response 5 of 71:

Jul 3 09:02 UTC 1999

Unless it's the east area of London in the fall of 1888.  ;-)

response 7 of 71:

Jul 6 23:22 UTC 1999

Girls are "sent" places.  Young, obedient girls.
Then, hopefully, they grow-up and they are no longer
"sent".  It's a right of passage and maturity.

response 9 of 71:

Aug 28 21:20 UTC 1999

The peeing thing never bothered me much, but I was still delighted to hear
of this woman who invented a contraption that allows women to pee standing
up.  Check out this month's _Utne Reader_.

I'll second the menstruation thing.  And not feeling safe, although that's
becoming more universal -- several of my male friends report that they
don't walk places alone at night for fear of being beaten up and robbed.

I don't like being leered at or whistled at, either.

Still, all things considered I think I enjoy being a girl.  :)

response 11 of 71:

Aug 30 15:45 UTC 1999

I think I saw this on TV. Not a catheter. Like a big folding 
funnel/reservoir thing. Not sure what they are made of. Is in a wide 
V-shape, you open it up and place it right where the urine is coming 
out. It channels it down like a spout or something.

But that brings up aiming issues, and I would be worried about 
leakage/spilling from the sides. I'll just sit. It's all I've known. :)

response 13 of 71:

Aug 30 21:24 UTC 1999

A cup also works, if properly placed, but requires undressing.  I cannot
imagine any device that would allow a woman to pee without undressing at least
part way.  You empty the cup after you are done with it.  It can be used
standing.

response 15 of 71:

Sep 4 20:59 UTC 1999

Yeah, the thing I read about was a funnel/spout type thing.  Personally I'm
not interested, but it was an interesting article -- the woman who invented
it has some sort of health problem, rheumatism or something, that makes
sitting on a toilet or squatting painful.  She pointed out that the device
makes it easier for women to pee outside -- camping etc. -- and, if
feeling juvenile, to try to write their names in pee, etc.  This amused
me.  I guess I'm juvenile, but it did.

response 17 of 71:

Sep 5 02:01 UTC 1999

I wonder if men have an easier time finding clothing to fit than do women,
as there is probably more variability in the shape of women's torsos.
Do short men have trouble finding sleeves to fit?  I know tall women do.
Why do women's clothes come in regular and petite, mens' in reg and tall?

response 19 of 71:

Sep 12 13:55 UTC 1999

I read an interesting article about a man who, for years, bought suits
at retailers, and could never find a good fit. When he was finally
inspired to go to a better suit shop, the tailor expressed that it was
no surprise that he was hard to fit -- he was "short waisted." The suit
trousers were cut down to an appropiate size, and for once he had a suit
that fit.

You shouldn't have a problem, as a man, fitting a dress shirt, as you
purchase by neck size, chest size, sleeve length, and regular or sport
fit (i.e., big waist or small waist). Sometimes, you have to special
order, and it would be nice if there were other waist options without
going "custom," but I have no problem buying shirts. Some men have
problems buying suits, as the drop between suit coat and trousers is
typically eight inches -- if you aren't proportioned as expected, you
can have trouble buying "off the rack." There are options where you
buy a suit coat and trousers separately, but they tend to be available
only for less expensive suits. I feel fortunate, being able to buy "off
the rack" with a waist reduction and minor jacket adjustments. But we
have all seen people who look like crap in expensive suits -- they would
benefit from a good tailor, fixing the differences between the usual
body structure and their unusual builds.

There are men's clothes in "short" and "big" -- I don't think women would
go for either label. Although perhaps shopping at a "Big and Tall" shop
carries fewer negative associations than shopping at a "Dress Barn". ;)

response 21 of 71:

Sep 19 17:08 UTC 1999

Women's clothing may well be more decorative than long-lasting, but women
have a lot more flexibility in what they can wear to "dress up," and their
clothes tend to be less expensive. I am not sure that the quality of
less expensive women's clothing is any less than the quality of a $99 suit,
but I have yet to see a $99 suit that looks good.

response 23 of 71:

Sep 19 18:57 UTC 1999

Why do women need a lot of dresses? Social expectation?

Women don't seem to wear dresses that often, these days.

response 25 of 71:

Sep 20 02:59 UTC 1999

Some offices have gone to "business casual", which means dress pants, blouses,
skirts, dresses for women (as opposed to a business suit or more tailored
dress) and dress pants, golf shirts, shirt-minus-tie for men (as opposed toa
suit or shirt and tie).  

Women need different dresses for different occassions.  A dress I wear to
work, for example, may be too business-like for a wedding.  Also, it's just
the feeling of variety.  I like to know that I have six or seven nice things
for work, a couple of dresses for weddings or dinner at a nice restaurant,
then there is the infamous "black dress" for cocktail parties, formal
functions (like university dinners), and dinner/dances held at clubs.

response 27 of 71:

Sep 23 09:58 UTC 1999

Mmmm...I don't know about that.  I've seen some pretty expensive suits.  I
think the reason men's stuff holds up longer is because we seem to wear satin,
silk, rayon, and nylon, whereas men's clothing is cotton/poly blends
(typically).

response 29 of 71:

Sep 24 16:37 UTC 1999

Do men's fashions change more slowly and therefore have to hold up longer?
Or are women simply expected to wear any one item less often?