Rational Dress Society
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general.
It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, compared to other guys of similar proportions, and so apparently they cannot be contained by modern fashions. Every time I try to put on a pair, they're either too loose in the waist, or too tight in the thighs, and always sit too low for my liking, digging into my groin if I force the belt to sit at my waist. And should i find a pair that feels acceptable at first, my optimism only lasts until I have to sit down and feel the edge of these clothes digging uncomfortably into my flesh, rekindling my hatred for these trends and their designers.
The current resolution to my woes has been Darcy Clothing's line of suspender pants[1], which I have had tailored after purchase to taper and fit my height. However, this look is quite jarring in a modern environment, so I tend to wear a sweater over the suspenders. Still, I sometimes need to take it off, and wearing something like this day in and out puts quite a label on you.
Still to this day I keep my eyes open, hoping that the pants of my desires will appear in a shop somewhere, or that trends will change, and we get style in service of comfort, instead of discomfort in service of style.
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.
As an aside, I have said for a long time that I wish it was socially uncontroversial for a guy to wear a loose skirt or dress in public, and that if I found one I liked I would wear it all the time.
Yeah it’s becoming a bit less uncommon but not by much.
Maybe you could make up a Scottish heritage and wear a kilt? Other options would be overalls (there’s overall high-fashion) you might have the same shape issue as pants but they won’t fall down thanks to built-in suspenders (which you can play with e.g. cross, halves, …), or onesies (kigurumi) if you don’t mind being seen as a weeb.
If the pants fit, I really don't think anyone is going to notice.
Avoid the pants with pink flowers on them.
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.
I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.
What?
The "Athletic taper" pants from Jcrew and also the similarly named ones from Banana Republic and the Gap are great. Sometimes you can buy one size up and then have the waist taken in by a tailor to get a better thigh fit.
As for my BMI, I'm 183cm at 85kg, which I understand nudges me just inside of "overweight".
I wouldn't expect anything custom tailored to forget my wallet. . . . .
After enough (read: not that much, actually) usage, you'd be able to look at a pair of jeans and know which pocket their owner kept their things in, whether the things kept were a wallet vs a cell phone, etc., and exactly how they placed the wallet therein.
e.g. https://denimdudes.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Denim_Dudes...
I bring it up largely because denim is basically the most durable thing we can buy, so if you're going to have to get custom clothing, might as well get custom clothing that will last, and not limit ourselves to only looking tailored when we're in our custom formalwear
I'm not affiliated in any way, just a very happy customer.
An early-web startup did custom-cut khakis. CNC cut, manually stitched in one of the last US factories doing such, and overnighted. Acquired by bigco, and death by mismanagement. Patents should be expired now, so perhaps progress can resume?
The have a gusset, and offer a full size range in multiple fits and fabrics. Very comfortable.
In Kerala, Southern India, which had the wierdest system of caste and associated rules of segregation, women had start with the struggle to clothe their upper body.
Rational dress, free the nipple, cover the nipple, victorian style, SV hoodie culture and all these other fashion/dress movements are about deciding/changing what is broadly acceptable to that society, with both "acceptable" and "broadly" on the table.
Take both OP's comment rational dress and most reform based or freedom based movements' position to be heavy on the "more broad" side. The victorians/etc. on the "more acceptable" side.
> The CBSE in December 2016 issued a circular to all 19,000 affiliated schools under it asking that a section 'Caste Conflict and Dress Change' – a chapter that included the Channar revolt – be omitted from the curriculum with effect from 2017
which links to https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/after-long-delayed-tri...
Why was it banned, and how did it turn out?
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/cbse-says-nadar-women-...
cbse-says-nadar-women-s-historic-struggle-cover-their-breasts-objectionable-54555
This article says that historical revisionists suceeded in the censorship, much like the states in the USA that removed the history of racism from the curriculum.
https://scroll.in/article/917353/ncert-decision-to-remove-ch...
The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.
