Question

Hello to the Rabbi, may he live long and well.
It occurred to me to wonder why liberalism sees revealing clothing as part of women’s liberation, when it is exactly the opposite. Not only is short clothing the lowly aspiration of every man, it is also degrading; in the past only slaves went around half-dressed. Recently I came to understand that short clothing is part of the postmodern rebellion against the culture intertwined with religion in Europe in particular, and humanity in general. In the past, a cultured person wore long clothes and a hat, and all the more so women were ashamed to go around in short clothing. Today, as part of the rebellion against culture, people of this generation removed the formal clothing of previous centuries. Over time, short clothing became part of the feminist-liberal struggle, which sees the old culture as an enemy. Does the Rabbi agree with this explanation, or does he have a different view on the matter? By the way, I also don’t really understand how overly long clothing creates chauvinism. On the face of it, that sounds silly, but the more chauvinistic a society is, such as Islam, the longer the clothing is.
I happened to speak with the Rabbi about the surrogacy law. The Rabbi argued, rightly, that there is freedom of occupation, and true liberalism means that each person should do what his heart desires, not what the enlightened have decided is the right thing to do. But those who accepted the laws of Enlightenment values (in practice, most secular people) can no longer attack religion, which demands of a woman primarily to be a mother and raise children. Does the Rabbi agree?
The Jewish religion encourages a certain patriarchy; any honest person will admit that (aside from the crowd at Hidabroot). Of course not at the exaggerated levels claimed by enemies of religion, but still, I think there is a certain logic to patriarchy. It really does seem that men have an advantage in the desire and ability to be the ones in control. It sounds bad, but it seems that in a certain sense men have more traits of dominance, toughness, and the like, while women have more aesthetic traits. As the Rabbi once put it, these differences are not as great as the difference between a person and a cat, but they do exist. Perhaps that is why the Torah generally prefers the man as head of the family, in the priesthood, and in fulfillment of all the commandments. Feminism demands the abolition of male rule, but it never asks itself why it began in the first place. Does the Rabbi have an opinion on that?
Some time ago I corresponded with the Rabbi about the difference between a Reform Jew and someone who observes Jewish law. We agreed that as long as a community or individual makes innovations on the basis of a halakhic source, they can at most be mistaken. But what about communities that change things based on social norms, such as removing the partition, and the like, or based on reasoning—for example, that Sabbath observance was meant for an agricultural society and not a modern one; that the prohibition of male homosexual intercourse applied only when it was connected to idolatry, and so on. Is it possible to make changes on the basis of norms or reasoning as well? Even those who call themselves Orthodox sometimes act on such grounds. So where exactly is the boundary on this plane?