[ home / overboard ] [ spam ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]

A banner for soyjak.party

/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

Politics & countrywars
Catalog
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1754280515621l.png πŸ“₯︎ (238.05 KB, 775x849) ImgOps

File: Don_Juan_d'Austria_1.JPG πŸ“₯︎ (594.61 KB, 960x1841) ImgOps

File: 33-vento_orientale_Taccuin….jpg πŸ“₯︎ (31.3 KB, 254x376) ImgOps

 β„–3504267[Quote]

*hits pipe*
Women wearing tight legwear like leggings instead of men is an abomination that symbolizes the decline of Western civilization. Let me explain.
To the Greeks and Romans, pants were looked down upon as barbaric. Men would normally have their open legs below the knees bare, but women would wear long garments that would cover down to the ankles. In this patriarchal culture very much oriented towards the male form (the Greeks were even favorable to male nudity), women's bodies were virtually always covered more than males. This is something that has been seen in pretty much every civilization ever: an emphasis and value on women's modesty makes women cover more of the body and the female form than men, whose clothing is allowed to be more revealing.
Of course, Romans eventually adopted the trousers due to climates being colder up north, basically a matter of necessity. Two observations are to be noted here, first that this was something only Germanic men wore and not women. Second, if you were to preserve the principles of female modesty in dress relative to men and the appreciation of the masculine form while covering the legs, how could you possibly do better than adopting trousers? They still reveal the outline of the individual legs, there's just fabric covering each one now. This brings us to another important point: the tighter the legwear, the more the form of the legs is shown.
Historically, European men typically wore very tight-fitting covering for their legs. They primarily wore hose and/or breeches all the way from most of the medieval period into the 19th century. For over a thousand years (if not far longer) tight legwear, if there was legwear at all, was seen as the natural clothing for men, and exclusively for men.
A woman wearing hose would get her in serious trouble for crossdressing. Because long dresses do not depict the natural form of a woman's legs, they became perfect for women in a society that treasured female modesty; for the reverse reason pants, hose, and stockings were totally unfit for them.
So if legwear like pants on women were anathema for thousands of years, when and how did it become okay? Some of you may be surprised to learn that it only became okay as recently as the 20th century, and only really around mid-century after WWII did women wearing pants begin to become a normal thing in public. Not even 80 years ago! This was not an an easy process. In the 19th century many places had laws that made it illegal for women to wear trousers, including many major US cities, and Paris. Women wearing pants was also very much tied up with the feminist movements of the 19th century. It was associated with the "new woman" of modernity, was pushed by feminists to the point they would deliberately wear pants to get arrested, and any woman wearing pants was seen as likely making a feminist political statement. Pants on women was also something very much influenced, to an extent even directly imported, from foreign Eastern Ottoman influences (like bloomers, the "Turkish dress"). The adoption of trousers on women corresponded tightly with advances in women's status and rights, like during and as a consequence of the World Wars (it's not a coincidence that a lot of countries gave women the right to vote after WWI). It should not come as a surprise that women wearing trousers made many people at the time freak the fuck out and believe that civilization was declining. It was a total inversion of thousands of years of dress norms, and it accordingly came with the breakdown of traditional social norms governing the sexes (not a coincidence whatsoever).
<I browse reddit
Today we have "advanced" to tight legwear being mostly designated to women and looser forms being for men. We see it as normal for women to wear tights, leggings, stockings, etc., and for men to wear this would be strange and flout social expectations. People today look at a Renaissance or Baroque painting of people in contemporary dress and they think it's very weird that the men would wear those tight clothes hugging their legs, because that's supposed to be a thing that women wear.
(1/2)

 β„–3504280[Quote]

As a Greek, the Greeks also thought that having a micropenis meant you were a genius.

