> number of pockets they can get

Does this come under the "legally" or "socially"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cultural norms are diffuse and propagate on their own. It's silly to try to attribute it to John or Bob or Jill.

OK so there's nothing to fix, then.

It is cultural norms- of women. Making choices. In the real world.

It's simply women's revealed preference.

And when the revealed preference of a group clashes with the personal preferences of individuals within that group, it can be annoying and frustrating for those individuals.

And maybe they'll try some vocal complaining to try to shift the preferences of the group. Which could work out, especially if a lot of group members don't have strong preferences and are just going along with the existing default.

What do you mean "there's nothing to fix"? That sentence doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting cultural change is impossible or undesirable, or am I misinterpreting?

Of course they don't propagate on their own, they propagate through people. Some people prefer them for aesthetics, but others don't. Some people pressure men to be strong, others don't. It's useful to be aware of these subtle influences on our thinking and our behaviour, and use that awareness to make more conscious decisions about who we listen to, and why.

The culture of a group of people is more than the sum of its parts. That's like saying a cell is "just atoms". Well yeah, but that's a pretty uninteresting observation, as a cell contains immense structure that can be analysed in and of itself.

Likewise, culture is a complicated social phenomenon which has a life and a logic of its own.

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.

> 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.

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.

Ahh yes, I'll run out to my local book seller right now. Except that wouldn't be necessary if your conspiracy theory held up to any scrutiny. The oppression would be unabiguous and deliberate feature of daily life. We would see as a fact in every day life, as for example, in the case of the Yazidis.

Not everything is necessarily deliberate. For example, the medical aspect that GP referred to: lots of medicines are only tested on men, not because doctors don't want to cure women, but because it's easier to show consistent and significant results in men, because their hormone levels don't change throughout the month. Tests on women are more complicated, but therefore more important, rather than less. But they're often not being tested out of laziness and because society tolerates using men as the default. Any drug that has only been tested on men should be immediately criticised for that, but that doesn't always happen yet. Though it's receiving a lot more attention now than it used to.

Or the fact that crash test dummies tend to be modelled only after men. It's easier to have one type of test dummy, and men are seen as the default. All of these things are not done out of malice, but out of laziness.

That said, there's also plenty of oppression that is actually done out of malice.

But if you want to have an informed opinion on this, yes, you should run out to your local book seller and read some relevant books on the matter. Or order them online. Or borrow them from the library.

If you refuse to inform yourself and prefer to be obstinate about this then there's no conversation to be had, I'm sorry.

I'm not talking about any conspiracy, I'm talking about emergent phenomena of our society that disadvantage people with "non-standard" bodies.

I didn't use the word conspiracy once. Nor did I present myself as a feminist.

You've put me into a neat little bucket and decided I'm not worth listening to on that basis. I don't have the time for that kind of discourse but I wish you the best and would like to again recommend you read Invisible Women. Maybe the next time you come across one of us feminists you'll be able to discuss the points they're making without discrediting them on am imaginary basis.

> who is supposed to be doing these things

The subject would just become 'everyone', 'the majority of the society', etc.

Like, "the majority of the society thinks men shouldn't wear skirts", "schools mandate skirts for girls uniforms", "the army doesn't provide shorts or skirts for men uniforms" etc.

I'm not sure to get your point really.

Have you ever worn a skirt out in public out of interest? If not: who told you not to? Would you be happy to do it tomorrow if the person/people who told you not to weren't around? If not, why not?

That's a social issue.

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?

Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not. Where I am you can also control women more in the workplace by mandating impractical shoes like heels.

Pockets, you'd be surprised! Quite often women's blouses, blazers and trousers will have "false pockets" which are just a seam made to look like a pocket, whereas the men's version has actual deep pockets.

Makeup and the social expectations around that is also another discussion.

You haven't answered the parent comment's request for your country, which is very relevant as things differ a lot.

Here in the UK (which is what the article is about), it is illegal for either (/any) gender to expose their genitals in public [1] - that is called "indecent exposure". Breasts are not genitals and it is not illegal to show them.

Admittedly, it would be very unusual to see a topless woman walking down a UK high street. But it is not that unusual to see one sunbathing on a beach. Probably the main factor restricting that is the attention she would get from people who do not object.

Breastfeeding in public is not only allowed but legally protected.

[1] That includes if you are on private land but have a reasonable expectation that you could be seen from a public location. I recall a court case a few years ago where someone was regularly nude in their kitchen but could clearly be seen from a public footpath. The court decided that it still counted as indecent exposure.