Does this come under the "legally" or "socially"?
There will be offices where the uniform or dress code is mandated by law, and the number of pockets will be whatever the uniform designer decided it would be. It's not specific to women per se, but there will probably be some differences in the design of both uniforms.
Basically that would be the social norms getting burned into legal requirements, until the uniforms are redone.
In any case, I'm a big proponent of all types of clothes being available for everybody. Wear what you want.
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.
It is cultural norms- of women. Making choices. In the real world.
It's simply women's revealed preference.
And maybe they'll try some vocal complaining to try to shift the preferences of the group. Which could work out, especially if a lot of group members don't have strong preferences and are just going along with the existing default.
Likewise, culture is a complicated social phenomenon which has a life and a logic of its own.
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.
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.
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.
Or the fact that crash test dummies tend to be modelled only after men. It's easier to have one type of test dummy, and men are seen as the default. All of these things are not done out of malice, but out of laziness.
That said, there's also plenty of oppression that is actually done out of malice.
But if you want to have an informed opinion on this, yes, you should run out to your local book seller and read some relevant books on the matter. Or order them online. Or borrow them from the library.
I'm not talking about any conspiracy, I'm talking about emergent phenomena of our society that disadvantage people with "non-standard" bodies.
I didn't use the word conspiracy once. Nor did I present myself as a feminist.
You've put me into a neat little bucket and decided I'm not worth listening to on that basis. I don't have the time for that kind of discourse but I wish you the best and would like to again recommend you read Invisible Women. Maybe the next time you come across one of us feminists you'll be able to discuss the points they're making without discrediting them on am imaginary basis.
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.
Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited?
I have no idea what you refer to.
What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?
I think it needs to become normal for women to return clothes because "the pockets don't work". I'm pretty sure that soon enough women's clothes will have normal pockets.
It's so weird when all the women I know have "favourite" articles of clothing that are purely the only version of a particlar garment they could find that had pockets.
It's not only pockets too it's also often things like the quality of the seam etc.
'If' is the problem. As it is, selling clothing means following trends and offering fast-fashion for a large part of the market. There is a sizeable group of people who are completely fine with getting the latest trend cheaply at Primark. These people might like real pockets (and post memes about it on social media), but you won't activate them to actually make that a requirement. The people who do find brands which simply do offer it (the economic model works so far), and those brands know that this is a feature people like, and they can afford to invest in the extra costs this brings (sewing, design) and the raised cost of their end product. But a large part of the market simply won't bear those costs.
Pockets on dresses is not much different from sustainable clothing (both in terms of production and in terms of durability) and fair pay for people who work in the garment industry: most people do not care enough to change their behaviour (or can't afford to).
Aren't most clothing buyers for and designers for high-street shops women? Yet this is always presented as some sort of conspiracy against women.
We raise girls in this climate and they develop what's called internalized misogyny. At the same time we chastise men who wear things for pure aesthetics for being weak, unmanly and feminine.
Everyone then reinforces this stuff through design and consumer habits.
Then we come online and argure that it's just an inherent thing about the sexes, or that women actually want to be dressed less practical because they're just aesthetic creatures.
It's not a conspiracy where men are trying to hold women back. I hope I didn't imply that. It's the tide of a strong patriarchal system. Yes, it could change faster if it wasn't benefiting those in power so much, but it's inaccurate to say it's a directed conspiracy (though there is an increase of this with a lot of alt-right YouTube stuff these days).
Pockets, you'd be surprised! Quite often women's blouses, blazers and trousers will have "false pockets" which are just a seam made to look like a pocket, whereas the men's version has actual deep pockets.
Makeup and the social expectations around that is also another discussion.
Here in the UK (which is what the article is about), it is illegal for either (/any) gender to expose their genitals in public [1] - that is called "indecent exposure". Breasts are not genitals and it is not illegal to show them.
Admittedly, it would be very unusual to see a topless woman walking down a UK high street. But it is not that unusual to see one sunbathing on a beach. Probably the main factor restricting that is the attention she would get from people who do not object.
