Originally Posted by mafoofan
^^^ Ig'nance and the worst sort of juvenile faux liberalism. A skirt suit is the classic format of business suit for women. By the strictest business formal standards, a woman is supposed to wear a skirt suit, not a pant suit. In fact, if you've bothered to observe, women in positions of power commonly wear skirt suits. Hillary Clinton is ridiculed for her pant suits precisely because it is not the norm. Moreover, if you haven't noticed, men and women have different sorts of bodies. It's only to be expected that different sorts of clothing will best flatter those bodies. Anyway, I could make the equally stupid argument that you are a chauvinist for thinking that a woman must dress like a man to appear confident and sophisticated.
Lol, I'm sorry for butthurting you! I didn't take you for such a sensitive type. Anyway, I didn't say a woman should wear trousers out of liberalism or feminism, but because I don't think flaunting one's legs is appropriate or attractive when doing business or any serious work. It's my opinion that trouser suits are more impressive & look better on women than skirt suits. The fact that currently a skirt suit is the formal business dress standard for women is neither here nor there. The same applies to your Clinton anecdote. I don't see how you can think this point and related points add any sort of value to your argument. I didn't deny that women have different bodies to men, or that their suits should reflect that; in fact, I quite clearly said the suit should embrace the female [body & personality]. I don't see how a skirt reflects a woman's body shape, which is what you've suggested. We can't have control over each other's opinions, but you presented yours rather arrogantly and that annoyed me (especially since your ideas are so restrictive and indeed boring, hence 'backwards').