
Dickheads (2015) - agronaut
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/dickheads
======
PaulRobinson
With this kind of analysis I can make the wearing of a t-shirt, jeans and
trainers all about the penis too.

If you’re obsessed with how clothes represent genitals and sexuality, you’re
going to find all clothes represent genitals and sexuality to some degree. Why
that collar around the neck? Why that hoodie concealing the precise shape of
the torso? Why the bright white of those Jordan Airs?

I wear a tie occasionally, with a three piece suit, because if I don’t, I
can’t get access to the nice bits of the racecourses I visit across the UK
(when such things were of course allowed).

Wearing a tie today is not about penises, it’s not about power, it’s about
conformity. It’s about not standing out, merging into the crowd, becoming a
little more anonymous. Walk around the City of London on a busy workday
(except in 2020), and the men merge into one, hardly distinguishable in their
uniforms.

The tie looks like a penis the way a trouser leg does. It embodies power the
way a hoodie does. Women wear them in some contexts (restaurant waitresses,
front of house staff in theatres, etc.), and not to show off their non-
existent penis.

[edit:] As an aside it also serves a practical purpose of hiding the button
line of a shirt, and if you miss your mouth when eating your lunch it is
easily replaceable. Despite the detractor’s wails it is not an entirely
useless piece of cloth if you’re eating soup in a formal setting [/edit]

People mostly wear them because it’s expected of them and to conform, and this
article while having all the hallmarks of an intelligent and thoughtful piece
is just a love letter to the author’s internal anxieties. If you share those
anxieties, perhaps talk to a therapist.

~~~
gostsamo
You actually do not answer the main question. The fact that you personally
ware a tie to conform to the norm does not explain how the norm came to be.
Instead you talk in random directions, ending with a nice athominem attack
against the author.

Some notes:

waitresses and front house staff are not in position of power, and it actually
aligns with the thesis of the author which mentions that ties are sexualizing
women.

You say that the tie hides the buttons of the shirt, but there is already such
a solution for trousers and why not reuse the concept?

You say that ties are good when eating soup. However, they are not all that
effective in their current form, not used for this purpose for the last few
hundred years, and there is no sense carying it around through the entire day
the way cutlery is not part of the men's office dress code as well.

Where I'd agree with you is in doubting the mental jump necessary to discover
sexual symbolism in something which might be just a counterweight to otherwise
boring exterior.

~~~
082349872349872
Don't some conforming uniformed people in the City carry around a pink
newspaper to advertise their caste?

Waitresses and front house staff are wearing echoes of what the patrons of an
establishment used to wear before the last clothing shift. After the next,
will they all be in hoodies?

(I'm still waiting for the sexual interpretation of t-shirt and trainers? Hmm
... trainers do share gum soles with bordello creepers...)

Bonus track:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et281UHNoOU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et281UHNoOU)

Bonus codepoint: U+130BA

------
roenxi
> If hiding something is a way of declaring it a form of power, then hiding
> the male genitals is a way of declaring masculinity itself a form of power.

This really was the high of the article for me. Exactly what combination would
be needed for the author to declare that male clothing is neutral on masculine
power?

Genitals exposed -> Aggressive declaration of masculine power. Genitals hidden
-> Passive aggressive declaration of masculine power.

I'm going to guess that genitals hinted-at-but-in-a-careful-balanced-way is
going to be calculatedly aggressive declaration of male power. The author
makes some excellent points about status and clothing, but the throwaway lines
on the patriarchy are wonderfully monomaniacal.

~~~
082349872349872
By application of rules 34 and 63, I expect somewhere someone's written an
exploration of floral country matters[1] in women's clothing?

Soviet schoolgirls wore white floral bantiki in their hair:

[https://imgprx.livejournal.net/0af2ae4db14dd86858b9319de7e6b...](https://imgprx.livejournal.net/0af2ae4db14dd86858b9319de7e6bdcc8dc4508c/8s_owNHQo4PKtHc-
rKkJI89ZV7pppIg2vsGMpDFVw62KwJ_jVjo8Ut7D_DuSOS6wrBy0g6GzjXteTQIUOJXAX5Pi1fIONTEpkOaBx4tHnB8)
(note the social distancing sign!)

and at some point I learned of a russian berry or floret with a spherical form
that was white while immature but turned red when ripe, which had made me
wonder about traditional peasant costume colour codings.

[1] and their promises of sweet nothings? (for which "hunter green" floral
dresses might be recommended: as with slobber from fifteen hand hunters, it's
a colour well suited to hiding grass stains.) Compare
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24130589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24130589)

Bonus track:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoqvRGc7pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoqvRGc7pk)
(I hadn't thought before about confetti drops in the context of cottonwood
fluff.)

------
bryanrasmussen
I think this kind of Freudian viewpoint about the purpose of all sorts of
things began to fall out of fashion at the turn of the century (with the dying
off of committed Freudians from the last century), and it sounds sort of
ludicrous now - much like if someone started spouting off theories based on
phrenology.

It reminds me of some book I was reading in the 80s that started off in the
intro with the theory that rockets were shaped the way they were because men
were obsessed with their penises and as such spaceflight was metaphorically
mankind's rape of the cosmos (threw the book away as too ludicrously stupid to
continue with so don't remember anything past that).

