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

181–190 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#181

Post by realjhol »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #160
realjhol wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You guys? Who do you mean by that? I use that language because these things happen on the socio-cultural level and are perpetuated indirectly through norms. There is much in our society that is implicit.

> 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 unfalsifiable.

When speaking about the patriachy, feminists use the passive voice to tap-dance around having to make any specific claims otherwise they would be immediately falsified.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#182

Post by makeitdouble »

scrollaway wrote: post #83
makeitdouble wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"well-made" doesn't feel like the correct description TBH. Corsets can be made comfortable and unrestricting, but that was not the primary goal, nor the common use case. And yes, some corsets were made specially for sporty activities for instance. I feel this reaction around corset kinda mimic the "suits can be made as comfortable as pajamas" rethoric. Sure they can, but the primary reason this has to be stated is be…

> I feel this reaction around corset kinda mimic the "suits can be made as comfortable as pajamas" rethoric. Sure they can, but the primary reason this has to be stated is because that requires tremendous and specialized effort that goes against the primary goal of the garment. Oh friend, it doesn’t. Not for men’s suits I mean; I don’t know much about women’s clothing. I am a short but beefy guy, shopping is hell and…

> And it is absolutely as comfy as pjs.

While I totally get a suit can be properly tailored, you should seriously look into improving your pajamas.

If it doesn't let your arms move their absolute full range without sliding up and down you've already have a big issue and should look into stretchier and probably softer fabrics. Breathability should also be miles ahead of 3~4 stacked layers of fabrics.

Cheaping out on pajamas is absolutely a waste.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#183

Post by makeitdouble »

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.

> who is supposed to be doing these things

The subject would just become 'everyone', 'the majority of the society', etc.

Like, "the majority of the society thinks men shouldn't wear skirts", "schools mandate skirts for girls uniforms", "the army doesn't provide shorts or skirts for men uniforms" etc.

I'm not sure to get your point really.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#184

Post by gardenhedge »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #117
gardenhedge wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. Maybe 30 years ago it would have been difficult to get pockets on clothes because the shops in your locality didn't sell them.. but now we have this wonderful thing called the Internet.

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

Re: Rational Dress Society

#185

Post by frodetb »

Arrath wrote: post #171
kevviiinn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have similar issues. Thick thighs and meaty butt, I had some nice looking pants that used to allow me full range of movement that I had used for a while but a few weeks ago I tore a pair when squatting down. I'm now currently resigned to joggers for the time being. It feels like there are no decent pants out there for men who lift

Same here. A youth of track, soccer and skiing has bequeathed me a rear that most of the women in my life are jealous of, and yet it is a curse. Nothing fuckin fits right!

Right on point, "a blessing and a curse".

Re: Rational Dress Society

#186

Post by anotheruser13 »

frodetb wrote: post #118
masklinn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My thighs and butt are huge, compared to other guys of similar proportions Have you considered looking at the women’s? Might be no better in the end, but this reads like what’s conventionally a feminine anatomy, and garment designers will generally go with conventional anatomy, if not outright prescribe completely imaginary ones you have to conform to.

I absolutely have! Didn't think it was worth the tangent so I'm glad you're bringing it up. Women's fashion is so much more varied in shape, size, style, and fit, and some of it even looks comfortable. As a matter of fact, if you search for high-rise trousers online, most of the results are precisely in the women's section. I think that will have to be my next stop, though it's a line to cross and somewhat of pill to…

Ugh, I'd say women's clothing is way worse than men's. No standard sizing, and too many faddish items. Women's clothes typically lack usable pockets and they are not as durable. Crappy fabrics that shrink and fade, horrible zippers that break...

That being said, you might want to go to Kohl's and try on Lee women's pants. Those aren't bad, although I hate the way Kohl's marks stuff up and then puts a normal price on it and calls that a sale.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#187

Post by theodric »

hgsgm wrote: post #120
karmelapple wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now. I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.

> and a rumble seat What?

When your butt's so big it fits two extra people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_seat

Re: Rational Dress Society

#188

Post by karmelapple »

hgsgm wrote: post #120
karmelapple wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now. I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.

> and a rumble seat What?

It's a humorous phrase members of my family have used for, as others have mentioned, a larger posterior.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#189

Post by AlecSchueler »

gardenhedge wrote: post #184
micromacrofoot wrote: post #117

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

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?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#190

Post by AlecSchueler »

realjhol wrote: post #181
AlecSchueler wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys? Who do you mean by that? I use that language because these things happen on the socio-cultural level and are perpetuated indirectly through norms. There is much in our society that is implicit.

> 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.

Post reply on HN