#because so far it seems more like a man vs the cold uncaring hand of the machine/corporate story

[light-wrath-paradise]

Started watching Severance. Slay but honestly so far I'm not really feeling it.

[cienie-isengardu]

The development of Law’s relationship with Zoro - Part 4: Dressrosa, The Breaking Point (Birdcage, Pica & Doflamingo)

<<Part I: Before Meeting>> <<Part II: Sabaody Archipelago, The First Meeting>> <<Part III: Punk Hazard, The Alliance (A)>> <<Part III: Punk Hazard, The Alliance (B)>>  <<Part IV: Dressrosa, The Breaking Point (The Plan Failed)__ (Saving Law)__(Protecting Law)__ (Birdcage, Pica and Doflamingo)__ (Aftermath)>>

Once the two pirate captains were alone (with additional presence of Abdullah & Jet, who despite Luffy’s complaint did ride on the bull’s back with them), Law finally opened about his true goal. Though the plan he brought to Straw Hat was the safer option, in truth he wanted to take down Doflamingo by himself...

and explained his hatred:  

Thirteen years ago, Doflamingo murdered someone I loved… His name was Corazon. He was once a Supreme Officer in the Doflamingo Family [...] He was the one who gave me my life. He was Doflamingo’s younger brother!!!

Zoro wasn’t there to hear Law’s story. A story that proves the existence of the hidden goal thus Roronoa’s instinct (the eventual suspicion) was foolproof. He may learn about it after battle, depending on Luffy or Law’s willingness to share. For now, Law opened himself only to Straw Hat yet I wouldn’t say he didn’t do that earlier due to Zoro’s presence - after all, there were still Abdullah and Jet to witness it, and both men were even more strangers than Zoro who up to this moment proved to be reliable and understanding ally. Looking at Trafalgar’s face and the “inner thought” bubble with three dots, seems like Law decided to talk about past in that moment because of what was happening - though fighting was the only one way for survival, everyone was determined to get Doffy’s head without caring for consequences (angry Kaido) and maybe Zoro facing Pica (who already was hit by three powerful fighters yet came out unharmed) all by himself so Luffy could get to the palace was another impulse affecting him. 

In all fairness, the lack of Zoro’s grounding presence left Law alone to deal with Luffy’s madness and uncaring nature. The moments in question, where:

♠ Law asked how Straw Hat plans to get rid of seastone handcuffs blocking his Ope Ope no Mi powers - a matter that Luffy kind of ignored, thinking it will sort itself out somehow (chapter 751). Trafalgar absolutely disagreed. Though Zoro did not raise the matter before, there was a chance he would support Law’s objection. Up to this point, Zoro always secured (guarded) Trafalgar when the situation required it but in direct combat with Doflamingo, it could be too dangerous not only for Law, but for Straw Hats too. Fighting when one must look after a totally powerless ally was just a death sentence. Of course, Zoro could agree with Law’s demand either out of worry for Trafalgar or solely for pragmatism, which still would be better than Luffy’s lack of worry.

(On second thought, Law should be happy to not heard any Zoro’s hardcore idea of cutting his hands to free him from seastone so he could heal himself with recovered powers of Ope Ope no Mi. Frankly, I’m surprised Zoro didn’t bring up this morbid possibility).

In the end, Team Robin-Bartolomeo-Rebecca managed to smuggle the key past the enemy line and freed Law. Zoro had his part in it - he didn’t let Pica hurt (stop) them and secured their passage to rendezvous point with pirate captains (chapter 754). 

♠ Luffy got tricked by Funk Brothers. As much as Zoro’s presence wouldn’t prevent them going straight into the enemy's trap, at least the two captains would have a non-devil fruit user to protect them from danger (the assassin, Doflamingo’s clone and water) instead rely on luck someone will come to save them. Frankly, the fact that Doflamingo saved them from Funk Brothers only adds insult to the injury (chapter 752).

Of course, the two Supernovas were thankfully saved by Abdullah and Jet, but once again it was more a matter of luck than any real control over the situation. With Zoro, Law at least had some comfort of security. Literally Roronoa disappeared for a moment, and Law & Luffy once again were close to dying in a pathetic way.

♠ After surviving the trap, Luffy made his own shortcut and carried Law alongside. At some point, they met Cavendish and Kyros. Together on Cavendish’s horse rode to the palace. Once again, the matter who should defeat Doflamingo arose and all four men argued. One would hope after learning about Law’s past, Luffy was going to respect his need for revenge. Except nope. Even though Kyros and Law have many more reasons to take Doffy’s head, Luffy was as selfish and irrational as before (chapter 754). None of the men thought about working together and really, up to this moment Zoro was the only one person who showed a will to cooperate while Luffy and Law still argued about who should finish off the enemy. 

