(no subject)

[iniquiticity]

okay but if we run on the @the-alexiad theory of: “people who wear dresses do that because it proves that they don’t have to work” then let’s back this up.

so there’s this big political shift both immediately and slowly after the second war, right? because previously you had nobles who had status from a previous circumstance (whether that be a previous ruler or other class reasons), and most of those nobles would be the non-military councilors like adams and jefferson. if we’re working on this ‘wears a skirt to show you can’ situation, then we’ll call these the skirt-wearers or SWs. so previous to the second war, we can safely assume that there’s a big overlap between SWs and people in levels political power. the military leaders, because they hadn’t yet pulled off this big victory - like, there might have one or two military folk, but there weren’t really any heroic generals or generals that became heroic based on their actions, or the actions they took weren’t as serious/significant. they might have even thought they didn’t WANT to be associated with the military, and would have put on a skirt as if to say “yeah, i am a famous general, but more importantly i am a super rich nobleman who doesn’t ever have to do anything and that’s more important to display.”

but then you have the second war, right? and because of the way the second war unfolds, these generals are catapulted into positions of political power. and becuase they’re military folk, they wear pants, right? and MOST of them were probably like, middle to upper-middle class gentry like washington and knox, and now they’re like, top notch folk. i mean their lives aren’t INSANELY hard, but they certainly would never have worn skirts in their lives - they have to do their own things. (you could say something like “he doesn’t exactly wear a skirt” to imply someone is poor). but becuase they don’t HAVE other status to fall back on, like the previous military, and/or they’re proud of their military affiliation and want to elevate the military into something proud/noble/heroic: they ACTIVELY choose to wear pants to the council, even though they’re rich enough to wear a skirt if they wanted. so now you have a significant switch: phillip schuyler was probably a skirt wearer before he went to war, became MORE famous, and then decided he wanted to be known as a military man and converted from skirt to pants.so the fact that he was saying “it’s more important for me to be known as a famous general than just a nobleman” is a pretty signifcant shift. (this shows up in the story as general schuyler preferring general to lord schuyler.)

and like, a lot of these political decisions sort of split between tradtionally old-time politicians/SWs, and new school politicians who are the military/pants wearers, right?

so these positions got deeper and more heated, people would feel MORE inclined (forced?) to display/show their allegiances to their political head, which for this case would be adams (skirt) and washington (pants). basically the partisan-ization of greenhouses politics would be “do i wear a skirt or pants to the council meeting?” this would totally have all kinds of political cartoons about it, too.

the worst would be if you’re neutral: they’d have to invent or figure out a new kind of clothes for people to wear that says THIS IS NOT AN ALLEGIANCE SITUATION I JUST NEED TO COVER MY LEGS. (i assume someone shows up with no pants on as part of a protest of this situation.) people totally fucking fretting over what to wear if they didn’t feel strongly, because basically showing up in one or the other aticle of clothing basically says “oh, he’s washington’s man.” or “oh, he’s adams’ man.”

also you could derisively say, “Ugh, s/he wears the pants in that relationship.” to imply a person is military/aggressive/brutish/violent.

this is fun.

synteis replied to your post:okay but if we run on the @the-alexiad theory of:…

I would also like to draw your attention to dresses like the kind Angelica wears in Take a Break (which were inspired by contemporary men’s clothes and also riding outfits) which have skirts but also a tailored, bodice that looks like a waistcoat.

i’m sure this also exists and mean something. poor mulligan trying to figure out the exact way he should make all of the things he designs with all these fucking implications one way or the other… pants.. skirts.. waistcoasts..corsets… jesus christ it’s a hard life. … (until lafayette shows up and was like I NEED EIGHT TABLECLOTHS TOMORROW BECAUSE ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND THE THISTLE AND THIS BALL.)

synteis replied to your post:

okay but if we run on the @the-alexiad theory of:…

I imagine there are also a lot of the same contemporary historical problems that they have to grapple with. Like mid-17th C nobility you have even in men’s clothing all this expensive fabric (and lots of it) to demonstrate wealth but then by the early 19th C there’s exactly this shift from silk to wool in England for instance (because silk is French but wool is British) and towards those classic Victorian three piece suits with waistcoats in significantly duller colours than were sported before.

Same with Empire waist dresses and short hair on men which were both supposed to harken back to more natural Roman fashions (nevermind that the Romans definitely liked colourful fabric like a lot). There was this desire to return to those Classical values (or at least their interpretation of them) and away from the indulgences of the 18th C and fashion played a huge role in communicating that.

you are so much smarter and more cultured than i am.

koramberlynne replied to your post:okay but if we run on the @the-alexiad theory of:…

Someone has to invent bloomers. Skirty pants.

a lot of people are super relieved when bloomers are invented. they don’t want to be affiliated with anyone but they really need to wear pants.

jacyblue replied to your post : oh man we can go even FURTHER on this issue if we…

I am SO INTO THIS!!! Did you know Emily Post’s etiquette books were meant to encourage “the leveling-up process of democracy,” because the rich knew the social guidelines but the nouveau riche especially or others who found themselves intermingling with the wealthy didn’t know these previously unwritten rules. It’s really fascinating from sociological, economic and political standpoints.

i had a whole answer to this, basically saying “i did not know that about those books but i agree that social etiquette is a significant marker of class in greenhouses in lieu of clothes”

also ostentatiousness. if your clothes are studded with jewels, obviously you are a lot richer than not. basically because washington is so famous he’s actually SURPASSED the requirement to put jewels in his clothes. like obama in a t-shirt or something.

anyway this is cc @koramberlynne.

i also wonder about name-dropping culture in greenhouses land which i’m sure is pretty serious.