Vote with your wallet is a terrible system - Rant

[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.

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.



LINK 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.

[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.

[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 women

Debatable.

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.

[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!

[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.



I, for one, welcome our new ranger overlord.

--------


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



LINK 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.

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...

LINK 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

His art is great and he's super fun.

That is great, thanks!

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

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 for the whole comic.

The comics and art at that site are AWESOME!

Thank you very much!