#I think the dressmaker said something about it? but I personally think that his usually clothes are not so colorful
Text
In fact, based on Will's rainbow spaceship and how Will was supposed to wear colorful clothes before the UD (even his clothes on the day he got missing have a bit of a bright red) based on his original character description in pitch and pilot script, the Will the Wise costume or the outfit with which in my opinion Will looks more comfortable in Lenora, I think Will actually likes vibrant colors.
#It could be him holding on to his childhood like with the bowlcut but i dunno#I think the dressmaker said something about it? but I personally think that his usually clothes are not so colorful#will byers#byler#he definitely likes red tho
349 notes
·
View notes
Text
I’m in bed now because tomorrow I go in at 3 in the morning and I’m tired. But because I’m in bed, it means I can finally talk about an AU that won’t leave me alone :D
(And yeah, I know I already have 2 I’m working on. Tbh I don’t know if I’ll ever actually do anything with this third one, but it’s fun to think about and rotate around in my head like a Costco rotisserie chicken.)
I watched a movie the other day that was frankly, disappointing, but one of the few things I liked about it was that the love interest-person made dresses. He was a dick and his wife deserved way better (even though she poisoned him to put him in his place and I said “fuck yeah, do it again”), but I thought the whole dress-making thing was really cool. And then, because my mind works the way it does and it always likes to play with AUs, I said, “Hm, what if?”
This is also partially fueled by a very beloved book of mine. Some of my favorite parts in it are when the main character and her sisters are getting ready for a ball and getting sized and fitted for fancy dresses. Idk something about it just really appealed to me. Maybe I like pretty things too much. (To be completely honest, I know I do. It’s why I keep buying jewelry when I don’t actually like to wear any most of the time.)
I don’t have a clear plot for this AU like I do for the other two. Really it’s just a couple of scenes that are vaguely connected. Here’s what I’m thinking:
It would be set in, like, the 18th century or something bc let’s be honest everyone likes that.
Dressmaker!Marin who spends their days lost in their work in some tiny, little local shop that doesn’t get much recognition despite having a handful of very loyal customers.
They’re doing their usual thing when someone walks in and makes the bell above the door ring. This is a surprise, because they aren’t expecting anyone today. They don’t have any fitting appointments and while walk-ins are welcome, the shop doesn’t really get any.
So they put their work aside and make their way up to the front of the shop to greet whoever it is. And, of course, who else could it be but a certain very tall, and very pretty Nat?
(With a disgruntled Ava in tow. She does not want to be there.)
They make their introductions. Nat does most of the speaking, and talks about how she and her very dear friend aren’t from here—they’re visiting on prolonged business, she says. (Agency business, but Marin doesn’t know that.) It was very sudden and neither of them had time to pack properly, and she knows this is very short timing, but they’re going to be in town for a while, and would Marin possibly be kind and generous enough spend part of their day having them measured so they can place a few orders?
Ava says under her breath, “I don’t need new clothes.” To which Nat replies, too quietly for Marin to hear, “Your last dress is currently covered in werewolf blood. It’s either a new wardrobe, or you walk around for everyone to see in your shift.”
(Ava does not want to do that. She reluctantly agrees.)
Marin, of course, is more than willing to help. Partially because they’re eager for new customers, and partially because they find Nat very attractive and when they say yes, she smiles at them and it makes their heart jump. And their face feel warm. How strange.
Naturally, they move on to the actual measuring. Ava intimidates them and it goes smoothly, if more quiet than a usual appointment. They discovered quickly that she isn’t one for small talk. When it’s over and done with, it’s almost a relief.
With Nat, it’s a very different story. Nat makes conversation and is very insightful. She has a nice, soft laugh and makes them feel at ease, and has plenty of compliments to offer after seeing the dresses in display in the shop window. It’s safe to say that Marin is a very flustered mess, even though they’re enjoying her company. A lot.