Breastfeeding in public is not only allowed but legally protected.
[1] That includes if you are on private land but have a reasonable expectation that you could be seen from a public location. I recall a court case a few years ago where someone was regularly nude in their kitchen but could clearly be seen from a public footpath. The court decided that it still counted as indecent exposure.
That's not correct in England and Wales law (UK law varies between the nations). The current law (as amended in 2003) says:
A person commits an offence if— he intentionally exposes his genitals, and he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
It may well be different in practice though.
[1] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance...
It includes this:
> Nudity in public alone with no aggravating features is very unlikely to amount to [public nuisance] (or any other) offence.
The law is an interesting mirror and anti-mirror of social norms. My guess is that if some activity needs legal protections there are significant social norms prohibiting that activity.
To answer, though, I'm from Northern Ireland, where breastfeeding in public is legal but not protected. Northern Ireland is actually part of the UK, so what you're saying is incorrect and I'm not sure where you're getting your information from? Over here we have ad-hoc solutions were businesses can mark themselves as friendly to mothers (see: https://www.breastfedbabies.org/) while the presumed norm is that mothers should go elsewhere.
I'd say it could be a good idea to check out this article from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_laws_by_country) if you want to balance out your views about what's going on outside of your local area.
As a sibling comment says, the law differs between the nations. I was just referring to England and Wales. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't just say that (I think I assumed you were American and thought that much detail would complicate things). Anyway, here in England and Wales, breastfeeding is indeed protected. E.g. from a random law company's website:
"According to the Equality Act of 2010, treating a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding a child of any age is considered sex discrimination. This applies to any business or premise providing services to the public, including public institutions, associations and higher education bodies. Service providers dealing directly with the public must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms."
> I'd say it could be a good idea to check out this article from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_laws_by_country) if you want to balance out your views about what's going on outside of your local area.
Are you saying that because I claimed England and Wales' law applies to the whole UK? Apologies again for that, it was a slip. But, ironically, you seemed suggest that your local laws apply to the whole world! That's what caused my initial reply in the first place.
> Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not.
Thanks for recognising it at a mistake to say the UK when you mean England and Wales. It's very common to see that and it only gets more and more annoying the older you get when you come from one of the forgotten nations. Do you know when the whole UK got abortion access for example?
In the U.S., female toplessness is illegal in only two states (Tennessee and Missouri). In the rest, legal status is either unclear or it's expressly legal.
So as a general statement, this is clearly untrue—it's not illegal everywhere.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_the_United_State...
Many women do not wear makeup.
Again, this depends a lot on the country.
Many women choose to wear makeup or dress uncomfortably just like many men choose to work out and dress uncomfortably to look more attractive. Many men seemingly invest a lot of time into styling their beard or hair.
I'd also add that while workarounds are available these things add up to an increased cognitive load for women doing normal everyday activities such as shopping for shirts.
I grew up poorish (and therefore can sew) and am good with math so I can tailor my own clothes, but it still takes time and a fair number of women can't sew or mend.
Another point: traditional dressing in many cultures put large pockets on female clothes more than on male ones. The transition to pocket-scarcity on fashion clothes is recent, and probably driven by women rejecting traditional roles. Women voted with their wallets once, they can do it again.
Classic case of people saying they want something and then making purchasing decisions based on priorities.
This is the kind of essentialistic thinking that creates these issues in the first place.
I work in a lingerie/bra boutique at the moment and there are a large amount of women who wear the wrong size bra just because the right size shows that they have back fat. Even when the back fat can't be seen under clothing and the right size is more comfortable. Or who opt for things that are less comfortable/practical solely to fit their conception of themselves. "Oh no, I won't wear this size. I'm not that big/small. It fits well, but I feel so big/small when I look at the tag. I'll just keep wearing my old ones." Those are also the people who spend a ton on things that don't fit them to try to cure the gaping hole inside stemming from their hatred of their own bodies.
