Because otherwise it's like commenting on a tabloid article about what Lizzo wore to some gala last week, which would be out of place no?

Yes. The bottom 1%’s clothing will always be more indicative of the average clothes of the time than the top 1%’s.

So what? TFA is not about the working class nor does it need to be. Why this fixation on comparing yourselves with the poor?

The article makes a lot of reference to class.

Wigs, stockings and heels were associated with being of the aristocrat class. Which, as the article states, could make one wearing such things a target.

I think you're misreading that a bit (it is confusingly written).

> During the French Revolution, wearing dress associated with the royalist Ancien Régime made the wearer a target for the Jacobins. Working-class men of the era, many of whom were Revolutionaries, came to be known as sans-culottes because they could not afford silk breeches and wore less expensive pantaloons instead

_Prior_ to the revolution, the Jacobins (who were largely bourgeoisie) would have been wearing that dress, distinguishing themselves from the working class (who _didn't_ wear the stockings). The revolutionary period is being used to illustrate a change here, not the norm.

Affliction Olympics.