[Horus]

(11-02-2014 08:16 PM)Troll King Wrote:  

As far as the half-truth goes. Go and look at some paintings of men's dress during Victorian ages. It was very feminine with stockings and platforms and laces and what not. I have a few theories on it but I honestly do not know enough about that time period to say anything with certainty. My guess though, is that, revolves around men, or a large segment of men, becoming more feminine during those periods. Or maybe it was seen as somewhat masculine.

I believe you're thinking of the Elizabethan era, but it brings up and interesting point.

If you go back just a few decades before the reign of Elizabeth I to the Tudor period, the fashion amongst nobility was definitely not feminine. Extravagant perhaps, but not feminine, as seen in these pictures of Henry VIII (notice the impressive codpiece) and one of his courtiers. Both give the appearance of self-assured masculine confidence. (Of course Henry was the guy in the habit of having his wives beheaded when they didn't behave ).




It was when Elizabeth came to the throne around 1560 that male fashion for courtiers became much more feminine, where the image of grace was emphasised over strength. This is where we start seeing lace ruffles, a more feminine waist line and so on, like this guy, Robert Dudley, widely believed to be the guy who was banging the "virgin queen." (It's also interesting that the artist appears to depict him in a feminine manner. Notice his slender fingers compared to the fingers of the men above, and the gracefulness of his facial lines. Is this an Elizabethan white knight?)



Of course it's no coincidence that this occurred during the reign of a highly successful and respected female monarch. The queen enjoyed almost absolute authority, and it's understandable that male fashion may have mimicked the queen's in a time when success in the court (or banging the queen) depended on gaining her favour and trust.

However, note that this was only the norm for the noble classes. Even Shakespeare didn't dress like this (even though there are some portraits of him wearing clothes of nobility). The average peasant man wore much more practical and masculine clothing like these guys.



It just wouldn't have been practical for most to wear anything resembling the fashion of the nancy boys in the palace.

Only about 50 years after Elizabeth's death, there is once again a man on the throne, and noblemen once again dress as men.



Again, extravagant, but not at all feminine. (The high heels incidentally were a male fashion that originated in Persia. Horsemen in the military wore heels so they could more easily stand in the strirrups while firing arrows. It was adopted by horsemen in Europe, and soon became fashionable amongst European nobility. I will concede that Charles I in the above picture does look a little bit gay in his heels by our standards, but they would have been considered manly in his day. Perhaps this is proof that while ideas about the appearance of masculinity may vary slightly from generation to generation, the discrepancy isn't so great that we can conclude that gender is merely a social construction. Anybody from any generation would look that that picture and conclude that that's the appearance of a manly man getting manly shit done).

Of course, during the reign of the next female monarch, Victoria, male fashion didn't mimic that of the queen. By the Victorian era, the monarchy had become largely symbolic, and men no longer needed to rely on the queen's favour in order to become successful. They could dress as they pleased, not surprisingly in a manner we could universally agree is masculine.



Or maybe it's because nobody wanted to bang the queen.



Incidentally, I could find no pictures of men wearing pink before the 20th century. The closest I could find was crimson, which is not even close to the shade of pink that girls choose to wear.