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

131–140 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#131

Post by theli0nheart »

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…

> Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not.

In the U.S., female toplessness is illegal in only two states (Tennessee and Missouri). In the rest, legal status is either unclear or it's expressly legal.

So as a general statement, this is clearly untrue—it's not illegal everywhere.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_the_United_State...

Re: Rational Dress Society

#132

Post by frodetb »

user_named wrote: post #128
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…

Why do you need suspenders if you've had the pants tailored? What's your bmi?

The tailoring was just for taper and length. The waist I didn't do much with so it's pretty loose. Besides, the pants are simply supposed to be worn with suspenders. I'm not sure as I haven't tried fitted high-rise trousers, but I think it would be hard to keep them in place otherwise.

As for my BMI, I'm 183cm at 85kg, which I understand nudges me just inside of "overweight".

Re: Rational Dress Society

#133

Post by red-iron-pine »

hgsgm wrote: post #120
karmelapple wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now. I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.

> and a rumble seat What?

he dun got a big butt

Re: Rational Dress Society

#134

Post by Godel_unicode »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #117
gardenhedge wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

still fairly difficult to get a decent functional pocket, ask a woman

I have talked with not a few women about this, and it always breaks down around not liking the look of the clothes with the pockets. Largely because of what the pockets do to the silhouette of the clothes.

I invite you to do this experiment; find someone who you think is stylish, note what they’re wearing, then shop for something similar but with pockets. It’ll probably take you ten minutes online.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#135

Post by micromacrofoot »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #134
micromacrofoot wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

still fairly difficult to get a decent functional pocket, ask a woman

I have talked with not a few women about this, and it always breaks down around not liking the look of the clothes with the pockets. Largely because of what the pockets do to the silhouette of the clothes. I invite you to do this experiment; find someone who you think is stylish, note what they’re wearing, then shop for something similar but with pockets. It’ll probably take you ten minutes online.

I've tried buying pants for my partner with phone sized pockets after telling her the same thing and being challenged in response. Even if you're not trying to find something stylish they're difficult to find. You may think you found pockets, but often they're only a couple inches deep. Occasionally they're entirely fake.

If you try to buy men's pants, they're designed for entirely different body shapes regardless of style. They end up too narrow around the hips and if you size up you end up much too large around the waist.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#136

Post by naravara »

hgsgm wrote: post #122
willvarfar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The link currently is this: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/cbse-says-nadar-women-... cbse-says-nadar-women-s-historic-struggle-cover-their-breasts-objectionable-54555 This article says that historical revisionists suceeded in the censorship, much like the states in the USA that removed the history of racism from the curriculum. https://scroll.in/article/917353/ncert-decision-to-remove-ch...

The talk page seems to suggest the controversy is around a "breast tax" section of the article that has since been removed. Evidently there doesn't seem to be any historical record of it happening and most reports are based on repetition of village stories of dubious historical veracity. The editors even complain about the poor state of Indian media and the agenda-driven approaches to discussing history within it.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#137

Post by emptystation »

Mezzie wrote: post #121
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.

I wouldn't say most women do, but a lot of women do. And, more importantly, those are the women dropping the $$ on clothing and therefore what is catered to. I work in a lingerie/bra boutique at the moment and there are a large amount of women who wear the wrong size bra just because the right size shows that they have back fat. Even when the back fat can't be seen under clothing and the right size is more comfortabl…

I am one of those women who would wear an ill fitting bra over a well fitting one if a well fitting one accentuated my back fat. When you're conditioned to look and present themselves a certain way, it's almost impossible to fight it with rational arguments. It's anecdotal, of course, but I've seen a certain degree of conditioning in practically all the women across different cultures, just that the details differ.

Btw, I don't want huge pockets on my pants if they make me look "ugly". I've also recently opted for a handbag over a backpack, even though a backpack is an objectively healthier option for you back (and I am used to wearing backpacks, handbags are so freaking uncomfortable). The reason I switched? Backpacks made me look/feel "childish". That's it. I traded physical comfort and health for, hopefully, psychological comfort and the ability to control my narrative through my looks.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#138

Post by kmstout »

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…

My solution for years is to hit the thrift store and opportunistically grab pants that are in good shape but too big, and then take them for alteration. For a few bucks plus tailoring, I can have something that will fit me better than anything off the rack.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#139

Post by oh_sigh »

globular-toast wrote: post #95
4ggr0 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"free the nipple" could be understood as "let people freely decide what they want to do with their nipples" :)

Are there any societies where individuals decide how to dress rather than broadly following what is acceptable to that society?

Clothing, besides for utilitarian purposes like heat regulation and skin protection, is also about signaling and communicating to others. So I would expect it to be rare to find it divorced from that secondary purpose anywhere.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#140

Post by oh_sigh »

cubefox wrote: post #106
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.

Only in some cultures. For example, in the US, in Hawaii, you will find male politicians wearing more than just suits.
Post reply on HN