> Here in the UK (which is what the article is about), it is illegal for either (/any) gender to expose their genitals in public [1] - that is called "indecent exposure". Breasts are not genitals and it is not illegal to show them.

That's not correct in England and Wales law (UK law varies between the nations). The current law (as amended in 2003) says:

A person commits an offence if— he intentionally exposes his genitals, and he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

It may well be different in practice though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure

Oh, very interesting, I didn't realise intent was part of it. There's even advice from the CPS (linked from that Wikipedia page) about what to do about someone claiming to just be generally a naturist [1]

[1] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance...

It includes this:

> Nudity in public alone with no aggravating features is very unlikely to amount to [public nuisance] (or any other) offence.

> Breastfeeding in public is not only allowed but legally protected.

The law is an interesting mirror and anti-mirror of social norms. My guess is that if some activity needs legal protections there are significant social norms prohibiting that activity.

Hi, I didn't answer that point because I worried that it would de-rail the conversation a little bit by focusing on the particular laws of one country and applying that to the wider shared culture of our global HN community.

To answer, though, I'm from Northern Ireland, where breastfeeding in public is legal but not protected. Northern Ireland is actually part of the UK, so what you're saying is incorrect and I'm not sure where you're getting your information from? Over here we have ad-hoc solutions were businesses can mark themselves as friendly to mothers (see: https://www.breastfedbabies.org/) while the presumed norm is that mothers should go elsewhere.

I'd say it could be a good idea to check out this article from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_laws_by_country) if you want to balance out your views about what's going on outside of your local area.

> Northern Ireland is actually part of the UK, so what you're saying is incorrect and I'm not sure where you're getting your information from?

As a sibling comment says, the law differs between the nations. I was just referring to England and Wales. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't just say that (I think I assumed you were American and thought that much detail would complicate things). Anyway, here in England and Wales, breastfeeding is indeed protected. E.g. from a random law company's website:

"According to the Equality Act of 2010, treating a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding a child of any age is considered sex discrimination. This applies to any business or premise providing services to the public, including public institutions, associations and higher education bodies. Service providers dealing directly with the public must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms."

> I'd say it could be a good idea to check out this article from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_laws_by_country) if you want to balance out your views about what's going on outside of your local area.

Are you saying that because I claimed England and Wales' law applies to the whole UK? Apologies again for that, it was a slip. But, ironically, you seemed suggest that your local laws apply to the whole world! That's what caused my initial reply in the first place.

> Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not.

Apologies for the confusing wording, I actually meant "we" more as the global community of HN users and had the article I linked in mind, rather than we here in Northern Ireland.

Thanks for recognising it at a mistake to say the UK when you mean England and Wales. It's very common to see that and it only gets more and more annoying the older you get when you come from one of the forgotten nations. Do you know when the whole UK got abortion access for example?

> Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not.

In the U.S., female toplessness is illegal in only two states (Tennessee and Missouri). In the rest, legal status is either unclear or it's expressly legal.

So as a general statement, this is clearly untrue—it's not illegal everywhere.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_the_United_State...

The trousers I‘m wearing right now have fake pockets at the back. I‘m a man. It has nothing to do with men or women.

Many women do not wear makeup.

Again, this depends a lot on the country.

Many women choose to wear makeup or dress uncomfortably just like many men choose to work out and dress uncomfortably to look more attractive. Many men seemingly invest a lot of time into styling their beard or hair.

Here in the UK, school are only recently obliged to allow gender neutral clothings, and it's still legal for workplaces to require women to wear high heels.

Completely true. However, my experience at working for companies that required "smart casual" was that men were required to wear shirt and smart trousers everyday of the year (including summer with no aircon in the office) and women where allowed to wear pretty much anything they wanted.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

> But if enough people do it, we can demand better.

'If' is the problem. As it is, selling clothing means following trends and offering fast-fashion for a large part of the market. There is a sizeable group of people who are completely fine with getting the latest trend cheaply at Primark. These people might like real pockets (and post memes about it on social media), but you won't activate them to actually make that a requirement. The people who do find brands which simply do offer it (the economic model works so far), and those brands know that this is a feature people like, and they can afford to invest in the extra costs this brings (sewing, design) and the raised cost of their end product. But a large part of the market simply won't bear those costs.

Pockets on dresses is not much different from sustainable clothing (both in terms of production and in terms of durability) and fair pay for people who work in the garment industry: most people do not care enough to change their behaviour (or can't afford to).

