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

201–204 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#201

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.

Have you ever worn a skirt out in public out of interest? If not: who told you not to? Would you be happy to do it tomorrow if the person/people who told you not to weren't around? If not, why not?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#202

Post by dalbasal »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #163
dalbasal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a limit to freedom as a compass, especially if we emphasise social limitations. At some point you're not after freedom. You're after change to social norms, not people's right to break them. Depending on the specific beach/society/group bikinis can be either normative or anti-normative. IE, a woman can, and likely will feel pressured to conform. A 1950s bathing gown or a modern burkini is often as una…

Isn't part of exercising our freedom to change them having open conversations about how they do and don't serve us, calling attention to how certain norms have become entrenched and quietioning that etc.?

Idk. Freedom is a big word and can mean different things to different people.

To me, in this context, I think it means openness/breadth of what is normative and also the ability to nonconform. That's also why I said it's limited.

Take transgenderism today, gay rights a generation ago. Freedom is/was just one step. It isn't enough that we stopped putting people (like Alan Turing or Oscar Wilde) in jail for sodomy. We also want/ed norms to change. We want people to consider homosexuality acceptable and wholesome. That is a change to norms, not the freedom to ignore norms.

So... I'd say freedom and openness lend to cultural and normative changes... but these are still two separate things.

Perhaps it's easier to see things in the opposite direction. Conservatives and (especially) reactionaries will often invoke their freedom to shun homosexuality or even to practice racism or something. Our reaction to that is what it is because norms are at stake. Societal norms, not just individual sentiments.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#203

Post by gardenhedge »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #189
gardenhedge wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So the issue is so bad that a company has sprung up called the Pocket Authority and their whole selling point is that theirs pants have pockets? The exception that proves the rule?

What has that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to move the goal posts. The facts are in front of you. Women (and anybody) can order clothes online that have pockets.
Post reply on HN