There’s one moment where she has to get close with the measuring tape. Marin doesn’t notice at first until they realize they can smell the perfume she’s wearing, and then they look up—and wow, she is very tall, Marin has to tilt their head back to look her in the eye, and when did she get so close? They feel jumpy and take a step back, and try to play it off. If Nat almost trips over one of her sentences for some strange reason, Marin doesn’t notice.
Ava notices, though. Because of course she does.
The rest of the afternoon goes relatively smooth, even if Marin does make it a point to avoid making eye contact in order to keep their cool. Ava says she doesn’t care about the details of her garments, as long as they leave plenty of space for her to move around in like she needs. Nat isn’t picky either, though she does have a few things in mind. Marin says that they think she would look good in green.
They thank her, they pay for Marin for their time, and leave. And that’s that. That should be that.
Naturally, it isn’t. Not when Nat walks through the door again a few days later, but not to talk business. Instead, she says, it’s just… to see them. Just because she was “in the area” and thought she’d drop by. (Spoilers: she’s lying.)
One thing leads to another. Nat comes by more and more frequently, and Marin can’t help it when they wind up falling. Hard.
I just have this image in mind of them having quiet, private conversations in an empty shop as Marin works on sewing and beading and measuring fabric, while Nat sits on the other side of the work table and sips on cups of tea. It is soft and intimate and Marin finds they look forward to coming in more and more every day.
Naturally, when their work is done, there would be a scene where Marin is helping Nat into one of the dresses they made for her. Maybe they’re standing back to see it on her in its entirely, looking over their work to search for what can be improved, but oh no—the only thing they can actually focus on is now good Nat looks.
There’s a pause as Marin stands there and tries to get it together to think of something to say. They fail miserably. But why is Nat staring at them like that?
They clear their throat and open their mouth to offer an alteration they could make—a remark about it being just a little too long, or the sleeves extending just a bit too far, or something for them to fix so that Nat can keep visiting for just a little bit longer—but they never get to finish their thought. Because that’s when Nat takes a step forward and places her gloved hands very gently on either side of Marin’s face, and leans down to pull them into a kiss.
(It occurs to Marin later that she never actually looked herself over in the mirror once. Nat was too busy watching them.)
#sealy rambles#this has been in my head for days#will I do something with it?#probably not#but it’s fun to think about :)
23 notes
·
View notes
Note
Can I please request hcs about Julius the Dressmaker? He's so underrated but my favorite 😭🖤 thank you
I recently got into this character, actually! I had to read up on him before answering, so I could be accurate lolz. I hope these can satisfy!
Julius The Dressmaker Headcanons
Doesn't want to admit it, but he's an extremely jealous man. I mean if someone has something he doesn't and he wants it, he's not above taking it.
This also applies to his relationships. How do you think him and Killian work together??? It's called, "if I can't have you no one else can."
Absolutely power hungry. I would say on a scale of Candy Pop to Night Terrors he's pretty close to Night Terrors power hungry. Which is scary in and of itself.
With that being said, he doesn't live in the mansion. He stays in his shop away from the creeps. He does know some of them, though.
He hates his bracelets. They're a constant reminder that he isn't as powerful as he hopes to be.
Surprisingly a good cook. Makes dishes his mom used to make for special holidays and events.
Speaking of which, he LOVES holidays. Not just for the increased business, but also loves the colors and the idea of gift giving. He likes being able to measure love.
Very in other people's personal space, but doesn't like his breached. He's super picky about who he let's near him, which includes who gets close to him.
Very outgoing, surprisingly. When he does go out, he is usually the life of the party. Cracking jokes, telling stories, dancing, partying. He truly is a party boy at heart.
With that being said, he doesn't party often. He usually spends his time in his shop, making dresses. It's only on rare occasions you can catch him going to a bar or club. He spends most of his days drinking alone in his shop.
