See that's a really good question for MN.
Given that "feminism" has always argued about what is feminism with cult like interpretations about who can be in or out of the label. And there are hot debates on MN sometimes about what is vegetarian (amusing given the word pescatarian doesn't appear in English until 1993...). Let's not touch what is or isn't "vegan"
To me it seems obviously enormously sexist tradition not logical functional reasons that ....
... female gymasts wear clothes that cover their bottoms like thongs (male gymnasts don't).
... men have hairy legs in public routinely but very few women would dare
... women in advertisements or on Strictly bare lots of skin while men on Strictly/ ads wear lots of clothes (women feel cold more so should be wearing more)
... many women wear torture devices on their feet (high heels) while men wear solid sensible shoes
... women with gray hair look "worn out" and "old" but men with gray hair look distinguished
Apparently I'm unreasonable and not feminist at all to think women who actively participate in all those cultural norms, or think they are fine, are embracing ingrained sexism and are indeed active participants in "daily sexism"... instead others argue that the women who do those things are merely expressing "choice"... choices that men rarely make (are men disadvantaged because they can't socially acceptably make those choices?, the men lack the "choice" ? )
Meanwhile MNers are obessed with a battle they already won about legal sex, focusing on something like biological men who look and act like women using women's toilets ... which I can't give even a tiny crap about.
That's why I don't understand what MNers call feminism. My perspective is totally different. More important to me though is that I don't care what labels you use or I use, though. I will always feel mild outrage at the sexism in adverts like this while I guess others can't see it....
ps: sorry Ur thread got derailed, OP, tbf, I didn't derail it.