near the attention they deserve. The clothing of the upper class women in GB, for example, nearly forty pounds of fabric, made rapid movement impossible. The raging hysteria over bloomers. Over women in trousers, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. . All outrage because women could finally move, run.

Thank you so much for beginning this discussion. I am looking forward to responses.

For any reason.

Of slacks or skirt.

In my experience, most women pick the skirt.

It should be about women having choice and freedom, not that they should never look even a tiny bit different from men.

They changed their policy last year. Either the picture is an older one, or the women in it chose to wear the skirt.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/08/05/say-goodbye-to-the-floor-length-skirt-air-force-now-allows-women-to-wear-pants-with-mess-dress/]

The question I'd think they both would ask is, why is there not a choice for men.
Another question: Why would different dress be "standard."
Another question to men and women: if there were a sudden attack, who'd be better prepared in dress for evasion and battle movements.

The military doesn't run on polls of its troops, so the decision has been made somewhere. And that decision should not be a secret to a multi-gender public.

in a combat zone. And the male version is no more practical for that possibility. It's stiff, tight, and heavy.

Stiff, tight and skirty might work even less.

If Colorado Springs is attacked, I'm guessing we will have enough warning to change into fatigues. What, you think they have their weapons under the dinner table?

women having MORE choice than men is a problem.

that distracts from military focus on order, unity, uniformity and equality in the military context.

No matter the gender there is utilitarian clothing and there is style clothing. If women in the military want a gendered skirty look, fine. If a gendered appearance doesn't affect their performance or how they're esteemed by peers, fine. But I don't think gendered outer clothing, even for parade dress, should exist.

How women dress when they're on leave is, of course, their choice.

allows women to either embrace OR reject that gendered look. It's THEIR choice. Isn't that the whole point? Giving women choices over their appearance? Their bodies? IF they want to embrace traditional genders, what's the problem with that? If they don't, what's the problem with that?

Nothing about that choice affects order, unity or equality. As for "uniformity," there are multiple different types of work uniforms, dress uniforms, even physical fitness uniform options. I spent 22 years in the Army and plenty of times I saw people wearing different uniforms for dress events based on personal preference. I never bought the mess dress even though I was an O5 because I thought it looked like a waiter's uniform. I preferred the Blues. Other field grades liked and wore the mess dress. And back when we still had the green's, you saw up to three different types of uniforms at a formal function. (which is probably the same thing you see now that they have the "pinks and greens."

So, no to "uniformity" as well.

Dress uniforms are the epitome of "style clothing." And even then, the women's uniforms of all types have different styling from the men. Why? Breasts. You can't put pockets on a woman's chest. And you can't have the same cut for women and men for fit purposes. So even when the uniforms are "the same," they ain't the same. Women's bodies are different from men. So this mythical exact sameness you are looking for doesn't exist, and it shouldn't exist. Equal does not equal same.

If this was a situation where women were required to dress one way ("feminine" ) then I'd be the first to say, that's bullshit. But they aren't. They have choices. Sorry but there's zero wrong with that.

The twitter photo reveals only surface. I don't want to see sexism where it doesn't exist.

I thought bodily differences don't hinder uniformity in the general sense, not down to pocket placement perfection or a cloned look. And so my use of those terms is in the spirit of military order over a gendered sorting.

Though I've spent time at Fort Gordon and Fort Sill, I was just an officer's wife who worked on base, familiar with different kinds of uniforms. That was 50 years ago, and times change.

I appreciate your post.

Most people here never admit to being anything other than 100 percent right, so being able to back down after an exchange of ideas is fairly rare here or anywhere on the internet. So kudos!

I'm always open to correction. You're qualified enough and logical enough for anyone to accept your argument. So kudos back!