Live data from Hacker News

Great Male Renunciation

en.wikipedia.org

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#151
The timing of this with the larger global conflicts that started in the period seem to me to be totally tied together. My impression is not that of an increase in democracy and anti-jacobianism, but one of increased militarism.

I don't know where I heard it, but, 'men's fashion marches with the army'. That's something I've always seen as a truism, and maybe one born from the time period in question. The explanation I heard was that this was due to the inherent value that society places upon men to do the dangerous work of war fighting. So, in peacetime, men whose dress imitates and looks akin to the dress in the military are then seen as more masculine. Crucially, you can't just dress like a solider when out and about unless there is a war on or if you are required to dress as such by being on duty. Stolen valor and all that jazz. You can only imitate.

Male fashion is just such a deliciously complex topic, especially since this renunciation, as it's all about the very tiny details and very subtle changes. So very military these things are!

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#152
post #70
post #63

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.

the French revolution didn't just hang out in France. those armies -- Napoleon -- went all over Europe, and so to went a lot of their ideas.

the German revolutions of 1848–1849 for example came out of sparks that the French (and US) revolutions brought (as well as a good dose of Karl M).

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sumptuary Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law

Good point (and little-known nowadays!), but I think that the focus of sumptuary laws tended to be luxuries such as trim, furs, cloth-of-gold or Imperial purple, rather than colourful clothing in general. But I could be wrong!

From the article:

> In England, which in this respect was typical of Europe, from the reign of Edward III in the Middle Ages until well into the 17th century, sumptuary laws dictated what colour and type of clothing, furs, fabrics, and trims were allowed to persons of various ranks or incomes.

That said, I would wonder how strictly these were enforced. Samuel Pepys' Diary would imply not very, at least towards the end; Sam's a rich commoner, but doesn't seem to hold back when it comes to fancy clothes (anyone who doubts that men were into fashion back then should give it a read...)

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally I’m not sure the modern world is better, but you probably do own a lot of machines that take the place of many things servants would have done in the past. Laundry machine, dishwasher machine, mixing machine, fire tending machine, etc.

> Generally I’m not sure the modern world is better ... Eh? I mean, it is clearly better by any reasonable measure. Bear in mind that most people in the 18th century didn't have a staff of servants.

The modern world is way, way more socially atomized than what most people would have experienced in the 1800s. Not everything is about technology or immediate comfort.

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

If you had asked me which country provides free gender reassignment surgery for hetero trans-women, Iran would not have been anywhere in my guesses

As a gay man I was surprised at this too, but really it's probably because it conveniently provides a means for them to convert a man to a woman, who has much fewer rights/power in their world. I wonder if they would be as friendly to the idea of FtM trans surgeries where a man who is born as a woman would "gain" rights (in their eyes).

I find it so sad though, that gay men are forced to undergo reassignment in order to survive there, rather than be able to celebrate both being gay and their own masculinity - it's taking "being gay, a man who likes men" away from gay men, there.

Re: Great Male Renunciation

#156
post #77

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…

Yet they never buy pants with pockets and many other kind of practical clothing that would make their life easier. You can't just listen blindly; you need to look at what they do. Now if you look at the younger generations, you will find some girls wearing that kind of clothing. But if you look at an elevated level on how things work in society, women derive a lot of their power from how they look, how beautiful they appear to be. As the girls become adult whether conscientiously or not, they internalise this and start to dress in a way that maximise their power.

If they really wanted there is nothing preventing them to wear men pants that are gender neutral. But they don't because they would lose much more than a few pockets. They do not really need them anyway because even the most rugged women will have some sort of handbag. Because it is one more fashion accessory to show off, because you can carry even more stuff than any pocket would allow and because this way, they don't have to choose between looking beautiful and being able to carry stuff. If anything, women carry around way more stuff than any man could in his pockets. On the other hand, men handbags are not a thing and not just because of fashion or social pressure, but because they are very likely to be asked to do things that require them to have mostly free movement (like carry stuff, hold doors, fix broken things, etc...). A friend once joked to me that he mostly wore strong jeans because he is highly likely to be asked to go down on his knees to fix whatever his wife (and other women) point at him.

If you look at one subset of men who derive power from looking beautiful/successful like salesmen, they also dress in a way that is not very practical for most daily activities. A suit has pockets, but mostly in name, they are very weak and shallow and leave disgracious bulges from whatever you are carrying that is not a small item like a simple key, forget about putting a modern smartphone in those pockets, it will not last long (in fact I have been scolded by women about how the stuff I was carrying in my suit pockets made me look bad and how I was ruining the suit). They do it, because just like women, they derive a good amount of power from dressing this way. The major difference is that this power exists only during their work so they very rarely dress this way outside of work, the little power advantage they would get in day-to-day life is not worth the trouble (and added cost). Women on the other hand benefit from this power throughout daily life even in their own home in some cases.

It is tiring to always hear about how women are victims of many choices they make themselves; precisely because they are capable of rationality just as well as men (the difference is mostly in usage), and those choices are generally about maximizing their profits.

Post reply on HN