It seems like Zoro was in fact the only person who truly considered himself, Law and Luffy a team, while the captains were more interested in their personal goal - taking down Doflamingo, but for different reasons. Roronoa was the least emotionally involved in the conflict and simply judged the situation by cold logic rather than empathic nature (Luffy) or  traumatic past (Law).

Ultimately, under attack of Donquixote’s officers, the colosseum fighters decided to unite and kept enemies from Luffy and Law - something that Zoro proposed from the start, but was then shut down. Now, the fighters, Kyros and dwarves, Candevish and Bartolomeo, Robin and Rebecca, Usopp and Zoro, all thanks to them, the two Supernova captains safely got to the fourth (the last) plateau leading directly to the palace. With Law freed from seastone cuffs, he and Luffy finally faced Donquixote Doflamingo (chapter 758). The matter of who should take down the enemy at last was put aside for teamwork. 

Zoro and Law were busy with their own respective fights that for most happened at the same time in different places: Law & Luffy vs Doflamingo & Trebol in New Palace and Zoro vs Pica on Pica Statue (later, shifting the fight to other plateaus). On the farest left, in an old palace plateau, King Riku, Viola, Usopp and samurais gathered.

After Kyros defeated Diamante, Pica started attacking injured fighters and then tried to kill King Riku, Viola and Usopp, who were at the mentioned former palace plateau. He changed his stone body into gigant - and this gigantic man was hard to miss. Zoro came up with a daring plan to stop the enemy and to do so, he used special powers of other fighters.

Zoro cut Pica’s stone body into pieces, defeated him and - thanks to coordinating his attack with King Elizabetto - ensured that stone remains will not fall down on King Riku, Usopp and unarmed civilians (chapter 778).

With the gigantic stone body towering above town, Zoro’s action didn’t go unnoticed - Trebol informed Doflamingo about Pica’s fate and mentioned destruction of the factory (done by Franky). Law most likely didn’t have a chance to see it for himself - unless he already switched his place with the dead body, using it as decoy and could allow himself a moment of distraction. 

Similarly, Zoro remained far away from the main battle between Law & Luffy vs Doflamingo, but once he joined King Riku on plateau, Viola became his reliable source about the ongoing fight. There is a high possibility she did summarize what Zoro missed due to fighting with Pica. For sure she told him about Law’s bad condition (chapter 780) and that birdcage is slowly shrinking.

Thanks to Viola, Zoro may more or less have known the course of the fight - and with that, guessing the emotional state of Supernova pirates. Ultimately, Law was hurt badly, so Luffy entrusted him to Robin’s care while he alone took on Doflamingo.

Despite the danger, Law decided to stay where he was, so he could either see Doflamingo’s defeat with his own eyes, or die alongside Luffy.

Cavendish remained with him, to protect in case of Doflamingo’s attack, so Robin could get Rebecca and the rest of their little group to relative safety (chapter 783). Once again, depending how much Robin and Zoro share information off-panel, she could tell him about Law’s choice. Another missing puzzle that she and him started putting in the whole picture. Even more important, since it speaks about Law’s loyalty and determination when he previously at least twice dismissed the bond with Luffy - threatening him and denied their friendship (Luffy’s idea of alliance) in front of Zoro.

With Gear Four, Luffy managed to overpower Doflamingo (chapter 784) but his stamina ran out before he could finish the enemy. Only thanks to the help of Gyats, the colosseum announcer and remaining gladiators - and later, Sabo, Viola and Law - Luffy was kept safe from Doflamingo. For ten minutes needed to regenerate his strength, Straw Hat was protected by people who didn’t lend him a hand before, but now believed in his promise to defeat the tyrannical Shichibukai. And for that were willing to put their life on the line. At some point of that, thanks to the narrator box, it was outright said that Luffy needed 4 minutes to recover while birdcage would kill everyone in three.

Around the time Luffy passed Law to Robin and his fourth gear, Zoro already left Viola’s group (chapter 783/784), taking with himself two samurai. He decided to stop or at least slow down the shrinking birdcage, to buy as much time as it was possible. 

In all fairness, he was the only one person who thought about such a solution - who thought it was a possible thing to do. Everyone was so sure of its invincibility; Doflamingo, Law (who reacted with fear at the mere mention of Doffy’s technique), the samurais, the common people running in fear for their life. Kinemon outright called Zoro’s plan a madness to which Roronoa asked back how he could know that. Because after all, the birdcage was a power of just one man thus shouldn’t be unstoppable.

