Vote with your wallet is a terrible system - Rant

[Poiuytrewq]

I hear people saying vote with your walled but that is a terrible system since most people are dumb.

They will keep buying terrible games full of loot boxes just because it has Han Solo on it.

They will keep buying terrible movie sequals just becuase it has Wolverine on it.

Executives who have no love for their Ip's just want to milk money and end up making the qualities of products terrible. :smallfurious:

Sorry just a rant.

[tomandtish]

It's actually (for the most part) a very effective system. The problem isn't with the system. The problem (if there is one) is with the people. Since you seem to be talking movies, people watch what they enjoy watching. And when enough people stop enjoying it, they'll stop watching it.

Plenty of things end because they aren't good. Universal tried their "Dark Universe" series of movies. Tom Cruise and Russel Crowe starred in the first movie (The Mummy). And that did poorly enough that it killed a planned franchise.

But as long as something is making money, there's no reason in the world for those in charge to stop making movies from it. Of the last FIVE Star Wars movies, Solo looks to have the worst opening weekend of any of them (yes, RotS beat them). But it's still gonna probably break 100 million. Plenty of franchises would kill to make that on an opening weekend. So note that it is catching up with them. But there's still enough people who enjoy it to make it profitiable.

And that doesn't make them dumb. It simply means that your taste and theirs don't coincide. I can count the number of broadcast shows (ABC, NBC, etc.) I watch on one hand with fingers left over. Can't really stand any of it. Doesn't mean the people who watch it are dumb. Just means I'm in a minority.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, every system will be affected by the participants.

Voting with your wallet isn't exactly a bad system, it's just that people don't like what you like. I know it's annoying, but that's why I'm voting with my wallet and not seeing Infinity War (as far as I'm concerned they jumped the shark at Civil War) even though my abstaining won't affect anything. In any truly representative system an individual's opinion is relatively meaningless unless combined with others, but it's still my opinion and I am still allowed to see Entebbe instead because I thought it sounded like a better movie.

So yeah, the idea of the system is that if you want more quality products buy more quality products and convince other people to buy them. I personally want more books like the Nights Dawn books, so I've bought every single book in the setting and am convincing my friends into science fiction to try them. The same with Revelation Space, or Creative Commons books. Maybe I'll have an affect by my friends convincing their friends and so on, but at the same time I've given money to those I support and not given money to those I don't.


For an example of positive voting with your wallet, The Greatest Showman (a film with a criminally low amount of circus in it) has created a surge in vintage circus (bah! I was into juggling before it was cool!). While there's a lot I like about modern circus, from the costuming to the sheer inventiveness of the acts, it is good to see a resurgence in classic costuming and some more classic routines, because at the end of the day the precision and the ability is still amazing. I'm waiting until gentleman juggling catches on, a good routine of that is amazing (but not to the point of a truly skilful contact juggling routine). One thing being popular and making a load of money is allowing other things to be popular and make a load of money, because it's generating interest in the people who see it (also, having jugglers in my immediate family and circle of friends, making people more able to make a living doing what they love is always amazing).

[Some Android]

They will keep buying terrible movie sequals just becuase it has Wolverine on it.

:smallconfused:

Are you trying to say this is a terrible movie? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_(2017_film))

[Peelee]

EVERYTHING IS A TERRIBLE SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COMPLETELY ALIGN WITH MY OPINIONS.

Am I doing this argument right? It seems like I'm doing this argument right.

[rooster707]

EVERYTHING IS A TERRIBLE SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COMPLETELY ALIGN WITH MY OPINIONS.

Am I doing this argument right? It seems like I'm doing this argument right.

I mean, I’m convinced.

[Some Android]

EVERYTHING IS A TERRIBLE SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COMPLETELY ALIGN WITH MY OPINIONS.

Am I doing this argument right? It seems like I'm doing this argument right.

Congratulations Peelee! With this post you are officially Emperor Godking of the internet!:smallbiggrin:

[Gravitron5000]

I'm waiting until gentleman juggling catches on, a good routine of that is amazing (but not to the point of a truly skilful contact juggling routine)

Seeing gentleman juggling would truly be amazing, but how you would convince them to be juggled is beyond me.

[Anonymouswizard]

Congratulations Peelee! With this post you are officially Emperor Godking of the internet!:smallbiggrin:

I don't agree with this, so you aren't getting my money :smalltongue:


Seeing gentleman juggling would truly be amazing, but how you would convince them to be juggled is beyond me.

The traditional routine involves a table without enough room for all the dinner guests :smallwink:

[Bastian Weaver]

:smallconfused:

Are you trying to say this is a terrible movie? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_(2017_film))


Well, it is based on one of the lamest comics in history, so...

[Elanasaurus]

Well, it is based on one of the lamest comics in history, so...Who cares what it's based on?
:elan:

[2D8HP]

EVERYTHING IS A TERRIBLE SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COMPLETELY ALIGN WITH MY OPINIONS.

Am I doing this argument right? It seems like I'm doing this argument right.


I mean, I’m convinced.


Congratulations Peelee! With this post you are officially Emperor Godking of the internet!:smallbiggrin:


Is this a bandwagon?

Because I want in on the trend.

Please don't leave me behind!

[Peelee]

Is this a bandwagon?

Because I want in on the trend.

Please don't leave me behind!

This bandwagon gladly picks up more passengers.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I hear people saying vote with your walled but that is a terrible system since most people are dumb.

They will keep buying terrible games full of loot boxes just because it has Han Solo on it.

They will keep buying terrible movie sequals just becuase it has Wolverine on it.

Executives who have no love for their Ip's just want to milk money and end up making the qualities of products terrible. :smallfurious:

Sorry just a rant.

Sounds to me like "vote with your wallet" really works. The people have voted for these franchises and these franchises are successful.

This rant seems to be less about that and more about you expressing your personal dissatisfaction with the overmarketing and oversaturation. More power to you, you're preaching to the choir on that front. But just be aware that just because you're a more discerning consumer that doesn't make you correct and the vaguely defined "most people" incorrect. It certainly doesn't make people who don't agree with you "dumb".

Check your tone. It's impolite.

[Peelee]

The more I see this Mokèlé person post, the more I like 'em.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

The more I see this Mokèlé person post, the more I like 'em.

Thank you. I've enjoyed your posts, too.

Just for clarification; I don't want Poiuytrewq to feel as though they are being personally attacked or dogpiled. Everyone is welcome to their opinion and I definitely understand where their statement comes from and I also understand what they were attempting to say. I just don't think they're aware of how rude it came across.

[Dr.Samurai]

I hear people saying vote with your walled but that is a terrible system since most people are dumb.

They will keep buying terrible games full of loot boxes just because it has Han Solo on it.

They will keep buying terrible movie sequals just becuase it has Wolverine on it.

Executives who have no love for their Ip's just want to milk money and end up making the qualities of products terrible. :smallfurious:

Sorry just a rant.
What you're actually saying is that "vote with your wallet" doesn't work *for you* because it allows people to continue supporting franchises that you don't like.

And to that I say... I also hate the current X-men movie-verse and the current Star Wars films (though I haven't seen Solo and I hear it's good...). Unfortunately, they make enough money thanks to people that *do* like them that the producers are incentivized to continue making them.

That doesn't mean "vote with your wallet" doesn't work though. It appears to be working for the people buying those tickets just fine.

[Peelee]

What you're actually saying is that "vote with your wallet" doesn't work *for you* because it allows people to continue supporting franchises that you don't like.

And to that I say... I also hate the current X-men movie-verse and the current Star Wars films (though I haven't seen Solo and I hear it's good...). Unfortunately, they make enough money thanks to people that *do* like them that the producers are incentivized to continue making them.

That doesn't mean "vote with your wallet" doesn't work though. It appears to be working for the people buying those tickets just fine.

I absolutely recommend checking out Solo. If all you want is a heist movie in the Star Wars universe, then it delivers in spades. If you want significantly more,

[GloatingSwine]

The fact that other people get to do it too is oft cited as a flaw with voting....


The thing about "voting with your wallet" is that it's a delayed response. Especially for things that are only intermittently released. If you don't like Gun Shootmans 3: Modern Shootang, you only find that out after you've bought it and then you've voted already, and it's not until Gun Shootmans 4: Extreme Edition you get to vote the other way.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The fact that other people get to do it too is oft cited as a flaw with voting...

"Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of 'democracy' with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away."

~ Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

[JeenLeen]

The fact that other people get to do it too is oft cited as a flaw with voting....


The thing about "voting with your wallet" is that it's a delayed response. Especially for things that are only intermittently released. If you don't like Gun Shootmans 3: Modern Shootang, you only find that out after you've bought it and then you've voted already, and it's not until Gun Shootmans 4: Extreme Edition you get to vote the other way.

I think this is a serious complaint. I might not like something but not know it until I purchase it. Thus, my vote is pro-X, but I'm actually anti-X, because of ignorance about X. (I guess that expands to all voting, insofar as ignorance about what you vote about makes one's vote less likely to be for what one wants it to be for.)

With money, it can also be a confusion of interpreting votes.. Let's say I like Coca-Cola, but there isn't any, so I buy Pepsi. What I really want is soda, but someone observing my vote might think I want Pepsi so they stock more of that, potentially ordering less Coca-Cola to make room for Pepsi. (This scenario is based off a letter printed in a Dilbert book.)

So I think this system does have legitimate problems. But, in the whole, it tends to work to motivate folk to make stuff people will buy.

[Fyraltari]

most people are dumb.
Funny thing, I hear a lot of people saying most people/mean/egoistic/etc are dumb and none of them seems to be included in this "most people". Must be the smallest majority ever.


This bandwagon gladly picks up more passengers.
Praise the Dragon!

[Peelee]

I think this is a serious complaint. I might not like something but not know it until I purchase it. Thus, my vote is pro-X, but I'm actually anti-X, because of ignorance about X. (I guess that expands to all voting, insofar as ignorance about what you vote about makes one's vote less likely to be for what one wants it to be for.)

With money, it can also be a confusion of interpreting votes.. Let's say I like Coca-Cola, but there isn't any, so I buy Pepsi. What I really want is soda, but someone observing my vote might think I want Pepsi so they stock more of that, potentially ordering less Coca-Cola to make room for Pepsi. (This scenario is based off a letter printed in a Dilbert book.)

So I think this system does have legitimate problems. But, in the whole, it tends to work to motivate folk to make stuff people will buy.

There are absolutely problems with it, I agree, but I disagree with the coke analogy. If I go to the store to buy a drink, and they have no Coca-Cola but do have Pepsi, and I buy a Pepsi, that is only relevant data if they look at a larger timeframe. If product X is out of stock and product Y sales go up, then it's because people who normally get X do not mind getting Y if they need. Same for Y being out and X being in stock. The only relevant data is for when both are in stock, for that's when the actual choice is made. Someone ordering more Pepsi due to Pepsi sales rising after Coke ran out is going to end up with a glut of Pepsi when the next truck comes in. (No slight against Pepsi drinkers here, of course.)

For things like video games, where there are no refunds once it's purchased, it is substantially harder, I agree. This can be somewhat mitigated with reviews, and much more mitigated with demos (which, I think, is why they stopped having so many free downloadable demos... either that or I just can't find them anymore). They can try to stack the deck, but the voting system will still give data.

Praise the Dragon!

Vive la France!

[Dr.Samurai]

I absolutely recommend checking out Solo. If all you want is a heist movie in the Star Wars universe, then it delivers in spades. If you want significantly more,
I intended not to see it as a way of voting with my wallet. However, my girlfriend wants to see it, so I will in fact be seeing it soon. It's unfortunate, because my tiny vote will be disingenuous. How can I let the powers-that-be know that Dr. Samurai doesn't like the direction they're going in if I am paying to see their movie?!?!?!?!

The thing about "voting with your wallet" is that it's a delayed response. Especially for things that are only intermittently released. If you don't like Gun Shootmans 3: Modern Shootang, you only find that out after you've bought it and then you've voted already, and it's not until Gun Shootmans 4: Extreme Edition you get to vote the other way.
QFT.

[WarKitty]

With money, it can also be a confusion of interpreting votes.. Let's say I like Coca-Cola, but there isn't any, so I buy Pepsi. What I really want is soda, but someone observing my vote might think I want Pepsi so they stock more of that, potentially ordering less Coca-Cola to make room for Pepsi. (This scenario is based off a letter printed in a Dilbert book.)

So I think this system does have legitimate problems. But, in the whole, it tends to work to motivate folk to make stuff people will buy.

It can really fail in this case on products I have to buy. If I want a particular version of something that no one sells, but I need some version of that product, my vote's still going to be recorded for some version.

I think this is part of the reason behind the particular proliferation of unnecessarily gendered products. Some people want them; some people don't. But the people that don't will still buy a gendered version. The companies don't care if I buy the men's version or the women's version, as long as I buy something. They know I won't decide to stop buying deodorant and razors.

[Bastian Weaver]

Who cares what it's based on?
:elan:

I do.
... is that a trick question? It sounded like a trick question.

[Peelee]

I intended not to see it as a way of voting with my wallet. However, my girlfriend wants to see it, so I will in fact be seeing it soon. It's unfortunate, because my tiny vote will be disingenuous. How can I let the powers-that-be know that Dr. Samurai doesn't like the direction they're going in if I am paying to see their movie?!?!?!?!

QFT.

Use a free pass, such as a readmit, comp, or annual pass (if you can get an annual pass, you should be seeing movies whenever you're bored, to be frank). Barring that, if you don't have a discountabel ticket like student, military, or senior, go see it before 6pm. It'll mitigate as much as possible.

That said, I still hope you enjoy it!

ETA: For what it's worth, I also dislike the direction they take it in, and it's my favorite of the new movies. I like it quite a bit.

[2D8HP]

Vive la France!


Gloire à l'empereur!

[Lemmy]

It doesn't really matter if it's a good system or a terrible one. It's the only one we got (short of authoritarian censorship, which sadly seems to be gaining popularity among some crowds).

At the end of the day, these companies aren't creating their products for the artistic value (or at veey least, not only for that).

So you either vote with your wallet or you don't vote.

[ZamielVanWeber]

:smallconfused:

Are you trying to say this is a terrible movie? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_(2017_film))

I heard nothing but good things about it but after 5 Wolverine movies all of highly dubious quality I was just done.

[2D8HP]

It doesn't really matter if it's a good system or a terrible one. It's the only one we got (short of authoritarian censorship, which sadly seems to be gaining popularity among some crowds)....


I for one would be all in on "authoritarian censorship" (especially of architecture and civil engineering), 'cept that I can't rely on others to implement my tastes correctly, and I don't want to deal with the whole slush pile myself!

And there's that whole being hated for stiffyling expression thing as well. :annoyed:

[Lemmy]

I for one would be all in on "authoritarian censorship" (especially of architecture and civil engineering), 'cept that I can't rely on others to implement my tastes correctly, and I don't want to deal with the whole slush pile myself!

And there's that whole being hated for stiffyling expression thing as well. :annoyed:That's always the problem, isn't it? Everyone is in favor of fixing the world... Until it's their turn to be fixed.

[2D8HP]

...terrible. :smallfurious:

Sorry just a rant.


Eh, not ranty 'nough for my tastes.

Here's some ranting:


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DirtFarmerM_zpsf9mvc6ni.png And why insist on "role-playing" not "roll-playing"?

A pox on that!...

[The rest is taken out of QUOTE box, to be easier to quote and argue]

Amateur theatrics may be fun, but not when it's forced!

Insisting on "role-playing" when you want to play Dungeons & Dragons is mean.

Let people play D&D, not a psychological therapy gimmick!

*goes to a high shelf, takes down and dusts off an old adventure*

Oh look, on the back of my
Dungeon Module B2
The Keep on the Borderlands
by Gary Gygax
INTRODUCTORY MODULE FOR CHARACTER LEVELS 1-3

I see "Other releases of additional items relating to D&D Adventure Games are planned for the future."

Adventure not role-playing!

Proper D&D is about exploring dungeons, encountering and then looting monsters, not exploring inner deals!

Down with role-playing!

Up with Adventure!....

....Why not just strike out the phrase "role-playing" from our hobby?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pZv8T0hIWSQ/VZSLb79eIXI/AAAAAAAA2GY/zvV4pcRXefg/s1600/D%2526D%2BAdventure%2B001a.jpg
"EXPLORE EXCITING WORLDS OF FUN FANTASY AND ADVENTURE WITH DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS ADVENTURE GAMES"

Nowhere does that ad use the cursed phrase "role-playing"!

I want an Adventure Game back!

Down with role-playing!

Down with optimiz-what's-it!

Down with Paths!

Down with endless conga-lines of meaningless combat!

Down with competitive soliloquies about one's characters inner deal!

Down with saving the world!

I want to start in a tavern, loot a dungeon, try to avoid bandits that want to steal the stolen loot, and then spend the loot in the tavern just like the young Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser!

It's been too long!

I want my Dungeons & Dragons back damnit...

...."Amateur theatrics" is fine and fun, it's "role-playing" that I'm against.

You know "role-playing"!

"Stats" not inventory.

Murder not hobo (XP for murder, not for gold)

Starting as already powerful.

Wangsting 'bout being powerful and murderous.

"Saving the world" instead of trying to survive and prosper.

"Saving the world" is an endless conga-line of combat with very little detail why, and there's "boss monsters".

No treasure is collected, instead there's "power points", "feats", and "stat boosts"

Token worries 'bout "losing humanity" or going "cyberpsycho"

Being Elric or the Vampire Lestat instead of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser!

"Fantasy Adventure Game" was fun (for me)!

"Role-playing"?

Not so much.

"Adventure Games", you play out The Italian Job or Raiders of the Lost Ark

"Role-playing" is Avengers: Age of what's-it, or Interview with a Vampire instead!

"Role-playing" is the never-ending "Dream of the '90's" instead of the fun of '81!

I'm tired of Darkness.

I miss Dungeons & Dragons

I wish it would come back.


:frown:
Feeling sad, and wishing my best friend and DM was still alive
[There you go]

[S@tanicoaldo]

I for one would be all in on "authoritarian censorship" (especially of architecture and civil engineering), 'cept that I can't rely on others to implement my tastes correctly, and I don't want to deal with the whole slush pile myself!

And there's that whole being hated for stiffyling expression thing as well. :annoyed:

Preach it brother!


Eh, not ranty 'nough for my tastes.

Here's some ranting:

[The rest is taken out of QUOTE box, to be easier to quote and argue]

Amateur theatrics may be fun, but not when it's forced!

Insisting on "role-playing" when you want to play Dungeons & Dragons is mean.

Let people play D&D, not a psychological therapy gimmick!(...)

Hahahahahaha I'm the opposite, if I could I would do away with all the dice and rolling aspects and focus on nothing but the roleplaying aspects. :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm the opposite, if I could I would do away with all the dice and rolling aspects and focus on nothing but the roleplaying aspects. :smallbiggrin:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is nothing wrong with liking role-play over the roll-play, but at some point you'd have to consider that maybe you don't actually want to play D&D? Not having the same impulse, I am in no position to recommend an alternative, but I'd expect there are other systems that don't depend on dice to craft an adventure?

2D8HP's point is that D&D was never intended for fostering role-play, that any attempt to role-play is tacked on and not a core part of the game. I am hardly about to disagree: D&D is always at its weakest, regardless of version, when attempting to model non-combat scenarios, to the point were my preference for 4th ed was in no small part predicated that it failed so catastrophically at it that we didn't use it, leaving me free to roleplay such situations without having to be hobbled by the rules. Which suits me just fine, but if you still see the other half, the combat bit, as being too dice-intrusive, then at this point you've kinda expressed a need to discard the entire system, haven't you?

Put another way: if you don't like D&D's focus on dice, what do you like about it?

GW

[S@tanicoaldo]

Oh, I know. I mostly play freeform, world of darkness and don't rest your head for roleplay purposes.

I Just keep with D&D because my players just love that game and it doesn't matter what game we play we always end up coming back for D&D.

Luckily the Lotfp games can satisfy my love for weird fantasy while providing some old school and hardcore D&D action for the players, this way everyone is happy.

[Peelee]

Luckily the Lotfp games can satisfy my love for weird fantasy while providing some old school and hardcore D&D action for the players, this way everyone is happy.

Life of the flippin' party?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Life of the flippin' party?

Let's open the freaking package.

[Poiuytrewq]

:smallconfused:

Are you trying to say this is a terrible movie? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_(2017_film))

I was thinking about this to be honest.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51wOqHfPBrL._SY445_.jpg

[2D8HP]

Preach it brother!


Hallelujah!


Hahahahahaha I'm the opposite, if I could I would do away with all the dice and rolling aspects and focus on nothing but the roleplaying aspects. :smallbiggrin:


That works as well.

I've found that my most fun game times have been at the extremes, with either very little or a whole lot of dice rolling.

Despite it being a modern-ish setting game that I played in the 1990's, I played some realy fun sessions of Shadowrun (helped by my not knowing the rules) that fell into those extremes.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is nothing wrong with liking role-play over the roll-play, but at some point you'd have to consider that maybe you don't actually want to play D&D? Not having the same impulse, I am in no position to recommend an alternative, but I'd expect there are other systems that don't depend on dice to craft an adventure?

2D8HP's point is that D&D was never intended for fostering role-play, that any attempt to role-play is tacked on and not a core part of the game.


I had a point beyond general crankiness?

Oh, um, yeah you totally got it (that's the ticket)!

For me D&D is at its most fun when it adheres to a core of 'splorin', lootin', and runnin' from monsters.

It may be "The first tabletop role-playing game", but I don't think it does character driven role-playing well.

I like Pendragon better for character role-playing, and I've heard good things about Legend of the Five Rings.


I am hardly about to disagree: D&D is always at its weakest, regardless of version, when attempting to model non-combat scenarios, to the point were my preference for 4th ed was in no small part predicated that it failed so catastrophically at it that we didn't use it, leaving me free to roleplay such situations without having to be hobbled by the rules.


I've only briefly glanced at 4e, but if


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uzEVAMIvJG8
who's played D&D earlier and for longer than me (and is the first person I've heard mention The Fantasy Trip/In the Labyrinth/Melee/Wizard game in decades!) says 4e WD&D is Dungeons & Dragons I'm not going to dispute him!


Which suits me just fine, but if you still see the other half, the combat bit, as being too dice-intrusive, then at this point you've kinda expressed a need to discard the entire system, haven't you?

Put another way: if you don't like D&D's focus on dice, what do you like about it?

GW


Oh, I know. I mostly play freeform, world of darkness and don't rest your head for roleplay purposes.

I Just keep with D&D because my players just love that game and it doesn't matter what game we play we always end up coming back for D&D.

Luckily the Lotfp games can satisfy my love for weird fantasy while providing some old school and hardcore D&D action for the players, this way everyone is happy.


Oh!

I own and like the rules for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, it seems a good updating of D&D to me.

Have you played ot "Keeper'd" Call of C'thullu S@tanicoaldo?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Sadly I have never played much Call of Cthulhu, my players don't mind horror and i often use horror elements on my weird fantas games but they like to feel powerful and they think the CoC PCs are just too weak and mundane so the group never liked.

But why? Is there any interesting thing about this "Keeper'd" Call of C'thullu? I have never heard of it.

Btw, since you like adventure so much maybe you will enjoy Jason B. Thompson D&D Module Walkthrough Maps?

Here is the one for tomb of horrors: LINK (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/map_tombofhorrors.jpg)

His art is great and he's super fun. :smallwink:

[Elanasaurus]

Wow, this thread changes the subject quickly.
I do.
... is that a trick question? It sounded like a trick question.It was not meant to be a trick question.
:elan:

[Cheesegear]

My problem with 'voting with my wallet' is primarily against monopolies and duopolies. Where the choices of variation are so small that they may as well not even be a vote.

For example, Avengers: Infinity War came out not too long ago, and I wanted to go to the movies. My girlfriend wanted to go to the movies. The problem, is that studios are pretty stupid if they're going to open opposite an Avengers' title. So, everything else that was out at the time, we'd either seen already, or, was bad. So we saw Avengers. Not because we wanted to. Not because we liked it. But because we had to. Joke's on us. Even if we didn't like it, we didn't have any other choice. Our only other choice was not going to the movies at all. And how is that a good choice?

We paid for it. Even though we didn't actually want it.

Giant douche or Turd sandwich.
If you vote turd sandwiches, we will assume you like them, and we will continue to make more of them, even though it's definitely not what you asked for, it's what you paid for, because there was no other choice.

There's one telephone company available to you.
If you buy in, it's because you like that telephone company, not because the only other choice is to go without a phone. :smallsigh:

[Random Sanity]

My problem with 'voting with my wallet' is primarily against monopolies and duopolies. Where the choices of variation are so small that they may as well not even be a vote.

For example, Avengers: Infinity War came out not too long ago, and I wanted to go to the movies. My girlfriend wanted to go to the movies. The problem, is that studios are pretty stupid if they're going to open opposite an Avengers' title. So, everything else that was out at the time, we'd either seen already, or, was bad. So we saw Avengers. Not because we wanted to. Not because we liked it. But because we had to. Joke's on us. Even if we didn't like it, we didn't have any other choice. Our only other choice was not going to the movies at all. And how is that a good choice?

