Comment on Old but gud
Hapankaali@lemmy.world 4 days agoIt’s an interesting phenomenon, because throughout most of human history it was men who wore (if they could) flamboyant outfits, while women tended to be more demurely dressed. Sexually dimorphic species (ducks, peacocks, etc.) are often similar, with males having vibrant colours. What changed, and why? I’m sure some sociologist has thought of an answer.
Signed, plainly dressed man.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 4 days ago
BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 4 days ago
I think the reason is as simple as flamboyant outfits being easily available.
Two hundred years ago, a flamboyant outfit indicated you did minimum manual work. As that’d destroy the drip, and it was also quite expensive. While commoners would wear often brown/grey work outfits.
It’s the same reasons for why it used to be in to be white/pale, as that indicated you’d stay inside all day rather than working the fields. Now it’s in to be tan, as that indicates you’re able to sunbath rather than work in an office all day long
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
I think there’s also a factor of WW1 and 2, even well into the depression it wasn’t too uncommon for men to wear somewhat colorful clothes but after WW2 it seems that the only folks using color were pimps and hippies. From there it was simply a matter of industrial clothing not really giving folks an option.
Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org 4 days ago
Image
Be the change you want to see in the world!
Fizz@lemmy.nz 3 days ago
If I step outside looking like that im getting bashed 100%.
crank0271@lemmy.world 3 days ago
By whom, the peasants? A curse upon their houses.
Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org 3 days ago
If thou dost bringeth thy flute, thee canst play a vicious mockery tune at them.