this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
750 points (98.2% liked)
memes
9680 readers
3624 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The rule is buy the default-gendered variant. If there a special "men's section" or "women's section" for a certain product category it means you'll be ripped off.
Especially women’s. In French we call it “la taxe rose” (the pink tax).
it's called pink tax in English too
I mean unless it's a more expensive product marketed to men, in which case it's called an example of fragile masculinity.
I call it the Axe Tax
i don't get the connection
the French have such a way with words, that's almost as good as "le cigarette will cause le cancer"
Not sure I appreciate the irony. But you’re correct that it sounds very similar in french.
One could say: “la cigarette va causer le cancer” although that sounds very “english” and is probably what someone who learnt french knowing english would say. The more “fluent” way would be “fumer peut mener au cancer”. But both are technically correct.
I am so upset that the French cigarette meme lied to me
Damn, I wasn't expecting my daily French lesson yet here I am. I love this place man.
🍺 Cheers my friend.
Santé :)
Quand aux français, ils disent "fumer tue".
plutôt ce qui est écrit sur le paquet, mais ouais.
Je pense que c'est devenue naturel au point que la phrase nous vienne naturellement à la bouche pour parler des conséquences de la cigarette. Après tout, elle tue par le cancer, pas par accident de la route ou overdose.
Men's socks are higher durability
It's a lot more than socks. Went looking for a duffel coat once for work and checked both isles in stores. Mens coat - nice woven and well fulled 100 percent wool, thick quality stuff, Women's isle, cheaper felted wool half the thickness... Same price, same basic style, same store.
Ever since whenever I go looking for stuff I check both isles. Higher quality fabrics are generally reserved for men's items though women's stuff is priced the same. You'd never know the difference if you only shopped one gendered option.
Apart from fashionistas, "standard" men's style is far more static. Cuts, materials, colors, and patterns don't deviate far from the baseline from year to year, so garments tend to be a bit sturdier and longer lasting.
As an example, picture a guy in a Henley, cargo shorts, and work boots. What decade is he from? Okay, now put him in straight leg jeans and a flannel shirt. Was this picture taken yesterday? In the 90s? 2005? Who knows, guys have been wearing that for ages, and will be for ages to come.
However, pre-pandemic I think high-waist flares were one of the main jeans trends for women. Five years later, it's low-waist straight-leg, right? Or have they shifted back to skinny jeans? I think early-2010s was the last time capris were the statement look, but hell, I truly don't know. The point is, women's styles seem to change not only year-to-year but season-to-season. Today's trend is tomorrow's faux pas is next week's retro is next month's vintage... sure, I'm exaggerating, but women's fashion does lend itself more to sweeping change.
The criminal part is that woman-specific options are underconstructed and overpriced compared to men's clothing. That, and the lack of pockets. Seriously, my heart goes out to anyone who wears clothing targeted to women. I'd be fucking lost without pockets.
I suppose that assumes a woman cares about fashion and that fast fashion is something every woman wants to buy into. A lot of women I know shop vintage because they want items they can wear reliably for years and modern items do not offer that level of quality. If you want to buy out of the fast fashion assumption of "need" it seems like you have to literally go back in time because if you buy fast fashion it is literally trash in a year. Nobody will thrift it worn because it will be worn out. It doesn't seem like brands have options for women that lie outside of this system in addition to those junky options or offer those junk items at a lower cost. If all you can buy new is junk then stepping outside of the system requires you to avoid the ease of simply buying new off the rack. It requires work and luck. If you grew up inside that system that's your established normal.
We can say that mens fashion is static... But why can't both gendered fashion silos have more static options or at least price fast fashion at a different price point to reflect those cheaper materials? It seems like saying one sex has inherent requirements for fubgibillity which seems honestly kinda sexist. There's a lot of men who want more interesting fad like stuff and women who want staples that will last a decade.
Oh, I full-on agree, hence that final paragraph. I'm one of those idgaf-about-fads types, but I know plenty of folks who do care and who get hosed by the system as it currently exists. Fashion as a whole is pretty much a racket as far as I'm concerned. But what isn't these days?
The reason they won't price fast fashion bs lower is because they don't have to. Trendy things sell at inherently predatory price points, then they declare a new "what's hot" before the sales drop off. Capitalism is a mfer, and folks are exploited at every rung of the fashion ladder.
I guess that would change if enough people stopped buying in, but do either of us see that happening any time soon? I don't, and as frustrating as it is, I think you don't, either. So garments marketed primarily to women remain pocketless and flimsy, and those marketed primarily to my-tastes-don't-change men continue to trend towards work-wearish looks that are at least marginally sturdier at roughly equivalent cost.
Except for those goddamn fishing shirts. Who decided that was a thing? They're terrible.
Off-topic comment.
I appreciate the misuse of isle instead of aisle. The mental imagery of navigating around stores compromised of isles makes me want to go shopping so I can go on an island hopping adventure looking for booty to haul back to my kingdom.
It could be highly inconvenient, since the Isle of Mann and Isla Mujeres are so far apart.
From my experience all of mens clothes have higher durability. I could just be buying shitty clothes, but ill have ripped stitches and fallen buttons a week after purchase while my husband is still sporting the same 15 year old wardrobe with minimal damage. My shirts are so thin i can see clear through them and would need to layer 3 to match my husband's shirts. I dont purchase them off amazon/temu/etc, but it feels like that's where they came from most of time.