5 ms·

> 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.
        AlecSchueler 4y ago
        Feminists aren't an homogeneous group. Can I ask what feminist literature you've read about the nature of patriarchy? Maybe Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez could be good for you. It ties together a lot of different case studies from around the world to explore the unintended harm done to women by male-as-default thinking, from medical practices to urban planning. The book is stuffed with concrete examples.
        realjhol 4y ago

That's a social issue.

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.
        AlecSchueler 4y ago
        Feminists aren't an homogeneous group. Can I ask what feminist literature you've read about the nature of patriarchy? Maybe Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez could be good for you. It ties together a lot of different case studies from around the world to explore the unintended harm done to women by male-as-default thinking, from medical practices to urban planning. The book is stuffed with concrete examples.
        realjhol 4y ago