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.