The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: o2bfree on June 06, 2018, 04:25:51 PM
-
Picked this tidbit out of an article about women and their appearance:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/opinions/what-miss-american-still-cant-do-alaimo/index.html
"A 2017 Groupon study found that, over the course of a woman's lifetime, she'll spend over a quarter of a million dollars more than a man on her appearance — spurred on by a vast fashion and beauty industry whose stock in trade is the canard that a woman's worth is tied directly to how good she can make herself look."
Holy crap, can that be right, $250,000 more than a guy?
-
That's about $3000 more than a man, annually, or 250/month. I don't think that's unbelievable at all.
Many women buy lots of clothes and shoes. Of course on this forum we only own two thrift shop outfits per person, but I know many women who own 10-15 pairs of €100-€200 shoes and buy new clothes every month. It's not uncommon for women to spend €80 on a professional haircut/dye job. Add makeup, lingerie and expensive jewerly to that and 250/month sounds quite right.
I think there are several factors:
- Many women like shopping and fashion.
- There's an expectation in society for women to wear a bigger variety in clothing styles. A man can own a suit and a pair of khaki pants and a polo shirt and he's covered for 90% of the occasions. Maybe people will think he's a bit boring but there generally won't be any negative consequences. For women, there's much more pressure to look a certain way and if you don't, you will experience some negative backlash.
- Women's items are more expensive than men's items, even when the item is similar.
-
- There's an expectation in society for women to wear a bigger variety in clothing styles. A man can own a suit and a pair of khaki pants and a polo shirt and he's covered for 90% of the occasions. Maybe people will think he's a bit boring but there generally won't be any negative consequences. For women, there's much more pressure to look a certain way and if you don't, you will experience some negative backlash.
This one really gets me. I remember my dad giving me hell when I was young for wearing the same two or three tops all the time. I saw nothing wrong, I liked those tops and they looked good on me.
-
A full breakdown of costs would have to include:
-skin care, including spa appointments (e.g. facials)
-hair care, including salon appointments
-makeup
-nails, including nail appointments
-supplements taken for appearance (e.g. vitamin E, protein powders, etc)
-clothing, shoes, and accessories
-plastic surgeries
-weight loss/exercise programs/gym memberships undertaken for appearance
When you break that down to $250/month more like Imma did... yep. I can't imagine spending $3k a year on my appearance, but I know women who do, easy.
-
That's about $3000 more than a man, annually, or 250/month. I don't think that's unbelievable at all.
Many women buy lots of clothes and shoes. Of course on this forum we only own two thrift shop outfits per person, but I know many women who own 10-15 pairs of €100-€200 shoes and buy new clothes every month. It's not uncommon for women to spend €80 on a professional haircut/dye job. Add makeup, lingerie and expensive jewerly to that and 250/month sounds quite right.
I think there are several factors:
- Many women like shopping and fashion.
- There's an expectation in society for women to wear a bigger variety in clothing styles. A man can own a suit and a pair of khaki pants and a polo shirt and he's covered for 90% of the occasions. Maybe people will think he's a bit boring but there generally won't be any negative consequences. For women, there's much more pressure to look a certain way and if you don't, you will experience some negative backlash.
Truth. As far as women enjoying shopping/fashion I suspect there is a lot of social conditioning in that...but that doesn't make it any less real.
- Women's items are more expensive than men's items, even when the item is similar.
Maybe this is a US-EU difference but not always true? My bf marvels at how inexpensive women's shoes, jeans, and undies can be...however, a lot of that stuff is *flimsy*. His jeans are sturdy thick denim, mine are (usually) thin, stretchy denim. He definitely gets more wear out of his items... and also doesn't need bras which are quite $$$ and important (at least for many of us women!).
---
Another thing to think about is, what is average professional attire for men and women? While certainly there are many men in professional fields that might require more upscale dress (e.g. finance, law), they're likely balanced out in the average by men in trades, construction, and other "dirty jobs"...or uniformed jobs. Women are overrepresented in many customer-facing fields...nurses, teachers, admin/HR, counselors/social workers, hairdressers, etc. where their appearance is under much more scrutiny than manual labor work...