~~~
bryanrasmussen
I am of course still somewhat sympathetic to a little less obsessive view that
ties may function as phallic symbols, given that there is a difference between
design and engineering - a rocket is shaped the way it is because of its
engineering purpose, but a tie seems to have no purpose other than design
(although I suppose the cravat and pre-modern ties had other purposes.)

\- I didn't think this observation should be an edit on the original comment.

on edit: changed per-modern to pre-modern.

~~~
082349872349872
The hunting stock (a more direct descendant of the cravat?) is said to have
emergency uses (sling, tourniquet, etc.). That noted, I've practically used my
belt numerous times, but never my neckwear.

Well, hardly ever. At "The Oasis" (an infamous fictional dive), men's gimme
caps slowly slide backwards on their heads until everyone knows the evening
has sufficiently advanced to sing songs. At black tie affairs the growing
prevalence of rakishly worn unknotted bow ties provides exactly the same
signal.

Bonus track:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1OqqFecdj4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1OqqFecdj4)

(can confirm: I've returned goats to the neighbours)

~~~
kace91
> Well, hardly ever. At "The Oasis" (an infamous fictional dive), men's gimme
> caps slowly slide backwards on their heads until everyone knows the evening
> has sufficiently advanced to sing songs. At black tie affairs the growing
> prevalence of rakishly worn unknotted bow ties provides exactly the same
> signal.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand anything at all in that paragraph.
That's not a criticism of your way of writing, I'm not a native speaker, I'm
just completely lost here.

What's a dive? What are gimme caps? is the singing songs part literal or is an
euphemism, and if it's the former why do people need to signal discreetly that
they're ready to sing? What's a black tie fair?

~~~
bryanrasmussen
a dive is a place of low repute where hard liquor is available, I don't know
what a gimme cap is - some sort of cap I suppose - and as the men at this dive
get progressively more drunk they sort of lose control of their caps which
slide backwards, of course they are not using it to signal they are ready to
sing, it is amusing, observing these people with their caps all back you might
think they had given the signal they were ready to sing as they all start
singing, but instead they are singing for the same reason their caps are back
- because they are drunk.

A black tie affair is a very fancy party of some sort, where people must dress
up to attend, but as they get drunk at this fancy place their bow ties become
unknotted and they show they are ready to sing, just as the people with the
pushed back caps at the much less fancy dive do.

~~~
082349872349872
Exactly. Sorry, here are the references:

The Oasis & black-tie affair:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_der_5hRM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_der_5hRM)

Gimme ("give me") cap: [https://merriam-
webster.com/assets/mw/images/gallery/gal-wap...](https://merriam-
webster.com/assets/mw/images/gallery/gal-wap-slideshow-
slide/image386356021-4986-617a19e74c6fc1a3eb0c192916465b66@1x.jpg) they're
given away free (like facebook) because they advertise

black tie (here, a "smoking"): [https://i1.wp.com/www.menstylefashion.com/wp-
content/uploads...](https://i1.wp.com/www.menstylefashion.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/brad-pitt-lea-de-caprio.jpg?fit=750%2C422&ssl=1)

what, never?:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBK39BKWuQg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBK39BKWuQg)

------
shoo
> The fly (which is invisible) is a bourgeois innovation, much unlike earlier
> aristocratic styles, such as the European codpiece, that often drew explicit
> attention to the genital region. This is the one part of the male body whose
> contours are entirely effaced. If hiding something is a way of declaring it
> a form of power, then hiding the male genitals is a way of declaring
> masculinity itself a form of power

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/After_Ha...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/After_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger_-
_Portrait_of_Henry_VIII_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)

tangential recommendation: if you might enjoy somewhat dark historical fiction
& the politics of working with and around the above aristocratic codpiece-
wearer, with frequently witty banter, Hilary Mantel's Thomas Cromwell trilogy
may be for you: [https://www.goodreads.com/series/75450-thomas-cromwell-
trilo...](https://www.goodreads.com/series/75450-thomas-cromwell-trilogy)

------
ycombinete
The tie as we know it, was a streamlined version of the cravat. Which was
popularised in Europe during The Thirty Years War (1618–1648), by Croatian
mercenaries.

