Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rational Dress Society

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#31

Post by quonn »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #21

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get. The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.

Which country do you live in?

Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited?

I have no idea what you refer to.

What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#32

Post by [deleted] »

quonn wrote: post #31
AlecSchueler wrote: post #21

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get. The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.

Which country do you live in? Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited? I have no idea what you refer to. What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?

[deleted]

Re: Rational Dress Society

#33

Post by mcv »

quonn wrote: post #31
AlecSchueler wrote: post #21

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get. The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.

Which country do you live in? Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited? I have no idea what you refer to. What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?

It's not a legal issue but a weird fashion issue that women's clothes sometimes have fake pockets. Or no pockets at all, but fake pockets are truly the weirdest aberration of them all.

I think it needs to become normal for women to return clothes because "the pockets don't work". I'm pretty sure that soon enough women's clothes will have normal pockets.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#34

Post by mcv »

makeitdouble wrote: post #27
frogulis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> number of pockets they can get Does this come under the "legally" or "socially"?

In weird ways, it can be in the "legally" camp... There will be offices where the uniform or dress code is mandated by law, and the number of pockets will be whatever the uniform designer decided it would be. It's not specific to women per se, but there will probably be some differences in the design of both uniforms. Basically that would be the social norms getting burned into legal requirements, until the uniforms…

Uniforms can also be limiting to men. There have been cases during hot summers where uniformed men wanted to wear shorts, but shorts weren't part of the uniform. Women did have the option to choose between trousers and skirts, though, so men started to wear skirts too. Because those were part of the uniform and therefore allowed.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#35

Post by [deleted] »

nsajko wrote: post #24
canistel wrote: post #18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channar_revolt In Kerala, Southern India, which had the wierdest system of caste and associated rules of segregation, women had start with the struggle to clothe their upper body.

The opposite of "free the nipple"!

[deleted]

Re: Rational Dress Society

#36

Post by Freak_NL »

mcv wrote: post #33
quonn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which country do you live in? Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited? I have no idea what you refer to. What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?

It's not a legal issue but a weird fashion issue that women's clothes sometimes have fake pockets. Or no pockets at all, but fake pockets are truly the weirdest aberration of them all. I think it needs to become normal for women to return clothes because "the pockets don't work". I'm pretty sure that soon enough women's clothes will have normal pockets.

You can already return (confection) clothes for a full refund for any reason within a certain time frame (two weeks is common); even just 'I don't like it'.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#37

Post by AlecSchueler »

quonn wrote: post #31
AlecSchueler wrote: post #21

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get. The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.

Which country do you live in? Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited? I have no idea what you refer to. What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?

Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not. Where I am you can also control women more in the workplace by mandating impractical shoes like heels.

Pockets, you'd be surprised! Quite often women's blouses, blazers and trousers will have "false pockets" which are just a seam made to look like a pocket, whereas the men's version has actual deep pockets.

Makeup and the social expectations around that is also another discussion.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#38

Post by n4r9 »

quonn wrote: post #31
AlecSchueler wrote: post #21

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get. The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.

Which country do you live in? Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited? I have no idea what you refer to. What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?

Here in the UK, school are only recently obliged to allow gender neutral clothings, and it's still legal for workplaces to require women to wear high heels.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#39

Post by AlecSchueler »

mcv wrote: post #34
makeitdouble wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In weird ways, it can be in the "legally" camp... There will be offices where the uniform or dress code is mandated by law, and the number of pockets will be whatever the uniform designer decided it would be. It's not specific to women per se, but there will probably be some differences in the design of both uniforms. Basically that would be the social norms getting burned into legal requirements, until the uniforms…

Uniforms can also be limiting to men. There have been cases during hot summers where uniformed men wanted to wear shorts, but shorts weren't part of the uniform. Women did have the option to choose between trousers and skirts, though, so men started to wear skirts too. Because those were part of the uniform and therefore allowed.

The also limiting to men thing is a fair point and worth remembering but it's good to keep in mind that both men and women are here being limited by patriarchal social norms. Skirts are seen as less practical and preferable for aesthetics, which makes them feminine and therefore off limits for men who are pressured to be strong and practical.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#40

Post by AlecSchueler »

Freak_NL wrote: post #36
mcv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a legal issue but a weird fashion issue that women's clothes sometimes have fake pockets. Or no pockets at all, but fake pockets are truly the weirdest aberration of them all. I think it needs to become normal for women to return clothes because "the pockets don't work". I'm pretty sure that soon enough women's clothes will have normal pockets.

You can already return (confection) clothes for a full refund for any reason within a certain time frame (two weeks is common); even just 'I don't like it'.

Don't think they were saying it needs to become possible, only it should become more of a social expectation that these intentonally impractical clothes are rejected and better demanded from the manufacturers.

It's so weird when all the women I know have "favourite" articles of clothing that are purely the only version of a particlar garment they could find that had pockets.

It's not only pockets too it's also often things like the quality of the seam etc.

Post reply on HN