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

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#101

Post by quietbritishjim »

NeoTar wrote: post #86
quietbritishjim wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That's not correct in England and Wales law (UK law varies between the nations). The current law (as amended in 2003) says: A person commits an offence if— he intentionally exposes his gen…

Oh, very interesting, I didn't realise intent was part of it. There's even advice from the CPS (linked from that Wikipedia page) about what to do about someone claiming to just be generally a naturist [1]

[1] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance...

It includes this:

> Nudity in public alone with no aggravating features is very unlikely to amount to [public nuisance] (or any other) offence.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#102

Post by gardenhedge »

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.

This is exactly correct. Maybe 30 years ago it would have been difficult to get pockets on clothes because the shops in your locality didn't sell them.. but now we have this wonderful thing called the Internet.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#103

Post by mcv »

andrepd wrote: post #87
realjhol wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cultural norms are diffuse and propagate on their own. It's silly to try to attribute it to John or Bob or Jill.

Of course they don't propagate on their own, they propagate through people. Some people prefer them for aesthetics, but others don't. Some people pressure men to be strong, others don't. It's useful to be aware of these subtle influences on our thinking and our behaviour, and use that awareness to make more conscious decisions about who we listen to, and why.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#104

Post by globular-toast »

NeoTar wrote: post #81
sebzim4500 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Have you tried to buy women's clothes which have pockets? My understanding is that they are not common, and if present are so small as to not be useful.

Women's jeans always have pockets. It's easy to find jackets and coats with pockets. Real working pockets.

They just often choose the clothing without pockets. Women's clothing is way more varied than men's. All men wear the same stuff and that stuff always has pockets. We don't have pockets on our shirts or jumpers. Just our trousers and jackets/coats. Exactly the same as women. But women wear other stuff that intentionally has no pockets. Tight leggings, for example. The whole point is they are tight and have no pockets. Tight dresses. Again, the whole point is it's tight and has no pockets.

Also, find me a woman who leaves the house with only wallets, keys and phone. They'll always need to carry a bag so what's the point of having pockets?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#105

Post by kevviiinn »

frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

I have similar issues. Thick thighs and meaty butt, I had some nice looking pants that used to allow me full range of movement that I had used for a while but a few weeks ago I tore a pair when squatting down. I'm now currently resigned to joggers for the time being. It feels like there are no decent pants out there for men who lift

Re: Rational Dress Society

#106

Post by cubefox »

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 the opposite is true. For example, formal outfits for men are restricted to suits, while for women a much wider range of outfits and colors is acceptable. You can see this on group photos of politicians.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#107

Post by cubefox »

globular-toast wrote: post #104
NeoTar wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried to buy women's clothes which have pockets? My understanding is that they are not common, and if present are so small as to not be useful.

Women's jeans always have pockets. It's easy to find jackets and coats with pockets. Real working pockets. They just often choose the clothing without pockets. Women's clothing is way more varied than men's. All men wear the same stuff and that stuff always has pockets. We don't have pockets on our shirts or jumpers. Just our trousers and jackets/coats. Exactly the same as women. But women wear other stuff that inten…

Exactly. Women like tight fitting pants, which do have less or no space for pockets. There absolutely do exist pants with larger pockets for women, in fact women tend to have more options than men, it's just a revealed preference. It has nothing to to with society "forcing" them to wear things they don't want to wear, any more than society "forces" men to dress in a certain way.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#108

Post by PebblesRox »

realjhol wrote: post #94
andrepd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cultural norms are diffuse and propagate on their own. It's silly to try to attribute it to John or Bob or Jill.

OK so there's nothing to fix, then. It is cultural norms- of women. Making choices. In the real world. It's simply women's revealed preference.

And when the revealed preference of a group clashes with the personal preferences of individuals within that group, it can be annoying and frustrating for those individuals.

And maybe they'll try some vocal complaining to try to shift the preferences of the group. Which could work out, especially if a lot of group members don't have strong preferences and are just going along with the existing default.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#109

Post by dalbasal »

frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

Speak for us!

Re: Rational Dress Society

#110

Post by NikolaNovak »

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.

Not the OP, and not sure I should wade into this, but I speak to my wife and sister, not to mention to my best friend, all the time about this.

If I push, they'll agree that yeah pockets are nice. But for whatever reason that's beyond my nerdy understanding (and I've been on this for 25 years:), it's just not even remotely a priority. Societal upbringing I'm sure, but whether it's that pockets are not aesthetically pleasing, or they're not feminine, or simply (my assumption) they were brought up without pockets so they don't care about pockets, I don't know. Pockets are available to them. Not in every store, but today, in sufficient number of stores. If it were a concerted preference, a capitalistic market change would be under way. But it's one of those "spoken preference vs acted preference" things. I am tall and slim so already have to shop from the internet to get a fleece that fits, you can bet I'd turn over hell and earth to get me some pockets. This does not appear to be the same level of priority for those people of feminine persuasion in my life. My 100 Croatian Lipa, FWIW, sample size n<50, etc :)

Post reply on HN