Favorably, he would be out with his boyfriend Killian over anyone else. Even though they have a toxic, deranged relationship, they still lean on each other for most things. And Julius has abandonment issues. (Self projecting)
Julius actually believes other demons are quite useless. He doesn't get along with most of the other demons, especially Kagekao. He thinks that he's too playful and is too much of a trickster to get a job well done.
However, he does get along with Candy Pop alright. They aren't on best terms but they can tolerate each other's presence, even if just for the sake of mutual acquaintances.
Has formed a sort of pack between him, Vine, and Jason. They don't go after the same people, and sometimes work together to create beautiful pieces. But for the most part, the pact is to stay out of one another's way/out of sight out of mind ideology.
I hope these were good!
34 notes
·
View notes
Note
The thing that’s interesting to me about that WoT descriptions post is that i actually /liked/ the sanderson descriptions lol. At least i read the ones up to Min- i felt like they added to the world building by acknowledging different styles/cultures and also they seem to nod at their personality, but its possible they detract more when you’re reading them mid book (i have yet to read WoT). The Min one definitely bugged me (because of the ‘tailored’ comment lol) so i can see why more of them might be irritating when you put them in context. You definitely cant claim sanderson is the more ‘condensed’ writer, but i’m surprised anyone is *trying* to.
Most of his descriptions are there to acknowledge part of the world building- ‘this place has a different style of dress, these people prefer this kind of accessorising, the furnishing in the building indicate this’ and so on, and surely if branderson is meant to be so good at worldbuilding, that would be… acknowledged as a good thing? And not? Denied entirely?
Standard disclaimer that I apparently have to add because otherwise people think I'm declaring I am the Almighty Arbiter Of All That's Good (not directed at you, Anon): mileage will always vary.
NOT standard disclaimer: I don't care for brando sando's writing or books. I did when I was younger (or at least I enjoyed the first Mistborn novel and once said he was a better technical writer than RJ, rip me, I reread everything a couple of years ago and VASTLY revised my opinion)
If you liked the descriptions, I'm not here to tell you otherwise. The OP of the post certainly has extremely different opinions than I do, re; the show, and while I feel their commentary is valuable I also feel they are personally more wed to the details and letter of the books than the spirit, no shade meant.
HOWEVER. The reason I personally don't care for the descriptions (aside from the aforementioned lack of jiving with brando sando's writing) is that I do not think they add to the worldbuilding.
No hear me out, because I know somebody's going to say that doesn't make sense and it won't to them and that's fine.
I don't think the descriptions cited add to the worldbuilding, because I don't think they add to the viewpoint of the characters giving the descriptions (and as the OP mentioned, domani dresses... actually don't usually have embroidery)(there are always going to be misremembered details and inconsistencies when you swap to new writers, it's just that with the way everyone harps on the descriptions you'd think that might have been considered, I know RJ had notes on this).
TO USE SOMETHING FROM MY OWN WORK:
Lillian is going to know what fabric is in a dress, what color exactly it is, probably how it was made, and definitely how she feels about the look of it on someone with details.
She was a dressmaker for nobility. This is both in her view of the world and in her knowledge base.
Dorian is going to have opinions on whether or not a dress is flattering (which will probably differ from Lillian's lol), maybe a little bit more knowledge on where the general style came from, and what color the dress is.
He's a prince who has seen a lot of court dresses, but he doesn't know how they're made and doesn't always think about why he perceives them in a particular way.
Chaol is going to be like. The assailant was wearing a red dress. I know it had a full skirt because she kicked people without hiking it above her knees. She's about five foot five, white, blonde, skinny, and she ran east.
He's a nobleman's son but not one raised in a court, and then he became a guard captain.
Anyway, that's why I don't like brando sando's descriptions and why I don't feel that they add to the worldbuilding. Everybody reads to me as describing things the same way.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Text
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
138K notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
lookittheselikes
so many likes
radiofriendlyfyresblog
Radiofriendlyfyresblog
incorrectmonkees
incorrect monkees
heavengh
Bel
love-inspires-me
Love Inspires Me