We paid for it. Even though we didn't actually want it.

Giant douche or Turd sandwich.
If you vote turd sandwiches, we will assume you like them, and we will continue to make more of them, even though it's definitely not what you asked for, it's what you paid for, because there was no other choice.

There's one telephone company available to you.
If you buy in, it's because you like that telephone company, not because the only other choice is to go without a phone. :smallsigh:

Voting with your wallet is akin to voting at the ballot box in that it presumes there's an actual good option available.

And in that what you get for said vote tends to fall well short of what was advertised.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, I'm glad the cinema I went to a couple of weeks ago was showing Entebbe. I got to support what I think is a decent film and not give money to Infinity War. But I understand that that's not an option for everybody.

The sad thing is, Star Wars and Marvel makes so much money few people are willing to compete with them, so write a few times when they're in the cinema there's nothing else there that's interesting. That means will go to see them because there's nothing on. While I'm willing to chance a movie just to avoid another Marvel action fest I understand why some people might not want the risk of feeling like they wasted their evening.

It's not like books, where I can read CS Lewis's Space Trilogy and it's not inherently different to reading something released last week. Setting something in a cinema is somewhat different, unless you can spend money on high quality equipment. It's annoying that I'm not giving any money to Jack by buying a copy of Out of the Silent Planet, but at least I'm expressing an interest in classic science fiction/planetary romance.

With Star Wars, I'm in a weird situation. I'll likely be seeing Episode IX in a cinema just because darn you, I'm invested enough now, but with Solo I'll likely just wait until the DVD is out and has dropped in price. While I've heard it's good I'm not paying pull price for a ticket, stream, or DVD because of how much I disliked The Last Jedi.

[WarKitty]

Voting with your wallet is akin to voting at the ballot box in that it presumes there's an actual good option available.

And in that what you get for said vote tends to fall well short of what was advertised.

It's even worse if it's a thing you have to buy.

I would pay for a line of personal care products that (1) wasn't gendered, and (2) clearly labelled any scents in understandable terms. ("Citrus" is ok, "arctic blast" or "summer meadow"are not.) But that doesn't exist, and I can't not buy deodorant.

[Cheesegear]

But that doesn't exist, and I can't not buy deodorant.

I hate people who say "The only winning move is not to play/pay."
No it isn't.

[Peelee]

My problem with 'voting with my wallet' is primarily against monopolies and duopolies. Where the choices of variation are so small that they may as well not even be a vote.

For example, Avengers: Infinity War came out not too long ago, and I wanted to go to the movies. My girlfriend wanted to go to the movies. The problem, is that studios are pretty stupid if they're going to open opposite an Avengers' title. So, everything else that was out at the time, we'd either seen already, or, was bad. So we saw Avengers. Not because we wanted to. Not because we liked it. But because we had to. Joke's on us. Even if we didn't like it, we didn't have any other choice. Our only other choice was not going to the movies at all. And how is that a good choice?

We paid for it. Even though we didn't actually want it.

Giant douche or Turd sandwich.
If you vote turd sandwiches, we will assume you like them, and we will continue to make more of them, even though it's definitely not what you asked for, it's what you paid for, because there was no other choice.

There's one telephone company available to you.
If you buy in, it's because you like that telephone company, not because the only other choice is to go without a phone. :smallsigh:

But you did have other options. Redbox. Netflix. Amazon digital rentals. You wanted to go to an actual theater, though, regardless of what they had playing. You did have choices, you just chose to not vote for those choices and instead voted for something that fit a very specific criteria you had. You were not happy with it, and you did not like the outcome, but there were absolutely choices.

That would be like insisting on going to a steakhouse, then lamenting about what you ordered because the menu sucked, except you had access to the menu in advance and knew you wouldn't particularly enjoy it. Sure, you're going out, but you're already disgruntled about it, and there was certainly no monopoly.

[Cheesegear]

That would be like insisting on going to a steakhouse, then lamenting about what you ordered because the menu sucked, except you had access to the menu in advance and knew you wouldn't particularly enjoy it. Sure, you're going out, but you're already disgruntled about it, and there was certainly no monopoly.

More like went to a steakhouse. Saw that they had steak. Didn't know if it was any good because we hadn't been to that steakhouse before. Buy the steak, 'cause it's the only thing on the menu. It's pretty good, until we get to the middle where it's almost raw. Except the steakhouse says that since we've already eaten most of our meal, we don't get our money back.

Then they take our complaint of raw steak, cross out the complaint and wrote, instead "Bought steak. Keep making steak. If they didn't want steak, they wouldn't have bought it."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Didn't know if it was any good because we hadn't been to that steakhouse before.

It seems to me that you knew you were not going to like the Avengers film before you even stepped in. You come across as a vegetarian insisting on going out for lunch to a steakhouse, and then complaining that there was nothing for you to eat. And if you didn't know in advance, then I'm sorry you didn't like a film, but that's just bad luck. By the time you are done and decided it wasn't worth watching, what other choices you could have selected are irrelevant to the time and money you have already used.

I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard to be sympathetic to a person who can't think of any form of entertainment on a weekend other than "going to the cinema". Buy a boardgame. Go to the theatre. Go to a concert. Pick something on Netflix. Have sex. There is infinite other ways you can spend quality time with your girlfriend than paying to watch a movie you knew in advance you weren't going to enjoy.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

More like went to a steakhouse. Saw that they had steak. Didn't know if it was any good because we hadn't been to that steakhouse before. Buy the steak, 'cause it's the only thing on the menu. It's pretty good, until we get to the middle where it's almost raw. Except the steakhouse says that since we've already eaten most of our meal, we don't get our money back.

Then they take our complaint of raw steak, cross out the complaint and wrote, instead "Bought steak. Keep making steak. If they didn't want steak, they wouldn't have bought it."

Except you had access to the menu online, reviews of the steakhouse online, and weren't even in the mood for steak to begin with; you just didn't want to cook at home.

I do agree that sometimes there is no good active choice, but you didn't have a choice of "see movie or see nothing." You had a choice of "see something in a theater or see something at home." You knew (or at least had access to) everything at the theater, and could know ahead of time you didn't care too much about what you saw. Going to the theater was the real choice, not which movie you saw.

I agree with you that I shouldn't say "you could just not do X" if it's a monopoly, but this is far from a monopoly. You could see a movie you hadn't seen before in a variety of ways, but you wanted a specific setting to do it in. I'm not trying to shame you or fault you for this, either; I don't get out often enough, and I wish I got out more, so go you and your girlfriend! But it's not analogous to, say, paying Charter for internet because the other choice is no internet.

Also, if it makes you feel any better, studios know that some people like you exist who just want to go to the theater and see something. And that just makes them put out like 2-5 new releases every week, even against things like Infinity Wars. Especially against, in some cases. I could swear some movie are released at Christmas solely to bump their numbers up due to spillover.

[Cheesegear]

I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard to be sympathetic to a person who can't think of any form of entertainment on a weekend other than "going to the cinema"...

Well, it was a Monday night, we both had work in the morning so we're not driving to the city, and the internet was out.
I'm sorry I live in a small town where the internet is bad (i.e; basically anywhere in Australia) and the only thing open past 7.30pm on a Monday night is the cinema.
You got me.

EDIT: What's Red Box?

[Peelee]

Well, it was a Monday night, we both had work in the morning so we're not driving to the city, and the internet was out.
I'm sorry I live in a small town where the internet is bad (i.e; basically anywhere in Australia) and the only thing open past 7.30pm on a Monday night is the cinema.
You got me.

EDIT: What's Red Box?

Video rental without internet. They're freestanding kiosks outside usually grocery stores, pharmacies, or (in the case on my in-laws tiny, tiny town) gas stations. You should check out if they have any in your town. I used to hang out in Cullman a lot back at the turn on the century, so I feel your pain.

ETA: actually, dunno if there are any in Australia. My bad.

[GloatingSwine]

It's pretty good, until we get to the middle where it's almost raw.

So you're saying they overcooked it then :P

[tomandtish]

Voting with your wallet is akin to voting at the ballot box in that it presumes there's an actual good option available.

And in that what you get for said vote tends to fall well short of what was advertised.

But there's a big difference.

When you don't vote at the ballot box, you are still going to be affected by the outcome. It's therefore in your best interest to have a say in that outcome, even if it is voting for the least objectionable choice.

But no one HAS to go see a movie (unless it's your job, I suppose). There are other things you can go do, even if it is just going for a romantic walk. There are no negative consequences to not going and seeing a movie, especially one that (based on their comments) neither the OP or their girlfriend wanted to see.

But they felt they HAD to? That's a mindset that would seriously concern me, that I feel I HAVE to go see a movie so badly that I will go see one I don't want to see..

But as others have said, they did vote. The vote they cast was:

"We feel seeing a movie is so important that we will see one we don't actually want to see". That's a vote.

[WarKitty]

But there's a big difference.

When you don't vote at the ballot box, you are still going to be affected by the outcome. It's therefore in your best interest to have a say in that outcome, even if it is voting for the least objectionable choice.

But no one HAS to go see a movie (unless it's your job, I suppose). There are other things you can go do, even if it is just going for a romantic walk. There are no negative consequences to not going and seeing a movie, especially one that (based on their comments) neither the OP or their girlfriend wanted to see.

But they felt they HAD to? That's a mindset that would seriously concern me, that I feel I HAVE to go see a movie so badly that I will go see one I don't want to see..

But as others have said, they did vote. The vote they cast was:

"We feel seeing a movie is so important that we will see one we don't actually want to see". That's a vote.

See my example, however. I do in fact feel I have to buy deodorant.

[Peelee]

It's even worse if it's a thing you have to buy.

I would pay for a line of personal care products that (1) wasn't gendered, and (2) clearly labelled any scents in understandable terms. ("Citrus" is ok, "arctic blast" or "summer meadow"are not.) But that doesn't exist, and I can't not buy deodorant.

I hate mint. Crest Citrus Splash was the greatest toothpaste flavor ever, and was usually hard to find, so if I ever saw a store with it I'd buy 'em out. Found out much too late that it was discontinued. I respond to this by not buying Crest. If I have to use a mint toothpaste, I'm not gonna reward those jerks for taking away my flavor.

[tomandtish]

See my example, however. I do in fact feel I have to buy deodorant.

Yeah, and your example is a little different from the OPs. When it comes to personal hygiene I'll accept some "musts". When it comes to personal entertainment, I have a hard time accepting a "must".

And yeah, deodorants can be a hassle. My wife is allergic to Vetiver, which is a scent component of a LOT of things. And even 'unscented" deodorants have a scent.

[WarKitty]

Yeah, and your example is a little different from the OPs. When it comes to personal hygiene I'll accept some "musts". When it comes to personal entertainment, I have a hard time accepting a "must".

And yeah, deodorants can be a hassle. My wife is allergic to Vetiver, which is a scent component of a LOT of things. And even 'unscented" deodorants have a scent.

Fait enough. A lot of the dumber bits of women's dress clothes also count. I don't strictly speaking need them, but not wearing them would seriously limit my employability.

[AMFV]

Fait enough. A lot of the dumber bits of women's dress clothes also count. I don't strictly speaking need them, but not wearing them would seriously limit my employability.

Which ones would you say? I'm not looking to pick an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I come from a very different world in terms of work clothes so that fascinates me.

I have a lot of the same issues where I have to buy things I don't really need or where I don't have a strong choice to not buy.

[Peelee]

Which ones would you say? I'm not looking to pick an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I come from a very different world in terms of work clothes so that fascinates me.

I have a lot of the same issues where I have to buy things I don't really need or where I don't have a strong choice to not buy.

Pockets. Many women's pants do not have pockets, or had very small ones. It's even worse when they make the clothes look like they have pockets, only to discover it's a lie.

My wife is very passionate about this.

[2D8HP]

Pockets. Many women's pants do not have pockets, or had very sneak ones. It's even worse when they make the clothes look like they have pockets, only to discover it's a lie.

My wife is very passionate about this.


Mine too!

She often goes for used clothes "Because they used to have bigger pockets", but also she's uncomfortable trying to get boys or small men's clothes from those sections in Target etc., but not from Used clothing places that are smaller, and stuff is more mixed.

And in doing the laundry, I see she's right, but not only that her new clothes are much thinner and filmsier, it's like women's clothes are designed to wear out faster.

I usually get Carhartt work clothes (from Halmar in Berkeley, and Acme Surplus in San Francisco), which are even thicker than regular men's clothes, and those shirts easily twice the weight of my wife's.

I've tried to pick up some things to fit her, but even smaller men's isn't usually cut right for her.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Pockets. Many women's pants do not have pockets, or had very sneak ones. It's even worse when they make the clothes look like they have pockets, only to discover it's a lie.

My wife is very passionate about this.

There is also the uncomfortable, damaging shoes, necessary to give yourself a few extra inches of height (sometime necessary to not be overlooked). Not having to wear a tie used to be an advantage, but ties have fallen into disuse most everywhere, these days, so that small advantage has been lost to them. I'd also include the expectation of makeup and of not repeating outfits as a major disadvantage, but doesn't quite fit WarKitty's complaint.

A woman's employability is quite circumscribed, and clothes are one of many factors why, not necessarily the most important but an annoying one, certainly.


I've tried to pick up some things to fit her, but even smaller men's isn't usually cut right for her.

Indeed. Men's torsos are far more square than women's. That makes men's clothes' cuts significantly different (and cheaper) to that of women. I did not include "more expensive" in the list above because there is actual reasons for women's clothing to be more expensive to manufacture. Maybe not enough to explain the difference, but there is certainly a cost there that is not present for men's clothes.

GW

[WarKitty]

Which ones would you say? I'm not looking to pick an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I come from a very different world in terms of work clothes so that fascinates me.

I have a lot of the same issues where I have to buy things I don't really need or where I don't have a strong choice to not buy.

Dress shoes are the worst for me. Not even heels. Women's dress shoes generally are meant to fit close to the foot, and don't really work if they're not. But that means if your foot doesn't fit standard sizing, you get expensive shoes. Expect to at least double the price if you want something that keeps water out.

I'd expect to spend 2-3 days take-home pay just for one pair of reasonably waterproof dress shoes.


Indeed. Men's torsos are far more square than women's. That makes men's clothes' cuts significantly different (and cheaper) to that of women. I did not include "more expensive" in the list above because there is actual reasons for women's clothing to be more expensive to manufacture. Maybe not enough to explain the difference, but there is certainly a cost there that is not present for men's clothes.

GW

The other thing is if you look at men's and women's styles, women's generally tend to be much closer fitted to the body than men's (with the possible exception of the full suit). That means it's more noticeable if the garment does not fit correctly in one dimension or another. Some of this is alleviated via the addition of spandex to a lot of garments, but that tends to decrease durability.

[AMFV]

Pockets. Many women's pants do not have pockets, or had very small ones. It's even worse when they make the clothes look like they have pockets, only to discover it's a lie.

My wife is very passionate about this.

It's cause pockets would break the lines and look bad. Women wouldn't buy them. It's why you see more women in jeggings or yoga pants than I'm cargo jeans which have pockets.


Dress shoes are the worst for me. Not even heels. Women's dress shoes generally are meant to fit close to the foot, and don't really work if they're not. But that means if your foot doesn't fit standard sizing, you get expensive shoes. Expect to at least double the price if you want something that keeps water out.

I'd expect to spend 2-3 days take-home pay just for one pair of reasonably waterproof dress shoes.

That sounds about what I spend for shoes. Reasonably I can expect about 3 to 6 months from a pair. But I need pretty good shoes.

[Peelee]

It's cause pockets would break the lines and look bad. Women wouldn't buy them. It's why you see more women in jeggings or yoga pants than I'm cargo jeans which have pockets.

She has dresses with pockets, and jeans with fake pockets that are sewn shut. I'm sure that sometimes they do affect the look, but jeans? That's just malice.

[AMFV]

She has dresses with pockets, and jeans with fake pockets that are sewn shut. I'm sure that sometimes they do affect the look, but jeans? That's just malice.

Women's jeans are form fitting as warkitty pointed out.

[Peelee]

Women's jeans are form fitting as warkitty pointed out.

All I'm saying is my wife cares more about being able to carry small items without needing he purse at all times than she does about form-fitting clothes. I don't know if she knows the reasons, but I do know she doesn't care about them.

[AMFV]

All I'm saying is my wife cares more about being able to carry small items without needing he purse at all times than she does about form-fitting clothes. I don't know if she knows the reasons, but I do know she doesn't care about them.
Have her buy cargo jeans then. Those have pockets.

[Peelee]

She knows they exist.

[Tvtyrant]

Women's jeans are form fitting as warkitty pointed out.

Speaking of form fitting: I got down to a size 40 mens recently (I know thst seems big but I was a 52+ a year ago) and bought a new pair of pants. Apparently whoever made them had never heard of calves, as the pants are so tight on mine I might as well be wearing shorts. Who wants their pants to feel like skin??

Back to the subject at hand: I'm sure there has to be at least "Pragmatic Women's Clothing" line. There is a shoe place I go to because of my absurdly large clown feet, and there can't be that many size 16 men's in the area.

[WarKitty]

The form fitting thing and women's shapes also makes pants interesting. I have come to the conclusion that I am not pants shaped.

[Peelee]

Speaking of form fitting: I got down to a size 40 mens recently (I know thst seems big but I was a 52+ a year ago)

Congrats! That's no easy feat!

[Tvtyrant]

Congrats! That's no easy feat!

Thanks! Now if I could just have my butt returned to me..

[GloatingSwine]

I'm a regular cyclist, so I have disporportionately sized legs. Not crazy pro cyclist size, but I have to buy jeans a size too big or I can't get in and out of them properly because they won't go over my calves or thighs. (And they still all die to chub rub).

[Heliomance]

It's cause pockets would break the lines and look bad. Women wouldn't buy them. It's why you see more women in jeggings or yoga pants than I'm cargo jeans which have pockets.

Given the number of women who regularly moan about how hard it is to find women's clothes with pockets, and who get excited when they find something nice that actually has them, I would suggest you are 1) wrong, and 2) mansplaining quite hard there.

I don't want cargo jeans, I don't want to wear something that's hugely casual and baggy to the point of looking scruffy. I want nice work-appropriate black trousers with pockets. I want dresses and skirts with pockets. I want cute shorts with pockets.

You find them occasionally, so they're definitely possible. I've got some. One of my four or so pairs of work trousers has pockets, I think I might have one skirt and maybe a dress with pockets, and I do indeed have some nice flattering jeans (not cargo jeans) that have pockets. But they're far rarer than they should be, and you better believe we would buy them if they were more available.

[AMFV]

She knows they exist.

If she knows those options exist and does not purchase them, that likely explains why more similar options dont.


Given the number of women who regularly moan about how hard it is to find women's clothes with pockets, and who get excited when they find something nice that actually has them, I would suggest you are 1) wrong, and 2) mansplaining quite hard there.

I've known a lot of women who made that complaint. But none of them bought cargo pants or work jeans or overalls. All of which come in ladies and have copious pockets. Which suggests that while women may say that want pockets, they aren't willing to make the sacrifices that large pockets involve.



I don't want cargo jeans, I don't want to wear something that's hugely casual and baggy to the point of looking scruffy. I want nice work-appropriate black trousers with pockets. I want dresses and skirts with pockets. I want cute shorts with pockets.

Dude you can't have pockets that are sizable in clothes that are form fitting. So by definition, any ladies clothes with pockets would be baggier.




You find them occasionally, so they're definitely possible. I've got some. One of my four or so pairs of work trousers has pockets, I think I might have one skirt and maybe a dress with pockets, and I do indeed have some nice flattering jeans (not cargo jeans) that have pockets. But they're far rarer than they should be, and you better believe we would buy them if they were more available.

I'm not sure that's actually true though. Like people might think it is , but clothing companies have really small margins, they can't gamble on a long shot. Or they die.

[Heliomance]

I've known a lot of women who made that complaint. But none of them bought cargo pants or work jeans or overalls. All of which come in ladies and have copious pockets. Which suggests that while women may say that want pockets, they aren't willing to make the sacrifices that large pockets involve.


Men get pockets in options other than "baggy cargo pants". There is no good reason why women shouldn't as well. Usefully sized pockets do not inherently require "sacrifice" and suggesting that they do is somewhat ridiculous. What have you ever sacrificed for your pockets?



Dude you can't have pockets that are sizable in clothes that are form fitting. So by definition, any ladies clothes with pockets would be baggier.



Which part of "I own a few of these items of clothing so they're clearly possible" was unclear?

[WarKitty]

Heck, I have a skirt with pockets.

I'm not as big on pockets as some - I'm usually carrying a ton of crap, so a purse nicely stores my walking drugstore and a small craft to do and my makeup.

My problem is the standard pants cut doesn't fit. By the time it's not pulling over my hips I can put both fists in the waist and still have room to spare and probably fit my thighs in the legs twice.

What I hate is the new spandex trend. They seem to be substituting actual pants in different cuts with various forms of leggings or yoga pants.

[Peelee]

If she knows those options exist and does not purchase them, that likely explains why more similar options dont.

Similarly, she enjoys vegetables, but does not purchase eggplant, which I guess is why stores don't offer more vegetables.

ETA:
Men get pockets in options other than "baggy cargo pants". There is no good reason why women shouldn't as well. Usefully sized pockets do not inherently require "sacrifice" and suggesting that they do is somewhat ridiculous. What have you ever sacrificed for your pockets?

Oh, you don't even know. I lost my best friend in Vietnam for these pockets. Died in my arms, he did. Some may have said the price was too high, but they weren't there.... they weren't there.

[Strigon]

I'd have to say that I'm pretty sure there's a good reason women's clothes so rarely have pockets. I can't say what it is, but I've heard the complaint often enough to call it reasonably common knowledge - any clothing manufacturer that listened to any customer feedback would have heard this, and if it were as simple as sewing on pockets I'm sure they'd be making a mint off of it.
I can't think of any reason the entire clothing industry would make a conspiracy to keep women from having pockets. There are enough sellers that one of them would have started selling them en masse if they were so easy.

Companies are out to make money. If something is hard to find, it's either because it doesn't sell well or because it was prohibitively expensive to produce. Possibly both.

[AMFV]

Men get pockets in options other than "baggy cargo pants". There is no good reason why women shouldn't as well. Usefully sized pockets do not inherently require "sacrifice" and suggesting that they do is somewhat ridiculous. What have you ever sacrificed for your pockets?

Sadly my backside will never look as good in men's as in women's jeans. Since its hidden by the baggy folds. And I have a nice ass too.



Which part of "I own a few of these items of clothing so they're clearly possible" was unclear?

Possible but not popular enough to be worth selling en masse apparently. If they were the solution you claim then women would buy them and more people would make them.

[Heliomance]

The gender politics of pockets (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/)
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/the-disturbing-reason-womens-clothing-historically-never-had-pockets/ar-AAopCOf) (Answer to clickbait: sexism.)

Also note that if women suddenly start having easy access to pockets they're going to stop buying as many handbags, thus it's in the fashion industry's interests to not have pockets.

I find it telling that this thread features several women saying they want pockets and a bunch of men telling us we're wrong.

[Peelee]

The gender politics of pockets (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/)
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/the-disturbing-reason-womens-clothing-historically-never-had-pockets/ar-AAopCOf) (Answer to clickbait: sexism.)

Also note that if women suddenly start having easy access to pockets they're going to stop buying as many handbags, thus it's in the fashion industry's interests to not have pockets.

I find it telling that this thread features several women saying they want pockets and a bunch of men telling us we're wrong.

To be fair, I count two men who are wholly on your side (myself and 2D8HP ). To be even more fair, of course, I don't see any women at all on the opposing side, so it's still telling.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I find it telling that this thread features several women saying they want pockets and a bunch of men telling us we're wrong.

I'd call that "par for the course" rather than "telling", but I suppose the difference between one and the other is the % of jadedness in the user of the term.

I'm most amused by argument predicated on blind faith that "capitalism would have solved this if it could be solved", myself. Strigon, I recommend learning about local optimuns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum). It is quite applicable to this scenario, if you are right (which I can't prove you are not, but certainly suspect so).


To be fair, I count three men who are wholly on your side (myself, 2D8HP and Grey Wolf).
Peelee, please don't make assumptions about what my gender/sex/hair coulour/etc. is.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Peelee, please don't make assumptions about what my gender/sex/hair coulour/etc. is.

Grey Wolf

Fixed. My bad!

[Zebalas]

The gender politics of pockets (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/)
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/the-disturbing-reason-womens-clothing-historically-never-had-pockets/ar-AAopCOf) (Answer to clickbait: sexism.)

Also note that if women suddenly start having easy access to pockets they're going to stop buying as many handbags, thus it's in the fashion industry's interests to not have pockets.

I find it telling that this thread features several women saying they want pockets and a bunch of men telling us we're wrong.

Ah! Good old money, once again the source of all evil.