I've never worked with men in a similar setting (as a class - we have some cross-dressers but if you're a dude who wears women's clothing you're already comfortable breaking the rules) so I can't say if that's solely a woman thing or a general human one.
Btw, I don't want huge pockets on my pants if they make me look "ugly". I've also recently opted for a handbag over a backpack, even though a backpack is an objectively healthier option for you back (and I am used to wearing backpacks, handbags are so freaking uncomfortable). The reason I switched? Backpacks made me look/feel "childish". That's it. I traded physical comfort and health for, hopefully, psychological comfort and the ability to control my narrative through my looks.
I would agree with that, although my experience is mostly limited to America. I see substantial differences in how that pressure presents across different generations. (Somebody needs to check on Gen X women, Jesus. Mass media did a number on them.)
I don't understand personally (I'm 'pretty' enough to get away with ignoring the conditioning [In quotes because I mean I fit the features the societies I live in see as attractive in cis women], I'm a lesbian and the stick to a lot of the conditioning is that you won't be a desirable to men if you don't conform and what do I care, and I also was/am visually impaired and even people who are really into conformity understand that putting that conditioning onto girls who can't see is a dick move), but it's obviously real. The main reason I hate it is that so many women who think like you like to insult themselves in a way that suggests I should agree? I'm not going to insult you! I think your body is fine!
> I traded physical comfort and health for, hopefully, psychological comfort and the ability to control my narrative through my looks.
This is a great way to put it, and now that I can see and I'm more comfortable with my looks, I'm wading into that mess myself because unfortunately I'm going to need every advantage I can get for things I want to do and people being stupid around attractive women is unfortunately one of those advantages, as gross as I feel about it.
IMO the same can be said for every generation of women that came of age from the 1990s until today, but yea heroin chic and size zero culture really hit Gen X women.
In fact it’s so bad, that even male zoomers are falling victim to the social media powered mass culture these days; there is really no escape for anyone anymore.
I grew up in Ukraine and have been living in the Czech Republic for the last 5 years, it's pretty much the same here, there are some slight differences about what is considered beautiful, what grooming practices are expected across different classes, what's trendy etc, but the phenomenon is basically the same.
>how that pressure presents across different generations
That's interesting, do you care to share any of your observations? I noticed that gen Z, while having broader ideas of beauty, is leaning heavily into the self-expression aspect of it, while nothing wrong with that, beauty and fashion industries picked this angle very quickly and run it into the ground through social media. (I might be biased bc I'm into makeup but these days I just cannot keep up with the makeup industry and community, mentally or financially.)
> people being stupid around attractive women is unfortunately one of those advantages, as gross as I feel about it.
There's only so many battles we can fight in our lives. Using lookism to your advantage, if you can do it in a healthy way, is just being a realist.
Coming back to the original topic - women who pick non-functional clothes are not irrational, imo, they just work with different input, so to speak.
You nailed it with regard to Gen Z. I'd say off the top of my head:
- Silent Gen women either give zero fucks or have a vague desire to look "presentable". There's not much self body shaming, more grousing about how much work it is to pass 'basic' standards.
- Boomer women also usually want to look 'presentable' so most of the displeasure is what shape they have under clothes, dressing 'inappropriately' (no plunges for big breasts because it makes them look 'easy'), etc.
- Gen X are most likely to have an 'ideal' naked woman that they're comparing themselves to. They are also the harshest towards themselves verbally and most likely to make a comment about my looks passive-aggressively.
- Millennials are weird. They tend to feel the pressure of the monoculture but also know that it's not cool to care too much. They're the most likely to be very quiet or say nothing but do things like frown in the mirror or disappointingly pinch their fat. Millennials are also the most likely to view their body hatred as a personal failing: "Why can't I get over not liking how I look?" etc. They've internalized both the monoculture and the response so they think they should look a certain way but also that wanting to look a certain way is a sign of weak character.