-
Another thing to think about is, what is average professional attire for men and women? While certainly there are many men in professional fields that might require more upscale dress (e.g. finance, law), they're likely balanced out in the average by men in trades, construction, and other "dirty jobs"...or uniformed jobs. Women are overrepresented in many customer-facing fields...nurses, teachers, admin/HR, counselors/social workers, hairdressers, etc. where their appearance is under much more scrutiny than manual labor work...
Most of the young professionals (SW/HW engineers) in my office wear about the same thing everyday: jeans, sneakers, and T-shirts. Some seem to get a lot of mileage out of one T-shirt. But many of the women, who don't even deal with customers, look like reality TV stars. Hair and makeup alone must cost a bundle. I guess they're always ready for great selfie!
-
Don’t forget about the “pink tax” where woman’s personal care items cost more than a comparable product for men. Think shaving cream, razors, lotions, etc... that alone won’t account for the extra $3k per year but it adds up
-
Maybe this is a US-EU difference but not always true? My bf marvels at how inexpensive women's shoes, jeans, and undies can be...however, a lot of that stuff is *flimsy*. His jeans are sturdy thick denim, mine are (usually) thin, stretchy denim. He definitely gets more wear out of his items... and also doesn't need bras which are quite $$$ and important (at least for many of us women!).
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-baffling-things-about-womens-clothes/ (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-baffling-things-about-womens-clothes/)
When I get dressed, I look for a shirt, pants, and shoes. I don't care how the clothes conform to the shape of my body and barely care how well they match. I own three pairs of shoes and can cut my own hair with a one-off $20 kit, or $12/month by a guy with a pair of rusty scissors and a comb if I want to splurge.
Women on the other hand are naturally and culturally hamstrung. They come in much more varied shapes and sizes which makes finding the right size of an outfit difficult enough. Now factor in how society has insisted those clothes have to hide or accentuate your infinitely-varied outlines. If dressing even semi-professionally, your shoes need to match the style and color scheme of your outfit, heel length is a variable, you usually can't get away with a wallet in your back pocket (assuming you have pockets) so a matching bag or purse is needed, and your hair is taken care of by somebody with a degree who charges by the hour.
I don't know if all of this equals $250k over a lifetime, but Diapasoun came up with a pretty good list if you include all other related expenses. Hair, nails, and ensuring your outfits have the right shoes alone has to be hundreds of dollars a year. My 90 year old grandmother still "gets her hair done" not because she's overspending on beauty, but that's just what it's called when it's more complicated than cutting off a couple inches. At that age my hair will probably be long gone and society won't care.
-
Once while I was waiting for a meeting to start, two coworkers walked into the room. The man asked the woman if she was okay, because she looked sick. She responded, no, I just didn't wear makeup today. That exchange both amused and infuriated me.
I have always been on the lower spending side in this area, and I've still spent thousands of dollars on my appearance. I've stopped most of the expected stuff, and it's freeing in some ways. No more makeup or jewelry, no heels, no nice haircuts or highlights, no teeth whitening, no expensive clothing, no hair removal. Y'all ever paid someone for the pleasure of having every hair in your genital region ripped out by its root? I haven't, but I've heard it's both expensive and no fun.
If I had wanted to move up the ladder in my previous companies, I might have caved to costly expectations. I could ignore them because I was planning to FIRE, and my friends largely didn't care. Even so, I'm sure I've depressed romantic interest from the general populace. I'm also lucky to have naturally acceptable hair. Quick brush and I'm good. Some women need expensive routine maintenance to look "professional."
I actually recently caved and bought a pretty, sort of useless dress from a consignment store. I now have intense dress lust. I want more. Some men may think it's silly, and they don't care about those things: that's because there is no temptation. There are basic, timeless styles for office wear and fancy outings, jeans and t-shirts for casual, and that's all you see when you shop. Unless you're deep into a fashion scene, if you're a guy, you're not constantly presented with an overwhelming array of patterns, and fits, and fabrics. Savor it, men. Savor your freedom.
Even though I spend a lot less money on clothes these days, I can still spend a lot of time on it. I look decent in maybe 1 out of 20 items I try on, and this is after years of paying close attention to which cuts and fabrics I can wear. Some expensive mistakes have been made along the way. I want basic, well-made, nice fitting clothing that doesn't show off my entire tit when I lean two inches forward. That is frustratingly hard to find.
