51–60 of 204 posts
Wait till you learn about the Sunday Lecture Society.
Are they the originators of the Royal Society Lectures that continue to this day? I saw Chucky D. and several other notable 19th century academics were members.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
This is the kind of essentialistic thinking that creates these issues in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My wife (and most other modern women too probably) would add “pockets on everything” and “more than a single dimension on pant sizes”.
A well-made corset is a snug, comfortable, supportive garment that doesn't impede movement.
Could you comfortably do sports with it, or play with children? That's my definition of "doesn't impede movement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channar_revolt In Kerala, Southern India, which had the wierdest system of caste and associated rules of segregation, women had start with the struggle to clothe their upper body.
The opposite of "free the nipple"!