What's strange to me is that you don't know any women who fit the norm of wanting clothes that don't gape and/or show unexpected forms due to pockets. Men's suits have sewn up pockets too for the same reason.

Aren't most clothing buyers for and designers for high-street shops women? Yet this is always presented as some sort of conspiracy against women.

Look at it this way: there's a societal pressure for women to appear secondary, by presenting as more aesthetic than practical. That's patriarchy and it's enforced both by men and women.

We raise girls in this climate and they develop what's called internalized misogyny. At the same time we chastise men who wear things for pure aesthetics for being weak, unmanly and feminine.

Everyone then reinforces this stuff through design and consumer habits.

Then we come online and argure that it's just an inherent thing about the sexes, or that women actually want to be dressed less practical because they're just aesthetic creatures.

It's not a conspiracy where men are trying to hold women back. I hope I didn't imply that. It's the tide of a strong patriarchal system. Yes, it could change faster if it wasn't benefiting those in power so much, but it's inaccurate to say it's a directed conspiracy (though there is an increase of this with a lot of alt-right YouTube stuff these days).

Have you not consider the idea that women actually want to buy clothes with no functional pockets? Most women buy clothes to feel atractive, and pockets, if they have something inside, are bulgy and ugly. Plus most women like to buy and use bags, so they don't need pockets the same as men do. Again, you can think that this is wrong, sexist, patriarchal or whatever, but it will only change when the people making shopping decisions actualy ask for that change with their money.

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.

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.

They could just buy men's clothes?

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.

I honestly think these issues are overblown. The fashion industry is largely led by female input and consuming habits, what it sells is what large majorities of women want. If some elements win over others, it's because the disaffected are a disorganized minority that doesn't necessarily practices what it preaches.

shirts don't have pockets in any case.

I'm not following. Shirts can absolutely have pockets, both for men and women.

Fake pockets that aren't really designed to be used, yes.

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.

It's a free market. Why do clothing companies not produce them then. If there's enough people wanting them, surely a company would manufacture clothes with pockets and grow to be as large as Untuckit

Yeah, just like how the free market gives me the choice of having a matte screen on my laptop!

Honestly, the fashion industry is nothing like computer manufacturing. Costs are very low and most firms have ways to scattergun all sorts of combinations at various ends of the market. Which is why it's interesting that people complain about "no pockets" - that's because there is nothing of the sorts in the shops they patronize, which is likely a very small section of a huge market, selected according to some (typically class-related) criteria. If they were willing to step outside the boundaries of their self-imposed class-sanctioned bubble, I bet they'd find plenty of pockets.

Another point: traditional dressing in many cultures put large pockets on female clothes more than on male ones. The transition to pocket-scarcity on fashion clothes is recent, and probably driven by women rejecting traditional roles. Women voted with their wallets once, they can do it again.

Clothing companies do produce them every now and then, but they systematically don't sell well, as similar clothing without proper pockets looks tighter, slimmer, and gets preferred by the majority of shoppers.

This.

Classic case of people saying they want something and then making purchasing decisions based on priorities.

I would caveat: The majority of shoppers who buy clothing regularly and are into fashion. Which it makes sense for fashion companies to prioritize. Practical women who make pockets a priority also don't replace clothes just because they're out of style, take fewer chances on new things, and buy less.

True, and of course if someone buys 3x more clothing, then their opinion literally matters 3x more to the manufacturers.

What they say is one thimg, what they buy is another. If women really wanted clothes with big pockets, women clothes would have big pockets. But big pockets, specially when they have some things in, are not esthetically pleasant, and most women value esthetics more than utility.

> most women value esthetics more than utility.

This is the kind of essentialistic thinking that creates these issues in the first place.

No, yours is the kind of idealistic thinking that creates all kinds of issues when people don't act like you think they should. I just observe the world, you think the world should bend to fit your ideas.

You're saying you're totally at ease with how everything in your society operates? And that I'm problematic for wanting things to change that I feel are unjust?

I wouldn't say most women do, but a lot of women do. And, more importantly, those are the women dropping the $$ on clothing and therefore what is catered to.

I work in a lingerie/bra boutique at the moment and there are a large amount of women who wear the wrong size bra just because the right size shows that they have back fat. Even when the back fat can't be seen under clothing and the right size is more comfortable. Or who opt for things that are less comfortable/practical solely to fit their conception of themselves. "Oh no, I won't wear this size. I'm not that big/small. It fits well, but I feel so big/small when I look at the tag. I'll just keep wearing my old ones." Those are also the people who spend a ton on things that don't fit them to try to cure the gaping hole inside stemming from their hatred of their own bodies.

