[LMB] . Re: clothing, was Programming, was: Re: OT: Afterlife
litalex at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 20:20:13 GMT 2020
First, sorry Louann to use you as an example, but since he seems to be responding to you...
> On 4 Nov 2020, at 02:56, Matthew George <matt.msg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
Who exactly has claimed this? Louann herself just said not long ago she buys unisex t-shirts.
> 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.
Did you actually read Louann’s email? She just said her husband’s jeans don’t fit her, and I can’t think of anything less dressy.
> We can only conclude that some people are dissimulating for the purpose of
> dramatic effect.
Wow. So people must be lying if they point out that you’re wrong.
> already occurred. Our system is deeply sensitive to purchaser
> preferences. To suggest that the designers, marketers, and sellers of
In some aspects.
> women's clothing are engaged in a conspiracy to ignore a concern that
> reasonably includes ALL women is absurd.
Things can be inconvenient without a conscious conspiracy.
> 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
Are the healthier options more expensive, etc? Maybe that’s why they weren’t chosen and not that people don’t want healthy food.
It doesn’t need to be a conspiracy, just market forces.
> the people who vociferously complain about the films in a franchise, and
> consistently purchase tickets to see the next installment. It doesn't
Or they could be two separate groups. Or people can want both popcorn movies and artsy films.
And what people like and what studio execs think people would like are two different things.
> 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
And there is a trend of forgoing the necktie these days. H*ll, my boss wear t-shirt and jeans to work.
> - 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.
Clothes are a necessity and market forces take a while to work.
> This is OBVIOUS.
What is obvious is that you, well, doesn’t know how to conduct a civil conversation.
More information about the Lois-Bujold