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

Louann Miller domelouann at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 20:34:26 GMT 2020


Don't worry about it, Alex. As Rick Sanchez would say, his boos mean
nothing. I don't normally see his posts but I see here the tone is keeping
steady.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:21 PM Alex Kwan <litalex at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> 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.
>
> little Alex
>
>
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to domelouann at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
>


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list