- Gen Z don't buy into the monoculture at all but are, as you noticed, way more susceptible to empowerment/self-expression rhetoric. This is the only age group that seems to be able to dislike their body but not see it as objectively bad because the body diversity message has hit. This group is also the most laissez faire about body modification: this is the only group where the cis girls mention top surgery or reductions for aesthetics/body acceptance instead of just for medically necessary reasons. They're the inverse of Gen X in that their preferences vary a lot more, and a Zoomer is equally likely to consider themselves 'too fat' or 'too thin' or 'too curvy'. Gen Zers who don't like their bodies see it as more 'this isn't me' rather than 'I'm failing to live up to society's standards.'
These are all generalities, obviously.
> Using lookism to your advantage, if you can do it in a healthy way, is just being a realist.
True. It's also easier now because my type of attractiveness is one that's associated with personality traits I do not have. I'm small and curvy with large eyes and Shirley Temple blonde curls, so playing it up when I was younger meant being treated like a moron and I've never been able to stand that. If you're into Kibbe, I'm somewhere between a romantic and gamine which are not looks that people take seriously even if they like them. Plus since I like women I opted out because the more effort I put in, the less other women liked me. Other women respond better when I'm a bit frumpy.
> women who pick non-functional clothes are not irrational, imo, they just work with different input, so to speak.
This point reminds me of this [0] article discussing that same idea from a class + race lens.
0: https://zora.medium.com/the-poor-cant-afford-not-to-wear-nic...
I am a millennial myself (29 y.o.), and I felt like my generation was the one that was “awakened” to the reality of beauty standards. Obviously, feminist scholars have observed these patterns way before my time, but during my formative years the awareness entered the mainstream. My mom and her peers don't know what bodyshaming is, even though they both experience and perform it, my peers and I do know, and not because we've read specialized literature but because ideas are out there in the mainstream discourse.
I also know that my ideas and desires for beauty have been “planted” in me by the culture. There is nothing in me as a person that just naturally yearns to be underweight and have perky boobs. These were either instilled in me by the culture, or the culture promised something important in return. Sadly, this realization does not get rid of the desires themselves. I may be acutely aware that some beauty conventions are harmful, outdated, useless, exploitative, or inappropriate (conventions and contexts change!), I just cannot stop wanting them.
Gen Z’s situation is an interesting one. On one hand, they appear to be able to break the curse of desires “planted” in them and are able to connect with themselves as persons first and foremost, at least on some level. Their inner self, not Vogue, tells them to make a breast reduction. On the other hand, this is a rich ground for corporate exploitation. Listen, kid, you don’t need this lipstick for men, you don’t need it for other people at all, you need it for yourself. I, your friendly multi-billion corporation, just help you to articulate and get what you truly want!
>This point reminds me of this [0] article discussing that same idea from a class + race lens.
Thank you for the link. The essay was very interesting. I am not very (or at all) educated in intersectionality, but it was a very accessible and insightful read. I do wish people didn’t have to deal with this crap but we live in a society yada yada.
I invite you to do this experiment; find someone who you think is stylish, note what they’re wearing, then shop for something similar but with pockets. It’ll probably take you ten minutes online.
If you try to buy men's pants, they're designed for entirely different body shapes regardless of style. They end up too narrow around the hips and if you size up you end up much too large around the waist.
The ones with pockets tend to have thicker waistbands and the pockets flair out near the top. Make my hips look huge. Very womanly, big fat ass. Easily adds an inch or two, or at least the appearance thereof.
Basketball shorts sans pockets look much slimmer. Great for B-ball but not as much while lifting or other activities where I want to carry a cell phone.
The exception that proves the rule?
I've finally decided to take up mending just to be able to add pockets to more of my clothes - esp stuff for around the house. Most of the time if you find pockets, they're too small to put anything in! I'd rather put in the effort to make clothes match my style AND be comfortable/useful than wait for shops and brands to figure it out. Because they really don't seem to care.
