(no subject)
Jan. 30th, 2015 04:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotSomeone posted about that whole Reddit thing I was obsessing about (along with a second example of weirdness by the same poster) to AskHistoriansPanel to talk about basically not giving that person flair even though they technically cite sources. ... it doesn't seem like the answer of an expert, just somebody who is basically familiar with fashion history. I was sad that /u/chocolatepot, who clearly actually had expert knowledge, didn't get more karma from that thread. That's been making my day since I found it.
Somebody else asked a question about corsetry and feminism in AskFeminists, and once I found it I wrote probably the longest comment I'll ever make. Then got into a discussion with another poster which is going ... interestingly? They have some odd beliefs about social status (domestic servants are upper middle class?!?) and I get the impression that they use their SCA experience of the 16th century to equal History.
But dang, I'm really tired of the thing I see everywhere, the opinion that until the 1950s the vast majority of people in Western society lived on farms that were so poor they had no consideration for what they were wearing besides "does it cover me and provide enough warmth/protection?" and where there was no division of labor at all. And that they only other option was being OTT wealthy with money to burn on new clothes every other week and no responsibilities at all. At least with a SCAdian there's the reasonable potential that they're generalizing based on their own studies, but it seems really prevalent among even 19th century reenactors, and non-reenactors. Or, not prevalent, but when it comes up there's a certain aggression/belligerence to it, and a subtext of "you are all idiots for not thinking this." I don't know what the deal is.
Scandal continues to be INSANE, I'm glad Shonda Rhimes can always think of something to top herself. Revenge is being pretty great, too but less mind-bogglingly out there. Which is okay, we don't need to boggle minds with every episode. Or is it just that I'm conditioned to expect daring rescues and people coming out of the past etc. etc. on Revenge?
Somebody else asked a question about corsetry and feminism in AskFeminists, and once I found it I wrote probably the longest comment I'll ever make. Then got into a discussion with another poster which is going ... interestingly? They have some odd beliefs about social status (domestic servants are upper middle class?!?) and I get the impression that they use their SCA experience of the 16th century to equal History.
But dang, I'm really tired of the thing I see everywhere, the opinion that until the 1950s the vast majority of people in Western society lived on farms that were so poor they had no consideration for what they were wearing besides "does it cover me and provide enough warmth/protection?" and where there was no division of labor at all. And that they only other option was being OTT wealthy with money to burn on new clothes every other week and no responsibilities at all. At least with a SCAdian there's the reasonable potential that they're generalizing based on their own studies, but it seems really prevalent among even 19th century reenactors, and non-reenactors. Or, not prevalent, but when it comes up there's a certain aggression/belligerence to it, and a subtext of "you are all idiots for not thinking this." I don't know what the deal is.
Scandal continues to be INSANE, I'm glad Shonda Rhimes can always think of something to top herself. Revenge is being pretty great, too but less mind-bogglingly out there. Which is okay, we don't need to boggle minds with every episode. Or is it just that I'm conditioned to expect daring rescues and people coming out of the past etc. etc. on Revenge?
