81–90 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So it makes sense that people who care about quality moved away from colorful things. Women’s clothing is more colorful today. I don’t think it is because women care less about quality than men.
Isn’t women’s clothing notoriously low-quality due to the whole ‘fast fashion’ phenomenon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So it makes sense that people who care about quality moved away from colorful things. Women’s clothing is more colorful today. I don’t think it is because women care less about quality than men.
Isn’t women’s clothing notoriously low-quality due to the whole ‘fast fashion’ phenomenon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Men wouldn't buy pants without good pockets, yet women prefers them so much that it is hard to find pants with good pockets for women. Only reason to have shitty pockets is that it makes the pants look a tiny bit better from the outside, but that tiny improvement in looks was enough to make women buy it instead. So yeah, I'd argue that women and men do look at significantly different things when they make purchases.
Plenty of women complain about the lack of pockets in women's pants. I think women feel others' judgment about their clothing choices more sharply than men do. This isn't a personality quirk. The condemnation comes down harder on them. Look at what is happening in Iran. Women are being killed for how they choose to dress. So if women make different choices, don't ascribe this entirely to differences in their personal…
Apparently not enough women actually want pockets to make that fashion financially worthwhile at scale?
Re Iran - you don’t think a man dressed out of line (eg drag) would be killed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t women’s clothing notoriously low-quality due to the whole ‘fast fashion’ phenomenon?
I've never heard of fast fashion being attributed to just women's clothing. There are plenty of men's clothing options at stores like Zara and Uniqlo
// that men "abandoned their claim to be considered beautiful" and "henceforth aimed at being only useful".
This resonates. I am around 40 and was born in Eastern Europe and the environment I grew up in was all about “man is valued as a good provider / defender “ and looks matter less for us.
Obviously it’s better to be handsome than gross, but it’s better to be useful but gross vs pretty but useless.
So to this day, it rubs me the wrong way when a man puts too much effort into looks vs “quality.” So this theory resonates as a historical thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, It’s not about that. This was a cultural reaction to the excesses and cruelty of the French ruling classes. And both men and women changed their styles, Im not sure why they don’t mention that. No one wanted to be mistaken by a jacobin and have a bomb thrown at your lap. Women stopped imitating Marie Antoinette way before she was beheaded in the pangs of birth of the reign of terror The obvious historical paralle…
Then this would be isolated to France and you would expect things to normalize as people forgot about the revolution. But things never "normalized", men still prefer to not wear bright colored clothes. > And both men and women changed their styles Maybe in France right after the revolution, but if I look at dresses today I see all that gaudiness in female dresses but not in male.
Everything cyclical. I for one miss the loose fitting jeans of the late 90s/early oughts, which were largely replaced by skinny jeans. Now I'm older and don't care about fashion, so just wear carpenter jeans. But it seems like skinny pants are still in style, apparently in sweatpants form?
That's where it's at. I almost always wear Duluth Trading Company canvas(?) work shorts / work pants.
I'm happy as a clam, but my poor wife...
Given it was toned down military dress, it was literally the tactical cavalry wear of the time. The analogy or equivalent to Brummel's style today would be something closer to a luxury brand with technical cred from their tactical lines like Arc'teryx, Prada, Beretta's clothing line, and perhaps Fjallraven. I have an opinion about this because I looked at a business re-designing men's riding clothing, as over a couple decades I found the now-unisex attire discourages men from riding horses in any non-western disciplines. I gave up the idea because I could just buy clothes from some of those makers above and ride in them instead. The silhouette looks a lot more more "Horse Soldiers," than "Downton Abbey," but building a new retail brand for a market I was inventing wasn't a startup play. But that's what I was able to interpret about menswear along the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a kind of theory that would apply equally to social signaling for both men and women. The linked article is talking about how there was an interesting phenomenon shifting men's clothing, but not women's.
All you need is that men didn't change, men had the same things in mind when choosing clothes hundreds of years ago as today. We see toady most men chooses clothes based on quality and utility. Why do you think men didn't do it back then? The main thing that changed was that back then high quality clothes were gaudy and colored, now they aren't.
Quality, perhaps. Utility ? I don't know. Has a dress shirt more utility than a t-shirt, or a business suit more utility than a knitted cardigan ?
I think men still primarily aiming at looks and there's a lot of thoughts in the details, but not in the flamboyant and ultra expressive direction. I'd argue a lot of attention is paid to express restrain and non gay (in both the traditional and modern meaning) in so many ways, even at the cost of utility and comfort.
The linked wiki has a suggestion that makes sense: // that men "abandoned their claim to be considered beautiful" and "henceforth aimed at being only useful". This resonates. I am around 40 and was born in Eastern Europe and the environment I grew up in was all about “man is valued as a good provider / defender “ and looks matter less for us. Obviously it’s better to be handsome than gross, but it’s better to be usef…