[AMFV]

The gender politics of pockets (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/)
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/the-disturbing-reason-womens-clothing-historically-never-had-pockets/ar-AAopCOf) (Answer to clickbait: sexism.)

Also note that if women suddenly start having easy access to pockets they're going to stop buying as many handbags, thus it's in the fashion industry's interests to not have pockets.

I find it telling that this thread features several women saying they want pockets and a bunch of men telling us we're wrong.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Or that you don't want pockers. What I am saying is that garments with pockets exist i.e. cargo pants you have chosen not to purchase them and most women don't as well. Which means a lack of demand I think.

Assuming a sexist conspiracy seems to be absolutely reaching here. At least to my vision.

[Cheesegear]

I would love womens' clothing to have pockets, because it would mean that I would have to carry less stuff that isn't even mine. :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

I'm not saying you're wrong. Or that you don't want pockers. What I am saying is that garments with pockets exist i.e. cargo pants you have chosen not to purchase them and most women don't as well. Which means a lack of demand I think.

Assuming a sexist conspiracy seems to be absolutely reaching here. At least to my vision.

Take my previous example: let's say my wife likes vegetables, and does not want to get eggplant. This does not mean that she doesn't like vegetables, this means that she doesn't like eggplant. You're creating a false dichotomy. Pants with pockets that she does like also exist, and she buys them. They are still difficult to find. Others have claimed the same experience.

[AMFV]

Take my previous example: let's say my wife likes vegetables, and does not want to get eggplant. This does not mean that she doesn't like vegetables, this means that she doesn't like eggplant. You're creating a false dichotomy. Pants with pockets that she does like also exist, and she buys them. They are still difficult to find. Others have claimed the same experience.
My point is that if the demand for the pants with pockets was greater the market would shift. Also many pants manufacturers do not make handbags so that would be in their interests.

[Peelee]

My point is that if the demand for the pants with pockets was greater the market would shift. Also many pants manufacturers do not make handbags so that would be in their interests.

Phones and tablets are being made with pitifully small storage capacity. Storage capacity is both incredibly small and cheap currently, and there is no reason to pay an 80 dollar upgrade fee to have a tablet go from 16 gig to 32 gig memory. The market has addressed this by saying, "suck it."

You'll forgive me if I don't trust the market to act as you think it would.

[AMFV]

Phones and tablets are being made with pitifully small storage capacity. Storage capacity is both incredibly small and cheap currently, and there is no reason to pay an 80 dollar upgrade fee to have a tablet go from 16 gig to 32 gig memory. The market has addressed this by saying, "suck it."

You'll forgive me if I don't trust the market to act as you think it would.

There are other considerations like cost which is a factor here as well. But I think that demand is the principle driver here. I mean that's what voting with your wallet is all about.

[Peelee]

There are other considerations like cost which is a factor here as well. But I think that demand is the principle driver here. I mean that's what voting with your wallet is all about.

Please, tell me the other factors. I'm very interested.

Anyway, wallet voting is a mechanism. It is not a perfect mechanism, and it is subject to being ignored. For instance, people have to buy clothes. If they come with pockets or don't, nobody is going to go around naked. The effect can be mitigated, and the votes can be marginalized.

[Dr.Samurai]

Is there a reason that women's pants with pockets wouldn't be influenced by market demand?

I think the demand is there, and I think voting with your wallet works, and I think it's likely that the market perhaps hasn't caught up just yet and so we still don't see a lot of pants/dresses with pockets for women.

But I'm skeptical of the idea that at some point someone won't clue in on this unfulfilled market demand and start producing women's pants/dresses with pockets in them. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it will, if the demand is there.

Otherwise, I'm curious to hear why it wouldn't?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is there a reason that women's pants with pockets wouldn't be influenced by market demand?

I think the demand is there, and I think voting with your wallet works, and I think it's likely that the market perhaps hasn't caught up just yet and so we still don't see a lot of pants/dresses with pockets for women.

But I'm skeptical of the idea that at some point someone won't clue in on this unfulfilled market demand and start producing women's pants/dresses with pockets in them. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it will, if the demand is there.

Otherwise, I'm curious to hear why it wouldn't?

Because women have been wanting pockets for at least 40 years now, and it hasn't happened yet. This faith in the invisible hand of the market that will surely, any day now, fix things is rather tiresome when a life time of experience tells me that it doesn't actually work like you describe it.

GW

[Peelee]

But I'm skeptical of the idea that at some point someone won't clue in on this unfulfilled market demand and start producing women's pants/dresses with pockets in them. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it will, if the demand is there.
They do exist, they're just annoyingly hard to find.

[Tvtyrant]

Tada!

https://www.pocheposh.com/pages/about-us

https://www.pocketocracy.com/about

http://www.fyberworks.com

I found two websites for online women's clothes with pockets and 1 boutique next to me in the first five google results. Redirect currency flows.

[Peelee]

Tada!

https://www.pocheposh.com/pages/about-us

https://www.pocketocracy.com/about

http://www.fyberworks.com

I found two websites for online women's clothes with pockets and 1 boutique next to me in the first five google results. Redirect currency flows.

Pocketocracy looks awesome. Thanks!

[2D8HP]

The gender politics of pockets (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/)
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/the-disturbing-reason-womens-clothing-historically-never-had-pockets/ar-AAopCOf) .


Contra one of the articles linked, which seemed to suggest that with smartphones pockets are starting to get bigger, if my wife's experience buying used clothes is any indication, women's pants used to have bigger pockets than new women's pants do, and she's told me it used to be easier to get new women's pants with bigger pockets (she also complains that it's now hard to find women's pants that aren't "low-rise").

My guess is that in the past women wore dresses to be fashionable, and when they did wear pants they more often did so for practicality.

I'm thinking of my grandmother who when she went to work in a munitions plant in the 1940's, cut and tailored my grandfather's pants to fit (he was in uniform so he didn't need them).

A whole generation did that,

http://www.dday.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Mobile-Women-1.jpg

http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/lesson_images/historylabs/In_What_Ways_Were_Women's_Contributions_in_Industr ies_Valued_Before,_During,_and_After_World_War_II. Thumbnail.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Line_Up_of_Some_of_Women_Welders_Including_The_Wom en%27s_Welding_Champion_of_Ingalls_%28Shipbuilding _Corp._Pascagoula%2C_Mississippi%29%2C_1943_%28366 0777028%29.jpg

http://collections.mnhs.org/cms/web5/media.php?irn=10014183&width=640&height=640
and after the war she still had jeans for camping and working in the yard.

My mom also had jeans with useable pockets.

I'm guessing the no or little pockets for women's pants is probably a more recent thing.

You would have thought that dresses would start to have pockets instead of pants losing them but market!

Also, my grandmother had aprons that had pockets and, while not with floral prints like hers, I've seen some in woodworking tools catalogs!

http://assets.rockler.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/720x720/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/9/29960-01-1000.jpg

[Lemmy]

The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most. Sure, there'll always be some products that break the mold, but the vast majority of what's produced will be whatever sells most. Most women's pants are "pocketless" simply because women have consistently bought "pocketless" pants waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than ones with sizable pockets. I'm sure many women complain about their lack of pockets, but clearly many more prefer to the ones that look better, but have no pockets.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most. Sure, there'll always be some products that break the mold, but the vast majority of what's produced will be whatever sells most. Most women's pants are "pocketless" simply because women have consistently bought "pocketless" pants waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than ones with sizable pockets. I'm sure many women complain about their lack of pockets, but clearly many more prefer to the ones that look better, but have no pockets.

I'm sure that having a man tell the thread how they are the ultimate experts on how the fashion industry operates and what women buy and don't buy for the third time, presenting no evidence other than their supposed expertise on women's actions, ignoring all arguments against it and indeed the actual business practices of the fashion industry will do the trick. Sure of it.

GW

[Dr.Samurai]

Because women have been wanting pockets for at least 40 years now, and it hasn't happened yet.
So because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen? Yeah, I doubt you'll defend this position any further...

This faith in the invisible hand of the market that will surely, any day now, fix things is rather tiresome when a life time of experience tells me that it doesn't actually work like you describe it.

We live in a world now where social media can breathe life into any movement imaginable and force people to take notice and respond. So your comment about "for at least 40 years now" means little to me, because we live in a different world from then.

So... can women make companies notice that they want pockets? I think the answer is yes, absolutely.
Is there enough demand for pockets that it is profitable for companies to start including them? I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not vested one way or the other.
Do I think that if companies were aware of the demand and it was profitable they would start including them? Yes, I do.

So my question, again, is why do you think, under these assumptions, companies wouldn't include pockets on jeans and dresses? You're claiming the demand has been there for 40 years, and I think baked into that complaint is that companies have been aware. So why haven't they done it? I'd like to know.

[Lemmy]

I'm sure that having a man tell the thread how they are the ultimate experts on how the fashion industry operates and what women buy and don't buy for the third time, presenting no evidence other than their supposed expertise on women's actions, ignoring all arguments against it and indeed the actual business practices of the fashion industry will do the trick. Sure of it.

GWYou speak as if anyone on the other side offered any more evidence (other than the laughably hypocritical implication that some arguments should weigh less because of the gender of their speakers). I'm much more inclined to believe the industry doesn't see enough of a a market to exploit than to think that the fashion industry would opt out of making millions of dollars out of sexism. But to each their own, I guess.

Oh, and AFAICT, no one claimed expertise on anything.

[Tvtyrant]

Pocketocracy looks awesome. Thanks!

You are welcome! I particularly like the synergy between them using democracy as part of their name and us discussing the idea of voting with your wallet. It is most droll.

[WarKitty]

There's also entry cost to consider. If most styles of women's pants don't have useful pockets, then women will be more likely to buy those because of the lack of choice. (I'd not all styles with pockets are ultra-casual too, and typically only come in straight cuts. No dress pants and nothing for curvier women.) So it may not be enough for clothing manufacturers to invest in making the change, because women will still buy pocketless pants if that's what's available.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen? Yeah, I doubt you'll defend this position any further...
I don't need to. You position that something will happen because it hasn't happened yet is irrational.


So my question, again, is why do you think, under these assumptions, companies wouldn't include pockets on jeans and dresses? You're claiming the demand has been there for 40 years, and I think baked into that complaint is that companies have been aware. So why haven't they done it? I'd like to know.
Because there is no such thing as an invisible market hand that will force companies to change their ways. The fashion industry big players, like all big market players everywhere, are conservative. They sell what sold well in the past. They have no incentive to break into new markets because they are already at the top, and barrier entries prevent others from making a dent. In short, they don't put pockets in women's clothes because they've never put pockets in women's clothes. This hypothesis matches reality much better than your pie-in-the-sky "capitalism will fix sexist tendencies in the fashion industry", just like capitalism has failed to make that change in other markets (video games, film, business word, etc).


(other than the laughably hypocritical implication that some arguments should weigh less because of the gender of their speakers).
You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.

Grey Wolf

[Amazon]

It's so funny how some people see the market as an all knowing deity capable of doing no wrong. The market is composed of businesspeople who have their own interests, ideas and agendas, some which sometimes don't align with the consumers.

[lio45]

I intended not to see it as a way of voting with my wallet. However, my girlfriend wants to see it, so I will in fact be seeing it soon. It's unfortunate, because my tiny vote will be disingenuous. How can I let the powers-that-be know that Dr. Samurai doesn't like the direction they're going in if I am paying to see their movie?!?!?!?!

I don't know if movie theaters still work like that in your neck of the woods, but around here, there's a person who looks at your ticket, tears it, and tells you which room to head to for your movie. During all my moviegoing days, I would usually "vote with my wallet" for the one original-version (English language) Hollywood movie they had at the moment, and that would have no bearing on which movie I'd then go see.

Worst case, if they actually pay attention to which room you're going once you're beyond the gate, enter the room for which you voted with your wallet, wait a bit then leave to go to the restroom, then go to the room of the movie you want to see but didn't want to patronize.

[Fyraltari]

To be fair, I count two men who are wholly on your side (myself and 2D8HP ). To be even more fair, of course, I don't see any women at all on the opposing side, so it's still telling.
You can get that number up to three again by adding yours truly to that list.


Assuming a sexist conspiracy seems to be absolutely reaching here. At least to my vision.

The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most.
No one is saying that half a dozen old rich WASP men sat down with three lizardmen and four little green men to implement a dastardly plan to rob women of their agency by reducing their pocket size all over the world orwhatever other weird scenario.

Sexism (and pretty much every other "-ism") and tricky to fight because they are insidious. We all hold beliefs or repeat behaviour we learned from our models we never really questionned and thus never realized they could be harmfuf to others or ourselves.

Historically society was shaped in ways that severly reduced the freedoms and capabilities of women and wether we like it or not our current society is built on that one, that we are aware of the problem does not mean we have solved it because we are still to some degree part of it.

Even the most innocnents of actions that, taken alone, would do no harm can still participate to a snowball that ends up doing harm.

The Patriarchy is not a plot by some nebulous forces (though that there are genuinely mysoginistic people in power in many places everywhere oes not help at all) it is an emergent property.


There are other considerations like cost which is a factor here as well. But I think that demand is the principle driver here. I mean that's what voting with your wallet is all about.
The laws of the market do not exist in a vacuum. People make decisions that don't benefit them all the time.


You are welcome! I particularly like the synergy between them using democracy as part of their name and us discussing the idea of voting with your wallet. It is most droll.
Err, that name really only means "the power of/to pockets".

https://i.redd.it/t8jujp8d2zy01.png

[AMFV]

It's so funny how some people see the market as an all knowing deity capable of doing no wrong. The market is composed of businesspeople who have their own interests, ideas and agendas, some which sometimes don't align with the consumers.

But their interests are always making money. So if the demand was great enough to offset the fabric cost and whatnot, you'd see them.

[Peelee]

But their interests are always making money. So if the demand was great enough to offset the fabric cost and whatnot, you'd see them.

And that's the story of why no company went out of business ever, and every economist is obscenely rich.

[Lemmy]

You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.Hah! "Mansplaining" is literally a term created to devalue someone's opinion based on their gender. If you think I'm mistaken or being condescending, you could say something like "you're mistaken" or "you're being condescending" (happens both men and women), but instead you prefer to imply that a opinion is worth less because the speaker is male. It's extremely hypocritical. Or do you think that when a woman comments on the behavior of men and I disagree with what she says, it'd be perfectly reasonable and to accuse her of "femsplaining" or some other silly BS term made to silence dissent based on her gender?

(Also, here's a secret: You don't have to be affected by an issue to learn/understand/know about it. Nor does being affected by it necessarily make you better at understanding it or its causes).

Until you can provide actual evidence that the fashion industry is more interested in keeping women pocketless than in making a profit, I'll be far more inclined to believe that it has the same agenda as every other industry in a capitalist society: "Make more money".

But, hey! If you're so convinced that deep-pocketed pants for women has such a huge potential market, that's your chance to become a millionaire!

[Heliomance]

But their interests are always making money. So if the demand was great enough to offset the fabric cost and whatnot, you'd see them.

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway. Adding pockets is unlikely to change the number of pairs of trousers that get sold, it'll just make the female population a lot happier. Unfortunately, that doesn't affect the companies' bottom lines, so they don't bother.

[Lemmy]

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway. Adding pockets is unlikely to change the number of pairs of trousers that get sold, it'll just make the female population a lot happier. Unfortunately, that doesn't affect the companies' bottom lines, so they don't bother.This is only true if either there's a monopoly on clothes production/sales or... Literally all suppliers refuse to sell a (supposedly) high-demand product no one else offers.

Neither sounds accurate.

[Tvtyrant]

This is only true if either there's a monopoly on clothes production/sales or... Literally all suppliers refuse to sell a (supposedly) high-demand product no one else offers.

Neither sounds accurate.

I did link companies that actually sell women's pants with pockets. Those were out of the top 5 results, there are likely thousands more.

So it is more like "It is slightly inconvenient to get women's pants with pockets" then that you can't (as inconvenient as looking at google).

[Shamash]

This is only true if either there's a monopoly on clothes production/sales or... Literally all suppliers refuse to sell a (supposedly) high-demand product no one else offers.

Neither sounds accurate.

Why sell pants with pockets if I can sell pants, purses and handbags making double the amount of money? *Evil capitalist laugh*

[Kyberwulf]

Yeah, I think that.. if you think there is a market for Pocket-full set or trousers for ladies. You should look into making some. I think that's how the whole thing of Spanks got going. Not joking here either.

Serious question though, how hard is it to add pockets to trousers, or modify existing pockets?

Also, using the term mansplaning, is the same as telling a woman to get back to the kitchen. It's very condescendingly dismissive.

[WarKitty]

I did link companies that actually sell women's pants with pockets. Those were out of the top 5 results, there are likely thousands more.

So it is more like "It is slightly inconvenient to get women's pants with pockets" then that you can't (as inconvenient as looking at google).

Noticed a couple of things there.

(1) Those links are pretty much entirely casual wear. Like many women, I wear dress clothes to work, so most of my pants are black slacks. I didn't see a pair of basic dress pants in the list. Searching for "dress pants with pockets" returns significantly fewer results.

(2) Online ordering can be a significant hassle. Remember the other feature of women's clothing - sizes are kinda arbitrary. I can wear anything from an 8 to a 12 and have it be the right size, depending on the brand. Online ordering clothes usually involves ordering 2 or 3 sizes, hoping one of them fits (often none do), and shipping everything that didn't fit back. A lot of times you have to pay for all that shipping too.

(3) Boutique or custom pants are a pretty significant upcharge for women's pants, often double or more the price of department store pants. That's probably not worth it.

[Peelee]

Noticed a couple of things there.

(2) Online ordering can be a significant hassle. Remember the other feature of women's clothing - sizes are kinda arbitrary. I can wear anything from an 8 to a 12 and have it be the right size, depending on the brand. Online ordering clothes usually involves ordering 2 or 3 sizes, hoping one of them fits (often none do), and shipping everything that didn't fit back. A lot of times you have to pay for all that shipping too.

On top of that, texture, fit, even color cannot be judge online as well as in person. One of my best friends could very easily be a professional costumer if he wasn't already a very good prosthodontist, and he has given me a lot of insight into how valuable it is to always be able to inspect fabrics and clothes in person.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't need to. You position that something will happen because it hasn't happened yet is irrational.
That's not my position and frankly I'm surprised, given what I know of your posts in general, that you would say that. You have struck me as a good faith participant so far in other threads, and yet here we are...

Because there is no such thing as an invisible market hand that will force companies to change their ways.
When I mentioned social media and making companies notice, I wasn't talking about an invisible market hand. I was talking about all of the women you seem to believe exist that are clamoring for pants with pockets. They can force companies to change their ways.

The fashion industry big players, like all big market players everywhere, are conservative. They sell what sold well in the past. They have no incentive to break into new markets because they are already at the top, and barrier entries prevent others from making a dent.
Okay, this is a very good argument. I concede to you. Women will never, ever, ever, be able to walk into a clothing store and pick up a pair of jeans from the shelf with pockets in them. There is no hope. All is lost in the movement to get women's pants with pockets in them. Why are we even talking about this? It will never come to pass!!!

In short, they don't put pockets in women's clothes because they've never put pockets in women's clothes. This hypothesis matches reality much better than your pie-in-the-sky "capitalism will fix sexist tendencies in the fashion industry", just like capitalism has failed to make that change in other markets (video games, film, business word, etc).
I didn't ask why they don't do it now. I asked why you felt they wouldn't once they were aware of the demand and realized it was profitable to do so. We don't even know if it would be profitable actually, we're just making an assumption. Maybe they know better than you do, because it's their business to do so.

Maybe, this is like The Last Jedi. There's a significant number of us that hate the movie, and it's easy to find any number of videos criticizing it. But there are far many more that outnumber us that loved it, and it broke records at the box office. So I guess they'll continue in that awful direction. Maybe, just maybe, you know a lot of women that want pockets in their pants, and aren't aware of the *many many more* women that don't care enough to make it a concern for clothing designers.

Probably like how the majority of video game consumers probably don't list "sexism in video games" as a priority concern for them, so video game publishers in turn don't make it a priority for themselves either.

Some of you act like it's completely implausible that this has been the topic of discussion many times in various offices around the country/world and it was discovered that it simply isn't worth it to start adding pockets to pants. And if that's the case, why would you expect a profit-driven company to take a hit and do something like that? It's uncharitable to accuse me of thinking the free market will fix sexism. I'm not the one claiming that sexism is the problem, you are! I have faith that if companies are aware of an opportunity to increase their bottom line, they will do it. You are basically skirting around the edges of saying "companies hate women and want to keep them without pockets, that's why we'll never have pants with pockets in them for women".

I'm confident that between social media movements, the current cultural climate, and things like Kickstarter, you will have mainstream women's pants with pockets in them at some point. Assuming the demand is there of course.

You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.
Oh, really? Please refrain from explaining anything else to anyone or calling anyone else out until you have revealed your sex to the rest of us. I just want to make sure we're being consistent with your beliefs here. I wouldn't want you to overstep and speak to something that you have no business speaking about. Thanks for cooperating and sticking to your convictions...

[AMFV]

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway. Adding pockets is unlikely to change the number of pairs of trousers that get sold, it'll just make the female population a lot happier. Unfortunately, that doesn't affect the companies' bottom lines, so they don't bother.

I wouldn't buy pants without pockets. I'd wear overalls and bibs exclusively before I'd do that. I LITERALLY could not do my job without pockets.




(1) Those links are pretty much entirely casual wear. Like many women, I wear dress clothes to work, so most of my pants are black slacks. I didn't see a pair of basic dress pants in the list. Searching for "dress pants with pockets" returns significantly fewer results.

Significantly fewer != none




(2) Online ordering can be a significant hassle. Remember the other feature of women's clothing - sizes are kinda arbitrary. I can wear anything from an 8 to a 12 and have it be the right size, depending on the brand. Online ordering clothes usually involves ordering 2 or 3 sizes, hoping one of them fits (often none do), and shipping everything that didn't fit back. A lot of times you have to pay for all that shipping too.

I'd pay that and deal, I've had to do that for other similar things.




(3) Boutique or custom pants are a pretty significant upcharge for women's pants, often double or more the price of department store pants. That's probably not worth it.

I would pay double for a pair of pants with pockets


So the answer is that men like me, and ladies like those here value pockets differently.

Edit: I have bought belts and external pockets because I didn't have enoigh. And I would pay significantly more for better and sturdier and more convenient pockets. And you know what? Those exist because tradesmen buy them. Carheart makes them and a few others do. Hell, I've considered modifying jeans to add carpenters loops.

[WarKitty]

Here's the trouble:

Say you have features A, B, C, and D. People want features A and C. But they can buy AB or CD. Buying CD over AB doesn't mean they don't want A.

Also, AMFV, the clothing standards for office work and for trade work are very different. The solutions offered here would all lead to me being sent home for failure to dress appropriately for work.

[An Enemy Spy]

People like different things than me and I think that's terrible. They should only spend money on things I like so that I don't have to live in a world where things I don't like become popular. This is a big problem in my life and I'm sick of it. Why, just last week my girlfriend and I went purposefully spent money to go to a movie we knew we wouldn't like because we hadn't liked any of the other ones in its series. Our evening was ruined and it's all society's fault.

I also have strong opinions on whether or not women's should be easily able to find clothes with pockets at stores even though I am not a woman and have nothing to gain or lose from this issue.

[Liquor Box]

Here's the trouble:

Say you have features A, B, C, and D. People want features A and C. But they can buy AB or CD. Buying CD over AB doesn't mean they don't want A.

Also, AMFV, the clothing standards for office work and for trade work are very different. The solutions offered here would all lead to me being sent home for failure to dress appropriately for work.

You cannot always have everything you want. But if enough people want A and C (and are prepared to pay the price for A and C) then you would expect the market to offer A and C (unless there is a good reason not to).

It doesn't always, because the market is not perfect, and does not have perfect information about what people want (or would want if it were available).

But, even though it's not perfect, its information is a hell of a lot better than people saying "I want A and C and several people who I have spoken to want A and C, so it must be the market that is wrong, not that the sample I took was too small to be representative, or didn't account for price or whatever".

I'd be interested to hear if you have a better system for determining what people want than the market?

[lio45]

But, hey! If you're so convinced that deep-pocketed pants for women has such a huge potential market, that's your chance to become a millionaire!

Yeah, instead of wallowing in self-pity, we have a bunch of forumers here who could take a page from Rich and launch a kickstarter to create a clothing company offering lots of pockets to women... ;)

[lio45]

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway.

Incorrect. Assuming your premise that the female population in general would be a lot happier with lots of pockets on their clothes is valid (it probably isn't), it follows that the companies have a major incentive to add pockets before their competition discovers that pot of gold before them and the sales of their pocketless clothes immediately fall off a cliff.

[lio45]

Noticed a couple of things there.

(1) Those links are pretty much entirely casual wear. Like many women, I wear dress clothes to work, so most of my pants are black slacks. I didn't see a pair of basic dress pants in the list. Searching for "dress pants with pockets" returns significantly fewer results.

