Yes, but that is obviously reading WAY too much in to the anachronism. The point is NOT that those were normal back then, but that they magically aren’t today.
The juxtaposition is the ENTIRE point: Sex-based fashion (and most other things) IS NOT intrinsic to the sexes. If you analyze it by removing it from modern context, you no longer have ANY juxtaposition to point at, and thus miss the entire point.
The POINT is that it was different back then vs today. The entire point is to demonstrate that gender expression changes COMPLETELY over time, showing that it is a social construct and not intrinsic to the sexes what so ever.
The point of the message is reinforced by the fact that the modern guy is twisting themselves up over “completely unrelated” things. You guys are literally complaining about things that reinforce the main point.
Yes, but that is obviously reading WAY too much in to the anachronism. The point is NOT that those were normal back then, but that they magically aren’t today.
The juxtaposition is the ENTIRE point: Sex-based fashion (and most other things) IS NOT intrinsic to the sexes. If you analyze it by removing it from modern context, you no longer have ANY juxtaposition to point at, and thus miss the entire point.
The POINT is that it was different back then vs today. The entire point is to demonstrate that gender expression changes COMPLETELY over time, showing that it is a social construct and not intrinsic to the sexes what so ever.
The point of the message is reinforced by the fact that the modern guy is twisting themselves up over “completely unrelated” things. You guys are literally complaining about things that reinforce the main point.