On his way, Zoro passed his plan to Franky who decided to use the factory building made of seastone (thus invincible to Doffy’s strings). With the help of dwarves, Franky did the same as Zoro, only in a different part of the area. 

The Pirate Hunter was the spark that mobilized other people to do the impossible - stopping birdcage. Following in his footsteps, other colosseum fighters

and marines (with admiral Issho himself aiding Zoro)

and even simple citizens

all of them joined forces to stop shrinking birdcage. AND IT STOPPED. For a moment, but still stopped and that brought hope to all people. Even though it moved again, with their determination, the birdcage shrinking slowed enough to buy Luffy so needed time (chapter 788)

While Zoro focused on buying Luffy time to recover, Law took Straw Hat into safety and guarded him, while Gyats focused all Doflamingo’s attention on himself. And then Luffy came back.  

Law didn’t take part in that last fight, but assisted Luffy in saving Straw Hat’s new friends - Viola and Rebecca from enemy’s attack and later, saved unconscious and exhausted Luffy from falling.

Without anyone in the way, Luffy could finally  knock out Doffy once and for good. With that, the birdcage disappeared and Dressrosa became a free country again (chapter 791).

The next part: Aftermath

[daresplaining]

What If? Daredevil Vs. Elektra

    I have been meaning to write a full post about this chilling alternate universe, and Halloween seemed like the perfect time to do so. With the success and popularity of Spider-Gwen’s Hand ninja Matt Murdock, it can be easy to forget that he is not the only one. The first story of a Matt whose life took a darker and more ninja-y path was told in the one-shot What If? Daredevil Vs. Elektra, which is a chilling tale of murder, regret, and painful memories that won’t stay buried. 

    The story is told from the point of view of Elektra Natchios, agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who, in the midst of a successful career in espionage, is forced to face again a traumatic event from her past-- a hostage situation in college, in which her boyfriend tried to rescue her and was killed. 

[ID: A flashback to Columbia University, Elektra’s origin story. Cops outside a building shoot into an upper window.]

Cops: “They’re killing the hostages! Wait... what’s that? I can see something... Yeah, a clear shot, and I’m taking it...”

Elektra: “Matt!”

[ID: Young Matt Murdock gets shot multiple times. Young Elektra kneels on the floor, holding his body in her arms.]

    It’s a memory she has learned to live with, a little piece of trauma she has long since buried, but then, suddenly, people around her start dying. She and her fellow agents begin to investigate scenes of carnage, carried out with terrifying stealth and skill by an unknown enemy. 

[ID: The Kingpin’s office, chaos. The Kingpin sits at his desk while a ninja in red clothes and a devil mask fights Bullseye. The ninja slices Bullseye’s head off with his sword and then advances on the Kingpin.]

Elektra (off-panel): “His bodyguards slaughtered upfront, Fisk’s personal assassin... Poindexter... Bullseye... whatever they called him... was the Kingpin’s only prayer.”

    Elektra, horrified but still clueless about how this connects to her buried memory at this point, investigates further. Her character development is an interesting variation in this universe, which presents a fairly clear-cut role switch between she and Matt. Her experience in college was painful, and her career as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent has given her a fairly jaded view of life and people, but she has retained some of the optimism and naivete that was snuffed out in the 616 universe by her father’s death. Elektra wants to see justice done, even if the only people so far killed have been dangerous criminals. She asks around, and eventually finds a surprisingly informed old blind man in a bar. 

[ID: A bar. Stick is playing pool and talking to Elektra, who is dressed in a black coat and red head scarf.]

Stick: “Ever heard of the Hand?”

Elektra: “As in ‘talk to’?”

Stick: “You’re a barrel, too, y’know that? The Hand. Corrupted ninja order. Heirs to the Beast. Intent on infiltrating the empires of man. In other words-- one bad outfit. Their current leader, ‘the Advocate’, is a servant turned master. He uses a unique approach to taking out his foes. He finds a discontented underling, exploits their dissatisfaction, nurtures it into betrayal... then attacks from within.”

Elektra: “Very Hong Kong triple-feature, old man. How does it connect to Fisk’s murder?”

Stick: “The Kingpin’s lawyer. Talk to him. And while you’re at it, talk to your boss... he just might help you find another blind guy whose kung fu is better than yours...”