I've never worked with men in a similar setting (as a class, we have some cross-dressers but if you're a dude who wears women's clothing you're already comfortable breaking the rules) so I can't say if that's solely a woman thing or a general human one.

I am one of those women who would wear an ill fitting bra over a well fitting one if a well fitting one accentuated my back fat. When you're conditioned to look and present themselves a certain way, it's almost impossible to fight it with rational arguments. It's anecdotal, of course, but I've seen a certain degree of conditioning in practically all the women across different cultures, just that the details differ.

Btw, I don't want huge pockets on my pants if they make me look "ugly". I've also recently opted for a handbag over a backpack, even though a backpack is an objectively healthier option for you back (and I am used to wearing backpacks, handbags are so freaking uncomfortable). The reason I switched? Backpacks made me look/feel "childish". That's it. I traded physical comfort and health for, hopefully, psychological comfort and the ability to control my narrative through my looks.

> I've seen a certain degree of conditioning in practically all the women across different cultures, just that the details differ.

I would agree with that, although my experience is mostly limited to America. I see substantial differences in how that pressure presents across different generations. (Somebody needs to check on Gen X women, Jesus. Mass media did a number on them.)

I don't understand personally (I'm 'pretty' enough to get away with ignoring the conditioning [In quotes because I mean I fit the features the societies I live in see as attractive in cis women], I'm a lesbian and the stick to a lot of the conditioning is that you won't be a desirable to men if you don't conform and what do I care, and I also was/am visually impaired and even people who are really into conformity understand that putting that conditioning onto girls who can't see is a dick move), but it's obviously real. The main reason I hate it is that so many women who think like you like to insult themselves in a way that suggests I should agree? I'm not going to insult you! I think your body is fine!

> I traded physical comfort and health for, hopefully, psychological comfort and the ability to control my narrative through my looks.

This is a great way to put it, and now that I can see and I'm more comfortable with my looks, I'm wading into that mess myself because unfortunately I'm going to need every advantage I can get for things I want to do and people being stupid around attractive women is unfortunately one of those advantages, as gross as I feel about it.

>Mass media did a number on them

IMO the same can be said for every generation of women that came of age from the 1990s until today, but yea heroin chic and size zero culture really hit Gen X women.

In fact it’s so bad, that even male zoomers are falling victim to the social media powered mass culture these days; there is really no escape for anyone anymore.

Gen X women in particular had to deal with all the pressure of mass media and fake pictures, etc. at a vulnerable age before there was much push back. Of course Millennials and Gen Z are pressured, but there's also substantial pushback to and discussion of that pressure in a way there really wasn't in 1993. And things are a bit more fragmented now in that the monoculture has a little less sway so it's more possible to find a niche of people who agree with your aesthetic/presentation choices. Gen X also had the misfortune of being the first generation to deal with a more sexually permissive/post pill society and so things like continually looking attractive are more 'important' than for Boomer or Silent Gen women. The older Boomers and Silent Gen women I see don't like their bodies but they also don't feel like they should look 20 at 60+ because a lot of their examples growing up were still women in their lives + the cultural ideal was to get married young and keep the same man. The Gen Xers had the double whammy of 'be sexually liberated and by the way in order to do that, we're going to tell you to look 16 forever' without the counterbalance of any body positivity at all.

>I would agree with that, although my experience is mostly limited to America.

I grew up in Ukraine and have been living in the Czech Republic for the last 5 years, it's pretty much the same here, there are some slight differences about what is considered beautiful, what grooming practices are expected across different classes, what's trendy etc, but the phenomenon is basically the same.

>how that pressure presents across different generations

That's interesting, do you care to share any of your observations? I noticed that gen Z, while having broader ideas of beauty, is leaning heavily into the self-expression aspect of it, while nothing wrong with that, beauty and fashion industries picked this angle very quickly and run it into the ground through social media. (I might be biased bc I'm into makeup but these days I just cannot keep up with the makeup industry and community, mentally or financially.)

> people being stupid around attractive women is unfortunately one of those advantages, as gross as I feel about it.

There's only so many battles we can fight in our lives. Using lookism to your advantage, if you can do it in a healthy way, is just being a realist.

Coming back to the original topic - women who pick non-functional clothes are not irrational, imo, they just work with different input, so to speak.