Same tradeoff applies to us men, though. I'm usually wearing pants that are pretty perfectly unisex (casual) and full of pockets with useful things in them. However, when I have to dress up, my really big key ring and my pretty big wallet both make extremely unsightly bulges in my dress pants' pockets and would be an obvious no-no from the point of view of fashion. Since I have no purse, I have to leave them in the car, maybe only get my one key out of the ring and my one credit card out of the wallet, and keep those in my tiny, nearly useless dress-clothes-pockets.

90%+ of the time, though, I'm casually dressed, a conscious choice as I favor convenience over fashion. So I have pockets, and anyone else could, if they just imitated me. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Liquor Box]

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway. Adding pockets is unlikely to change the number of pairs of trousers that get sold, it'll just make the female population a lot happier. Unfortunately, that doesn't affect the companies' bottom lines, so they don't bother.

That might be true if the supply of women's trousers were a monopoly - there was (and could only be) one company that made them. If that were the case then you are right, that company would have no incentive to add pockets, because women would have to buy pocketless trousers as the only ones available. That's why natural monopolies tend to be heavily regulated.

But the supply of woman's trousers is not a monopoly. There are lots of companies that supply them. If you were right, and there was an unmet demand for women's trousers, then there an incentive for one of the many companies that supplies trousers to supply them with pockets - because women would buy that brand over the others. If that happened than the other brands would follow suit.

That is the case - a quick google shows lots of results for women's trousers with decent size pockets.

[Heliomance]

That might be true if the supply of women's trousers were a monopoly - there was (and could only be) one company that made them. If that were the case then you are right, that company would have no incentive to add pockets, because women would have to buy pocketless trousers as the only ones available. That's why natural monopolies tend to be heavily regulated.

But the supply of woman's trousers is not a monopoly. There are lots of companies that supply them. If you were right, and there was an unmet demand for women's trousers, then there an incentive for one of the many companies that supplies trousers to supply them with pockets - because women would buy that brand over the others. If that happened than the other brands would follow suit.

That is the case - a quick google shows lots of results for women's trousers with decent size pockets.

Yes indeed, and as I have said, such things do exist and I own some. But they are very hard to find at the mainstream, budget ends of the clothing spectrum. Yes, I could pay a premium for pockets if I so wanted. But I don't want. I want to be able to walk into Primark or Matalan and pick up clothes with pockets at a price I can afford - just like men can. I've never claimed that women's clothes with pockets don't exist. But there's no food reason why they should be so much harder to get hold of, or any more expensive, than men's clothes with pockets.

[AMFV]

Yes indeed, and as I have said, such things do exist and I own some. But they are very hard to find at the mainstream, budget ends of the clothing spectrum. Yes, I could pay a premium for pockets if I so wanted. But I don't want. I want to be able to walk into Primark or Matalan and pick up clothes with pockets at a price I can afford - just like men can. I've never claimed that women's clothes with pockets don't exist. But there's no food reason why they should be so much harder to get hold of, or any more expensive, than men's clothes with pockets.

The thing is you're asking for a feature then using the word budget. As I said I literally would not buy pants without pockers. Period. I would pay double for them.


As far as the difference between trade and office wear. I think that is relevant. In that few women work in the trades which is where I discovered the seriousness of a need for pockets. I suspect if more ladies did they might but pocketed pants.

The difference here is that I'm willing to buy the more expensive item to have pockets. Which means the cheap manufacturers HAVE to have oockers or they wouldn't sell.

[Heliomance]

The thing is you're asking for a feature then using the word budget. As I said I literally would not buy pants without pockers. Period. I would pay double for them.


As far as the difference between trade and office wear. I think that is relevant. In that few women work in the trades which is where I discovered the seriousness of a need for pockets. I suspect if more ladies did they might but pocketed pants.

The difference here is that I'm willing to buy the more expensive item to have pockets. Which means the cheap manufacturers HAVE to have oockers or they wouldn't sell.

You wouldn't buy trousers without pockets because you've never had to. You're used to being able to walk into any clothing store in the land, and every single pair of trousers will have pockets. Why shouldn't it be the same for women?

[Liquor Box]

Yes indeed, and as I have said, such things do exist and I own some. But they are very hard to find at the mainstream, budget ends of the clothing spectrum. Yes, I could pay a premium for pockets if I so wanted. But I don't want. I want to be able to walk into Primark or Matalan and pick up clothes with pockets at a price I can afford - just like men can. I've never claimed that women's clothes with pockets don't exist. But there's no food reason why they should be so much harder to get hold of, or any more expensive, than men's clothes with pockets.

I don't recognise the two shops you referred to, but I had a quick look at the Walmart website, and it showed several pairs of women's pants (jeans) for $20. One even showed the model with her hands in the pockets.

Where are you from Helio? Is it a particular style of pants you are after?

It seems to me that there are a much wider range of women's pants generally available (a lot more different styles) than men's. Also, it seems that at least some women prefer not to have large pockets (because of how they look). So by the time you have all these different styles of pants, and then double the number of options again by having each available with an without pockets, you have a very large variety of women's pants. I would not be surprised if some styles (and particularly some brands) were not available with pockets.

If there is a wide unmet demand for woman's pants with pockets this would show up in woman's pants with pockets (where they are available) dramatically outselling women's pants without.

[AMFV]

You wouldn't buy trousers without pockets because you've never had to. You're used to being able to walk into any clothing store in the land, and every single pair of trousers will have pockets. Why shouldn't it be the same for women?

You can buy pants with pockets there are links, and I mentioned cargo pants. There are a lot of guys in the fields I work. None of them would buy pocketless pants, they'd wear cargo pants or overalls before doing that.

Since something like 98 percent of people who do the kind of work I do are men. That means that the group most likely to demand pocketed pants are men. I would not buy pants without pockets.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

My wallet is a political extremist. I don't trust it to vote.

[Peelee]

My wallet is a political extremist. I don't trust it to vote.

Even if your cash gets registered?

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Even if your cash gets registered?

I can't keep up with you, Peelee. You're just too good

[rooster707]

Which ones would you say? I'm not looking to pick an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I come from a very different world in terms of work clothes so that fascinates me.


[proceeds to derail the entire thread with an argument about whether or not women want/need pockets]

:smallconfused: Why do you always do this?

[2D8HP]

I would pay double for a pair of pants with pockets .


I don't believe you.

Knowing what I've paid for my Carhartt's with pockets to hold my channel locks and torpedo level the way I've grown used to, compared to what some Target jeans cost, I'd be suprised if you haven't paid at least triple!

:tongue:


...the clothing standards for office work and for trade work are very different. The solutions offered here would all lead to me being sent home for failure to dress appropriately for work.


Are they ever!

I took an "Orbital Welding" for stainless steel tube class, and when I realized that unlike my previous welding classes I could pretty much dress for comfort, I kept the work boots, but ditched the denim for slacks and a button shirt.

The disapproving sneers and "You look like a banker" comments (this was in 2009) from my classmates (all guys in my local union, or close by ones) told me that office attire was not acceptable.

Though I notice that most male office workers don't wear good shirts instead they wear "Polo" shirts, which are flimsy, uncomfortable, and usually ugly (when not dark), why does this abomination exist?

With that in mind, it sure seems to me that "sport", "leisure", "casual", and often even "outdoor" clothing are synonym's for "uncomfortable flimsy plastic crap"!


People like different things than me and I think that's terrible. They should only spend money on things I like so that I don't have to live in a world where things I don't like become popular. This is a big problem in my life and I'm sick of it....


I'm almost completely ready to agree with you, I just have to know how you feel about gold for XP, and murderous or hobo?


...I also have strong opinions on whether or not women's should be easily able to find clothes with pockets at stores even though I am not a woman and have nothing to gain or lose from this issue.


Well I for one have plenty to gain or lose despite my not wearing women's clothes, as my wife has complained to me MORE THAN ONCE about how she misses the deeper pockets of the past so those are multiple PRECIOUS seconds that I had to try to look like I was listening and cared, instead of staring at a book or my phone!


...I'd be interested to hear if you have a better system for determining what people want than the market?


I would think that would be obvious:
An authoritarian implemation of my tastes.

Please start with radio!


Yeah, instead of wallowing in self-pity, we have a bunch of forumers here who could take a page from Rich and launch a kickstarter to create a clothing company offering lots of pockets to women... ;)


I don't think enough people to be considered "a bunch" have posted to this thread yet


...90%+ of the time, though, I'm casually dressed, a conscious choice as I favor convenience over fashion. So I have pockets, and anyone else could, if they just imitated me. Can't have your cake and eat it too.


That does remind me of a pretty big flaw of "dress"/"business" slacks (which I find more comfortable than most other pants besides pajamas):

The pocket openings are vertical, so when I drive things are more likely to fall out.


...That is the case - a quick google shows lots of results for women's trousers with decent size pockets.


I just don't trust buying "on-line", and vastly prefer "brick and mortar", so I sympathize with the ladies.

Speaking of which, I know that I'm in the minority, but that more and more things I can't shop for in a store that I walk into, feels like "market failure" to me, as did it when I worked at a motorcycle shop in the 1990's I personally sold the last sidecover or fuel tank that Honda or Kawasaki had available for some '60's and '70"s bikes multiple times, and that in my work many replacement parts that I used to be able to order for plumbing fixtures in the buildings I repair are no longer available

Yes "supply and demand", "the creative destruction of capitalism" "yadda, yadda, yadda", I don't care! Change is bad!


My wallet is a political extremist. I don't trust it to vote.


:amused:


Even if your cash gets registered?


:biggrin:

[WarKitty]

2D8HP, have I ever told you you're my favorite crotchety old man on here?

[2D8HP]

2D8HP, have I ever told you you're my favorite crotchety old man on here?


Um... my memory is spotty so I'm not sure, but thanks!


:smile:

[AMFV]

:smallconfused: Why do you always do this?

It's not a derailment. Literally it's on topic, since the whole issue here is voting with your wallet.

[Peelee]

2D8HP, have I ever told you you're my favorite crotchety old man on here?

Seconded. Although if Mokèlé-mbèmbé outs themselves as a crotchety old man, there's a chance you may get overthrown.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Seconded. Although if Mokèlé-mbèmbé outs themselves as a crotchety old man, there's a chance you may get overthrown.

I don't think I'm especially old.

But "crotchety" is not up for me to decide. If people on this forum find me crotchety then I guess I'm crotchety.

[Peelee]

I don't think I'm especially old.

But "crotchety" is not up for me to decide. If people on this forum find me crotchety then I guess I'm crotchety.

Sorry, then; I'm my favorite crotchety not-yet-old man.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Sorry, then; I'm my favorite crotchety not-yet-old man.

Good choice! Love that self-confidence!

[WarKitty]

You know what I really want with women's clothing?

Sizing with numbers that mean something, or at least accurate size charts. (Most website size charts are generic and wildly innacurate - for example several common department stores just post a sort of "average" size chart rather than brand-specific sizing.) I don't know what a "10" is. I'd really like to be able to know my measurements and buy clothing that fits. Especially when two garments from the same brand might not even have the same sizing.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

The male kangaroo doesn't have a pouch. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJTDqWs62Jc)

[2D8HP]

Sorry, then; I'm my favorite crotchety not-yet-old man.


You've got to slowly ease into crotchety Peelee, it takes years of practice to do right.

Try grumpy and ornery first.

[Peelee]

You've got to slowly ease into crotchety Peelee, it takes years of practice to do right.

Try grumpy and ornery first.

I've been grumpy since I was a teenager. I think I've been able to merge into crotchety since then. If you disagree, I'll shake my fist at you from my lawn. I know the general direction to point at, too.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Well I for one have plenty to gain or lose

Oh?

despite my not wearing women's clothes

Dang it! I was hoping to see 2D8HP in drag. :smallannoyed:


I would think that would be obvious:
An authoritarian implemation of my tastes.

Please start with radio!

I, for one, welcome our new ranger overlord.

--------


You know what? This thread really reminds of my problem with Lego as a kid.

http://geekandgamergirl.com/file/2015/01/lego-friends-header.png

LINK (http://seasonaldepressioncomic.com/comic/lego-friends-2/) for the whole comic.

You see executives think they know what women want, but they don't since they are not women (Most of the time). They think I want thigh and form fitting jeans when I want functional jeans with pockets, but since they have no idea they keep pushing the jeans they think we want and there is no way for us to communicate that's not what we want since we have no other option but buy it.

I my case I often buy small men's jeans since they are much better but the executives won't know that.

Same with Lego, they concluded we wanted something we didn't, so we didn't bought it and kept buying male Legos, so they went all "Well I guess girls just don't like Legos then!" and keep the old model despite the fact many girls did like Lego they just didn't like what the company wanted us to like.

Am I making myself clear? Sorry if it was confusing. :smallconfused:

[WarKitty]

There's also the fact that "appropriate" attire has its own sort of self-perpetuating nature. So where I work now, I guarantee no one other than the top level executives cares at all what anyone wears, beyond it being clean and covering the appropriate bits. But the executives want us to have a better professional image, which requires certain clothing even if 90% of the office does not want to buy said clothing. So people buy clothing they don't like and don't want because somewhere along the line that got labelled as the clothing you wear to the office.

[Fyraltari]

Hah! "Mansplaining" is literally a term created to devalue someone's opinion based on their gender. If you think I'm mistaken or being condescending, you could say something like "you're mistaken" or "you're being condescending" (happens both men and women), but instead you prefer to imply that a opinion is worth less because the speaker is male. It's extremely hypocritical. Or do you think that when a woman comments on the behavior of men and I disagree with what she says, it'd be perfectly reasonable and to accuse her of "femsplaining" or some other silly BS term made to silence dissent based on her gender?
Possibly, after all bull**** knows no gender. When talking about the issue facing a group you do not belong to, it is best to assume the people in that group have a better experience and understanding of those issues than you do since, you know, the live them.

There is a difference between "mansplaining" and "femsplaining", however:
Men are privileged compared to women, a man explaining to a woman why her concerns of sexism are unfounded, comes across an [ethnic majority] person telling an [ethnic minority] person why there is no xenophobia in [country they both live in] despite the other's claims to the contrary.

this is not to say that women can't ever lie or be wrong, but when all women that have expressed an opinion about the women clothing industry are of one mind and you disagree with them, it is very likely that you, not they, are in the wrong.


(Also, here's a secret: You don't have to be affected by an issue to learn/understand/know about it. Nor does being affected by it necessarily make you better at understanding it or its causes).
Experience trumps second-hand account.
"No M.Rambo, PTSD is absolutely not like that. Let me explain why you are wrong."



Until you can provide actual evidence that the fashion industry is more interested in keeping women pocketless than in making a profit, I'll be far more inclined to believe that it has the same agenda as every other industry in a capitalist society: "Make more money".
Capitalists are people, not Platonian ideals, there decision are never decided solely based on "how much money do I make outof this".



But, hey! If you're so convinced that deep-pocketed pants for women has such a huge potential market, that's your chance to become a millionaire!
"If there's a problem, why aren't you doing something about it" was never an argument for the abscence of a problem.
No-one can tackle all of the world's problems at once.
That fallacy probably has a name, but I can't remember it.


Oh, really? Please refrain from explaining anything else to anyone or calling anyone else out until you have revealed your sex to the rest of us. I just want to make sure we're being consistent with your beliefs here. I wouldn't want you to overstep and speak to something that you have no business speaking about. Thanks for cooperating and sticking to your convictions...

"Mansplaining" is claiming you know better than women what women live despite not being one.
Since Grey Wolf is agreeing with the women here, GW could be an hyperintelligent, asexual alien oyster hooked up to an automaton arm inside a secret base on the dark side of the Moon without GW's position being hypocritical.

[Lemmy]

You know what I really want with women's clothing?

Sizing with numbers that mean something, or at least accurate size charts. (Most website size charts are generic and wildly innacurate - for example several common department stores just post a sort of "average" size chart rather than brand-specific sizing.) I don't know what a "10" is. I'd really like to be able to know my measurements and buy clothing that fits. Especially when two garments from the same brand might not even have the same sizing.
Now... That I completely believe. Even for men, buying pants can be a pain due to non-standard measurements. For shirts, it's easier. Just knowing the general size (S, M, L, XL, etc) is usually enough (at least IME). These issues are far worse for women. For starter, female bodies are generally curvier than men's, so there's greater variety of body types that can be described using the same size numbers (which, as WarKitty mentioned, are hardly fully informative and rarely consistent). And of course, women have breasts, so that adds another layer of difficulty to fitting clothes.

Turns out that in the past clothes sizes (at least in the US) were standardized and regulated, but at some point, that was changed, so companies were free to create whatever size they wanted (e.g.: they'd often use smaller numbers for the same size in hopes to please the buyer's ego). That made buying clothes a lot more complicated. Knowing your size basically only applies to that one clothing's line. So you effectively have to try everything, even if (theoretically) you should be able to at least have a pretty good idea of how well it fits based on the size numbers.

[WarKitty]

Now... That I completely believe. Even for men, buying pants can be a pain due to non-standard measurements. For shirts, it's easier. Just knowing the general size (S, M, L, XL, etc) is usually enough (at least IME). These issues are far worse for women. For starter, female bodies are generally curvier than men's, so there's greater variety of body types that can be described using the same size numbers (which, as WarKitty mentioned, are hardly fully informative and rarely consistent). And of course, women have breasts, so that adds another layer of difficulty to fitting clothes.

More hip variation too. That's why I don't wear men's pants. I'm the short and curvy model, so buying men's jeans is out unless I want fabric bunching at the waist.

[Peelee]

More hip variation too. That's why I don't wear men's pants. I'm the short and curvy model, so buying men's jeans is out unless I want fabric bunching at the waist.

Even men's clothes are annoying, since things sold as Medium or Large are considered both circumference and height, which means back when I was almost 200 lbs, the scrub sets that were more comfortable were also an inch or two too long.

[WarKitty]

Even men's clothes are annoying, since things sold as Medium or Large are considered both circumference and height, which means back when I was almost 200 lbs, the scrub sets that were more comfortable were also an inch or two too long.

On the other hand, I totally wear miniskirts to work.

I'll be shopping online, and it'll have a miniskirt on display. And then say "model is 5'9'' and wears a size 4."

So now you put that on me at 5'0'' and a size 10...

[2D8HP]

Even men's clothes are annoying, since....


I remember when Levi's denim jackets went from size numbers (38, 40, 40L, 42, etc.) to "sizes" (S, M, L, etc.).

Less clarity, and size options resulted.

:annoyed:

[AMFV]

Even men's clothes are annoying, since things sold as Medium or Large are considered both circumference and height, which means back when I was almost 200 lbs, the scrub sets that were more comfortable were also an inch or two too long.

I definitely can relate. Being over 250 and around 5'7" and then being shaped oddly anyways is a serious pain.

[Lemmy]

Men are privileged compared to womenDebatable.


a man explaining to a woman why her concerns of sexism are unfounded, comes across an [ethnic majority] person telling an [ethnic minority] person why there is no xenophobia in [country they both live in] despite the other's claims to the contrary.There's a huge difference between claiming "there is no sexism/racism/whatever" and "this particular issue isn't caused by sexism/racism/whatever".


(...) this is not to say that women can't ever lie or be wrong, but when all women that have expressed an opinion about the women clothing industry are of one mind and you disagree with them, it is very likely that you, not they, are in the wrong.Sure, women will certainly know better about the presence or absence of pockets (or anything else) in women's clothing. I never disagreed with that... But they have no special insight as to WHY such presence/absence exists. In fact, if the fashion industry is mostly run by men, then men would have a better insight. If it's mostly run by women... Then it isn't sexism. It's women creating a product for women.


Experience trumps second-hand account.
"No M.Rambo, PTSD is absolutely not like that. Let me explain why you are wrong."
Usually, yes. Not always. Experiencing something is a way of learning about it, but doesn't really help you understand how/why it happens. Rambo there may suffer of PTSD, but he probably doesn't know how to best treat it. Maybe he suffers from a different condition, but thinks it's PTSD. Or maybe he thinks his PTSD was caused by "X", when it was actually caused by "Y". He'll probably need the help of a trained therapist to figure all that out. All of these possibilities (misidentifying the actual issue, its causes, consequences and/or remedies) are much, much more likely when it's something that isn't just a personal experience (PTSD), but a perception of the behavior of others ("Producers don't add pockets because of sexism"), so the comparison is a false equivalence.


Capitalists are people, not Platonian ideals, there decision are never decided solely based on "how much money do I make out of this".
Solely? Probably not... But it's definitely the main component by far! So unless there's very strong evidence that it isn't the case, it's very likely that's the case. If someone told me most of NBA players are black because the NBA is racist, I'd highly doubt it. Is it possible? Sure... But I sincerely doubt it's true. So unless there's strong evidence that the NBA picks their players based on skin color, I'll remain way more inclined to believe the much more likely explanation that the NBA picks players based on their skill/marketing, and most of the skilled players are black.


"If there's a problem, why aren't you doing something about it" was never an argument for the abscence of a problem.
No-one can tackle all of the world's problems at once.
That fallacy probably has a name, but I can't remember it.
That was more of a tongue-in-cheek reply than an actual argument. I'dd add the addendum that "knowledge of the existence of a situation (even accurate knowledge) doesn't require or entail accurate knowledge of its causes, consequences or remedies".

If a scuba-diver tells me the seas of Gansbaai are infested with sharks, I'll most likely believe him, at least until I get evidence to the contrary.
If that same scuba-divers tells me all those sharks are there because the mermaids want to keep humans out of their ocean... I'll certainly not believe him. At least until I get evidence that he's right.


"Mansplaining" is claiming you know better than women what women live despite not being one.
Since Grey Wolf is agreeing with the women here, GW could be an hyperintelligent, asexual alien oyster hooked up to an automaton arm inside a secret base on the dark side of the Moon without GW's position being hypocritical.Like I said, an extremely hypocritical term made to diminish the weight of someone's opinion based on their gender. Also, if "what women live" includes "how men behave" or "what men do", then men are just as big a part of the equation as women. Or would it be ok if men accused women in general of "X" and then told women to shut up and stop "femsplaining" because "they don't know what men live"? Personally, I'd think whoever said something like that is a rude, sexist jerk. That doesn't change when it goes the other way.

[Lemmy]

I definitely can relate. Being over 250 and around 5'7" and then being shaped oddly anyways is a serious pain.
I'm 6'4" living in a country where the average male height is 5'7"~5'9" (depending on region)... Finding clothes that are "long, but not wide" is a problem. And I can count on one hand the number of shops where I can expect to consistently find shoes for my size. :smallsigh:

[Fyraltari]

Debatable.
Meh. Sexism affects men too, but overall I am pretty sure women have it worse.


There's a huge difference between claiming "there is no sexism/racism/whatever" and "this particular issue isn't caused by sexism/racism/whatever".
That's a good point, but the fact that privilege is more visible from the non-privileged's point of view remains.

There's alos the fact that all issues are interconnected in some ways, which mean you will never find a single underlying cause for anything.


Sure, women will certainly know better about the presence or absence of pockets (or anything else) in women's clothing. I never disagreed with that... But they have no special insight as to WHY such presence/absence exists. In fact, if the fashion industry is mostly run by men, then men would have a better insight. If it's mostly run by women... Then it isn't sexism. It's women creating a product for women.
However women would have better hindsight on wether or not women wants women's clothes to have pockets.



Usually, yes. Not always. Experiencing something is a way of learning about it, but doesn't really help you understand how/why it happens. Rambo there may suffer of PTSD, but he probably doesn't know how to best treat it. Maybe he suffers from a different condition, but thinks it's PTSD. Or maybe he thinks his PTSD was caused by "X", when it was actually caused by "Y". He'll probably need the help of a trained therapist to figure all that out. All of these possibilities (misidentifying the actual issue, its causes, consequences and/or remedies) are much, much more likely when it's something that isn't just a personal experience (PTSD), but a perception of the behavior of others ("Producers don't add pockets because of sexism"), so the comparison is a false equivalence.
That's why my text was not "No Mr Rambo, PTSD is absolutely not caused by that."
I should have worded "No Mr Rambo, living with PTSD is absolutely not like that."

I agree that the Rambo comparison is not appropriate on this particular instance but "mansplaining" goes beyond that. There are people claiming that women cannot be happy being anything ese than housewives and mothers and that all career-orientating women are secretly unhappy for example (yes that is an extreme example but there's a whole spectrum between the two). I think you will agree that this kind of attitude needs to be called out.

"Mansplaining" is an inelegant word but it describes a reality that needs to go away and thus is an useful word. If you have a better synonim, I'd like to know it.



Solely? Probably not... But it's definitely the main component by far! So unless there's very strong evidence that it isn't the case, it's very likely that's the case. If someone told me most of NBA players are black because the NBA is racist, I'd highly doubt it. Is it possible? Sure... But I sincerely doubt it's true. So unless there's strong evidence that the NBA picks their players based on skin color, I'll remain way more inclined to believe the much more likely explanation that the NBA picks players based on their skill/marketing, and most of the skilled players are black.
Many movies were never made because the lead character was supposed to be black. The executives may not have been racist hemselves but they knew that their target audience would react poorly to a non-white lead. We have here an example of people looking only for money making a race-based decision.

