Since when did the tights change from a costume to a cultural one? This elastic non-sock tights with countless patterns and colors has become an unexpected source of controversy.
The recent turmoil occurred last week with the mother of four sons, Maryann White, giving a joint school report to the University of Notre Dame and the nearby St. Mary's School. The Observer wrote a letter asking female students to ignore fashion and not to wear tights. She believes that this is for themselves and for the wider benefit, in part because tight pants make it difficult for men to control themselves.
最近的騷動發生在上周，四個兒子的母親瑪麗安·懷特(Maryann White)給圣母大學(University of Notre Dame)和附近的圣母瑪利亞女子學院(St. Mary’s)的聯合校報《觀察者》(The Observer)寫了一封信，要求女學生無視時尚，不要穿緊身褲。她認為，這既是為了她們自己，也是為了更廣泛的利益，部分原因是緊身褲讓男人很難控制住自己。
The suggestion that "wearing sexy clothes is tantamount to tempting others to invade you" in the letter, not to mention the idea of ??censoring clothing, can be imagined in the storm of protests inside and outside the campus. In two days, the students wore leggings to protest. Through the #leggingsdayND on Twitter, you can see all kinds of men and women sticking out their tights. The photo shows solidarity.
On Friday, the "Observer" published an editorial in response to people's anger. The article said: "On Monday, the Observer has received more than 35 letters, as well as numerous verbal comments, tweets, and discussions in the classroom. The controversy caused by tight pants shocked us.” Until the weekend, the broader dialogue continued.
In 2017, United Airlines had an incident in which two “passenger passengers” (including relatives of airline employees in this category) were prohibited from boarding due to wearing tights. Observers protested that the social media was furious and the manufacturers of tight pants were even more troublesome; for example, Puma joined the scuffle and provided 20% of the tights to those who showed the United Airlines ticket. Discounts to enhance your image.
2017年，美國聯合航空公司(United Airlines)曾經發生過一起事件，兩名“持通行證乘客”（這種類別中包括航空公司員工的親屬）因穿緊身褲被禁止登機。觀察人士表示抗議，社交媒體上群情激憤，緊身褲的生產商們更是大鬧一場；比如彪馬(Puma)就加入了這場混戰，向出示聯合航空公司機票的人提供20%的緊身褲折扣，以此提升自己的形象。<紐約時報中英文網 http://www.uydujn.live/>
This in turn exacerbates the endless debate between parents, schools and students, which can be attributed to "tight pants are not pants / they are pants".
In general, this kind of life-and-death torture of a clothing's soul (because it is really) is woman-centered – the woman's body, and seeing too many parts of the woman's body (or believe in seeing myself) When it comes to too many parts of a woman's body, it usually brings discomfort.
This is of course the starting point for the letter, and it is usually used as a political attack by those who support the tights: how dare you accuse me of wearing tight pants to seduce people (in the era after "#我也", this view A special resonance).
But with the advent of the comfort culture, tight pants began to rule people's wardrobes: at the beginning of this century, you can wear casual clothes on Friday to get people out of a serious situation; hedge fund managers wearing fleece fabrics accelerate this trend The style of the old-fashioned Wall Street has fallen; Silicon Valley worships the genius of wearing a hoodie and walking on Teva beach sandals; this culture is more prevalent under the influence of healthy sports.
Tights have different meanings for people of different ages: for Generation Y, tights are often a symbol of lifestyle, representing health and activity, not everyday workwear; As with the Z-generation of traditional labels, leggings are just a basic thing, just like jeans. They are things you can wear without thinking about it.
That is to say, tight pants contain a lot of meaning, and sex may be the least important of them - if it is really sexual.
One of the most striking things about the University of Notre Dame protest was that people refused to accept the traditional gender assumptions about tight pants. They argue that tights are not the exclusive domain of women who seduce people.
The author of the Observer asked in the editorial, “Why is the controversy caused by tight pants more influential than other controversial topics? Students and community members spend hours discussing the pros and cons of a popular outfit. But, talking about When people have legal and other issues with major policy implications on campus, how can people not have such great enthusiasm?"
The truth is that tights may just represent other issues. One of the most troubling pitfalls in fashion is that things that seem superficial or unimportant (tight pants!) actually represent a more complex and harder to express reality (identity). This is the power of clothing.
Therefore, the tights exposed by the tights are not so much the body of a person as it is a cultural fault that has been through generations. This historical model includes miniskirts and jeans, Mary Quant and James Dean, as well as clothing that seems extremely bad and confusing for people who are often referred to as “authorities”. But they played a very important role in subverting the routine and opening the way for the next model.
因此，緊身褲風波所暴露的，與其說是什么人的身材，還不如說是貫穿幾代人的文化斷層。這一歷史模式包括迷你裙和牛仔褲、瑪麗·官(Mary Quant)和詹姆斯·迪恩(James Dean)，以及那些對通常被稱為“權威人士”的人們來說似乎極為糟糕和費解的服裝，但它們在顛覆常規、為下一種模式開路方面，發揮了非常明顯的關鍵作用。
Of course, this may exaggerate the facts. It is probably just a non-sock stretch tights that are easy to put on.
But look at Lululemon's recent sales results, the brand's net revenue increased 21% in the third quarter of 2018; in fact, Levi's new round of IPO part of the hype is to join the jeans to meet the tights market. The "stretching" element brings, so this "popular dressing choice" (this is the label that the "watchers" put on tights) will not disappear in the short term. All of this shows that the shackles of the University of Notre Dame may not be an accident, but a sign of more.