> That's interesting, do you care to share any of your observations?

You nailed it with regard to Gen Z. I'd say off the top of my head:

- Silent Gen women either give zero fucks or have a vague desire to look "presentable". There's not much self body shaming, more grousing about how much work it is to pass 'basic' standards.

- Boomer women also usually want to look 'presentable' so most of the displeasure is what shape they have under clothes, dressing 'inappropriately' (no plunges for big breasts because it makes them look 'easy'), etc.

- Gen X are most likely to have an 'ideal' naked woman that they're comparing themselves to. They are also the harshest towards themselves verbally and most likely to make a comment about my looks passive-aggressively.

- Millennials are weird. They tend to feel the pressure of the monoculture but also know that it's not cool to care too much. They're the most likely to be very quiet or say nothing but do things like frown in the mirror or disappointingly pinch their fat. Millennials are also the most likely to view their body hatred as a personal failing: "Why can't I get over not liking how I look?" etc. They've internalized both the monoculture and the response so they think they should look a certain way but also that wanting to look a certain way is a sign of weak character.

- Gen Z don't buy into the monoculture at all but are, as you noticed, way more susceptible to empowerment/self-expression rhetoric. This is the only age group that seems to be able to dislike their body but not see it as objectively bad because the body diversity message has hit. This group is also the most laissez faire about body modification: this is the only group where the cis girls mention top surgery or reductions for aesthetics/body acceptance instead of just for medically necessary reasons. They're the inverse of Gen X in that their preferences vary a lot more, and a Zoomer is equally likely to consider themselves 'too fat' or 'too thin' or 'too curvy'. Gen Zers who don't like their bodies see it as more 'this isn't me' rather than 'I'm failing to live up to society's standards.'

These are all generalities, obviously.

> Using lookism to your advantage, if you can do it in a healthy way, is just being a realist.

True. It's also easier now because my type of attractiveness is one that's associated with personality traits I do not have. I'm small and curvy with large eyes and Shirley Temple blonde curls, so playing it up when I was younger meant being treated like a moron and I've never been able to stand that. If you're into Kibbe, I'm somewhere between a romantic and gamine which are not looks that people take seriously even if they like them. Plus since I like women I opted out because the more effort I put in, the less other women liked me. Other women respond better when I'm a bit frumpy.

> women who pick non-functional clothes are not irrational, imo, they just work with different input, so to speak.

This point reminds me of this [0] article discussing that same idea from a class + race lens.

0: https://zora.medium.com/the-poor-cant-afford-not-to-wear-nic...

Thank you for sharing, very interesting points! I wonder if Silent Gen and Boomers have had a change in their perception of beauty with age. Once you're out of reproductive age as a woman, beauty works differently for you. There must be some carryover from their younger years (for example, ideas of "properness" and "class" with Boomers seem to have been present throughout their whole lives) but some things must have changed.

I am a millennial myself (29 y.o.), and I felt like my generation was the one that was “awakened” to the reality of beauty standards. Obviously, feminist scholars have observed these patterns way before my time, but during my formative years the awareness entered the mainstream. My mom and her peers don't know what bodyshaming is, even though they both experience and perform it, my peers and I do know, and not because we've read specialized literature but because ideas are out there in the mainstream discourse.

I also know that my ideas and desires for beauty have been “planted” in me by the culture. There is nothing in me as a person that just naturally yearns to be underweight and have perky boobs. These were either instilled in me by the culture, or the culture promised something important in return. Sadly, this realization does not get rid of the desires themselves. I may be acutely aware that some beauty conventions are harmful, outdated, useless, exploitative, or inappropriate (conventions and contexts change!), I just cannot stop wanting them.

Gen Z’s situation is an interesting one. On one hand, they appear to be able to break the curse of desires “planted” in them and are able to connect with themselves as persons first and foremost, at least on some level. Their inner self, not Vogue, tells them to make a breast reduction. On the other hand, this is a rich ground for corporate exploitation. Listen, kid, you don’t need this lipstick for men, you don’t need it for other people at all, you need it for yourself. I, your friendly multi-billion corporation, just help you to articulate and get what you truly want!

>This point reminds me of this [0] article discussing that same idea from a class + race lens.

Thank you for the link. The essay was very interesting. I am not very (or at all) educated in intersectionality, but it was a very accessible and insightful read. I do wish people didn’t have to deal with this crap but we live in a society yada yada.

