• deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Broadly, and without evidence:

    Women in formal situations were decoration, another piece of fashion attached to a man.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I think this answer is on the right track but not the complete story. why don’t men in the culture also use their own fashion to demonstrate their opulence? we have to look at not only why women but also why not men

      • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Men definitely use fashion to demonstrate opulence. The range of available styles is far more limited than what women get, but there’s still plenty of variation in that range to send social signals of one’s wealth. In fact it creates a more apples-to-apples point of comparison. I can’t personally look at two dresses and know which one costs more, but I can easily spot the expensive suit.

        And don’t forget that sometimes casual clothing can be used as a status symbol too. In a conference room full of Armani suits, it’s not unheard of for the 26 year old at the head of the table wearing a hoodie and chucks to be the one calling the shots. <Insert Silicon Valley reference here>

    • d00phy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

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

      • CALIGVLA@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Kind of. A bastard in the sense that he was a major influence to modern men’s fashion and fast fashion as a whole, but otherwise he was really a victim of the system that sought a way out and unwittingly contributed to the very same system, not to mention that he was kind of a jerk.

      • masterspace
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago
        Tap for spoiler

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

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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)

  • Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    4 hours ago

    “An Historical”

    This makes my skin crawl. I imagine its what people who hate the word moist feel.

    Did you know 3M stands for MOIST MOIST MOIST

    Not sorry

    • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      We all have those words that drive us crazy. Mine is when people pronounce associate as asso-SHE-ate.

      It’s petty. Like really, really petty. But for some reason it grates on my nerves.

      Also there’s an Reddit, user named random_commas or something like that. They leave legitimately good comments but with a few, extra commas in places that really fuck up the flow while reading. It gets me every single, time! I get all frazzled until I notice, the username and realize i’ve been had. Respect to that, person for having such a harmlessly evil schtick.

    • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      In the UK it is not unusual to hear “an ‘istorical” rather than “a historical” so I can - possibly - see where they’re coming from here. UK first letter “h” is going like the French and Spanish version, I.e. silent.

    • francisfordpoopola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Added another moist for emphasis.

      Side note: humble brag…I speak and moderate periodically at conferences. My friends give me a list of 5 words to slide into my speech. Moist was one of them. That’s the hardest word to just slip into (as it were) a presentation. I was successful.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        As someone who didn’t grow up speaking English, I never got why people consider it so annoying as a word.

  • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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.”

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 hours 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.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

          • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            5 hours ago

            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.

            • Pennomi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours 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

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours 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