mostlyscrambledbrains - Tumblr blog

mostlyscrambledbrains · 2 months ago

Photo

Posted by Steven Payne to Facebook group British Medieval History:

People in the Middle Ages valued sweet smelling breath and bodies, seeing them as desirable, so there is a great deal of evidence from the period of tooth pastes, powders and deodorants. Contrary to the typical Hollywood depiction of medieval peasants with blackened and rotting teeth, the average person had teeth which were in fairly good condition, mainly due to the rarity of sugar in the diet. Most medieval people could not afford sugar and those who could used it sparingly. Archaeological data shows that only 20% of teeth had signs of decay, as opposed to 90% in the early twentieth century. The main dental problem for medieval people was not decay but wear, due to a high content of grit in the main staple, bread. For deodorants, soap was available for the wealthy, but a variety of herbs and other preparations were also used. Soapwort is a plant native to Europe and Asia which, when soaked in water, produces an effective liquid soap. Mint, cloves and thyme were also extensively used by simply rubbing into the skin, and alum (hydrated potassium aluminium sulphate) was an effective deodorant. I am trying to keep to 14th century technology on my pilgrimage to Canterbury, which gives me various options when looking at hygiene. In the middle ages people generally cleaned their teeth by rubbing them and their gums with a rough linen cloth, or the chewed end of a stick. There are various recipes for pastes and powders that could be put on the cloth to help clean the teeth, but I have chosen simple salt to whiten them and to aid fresh breath. I will also be using the stick method, and will be taking along a supply of liquorice root sticks for that purpose. I also have a few blocks of alum, which when rubbed into wet skin has a deodorising effect. Alum, like beeswax, was used extensively in the middle ages for a variety of purposes, also being useful: * in the purification of drinking water as a flocculant * as a styptic to stop bleeding from minor cuts * as a pickling agent to help keep pickles crisp * as a flame retardant * as an ingredient in modelling clay * as an ingredient in cosmetics and skin whiteners * as an ingredient in some brands of toothpaste The photograph shows my wash kit including home made olive oil soap, salt for the teeth, a block of deodorising alum, cloves, a boxwood comb made for me by Peter Crossman of Crossman Crafts and some liquorice root sticks, all on a woollen ‘towel’. Note that the cloves are kept in a ventilated box….this is because insects hate the smell of cloves and so a perforated box will keep them out of my kit and food bag when I am sleeping rough. TIP: If you steep some cloves to obtain the oil and put the liquid around the doors and windows of your house, it keeps spiders and insects out.

48K notes · View notes

mostlyscrambledbrains · 2 months ago

Text

That ChatGPT ask about The Great Famine made me think about how generative AI is so devastating for historical understanding, but especially the understanding of dress history. There's a lot of completely inaccurate history AI slop, both generated images and writing. I'm always searching primary source images, but even then I've started to come across the occasional AI generated image, which is always very bad. Google image search is at this point almost useless.

The issue with history is that there's so much outdated and frankly misinformation about history in the internet and other source materials the AI scraps. This is of course an issue with many other fields as well, but history definitely belong to the fields which have most misinformation spread about them. When a human armed with a bit of critical thinking comes across a source they can evaluate it's validity. But AI doesn't have critical thinking. It can't think. So if there's a lot of sources, which peddle the same common misconception, AI weights it above what the few rigorous academic sources say. And then the AI becomes basically a misinformation peddling machine. And there's no way of finding our where it got it's information. Even the AI doesn't really know because of the way it works, and that's why, when you try to ask it, it tries to scours for sources that say similar things it was saying rather than giving the actual source it got the information from. And if it doesn't find a source? Well, it might hallucinate one. This is of course an issue in multiple level not just because it's filling the internet with misinformation and drowning out reliable information. It's also basically a plagiarism machine.

This is even worse with dress history than most historical fields, because dress history is such a new field and there's comparatively very little quality research. Even many historians of different fields peddle a lot of old misconceptions of dress history (sometimes you even come across a fairly new paper on dress history and there's some misconception repeated as a truth). So of course AI is very unlikely to produce anything close to accurate information on dress history.

So to see for myself how bad it actually is (and to have a bit of laugh) I decided to try out ChatGPT for the first time. I decided I would ask it a question I have answered in a blog post myself before to see how close (or far) it got.

Here's what I asked: "When did it become socially acceptable for men to wear dresses?"

