Live data from Hacker News

Rational Dress Society

en.wikipedia.org

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#191
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would agree with that, although my experience is mostly limited to America. I grew up in Ukraine and have been living in the Czech Republic for the last 5 years, it's pretty much the same here, there are some slight differences about what is considered beautiful, what grooming practices are expected across different classes, what's trendy etc, but the phenomenon is basically the same. >how that pressure presents a…

> That's interesting, do you care to share any of your observations? You nailed it with regard to Gen Z. I'd say off the top of my head: - Silent Gen women either give zero fucks or have a vague desire to look "presentable". There's not much self body shaming, more grousing about how much work it is to pass 'basic' standards. - Boomer women also usually want to look 'presentable' so most of the displeasure is what sh…

Thank you for sharing, very interesting points! I wonder if Silent Gen and Boomers have had a change in their perception of beauty with age. Once you're out of reproductive age as a woman, beauty works differently for you. There must be some carryover from their younger years (for example, ideas of "properness" and "class" with Boomers seem to have been present throughout their whole lives) but some things must have changed.

I am a millennial myself (29 y.o.), and I felt like my generation was the one that was “awakened” to the reality of beauty standards. Obviously, feminist scholars have observed these patterns way before my time, but during my formative years the awareness entered the mainstream. My mom and her peers don't know what bodyshaming is, even though they both experience and perform it, my peers and I do know, and not because we've read specialized literature but because ideas are out there in the mainstream discourse.

I also know that my ideas and desires for beauty have been “planted” in me by the culture. There is nothing in me as a person that just naturally yearns to be underweight and have perky boobs. These were either instilled in me by the culture, or the culture promised something important in return. Sadly, this realization does not get rid of the desires themselves. I may be acutely aware that some beauty conventions are harmful, outdated, useless, exploitative, or inappropriate (conventions and contexts change!), I just cannot stop wanting them.

Gen Z’s situation is an interesting one. On one hand, they appear to be able to break the curse of desires “planted” in them and are able to connect with themselves as persons first and foremost, at least on some level. Their inner self, not Vogue, tells them to make a breast reduction. On the other hand, this is a rich ground for corporate exploitation. Listen, kid, you don’t need this lipstick for men, you don’t need it for other people at all, you need it for yourself. I, your friendly multi-billion corporation, just help you to articulate and get what you truly want!

>This point reminds me of this [0] article discussing that same idea from a class + race lens.

Thank you for the link. The essay was very interesting. I am not very (or at all) educated in intersectionality, but it was a very accessible and insightful read. I do wish people didn’t have to deal with this crap but we live in a society yada yada.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You guys? Who do you mean by that? Feminists. > I use that language because these things happen on the socio-cultural level and are perpetuated indirectly through norms. Belief in patriarchy is superstitious in nature. The patriarchy is everywhere, and nowhere. Its a global conspiracy. It is composed of powerful men and all men and all people both men and women and no-one all at once. In this way, the patriarchy is…

Feminists aren't an homogeneous group. Can I ask what feminist literature you've read about the nature of patriarchy? Maybe Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez could be good for you. It ties together a lot of different case studies from around the world to explore the unintended harm done to women by male-as-default thinking, from medical practices to urban planning. The book is stuffed with concrete examples.

Ahh yes, I'll run out to my local book seller right now. Except that wouldn't be necessary if your conspiracy theory held up to any scrutiny. The oppression would be unabiguous and deliberate feature of daily life. We would see as a fact in every day life, as for example, in the case of the Yazidis.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#193
Being at the bottom of the slippery slope more than a century later of what women wear out is kind of fun with the parade of "scrunch butt" leggings I've been seeing at the gym lately. I wonder what they'll come up with next. Maybe they'll make them largely transparent? Isn't the march of progress just wonderful?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#194
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've tried it, but there are places that can sell you custom tailored jeans, usually in the form of raw denim that -- because it will do such a great job of conforming to exactly your shape, to the point of 'remembering' your wallet -- are generally built about a half-size too large and shrunk to fit by washing.

> custom tailored jeans, . . . to the point of 'remembering' your wallet I wouldn't expect anything custom tailored to forget my wallet. . . . .

lol, I mean that denim has the particular attribute of forming to exactly your proportions. We've all seen old denim -- its wrinkles are bespoke to the wearer, its scuffs are defined by the work that was done in them.

After enough (read: not that much, actually) usage, you'd be able to look at a pair of jeans and know which pocket their owner kept their things in, whether the things kept were a wallet vs a cell phone, etc., and exactly how they placed the wallet therein.

e.g. https://denimdudes.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Denim_Dudes...

I bring it up largely because denim is basically the most durable thing we can buy, so if you're going to have to get custom clothing, might as well get custom clothing that will last, and not limit ourselves to only looking tailored when we're in our custom formalwear

Re: Rational Dress Society

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Womens clothes at most stores don't seem to come with pockets by default. This isn't just skinny jeans and yoga pants; chinos, straight cut jeans, and nicer slacks also have conspicuously shitty pockets.

I'm sure there do exist pants with good pockets somewhere, but they're very hard to find. I've not come across them in regular clothing/thrift stores. I've found some companies advertising their pockets online, but they aggressively upcharge for the privilege of being able to carry a phone.

