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.

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Relax, the planet can't be destroyed by climate change. Hyperbole are not useful if we want to have a reasonable debate.

That’s nitpicking; writing «the planet» for «the world we live in» is an extremely common metonymy.

In Spain the lockdown was deemed unconstitutional by the Tribunal Constitucional, our equivalent of the Supreme Court.

Interesting, thanks.

In the UK there barely is a constitution, and as much as it does exist, it really only governs how the different parts of the government interact with each other, and how they operate. As such 'unconstitutional' isn't really a thing there, which is one of the reasons I asked.

European mediterranian countries. Bacon wrapped dates were pretty common at parties in Spain. Then they were considered bad for your health because of the fat, and now they are considered bad for your health because of the sugar.

ah ok a bit like the french used to do prunes wrapped in bacon. do the spanish grow dates? never seen a spanish date

Not in significant quantities, looks like, but Morocco and Algeria, which are basically next door, are significant producers.

Morocco & Algeria probably do not consume much pork, though.

Being the most popular sport league is not the same as being the most popular sport. Out of ten league positions, basket has #1 and #10. Soccer has #2, #3, #4, #6, #7 and #9.

Yeah but that wasn't the original statement, the argument was that a Chinese person would be more likely to recognize the LA Lakers than a London pro soccer team. So popularity of the NBA specifically is quite relevant.

Also, you see people wearing NY Yankees hats globally. Some of them don't even seem to know anything about baseball and just think it is some sort of NY merch. But still there are absolutely American sports teams that have recognizable brands more globally.

I get what you're saying, but you might not be realising that the top teams from the EPL _also_ play in the UCL. It's a "super league" made up of the top European soccer teams from the domestic leagues. There must surely be some kind of cumulative recognition effect from playing in both leagues.

I'm Spanish, and wherever I've been in Africa, South America or Asia, everybody ask me if I support Real Madrid or FC Barcelona, soccer teams of the main cities here. And the number 1 visited museum in Madrid is not the Prado, which is one of the 5 top art museums in the World, but Real Madrid museum in their stadium.

Oh, because angry individuals are more likely to carefully prosecute crime? I have not got such confidence in the mob.

Because there is a debate about the degree of immunity that you get after being ill with COVID-19. And many healthcare workers that have been exposed to the virus have been ill, have high levels of antibodies and they don't think that the vaccine is necessary or beneficial for them.

But right now you must be in one of the two fields: you are either an anti-vaxxer or you believe in science and will do everything your government says. There are no room for rational discussion about important issues anymore. You just choose your team and fight for it till death.

No, priest are for keeping the doctrine and serving as bridges between the faithful and their god(s). Theologians are the ones who update (or uphold) the church system of belief.

Right, I guess the overall point being that religion has a mechanism for change as well.

Only in the same sense that clothing has a mechanism for change because fashion exists. Theologians have no way of contacting their gods(s) or even knowing whether they exist. Their opinions are not based on evidence.

Sure they are, but in an evolutionary sense not in a scientific sense. Countless theologians have said countless things and most have gone in to the dustbin of history. But the things that resonated or were useful have remained.

Religion is the result of evolutionary processes and like all evolutionary processes it changes slowly and is not perfect. D.S. Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral is the go-to book for this argument and contains a beautiful section that goes like this:

We look at a bird's wing and marvel that it is so wonderfully adapted for flying. But we do not scorn birds for not being able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Their wings never required that to be successful in their evolutionary niches. Why do we look at religion which is also a marvel of adaptation for helping humans live together and get mad at it that it has not brought about world peace? World peace or perfection were never required for them to be successful in their evolutionary niches.

The issue with trying to make an argument that religion has no mechanism for change is that religions have and continue to change. So whether the mechanism is a priest, a turtle's dream, or if it's because of evidence is largely irrelevant. Religion does change.