I know nothing about the politics of the fashion industry, but if women come here (plus every women with whom I have ever talked about clothes) and say it suits poorly their needs and no women come to contradict them, I will conclude that the fashion industry does not meet their desire and see it as a failure of the current system. It sounds reasonnable to me.


Like I said, an extremely hypocritical term made to diminish the weight of someone's opinion based on their gender. Also, if "what women live" includes "how men behave" or "what men do", then men are just as big a part of the equation as women. Or would it be ok if men accused women in general of "X" and then told women to shut up and stop "femsplaining" because "they don't know what men live"? Personally, I'd think whoever said something like that is a rude, sexist jerk. That doesn't change when it goes the other way.
No one here has accused men in general of X. Women have said that they want bigger pockets than what is currently available and men have told them that they don't.

[Lemmy]

You know what...? Sure. Whatever.

No offense, but I'm really interested enough in this discussion to make yet another endless argument about the same subject. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

...Hopefully the thread will "re-rail" itself.

[Dr.Samurai]

Possibly, after all bull**** knows no gender. When talking about the issue facing a group you do not belong to, it is best to assume the people in that group have a better experience and understanding of those issues than you do since, you know, the live them.
If women tell me that they have difficulty finding pants with pockets, okay, no problem, I can believe that.

But just because the problem is one that affects women, it doesn't mean women intrinsically know why it exists or if it can or ever will be remedied. Do you see the difference?

So if you say "they don't really make pants or dresses with pockets in them, when you do find a pair it's a real treat" I take you at your word. But if you go on to say "The reason is because of sexism, and the industry will never change their ways even if they know of the demand and the profit they can make", well then I'm going to ask for some explanation. Because that's not a claim about your experience. That's a much greater claim.

I just picture myself in a room full of white people, I'm the only person of color there, and we're talking about race relations in the United States. And the white guy with the mic says "Hold on, none of us here is qualified to truly understand these problems and properly fix them. Let's hand the mic to the only person here that can solve this problem." and they turn the mic over to me, and I'm just sitting there like... Oh, now I have to solve race relations because I'm a person of color so suddenly I'm an expert on complex social issues...

Men are privileged compared to women, a man explaining to a woman why her concerns of sexism are unfounded, comes across an [ethnic majority] person telling an [ethnic minority] person why there is no xenophobia in [country they both live in] despite the other's claims to the contrary.
It comes across that way if you take it that way. I have asked repeatedly why people think there aren't pockets now if the demand is there and the industry is aware of the profitability. The response has been crickets.

If you're making the claim that companies are refusing to make a profit because they would prefer to keep women without pockets due to sexism, and some people (yes, some men) are incredulous, that's to be expected. Accusations of mansplaining come across as cheap deflections from an incredible but unsubstantiated claim.

What is the alternative? "Well, some women said it so it must be true, because we're talking about women's pants."

You really don't see how silly that is??

Capitalists are people, not Platonian ideals, there decision are never decided solely based on "how much money do I make outof this".

Okay, so what is the decision based on? Please explain.

As a man, you're not speaking to your own experience, so you really don't know what you're talking about, according to your own beliefs. So if you don't actually know, how can you deem to explain to us how it works? Did you hear this from a woman? Can you please prove that this information came from a woman so we know it's correct?

"Mansplaining" is claiming you know better than women what women live despite not being one.
If anyone here can demonstrate that the industry is sexist and keeping pockets off pants for sexist reasons despite their being profit to make, I think we would agree. You don't get to make a claim like that and expect to be believed by virtue of being a woman. So I don't see any mansplaining here. In light of that, allow me to offer a counter-definition: Mansplaining is an attempt to add more weight than is appropriate to a woman's claim, while simultaneously dismissing a man's comments right out.

Since Grey Wolf is agreeing with the women here, GW could be an hyperintelligent, asexual alien oyster hooked up to an automaton arm inside a secret base on the dark side of the Moon without GW's position being hypocritical.
Right. So if I agree with women, my sex is irrelevant. But if I disagree with women, then my sex is relevant. If I am a woman, then it's a legitimate point and a discussion is had. If I am a man however, then I am mansplaining and I should simply be silent and listen.

This is pure nonsense, Fyraltari.

Nevermind that GW was offended that their sex was assumed, and keeps their sex unknown, and then is dismissive of points and comments based on the sex of the person saying them.

[FinnLassie]

EVERYTHING IS A TERRIBLE SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COMPLETELY ALIGN WITH MY OPINIONS.

Am I doing this argument right? It seems like I'm doing this argument right.

Welcome to my sig, sir.

[WarKitty]

I mean, part of the problem is "I want bigger pockets" doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to pay $150 for a pair of pants instead of $60 just to get pockets. So that there are options out there for pockets doesn't mean that there are options out there that suit what I need in pants and what's in my budget.

I'd expect it has more to do with the argument offered upthread. Women will buy pants no matter what. A lot of us will buy dress pants because that's what's expected to wear to work. Given the variety of shapes of women and the closer expected fit, it's not going to be feasible to just put out one pants design and expect it to really take off. So companies don't want to redo things and retool their designs when they're already selling pants.

[Peelee]

Welcome to my sig, sir.
Always a fun thing to hear!
https://i.imgur.com/nZwxflC.png

[lio45]

If women tell me that they have difficulty finding pants with pockets, okay, no problem, I can believe that.

The general situation here is that people who want nice, aesthetic clothes have difficulty trying to have their cake and eat it too, because of the simple fact that pockets are functional and inelegant, therefore, tradeoff.

From the observation that the fashion industry offers few clothes with pockets to women (which we all agree on), we can easily deduce that most of these clothes buyers prefer form over function, otherwise, the pent-up demand for uglier-clothes-but-with-pockets would be getting met. Simple market economics apply easily here, there's no technological barrier or anything like that. As some of you are pointing out, some clothes are already made with pockets - if those flew off the shelves at lightning speed anytime a fresh delivery would arrive, while pocketless clothes would amass dust next to them, it's guaranteed the industry would quickly adapt.

[lio45]

I'd expect it has more to do with the argument offered upthread. Women will buy pants no matter what. A lot of us will buy dress pants because that's what's expected to wear to work. Given the variety of shapes of women and the closer expected fit...

That's the thing. It's a tradeoff. You physically can't combine "nice-looking close fit" and "bunch of pockets so you can conveniently carry large items in them".

If my job as an "eye candy" waiter to grandmas in a senior home involved showing off my legs and ass in spandex leggings, then I'd have to modify my routine of always having my big wallet, huge set of keys, and phone in my pockets at all times, because I couldn't have it all.

And if I insisted on finding a Spiderman costume for Halloween that would have pockets for a large wallet, a phone, and a set of keys so I can have all of those on me while still being Spiderman, I would probably be out of luck.

[Peelee]

That's the thing. It's a tradeoff. You physically can't combine "nice-looking close fit" and "bunch of pockets so you can conveniently carry large items in them".

I have yet to see anyone argue for clothes that combine high fashion and cargo pants. My wife, for instance, just wants pants with two normal pockets. A place to put her phone and wallet, for instance. That doesn't need anywhere near as much of a tradeoff for nice-looking.

[WarKitty]

That's the thing. It's a tradeoff. You physically can't combine "nice-looking close fit" and "bunch of pockets so you can conveniently carry large items in them".

If my job as an "eye candy" waiter to grandmas in a senior home involved showing off my legs and ass in spandex leggings, then I'd have to modify my routine of always having my big wallet, huge set of keys, and phone in my pockets at all times, because I couldn't have it all.

And if I insisted on finding a Spiderman costume for Halloween that would have pockets for a large wallet, a phone, and a set of keys so I can have all of those on me while still being Spiderman, I would probably be out of luck.

I mean, it might. But there's also the problem that we're not really sure where or why those standards even developed. I answer the phone for a living. There is absolutely no part of my job where what my pants look like actually affects my job. Our customers don't know or care what we're wearing (and those that do generally get disconnected.)

But we've somehow decided that there's a certain look that's considered professional, and that's what you have to conform to. Even if I wanted to show up in looser pants that have good deep pockets, somehow society has ruled that if I do that I'm not considered suitably dressed and need to find a new job.

[Heliomance]

That's the thing. It's a tradeoff. You physically can't combine "nice-looking close fit" and "bunch of pockets so you can conveniently carry large items in them".

For the third time, these things exist, they're just irritatingly rare. You cannot make the argument that it's not possible to make nice looking women's clothes with pockets, because I have items in my wardrobe right now that provide a counter example.

[WarKitty]

For the third time, these things exist, they're just irritatingly rare. You cannot make the argument that it's not possible to make nice looking women's clothes with pockets, because I have items in my wardrobe right now that provide a counter example.

I somewhat wonder if the problem is that women's fabrics are different. There's a much stronger push to make women's clothes out of cheap crap. When I've compared men's and women's clothing in the same price range, men's clothing is made of thicker cloth and more durable materials. It is also blissfully bereft of spandex. I'm noticing my twill pants and skirts generally have decent pockets, but other fabrics don't.

Not that most women wouldn't buy nicer fabrics, but there seems to be an upcharge for the same quality as compared to men's pants.

[lio45]

For the third time, these things exist, they're just irritatingly rare. You cannot make the argument that it's not possible to make nice looking women's clothes with pockets, because I have items in my wardrobe right now that provide a counter example.

Occam's Razor pretty clearly says you have weird fashion tastes, the alternative being that there's somehow a conspiracy among industry competitors to only sell in extremely limited quantities something people are clamoring for.

Those items with pockets you have in your wardrobe right now, if the place where you bought them ran out of stock immediately, which is what we should expect if they're truly both extremely desirable and extremely scarce, don't you think the manager would've told their supplier that they've sold like hot cakes and that they need to make more...?

It's like arguing that "New Coke" was delicious and everyone loved it, and the only reason it flopped is some secret conspiracy to pull it off the shelves for some reason, because the Coca-Cola company doesn't like making money. As others have already mentioned, that's just... no.

[lio45]

I mean, it might. But there's also the problem that we're not really sure where or why those standards even developed. I answer the phone for a living. There is absolutely no part of my job where what my pants look like actually affects my job. Our customers don't know or care what we're wearing (and those that do generally get disconnected.)

But we've somehow decided that there's a certain look that's considered professional, and that's what you have to conform to. Even if I wanted to show up in looser pants that have good deep pockets, somehow society has ruled that if I do that I'm not considered suitably dressed and need to find a new job.

I agree with you that that's ridiculous, but that's your workplace's fault, and it has nothing to do with the simple fact that being covered with pockets and fannypacks is at odds with basic fashion notions of elegance, seamlessness, the concept of showing off bodily grace, etc.

It's like wanting your vehicle to have both the best aerodynamic drag possible, and also have a full size open pickup truck box so you can carry open loads with it. Both of them are possible, you just have to pick.

Your workplace didn't say "no pockets!", they said "be fashionably and elegantly dressed". It's different. (Again, yeah, I'm with you, it's stupid - you're not interacting with the public.)

[Liquor Box]

Oh?


Dang it! I was hoping to see 2D8HP in drag. :smallannoyed:



I, for one, welcome our new ranger overlord.

--------


You know what? This thread really reminds of my problem with Lego as a kid.

http://geekandgamergirl.com/file/2015/01/lego-friends-header.png

LINK (http://seasonaldepressioncomic.com/comic/lego-friends-2/) for the whole comic.

Same with Lego, they concluded we wanted something we didn't, so we didn't bought it and kept buying male Legos, so they went all "Well I guess girls just don't like Legos then!" and keep the old model despite the fact many girls did like Lego they just didn't like what the company wanted us to like.

Am I making myself clear? Sorry if it was confusing. :smallconfused:

I don't think there is male Lego. I think there is general Lego, which is for anyone. Then, because fewer girls than boys play with Lego, they added a line aimed specifically at girls. But I don't think that there any expectation that girls who are into martial arts (Ninjago) or sci-fi (star wars) wont buy the Lego which is themed around those two things. The Lego lines largely have male as well as female characters.

I have a young daughter and she like animals - so she has lego circus and lego zoo, and a lego surfer (female) . She also has an item from the Lego friendsw range (which is the one aimed specifically at girls).


You see executives think they know what women want, but they don't since they are not women (Most of the time). They think I want thigh and form fitting jeans when I want functional jeans with pockets, but since they have no idea they keep pushing the jeans they think we want and there is no way for us to communicate that's not what we want since we have no other option but buy it.

I my case I often buy small men's jeans since they are much better but the executives won't know that.

Companies that supply jeans don't purport to know what you want. The market doesn't seek to supply every person with their exact preference. Instead companies that supply jeans have a good idea about what most women want. Lots of women do want form fitting jeans, even if you do not.

But straight cut women's jeans can easily be bought, I have bought them before. They are less prevalent, because jean suppliers obviously think (probably correctly) fewer women will buy them than straight cut jeans. If they are wrong, that will come through in the straight cut women's jeans selling out,, whcih would ordinarily lead to an increase in supply.

I also want to point out that decisions about jeans are not made only by men. Even the big companies have a significant (although perhaps not equal) female presence at senior level. For example, the following link is to Levi (which is one of the world's best known manufacturer of jeans), which shows four women on the senior management team:
http://www.levistrauss.com/who-we-are/

[Lemmy]

I keep failing my will saving throw...


http://geekandgamergirl.com/file/2015/01/lego-friends-header.png

LINK (http://seasonaldepressioncomic.com/comic/lego-friends-2/) for the whole comic.

You see executives think they know what women want, but they don't since they are not women (Most of the time). They think I want thigh and form fitting jeans when I want functional jeans with pockets, but since they have no idea they keep pushing the jeans they think we want and there is no way for us to communicate that's not what we want since we have no other option but buy it.

I my case I often buy small men's jeans since they are much better but the executives won't know that.

Same with Lego, they concluded we wanted something we didn't, so we didn't bought it and kept buying male Legos, so they went all "Well I guess girls just don't like Legos then!" and keep the old model despite the fact many girls did like Lego they just didn't like what the company wanted us to like.
You say their conclusions were wrong... But the "Lego Friends" line marked a huge increase in sales for Lego! After years of the company trying to increase Lego's appeal to girls, what finally made it was the product line that you say girls didn't want. Evidence suggests the executives were right...

I bet it wasn't product of someone going "I know exactly what women want!" too... I'd bet dollars to pennies that they designed the product based on market research. They almost certainly realized most of their "customers" were boys and tried to figure out how to sell their product to girls, effectively doubling their consumer base (and profit potential). Because that's what giant corporations do: They look for ways to increase profit. They didn't do it out of goodness or evil in their heart. They didn't do it to promote equality or sexism. They did it to make money.

[WarKitty]

Straight cut doesn't work for a lot of women. There's two separate issues that get conflated in clothing cuts:

(1) how the garment is meant to hang on a person of the size and shape it's designed for

(2) the size and shape of the person it's designed for

So im my case, I like the look of straight cut pants, but they don't make them in my shape. They're made for women with fairly slim hips; curvier gals only get form fitted stuff. So I end up with a lot of stuff that's more form fitting than I want, because my other option is a big bunch of excess fabric at my waist. I'm not buying the style I like because it's not made for my body.

[S@tanicoaldo]

@Liquor Box Well, they didn't had many famale models when I was a kid, I had tons of legos and out of all my 50+ figures I only had 3 girls, one witch, one cook and one waitress.

One witch hat, one red ponytail and one brown ponytail for "hat piece".

Two "famale faces" with red lipstick and makeup heavy eyes that looked almost asian.

One witch face that was ugly and toothless.

One cook outfit, one waitresss outfit and one black dress.

That really limited my options since I had to use male parts to create my character and I didn't use a ponytail as a kid so it wasn't the best represenation and I didn't like the default famale face.

While my cousins could do hundreds of combinations mine were very limited.

I only got a girl face and a girl hair when Lego harry potter came out and by that time I was starting to grow too old for lego so I wasn't able to enjoy it as much.

@Lemmy They may not want to perpetuate gender roles and only make money but they do that, a lot! After all they (The toy industry) were the main reason pink is now girly and blue is boyish.

[2D8HP]

Sadly I have never played much Call of Cthulhu, my players don't mind horror and i often use horror elements on my weird fantas games but they like to feel powerful and they think the CoC PCs are just too weak and mundane so the group never liked.


That's common, I seem to be an oddball in being okay with weak PC's.


But why? Is there any interesting thing about this "Keeper'd" Call of C'thullu? I have never heard of it.


"Keeper" was just the CoC term for "gamemaster", like "Administrator" for Top Secret and "Storyteller" for Vampire.

I found it almost the easiest ever RPG to run, the rules were intuitive, they setting was easy to make up stuff for (1920's with monsters and cults), my players got what they wanted (PC's with firearms), and I could have the monsters just ignore bullets.

Hah!

The character sheets have lots of shiney numbers on them (mostly of skills percentage chance), so those that want "crunch" have something to look at.

It worked well, but yeah, PC's were regular humans and enough magic powers drive the PC's insane, so it's "low power" PC's.


Btw, since you like adventure so much maybe you will enjoy Jason B. Thompson D&D Module Walkthrough Maps?

Here is the one for tomb of horrors: LINK (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/map_tombofhorrors.jpg)

His art is great and he's super fun. :smallwink:

That is great, thanks!


Dang it! I was hoping to see 2D8HP in drag. :smallannoyed:


I was "Dr. von Scott" never "Frank N Furter", 'sides those clothes were considered unisex back then, and prove nothing.

NOTHING!

Nor does that old drivers license.


I, for one, welcome our new ranger overlord.


My rule will be just and merciful.

Mostly.


LINK (http://seasonaldepressioncomic.com/comic/lego-friends-2/) for the whole comic.


The comics and art at that site are AWESOME!

Thank you very much!

[Shamash]

Seeing 2D8HP being wholesome warms the heart.

Anyway, how can I vote for something that is nto a thing? Like a video game about jousting or a movie about aliens x knigths.

Do I have to make these by myself?

[Fiery Diamond]

I don't believe you.
Are they ever!

I took an "Orbital Welding" for stainless steel tube class, and when I realized that unlike my previous welding classes I could pretty much dress for comfort, I kept the work boots, but ditched the denim for slacks and a button shirt.

The disapproving sneers and "You look like a banker" comments (this was in 2009) from my classmates (all guys in my local union, or close by ones) told me that office attire was not acceptable.

Though I notice that most male office workers don't wear good shirts instead they wear "Polo" shirts, which are flimsy, uncomfortable, and usually ugly (when not dark), why does this abomination exist?

With that in mind, it sure seems to me that "sport", "leisure", "casual", and often even "outdoor" clothing are synonym's for "uncomfortable flimsy plastic crap"!

I've noticed that different people have wildly different ideas of what kind of clothing is comfortable. If I'm not wearing shorts, I prefer loose slacks. I find jeans horrendously uncomfortable. I have an extreme dislike of denim in general, actually. Also,most polos are much more comfortable than full button-up shirts (AKA dress shirts), which are in most cases rather uncomfortable.

On the pockets and industry discussion: I'm on the women's side, here. The big players just don't think it will be enough of a profit-booster to justify the expense of making all the necessary new lines of clothing. It's not that the demand isn't there; it's that the big players aren't going to be threatened by any small players providing pocketed clothes. "If it ain't broke, don't bother to try to improve it," seems to be the way most big players work.

[Liquor Box]

@Liquor Box Well, they didn't had many famale models when I was a kid, I had tons of legos and out of all my 50+ figures I only had 3 girls, one witch, one cook and one waitress.

One witch hat, one red ponytail and one brown ponytail for "hat piece".

Two "famale faces" with red lipstick and makeup heavy eyes that looked almost asian.

One witch face that was ugly and toothless.

One cook outfit, one waitresss outfit and one black dress.

That really limited my options since I had to use male parts to create my character and I didn't use a ponytail as a kid so it wasn't the best represenation and I didn't like the default famale face.

While my cousins could do hundreds of combinations mine were very limited.

I only got a girl face and a girl hair when Lego harry potter came out and by that time I was starting to grow too old for lego so I wasn't able to enjoy it as much.


Yeah, it may have been that there were fewer female figures in the olden days. I happen to have instructions for a pirate set from the nineties, and on that one of the six pirates is female. Nowadays I think female figures are more prevalent, in the main set (Lego Cities). Which may be a demonstration of the market functioning as one would hope - if they found that sets with more women sold, they would have increased female representation.

[Liquor Box]

Straight cut doesn't work for a lot of women. There's two separate issues that get conflated in clothing cuts:

(1) how the garment is meant to hang on a person of the size and shape it's designed for

(2) the size and shape of the person it's designed for

So im my case, I like the look of straight cut pants, but they don't make them in my shape. They're made for women with fairly slim hips; curvier gals only get form fitted stuff. So I end up with a lot of stuff that's more form fitting than I want, because my other option is a big bunch of excess fabric at my waist. I'm not buying the style I like because it's not made for my body.

It sounds like the issue you are having is not that you want pants with pockets, but you want pants with a particular style, at a particular cost, made for a particular (and perhaps slightly unusual) body shape, made out of certain materials as well as having pockets.

I think it hard for all people (regardless of gender) to find clothes that they like and fit them right, and fit all their other criteria. It may be harder for women because they tend to have more options available in terms of choices, possibly more diverse body shapes, and also want options with and without pockets. Having more choices does suggest that you will have to shop longer to find the one you want.

It is not a failure of the market if there are no clothes available that fit your particular needs (including size and fit). The market is not a tool for giving every person exactly what they want (unless they are prepared to pay more for it). If there are not enough people demanding pants of the cut and style and materials you like, made of the materials you like, with pockets, at the price you want to pay, then of course the market wont provide it. That is not a failure of the market.


For the third time, these things exist, they're just irritatingly rare. You cannot make the argument that it's not possible to make nice looking women's clothes with pockets, because I have items in my wardrobe right now that provide a counter example.

They are not that hard to find. I simply went to the Walmart website, went to the list for jeans, and there they were, several women's (and men's) jeans with pockets.

I wonder if what you are getting at is the same thing as Warkitty, that it is hard to find pants of a particular, style, cut, size etc etc, as well as with pockets. If so my answer to her applies.

Yes it may be harder for women to find the exact pair of pants she wants than it is for men, but that is because women have more variety available than men - including demand for pants with pockets, and pants without pockets. That means women have more choice, but it is harder to find the particular thing she wants. That is not a failure of the marker, but instead it is the market delivering women exactly what they demand - more choice.

[Liquor Box]

When talking about the issue facing a group you do not belong to, it is best to assume the people in that group have a better experience and understanding of those issues than you do since, you know, the live them.There is a difference between "mansplaining" and "femsplaining", however:
Men are privileged compared to women, a man explaining to a woman why her concerns of sexism are unfounded, comes across an [ethnic majority] person telling an [ethnic minority] person why there is no xenophobia in [country they both live in] despite the other's claims to the contrary.


If we take your above point, it does indeed suggest that women may be better placed to speak about the feelings, preferences, motivations and experience of women, but do you think the reverse is true, that women should defer to men on the feelings, preferences, motivations and experience of men? And given sexism is very often about motivation, should women defer to men on the question of whether decisions made by men and effecting women are motivated by sexism or other factors. For example if a man were to say "in my experience where women accuse me and other men of mansplaining it is not actually because I am making a sexist assumption that a woman will need something explained by a men, but men explaining matters that come within my particular area of interest/expetise" would it be wrong of a woman to argue against that?

I don't think so myself. I think we put too much emphasis on a person's demographic when determining how valuable their comment is, and not enough emphasis on the content of that comment.



Experience trumps second-hand account.
"No M.Rambo, PTSD is absolutely not like that. Let me explain why you are wrong."

This is a great example of the above. A soldier's self diagnosis of PTSD is not authoratative. The opinion of a psychiatrist (who may have had no first hand experience with either combat or having PTSD) is.

Applying that to the present conversation, a woman's comment that women prefer pants with pockets is not persuasive as to the preference of women generally, but the comment of an expert would be. In this case, the expert would be someone who carries out market research in the pants preferences of women - likely engaged by a supplier of women's pants to determine what pants it will supply.

[An Enemy Spy]

I'm just curious, has this pocket argument gone on so long because everyone on both sides is this passionate on the availability of pockets in women's clothing or is it just because you just have to be the winner of this pointless discussion? Which will result in... absolutely nothing happening. I'm asking because I've gotten to the point where I can't argue with people on line without getting burnt out after two or three posts and I'm wondering what it is that makes people so passionate about continuing these things for days and weeks. Is it just spite?

[2D8HP]

Seeing 2D8HP being wholesome warms the heart.


:confused:

????

I have no such recollections.


Anyway, how can I vote for something that is nto a thing? Like a video game about jousting or a movie about aliens x knigths.

Do I have to make these by myself?


Please do!


I'm just curious, has this pocket argument gone on so long because...


It's gone on so long because there's different points of view, unlike my contention that the presence of Ewoks (freakin' teddy bears!) in Return of the Jedi and the absence of extended 36 hour versions of Conan the Destroyer, Excalibur, Hawk the Slayer, and Young Sherlock Holmes represent total abject market failure, which every one here readily agreed to without exception.