    It doesn’t take Elektra long to find the Kingpin’s lawyer, Foggy Nelson. She discovers him sitting alone in his apartment, a bitter shell of the Foggy we know in the 616 universe. Losing Matt hit him hard, and-- as is true in several other alternate universes as well-- sent his life into a tailspin. 

[ID: Flashbacks from Foggy’s life: in the library with Matt in college, Foggy sitting at a desk in the Kingpin’s office, a body (Ben Urich) with a bag over its head, Foggy defending the Kingpin in court.]

Foggy (off-panel): “The two of us had high hopes... aspirations. We were gonna open our own practice once we passed the bar... and change the world, or what little of it we could. Funny how life goes. After law school I could barely pay back my student loan. I was desperate for money. Fisk made me an offer I would have been an idiot to refuse. A six-figure retainer. When he was on trial a few years back for placing a hit on Bugle reporter Ben Urich... having an honest, decent man shot dead... body dumped like trash... I fought for his freedom like my life depended on it. Probably did. In the end, it was the judge who’d been bought, but I was party to it. My life had become a sick joke.”

    He is bitter with regret and disgusted by the person he has become. He admits to Elektra that he was the weak link in the Kingpin’s organization-- the person indirectly responsible for his murder. He also gives her the name of the man who did the deed-- the Advocate-- along with some terrifying news: that  his next target is S.H.I.E.L.D. Sure enough, ninjas attack one of the helicarriers shortly afterward, killing Nick Fury and many of Elektra’s other friends and co-workers. Elektra realizes what she is up against. She realizes who she is up against. The Hand have brought Matt back from the dead and turned him into a killer, and she has to do something about it. 

    Elektra returns to Stick. She trains with him, attempting to prepare herself to face the Hand. When Stick suddenly vanishes, Elektra takes things into her own hands. She takes the name Sai and forms the new Chaste (one of my favorite alternate universe teams). They prepare to attack the Hand at their home base, and finish things once and for all. 

[ID: Elektra, now dressed in her 616-verse red outfit, addresses a group of other heroes: this universe’s versions of Wolverine, Black Widow, Power Man, Iron Fist, Echo, and Silver Samurai.]

Elektra: “Our differences may be many, but we share common ground. Each of us has lost someone... something... to the Hand. We are now the Chaste. The only ones who can stand against them. This is how we go in...”

Caption: “Old names forsaken, each member of this new order of seven took on another one to signify rebirth-- Claw. Sting. Stone. Flame. Seer. Sword. Sai. Woe to the Devil and evil men.”

    This comic is relentless in its carnage, which feels exactly right for the flavor of the story it is telling. When the new Chaste storm the Hand’s headquarters, Elektra discovers that Stick is dead. Matt has killed his first teacher, and Elektra knows she is out of options. She has to stop Matt herself. 

[ID: In the Hand’s fortress. Elektra has discovered Stick’s severed head.]

Elektra: “Stick... teacher, I’m sorry... you were right. Time to grow up.”

    She seeks him out. Of course, he is expecting her. 

[ID: The Hand’s fortress. Elektra approaches Matt from behind. He is dressed in a red ninja outfit but without a mask. His eyes are an unnatural red. Elektra has her sai; Matt is holding a gun.]

Elektra: “I’m here to stop you.”

Matt: “From doing what? Bringing order to chaos? Imagine these widowmakers without my guidance. You’re still holding onto the ideals of youth. Your father raised you in a sheltered, protected bubble allowing you limited contact with the rest of the world. Clouded your thoughts with fairy tale notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Isn’t that why you hate him? You know this world is a savage garden. Beauty in duality. Good and evil intertwine like copulating serpents. Indistinguishable. It’s not worth saving because there’s nothing to save.”

    Here, we see the other half of the role switch. Reanimated Matt is brainwashed, and that is part of it, but his words have the feeling of a deeply ingrained truth. His existence has been nothing but pain. An attempt at heroism cost him his life, and since he has been back, all he has seen is the worst of people. His words echo 616-verse Elektra’s mindset in the wake of her father’s murder-- that the world is a cold and uncaring place and all one can do is attempt to survive in it as best one can. And like 616 Matt in the equivalent situation, Elektra is horrified to see what has become of the hopeful, caring person she knew in college. 

    They fight, and Elektra realizes the inevitable-- there is no saving Matt. And she is Elektra, no matter the universe, and so finds the strength to do the deed. 

[ID: Elektra shoots a bullet past Matt’s head. He drops to his knees, his hands pressed to his ears in pain.]

Caption: “The gun is S.H.I.E.L.D. ordinance... with a built-in sonic disruptor. It sends the Advocate’s senses into overdrive.”

