Asklemmy

43958 readers

1307 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

124

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 1 month ago by linucs@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] observes_depths@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago

To save some people a minute, from Wikipedia:

The Great Male Renunciation is the historical phenomenon at the end of the 18th century in which wealthy Western men stopped using bright colours, elaborate shapes and variety in their dress, which were left to women's clothing. Instead, men concentrated on minute differences of cut, and the quality of the plain cloth. Coined by British psychologist John Flügel in 1930, it is considered a major turning point in the history of clothing in which the men relinquished their claim to adornment and beauty.