As was my pointing out that in a well functioning.marketplace there would be many more films featuring Helen Mirren and Patrick Stewart.

[AMFV]

I'm just curious, has this pocket argument gone on so long because everyone on both sides is this passionate on the availability of pockets in women's clothing or is it just because you just have to be the winner of this pointless discussion? Which will result in... absolutely nothing happening. I'm asking because I've gotten to the point where I can't argue with people on line without getting burnt out after two or three posts and I'm wondering what it is that makes people so passionate about continuing these things for days and weeks. Is it just spite?

Some people (myself included) like to engage in passionate discussion. The anonymous portion of the internet is a place where I can do that without offending or irritating my family members.

[Knaight]

Occam's Razor pretty clearly says you have weird fashion tastes, the alternative being that there's somehow a conspiracy among industry competitors to only sell in extremely limited quantities something people are clamoring for.

There are all sorts of things that influence production and distribution besides hostile conspiracies, which always seem to get overlooked in favor of claiming that people are pushing conspiracy theories. Notably, in the case of clothing (though this absolutely applies to other goods as well to varying degrees).

1) Clothing benefits from a brick and mortar store because you can physically check fit, in a way that you can't online. This same thing applies to pretty much anything with a significant tactile experience - furniture, non-standardized sporting equipment (e.g. bowling balls of varying weights), vehicles, so on and so forth.

2) The structure of how brick and mortar stores get stocked favors the establishment of a few major brands, with everything else relegated to the sidelines. Space for products on shelves is straight up sold to companies, which creates a high barrier of entry, allowing for the development of oligopolies. These are disguised to some extent by the number of seemingly distinct brands that all trace back to the same owners, but if you actually do that tracing you'll find a small handful of competitors in most cases.

3) Corporate cultures tend to be extremely short sighted. As has been pointed out above the nebulous market is made up of actual people making decisions, and these people have incentives. These incentives disproportionately work out such that the decision makers are laser focused on quarterly profits, where anything that takes more than three months to pay dividends is much harder to get done. Establishing, producing, and marketing a new type of clothing could easily take more than three months, particularly given that fashion is volatile and there's nothing to follow for clothing of that class.

4) Corporate cultures also tend to be very risk averse, for similar reasons - this comes down to actual people, and actual people generally favor avoiding losses over making gains, which then gets fed into a feedback loop. Again, a new type of product is inherently risky, and that makes it less likely to happen, particularly when the limited space of an oligopoly.

A lot of the assumptions of what should be going on with markets is basic microeconomics - and by basic I mean the first quarter of the first semester. Those models are based on the theoretical behavior under certain simplifying assumptions, starting with perfect information for buyers and sellers, perfectly competitive markets which neglect factors like regional variation (e.g. this store is on this block, this one is a few miles away), and other assumptions that work out to the economics equivalent of a frictionless plane in a vacuum or a mixture of uniform concentration and temperature (well-mixed, being the jargon phrase for that particular bit of hilarious simplification).

Reality then not fitting the simplified model is routinely taken as a sign that reality must have been interpreted, because the data make no sense, even when the issue is that the model doesn't work under these conditions.

[Fyraltari]

I have yet to see anyone argue for clothes that combine high fashion and cargo pants. My wife, for instance, just wants pants with two normal pockets. A place to put her phone and wallet, for instance. That doesn't need anywhere near as much of a tradeoff for nice-looking.

http://static1.puretrend.com/articles/2/41/87/2/@/373867-defile-ralph-lauren-printemps-ete-580x0-2.jpg


Hopefully the thread will "re-rail" itself.
Looks unlikely.


If women tell me that they have difficulty finding pants with pockets, okay, no problem, I can believe that.

But just because the problem is one that affects women, it doesn't mean women intrinsically know why it exists or if it can or ever will be remedied. Do you see the difference?

So if you say "they don't really make pants or dresses with pockets in them, when you do find a pair it's a real treat" I take you at your word. But if you go on to say "The reason is because of sexism, and the industry will never change their ways even if they know of the demand and the profit they can make", well then I'm going to ask for some explanation. Because that's not a claim about your experience. That's a much greater claim.
That makes sense, however if your conclusion is "women don't actually want pocketed pants depite what the women here say." then the accusation is warranted.


I just picture myself in a room full of white people, I'm the only person of color there, and we're talking about race relations in the United States. And the white guy with the mic says "Hold on, none of us here is qualified to truly understand these problems and properly fix them. Let's hand the mic to the only person here that can solve this problem." and they turn the mic over to me, and I'm just sitting there like... Oh, now I have to solve race relations because I'm a person of color so suddenly I'm an expert on complex social issues...
Yes that wouldn't make sense, however if the question was "We have someone here that can tell us if persons of color have it rough in this country" then the person's skin-color would be relevant and their input should be listened to.

People don't need to understand the underlying causes to know a problem when they see it.
If I start coughing blood that wouldn't make me a specialist on lung cancer (or whatever illness that makes you cough blood) or even meke me know what it is that is wrong, but that would make me know that there is, indeed, something that needs fixing yesterday.


It comes across that way if you take it that way. I have asked repeatedly why people think there aren't pockets now if the demand is there and the industry is aware of the profitability. The response has been crickets.
If you're making the claim that companies are refusing to make a profit because they would prefer to keep women without pockets due to sexism, and some people (yes, some men) are incredulous, that's to be expected. Accusations of mansplaining come across as cheap deflections from an incredible but unsubstantiated claim.

What is the alternative? "Well, some women said it so it must be true, because we're talking about women's pants."

You really don't see how silly that is??

Okay, so what is the decision based on? Please explain.

Historically, women were confined to housewives/eye candy roles and thus needed pockets much less than men. When capitalism rolled around they, logically, sold pockets to men and no-pockets to men for their women. Now that Womens's lib is happening, women want pockets and would buy them however the industry leaders, as is naturally the case in a liberal economy, are few, conservative and more interested in not losing their position than getting even more money and thus risk-averse. The entrepeneurs that are willing to take that risk are small-time and unable to truly compete with the established company (because a liberal economy is by nature pyramiudal and the higher you are the more unlikely it is that your spot will be free anytime soon) and thus are either bankrupted, bought by these industry leaders who then apply their policies to the store or doomed to stay a local shop.

As Women's lib progresses the industry will be forced to follow the path taken by society but these things take longer than they should. Basically the industry (as does every industry) lags behind social progress because of the way the market works. That's a failure of the market.

I know look forward to people more knwoledgeable than me on fashion/gender politics history to come and correct me on everything I inevitably got wrong.


As a man, you're not speaking to your own experience, so you really don't know what you're talking about, according to your own beliefs. So if you don't actually know, how can you deem to explain to us how it works? Did you hear this from a woman? Can you please prove that this information came from a woman so we know it's correct?
My own beliefs tell that I don't know better than women what women want. Simple as that. Please note the bolding.


If anyone here can demonstrate that the industry is sexist and keeping pockets off pants for sexist reasons despite their being profit to make, I think we would agree.
See above.


You don't get to make a claim like that and expect to be believed by virtue of being a woman. So I don't see any mansplaining here. In light of that, allow me to offer a counter-definition: Mansplaining is an attempt to add more weight than is appropriate to a woman's claim, while simultaneously dismissing a man's comments right out.
Looks like it's not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining)


[QUOTE=Dr.Samurai;23120833]Right. So if I agree with women, my sex is irrelevant. But if I disagree with women, then my sex is relevant. If I am a woman, then it's a legitimate point and a discussion is had. If I am a man however, then I am mansplaining and I should simply be silent and listen.

This is pure nonsense, Fyraltari.
If you tell a woman you know better than her how an issue affects women then yes your sex is relevant. You can replace woman by any group and sex by "belonging to that group or not" and it will stay true.
This isnot rocket science, Dr.Samurai.


Nevermind that GW was offended that their sex was assumed, and keeps their sex unknown, and then is dismissive of points and comments based on the sex of the person saying them.
Things GW cannot do without GW's comment being hypocritical:
Telling a woman, GW knows better than her what she wants, feels, etc without disclosing GW's gender.
Telling a man, GW knows better than him what he wants, feels, etc without disclosing GW's gender.
Telling an oyster, GW knows better than them what they wants, feels, etc without disclosing GW's oysterness.

Things GW can do without Gw's comment being hypocritical:
Telling a man he doesn't know better than women what they want without disclosing GW's gender.


I'm just curious, has this pocket argument gone on so long because everyone on both sides is this passionate on the availability of pockets in women's clothing or is it just because you just have to be the winner of this pointless discussion? Which will result in... absolutely nothing happening. I'm asking because I've gotten to the point where I can't argue with people on line without getting burnt out after two or three posts and I'm wondering what it is that makes people so passionate about continuing these things for days and weeks. Is it just spite?
Some people feel strongly on sexism-related issues. Go figure.
Some, myself, anyway, like to debate and have their concepts and belief challenged. Good reminder that you will never be right about everything and keeps you mind exercised. And it's fun.


There are all sorts of things that influence production and distribution besides hostile conspiracies, which always seem to get overlooked in favor of claiming that people are pushing conspiracy theories. Notably, in the case of clothing (though this absolutely applies to other goods as well to varying degrees).

1) Clothing benefits from a brick and mortar store because you can physically check fit, in a way that you can't online. This same thing applies to pretty much anything with a significant tactile experience - furniture, non-standardized sporting equipment (e.g. bowling balls of varying weights), vehicles, so on and so forth.

2) The structure of how brick and mortar stores get stocked favors the establishment of a few major brands, with everything else relegated to the sidelines. Space for products on shelves is straight up sold to companies, which creates a high barrier of entry, allowing for the development of oligopolies. These are disguised to some extent by the number of seemingly distinct brands that all trace back to the same owners, but if you actually do that tracing you'll find a small handful of competitors in most cases.

3) Corporate cultures tend to be extremely short sighted. As has been pointed out above the nebulous market is made up of actual people making decisions, and these people have incentives. These incentives disproportionately work out such that the decision makers are laser focused on quarterly profits, where anything that takes more than three months to pay dividends is much harder to get done. Establishing, producing, and marketing a new type of clothing could easily take more than three months, particularly given that fashion is volatile and there's nothing to follow for clothing of that class.

4) Corporate cultures also tend to be very risk averse, for similar reasons - this comes down to actual people, and actual people generally favor avoiding losses over making gains, which then gets fed into a feedback loop. Again, a new type of product is inherently risky, and that makes it less likely to happen, particularly when the limited space of an oligopoly.

A lot of the assumptions of what should be going on with markets is basic microeconomics - and by basic I mean the first quarter of the first semester. Those models are based on the theoretical behavior under certain simplifying assumptions, starting with perfect information for buyers and sellers, perfectly competitive markets which neglect factors like regional variation (e.g. this store is on this block, this one is a few miles away), and other assumptions that work out to the economics equivalent of a frictionless plane in a vacuum or a mixture of uniform concentration and temperature (well-mixed, being the jargon phrase for that particular bit of hilarious simplification).

Reality then not fitting the simplified model is routinely taken as a sign that reality must have been interpreted, because the data make no sense, even when the issue is that the model doesn't work under these conditions.
Just a big yup.

[Dr.Samurai]

That makes sense, however if your conclusion is "women don't actually want pocketed pants depite what the women here say." then the accusation is warranted.
No it isn't. I can't speak on behalf of all men, or all latinos, or all heteros, or all people that wear shorts year round, etc just by virtue of being a member of those groups. And you shouldn't simply accept what I say as truth on behalf of those people just because I share a trait with them.

Notice the difference between the two exchanges below:

Woman: I have trouble finding women's pants with pockets.
Man: I don't have this problem, so you must be mistaken.
Simple-Minded Person: MANSPLAINING!!!

Woman: I have trouble finding women's pants with pockets and the reason is a sexist industry that cares more about sexism than profits. The demand is there, all women want pockets, but the industry simply doesn't care, and actively opposes us.
Man: What makes you say that? If the demand is there for profit to be made, why wouldn't companies add pockets?
Simple-Minded Person: MANSPLAINING!!!

Do you see how these exchanges aren't the same and don't warrant the same... "criticisms", let's say?

Yes that wouldn't make sense, however if the question was "We have someone here that can tell us if persons of color have it rough in this country" then the person's skin-color would be relevant and their input should be listened to.
Who is disagreeing with this though?

People don't need to understand the underlying causes to know a problem when they see it.
If I start coughing blood that wouldn't make me a specialist on lung cancer (or whatever illness that makes you cough blood) or even meke me know what it is that is wrong, but that would make me know that there is, indeed, something that needs fixing yesterday.
Correct. So we're in agreement. There is a difference between the experience of not being able to buy pants with pockets, and knowing the reasons why they aren't readily available. I'm glad we can see eye to eye here.

As Women's lib progresses the industry will be forced to follow the path taken by society...
We're in agreement, and yet you're so busy explaining how we're mansplaining to even see that...

My own beliefs tell that I don't know better than women what women want. Simple as that. Please note the bolding.

Don't conflate disagreeing with women, with the claim to know better than women. Point to me where someone made this claim about a woman's personal experience, maybe I missed it...

If you tell a woman you know better than her how an issue affects women then yes your sex is relevant.
Nevermind that this didn't happen when GW lobbed the accusation at Lemmy in the first place, but simply put, no, it's still not relevant.

This isnot rocket science, Dr.Samurai.

Lol, don't worry, I would never mistake this pseudo-intellectualism with rocket science :smallwink:.

Things GW cannot do without GW's comment being hypocritical:
Telling a woman, GW knows better than her what she wants, feels, etc without disclosing GW's gender.
Telling a man, GW knows better than him what he wants, feels, etc without disclosing GW's gender.
Telling an oyster, GW knows better than them what they wants, feels, etc without disclosing GW's oysterness.

Things GW can do without Gw's comment being hypocritical:
Telling a man he doesn't know better than women what they want without disclosing GW's gender.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just say, without guessing as to why, that you have a very skewed perception of the conversation so far.

[AMFV]

That makes sense, however if your conclusion is "women don't actually want pocketed pants depite what the women here say." then the accusation is warranted.

I think what people are saying is that women aren't willing to pay as much as many men would to have good pockets and are prioritization other things over that.

As I said I could not buy pocketless pants, and even with pockets I need a toolbelt and extra pockets. It wouldn't matter if I had to spend 150 a pair, then I would just have fewer pairs. So that's market driving force if I and other guys in similar work would not buy pants from people sans pockets then manufacturers are likely to treat that more seriously than random people complaining.

[Fyraltari]

No it isn't. I can't speak on behalf of all men, or all latinos, or all heteros, or all people that wear shorts year round, etc just by virtue of being a member of those groups. And you shouldn't simply accept what I say as truth on behalf of those people just because I share a trait with them.
I don't but if all mebers of the group I know and all involved in the discussion are in agreement, I will


Notice the difference between the two exchanges below:

Woman: I have trouble finding women's pants with pockets.
Man: I don't have this problem, so you must be mistaken.
Simple-Minded Person: MANSPLAINING!!!

Woman: I have trouble finding women's pants with pockets and the reason is a sexist industry that cares more about sexism than profits. The demand is there, all women want pockets, but the industry simply doesn't care, and actively opposes us.
Man: What makes you say that? If the demand is there for profit to be made, why wouldn't companies add pockets?
Simple-Minded Person: MANSPLAINING!!!

Do you see how these exchanges aren't the same and don't warrant the same... "criticisms", let's say?

Who is disagreeing with this though?
Correct. So we're in agreement. There is a difference between the experience of not being able to buy pants with pockets, and knowing the reasons why they aren't readily available. I'm glad we can see eye to eye here.

We're in agreement, and yet you're so busy explaining how we're mansplaining to even see that...

Don't conflate disagreeing with women, with the claim to know better than women. Point to me where someone made this claim about a woman's personal experience, maybe I missed it...

Nevermind that this didn't happen when GW lobbed the accusation at Lemmy in the first place, but simply put, no, it's still not relevant.

Lol, don't worry, I would never mistake this pseudo-intellectualism with rocket science :smallwink:.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just say, without guessing as to why, that you have a very skewed perception of the conversation so far.
I am going to give you the same and post an excerpt of the conversation below:










The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most. Sure, there'll always be some products that break the mold, but the vast majority of what's produced will be whatever sells most. Most women's pants are "pocketless" simply because women have consistently bought "pocketless" pants waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than ones with sizable pockets. I'm sure many women complain about their lack of pockets, but clearly many more prefer to the ones that look better, but have no pockets.I'm sure that having a man tell the thread how they are the ultimate experts on how the fashion industry operates and what women buy and don't buy for the third time, presenting no evidence other than their supposed expertise on women's actions, ignoring all arguments against it and indeed the actual business practices of the fashion industry will do the trick. Sure of it.

GWYou speak as if anyone on the other side offered any more evidence (other than the laughably hypocritical implication that some arguments should weigh less because of the gender of their speakers). I'm much more inclined to believe the industry doesn't see enough of a a market to exploit than to think that the fashion industry would opt out of making millions of dollars out of sexism. But to each their own, I guess.

Oh, and AFAICT, no one claimed expertise on anything.
You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.

Grey WolfHah! "Mansplaining" is literally a term created to devalue someone's opinion based on their gender. If you think I'm mistaken or being condescending, you could say something like "you're mistaken" or "you're being condescending" (happens both men and women), but instead you prefer to imply that a opinion is worth less because the speaker is male. It's extremely hypocritical. Or do you think that when a woman comments on the behavior of men and I disagree with what she says, it'd be perfectly reasonable and to accuse her of "femsplaining" or some other silly BS term made to silence dissent based on her gender?

(Also, here's a secret: You don't have to be affected by an issue to learn/understand/know about it. Nor does being affected by it necessarily make you better at understanding it or its causes).

Until you can provide actual evidence that the fashion industry is more interested in keeping women pocketless than in making a profit, I'll be far more inclined to believe that it has the same agenda as every other industry in a capitalist society: "Make more money".

But, hey! If you're so convinced that deep-pocketed pants for women has such a huge potential market, that's your chance to become a millionaire!



You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.
Oh, really? Please refrain from explaining anything else to anyone or calling anyone else out until you have revealed your sex to the rest of us. I just want to make sure we're being consistent with your beliefs here. I wouldn't want you to overstep and speak to something that you have no business speaking about. Thanks for cooperating and sticking to your convictions...

While I admit that I may have confused Lemmy and AMFV a bit, it looks to me as if when told by women that the market didn't meet their demands Lemmy concluded that the women here were wrong about what women want rather than entertain the idea that there were anything wrong with the market as it is today.
GW then, perhaps too harshly, called out Lemmy on what they perceived to be "mansplaining".
Then Lemmy and you called GW out on that saying it was hypocritical to use that term both because GW has not disclosed GW's gender and because you believe the term to be inherently sexist (as in created to diminish one sex's input, in this case men). Since I disagree on both counts, I intervened.

Now I agree that this tangent has been going on long enough, and since we seem to be of one mind on when someone's appartenance to a group is a relevant factor in how relevant their input is and GW has apparently left the thread, I suggset we drop it.



There, now do you have anything to say about my amateur analysis on why the fashion industry could be motivated mostly by money and end up making sexist decisions?

[FinnLassie]

It sounds like the issue you are having is not that you want pants with pockets, but you want pants with a particular style, at a particular cost, made for a particular (and perhaps slightly unusual) body shape, made out of certain materials as well as having pockets.

Bolding by me.

Curves ARE NOT AN UNUSUAL TYPE IN WOMEN. Almost all women that I talk to just cannot find fitting jeans/trousers, as they're usually made for one specific body type. However, this is changing, as some stores are starting to offer different cuts, but they all share the same colours. This is still relatively rare though, and if you want pockets with these styles, it's 15-30 euros extra. I have not in my lifetime met a woman that likes not having front pockets. We moan and groan having to carry crap inconveniently in our bags. And I **** you not, often even the more expensive stuff is made of the same crappy materials as the cheap ones - they just charge extra witht he label.

I have no idea who you've met and talked to, if they prefer inconvenience over convenience.

Women live in a world where capitalism has noted that they shop more, and use it for their own greediness. They remove pockets because they want women to buy bags. They give us ****ty fabrics because they want us to buy more often. They charge extra for convenience because they're greedy, needy and blinded by money equalling power. Also, for some reason they think it's ok to amp up the prices when they transform a product to a pinkish/lavender hue.

It's not rocket science.

[WarKitty]

Bolding by me.

Curves ARE NOT AN UNUSUAL TYPE IN WOMEN. Almost all women that I talk to just cannot find fitting jeans/trousers, as they're usually made for one specific body type. However, this is changing, as some stores are starting to offer different cuts, but they all share the same colours. This is still relatively rare though, and if you want pockets with these styles, it's 15-30 euros extra. I have not in my lifetime met a woman that likes not having front pockets. We moan and groan having to carry crap inconveniently in our bags. And I **** you not, often even the more expensive stuff is made of the same crappy materials as the cheap ones - they just charge extra witht he label.

I have no idea who you've met and talked to, if they prefer inconvenience over convenience.

Women live in a world where capitalism has noted that they shop more, and use it for their own greediness. They remove pockets because they want women to buy bags. They give us ****ty fabrics because they want us to buy more often. They charge extra for convenience because they're greedy, needy and blinded by money equalling power. Also, for some reason they think it's ok to amp up the prices when they transform a product to a pinkish/lavender hue.

It's not rocket science.

I think the fabrics thing is really being overlooked here.

I mentioned upthread - women's clothing, dollar for dollar, is made from much cheaper fabric than men's clothing. Clothing made from sturdy fabrics that actually last is often considered a specialty item. The trouble is sometimes it's cheaper to make lousy clothing and put it out there anyway, than to make good clothing. Especially if the upcharge on higher quality clothing is such that people can't afford it. A lot of people I know work fairly low-end jobs. I know I don't have a lot of extra money to spend on high end clothes, because I'm busy paying rent and groceries and a bunch of money for crappy insurance.

The trouble is they can get enough people to buy clothes at inflated prices, so they will. And if that means a lot of women can't afford pants that they like or have the features they want, the market doesn't really care about that. They put out a product women will buy, not necessarily the one they want.

[AMFV]

I do agree that materials play a big part.

AND as far as the handbag conspiracy..
There's a lot of pants companies that don't make bags and therefore would have no incentive to encourage people to buy them. And even in the companies that make both they have no way to guarantee some people won't buy other brand handbags.

[FinnLassie]

I do agree that materials play a big part.

AND as far as the handbag conspiracy..
There's a lot of pants companies that don't make bags and therefore would have no incentive to encourage people to buy them. And even in the companies that make both they have no way to guarantee some people won't buy other brand handbags.

Those companies that still do offer bags of course try to aim that people will stay brand loyal and get the (crappy) quality bags from the same space.

Yes, it doesn't apply to all companies. But it just feeds to it.

Capitalism sucks.

[137beth]

There's a lot of pants companies that don't make bags and therefore would have no incentive to encourage people to buy them.

As pointed out upthread, clothing found in brick-and-mortar stores almost all comes from a very small number of large companies. Are there any big clothing companies in the "clothing oligarchy" that don't also sell bags?

[WarKitty]

As pointed out upthread, clothing found in brick-and-mortar stores almost all comes from a very small number of large companies. Are there any big clothing companies in the "clothing oligarchy" that don't also sell bags?

Yeah, it's actually pretty impressive how few mainstream brands there are out there, when you get to the top of it.

[Lemmy]

While I admit that I may have confused Lemmy and AMFV a bit, it looks to me as if when told by women that the market didn't meet their demands Lemmy concluded that the women here were wrong about what women want rather than entertain the idea that there were anything wrong with the market as it is today.
GW then, perhaps too harshly, called out Lemmy on what they perceived to be "mansplaining".
Then Lemmy and you called GW out on that saying it was hypocritical to use that term both because GW has not disclosed GW's gender and because you believe the term to be inherently sexist (as in created to diminish one sex's input, in this case men). Since I disagree on both counts, I intervened.

My conclusion there isn't that "I know what women want better than they do". My conclusion there is "This product (pocketless pants) is far more readily available in the market because it's consistently sells more than the alternative (pocketed pants). Presumably to women, because who else would buy/wear women's clothes in significant numbers?".

Then I was accused of "mansplaining" (which IS inherently sexist, as is any gender that implies a certain behavior applies to only one gender) because I dared to disagree with the idea that reason the issue exists is some evil conspiracy against women.

If you disagree, then next time a woman comments on men's behavior, actions or mindset, tell her she is "femsplaining" and see if it sounds sexist, biggoted and/or condescending.

[WarKitty]

What I want to know is why men's clothing is consistently thicker and better stitched than women's clothing for the same price.

[FinnLassie]

Pocketless pants sell more only due to the fact that they're affordable. It's always a huge dilemma when buying jeans. "Do I pay 25 euros for this, or pay double for the same quality stretch jeans with pockets?"