I have written a very long post on this before found here.

And here's the answer ChatGPT gave:

The idea of men wearing dresses has evolved significantly over time, with different periods in history showcasing varying degrees of acceptance. In general, men have worn clothing that could be considered "dress-like" at various points in history, though the specific social context has changed. 1. Ancient and Medieval Times: Men in many ancient cultures, including the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, wore tunics, robes, or other garments that we might now think of as dresses. These were considered appropriate for men, often signifying social status, wealth, or ceremonial importance.

Not bad, though this makes it sound like men only wore dresses to signify status, wealth or ceremonial importance, when in fact all men wore dresses. I also made a point in my post to say these were dresses, not just "dress-like". They were (mostly) constructed and (mostly) called the same as the equivalent clothing women wore, so of course I take issue with the framing.

2. Renaissance and Early Modern Period: During the Renaissance and up through the 17th century, men’s fashion included elaborate gowns, skirts, and dresses, often with frills, lace, and rich fabrics. These were considered fashionable and elegant for men, particularly among the aristocracy.

Here's were we're getting to the inaccurate territory. Yes still during renaissance men were wearing dresses, however it was becoming fashionable among especially young noble (and soldier class) men to wear extremely tiny skirts, until they stopped being skirts and turned into very fitted thighs (hose) and doublet. It was the period when dress became increasingly less acceptable for men to wear, but it was precisely lower class and peasant men, who were slower to follow the new fashions and masculine standards, not very surprisingly. But by Early Modern Period it had become unacceptable for men to wear dresses. Yes, there was still hems at points, but those were coat hems, which might seem like basically the same as a skirt hem, but conceptually they were different. It's the same today. No one thinks nothing of it if a man is wearing a long overcoat, with buttons closed, on top of a suit, but if they are wearing thighs and same length skirt? Well, for the next couple of weeks you'll gate outrage op-eds and conservative influencers losing their minds over "the death of Western civilization".

Also in 1600s (roughly around 1630s-1660s) rich fabrics and elaborated detailing was not fashionable, not among women and certainly not among men. Men's fashion especially favoured a lot of black and other dark and neutral tones, influenced by somber religious atmosphere influenced by the all the Reformations and Counter-Reformations and wars about them going on at the time. (Of course there's some counter examples, but the general statement ChatGPT gave to me is simple incorrect.)

3. 18th and 19th Century: By the 18th century, Western fashion for men became more structured, and by the Victorian era (19th century), men were expected to wear trousers, waistcoats, and suits (my comment: you mean coat right, ChatGPT?? suit already encompases trousers and waistcoat). The shift towards more gender-specific clothing for men and women took root, and women’s dresses became more ornate and feminine, while men’s clothing became more utilitarian and restrictive.

First of all the height of structuring in Western fashion for both men and women, was during the Elizabethan Era, and additionally men's fashion got briefly a little less structured during the 18th century. As I explain in my post about the actual origins of modern men's suit (it was not Beau Brummel), the three piece suit with trousers, waistcoat and coat was popularized in 1670s. Women's dresses becoming more "feminine" means literally nothing when what was feminine was just seen differently. Of course it became more feminine in our modern eyes, when we get closer to the present day in the historical timeline, because modern femininity was being formed at the time. Men's fashion did become more utilitarian (I talk about a bit about the reasons why in the post about three piece suit above), but I wouldn't call it more restrictive necessarily.

Points for ChatGPT though for acknowledging that fashion became more gender specific around 18th and 19th centuries.

4. 20th Century: The 20th century saw men in dresses or skirts make occasional appearances in fashion, especially in avant-garde or countercultural movements. For example, in the 1920s, some male actors in Hollywood (my comment: here it's "forgetting" where it's going with the sentence, because it doesn't understand what a cohesive sentence means), such as Marlene Dietrich’s famous cross-dressing moments, challenged gender norms. In the 1960s and 1970s, figures like David Bowie, with his androgynous style, brought more attention to the concept of men wearing dresses as part of a wider push for gender fluidity in fashion.

The fact that cross-dressing became more acceptable in the early 20th century for women and people seen as women, didn't really do anything (or very little) to the make cross-dressing more acceptable for men, or those seen as such. Counter culture fashions in 70s and 80s were much more accepting of androgynous men and men wearing skirts, but the wider mainstream fashion was absolutely not accepting of that, definitely not outside the rock icons, who themselves were also side-eyed a lot.