You can see it all over this thread, "but there's a free market," "women are just more focused on aesthetics," even angry responses like "how dare you try to change society."
It can be extremely tiring to deal with this kind of denial of your lived experience each time you share it.
If I push, they'll agree that yeah pockets are nice. But for whatever reason that's beyond my nerdy understanding (and I've been on this for 25 years:), it's just not even remotely a priority. Societal upbringing I'm sure, but whether it's that pockets are not aesthetically pleasing, or they're not feminine, or simply (my assumption) they were brought up without pockets so they don't care about pockets, I don't know. Pockets are available to them. Not in every store, but today, in sufficient number of stores. If it were a concerted preference, a capitalistic market change would be under way. But it's one of those "spoken preference vs acted preference" things. I am tall and slim so already have to shop from the internet to get a fleece that fits, you can bet I'd turn over hell and earth to get me some pockets. This does not appear to be the same level of priority for those people of feminine persuasion in my life. My 100 Croatian Lipa, FWIW, sample size n<50, etc :)
The anti drag laws are in the service of patriarchy, even though on the surface they're controlling men. Important to note that patriarchy doesn't only control or limit women.
Women are free to choose their own clothes. They are free to make their own clothes or start their own clothing companies. If they really wanted clothes with pockets then they would get them. But they don't.
I think it's a bit silly that I can't just urinate in a bush in a public park or something when I need to go. Why do I need to seek out a toilet? Everyone urinates. It's natural. But I'm not going to start urinating in public. It's just not compatible with society. That's why most women choose not to breast feed in public too.
Men simply wear the standard suit and forget about it, and no one rips into their fashion choices.
A woman wearing the same kind of suit will be seen as manly and be made fun of for that. The expectation is she will find something functional yet feminine, not wear it repeatedly and contrast with her female colleagues. Makeup must be enough to be nice for the camera but not so much as to look provocative.
While in a sense there are more available options we can see there is more social pressure.
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 unacceptable at a bikini beach as a skimpy bikini is in religious/conservative spaces. A woman who leaves her seat in a cafe to breastfeed in the baby change stall or toilet can be ashamed in company that considers public breastfeeding a basic norm.
I'm all for broad and free. We're not great at this, and should be better. But, I also think there are always norms and "culture wars" are about the norms. Not just the freedom to violate norms. What the norms are, because norms will continue to exist.
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.
https://live.staticflickr.com/754/23070284806_5a81f5805e_o.j...
Modern people interested in historical costuming and clothing are trying to bring back the pocket[2]. Bernadette Banner also has a video on the history of pockets in women's clothing[3].
Personally, I don't care about pockets in pants--pockets in skirts/dresses are where it's at.
[1]: https://kingandallen.co.uk/journal/2020/the-surprising-histo...
It really is. When sitting in car or walking having my phone in it is much more comfortable. Especially with larger phones.
Unfortunately for me it is connected to shady people so I have mental block with just wearing it.
Other downside is that it would be easier to steal it from me with all stuff in it or from it. Though I usually move in areas where there ar no or not that many pickpockets.
They just often choose the clothing without pockets. Women's clothing is way more varied than men's. All men wear the same stuff and that stuff always has pockets. We don't have pockets on our shirts or jumpers. Just our trousers and jackets/coats. Exactly the same as women. But women wear other stuff that intentionally has no pockets. Tight leggings, for example. The whole point is they are tight and have no pockets. Tight dresses. Again, the whole point is it's tight and has no pockets.
Also, find me a woman who leaves the house with only wallets, keys and phone. They'll always need to carry a bag so what's the point of having pockets?
I'm sure there do exist pants with good pockets somewhere, but they're very hard to find. I've not come across them in regular clothing/thrift stores. I've found some companies advertising their pockets online, but they aggressively upcharge for the privilege of being able to carry a phone.