[ID: Elektra draws her sai and stabs him through the chest.]

[ID: Matt lies, dying, on the ground. His eyes now look normal. Elektra kneels beside him.]

Matt: “Elektra...?”

Elektra: “Matt...?”

Matt: “Terrorists... taken care of... you and... your father... safe?”

Elektra: “Yes, darling... we’re safe... we’re safe.”

    It’s a beautiful little one-shot, bloody and tragic and poetic as the best Elektra and Matt comics are. I’m sure I’ll discuss it again, but for now, I wanted to give it the attention it deserves as an important alternate universe story and a compelling re-exploration of Matt and Elektra’s relationship. 

[loki-zen]

The Impracticality of Feminine Attire

@osberend I’m splitting this off so it’s more readable and we’re not reposting @ silver-and-ivory’s face and half a dozen pictures of Gackt every time we make a reply. The chain so far is [here].

also I’m adding a cut because this turned out to be loooong

Thanks for the info, and I have no objections to tangenting at all. My thoughts, some in agreement, some in tentative disagreement or confusion (and some perhaps simply reflecting different priorities or personality) follow. Feel more than free to point out anything incorrect.

The lack of pockets is definitely a thing. I think my mental model of a “typical” black tie event tends to have flat surfaces that one could readily set a handbag on, but this may be factually incorrect.

I mean, depends on the event, but unless it’s a closed one and I know everyone there, I’m unlikely to be okay leaving my valuables lying around. 

(My own typical solution to the no-pockets problem, when wearing a skirt (which I’ve never done in a remotely formal setting) without a jacket is to wear around my neck a lanyard with my keys, ID, credit cards, and sometimes one or more of pocket-knife, cell-phone, and and mini-flashlight all dangling off of it on rings. But that’s obviously not compatible with dressing at all formally.)

My solution is usually a trade-off with my partner and usual date: in casual settings, where I am invariably carrying a (small backpack or messenger-style) bag and he isn’t, I will carry things too big to fit in his pockets, within reason. In return, when we’re dressed formally and my practical hands-free bags are not appropriate, he will put my wallet/keys etc in his pockets. Obviously, this is not ideal as it requires a date, and means anything I need to take into the bathroom with me (period supplies, makeup for retouching) I need to get off him and carry there in my hands. (That doesn’t sound like I big deal until you consider that many women are embarrassed to be seen with period supplies, and tangent 1 below.)

Regarding jackets vs. wraps, I suspect that my (possibly autistic?) aversion to restrictive clothing is a factor here. I’m inclined to to view greater freedom of movement for my arms at the expense of having to make greater use of my hands as a net win, unless I’m doing something highly active (in which case, why would I be wearing semi-formal attire at all?).

Try wearing one? The trade-off could be positive for you. It’s not for me. You don’t need to be doing anything active - basic black-tie event activities like ‘moving your arms at all in any way’ can cause wraps to slip, often while simultaneously requiring the use of your hands so you can’t use one to hold the wrap on. E.g.:

Reaching out to take a canape or buffet food with a plate in the other hand

Sipping from your drink while holding your clutch/wrist chain bag

Shaking someone’s hand while holding your drink or clutch/wrist chain bag

Using the bathroom (which can also be an operation due to manoeuvring awkwardly tight or voluminous skirts and shapewear or tights)

Fixing your hair/makeup

The actual result for me/women with whom I have discussed this is the opposite of freedom of movement - you end up keeping your arms and shoulders as still as you possibly can, to keep it on. Also, I feel like it bears repeating, where I’m from (UK) you will do all of this to keep your outer layer on and probably still be cold.

I have had some success on the holding it on problems by securing the wrap with a brooch of some kind. This reduces but does not eliminate slippage. I do always wonder if I look wrong because most people don’t do this, but it feels elegant enough and being able to move is worth the worry. The problem here, and possibly the reason more people don’t do it, is that wraps are frequently made of a fabric that can’t take a brooch without developing permanent holes.

Heels are certainly a thing. My admittedly vague and possibly baseless impression was that the range of acceptable shoes for semi-formal wear included some flat or at least low-heeled options. Is this incorrect?

Like, sort of. Flats are just inherently not as Fancy, so unless you’re super style-confident or otherwise uncaring of what people think, you’re probably trading foot comfort for a nagging feeling of being under-dressed all night. I’ll admit this is more one where on average the women’s option is much more uncomfortable, but if you’re willing to throw time and money after finding the comfiest formality-compliant shoe imaginable, you’ll only come in a bit more awkward and less comfortable than the male default. (Also, unlike the men, you may have to seek out this rare shoe more than once, because of the thing I mentioned in the last post where women can’t get away with wearing the same outfit to every black-tie event they go to. And the shoes have to go with your outfit, of course.)

