and other apparently silly heels on grounds of practicality, but I propose an alternative theory. The bigger the heel, the more practical the shoe. Since I got a pair of 5in wedges, those wobbly moments where you stop at traffic lights but can't reach the kerb with your foot are no more. I can pull up and plonk down my own portable shoe platform.

Here's a couple of tips for Paula Cocozza:

1. Bikes come in different sizes.
2. You know those six-sided bits of metal? If you turn them the right way you can adjust the height of saddles and handlebars.

These two things, individually or on their own, would enable you to reach the ground without needing to wear impractical and unsafe footwear.

Manbags

This was an article supposedly about handbags for men and whether they are practical or just camp. Actually I found this a bit interesting as it was discussing where fashion meets sociology.

I have been carrying a bag for ages because I carry too much stuff to fit in my pockets. At the very least there is often a newspaper or magazine and a book, sometimes a packed lunch or anything I have bought while out, glasses, camera, mobile phone, keys, etc.  When I cycled to work I also used to carry a shirt and tie to change into.

I used to carry all this junk in a backpack, but for the last few years I have been using a freebie bag I got on a town planning summer school. I prefer something with a shoulder strap as it leaves both hands free for the amount of barging necessary on public transport in London if you actually want to get anywhere.

I never really thought about the bag, but if I had I would have called it a satchel. I didn't think it was naff or un-masculine: just practical. Its also ideal for hand luggage when flying – just big enough to carry some reading material and essential supplies, with the front pocket great for passports and tickets.

However, it seems like some men feel they would be emasculated by carrying a bag.  Maybe they have lots of pockets, or do not need to carry so much stuff.  I can offer a little tip for them too. If they want to have all the advantages of not a 'manbag' without feeling emasculated, why not get all your belongings and put them in one of these:

Problem solved. Don't laugh. If one bloke gets on the train with his suit and tie and testosterone-red toolboxto carry his Daily Mail by the next week half the train will have swapped their Gucci and Vuitton for de Walt and Black & Decker. Its called fashion.

What I really don't understand about bags is why a lot of women feel the need to carry three small ones, one of which is always one of those heavy-duty paper bags from a posh shop to hold their mobile phone and a paperback. Wouldn't one larger bag be a lot more sensible? Or wouldn't that take up enough space on the seat next to them? 

Forza Italia

Not in the papers. I was watching the Italy/Ukraine game this evening. 

Is the Italian kit for the World Cup terrible or a work of genius for being designed with darker patches under the arm?  Even at the kick-off the whole team look as if they have been sweating for hours.