The two best solutions I've seen so far: 1) men's "athletic" cut pants - better fit for female-typical hips & thighs, while still having functional pockets 2) custom pockets - turn the pants inside out, cut the bottom seam of the pockets, add folded fabric, and sew around the edges to create expanded pockets. Plenty of tutorials on YT.
Because Points 4 and 5 conflict with points 1 through 3.
"Grace and beauty" is culturally determined and is in the subjective eye of the beholder.
Optimizing a given piece of clothing for "grace and beauty" and "Not departing too conspicuously from the ordinary dress of the time", often inherently entails de-prioritizing the rational ideals laid out in points 1 through 3, and the latter half of point 4.
I am someone who used a fanny pack back when it was "in fashion"(according to some), and kept wearing it even when it went "out of fashion"(according to some), and I still keep wearing it, and I'm told by some that it's starting to come back to being "in fashion" again.
I don't care about "grace and beauty" and conforming to the ever-changing arbitrary dressing norms(whims) of society.
The fanny pack is extremely useful to me.
And so are cargo pants.
I wore and still wear cargo pants, sweatpants, and shorts, pretty much everywhere. Even to weddings.
Yeah, I get weird looks.
I do it regardless. I don't care.
If you don't want to associate with me for this reason, good riddance, I say.
My insistence on wearing cargo pants and fanny packs serves as an incidentally beneficial filter against conformist people.
If I had to observe points 4 and 5, I will have had to redesign the fanny pack and cargo pants and sweatpants, nerfing its functionality, going against points 1 through 3.
I haven't purchased new piece of clothing over 20 years and I don't see myself ever needing to do so ever again.
So I would add a point 6 - * "Only buy clothes that last. Buy once. Use forever. Also learn to mend your clothes." *
If the noise/signal ratio with that button is too high, I built wikiscroll.blankenship.io for my own use (built on a similar mechanism) you’re free to use it!
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 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 always has been. I had resigned myself to the idea that if I wanted a comfortable suit, I would have to get it tailor made. I have uncomfortable suits I wore for funerals and what not, hated every minute of it.
Turns out, go in the right shop (boss in my case) and I was able to find a comfortable one, with a look I love, for 800 eur. And it is absolutely as comfy as pjs. I’ve never before worn a suit for fun; I am the kind of guy who wears sports clothes most of the time.
I did have to get the leggings and sleeves shortened but that doesn’t feel like a “tremendous and specialised effort”, more run of the mill 1m60 man woes.
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.
Could you comfortably do sports with it, or play with children? That's my definition of "doesn't impede movement".
In my climbing shoes I cannot run very well, true, but I can climb better.
Maybe certain traditional dances?
But I remain very sceptical to stiff clothing that doesn't "impede movement".
I mean, don't get me wrong. People are free by me to wear whatever they want, if it brings them pleasure - as long as they don't have to wear it, if they don't want to. And sure, not every clothing is made for sports and there are other activities.
Social dances (salsa, bachata, kizomba) benefits from this.
¹ back then women certainly didn't have that much choice, or they had but it came with it's own set of consequences
It wasn't until James P. Johnson's invention of his famous Charleston engine in the 1920s that women's dresses were finally able to reach escape velocity.
Edit: get that pun right!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_One_Christian_Ministries
Like so much or modernity, it's just a set of aesthetic preferences dressed up in the mantle of rationalism.
> The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.
Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so.
Rationalism is absurd, and this is a great example of why.
Humans almost never do anything on a purely rational basis. Everything we do is directed by subjectivity, emotion, aesthetics etc. - it's better to be honest about this and embrace it, rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective.
They make sense for other reasons as well, but corsets are enough.
Yes! And the women in Victorian England had no choice in that (did you even read the article?). Shunning the dress norms had serious consequences for the woman. It's easy to forget that when you live in a society where (1) people can more or less dress as they wish, and (2) even the socially accepted norm is not overly constricting of movement or damaging to your health.
> rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective
Freedom of motion, in a very concrete example, enough to ride a bicycle, is a very objective thing.