5. Late 20th to 21st Century: By the 1990s and 2000s, with the rise of gender nonconformity and movements pushing for gender equality and expression, men wearing dresses became more visible and socially accepted. Public figures like Prince, Kurt Cobain, and later, celebrities like Harry Styles and Billy Porter, have worn dresses and skirts as part of their personal style, pushing the boundaries of traditional gendered fashion.

It's absolutely still not seen as acceptable for men to wear dresses. Yes, couple of celebrities have done that, and yes there's alternative fashion and queer people who do that, but if you take a look at how people in legacy and social media talk about them, it's pretty obvious that's not socially acceptable in the mainstream.

In essence, it became more socially acceptable for men to wear dresses as part of a broader cultural shift toward embracing non-binary gender expression and rejecting rigid gender norms, especially in the 21st century. Celebrities, designers, and activists have played key roles in challenging the old norms, making fashion more inclusive and fluid. This acceptance continues to grow in many parts of the world, although social attitudes can still vary greatly depending on cultural context.

"A broader cultural shift toward embracing non-binary gender expression and rejecting rigid gender norms." Laughing crying. Yeah, there was a cultural shift, but clearly it was not super broad. It's really laughable to suggest in the heart of the reactionary backlash moment that it's somehow broadly socially acceptable for men to wear dresses.

Also this "although social attitudes can still vary greatly depending on cultural context" makes it sound like outside the western context, which this answer is all about, the attitudes haven't changes as much, when in fact outside the western context dresses for men are much more often acceptable and part of the cultural norms.

Perhaps it was unfair of me to ask my question in a misleading way, since the answer to "when did it become acceptable for men to wear dresses" is "it was for a very long time, but it's not anymore". But this is part of the issue with ChatGPT and similar text based AI. When you ask them a question they will take the assumptions of the question and run with them, even if the assumptions in the question are completely false. For example if you would ask ChatGPT "why were corsets unhealthy?" it might answer with a very long answer full of pseudoscientific misinformation straight from the mouths of Victorian eugenists. I did that and the answer was extremely predictably. I'm not going to go through all that since is was so very long and this is getting long enough, but for a taste, after all the bullshit reasons it gave, here's what it wrote at the end:

Why Corsets Were Worn Despite Health Risks: Fashion and Aesthetic Appeal: Corsets were primarily worn to achieve a specific beauty standard that emphasized an extremely small waist and a curvy figure. This was considered a symbol of femininity, refinement, and social status during certain historical periods. Cultural Norms: The societal pressure to conform to the idealized figure meant many women endured discomfort and health risks to fit into the norms of the time.

The biggest eyeroll. Of course nothing about how it distributes the weight of the boobs much more comfortably in the waist rather than the shoulders, or how the heavy dresses people wore needed support or movement would have been very difficult, or how it was an easy way to alter the body, any kind of body, to the fashionable silhouette without needing any invasive procedures or dangerous diets. The most classic, most predictable corset misinformation. This is exactly what I meant at the beginning. The internet is so full of this bullshit already, in the AI algorithm it makes it true.

The lesson is: do not use ChatCPT as your search engine and don't trust it as your source of information. There is numerous of issues with generative AI and the spread of misinformation is certainly one of the biggest, seeing how much death and destruction misinformation has caused only with vanilla social media. I'm afraid to think about the repercussions of refining that metaphorical misinformation machine with the literal misinformation machine. If you want to do research into dress history yourself, but don't know where to start, rather than asking ChatGPT, here's my tips for where to start.

Also be skeptical of the sources you find in the internet, including everything I write. In the age of generative AI it's even more important to use proper sourcing. I'm definitely not perfect about this, since I'm extremely chaotic in my research most of the time and bad at keeping my sources in good order (I don't want to do boring stuff when researching for my hobby, I do that enough for uni), but I'm making an effort to be better about it, at least for my more structured posts. But if you want to know any sources I've used for any reason, when I haven't listed them, you're always free to ask. I might have it somewhere among my 500 open tabs still open, or I might still be able to find it again. So anyway, be skeptical of writings (again, including mine) which don't have sources listed, not just because it could be AI, but also because the same issues apply outside AI - it's much harder to evaluate how trustworthy the writing is or to know weather it's plagiarized.

308 notes · View notes