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.
Boy did that work out.
Broadly, and without evidence:
Women in formal situations were decoration, another piece of fashion attached to a man.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Male_Renunciation
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
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>
So as not to distract from the pretty things.
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
Did they even agree he was a bastard? I vaguely remember this episode. I recall it being pretty tame.
Tap for spoiler
possibly the only non bastard to make it onto a non-Christmas episode
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.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/27122034 Just learned about this today here on Lemmy
Yeah I posted my question a few hours before that was posted, very cool!
Well that was fascinating, thank you
Many people blame Beau Brummel
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a26870204/beau-brummell-style-toxic-masculinity/
Ah aristocratic English man. What haven’t you made terrible
Fun fact:Charles II of England is considered to be the inventor of the three-pieces suit. At the time, French King Louis XIV ordered his footmen to adopt the vest as a way to debase the new English style.
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)
-
I blame the gay panic of the 18th and 19th centuries.
“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
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.
I don’t like how much sense that makes.
But i also am thankful for the framing of it that way cause i think it will stick in my head when I’m reading and be a salve to seeing it spelled out on a page so thanks… Jerk (in a friendly way)
Edit: spelling
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_commasor 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.Respect to that, person for having such a harmlessly evil schtick.
That is wonderously harmful evil, thanks for sharing. Im slightly worried im going to start noticing that asso-she-ate pronoun-she-ation.
Time will tell!
Sorry man, english is not my first language so sometimes I make mistakes.
But I searched online and it seems that it’s not totally wrong to use “an” in front of historical, especially in informal writing.
Don’t worry OP, you are actually correct in using “an historical.”
Not according to my english teachers, but thats a different discussion and not why I responded
My english teachers taught it and enforcing it might be why, but it strikes a nerve when i hear it. Not sure why its just uncomfortable to process when i hear it (and i “hear” what im reading in my internal voice. As i understand it not everyone has an internal voice, similar to aphantasia)
Another user pointed out a pronunciation that helps. Some accents pronounce the H in words more than others, “an 'istorical” does trigger whatever my brain does with the hard H after an.
Also Lacking the ability myself, I only have respect for people that speak more than one language.
Absolutely no need for an apology friend. Its very much a regional thing as well. But having this discussion im sure someone will learn something they didnt know about the world so in a way, we are by having this discussion helping people learn, and i think its good to learn even if its only useful to others witnessing this discussion
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.
As someone who didn’t grow up speaking English, I never got why people consider it so annoying as a word.
I feel that is like me failing to understand why pinaeapple on pizza offends many people?
Hows your project going these days, oh is moistly done now
I welcome your punishment. It is well deserved
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Men have a ton of choices for formal wear, my dude…
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
Men have always had the freedom to choose what they want to be - for women it’s the fucking bird cage or nothing… now the bird cage is gilded and pretty, but it’s still a fucking bird cage.
Men have always had the freedom to choose what they want to be
You don’t understand anything about our history at all, do you? English surnames (Thatcher, Smith, Fletcher, etc…) are what they are because people literally had no other choice but to work the same profession for many generations.
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.
lmfao
nice opinion bro did you make it yourself
Removed by mod
Just because your culture may have a shit history for how they treated women doesn’t mean every other culture was the same.
