[LMB] . Re: clothing, was Programming, was: Re: OT: Afterlife

Matthew George matt.msg at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 18:56:25 GMT 2020

One point you miss, Louann, is that the women's claims are actually wrong.
It beggars belief to accept the claim that the only men's clothing a given
woman can wear consists of socks and hoodies.  Lots and lots of clothing
nominally marketed at men is actually one-size-fits-all - and once you make
allowance for sizes, even more crosses the gender line.  You have to get
into fancier, more formal dress - or garments meant for display rather than
function and comfort - before most clothes are required to fit the narrower
tolerances of gender specificity.

We can only conclude that some people are dissimulating for the purpose of
dramatic effect.

More to the point, no one is assigning beliefs to people and then refuting
them.  The statements being refuted are the ones people are making
themselves.  They are failing to refute my own arguments with anything more
substantial beyond scoffing.

We live in a world where the design of teddy bears slowly shifted to
conform to parents' preferences for neonatal facial features.  Gradually,
over decades, without anyone consciously recognizing the trend until it had
already occurred.  Our system is deeply sensitive to purchaser
preferences.  To suggest that the designers, marketers, and sellers of
women's clothing are engaged in a conspiracy to ignore a concern that
reasonably includes ALL women is absurd.  There have been plenty of women
who have objected to unrealistic sizes and implausible shapes being held up
as the fashionable ideal, and there have been businesses who have begun to
cater to their demands.  Women might genuinely wish they had more
convenient carrying options, but when they voted with their dollars they
have consistently chosen otherwise, and that's what the market responds to.

I am reminded of when people complained about fast-food establishments not
carrying healthier options, and then the healthier options were
overwhelmingly not selected when the restaurants began carrying them.  Or
the people who vociferously complain about the films in a franchise, and
consistently purchase tickets to see the next installment.  It doesn't
*matter* if a film is good or not as long as people will pay money to see
it, and if you voluntarily give up money in order to see something you
expect will be awful, that is in fact what you want.

Women, considered as a whole, want stupid, uncomfortable, and ridiculous
fashion options.  Men do, too - neckties are absurd relics that persist
precisely because they're a demonstration of willingness to pay a price in
response to social demand for conformity - but women are both more
consciously concerned with the statements given with clothes, and much more
conservative.  If they were genuinely unwilling to tolerate foolish
fashions that don't include useful pockets, they wouldn't exist.

This is OBVIOUS.

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list