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

61–70 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#61

Post by Accacin »

n4r9 wrote: post #38
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?

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.

Completely true. However, my experience at working for companies that required "smart casual" was that men were required to wear shirt and smart trousers everyday of the year (including summer with no aircon in the office) and women where allowed to wear pretty much anything they wanted.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#62

Post by [deleted] »

bprieto wrote: post #50
AlecSchueler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Rational Dress Society

#63

Post by willvarfar »

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 article has a Controversy section:

> The CBSE in December 2016 issued a circular to all 19,000 affiliated schools under it asking that a section 'Caste Conflict and Dress Change' – a chapter that included the Channar revolt – be omitted from the curriculum with effect from 2017

which links to https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/after-long-delayed-tri...

Why was it banned, and how did it turn out?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#64

Post by toyg »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #52
hackernewds wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, just like how the free market gives me the choice of having a matte screen on my laptop!

Honestly, the fashion industry is nothing like computer manufacturing. Costs are very low and most firms have ways to scattergun all sorts of combinations at various ends of the market. Which is why it's interesting that people complain about "no pockets" - that's because there is nothing of the sorts in the shops they patronize, which is likely a very small section of a huge market, selected according to some (typically class-related) criteria. If they were willing to step outside the boundaries of their self-imposed class-sanctioned bubble, I bet they'd find plenty of pockets.

Another point: traditional dressing in many cultures put large pockets on female clothes more than on male ones. The transition to pocket-scarcity on fashion clothes is recent, and probably driven by women rejecting traditional roles. Women voted with their wallets once, they can do it again.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#65

Post by toyg »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #54
bombolo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could just buy men's clothes?

They can and often do, but there are other issues then such a tailoring and colouring etc., again it's getting back to the social pressure to look a certain feminine way. I'd also add that while workarounds are available these things add up to an increased cognitive load for women doing normal everyday activities such as shopping for shirts.

I honestly think these issues are overblown. The fashion industry is largely led by female input and consuming habits, what it sells is what large majorities of women want. If some elements win over others, it's because the disaffected are a disorganized minority that doesn't necessarily practices what it preaches.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#66

Post by eimrine »

hutzlibu wrote: post #58
hoseja wrote: post #13

A well-made corset is a snug, comfortable, supportive garment that doesn't impede movement.

" that doesn't impede movement" Could you comfortably do sports with it, or play with children? That's my definition of "doesn't impede movement".

I propose to look at it as at sports inventory. Climbing shoes impede movements in 99% of situation and unleash possibilities in remaining 1%. A corset tights breathing so wearer probably can not run Marathon in it but it increases a joy from sex to both parties. Maybe it is harmful to wear this thing every day but I hope our culture will never forget this and high-heels and all kinds of crazy stuff which women use to do to themselves for the sake of shaping of their body towards so-called attractiveness.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#67

Post by PeterisP »

hackernewds wrote: post #49
AlecSchueler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Clothing companies do produce them every now and then, but they systematically don't sell well, as similar clothing without proper pockets looks tighter, slimmer, and gets preferred by the majority of shoppers.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#68

Post by globular-toast »

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.

Comments like this are so weird. It's like you put women on the same level as children or animals. Like they just get what they're given and have to put up with it.

Women are free to choose their own clothes. They are free to make their own clothes or start their own clothing companies. If they really wanted clothes with pockets then they would get them. But they don't.

I think it's a bit silly that I can't just urinate in a bush in a public park or something when I need to go. Why do I need to seek out a toilet? Everyone urinates. It's natural. But I'm not going to start urinating in public. It's just not compatible with society. That's why most women choose not to breast feed in public too.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#69

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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…

What's strange to me is that you don't know any women who fit the norm of wanting clothes that don't gape and/or show unexpected forms due to pockets. Men's suits have sewn up pockets too for the same reason.

Aren't most clothing buyers for and designers for high-street shops women? Yet this is always presented as some sort of conspiracy against women.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#70

Post by dsfyu404ed »

PeterisP wrote: post #67
hackernewds wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Clothing companies do produce them every now and then, but they systematically don't sell well, as similar clothing without proper pockets looks tighter, slimmer, and gets preferred by the majority of shoppers.

This.

Classic case of people saying they want something and then making purchasing decisions based on priorities.

Post reply on HN