That knowledge has always pleased me, when I’ve had to wear a tie. That it’s
descended from these swashbuckling, brightly attired, mercs.

~~~
082349872349872
To be fair, many high-status male attire items have descended from
swashbuckling, brightly attired, mercs.

\- clean-shaven, short-haired? originally for the advantage in hand-to-hand
combat.[1]

\- trousers? originally worn (in the mediterranean context) by dope smoking
barbarian cavalrymen.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Sc...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Scythian_comb.jpg/270px-
Scythian_comb.jpg)

\- puffy renaissance hips? originally from the padding worn under the
faulds/culet[2]. (anticipating the rise of plate carrier lower class cosplay
in 2020?)

[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/e3/af/b5e3afaa3d4b6510263c...](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/e3/af/b5e3afaa3d4b6510263c8533b18a53d8.png)

[1] did Kadyrov go from short beard to long beard for religious reasons, or
because he's now secure enough as a Border March Lord that he can play
statesman instead of soldier? or something else?

[2] "Yours, if you talk of tales, and so farewell."

~~~
ycombinete
Great info! I'll be mentally playing action movie montage music when I suit up
for my meetings, get my hair-cut, or put on comically large hipped renassance
pants, going forward.

~~~
082349872349872
Compare the "arming formula" of a Homeric ἀριστεία.

I understand donning hockey pants helps wheel snipes.

------
alphadevx
For me, wearing a tie is about beautiful symmetry: when the tie is exactly
centered with a neat knoth, a series of elegant angles are created under the
wearer's face. There is something very architectural about that.

By the way, a women wearing a neck tie to complete her business suit can be
very attractive for me (a powerful encroachment on "male" attire), so the tie
really can be universal.

I really don't understand the angst. Wear whatever the hell you want.

------
shoo
Missed that this was another David Graeber piece. What a loss.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24365811](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24365811)

------
anm89
This is one of the first pieces of long form editorial on fashion I have ever
enjoyed. Great writing.

------
zepolen
A person who wants to look powerful can wear a tie.

A person who's actually powerful wears whatever the fuck they want.

~~~
zxcvbn4038
Too true! Doing whatever you want is the ultimate symbol of power. I’ve been
reading about Mohammed bin Salman a lot lately, I think he is pretty much the
picture of power both in the means to do anything and the restraint not too.

------
scottlocklin
He should do something on the "Silicon Valley Tuxedo" aka blue jeans, loafers,
a sports coat, stripey or tattersall button down collar shirt open at the
neck.

Also; something needs to be done about fleece vests.

------
jonnypotty
I think if you make a load of simplified sweeping generalisations about
clothing and it's symbolic role in our culture you can come to some pretty
banal yet fashionable conclusions. Oh look mens clothes are about power,
womens clothes are like they are due to men exerting sexual power over women.
Women don't have agency in our history, men are trying to show off their
penises as an expression of power. Its all so predictable and boring. The
dickhead joke is pretty good though.

------
wrnr
And every skyscraper is capitalism flashing its big dick in your face.

------
jamesrom
Why is this on HN?

~~~
praptak
It builds an interesting argument. It takes dick jokes and makes them quality
humor.

~~~
searchableguy
I read the full article and this doesn't seem to have any focus. It vaguely
mentions some interesting tid bits but doesn't articulate on them or back them
up properly.

~~~
praptak
To me the appeal is similar to, dunno, maybe a basketball trick? The technique
is interesting, not the end result and not adherence to the official rules of
the game.

------
t0mbstone
Let's get rid of ties! I have always hated them and thought they were moronic.

~~~
labster
Only if we can replace ties with at least 7 pieces of flair.

~~~
mustardo
15 is the minimum...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChQK8j6so8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChQK8j6so8)

------
ycombinete
This was a fun and beguiling little read.

I noticed more ideological leaks forming in the article the further I read. Of
course Foucault is always the great give away. The trite little attacks on men
at the end seal the deal.

~~~
therealdrag0
What attacks on men?

~~~
ycombinete
Roenxi has already made a better point of it than I could elsewhere in this
thread [0]. So please see his comment.

But here’s another little snipe:

> ...some idea that women produce naturally (they bear children) and that men
> produce culturally (they create society). Stated outright, this is an
> obvious lie—pretty much everywhere you go you can find women doing most of
> the work of producing society too.

It’s a small thing, that makes me feel petulant to make a scene about, once
it’s isolated; but there are a few of them, along with Roenxi’s point, that
add up to inform the view of the article as a whole.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381674)