Low heels (and wedges) are better than high ones, but still uncomfortable. Fancy/evening attire has the added bonus that the dressiest, most formal styles are usually the ones lacking in the support that makes a heel more wearable - which can make as much difference as the height of the heel.

For instance, a boot - the maximum amount of support for a heel - is not really black tie appropriate, depending on how formal of a black tie event it is. Oxfords, Mary Janes, mules and shoes with lots of big wide straps are considered less formal - more business or casual wear than black tie.

Perhaps not coincidentally (see Tangent 2), these are also the styles most women find more comfortable, and the styles that are the least damaging to the feet and legs. A lot of fancy, black tie-appropriate shoes - inho, especially, the less high ones - will be more like this:

The lack of any straps or top to the shoe make it more uncomfortable to wear, because your foot is not supported in controlling the heel. This tends to lead to subconscious ‘scrunching’ as my physiotherapist mother calls it - bending the toes inward to help keep the shoe on - which can result in pain following a few hours of wear, and repetitive strain type injuries from long term wear.

Flats won’t save you from this, as the most common style of formal flats is the ballet pump, which is not beloved of physios - it has the same problems with scrunching, and zero arch support.

Now, this shoe is so ubiquitous that if you want flats, it’s too cold or formal for sandals, and you’re under 40 and want to dress in a way that isn’t butch or really old for you, it can take a lot of shopping to find an alternative. (For a demonstration, google image search ‘comfortable formal flats’ and take note of every shoe on that page that’s a) actually flat and b) not a ballet pump.)

So in conclusion on the heels section; yes, there are alternatives, but they’re either pretty bad too but not as bad (ballet pumps) or incredibly hard to find. I tried to find the one example I own - a pair of flat Mary-Janes that have both a decent sole and an evening-appropriate look (where most flat Mary-Janes have one or the other) - online so I could show you a picture, and I literally can’t find them even knowing exactly what I’m looking for. Tangent number 3 at the bottom is on heels.

You have a good point regarding breast management, although my impression was that there were at least some evening gowns for which this was not an issue? Again, I recognize that I could be incorrect. Similarly, slinkiness is standard, not universal, right? Wikipedia includes Empire Silhouette in its list of evening gown styles, and the illustrations in the linked article seem unlikely to require shapewear; is this wrong, or misleading?

Yes, you’re correct here, and I think I remembered to use words like ‘many’ and ‘most’ in my post. If you set your mind to it, you can find an evening dress you can wear a normal bra with, though you’ll probably have to ditch your mentioned specification of ‘sleeveless’. However slinky the dress, nobody’s making you wear shapewear, and there are definitely styles that are more forgiving. So this one is actually a little better than the shoes; this is a case where if you try really hard and your only criterea is comfort, you might actually be as comfy as you would be in the menswear. Provided it isn’t cold.

A few caveats though:

1: This requires you to prioritise comfort over all else. A full-coverage top on an evening dress is unusual, and selecting your dress on this basis will probably make you stand out and might have unintended style implications. Unless this style happens to be in when you go dress-shopping, you’ll probably end up with something quite ‘Mother of the Bride’ (i.e. an older woman’s style) and/or (based on the thing where every outfit is read as advertising your sexual mores) prudish-seeming. Men can be this comfortable and not feel at all self-concious because they’re dressed like everybody else. 2: I mentioned before about how tough it can be to find clothes that fit properly. Depending on your location and shopping tolerance ‘I like it okay and it fits me’ might be tough enough to find, never mind ‘I like it okay and it fits me and I can wear a normal bra with it and it’s Empire-waist and cut high enough that I don’t have to wear heels*). ‘It fits but the neckline is a bit off and a normal bra would show’ is a common way for a dress to be ‘good enough’, especially when you’re an unusual size, tired of shopping, and the dress is quite cheap. 3: The standard thing everybody wears is so much cheaper.

*yes, that’s a thing. If a dress is supposed to be floor-length, it might be designed on the assumption that you’ve got three or so inches of heel going on.

The above questions probably reflect an unusual (autistic?) way of looking at things: I tend to make a strong distinction between rules and expectations. So that, for example, a man attending a “black tie” event while wearing neither a waistcoat nor a cummerbund is Objectively Wrong, while a woman who attends in suitable clothing, wearing no makeup and with unshaven legs and armpits, is Objectively Correct, even if most likely Socially Disapproved. This applies to most of the “unspoken but expected” items you mention, although jewelry is sort of an edge case. But that’s generally not awkward or time-consuming, as opposed to just expensive, right? Or wrong?

