Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great Male Renunciation

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 156 posts

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#101

Post by makeitdouble »

jjeaff wrote: post #81
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #76

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

To chime on sister comment, Uniqlo has a sub-brand ("GU") for cheaper clothing.

Fast fashion isn't women exclusive, but the fashion cycle is so much shorter for women that the very notion of fashion being "fast" almost only makes sense for them *.

I actually wonder what fashion style a woman could get away with wearing for 10 years. It would probably need to be almost monotone, covering, and with little to no affordance. A white long straight skirt with a black or cream T shaped top ?

* There will be a non negligeable number of men also caring about fashion and follow a shorter cycle, but that's far from the norm.

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#102

Post by Jensson »

orwin wrote: post #99
Jensson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think 10% of people were notable or nobles?

Yes, and I think I'm lowballing it. Notables include the mercantile bourgeoisie, the administration, the mercenaries, the guard, the local bourgeoisie (guild leaders, lawyers), and the 'small bourgeoisie' in the sense people who owned either specific, important equipment, or important skills outside cities, so not in a guild (horse breeders, miller etc). Nobility is like .5% to 2% depending on your country, the rest,…

Uniforms doesn't count, you don't choose your uniform. That rules out most of the groups you listed.

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#103

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #51
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of it had to do with the rise in pollution due to coal dust and soot?

Mid to late 1700s was well before widespread industrialization.

I had an off by one moment while reading the article. I read 18th century as the 1800’s.

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#104

Post by makeitdouble »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #94
nequo wrote: post #71

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.

It contrasts my experience but ours are just vain generalisations. Men tends to have less clothes but higher quality (and they wear a lot) while women tend to have thousands of clothes they wear once. I can survive with 2-3 suits (in the 300-500 range, decent quality, but nothing crazy) in any major city in Europe and some shirts - which is what I did for years. Now, times are changing security wise and, while I woul…

On Paris...suits don't have the same cultural meaning, but baggy jumpers might not keep you out of trouble.

I think muggers just smell the money and vulnerability. Local people also get mugged /pickpocketed in some circumstances, but in general they have a distinctly different way of moving through the city that makes strangers stand out.

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#105

Post by defrost »

motohagiography wrote: post #88

There could be another factor here, where fashion is how people signal their alignment to perceptions of power. Beau Brummel's relative minimalism was taken from standard riding kit at the time, just without the flourish of cavalry. The style lives on today in the form of the shadbelly[0] worn in competition in dressage. Given it was toned down military dress, it was literally the tactical cavalry wear of the time. T…

It's easier to appreciate the line of the shadbelly when the horses are smaller ...

https://youtu.be/GYjB2L6G9fE?t=35

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#106

Post by konfusinomicon »

crazygringo wrote: post #47
morkalork wrote: post #7

Just what % of the population actually wore those clothes back then? Are we comparing ourselves to what the 1% or 0.1% wore?

I don't think it matters quite so much how many; the question is more about what everyone wanted to be. What their aspirations were. The point would be that a mainstream man in 1750 wanted to be wearing colorful frilly things with high heels, even if he couldn't afford any of it because he was just a servant. Whereas starting in the 1800's, that stopped being an aspiration, whether you had money or not. Also, while t…

the transition from powdered wigs being the norm and now those damn kids going out without a wig on took over must have been an interesting time. this means at some point there was like 1 guy that held on to the fashion at the very end. not yielding to the new norm for the sake of morals and civility! his wig buried with him. and then no more wigs

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#107

Post by wilkies »

emmelaich wrote: post #98
xyzelement wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I follow. 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?

Actually Iran has a pretty interesting attitude to the androgynous and masculine and feminine roles. Not saying they wouldn't face violence in the street. Also ... > After Maryam Khatoon’s inquiry, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a legal opinion, known as a fatwa under Shi’a Islamic jurisprudence, asserting the permissibility of GAS [gender affirmation surgery] upon medical approval. Trans women’s status in contemporary Ir…

Iran inflicts this as a punishment for homosexual men: https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/02/22/iran-gay-forced-gende...

From the article:

> Shadi Amin, an Iranian-born activist, told The Sun that this homophobic Iranian regime is controlled by religious extremists who view being gay as an "illness". They believe that the only way it can be cured is by changing gender.

> "The government believes that if you are a gay man, your soul is that of a woman and you should change your body," Amin said.

> "We think this is a way [for them] to fight the existence of homosexual people because you change their body and you solve the problem.

> "The regime gives gay people two choices – to be arrested as a homosexual and risk punishment or even execution, or change your body."

> Government data shows that around 4000 gender reassignment surgeries are performed in Iran each year.

> Amin, however, claims that those numbers are actually much higher in reality.

> "They are trying to cleanse the country of homosexuals," she added.

> "They would rather carry out mass surgeries than executions because they know the world is watching them."

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#108

Post by smsm42 »

konfusinomicon wrote: post #106
crazygringo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it matters quite so much how many; the question is more about what everyone wanted to be. What their aspirations were. The point would be that a mainstream man in 1750 wanted to be wearing colorful frilly things with high heels, even if he couldn't afford any of it because he was just a servant. Whereas starting in the 1800's, that stopped being an aspiration, whether you had money or not. Also, while t…

the transition from powdered wigs being the norm and now those damn kids going out without a wig on took over must have been an interesting time. this means at some point there was like 1 guy that held on to the fashion at the very end. not yielding to the new norm for the sake of morals and civility! his wig buried with him. and then no more wigs

Don't English lawyers still wear the wigs?

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#109

Post by crazygringo »

konfusinomicon wrote: post #106
crazygringo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it matters quite so much how many; the question is more about what everyone wanted to be. What their aspirations were. The point would be that a mainstream man in 1750 wanted to be wearing colorful frilly things with high heels, even if he couldn't afford any of it because he was just a servant. Whereas starting in the 1800's, that stopped being an aspiration, whether you had money or not. Also, while t…

the transition from powdered wigs being the norm and now those damn kids going out without a wig on took over must have been an interesting time. this means at some point there was like 1 guy that held on to the fashion at the very end. not yielding to the new norm for the sake of morals and civility! his wig buried with him. and then no more wigs

Ha, you're right. I always thought the change from men's hats to no hats in the early 60's was strange enough. But from wigs to no wigs would have been way more extreme!
Post reply on HN