Hacker News Reader

Or maybe you're SO secure, that you can afford to look insecure while being actually secure.

Or maybe you're SO insecure that you try to look like you're so secure that you can afford to look oh god I can't finish this sentence.

The first time I tried on a pink shirt, I briefly wondered how it might reflect upon my level of (in)security, as our culture had always so emphatically told me the two were connected.

Careful study of the mirror revealed only the same old familiar geek in jeans, work boots and a shirt that --while brighter than anything else I owned-- just didn't make a difference either way.

I couldn't help but conclude the whole notion was bullshit pop psychology; cousin to such useful social tools as horoscopes, fortune cookies and dream analysis.

Or maybe you're SO secure, that you can afford to look insecure while being actually secure.

Huh, wearing a pink shirt makes me look insecure? The signal given by the wearing a pink shirt is in the eye of the beholder. If you think less of me because of it, that's your issue, not mine.

What a message that sends about you! :)

I agree with him: you can't claim to signal nothing.

I don't doubt your conscious intention.

>> High-status people wear shirts that say FCUK to show how high-status they are? Utter rubbish.

Out of curiosity, how many high-status people do you know? Would you say that Bell's theory is invalid for all age ranges?

I'd reckon there's room to say that both showing-off and being provocative could be reasons for a person (who's by no means average) to wear a fcuk piece of clothing instead of something else.

I'd say that Bell's theory is completely accurate, and that fcuk is a terrible example of it. Without wanting to offend anyone, the only people I've seen wearing obvious fcuk-branded clothing are what someone else referred to as the Bridge and Tunnel set.

the Bridge and Tunnel set

Could you explain this euphemism in plain English I have no idea to what it refers?

That pink is not a masculine color seems peculiar to western culture. I used to wear a rather bright pink for a bit till people started complementing me on how "secure I was in my masculinity". Strangely enough, that made me want to stop wearing it.

I think the association of pink with femininity is relatively recent (less than a hundred years old), but I haven't found anything but other people asserting it in a quick search.

From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Pink_in_gender]:

"In Western culture, the practice of assigning pink to an individual gender began in the 1920s.[5] From then until the 1940s, pink was considered appropriate for boys because being related to red it was the more masculine and decided color, while blue was considered appropriate for girls because it was the more delicate and dainty color, or related to the Virgin Mary.[6][7][8] Since the 1940s, the societal norm apparently inverted so that pink became appropriate for girls and blue appropriate for boys, a practice that has continued into the 21st century.[9]"

So yes, you're right, this association is recent.

I read a little while ago that pink used to be for boys, and blue for girls — the idea being that pink was more fiery, with pastel blue being calmer and more feminine.

This changed sometime in the early 20th century.

The source was some parenting/manners/etiquette book from 190x.

"That pink is not a masculine color seems peculiar to western culture."

Go to Italy, then. One of the good things in life is to wear a dark Italian suit with a pastel-colored shirt (light blue is the norm, light-pink is not unusual). Only utter morons would associate a color with a sexual orientation. But then, most Americans are utter morons. In fact, most people, Americans or non-Americans are complete morons. It's an epidemic.

I guess I'm not a real man then. I have a number of pink shirts that I wear for work (amongst a whole load of other colours) and I've never even thought about my masculinity when wearing one. Frankly, the opposite seems to be true to me. If you have to put a big sign on your pink shirt talking about "real men" then you are pretty insecure about your pink shirt and your man status.

I agree -- the "wear a pink shirt to indicate confidence in your masculinity" trick only worked briefly (was it in the late 90s?), for the first few men who started doing it. As soon as it got noticed and people started writing articles about it, it stopped working, since it was an easily-faked signal; I remember the bars suddenly being flooded with desperate-looking weak-chinned men in pastel pink shirts at some point. Nowadays, I think, that whole phase is over and pale pink is just another colour for men's shirts, though I personally try to avoid it because of all the layers of attached symbolism.

This, of course, is the whole point about fashion -- those who aren't at the top try to look like those above them, and those who are at the top try to look different from those below them.

If you're thinking "but surely a highly confident man doesn't care what he wears" then you're right, but a highly confident man still needs to go to great effort to make sure he doesn't look like he cares what he's wearing, otherwise he risks being confused with those below him.

A man who does not care what he wears spends no effort on what he's wearing. A man who wants to appear like he doesn't care what he's wearing may spend effort on what he wears.

Signals don't need to be accurate, e.g., spoofed browser agents.

Some signals are accurate. If you work out, have tattoos or a magnificent beard, that's a lot different to just putting on a shirt.

http://www.pecimplants.com/

http://www.temporarytattoos.com/

http://www.extremewigs.com/hhbeard.htm

It's not saying much to say that different signals are easier or harder to fake.

None of those beards are going to convince anyone. Beard extensions would probably work though.

It's about signals, not reality:

He claims that the goal of fashion is to signal status. So far, so obvious. But low-status people would like to subvert the signal. Therefore, the goal of lower class people is to look like upper class people, and the goal of upper class people is to not look like lower class people.

Signals aren't interpreted the same way by everyone (hence "high-status" and "low-status" are very coarse terms), but anyone actively trying to control the signals they give off through clothing has some idea of how they will be interpreted by those they are seeking to impress.

A shirt that says "FCUK" can start a conversation with a stranger, preferably the sort of boundary-challenging conversation that might lead to an opportunity to challenge more boundaries.

There's a practical purpose that has very little to do with fashion.

Shirts with FCUK on them aren't supposed to be outrageous designs.

They're wearing clothes that advertise French Connection UK, a high-end clothier.

They are advertising the clothing store - however the reason people buy them is because they think they're incredibly subversive having clothing that appears to say "FUCK" in public.

I don't find "fuck" to be particularly offensive, except that the reason people are using it (in this instance) is because they wish to offend the public sensibility, so they are attempting to be offensive; which I _do_ find offensive.

French Connection, before this campaign, was a high-end clothier. Now it may charge high-end prices but they sold themselves into chav-dom.

FCUK == chav, not high-end.

One of the confusing parts of this thread is that the FCUK brand has different associations in the US from what it has in the UK or Australia.

It's pretty rare to see a FCUK t-shirt in the US (apparently they only have 19 stores nationwide) whereas they're ridiculously overplayed in the other two countries (14 stores in Sydney alone).

Of course it's not "high end" anywhere, but it's not so chavvy (or local equivalent) in the US.

I think the writer didn't get it..