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?
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.
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.
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://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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
'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).
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.
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).