 β„–3504281[Quote]

File: Livre_de_Chasse_51v.jpg πŸ“₯︎ (87.39 KB, 570x525) ImgOps

(2/2)
Being a little more reflective and not so presentist allows us to see that if anyone is weird in this regard, it is actually us, and definitely not the people of the past. For one, tight-fitting outer legwear has been designated to be for men for many centuries, for women less than 80 years. For two, is anyone really so naive and willfully ignorant enough to believe that the men and society of the past were more effeminate than of today? Testosterone levels plummeting in the last few decades alone should make considering this any further unnecessary. The men of past centuries clearly had more sense and right to decide on the question of women vs men wearing tight leggings. And their viewpoint made perfect logical sense- that is, for a society that sought to impose modesty on women and have men be the principal actors in society while women perform a subordinate role. Despite what we consider normal today, the people of the past, from the early 20th century to Antiquity, would think we are insane for allowing women to wear tight legwear as they do now. Of course, our viewpoint and practice today does also make perfect logical sense- for a society that has disposed of expectations for female modesty and the traditional relations between the sexes, shuns all notions of patriarchy, and gives women an equal power to men. The anomaly of tight leggings on women is simply a reflection of all of this.
<space de reddit
The fact that tight leggings have become clothing for women and not for men is therefore a symbol of many of the modern problems of today that are contributing to a real decline in Western civilization, most or all of which we have no easy answer to, if we have an answer at all, e.g. below replacement level birth rates for native populations, increasingly aging populations that contribute to increasingly strained resources, mass immigration and demographic replacement of native ethnic groups, coin-flip divorce rates, etc. All of these issues are related to the overthrow of the traditional relations between man and woman, embodied in women being allowed to wear tight legwear. The fact that this novel fashion development that would have been seen as an abomination for thousands of years has only relatively suddenly arisen and become accepted so that it coincides with all of these issues is not a coincidence.

 β„–3504282[Quote]

blah blah blah it looks sexy on women

 β„–3504288[Quote]

and greeks were longhoused cuckold slaves and scythians were aryan descendants and raped bugmen

 β„–3504289[Quote]

Too much worlds yakul chur

 β„–3504290[Quote]

File: 1760449944496l.webp πŸ“₯︎ (200.62 KB, 230x255) ImgOps

>blah blah blah it looks sexy on women

 β„–3504292[Quote]

monkeydonians were the second aryans after BharatBvlls

 β„–3504293[Quote]


 β„–3504313[Quote]

notice how bugmen societies like the greeks did this meanwhile actual barbarian gigas who fucked cucklonghouse women didn't do this

 β„–3504317[Quote]

You failed to mention that the Greeks and Romans were raging homoxsexuals while the Germanics drowned fags in swamps

 β„–3504345[Quote]

File: ClipboardImage.png πŸ“₯︎ (626.19 KB, 1920x1080) ImgOps

>>3504317
>Drowning fags in swamps
Finally someone actually knows the truth about my ancestors and how they treated faggots. I'm so tired of hearing christpilled niggers insulting my people's history

 β„–3504442[Quote]

>>3504280
I think that's a myth.

>>3504282
>>3504293
It depends because if some fat whore is wearing them it just looks gross. This is the double-edged sword of stripping away notions of modesty even from a "it gives me a boner" perspective, you might think it would be all well and good because hot women will show more of themselves but then the obese ones follow and you're met with eyesores.

>>3504317
Idk if this is supposed to be a point against my post but I mention a bit how Germanics fit into this (only the men wore pants).

 β„–3504446[Quote]

>>3504442
It's not. They deliberately depicted satyrs as having massive cocks to show that they were uncultured dumb beasts. I've seen some of the statues in person geg

 β„–3504535[Quote]

>>3504267 (OP)
>if you were to preserve the principles of female modesty in dress relative to men and the appreciation of the masculine form while covering the legs, how could you possibly do better than adopting trousers?
That's gay

 β„–3504560[Quote]

>>3504280
I'll tell that to my wife next time she calls me retarded.

 β„–3504563[Quote]

>>3504535
That's what I'm saying

 β„–3504569[Quote]

>>3504317
>>3504345
>Bog fags and pedis
The Celts did as well as burning them alive in the wickerman.

 β„–3504577[Quote]

>>3504267 (OP)
I read this in it's entirety.

 β„–3504600[Quote]

>>3504569
Pretty sure the "burning fags at the stake" thing is an urban legend. That shit was mostly done to heretics

 β„–3504722[Quote]

>>3504600
In france in the 18th(?) Century they did it and Voltaire wrote a book about how it made xer clitty leak

 β„–3504856[Quote]




[Return][Catalog][Go to top][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard ] [ spam ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]