This is exactly correct. Maybe 30 years ago it would have been difficult to get pockets on clothes because the shops in your locality didn't sell them.. but now we have this wonderful thing called the Internet.

still fairly difficult to get a decent functional pocket, ask a woman

I have talked with not a few women about this, and it always breaks down around not liking the look of the clothes with the pockets. Largely because of what the pockets do to the silhouette of the clothes.

I invite you to do this experiment; find someone who you think is stylish, note what they’re wearing, then shop for something similar but with pockets. It’ll probably take you ten minutes online.

I've tried buying pants for my partner with phone sized pockets after telling her the same thing and being challenged in response. Even if you're not trying to find something stylish they're difficult to find. You may think you found pockets, but often they're only a couple inches deep. Occasionally they're entirely fake.

If you try to buy men's pants, they're designed for entirely different body shapes regardless of style. They end up too narrow around the hips and if you size up you end up much too large around the waist.

Shoot I'm not a woman and I get it. Gym shorts come to mind.

The ones with pockets tend to have thicker waistbands and the pockets flair out near the top. Make my hips look huge. Very womanly, big fat ass. Easily adds an inch or two, or at least the appearance thereof.

Basketball shorts sans pockets look much slimmer. Great for B-ball but not as much while lifting or other activities where I want to carry a cell phone.

Stop being lazy. My first attempt at searching gave this: https://www.pocketauthority.com/womens-pants-with-pockets

So the issue is so bad that a company has sprung up called the Pocket Authority and their whole selling point is that theirs pants have pockets?

The exception that proves the rule?

What has that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to move the goal posts. The facts are in front of you. Women (and anybody) can order clothes online that have pockets.

My man, look at the depths of those pockets... the models can't even fit their whole hand in them.

It's still a problem - and then you're stuck not able to try it on to see if it fits properly and is comfortable.

I've finally decided to take up mending just to be able to add pockets to more of my clothes - esp stuff for around the house. Most of the time if you find pockets, they're too small to put anything in! I'd rather put in the effort to make clothes match my style AND be comfortable/useful than wait for shops and brands to figure it out. Because they really don't seem to care.

There absolutely is a pressure on women to look a certain way, but I don't think number of pockets is in that category. I personally can't think of a single time number of pockets on a woman was addressed critically by either a man or another woman. Unless they were wearing one of those fishing vests, I guess. Men fashion often turns on cargo pants at least - I'm not sure if even that is a major thing for women. Don't you think it's weird that there is a supposedly strictly enforced norm and most of society is largely unaware of its existence?

I regularly have to carry things for my wife and daughters because the pockets on regular european women clothes are tiny or even missing completely. It seems to be a fashion thing. Very impractical.

I find this mildly funny. My wife goes with a purse or that tiny backpack everywhere and sometimes I give her my stuff to carry. Mobile phones are getting too goddamn big.

If you're asking me then honestly yes I find it very weird that these issues are ignired by men. I get you that you're not hearing this brought up by the women around you but are you giving them the vibes that you'd be receptive to this conversation?

You can see it all over this thread, "but there's a free market," "women are just more focused on aesthetics," even angry responses like "how dare you try to change society."

It can be extremely tiring to deal with this kind of denial of your lived experience each time you share it.

Not the OP, and not sure I should wade into this, but I speak to my wife and sister, not to mention to my best friend, all the time about this.

If I push, they'll agree that yeah pockets are nice. But for whatever reason that's beyond my nerdy understanding (and I've been on this for 25 years:), it's just not even remotely a priority. Societal upbringing I'm sure, but whether it's that pockets are not aesthetically pleasing, or they're not feminine, or simply (my assumption) they were brought up without pockets so they don't care about pockets, I don't know. Pockets are available to them. Not in every store, but today, in sufficient number of stores. If it were a concerted preference, a capitalistic market change would be under way. But it's one of those "spoken preference vs acted preference" things. I am tall and slim so already have to shop from the internet to get a fleece that fits, you can bet I'd turn over hell and earth to get me some pockets. This does not appear to be the same level of priority for those people of feminine persuasion in my live. My 100 Croatian Lipa, FWIW, sample size n<50, etc :)

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.

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.

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.

You're comparing breastfeeding to urination and then telling me women are free?

He makes a valid point. It makes little sense that it‘s not okay to pee on the grass at the roadside.

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.

Only in some cultures. For example, in the US, in Hawaii, you will find male politicians wearing more than just suits.

Sure they can wear aloha shirts but that’s it.

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.

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.

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.?

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.