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

151–160 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#151

Post by flappyeagle »

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…

You’ll be happy to know that we are entering a ten-year cycle of loosefitting pants. Tight fitting slim cut pants are on their way out trend wise.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#152

Post by flappyeagle »

oh_sigh wrote: post #140
cubefox wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure they can wear aloha shirts but that’s it.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#153

Post by PeterisP »

Mezzie wrote: post #123
PeterisP wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would caveat: The majority of shoppers who buy clothing regularly and are into fashion. Which it makes sense for fashion companies to prioritize. Practical women who make pockets a priority also don't replace clothes just because they're out of style, take fewer chances on new things, and buy less.

True, and of course if someone buys 3x more clothing, then their opinion literally matters 3x more to the manufacturers.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#154

Post by flappyeagle »

chlodwig wrote: post #126
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…

Have you tried the J.Crew 1040 Athletic tapered-fit stretch chino pant? It's designed with a bigger thigh for guys who don't skip leg day -- https://www.jcrew.com/m/mens/categories/clothing/pants-and-c...

Slim is on its way out. OP might as well wear something aggressively comfortable and forward looking https://www.jcrew.com/p/mens/categories/clothing/pants-and-c...

Re: Rational Dress Society

#155

Post by AlecSchueler »

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.

You're saying you're totally at ease with how everything in your society operates? And that I'm problematic for wanting things to change that I feel are unjust?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#156

Post by AlecSchueler »

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'…

If you're asking me then honestly yes I find it very weird that these issues are ignired by men. I get you that you're not hearing this brought up by the women around you but are you giving them the vibes that you'd be receptive to this conversation?

You can see it all over this thread, "but there's a free market," "women are just more focused on aesthetics," even angry responses like "how dare you try to change society."

It can be extremely tiring to deal with this kind of denial of your lived experience each time you share it.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#157

Post by avn2109 »

chlodwig wrote: post #126
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…

Have you tried the J.Crew 1040 Athletic tapered-fit stretch chino pant? It's designed with a bigger thigh for guys who don't skip leg day -- https://www.jcrew.com/m/mens/categories/clothing/pants-and-c...

I also have the giant-thighs-and-butt-from-heavy-squats-and-deadlifts situation.

The "Athletic taper" pants from Jcrew and also the similarly named ones from Banana Republic and the Gap are great. Sometimes you can buy one size up and then have the waist taken in by a tailor to get a better thigh fit.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#158

Post by AlecSchueler »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #69
AlecSchueler wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at it this way: there's a societal pressure for women to appear secondary, by presenting as more aesthetic than practical. That's patriarchy and it's enforced both by men and women.

We raise girls in this climate and they develop what's called internalized misogyny. At the same time we chastise men who wear things for pure aesthetics for being weak, unmanly and feminine.

Everyone then reinforces this stuff through design and consumer habits.

Then we come online and argure that it's just an inherent thing about the sexes, or that women actually want to be dressed less practical because they're just aesthetic creatures.

It's not a conspiracy where men are trying to hold women back. I hope I didn't imply that. It's the tide of a strong patriarchal system. Yes, it could change faster if it wasn't benefiting those in power so much, but it's inaccurate to say it's a directed conspiracy (though there is an increase of this with a lot of alt-right YouTube stuff these days).

Re: Rational Dress Society

#159

Post by AlecSchueler »

pjc50 wrote: post #47
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.

Yes, that says a lot doesn't it. A man dressing like a woman is seen as inappropriately sexualused to the point that people are afraid of seeing them in public spaces. Yet women are not only allowed but expected to be dressed to be seen in this way, and given little practical alternative.

The anti drag laws are in the service of patriarchy, even though on the surface they're controlling men. Important to note that patriarchy doesn't only control or limit women.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#160

Post by AlecSchueler »

realjhol wrote: post #77
AlecSchueler wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You guys? Who do you mean by that?

I use that language because these things happen on the socio-cultural level and are perpetuated indirectly through norms.

There is much in our society that is implicit.

Post reply on HN