I used to be able to buy this Finnish brand of jeans a few years ago. They were full denim and only cost about 40 euros - a tad more than in the high street shops, but completely managable knowing that they last for closer to two years (probably would've last for longer, but my body type has never known the concept of thighs not chafing). Nowadays this same brand sells slightly stretch material jeans for 80 euros. I was absolutely livid when they literally broke after three uses. Their cheaper jeans now cost 50 euros, and they're even worse in quality. What the hell happened? Oh yeah. Greediness.

[tomandtish]

Seeing 2D8HP being wholesome warms the heart.

Anyway, how can I vote for something that is nto a thing? Like a video game about jousting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joust_(video_game)) or a movie about aliens x knights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krull_(film)).

Do I have to make these by myself?

Fixed that for you. Sorry, couldn't resist. :smallbiggrin:

[Amazon]

I don't think so myself. I think we put too much emphasis on a person's demographic when determining how valuable their comment is, and not enough emphasis on the content of that comment.

I believe the idea of mansplaining and why it can't be applied for guys is because women had their voices silenced by men for years throughout history, man spoke for us for generations, they made choices for us and decided what we could and could not do. And that's why it's a serious offense for some when they do it now because it has all that historical weight. Get it?

Also, executives trying to make nothing but money removes the soul of things and to me that's not a good thing. Money has to be a byproduct not an aim.

"I was told, 'No sacrilege because of the Spanish market, no nudes because of the Italian market, no blood because of the French market and no martyrized animals because of the English market.' And I was supposed to be making a horror film!"
— Georges Franju.

[Kyberwulf]

Because, women keep buying cheaper made products for the same prices?

I don't know, it seems to me that women want tailor made products from people that make cookie cutter garbage. If you want things that fit you criteria of shape, color, design, material, fit, and all the other stuff you expect. I think you might want to consider you will have to pay more for it.

Otherwise, welcome to a man's world. Were everything fits weird, looks boring, and is pretty cheap. I mean, I am in the same boat as you. I found clothes at Target, that I loved. T-shirts that were amazingly fitting. Looked nice, and had some good colors. Plain with no logos, and I loved the material. Guess what, they didn't sell well, and they changed the products. I WISH I bought way more of the shirts that they had at the time. I looked all over for the same style and material. Nope. Can't find them now. I am like the Goldie locks now. This shirt is to thick, gets me to hot. The colors aren't what I like. I am not into v necks.

Anyway, I just find it funny that we are being "femsplained" to, because we, as guys, don't have NEARLY the same amount of thought given to what we would wear. I mean, have you GONE through a mens section? Everything is so uniform there. About the ONLY thing that changes... Is the print on the material. Seriously, women are so privileged in fashion.. That you can sit there and complain about your whims not being catered to about the shape, color, design, material, fit, and all the other stuff you feel privileged. When we as guys.. get our choice from the same two style of t shirts. V necks or Crew cut. with different decals.

[lio45]

There are all sorts of things that influence production and distribution besides hostile conspiracies, which always seem to get overlooked in favor of claiming that people are pushing conspiracy theories. Notably, in the case of clothing (though this absolutely applies to other goods as well to varying degrees).

1) Clothing benefits from a brick and mortar store because you can physically check fit, in a way that you can't online. This same thing applies to pretty much anything with a significant tactile experience - furniture, non-standardized sporting equipment (e.g. bowling balls of varying weights), vehicles, so on and so forth.

2) The structure of how brick and mortar stores get stocked favors the establishment of a few major brands, with everything else relegated to the sidelines. Space for products on shelves is straight up sold to companies, which creates a high barrier of entry, allowing for the development of oligopolies. These are disguised to some extent by the number of seemingly distinct brands that all trace back to the same owners, but if you actually do that tracing you'll find a small handful of competitors in most cases.

There's still plenty of competition, though. Doubtless if the market really demanded something as simple as pockets, the industry would follow suit.

The auto industry is a sector where the barrier to entry is MUCH higher than clothing, and there's only a handful of competitors... yet no one makes a large luxurious 2-dr sedan with a manual transmission anymore. On an internet forum, you can EASILY find a few guys who swear they'd buy one if offered. Conspiracy?




3) Corporate cultures tend to be extremely short sighted. As has been pointed out above the nebulous market is made up of actual people making decisions, and these people have incentives. These incentives disproportionately work out such that the decision makers are laser focused on quarterly profits, where anything that takes more than three months to pay dividends is much harder to get done. Establishing, producing, and marketing a new type of clothing could easily take more than three months, particularly given that fashion is volatile and there's nothing to follow for clothing of that class.

Wanting pockets and preferring function (a.k.a. pockets) over form is not something that's subject to volatility over a few months... either most customers prefer pockets, or else they prefer the cleanliness and fashionableness and somewhat cheaper price of clothes that don't have pockets.

Again, if there was so much money to be made tapping into that pent-up demand, the industry would do it. It's not rocket science.

These clothes already exist (as per what Heliomance pointed out). If they sold that well, then they'd be easier to find.

[lio45]

That makes sense, however if your conclusion is "women don't actually want pocketed pants depite what the women here say." then the accusation is warranted.

Well, let's see what we have at the moment. We have:
1) a handful of women on this forum who say they want pocketed pants (3-4 women out of 3.5 billion);
2) the fact that the industry doesn't offer much in terms of pocketed pants, in spite of the fact they're not a technological challenge at all, being demonstrably feasible to produce;
3) the obvious assumption that the clothing industry is interested in making more money if possible.

His conclusion is sound; based on the above, I'm reaching the same one.

It's like finding a few people on an internet forum who all say they thought New Coke was delicious, and somehow choosing to assign more weight to that sample than to the clearly documented fact that New Coke was a resounding market failure. Makes no sense.

[Peelee]

It's like finding a few people on an internet forum who all say they thought New Coke was delicious, and somehow choosing to assign more weight to that sample than to the clearly documented fact that New Coke was a resounding market failure. Makes no sense.

This is more than a little amusing, since New Coke generally did fairly well outside the South and consistently tied or beat the old formula in blind taste tests, but ultimately failed due to incredibly vocal backlash rather than actual market failure. At worst, sales leveled off a bit, but Coke was already losing ground to Pepsi for some time. New Coke was a remarkable example of small but vocal backlash largely overpowering actual market performance.

[2D8HP]

Because, women keep buying cheaper made products for the same prices?

I don't know, it seems to me that women want tailor made products from people that make cookie cutter garbage. If you want things that fit you criteria of shape, color, design, material, fit, and all the other stuff you expect. I think you might want to consider you will have to pay more for it.

Otherwise, welcome to a man's world. Were everything fits weird, looks boring, and is pretty cheap. I mean, I am in the same boat as you. I found clothes at Target, that I loved. T-shirts that were amazingly fitting. Looked nice, and had some good colors. Plain with no logos, and I loved the material. Guess what, they didn't sell well, and they changed the products. I WISH I bought way more of the shirts that they had at the time. I looked all over for the same style and material. Nope. Can't find them now. I am like the Goldie locks now. This shirt is to thick, gets me to hot. The colors aren't what I like. I am not into v necks.

Anyway, I just find it funny that we are being "femsplained" to, because we, as guys, don't have NEARLY the same amount of thought given to what we would wear. I mean, have you GONE through a mens section? Everything is so uniform there. About the ONLY thing that changes... Is the print on the material. Seriously, women are so privileged in fashion.. That you can sit there and complain about your whims not being catered to about the shape, color, design, material, fit, and all the other stuff you feel privileged. When we as guys.. get our choice from the same two style of t shirts. V necks or Crew cut. with different decals.

"Can't find them now"

"Everything is so uniform there"

"get our choice from the same two style"

:confused:

Um...

....so you "voted with your wallet" before, but now what you want isn't as easily (or maybe at all), and you feel ill served by the marketplace?

Yeah, I think that's the whole point of the thread.

That so many women feel ill-served by a difficulty in finding practical clothing (a difficulty that my wife reports has increased in the last ten years, which I can tell is true just from when I hang out laundry to dry), doesen't mean that your difficulty in finding a greater variety of styles in the men's section doesn't spiring from the same sources

IIRC, the OP's Kvetch was about a lame X-Men movie spin-off, and we're all whistling in the wind with our frustrations and a few "best of all possible worlds" market fundamentalists are chiming in with economic lessons.

Everyone has their own jam, but....

[Kyberwulf]

I honestly don't know what the point of this thread is anymore.

I am just saying that some people seem to think the fashion.. or clothes industry is set up to ... I don't know. Hold women back? I am merely saying... from their point of privilege, they don't seem to see how much more variety they have. So much so that they want a article of clothes in the exact style, cut, material, and design they want. All on a moment's notice, of the rack. Tailor made.

[FinnLassie]

I honestly don't know what the point of this thread is anymore.

I am just saying that some people seem to think the fashion.. or clothes industry is set up to ... I don't know. Hold women back? I am merely saying... from their point of privilege, they don't seem to see how much more variety they have. So much so that they want a article of clothes in the exact style, cut, material, and design they want. All on a moment's notice, of the rack. Tailor made.

If you can't take our struggles and personal experiences seriously and have your own weird concept on this matter, I don't know what to say anymore either.

[snowblizz]

What I want to know is why men's clothing is consistently thicker and better stitched than women's clothing for the same price.

Because the women who buy us men our clothes won't accept shoddy quality.


Serisouly though. I'll give it a shot of musing about it.

Men don't buy a lot of clothes. And we wear them until they are rags. If we find something we like we'll keep buying it until it stops getting made. Clothing manufacturers know that men need much tougher fabrics to survive our daily activities of hunting mammoths and whatnot.

Women on the other hand are fickle beings that stop wearing clothes for esoteric reason like it doesn't "fit with other stuff" and "trends". Which means the items are used less before discarded. It's more of a buy, hardly use, throw away cycle. Which means the industry can often get away with making lower quality items at higher prices.

Yes, the above is rife with inaccuracies and generalised assumptions, but that's how it looks to me as an observer like they are thinking. That thinking of course is based on ages old thinking and gender roles slowly changeing. Apparently to this day boys' clothes and girls' clothes of the same size have boys' clothes being loser and girls' tighter. When confronted with this fact a rather uncomfortable executive replies, "well you know how boys are so more active rough and tumble and need more leevay in clotes..."

TL:DR
The clothing industry thinks they can "get away with" making less quality women's clothing, for reason I suspect are only half based in reality

[Liquor Box]

Bolding by me.

Curves ARE NOT AN UNUSUAL TYPE IN WOMEN.

I didn't say it was. IO speculated that some of the women that were having trouble finding clothes might be having trouble because their body shape is not a common one. If a person is unusually tall or short, or fat or thing, or curvy, or not curvy, or have big calves relative to their thighs (or vice versa) it is likely that they will have more trouble finding clothes that fit, than someone who shares a body shape with a significant other of number people of their gender. Whether this is right or wrong, it is not a failing of the market - the market is still supplying what most people want.


Almost all women that I talk to just cannot find fitting jeans/trousers, as they're usually made for one specific body type. However, this is changing, as some stores are starting to offer different cuts, but they all share the same colours. This is still relatively rare though, and if you want pockets with these styles, it's 15-30 euros extra. I have not in my lifetime met a woman that likes not having front pockets. We moan and groan having to carry crap inconveniently in our bags. And I **** you not, often even the more expensive stuff is made of the same crappy materials as the cheap ones - they just charge extra witht he label.

If you think that the fit is slowly changing so that more women are able to get clothes that fit their body-shape then that is a great example of the market working.

You have never met a woman in your life who does not want front pockets? I just asked three women now, and they all agreed if pants with pockets, and pants without pockets were always available, they would sometimes choose the pockets and sometimes choose no pockets (because they think that leads to a better fit). So there are definitely some women who sometimes prefer not-pockets. As several people have pointed out, the market will not always deliver what you and your circle of friends wants.

There are lots of pants with pockets (may people have pointed to them). There are many pants without pockets. But you may not always find the pockets in the exact size, fit, style, colour, fabric, price etc etc pants that you want.


I have no idea who you've met and talked to, if they prefer inconvenience over convenience.

I believe that every single person I have ever met would sometimes choose something else (like style or looks) over convenience. If people always chose convenience, probably every person in the world would shave their head (no need to wash, no need to get it cut), but yet people usually choose the style of having hair over the convenience of not.


Women live in a world where capitalism has noted that they shop more, and use it for their own greediness. They remove pockets because they want women to buy bags. They give us ****ty fabrics because they want us to buy more often. They charge extra for convenience because they're greedy, needy and blinded by money equalling power. Also, for some reason they think it's ok to amp up the prices when they transform a product to a pinkish/lavender hue.


You talk about "they" as if the market or industry was one big monolith. But it is not, market is made up of many many suppliers (as well as consumers). In that context your conspiracy theory simply does not make sense. There are many companies that supply pants that do not also supply handbags. So those companies would get no benefit from removing pockets. Actually, they would get a huge benefit from selling pants with pockets (if you were right that there was a large unmet demand), because they would sell lots more pants to all these women which are (according to you) crying out for pants with pockets.

You are right about one potential failing in the market though. That is that the incentive may exist to make products that will not last, so people have to replace them (with the counter incentive being to foster a reputation for quality products). However, and I may be speaking from a position of economic privilege here, my perception is that people rarely wear their clothes to the extent that they are falling apart - so it may not be something that applies to clothes. But it is a real possibility with electronic goods.

[Liquor Box]

I believe the idea of mansplaining and why it can't be applied for guys is because women had their voices silenced by men for years throughout history, man spoke for us for generations, they made choices for us and decided what we could and could not do. And that's why it's a serious offense for some when they do it now because it has all that historical weight. Get it?

So if men have had a greater voice for generations (and I agree they have), do you think the answer is to address that by giving everyone an equal voice, or by giving women a much greater voice to make up for the fact that men have had a greater voice in some other contexts?


Also, executives trying to make nothing but money removes the soul of things and to me that's not a good thing. Money has to be a byproduct not an aim.

And they beauty of the market is that you can have exactly that. You can choose to buy many products that are not made by large corporations, but are instead made by a local craftsperson. It's not the choice most people make, but it is certainly a choice open to you with respect to many products.


"I was told, 'No sacrilege because of the Spanish market, no nudes because of the Italian market, no blood because of the French market and no martyrized animals because of the English market.' And I was supposed to be making a horror film!"
— Georges Franju.

I completely agree - censorship (either from rules or from those who protests films with scenes they don't like) flies contrary to the market.

[Lemmy]

I believe the idea of mansplaining and why it can't be applied for guys is because women had their voices silenced by men for years throughout history, man spoke for us for generations, they made choices for us and decided what we could and could not do. And that's why it's a serious offense for some when they do it now because it has all that historical weight. Get it?Doesn't matter. What people in the past did to others is their responsibility and only theirs. They, and no one else, deserve the blame and credit for everything they did.

No one should be punished for the deeds of others. What you're basically saying is "you share a common trait with someone who did something wrong, therefore you should be considered guilty of their crimes. And I should be rewarded/compensated for things I didn't do because I share a common trait with someone who did".

People aren't entitled to harm others because someone else harmed them. And they're definitely not entitled to be free of criticism for their actions and behavior just because someone else did the same actions to others.


Also, executives trying to make nothing but money removes the soul of things and to me that's not a good thing. Money has to be a byproduct not an aim.Well... Too bad. That's how things are. Personal gain will always be a greater motivation than artistic integrity. Whether you, me or anyone else likes it is irrelevant.

[Knaight]

There's still plenty of competition, though. Doubtless if the market really demanded something as simple as pockets, the industry would follow suit.

The auto industry is a sector where the barrier to entry is MUCH higher than clothing, and there's only a handful of competitors... yet no one makes a large luxurious 2-dr sedan with a manual transmission anymore. On an internet forum, you can EASILY find a few guys who swear they'd buy one if offered. Conspiracy?

The entire point of that post was that conspiracy is unnecessary and that markets are imperfect. The auto industry also fits some of the specific patterns of clothing pretty well (oligopolies, structural factors that favor local purchase, volatile fashions entered into on outdated information, in that case made far worse by the much longer production cycle of cars), and those same reasons could easily lead to the long term neglect of a potentially profitable type of product without a conspiracy ever being involved. Whether the large luxurious 2-dr sedan with a manual transmission is one of those is a different matter entirely.

That "doubtless if the market demanding something as simple as pockets the industry would follow suit" is exactly where the argument goes off the rails. Specific implementations are more complicated than that, and as I pointed out in my previous post there are a whole host of reasons why something might be demanded by the market and still not supplied by the market, even if suppliers easily could supply it. That little sentence fragment is where the economic equivalents of frictionless planes get introduced.

[Glorthindel]

I am just saying that some people seem to think the fashion.. or clothes industry is set up to ... I don't know. Hold women back? I am merely saying... from their point of privilege, they don't seem to see how much more variety they have. So much so that they want a article of clothes in the exact style, cut, material, and design they want. All on a moment's notice, of the rack. Tailor made.

Also, as a man, it would be nice to actually walk into a mixed clothes store and find my items on the ground floor, rather than having to drag my ass into either the basement or the top floor every time.

[Liquor Box]

The entire point of that post was that conspiracy is unnecessary and that markets are imperfect. The auto industry also fits some of the specific patterns of clothing pretty well (oligopolies, structural factors that favor local purchase, volatile fashions entered into on outdated information, in that case made far worse by the much longer production cycle of cars), and those same reasons could easily lead to the long term neglect of a potentially profitable type of product without a conspiracy ever being involved. Whether the large luxurious 2-dr sedan with a manual transmission is one of those is a different matter entirely.

That "doubtless if the market demanding something as simple as pockets the industry would follow suit" is exactly where the argument goes off the rails. Specific implementations are more complicated than that, and as I pointed out in my previous post there are a whole host of reasons why something might be demanded by the market and still not supplied by the market, even if suppliers easily could supply it. That little sentence fragment is where the economic equivalents of frictionless planes get introduced.

I agree that the market is imperfect (although I do not think we agree about how far from perfect it is). But few systems (if any) are.

Can you suggest a mode for determining what products are produced at what price that you think would function better than the market?

[Peelee]

I completely agree - censorship (either from rules or from those who protests films with scenes they don't like) flies contrary to the market.

I think you missed the point. Let's rephrase it. "A won't sell in the Canadian market, B won't sell in the American market, C won't sell in the Mexican market, and they want me to make an alphabet!" It's not about censorship.

[WarKitty]

I honestly don't know what the point of this thread is anymore.

I am just saying that some people seem to think the fashion.. or clothes industry is set up to ... I don't know. Hold women back? I am merely saying... from their point of privilege, they don't seem to see how much more variety they have. So much so that they want a article of clothes in the exact style, cut, material, and design they want. All on a moment's notice, of the rack. Tailor made.

I think you're seriously underestimating how much of the differences that you see on the rack are essentially cosmetic. You'll notice we're talking about fit, quality, and functionality. A lot of that difference you see on the rack is essentially differences in color and pattern and other decorative features. If I can't find pants that aren't literally folding over on themselves at the waist when I wear a belt (if I even can, which is somewhat rare) and aren't pulling indecently over the hips, having the pants available in purple and leopard print and with lacing up the legs doesn't help a whole lot. Same thing if what I want is a plain fabric that lasts rather than something flimsy and trendy.

I don't exactly have a super rare body type either, and I'd say 75% of pants on that rack simply don't come in a shape where I can actually wear them and not either have fabric wrinkles under the belt or simply have them falling down.

Edit: The belt loops thing is probably important. Most non-jean pants for women don't come with belt loops. So you have to have a better fit, because the fit is the only thing keeping your pants in place.

[Fyraltari]

My conclusion there isn't that "I know what women want better than they do". My conclusion there is "This product (pocketless pants) is far more readily available in the market because it's consistently sells more than the alternative (pocketed pants). Presumably to women, because who else would buy/wear women's clothes in significant numbers?".


Then I was accused of "mansplaining" (which IS inherently sexist, as is any gender that implies a certain behavior applies to only one gender) because I dared to disagree with the idea that reason the issue exists is some evil conspiracy against women.
1) First there have been several explanations that have been brought for that do not involve conspiracies. You didn't adress them in any way.
2)The input of every woman here has run contrary to your conclusion that women do not actually want pockets. Rather than question your conclusion based on the evidence proposed you dismiss it as irrelevant. That is called confirlation bias.


Well, let's see what we have at the moment. We have:
1) a handful of women on this forum who say they want pocketed pants (3-4 women out of 3.5 billion);
2) the fact that the industry doesn't offer much in terms of pocketed pants, in spite of the fact they're not a technological challenge at all, being demonstrably feasible to produce;
3) the obvious assumption that the clothing industry is interested in making more money if possible.

His conclusion is sound; based on the above, I'm reaching the same one.

It's like finding a few people on an internet forum who all say they thought New Coke was delicious, and somehow choosing to assign more weight to that sample than to the clearly documented fact that New Coke was a resounding market failure. Makes no sense.
Unless you can present a reasonnable argument than frequenting this forum would be linked with wanting pocket I find "some evidence all in accord" more convincing than "no evidence".

"3) the obvious assumption that the clothing industry is interested in making more money if possible."
Again, that has been discussed further up.
The fashion industry is an oligopoly, there may be a great many number of brands out ther but the decision-makers are few and not only are those, by virtue of being at the top of the social ladder, very likely to beconservatives and risk-averse but they most likely (almost certainlyin fact) profit from all branches of the fshion industry, including, yes, hand-bags and have every motive to crush or buy the more change-prone competition when it gets big.

The market will eventually fit women demands on pockets but it has been taking a long time and is not done yet, and when it will be done it is willstill be behind on a great number of other issues some of which probably haven't develooped yet. Because the market tends to follow social changes with quite a lag (at least it seems to do so to me who am, I admit it not an expert). And that lag is a failure.

[Kyberwulf]

Again, this has been addressed. If you see something that is lacking in the marketplace. You can go and start tying to make that thing you see, and go try sell it.

The flaw with voting with your wallet, is that people assume that just because they vote. The marketplace MUST adhere to their whims. Even if they are in the group that didn't win the vote.

That the fact that there are only a couple choices, means they MUST choose one of those options.

The problem, is that people think they are owed something. You aren't.

That's one reason why I "don't take your struggles and personal experience" is because, despite you assumptions I do try see things from your perspective, I can't. People are talking on here like Belt loops and pockets are some great moral injustice, that needs to be correct by someone else. Rather then getting people together and trying to start some new fashion. People think they are standing up for women's rights, when in actuality they are trying to stand up to get special privilege.


I can't take most feminist arguments seriously, because instead of focusing on any of the real world issues... They focus on trivial and banal things, like who is in a movie, Belt loops, who is getting rich and Pockets. There is a whole HOST of things out there that affect MEN and WOMEN, that is a truly Moral INjustice. Not JUST women. I don't care what happen to people before I was born, and who did what to who. The people that can change things for the better is us. Yet, we can't because people can't let go of the past, can't let go of people they never met being done wrong by people they never met.

You aren't owed belt loops and pockets because women suffered a long time ago. THEY suffered. Make an argument to me that doesn't evolve trying to guilt trip me, about what happen to people in the past. Why are you OWED special privileges in clothes, when people all over the world don't even have that. Heck people in America are struggling with getting necessary things...Men AND women.

[WarKitty]

Again, this has been addressed. If you see something that is lacking in the marketplace. You can go and start tying to make that thing you see, and go try sell it.

We've addressed that too. The vast majority of us can't afford to buy custom made boutique clothing. It's simply not possible, unless you're a wealthy individual who can afford to buy a few factories to get started, to actually make that thing and sell it at any sort of competitive price (or even have access to most brick and mortar places to sell). Most of us are already working on the budget just to afford the $60 flimsy dress pants that are standard for work. People who can afford special stuff already have a market for them.

And you missed my point about belt loops. My point there is if you're not getting belt loops on pants, you have to be a lot more demanding about fit to get a basically wearable set of pants. You don't have a belt holding it at your waist, so if the waist is too big the pants don't, you know, stay up. And walking around with your panties hanging out of your pants and your crotch at your knees doesn't work.

[FinnLassie]

I actually just recently almost bought jeans that had pockets, but then I realised that they didn't have a single belt loop. Bullet dodged. And they cost like 40 euros. It... just... why. The production cost to add those belt loops isn't probably even more than a couple of cents.

[Liquor Box]

I actually just recently almost bought jeans that had pockets, but then I realised that they didn't have a single belt loop. Bullet dodged. And they cost like 40 euros. It... just... why. The production cost to add those belt loops isn't probably even more than a couple of cents.

In answer to your 'why', because there may be some people who would prefer to wear jeans without belt loops. Like you, I am a belt wearer myself, but you just need to walk down the street to see that other people have diverse preferences for clothes.

Anyway, to hark back to the main topic of this thread, you voted with your wallet by not buying the belt-less jeans. If almost all other women cast the same vote (choose not to buy the belt-less jeans) then the supplier will probably not continue to make them. Nothing wrong with clothing suppliers experimenting.

[lio45]

The entire point of that post was that conspiracy is unnecessary and that markets are imperfect.

