7 ms·

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restr

• frogulis 4y ago
  > number of pockets they can get Does this come under the "legally" or "socially"?
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    That's a social issue.
  • makeitdouble 4y ago
    In weird ways, it can be in the "legally" camp... There will be offices where the uniform or dress code is mandated by law, and the number of pockets will be whatever the uniform designer decided it would be. It's not specific to women per se, but there will probably be some differences in the design of both uniforms. Basically that would be the social norms getting burned into legal requirements, until the uniforms are redone.
    • mcv 4y ago
      Uniforms can also be limiting to men. There have been cases during hot summers where uniformed men wanted to wear shorts, but shorts weren't part of the uniform. Women did have the option to choose between trousers and skirts, though, so men started to wear skirts too. Because those were part of the uniform and therefore allowed.
      • AlecSchueler 4y ago
        The also limiting to men thing is a fair point and worth remembering but it's good to keep in mind that both men and women are here being limited by patriarchal social norms. Skirts are seen as less practical and preferable for aesthetics, which makes them feminine and therefore off limits for men who are pressured to be strong and practical.
        • mcv 4y ago
          Whether or not they're less practical depends entirely on the type of skirt, the type of pants you compare it to, and the circumstances you're wearing them. When it's hot, skirts are generally more practical, simply because you don't have any fabric crunched up between your legs. Many desert cultures know the value of robes for men. In any case, I'm a big proponent of all types of clothes being available for everybody. Wear what you want.
        • realjhol 4y ago
          It's so noticeable the way you guys always use the passive voice: "seen as less practical", "preferable for aethetics", "pressured to be strong". You never actually elucidate who is supposed to be doing these things - it's a Motte and Bailey tactic. Your argument would fall apart if you were forced to be explicit about the who, the what and the why is supposed to be doing these things.
          • AlecSchueler 4y ago
            You guys? Who do you mean by that? I use that language because these things happen on the socio-cultural level and are perpetuated indirectly through norms. There is much in our society that is implicit.
            • realjhol 4y ago
              > You guys? Who do you mean by that? Feminists. > I use that language because these things happen on the socio-cultural level and are perpetuated indirectly through norms. Belief in patriarchy is superstitious in nature. The patriarchy is everywhere, and nowhere. Its a global conspiracy. It is composed of powerful men and all men and all people both men and women and no-one all at once. In this way, the patriarchy is unfalsifiable. When speaking about the patriachy, feminists use the passive voice to tap-dance around having to make any specific claims otherwise they would be immediately falsified.
• quonn 4y ago
  Which country do you live in? Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited? I have no idea what you refer to. What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • mcv 4y ago
    It's not a legal issue but a weird fashion issue that women's clothes sometimes have fake pockets. Or no pockets at all, but fake pockets are truly the weirdest aberration of them all. I think it needs to become normal for women to return clothes because "the pockets don't work". I'm pretty sure that soon enough women's clothes will have normal pockets.
    • Freak_NL 4y ago
      You can already return (confection) clothes for a full refund for any reason within a certain time frame (two weeks is common); even just 'I don't like it'.
      • AlecSchueler 4y ago
        Don't think they were saying it needs to become possible, only it should become more of a social expectation that these intentonally impractical clothes are rejected and better demanded from the manufacturers. It's so weird when all the women I know have "favourite" articles of clothing that are purely the only version of a particlar garment they could find that had pockets. It's not only pockets too it's also often things like the quality of the seam etc.
        • mcv 4y ago
          Exactly. Too often people keep clothes that are needlessly crippled or otherwise don't really meet their requirements because at least they fit. It's often hard enough to find something that fits, that we just accept other needless limitations. But if enough people do it, we can demand better. But for that, it has to become common, and not merely possible.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• titannet 4y ago
  I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits). The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    I'd only suggest speaking to the women in your life about it. Every one I know closely enough expresses that they'd rather have clothes with pockets but there's simply nothing in the shop. They'd happily do without the status that having no pockets apparently gives them.
    • bombolo 4y ago
      They could just buy men's clothes?
      • Mezzie 4y ago
        That's practical if you can either tailor or afford to look however you want. I have a decent amount of menswear in my closet but I'm also very curvy so they aren't going to look professional unless I tailor them, so they're at home clothes for now. I did dress in men's clothes back when I was WFH in a camera-off company. I grew up poorish (and therefore can sew) and am good with math so I can tailor my own clothes, but it still takes time and a fair number of women can't sew or mend.
