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

71–80 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#71

Post by hutzlibu »

eimrine wrote: post #66
hutzlibu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 t…

Ok, looking through sports lenses, in what instances does it help movement?

In my climbing shoes I cannot run very well, true, but I can climb better.

Maybe certain traditional dances?

But I remain very sceptical to stiff clothing that doesn't "impede movement".

I mean, don't get me wrong. People are free by me to wear whatever they want, if it brings them pleasure - as long as they don't have to wear it, if they don't want to. And sure, not every clothing is made for sports and there are other activities.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#72

Post by pjc50 »

tgv wrote: post #57
ashton314 wrote: post #11

My wife (and most other modern women too probably) would add “pockets on everything” and “more than a single dimension on pant sizes”.

My guess is that this wasn't about clothing, but an careful attempt at a Women's Lib movement, couched in terms that nobody could reasonably oppose.

There's no real boundary between the two; clothing liberation is a subset of, and in some places a precondition for, other types of liberation.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#73

Post by [deleted] »

bprieto wrote: post #56
AlecSchueler wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most women value esthetics more than utility. This is the kind of essentialistic thinking that creates these issues in the first place.

No, yours is the kind of idealistic thinking that creates all kinds of issues when people don't act like you think they should. I just observe the world, you think the world should bend to fit your ideas.

[deleted]

Re: Rational Dress Society

#74

Post by pjc50 »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #5
chris_wot wrote: post #3

Wait till you learn about the Sunday Lecture Society.

Oh god it's too good. IDK if 1860s British culture war sucks harder than 2020s culture war or what. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_One_Christian_Ministries

Some of it is essentially the same, pushed by the same religious groups.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#75

Post by somethingreen »

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.

There absolutely is a pressure on women to look a certain way, but I don't think number of pockets is in that category. I personally can't think of a single time number of pockets on a woman was addressed critically by either a man or another woman. Unless they were wearing one of those fishing vests, I guess. Men fashion often turns on cargo pants at least - I'm not sure if even that is a major thing for women. Don't you think it's weird that there is a supposedly strictly enforced norm and most of society is largely unaware of its existence?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#76

Post by sebzim4500 »

ashton314 wrote: post #11

My wife (and most other modern women too probably) would add “pockets on everything” and “more than a single dimension on pant sizes”.

I've never understood this. If women want clothes that have pockets, why don't they buy clothes that have pockets?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#77

Post by realjhol »

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.

It's so noticeable the way you guys always use the passive voice: "seen as less practical", "preferable for aethetics", "pressured to be strong".

You never actually elucidate who is supposed to be doing these things - it's a Motte and Bailey tactic.

Your argument would fall apart if you were forced to be explicit about the who, the what and the why is supposed to be doing these things.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#78

Post by willvarfar »

somethingreen wrote: post #75
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.

There absolutely is a pressure on women to look a certain way, but I don't think number of pockets is in that category. I personally can't think of a single time number of pockets on a woman was addressed critically by either a man or another woman. Unless they were wearing one of those fishing vests, I guess. Men fashion often turns on cargo pants at least - I'm not sure if even that is a major thing for women. Don'…

I regularly have to carry things for my wife and daughters because the pockets on regular european women clothes are tiny or even missing completely. It seems to be a fashion thing. Very impractical.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#79

Post by newsclues »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #76
ashton314 wrote: post #11

My wife (and most other modern women too probably) would add “pockets on everything” and “more than a single dimension on pant sizes”.

I've never understood this. If women want clothes that have pockets, why don't they buy clothes that have pockets?

Form over function.
Post reply on HN