So given that I tend to view Social Disapproval — or, at least, the kinds of Social Disapproval that my mental model suggests (perhaps incorrectly) are meaningful risks in this sort of context — with less concern and more contempt than most people, I suspect that my sense of “how comfortable (or expensive, or any number of other things) is dress code X” is defined a good deal more by “how comfortable (or whatever) an outfit could I construct that fits the technical requirements of dress code X and that looks good by my standards” (given, when considering female dress codes, a more suitable anatomy; finding an evening gown that looks good by my standards despite my complete lack of tits would probably be fairly difficult) and less by “how comfortable of an outfit could I construct that most people would view approvingly in the context of an event for which dress code X was specified” than is typical.

I think that also applies heavily to the “sexual scrutiny” issue, the “multiple outfits” issue (unless you go to black tie events all the damn time, at least), and possibly also to the “casual date“ question.

I think that given the premise of this attitude, your conclusion can make sense. There are more items of clothing that are explicitly listed as Necessary For Dress Code in the men’s list, and one could technically fulfil the letter of the women’s code in comfortable clothing and without hair, makeup, hair removal, jewellery etc.

(And yeah, not generally time-consuming, awkward or expensive - just another item that’s not listed but is typically expected. Dangly earrings can be awkward to wear, but non-dangly ones that are every bit as black-tie appropriate are not at all uncommon.)

I just think... so what? Most of the time an invitation won’t list items of clothing for either gender, just ‘black tie’. All the expectations I’ve gone into will still be in place, and it is expected that you know the rules, and that 'bra showing’ or ‘visible armpit hair’ is every bit as unacceptable as not wearing a cummerbund, and more likely to be noticed and disapproved of. 

The way that these things work is not about strict adherence to stated rules, it’s about looking appropriate and fitting in. If you break the rules a little - no waistcoat or cummerbund, different coloured tie or shirt, different style of dressy shoes - but succeed at fitting in and being judged smart and appropriate, at worst you may face slight social disapproval, and at best you will be praised for your original style. If you adhere to the letter of the rules but stand out and are judged not to be smart and appropriate - to follow your example, visible armpit and leg hair, unstyled hair, no makeup etc - you will have followed the rules but the consequences of social disapproval* will still follow. The only logical conclusion here is that the important thing regarding consequences (which to me is really all that can matter) is not whether or not you follow the stated rules.

* and possibly more. If social disapproval doesn’t bother you (tangent 4), remember it can have tangible consequences. If you are socialising with people in your workplace or field of work, as people often do, social disapproval can hurt your job prospects - people who are judged to be incompetent at fitting in and following unspoken social rules can be judged as less competent generally. Plus, if you’re judged not to fit in in the social scene, you may not be invited again, which is dangerous for any profession where advancement can rely on networking. Becoming regarded as a social misfit is also unlikely to help a person’s romantic prospects.

* additional note: there are particularly strict venues or events where a significant deviation from the stated formality rules - trainers, for instance, or no tie - can result in being refused entry. This is the consequence that I think would probably be applied to stated-rule deviation and not unspoken-expectation deviation. But even in this case, I would maintain that adherence to the stated rules is necessary but not sufficient to avoid consequences - unspoken-expectation deviation will still result in the consequences above.

Of course, to me - I’m also autistic - part of why our current set up is such a good deal for men is that we both have stated rules and unspoken expectations, but so much more of what is expected from women falls under unspoken expectations.

As a man, you need to wear what it says on the list, and figure out that you’re probably also supposed to wear trousers and underwear and whatnot. You need to make sure those clothes aren’t dirty or visibly damaged, then shave and probably run a comb through your hair. Boom, you’re black-tie-ready.

Women don’t just have all these other things to do - they also have to intuit that they are expected of them. Plus, as I said before, they need to correctly choose a black-tie-appropriate outfit, in colours that match, with no option to instead just wear the exact items and colours that are listed under ‘black tie’.

You’re 100% right about the weird lack of sane pockets on women’s pants. Also about the greater difficulty of finding clothes that fit, which I think is partly a result of the factors you mention, but is also clearly greatly exacerbated by the “one dress” vs. “pants + shirt” issue, at levels of formality where wearing a separate skirt and top is not acceptable, since that means trying to find a single garment that fits all of one’s (ankle-to-neck) measurements, rather than two that each fit half of them.