      • AlecSchueler 4y ago
        They can and often do, but there are other issues then such a tailoring and colouring etc., again it's getting back to the social pressure to look a certain feminine way. I'd also add that while workarounds are available these things add up to an increased cognitive load for women doing normal everyday activities such as shopping for shirts.
        • 4y ago
• pjc50 4y ago
  At the same time, various US states have introduced "anti-drag" laws to enforce gendered clothing. Intended to be used against gay men and trans women, just like the conditions that led to the Stonewall riot.
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    Yes, that says a lot doesn't it. A man dressing like a woman is seen as inappropriately sexualused to the point that people are afraid of seeing them in public spaces. Yet women are not only allowed but expected to be dressed to be seen in this way, and given little practical alternative. The anti drag laws are in the service of patriarchy, even though on the surface they're controlling men. Important to note that patriarchy doesn't only control or limit women.
• globular-toast 4y ago
  Comments like this are so weird. It's like you put women on the same level as children or animals. Like they just get what they're given and have to put up with it. Women are free to choose their own clothes. They are free to make their own clothes or start their own clothing companies. If they really wanted clothes with pockets then they would get them. But they don't. I think it's a bit silly that I can't just urinate in a bush in a public park or something when I need to go. Why do I need to seek out a toilet? Everyone urinates. It's natural. But I'm not going to start urinating in public. It's just not compatible with society. That's why most women choose not to breast feed in public too.
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    You're comparing breastfeeding to urination and then telling me women are free?
    • quonn 4y ago
      He makes a valid point. It makes little sense that it‘s not okay to pee on the grass at the roadside.
• cubefox 4y ago
  I think the opposite is true. For example, formal outfits for men are restricted to suits, while for women a much wider range of outfits and colors is acceptable. You can see this on group photos of politicians.
  • oh_sigh 4y ago
    Only in some cultures. For example, in the US, in Hawaii, you will find male politicians wearing more than just suits.
    • flappyeagle 4y ago
      Sure they can wear aloha shirts but that’s it.
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    I'd actually see this more as supporting my position. Men simply wear the standard suit and forget about it, and no one rips into their fashion choices. A woman wearing the same kind of suit will be seen as manly and be made fun of for that. The expectation is she will find something functional yet feminine, not wear it repeatedly and contrast with her female colleagues. Makeup must be enough to be nice for the camera but not so much as to look provocative. While in a sense there are more available options we can see there is more social pressure.
• dalbasal 4y ago
  I think there's a limit to freedom as a compass, especially if we emphasise social limitations. At some point you're not after freedom. You're after change to social norms, not people's right to break them. Depending on the specific beach/society/group bikinis can be either normative or anti-normative. IE, a woman can, and likely will feel pressured to conform. A 1950s bathing gown or a modern burkini is often as unacceptable at a bikini beach as a skimpy bikini is in religious/conservative spaces. A woman who leaves her seat in a cafe to breastfeed in the baby change stall or toilet can be ashamed in company that considers public breastfeeding a basic norm. I'm all for broad and free. We're not great at this, and should be better. But, I also think there are always norms and "culture wars" are about the norms. Not just the freedom to violate norms. What the norms are, because norms will continue to exist.
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    Isn't part of exercising our freedom to change them having open conversations about how they do and don't serve us, calling attention to how certain norms have become entrenched and quietioning that etc.?
    • dalbasal 4y ago
      Idk. Freedom is a big word and can mean different things to different people. To me, in this context, I think it means openness/breadth of what is normative and also the ability to nonconform. That's also why I said it's limited. Take transgenderism today, gay rights a generation ago. Freedom is/was just one step. It isn't enough that we stopped putting people (like Alan Turing or Oscar Wilde) in jail for sodomy. We also want/ed norms to change. We want people to consider homosexuality acceptable and wholesome. That is a change to norms, not the freedom to ignore norms. So... I'd say freedom and openness lend to cultural and normative changes... but these are still two separate things. Perhaps it's easier to see things in the opposite direction. Conservatives and (especially) reactionaries will often invoke their freedom to shun homosexuality or even to practice racism or something. Our reaction to that is what it is because norms are at stake. Societal norms, not just individual sentiments.