this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024

51 points (96.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26570 readers

1411 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is there an historical reason why female formal dresses have a huge variety of styles compared to male ones where the only acceptable style is jacket with pants? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21753722

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] [email protected] -31 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

Because despite what social media would have you believe, women have not actually been horribly oppressed everywhere for all of history, and have actually enjoyed a place of reverence in western culture for a very long time. Men have been willing to sacrifice everything, even their own lives, to ensure the women they loved had whatever could be provided.

Frankly I'm strongly suspicious that many of these narratives are being pushed by cultures where women are ACTUAL slaves, to try and hide the evidence that it's even possible to live any other way. "Just look at the disaster which befalls any society where women are given freedom."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 45 minutes ago

Most women could not open their own bank accounts or have credit cards until the 1970's. That's just about within the lifetimes of nearly half the people here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago

lmfao

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

being treated as an object of reverence to be kept and provided for rather than a person of equal contributions to be given the same status as everyone else, is itself a form of oppression. Consider that "revered and provided for" is also the status of a cat, and while we certainly love those, they arent exactly treated as anything like our equals.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

People constantly claim that women have been horribly objectified, while ignoring how men have always been treated by society, where they have no value what so ever other than as a wage slave.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

The poor have always been treated poorly. But if you look at the people that actually have most of the influence in society, they've generally been mostly men. Not exclusively, and less now than before, but you can hardly argue the distribution of power has been anything close to 50 50. Talking about this isn't ignoring that poor men (and poor women for that matter) are and have been exploited for their labor- because that is simply a different conversation than the one on gender status. There can be more than one issue in play in society at a time, and it is not ignoring or denying the rest to talk about one of them without bringing up every single other one while doing it

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Both those things can be true. One is caused by sexism, the other by classism. Neither negates the other, and implying so is incredibly dismissive.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

This very post itself is about how men have had literally no choices at all for formal wear, which certainly wasn't a poor man's arena.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 53 minutes ago

Men have a ton of choices for formal wear, my dude...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 54 minutes ago

The “limited fashion choices for a man to wear” was enforced by men, not women. It’s not the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. (Especially considering during the same era women couldn’t own property or vote.) Men have had privilege for nearly all of recorded history.

I know you’re just doubling down on your argument here, which is a normal human thing. You should really read up on the topic and see what experts say about sexism. There are lots of good citations in the Wikipedia article here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

where the only acceptable style is jacket with pants?

Well, there's the Scottish, who can do a gussied-up kilt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_dress

Formal evening wear (white tie)

The traditional white-tie version of Highland dress consists of:

Men:

Formal kilt doublet in barathea or velvet. The regulation, Montrose, Sheriffmuir and Kenmore doublets are suitable in a variety of colours. Velvet is considered to be a more formal material. The Prince Charlie jacket (coatee) is considered to be less formal,[by whom?] although when introduced it was to be worn with a white lace jabot. Tartan jackets are also seen.

Waistcoat in white marcella, tartan (usually to match the kilt), red or the same material as the doublet. No waistcoat is worn with the Kenmore or Montrose doublets.

Kilt with formal kilt pin

White stiff-front shirt with wing collar and white, gold, or silver studs and cufflinks for the Regulation doublet, or a white formal shirt and optional lace cuffs for the Montrose, Sheriffmuir, and Kenmore doublets

White lace jabot. A black silk or a white marcella bow tie may be worn in place of the jabot with the regulation doublet (Highland wear often includes a black bow tie even at white-tie events).

Black formal shoes or black buckle brogues

Tartan or diced kilt hose

Silk garter flashes or garter ties

Silver-mounted sporran in fur, sealskin or hair with a silver chain belt

Black, silver-mounted and jeweled sgian-dubh

Highland bonnet (Balmoral or Glengarry) with crest badge (only worn outdoors)

Short belted plaid with silver plaid brooch (optional)

Scottish dirk (optional)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Beau Brummel's influence is the reason, though he would have detested the uniformity of it all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Brummell

A good Behind the Bastards on him: https://open.spotify.com/episode/00n2CANk00e5P2L0H348h1?si=1VhgCCRnQQueiPBFSfjJLg

Tap for spoiler

possibly the only non bastard to make it onto a non-Christmas episode

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Did they even agree he was a bastard? I vaguely remember this episode. I recall it being pretty tame.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

Tap for spoiler

possibly the only non bastard to make it onto a non-Christmas episode

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 hours ago

https://youtu.be/uAKMolRKphE?si=T7SS0saI_GFQtdrj

Derek Guy breaks it down some in this podcast. But it was a shift in the house of commons in England as it was working Man's clothing and was a way to signal you were with the people and not aristocracy.