True, they're not like spherical cows in a vacuum... but they're also not that imperfect. All those possible reasons (inertia/conservativeness/risk-averseness/resistance to change) may play roles, but I have a hard time imagining them preventing all industry actors from doing such a simple and risk-less experiment as adding pockets.

In other words - it's a much more realistic approximation to consider the market perfect than it is to consider it imperfect to the point it somewhat resists a powerful demand that's also super easy to meet.

To reuse an auto industry analogy, that would be like if Toyota insisted on only making Corollas in black (taking a page from Old Henry with his Model T color palette...) while at the same time having every other of their models readily available in any of the corporate colors. It's easy to see that this behavior would not make any business sense, because when people pay that much for a vehicle nowadays, they usually want to get a color they like, and Toyota already has the technology and infrastructure and tooling and paint it needs to paint auto bodies.

However, if it did do that, and it worked well for them and they continued to make money year after year... we'd have to conclude that Corolla buyers are generally so utilitarian that they don't mind not getting to pick their car's color, as they consider it a mere tool, and that they're brand-loyal enough to be fine with that limited choice.

The reason we can make that assumption and be right is that free market usually works approximately like that supply/demand perfection (even though it's of course not exactly there) of the theory.

[WarKitty]

I actually just recently almost bought jeans that had pockets, but then I realised that they didn't have a single belt loop. Bullet dodged. And they cost like 40 euros. It... just... why. The production cost to add those belt loops isn't probably even more than a couple of cents.

What I want to know is, after all that, why my jeggings have belt loops and pockets. They're jeggings! They're pretty much entirely spandex! They're clearly far too tight to actually use pockets, and you're not wearing a belt with them.

[Liquor Box]

I think you missed the point. Let's rephrase it. "A won't sell in the Canadian market, B won't sell in the American market, C won't sell in the Mexican market, and they want me to make an alphabet!" It's not about censorship.

Maybe I did miss the point. I assumed that (for examples) you couldn't have nudes because of the Italian market meant that films got a higher R rating in Italy if they showed too much nudity, not because Italains refuse to watch anything with nudity, but perhaps I was wrong.

If that was the point, then it is consistent with what I have been saying - everyone has different tastes (or requirements if we are talking about clothing fit), so not everything on the market will be suitable to every person.

[Fyraltari]

Maybe I did miss the point. I assumed that (for examples) you couldn't have nudes because of the Italian market meant that films got a higher R rating in Italy if they showed too much nudity, not because Italains refuse to watch anything with nudity, but perhaps I was wrong.

Presumably the ratings reflect the overall opinion of the population about what isand is not recommendable for which age.

At least, that's the theory.

[2D8HP]

Again, this has been addressed. If you see something that is lacking in the marketplace. You can go and start tyin to make that thing you see, and go try sell it.

The flaw with voting with your wallet, is that people assume that just because they vote. The marketplace MUST adhere to their whims. Even if they are in the group that didn't win the vote.

That the fact that there are only a couple choices, means they MUST choose one of those options.

The problem, is that people think they are owed something. You aren't.

That's one reason why I "don't take your struggles and personal experience" is because, despite you assumptions I do try see things from your perspective, I can't. People are talking on here like Belt loops and pockets are some great moral injustice, that needs to be correct by someone else. Rather then getting people together and trying to start some new fashion. People think they are standing up for women's rights, when in actuality they are trying to stand up to get special privilege.


I can't take most feminist arguments seriously, because instead of focusing on any of the real world issues... They focus on trivial and banal things, like who is in a movie, Belt loops, who is getting rich and Pockets. There is a whole HOST of things out there that affect MEN and WOMEN, that is a truly Moral INjustice. Not JUST women. I don't care what happen to people before I was born, and who did what to who. The people that can change things for the better is us. Yet, we can't because people can't let go of the past, can't let go of people they never met being done wrong by people they never met.

You aren't owed belt loops and pockets because women suffered a long time ago. THEY suffered. Make an argument to me that doesn't evolve trying to guilt trip me, about what happen to people in the past. Why are you OWED special privileges in clothes, when people all over the world don't even have that. Heck people in America are struggling with getting necessary things...Men AND women.


Again, what do you think the point of the thread is dude?

It started because someone thought that the Wolverine movie was lame, did that matter more?

After some other complaints about other things in this thread, one women mentioned that pockets and total threads were now less for women's pants, than for the men's pants across the aisle, then two guy's said "Oh yeah, my wife's noticed that as well", a couple of other women mentioned the same, but also some guys said "How dare women complain".

Yes, compared to many things it's not a great injustice, but compared to the thread starting complaint about the quality of superhero movies?

Really?

I'm not qualified to call myself a feminist, but I can still hold my wife's old clothes in one hand and compare the weight to the new clothes in my other hand, and notice the loss.

Heck, it's not to the some extent, but I'm starting to notice the difference in new men's clothes as well, so it's not like we win if they lose.

I'm kinda reminded of someone (okay me) going "Well at least you got to go", when someone else talks of the crushing debt of a college education, some privileges don't mean some other burdens don't exist.

If you just said to every other kvetch in this thread "Well, make and sell it yourself", that's no fun but it's valid, but the whole anti-feminist thing just seems weird to me, pick something that effects men more, I don't know maybe that more women poison their husbands than men poison their wives, oh wait more men shoot their wives, than wives shoot their husbands, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POISONING! And on, and on, and on, and on....

I was one, but I really I don't get many young men now, because it sure seems to me from what I read and have even heard out loud, for some reason some young men seem to really have a chip on their shoulders about women that I just don't remember them having in the 1980's.

Why?

I'm thinking of my grandfather who lived long enough that I could know him, he went to war but I never heard him complain that his sister didn't, and he celebrated his daughters accomplishments, not whined about them.

I'm just barely old enough to remember when there actually was a "struggle for women's liberation", and frankly I hear more moaning about "feminists" now.

Give it up young man, there's nothing to fear or fight.

Anyway, thread topic:
That I can't walk into a store anymore and just buy a replacement cord for my electric razor and have to go on-line to buy 'em really chaps my hide.

[Friv]

Doesn't matter. What people in the past did to others is their responsibility and only theirs. They, and no one else, deserve the blame and credit for everything they did.

No one should be punished for the deeds of others. What you're basically saying is "you share a common trait with someone who did something wrong, therefore you should be considered guilty of their crimes. And I should be rewarded/compensated for things I didn't do because I share a common trait with someone who did".

Incorrect. What people did in the past is history. It continues to affect the present.

As a man, you are literally listened to more because of centuries of people silencing women and spreading cultural myths about women's voices being less important. This is a proven fact. It is not up for debate, unless you feel like ignoring science. You may not have personally shut down and oppressed women, but you're reaping the benefits from the people who did.

It's like this. If I steal fifty million dollars from an orphanage, and I use that fifty million dollars to set up a lottery, and you win fifty thousand dollars from that lottery, and a year later someone comes around to your house and tells you that you won illicit money and they would like it back for the orphanage, please, you don't get to argue that you didn't commit a crime, keep the money, and also retain the moral high ground. It doesn't matter whether you committed a crime. Whether you committed a crime is, in a very real sense, not the point. The point is that the money was stolen, and if you go around to the orphans and tell them that really, they're the bad guys for wanting their money back, you're effectively aiding the original criminal.

By arguing that you are being punished for the deeds of others, what you are saying is, "It makes me uncomfortable that I am materially benefiting from a crime that I did not commit, therefore I will refuse to admit that I am benefiting until people shut up and go away."

[Knaight]

I agree that the market is imperfect (although I do not think we agree about how far from perfect it is). But few systems (if any) are.

Can you suggest a mode for determining what products are produced at what price that you think would function better than the market?

I can suggest various specific changes to make to the market via regulations that would improve functionality, sure. However, that's not the point - the discussion here is about the specific claim that the market will guarantee that products wanted are produced. The quality of other production and pricing systems is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of that claim, and bringing them into this is just a distraction.

[Liquor Box]

I can suggest various specific changes to make to the market via regulations that would improve functionality, sure. However, that's not the point - the discussion here is about the specific claim that the market will guarantee that products wanted are produced. The quality of other production and pricing systems is totally irrelevant to the accuracy of that claim, and bringing them into this is just a distraction.

I don't think a single person has claimed that the market will guarantee that the products wanted are produced. I don't think anyone is claiming the market guarantees anything, or is in anyway perfect.

I think the discussion of the thread is whether the market (ie 'voting with your wallet') is a terrible system, and I think that is a hard argument to make out if you are unable to (have not) nominate even a theoretically better system.

Even in your argument with Lio, it is clear that he is not saying the market would guarantee a certain result (he uses the words "it's a much more realistic approximation") and instead saying that a strong inference can be drawn from the market, and that inference outweighs the three or four people in this thread claiming that their personal preferences are not met.

[Liquor Box]

Presumably the ratings reflect the overall opinion of the population about what isand is not recommendable for which age.

At least, that's the theory.

Yeah, it's probable an aside on the topic (which is probably my fault), but artificially restricting the availability of products that may be demanded is a restraint on the market, rather than a failing of the market itself. Thus censoring content that some people may like to see, even on the basis that most people agree with the censorship, is a restraint on the market. Of course, such a restraint/censorship may be justified in some circumstances.

[Liquor Box]

Incorrect. What people did in the past is history. It continues to affect the present.

As a man, you are literally listened to more because of centuries of people silencing women and spreading cultural myths about women's voices being less important. This is a proven fact. It is not up for debate, unless you feel like ignoring science. You may not have personally shut down and oppressed women, but you're reaping the benefits from the people who did.

It's like this. If I steal fifty million dollars from an orphanage, and I use that fifty million dollars to set up a lottery, and you win fifty thousand dollars from that lottery, and a year later someone comes around to your house and tells you that you won illicit money and they would like it back for the orphanage, please, you don't get to argue that you didn't commit a crime, keep the money, and also retain the moral high ground. It doesn't matter whether you committed a crime. Whether you committed a crime is, in a very real sense, not the point. The point is that the money was stolen, and if you go around to the orphans and tell them that really, they're the bad guys for wanting their money back, you're effectively aiding the original criminal.

By arguing that you are being punished for the deeds of others, what you are saying is, "It makes me uncomfortable that I am materially benefiting from a crime that I did not commit, therefore I will refuse to admit that I am benefiting until people shut up and go away."

You might be right about men still having more voice than women generally, because of the history of men's having had more voice.

But your example is terrible. If Lemmy won $50,000 at the lottery, he would absolutely be entitled (by law and morally) to keep that money, even of the people running the lottery obtained the money illegally (assuming that Lemmy was not somehow involved in, or aware of, the lotteries wrongdoing). He outlaid his money initially (to buy the ticket) for a chance at an improbable result. If that improbable result occurred he has good a claim to his winnings, as the lottery's innocent receptionist would have to their wages.

[WarKitty]

You might be right about men still having more voice than women generally, because of the history of men's having had more voice.

But your example is terrible. If Lemmy won $50,000 at the lottery, he would absolutely be entitled (by law and morally) to keep that money, even of the people running the lottery obtained the money illegally (assuming that Lemmy was not somehow involved in, or aware of, the lotteries wrongdoing). He outlaid his money initially (to buy the ticket) for a chance at an improbable result. If that improbable result occurred he has good a claim to his winnings, as the lottery's innocent receptionist would have to their wages.

That's not actually a universal thing. There are a lot of cases where someone can be legally forced to return money or goods simply because the person who conveyed them had no right to them.

It comes up a lot with property - for example 2 people have a nasty breakup and one partner decides to sell the other's computer. The person who bought the computer can be forced to return it, and the fraudulent seller can be forced to return the price.

[lio45]

However, that's not the point - the discussion here is about the specific claim that the market will guarantee that products wanted are produced.

As I'm saying... there's no 100.00% guarantee, but the approximation that the free market will answer the demand gets pretty close to perfect theory when there's basically no obstacles in the way.

For example, from the observed fact that cigarette butts as litter are visible everywhere on the ground in dirtier/grittier areas, we can immediately deduce that the statement "cigarette butts are extremely valuable" has got to be incorrect, because otherwise they'd either all have been picked up long ago by armies of homeless or otherwise poor people, or, even more likely, would never have been discarded by the smokers in the first place.

The approximation "if they were extremely valuable, then 'the market' would naturally find a way or another to pluck them off sidewalks and deliver them to buyers" works well in this case, because there are no major factors/barriers in the way of the free market. Cigarettes butts on the ground are literally the lowest possible hanging fruit to be reaped...

[lio45]

Even in your argument with Lio, it is clear that he is not saying the market would guarantee a certain result (he uses the words "it's a much more realistic approximation") and instead saying that a strong inference can be drawn from the market, and that inference outweighs the three or four people in this thread claiming that their personal preferences are not met.

Exactly (bold mine).

Generally speaking, if you have a sample of three or four people insisting that Very Simple Variant Y of Already Existing Product X would sell like hotcakes if only it was more available, while there have been documented cases of Variant Y being offered already, and Product X and Variant Y are made by several competing players, all of which intend to make as much money as possible by trying to supply the products that most match their customers' desires, then in the absence of any tariffs or legal impediments or supply control or whatever may be artificially restricting the possibility of offering Variant Y, you can pretty much declare that the people who think Variant Y would sell like hotcakes have got to be incorrect.

The approximation that the free market would do its job and meet the obvious demand would be acceptably valid in such a simple case.

[Liquor Box]

That's not actually a universal thing. There are a lot of cases where someone can be legally forced to return money or goods simply because the person who conveyed them had no right to them.

It comes up a lot with property - for example 2 people have a nasty breakup and one partner decides to sell the other's computer. The person who bought the computer can be forced to return it, and the fraudulent seller can be forced to return the price.

It is usually a defence to those sorts of circumstances that a person received the product in good faith and for value (ie, they didn't know it was stolen, and they paid a fair price for it).

I suspect (I might be wrong, there are a lot of different jurisdictions out there) that the partner selling the computer thing, is for where someone sells the computer to their sister for a fraction of its value (say $10), in a deliberate attempt to put it beyond the reach of their partner, and then attempts to claim that the partner is only entitled to the proceeds (the $10). If the computer was sold for a fair price (say $1000) to an unsuspecting buyer, then the person who sold it would simply be liable to their partner for the $1,000 value of the computer.

There are exceptions to the above, but usually in circumstances where the property is subject to a registered security interest (something you could look up).

In any case, I doubt there are many (if any) jurisdictions where the receptionist of the lottery (assuming they were innocent of the lotteries wrongdoing) would have to repay their wages, or where an innocent lottery winner (like Lemmy) would have to repay his winnings.

[Dr.Samurai]

I was one, but I really I don't get many young men now, because it sure seems to me from what I read and have even heard out loud, for some reason some young men seem to really have a chip on their shoulders about women that I just don't remember them having in the 1980's.

Why?
Because when you're having a conversation and put forth a point that women don't agree with (the market will provide you with pockets if it's profitable to do so), instead of useful thoughts/pushback/criticism, you get an accusation of mansplaining. Then you get three or more chuckleheads explaining why you're mansplaining. All of them either purposely or ignorantly failing to notice the very obvious claim that has been made several times now, which is a handful of people complaining in a thread is not sufficient enough to call the entire fashion industry and the free market into question or judge the wants/needs of all members of their group.

This is what you and others are saying "A few women are telling you that most women want pockets and it would be profitable for the industry to provide them, but it won't because sexism. And if you are skeptical of this claim or disagree with it, you are mansplaining."

That's where the chip on the shoulder that you're experiencing comes from. It's a reaction to the chip on everyone else's shoulders when people speak freely.

That I can't walk into a store anymore and just buy a replacement cord for my electric razor and have to go on-line to buy 'em really chaps my hide.
You struck me as straight razor man, actually...

I can suggest various specific changes to make to the market via regulations that would improve functionality, sure. However, that's not the point - the discussion here is about the specific claim that the market will guarantee that products wanted are produced.
What a cop-out. The discussion is this... if you're going to make the claim that the market is failing women, you have to demonstrate it. Show that the industry is aware of this demand, and that they know it is profitable and worthwhile to supply it, and then you can say "see? voting with your wallet doesn't work!". Until then, you can simply say it, and it won't mean much.

Even in your argument with Lio, it is clear that he is not saying the market would guarantee a certain result (he uses the words "it's a much more realistic approximation") and instead saying that a strong inference can be drawn from the market, and that inference outweighs the three or four people in this thread claiming that their personal preferences are not met.
QFT. If we stop looking to make bad guys out of people that disagree with us, we might see the logic in their opinions instead...


We recently went pants-shopping for my girlfriend (before this particular topic came up). After this conversation though, I asked her about it. Of the three jeans we bought, one had fake pockets (which I didn't even know existed until this thread!), one had tiny (basically useless) pockets, and one had legitimate pockets. I was with her and I know that we weren't looking for pockets when we bought the jeans. Her old pants were starting to sag on her and she looked like a farmer in them so she wanted jeans that fit and look better. But in light of this thread I asked her if she wanted pockets or would prefer pants with pockets. The response was an enthusiastic yes. The reason it wasn't a criteria when we were shopping is because pants with pockets are few and far between so the chances of finding some that also fit well are slim. So she simply prioritizes the fit.

This seems to suggest to me what WarKitty (I think) has been saying, that the market will have difficulty seeing the demand because the scarcity of pockets means women might simply abandon the idea of looking for them because they need pants that fit.

But I wouldn't then leap to the conclusion, as GW did, that women will never get pants with pockets, or harp on about the failures of the market as others have, as if to suggest that this is all a hopeless cause for women. I haven't seen anything posted here that comes remotely close to suggesting that.

[Chen]

While there are differences in men's and women's pants, I know my wife can fit into some men's jeans and that's a good alternative to the pocketless women's pants out there. You have to try more sizes to try and find some that fit but this should be an option to consider. It can help send the proper market signal of what women want in their clothing (function over form in this example).

It's like the man vs woman bathroom products that are exactly the same but more expensive for women. Women definitely need to stop buying those products. But advertising is insidious and many people will buy the one that's for their gender/sex even if it's identical to the opposite gender/sex's product which is cheaper.

[WarKitty]

While there are differences in men's and women's pants, I know my wife can fit into some men's jeans and that's a good alternative to the pocketless women's pants out there. You have to try more sizes to try and find some that fit but this should be an option to consider. It can help send the proper market signal of what women want in their clothing (function over form in this example).

Although I mentioned upthread, that really depends on both the type of pants you're buying and your own body shape. I'm fairly curvy and I'm typically shopping for dress pants for work. That means men's pants usually aren't on the table for me.


We recently went pants-shopping for my girlfriend (before this particular topic came up). After this conversation though, I asked her about it. Of the three jeans we bought, one had fake pockets (which I didn't even know existed until this thread!), one had tiny (basically useless) pockets, and one had legitimate pockets. I was with her and I know that we weren't looking for pockets when we bought the jeans. Her old pants were starting to sag on her and she looked like a farmer in them so she wanted jeans that fit and look better. But in light of this thread I asked her if she wanted pockets or would prefer pants with pockets. The response was an enthusiastic yes. The reason it wasn't a criteria when we were shopping is because pants with pockets are few and far between so the chances of finding some that also fit well are slim. So she simply prioritizes the fit.

This seems to suggest to me what WarKitty (I think) has been saying, that the market will have difficulty seeing the demand because the scarcity of pockets means women might simply abandon the idea of looking for them because they need pants that fit.

Not quite what I was thinking, but pretty close. I was definitely thinking that pockets aren't necessarily the only thing that we're looking for, or the top priority (see my response to Chen there), and sometimes you buy what's there. But I also know I don't look for pockets and I honestly tend after a few hours of pants shopping to buy whatever's cheap and looks ok just so I can get OUT, because I hate pants shopping.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not quite what I was thinking, but pretty close. I was definitely thinking that pockets aren't necessarily the only thing that we're looking for, or the top priority (see my response to Chen there), and sometimes you buy what's there. But I also know I don't look for pockets and I honestly tend after a few hours of pants shopping to buy whatever's cheap and looks ok just so I can get OUT, because I hate pants shopping.
Lol, she hates it too. We went to JCP and rummaged through a giant pile of jeans until we could find a few that fit her. Even after purchasing them, I think she's going to bring one back because it doesn't fit as well when she's moving around in them. We also went to Marshalls, which is cheaper but you never know what you'll find on the racks, and it was the same thing. Pockets is not even a consideration because she's just trying to find something that fits well.

[Glorthindel]

It's like the man vs woman bathroom products that are exactly the same but more expensive for women. Women definitely need to stop buying those products. But advertising is insidious and many people will buy the one that's for their gender/sex even if it's identical to the opposite gender/sex's product which is cheaper.

I had a surprise reversal to this a few weeks back.

I was on my bi-weekly trip to buy razor blades, and by coincidence, my girlfriend had ran out too, so I suggested, rather than buy the overpriced ladies blades she usually does, she get a couple of packs from the place I buy, and use one of my many spare handles. After we had picked up a few packs, she went to get some other things, and while I was standing idle in the womens section, I saw the exact same razor blades, just in pink (and a sticker declaring "with aloe vera!"), but for a quid less.

Needless to say, this morning I happily shaved with a pink razor blade.

[2D8HP]

...You struck me as straight razor man, actually...


How'd you guess?

I do actually have and sometimes use a straight razor (and the strops, and honing stones), 'cause I just find getting replacement blades to be increasingly a hassle, as the ones thar fit my razors are increasingly scarce, I don't like buying on-line, and while new-style "improved" razors are relatively cheap, the replacement blades aren't, and I can't trust that they'll still be available after the next "improved" razor comes out!

Unfortunetly, to not cut up my face, using a straight razor (or even a safety razor) takes a lot more time in the bathroom, and with my wife and kids sharing the one we have it's less practical than for me to shave in the car or at work with an electric razor unfortunately, as I mentioned upthread, replacement parts are increasingly scarce in brick and mortar stores, even at the specialty shavers & cutlery shop, which told me "Sorry to tell you, but you have to get it from Amazon now".

Amazon! :furious:

I hate buying on-line, and I've read accounts of the horrible Orwellian conditions at the warehouses, and I don't want to encourage that!

Also, the shaver shop moved farther away 'cause rent, more and more other brick & mortar shops are dissapeering and are either replaced with cafe's, condos, or just empty storefronts, and replacement parts for everything are harder to find, if they can be found at all!

Clothes?

My and especially the new clothes my wife see at the store are thinner and shoddier, and even at the specialty work clothes stores I can't get the one's with the pockets I like in blue anymore, only black and brown!

Everyone says the new Star Wars films, and the one new Conan, and Indiana Jones movies aren't as good as the old ones (I haven't seen them yet), and I can't go to my FLGS and buy Different Worlds and The Dragon magazines off the shelves anymore!

Except for smartphones, and some novels, the 21st century marketplace is lame! :annoyed:

What's the alternative?

Short of my being King of California, I don't have one, and that is the problem!

[WarKitty]

I think what it comes down to is that the market produces what sells, which may or may not be what people want. What the corporations want is to maximize their profits. In a lot of these scenarios you have two limiters:
- People will have to buy some form of the product
- People want to buy from brick and mortar stores, which limits space

So an example I use is the housing market. I may want a cheap little studio close to where I work. But the landlord can get more money by building a luxury 3-bedroom apartment with a pool and a state of the art kitchen. So even if there are a lot of people like me who just want a smaller studio, they don't have much motivation to build them if they can find someone who will buy the big studios.

[Amazon]

Amazon! :furious:

What? :smallannoyed:

[Peelee]

What? :smallannoyed:

He's telling you to open more B&M stores.:smalltongue:

[Dr.Samurai]

How'd you guess?
You come across as old school in your posts :smallcool:.

I've been flirting with getting a straight razor myself. I'm not a fan of the disposable cartridges, because of the cost and the waste.

Unfortunetly, to not cut up my face, using a straight razor (or even a safety razor) takes a lot more time in the bathroom...
That's sort of what I'm running into myself. Currently, it takes me seconds to shave, because most of my face is a trimmed beard, and I don't use shaving cream. I just wet my face and shave. So I'm afraid to make the initial investment but fail to change my routine so that I have time to actually shave proper.

Amazon! :furious:

I hate buying on-line, and I've read accounts of the horrible Orwellian conditions at the warehouses, and I don't want to encourage that!
Agreed.

Except for smartphones, and some novels, the 21st century marketplace is lame! :annoyed:

What's the alternative?
Lol, I don't know but fair enough. Maybe the upside is it's easier to save money? :smallamused:

[Florian]

Huh, weird. I've practically given up when it comes to shaving, especially since the signs of aging starting to be more pronounced, you know, grey beard hairs, deeper wrinkles and all of that. Got me one of those electric hair cutters, set it to 2mm and I'm practically sporting a 3-days-beard for, uff, 10 years now? (I'm starting to look very much like the actor of "Dr. House" now)

As for women's clothing, that sub-topic actually amuses me. Around here, the two pocket variant is pretty much standard, especially on business wear, four and belt loops on casual. It´s not like we don't have the same global brands and also wannabes like A&F or UNIQLO. Bags and backpacks are also pretty normal for males, so I don't really see a "conspiracy" there.