Women Who Wear Pants: Still Somehow Controversial

[qwlauren35]

40. There are a few

people in this thread who seem to be dismissing this issue, and not understanding its impact. Pants are practical; long dresses, dresses below the knees, or dresses which restrict the parting of legs (unlike kilts) are not practical. What does it say about a society that does not want women to wear practical clothing? It means that they will be restricted from certain jobs.

Now, on top of this, try to envision the difference in warmth between a short dress and long pants in 0 degree weather. Why is it more important to be "pretty" than practical? Under pants, you can wear thermal underwear. Under a dress, at best, you can wear tights. I'll take the thermals.

I went to Catholic school in the 1970's. Until the doors opened, the kids hung out outside. Some days it was cold. There was nothing to do, unless you were the type to run around... and girls had to wear skirts with no pants.

I know there are more men on DU than women, and some men just can't see that clothing is a feminist issue. No, it's not up there with abortion rights, or fair pay, but it's an issue.

One that men really don't have to deal with. So please, let us women rally and cheer for this victory, those of us who know what it was like to wear skirts in the cold, those of us who wanted to take long strides but could not, those of us who understood that women wearing skirts weren't supposed to have dirty jobs, and therefore, were ineligible for certain career opportunities.

It's the lack of understanding that I see in this thread that makes me understand why it is SO important to women like Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright that Hillary is running.