3 ms·

There's nothing particularly rational about this. Like so much or modernity, it's just a set of aesthetic preferences dressed up in the mantle of rationalism.

andrepd 4y ago
I dunno, it sounds pretty clear to me. > The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.
- realjhol 4y ago
  Right- but all of those criteria are highly subjective. And even the question of why these goals are important versus any other concerns is subjective. Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so. Rationalism is absurd, and this is a great example of why. Humans almost never do anything on a purely rational basis. Everything we do is directed by subjectivity, emotion, aesthetics etc. - it's better to be honest about this and embrace it, rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective.
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    You're looking at this from a modern perspective. The Victorian perspective was that the rules of society were the rules of Nature -- or God -- and that conformity to them directly indicated your moral worth.
  - kdmccormick 4y ago
    Read the article.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    In a word: Corsets. If you don't already know, look at what Victorian corsets actually did to women, and all three points will make sense. They make sense for other reasons as well, but corsets are enough.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    > Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so. Yes! And the women in Victorian England had no choice in that (did you even read the article?). Shunning the dress norms had serious consequences for the woman. It's easy to forget that when you live in a society where (1) people can more or less dress as they wish, and (2) even the socially accepted norm is not overly constricting of movement or damaging to your health. > rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective Freedom of motion, in a very concrete example, enough to ride a bicycle, is a very objective thing.
  - tokai 4y ago
    The rational dresses the society was supporting has nothing to do with philosophical rationalism. You are tilting against some imagined you might find important - but its not relevant to this subject.

andrepd 4y ago

I dunno, it sounds pretty clear to me. > The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.

realjhol 4y ago
Right- but all of those criteria are highly subjective. And even the question of why these goals are important versus any other concerns is subjective. Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so. Rationalism is absurd, and this is a great example of why. Humans almost never do anything on a purely rational basis. Everything we do is directed by subjectivity, emotion, aesthetics etc. - it's better to be honest about this and embrace it, rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  You're looking at this from a modern perspective. The Victorian perspective was that the rules of society were the rules of Nature -- or God -- and that conformity to them directly indicated your moral worth.
- kdmccormick 4y ago
  Read the article.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  In a word: Corsets. If you don't already know, look at what Victorian corsets actually did to women, and all three points will make sense. They make sense for other reasons as well, but corsets are enough.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so. Yes! And the women in Victorian England had no choice in that (did you even read the article?). Shunning the dress norms had serious consequences for the woman. It's easy to forget that when you live in a society where (1) people can more or less dress as they wish, and (2) even the socially accepted norm is not overly constricting of movement or damaging to your health. > rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective Freedom of motion, in a very concrete example, enough to ride a bicycle, is a very objective thing.
- tokai 4y ago
  The rational dresses the society was supporting has nothing to do with philosophical rationalism. You are tilting against some imagined you might find important - but its not relevant to this subject.