The two best solutions I've seen so far: 1) men's "athletic" cut pants - better fit for female-typical hips & thighs, while still having functional pockets 2) custom pockets - turn the pants inside out, cut the bottom seam of the pockets, add folded fabric, and sew around the edges to create expanded pockets. Plenty of tutorials on YT.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#196
Only points 1 through 3 and the latter half of point 4 are "rational".

Because Points 4 and 5 conflict with points 1 through 3.

"Grace and beauty" is culturally determined and is in the subjective eye of the beholder.

Optimizing a given piece of clothing for "grace and beauty" and "Not departing too conspicuously from the ordinary dress of the time", often inherently entails de-prioritizing the rational ideals laid out in points 1 through 3, and the latter half of point 4.

I am someone who used a fanny pack back when it was "in fashion"(according to some), and kept wearing it even when it went "out of fashion"(according to some), and I still keep wearing it, and I'm told by some that it's starting to come back to being "in fashion" again.

I don't care about "grace and beauty" and conforming to the ever-changing arbitrary dressing norms(whims) of society.

The fanny pack is extremely useful to me.

And so are cargo pants.

I wore and still wear cargo pants, sweatpants, and shorts, pretty much everywhere. Even to weddings.

Yeah, I get weird looks.

I do it regardless. I don't care.

If you don't want to associate with me for this reason, good riddance, I say.

My insistence on wearing cargo pants and fanny packs serves as an incidentally beneficial filter against conformist people.

If I had to observe points 4 and 5, I will have had to redesign the fanny pack and cargo pants and sweatpants, nerfing its functionality, going against points 1 through 3.

I haven't purchased new piece of clothing over 20 years and I don't see myself ever needing to do so ever again.

So I would add a point 6 - * "Only buy clothes that last. Buy once. Use forever. Also learn to mend your clothes." *

Re: Rational Dress Society

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Stop being lazy. My first attempt at searching gave this: https://www.pocketauthority.com/womens-pants-with-pockets

My man, look at the depths of those pockets... the models can't even fit their whole hand in them.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminists aren't an homogeneous group. Can I ask what feminist literature you've read about the nature of patriarchy? Maybe Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez could be good for you. It ties together a lot of different case studies from around the world to explore the unintended harm done to women by male-as-default thinking, from medical practices to urban planning. The book is stuffed with concrete examples.

Ahh yes, I'll run out to my local book seller right now. Except that wouldn't be necessary if your conspiracy theory held up to any scrutiny. The oppression would be unabiguous and deliberate feature of daily life. We would see as a fact in every day life, as for example, in the case of the Yazidis.

Not everything is necessarily deliberate. For example, the medical aspect that GP referred to: lots of medicines are only tested on men, not because doctors don't want to cure women, but because it's easier to show consistent and significant results in men, because their hormone levels don't change throughout the month. Tests on women are more complicated, but therefore more important, rather than less. But they're often not being tested out of laziness and because society tolerates using men as the default. Any drug that has only been tested on men should be immediately criticised for that, but that doesn't always happen yet. Though it's receiving a lot more attention now than it used to.

Or the fact that crash test dummies tend to be modelled only after men. It's easier to have one type of test dummy, and men are seen as the default. All of these things are not done out of malice, but out of laziness.

That said, there's also plenty of oppression that is actually done out of malice.

But if you want to have an informed opinion on this, yes, you should run out to your local book seller and read some relevant books on the matter. Or order them online. Or borrow them from the library.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I didn't answer that point because I worried that it would de-rail the conversation a little bit by focusing on the particular laws of one country and applying that to the wider shared culture of our global HN community. To answer, though, I'm from Northern Ireland, where breastfeeding in public is legal but not protected. Northern Ireland is actually part of the UK, so what you're saying is incorrect and I'm not…

> Northern Ireland is actually part of the UK, so what you're saying is incorrect and I'm not sure where you're getting your information from? As a sibling comment says, the law differs between the nations. I was just referring to England and Wales. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't just say that (I think I assumed you were American and thought that much detail would complicate things). Anyway, here in England and Wal…

Apologies for the confusing wording, I actually meant "we" more as the global community of HN users and had the article I linked in mind, rather than we here in Northern Ireland.

Thanks for recognising it at a mistake to say the UK when you mean England and Wales. It's very common to see that and it only gets more and more annoying the older you get when you come from one of the forgotten nations. Do you know when the whole UK got abortion access for example?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminists aren't an homogeneous group. Can I ask what feminist literature you've read about the nature of patriarchy? Maybe Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez could be good for you. It ties together a lot of different case studies from around the world to explore the unintended harm done to women by male-as-default thinking, from medical practices to urban planning. The book is stuffed with concrete examples.

Ahh yes, I'll run out to my local book seller right now. Except that wouldn't be necessary if your conspiracy theory held up to any scrutiny. The oppression would be unabiguous and deliberate feature of daily life. We would see as a fact in every day life, as for example, in the case of the Yazidis.

If you refuse to inform yourself and prefer to be obstinate about this then there's no conversation to be had, I'm sorry.

I'm not talking about any conspiracy, I'm talking about emergent phenomena of our society that disadvantage people with "non-standard" bodies.

I didn't use the word conspiracy once. Nor did I present myself as a feminist.

You've put me into a neat little bucket and decided I'm not worth listening to on that basis. I don't have the time for that kind of discourse but I wish you the best and would like to again recommend you read Invisible Women. Maybe the next time you come across one of us feminists you'll be able to discuss the points they're making without discrediting them on am imaginary basis.

Post reply on HN