That’s definitely part of it, though for me the major problems are bust size versus back size, bust size versus waist size, and a short shoulder-to-bust measurement, which makes anything cut for an average height woman very low cut. But then, I wear fit and flare dresses because they flatter my figure, so I don’t have to worry about any below-the-waist measurement beyond overall length. So some of these problems can be routed around via choice of dress shape. You can also buy a tiny selection of very expensive dresses that are designed for people with large breasts relative to the rest of them, and many stores have a small selection of their clothes available in ‘petite’ (for shorter women). This includes the UK store that does big boob dresses, so there’s like, three whole dresses out there that ought to solve both my bust size and short torso issues! I’m going into this to illustrate just how difficult it can be to avoid the bra/shapewear issues - what are the chances one of those is an evening gown in an empire or fit and flare cut with enough coverage at the top to allow for a normal bra? What are the chances I even like any of them? (update: for funzies, I checked their current selection. Their online shop, at least, no longer seems to have petites.)

I feel like I should tag @funereal-disease into this conversation, as she probably has some interesting things to add. (I have difficulty predicting what things, but that’s part of what makes me anticipate that they’ll be interesting.)

Approved!

So in conclusion, the original question that prompted this text mountain was:

Are girl clothes really consistently more awkward, time consuming, and uncomfortable than boy clothes, at a consistent level of formality? (Like, the median item on the racks at a store probably is, but I’m thinking more of the easy and comfortable end of what one can reasonably easily find at a given level, if one cares to do so.)

I would say yes, given the assumption that 'level of formality’ involves fulfilling the social function of formality levels* and thereby avoiding negative social consequences, rather than just meeting the technical demands.

* it’s a bit more complicated, but basically signalling belonging in a given social set via the ability to afford and select appropriate clothing, and willingness to wear it when asked.

The second half of the question depends on what your definition of ‘reasonably’ is. The median item is much more awkward, time consuming, and uncomfortable. The most comfortable and easy possible outfit that meets requirements probably approaches average male levels of comfort, but is still inescapably more awkward (pockets if nothing else) and can’t possibly compete on ‘time consuming’ because the components are so difficult to find. 

This level of comfort also requires a number of compromises the man doesn’t have to make: foremost, a willingness to stand out because of your non-standard choices, which can in themselves have social consequences: being read as making some kind of feminist statement, or as being a lesbian, or as just generally being a bit weird and not quite fitting in with the other girls.

Tangent 1: It bothers me particularly because I have OCD-like twitches concerning the cleanliness of public spaces, particularly bathrooms, but using the facilities will probably necessitate leaving my makeup on the wet counter by the sinks - especially if I’m also trying to hold a goddamn wrap on. I once had a corner of the wrap slip off my shoulder as I moved my arm to get toilet paper, and fall into the used toilet water. Given my twitches, plus the fact that the wrap cost less than £15 and was dry-clean only, my solution was to abandon it on the toilet floor.

Tangent 2: There’s a theory that suggests women’s formal/fancy/high-status looks are impractical and leave the wearer requiring assistance with basic tasks by design. Basically, like a low-key version of footbinding, things like stupid long manicured nails, high heels and hobble skirts are all supposed to be ostentatiously incompatible with doing any real work, and thus serve as an advert that says ‘I’m so rich my wife/daughter doesn’t have to work.’

It could plausibly serve as wealth signalling even today. The girl who can afford a cab to and from the party can wear less practical shoes than the woman who has to get the bus.

Tangent 3: You may have met women who seem to have no problem whatsoever with heels and perhaps even say that they prefer them. That’s because there are two main ways of wearing high heels:

wear them all the time, which means you’re super agile in them and don’t find them that uncomfortable, but are causing permanent damage to your ligaments

wear them occasionally, which spares your ligaments, but you walk like a baby deer and it hurts like hell after a couple hours

Tangent 4: It’s possible that some kinds of autistic people feel less strong emotions in response to social disapproval, and feel less anxiety over whether they are approved of. I also think that women as a rule feel social disapproval more keenly, worry about it more, and are more likely to be aware of it. I have no position at this time on how much of the latter is the result of social conditioning.

Personally, I think I started out not caring, learned how social disapproval works and how it has consequences beyond ‘feeling bad/embarrassed’, and this somehow led to me not only rationally avoiding social disapproval where possible/not overly incompatible with my other goals, but has actually led to me having the ‘feeling bad/embarrassed’ response to it that I used to lack.

Incidentally do you mind if at some point I turn this into a proper blog post? I just did so much typing it seems a waste otherwise.