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

41–50 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#41

Post by titannet »

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.

I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits). The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#42

Post by AlecSchueler »

titannet wrote: post #41
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.

I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits). The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.

I'd only suggest speaking to the women in your life about it. Every one I know closely enough expresses that they'd rather have clothes with pockets but there's simply nothing in the shop. They'd happily do without the status that having no pockets apparently gives them.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#43

Post by quietbritishjim »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #37
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?

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 th…

You haven't answered the parent comment's request for your country, which is very relevant as things differ a lot.

Here in the UK (which is what the article is about), it is illegal for either (/any) gender to expose their genitals in public [1] - that is called "indecent exposure". Breasts are not genitals and it is not illegal to show them.

Admittedly, it would be very unusual to see a topless woman walking down a UK high street. But it is not that unusual to see one sunbathing on a beach. Probably the main factor restricting that is the attention she would get from people who do not object.

Breastfeeding in public is not only allowed but legally protected.

[1] That includes if you are on private land but have a reasonable expectation that you could be seen from a public location. I recall a court case a few years ago where someone was regularly nude in their kitchen but could clearly be seen from a public footpath. The court decided that it still counted as indecent exposure.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Rational Dress Society

#45

Post by mcv »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #39
mcv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not they're less practical depends entirely on the type of skirt, the type of pants you compare it to, and the circumstances you're wearing them. When it's hot, skirts are generally more practical, simply because you don't have any fabric crunched up between your legs. Many desert cultures know the value of robes for men.

In any case, I'm a big proponent of all types of clothes being available for everybody. Wear what you want.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#46

Post by mcv »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #40
Freak_NL wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. Too often people keep clothes that are needlessly crippled or otherwise don't really meet their requirements because at least they fit. It's often hard enough to find something that fits, that we just accept other needless limitations. But if enough people do it, we can demand better. But for that, it has to become common, and not merely possible.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#47

Post by pjc50 »

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.

At the same time, various US states have introduced "anti-drag" laws to enforce gendered clothing. Intended to be used against gay men and trans women, just like the conditions that led to the Stonewall riot.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#48

Post by bombolo »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #42
titannet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits). The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.

I'd only suggest speaking to the women in your life about it. Every one I know closely enough expresses that they'd rather have clothes with pockets but there's simply nothing in the shop. They'd happily do without the status that having no pockets apparently gives them.

They could just buy men's clothes?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#49

Post by hackernewds »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #42
titannet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits). The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.

I'd only suggest speaking to the women in your life about it. Every one I know closely enough expresses that they'd rather have clothes with pockets but there's simply nothing in the shop. They'd happily do without the status that having no pockets apparently gives them.

It's a free market. Why do clothing companies not produce them then. If there's enough people wanting them, surely a company would manufacture clothes with pockets and grow to be as large as Untuckit

Re: Rational Dress Society

#50

Post by bprieto »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #42
titannet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits). The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.

I'd only suggest speaking to the women in your life about it. Every one I know closely enough expresses that they'd rather have clothes with pockets but there's simply nothing in the shop. They'd happily do without the status that having no pockets apparently gives them.

What they say is one thimg, what they buy is another. If women really wanted clothes with big pockets, women clothes would have big pockets. But big pockets, specially when they have some things in, are not esthetically pleasant, and most women value esthetics more than utility.
Post reply on HN