I wonder if shopping became a female group activity because we would never have a freaking social life otherwise. If you need to spend 5 hours on the weekend just to get a fitted tee, you better drag a friend along and get some coffee halfway through. It also is useful to have someone else there to assess whether the clothing looks weird and maybe help zip you up. Dresses, why do I need to dislocate a freaking shoulder to enter you? Stop making zippers go from my ass to the nape of my neck, please.
I'm not even going to rant about high heels, because I quit that life years ago. I also didn't expect to get this worked up, and I should really go to sleep.
-
Once while I was waiting for a meeting to start, two coworkers walked into the room. The man asked the woman if she was okay, because she looked sick. She responded, no, I just didn't wear makeup today. That exchange both amused and infuriated me.
I have always been on the lower spending side in this area, and I've still spent thousands of dollars on my appearance. I've stopped most of the expected stuff, and it's freeing in some ways. No more makeup or jewelry, no heels, no nice haircuts or highlights, no teeth whitening, no expensive clothing, no hair removal. Y'all ever paid someone for the pleasure of having every hair in your genital region ripped out by its root? I haven't, but I've heard it's both expensive and no fun.
If I had wanted to move up the ladder in my previous companies, I might have caved to costly expectations. I could ignore them because I was planning to FIRE, and my friends largely didn't care. Even so, I'm sure I've depressed romantic interest from the general populace. I'm also lucky to have naturally acceptable hair. Quick brush and I'm good. Some women need expensive routine maintenance to look "professional."
I actually recently caved and bought a pretty, sort of useless dress from a consignment store. I now have intense dress lust. I want more. Some men may think it's silly, and they don't care about those things: that's because there is no temptation. There are basic, timeless styles for office wear and fancy outings, jeans and t-shirts for casual, and that's all you see when you shop. Unless you're deep into a fashion scene, if you're a guy, you're not constantly presented with an overwhelming array of patterns, and fits, and fabrics. Savor it, men. Savor your freedom.
Even though I spend a lot less money on clothes these days, I can still spend a lot of time on it. I look decent in maybe 1 out of 20 items I try on, and this is after years of paying close attention to which cuts and fabrics I can wear. Some expensive mistakes have been made along the way. I want basic, well-made, nice fitting clothing that doesn't show off my entire tit when I lean two inches forward. That is frustratingly hard to find.
I wonder if shopping became a female group activity because we would never have a freaking social life otherwise. If you need to spend 5 hours on the weekend just to get a fitted tee, you better drag a friend along and get some coffee halfway through. It also is useful to have someone else there to assess whether the clothing looks weird and maybe help zip you up. Dresses, why do I need to dislocate a freaking shoulder to enter you? Stop making zippers go from my ass to the nape of my neck, please.
I'm not even going to rant about high heels, because I quit that life years ago. I also didn't expect to get this worked up, and I should really go to sleep.
Nailed it with every line MJ. Some misc observations:
Women of African descent are pressured to spend significant time and $ to tame their hair, or be considered unprofessional. This starts at school https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/07/17/534448313/when-black-hair-violates-the-dress-code
I do spend a lot on bath and body products, not to look good but to feel luxurious at a fraction of spa prices. Have never paid for manicures or hair removal (aside from a trial eyebrow threading) but monthly massages are US$20-30 and form part of my healthcare budget. Gave up self-coloring my hair a few years ago and miss the dramatic look but it's healthier to go without.
Last year after a 3rd or 4th sprained ankle, I pretty much gave up heels and wedges forever. I miss them but am tall for where I live (5'6") and tower over my Cantonese neighbors in the subway if wearing heels. Now the ankles are much happier, but the change required work-appropriate footwear that wouldn't be too hot during our 8 months of summer. Local Chinese sandals look fine but are made with stinky materials, so I pick up quality leather sandals when working on projects in Europe at half the price of Asia.
Do I spend a lot on how I look? I tend to hack it by buying in quantity or secondhand or at half off. There's no separate category in my expenses list for "Shit to make me look nice" but maybe I should add one. The "Shit to make me feel/smell nice" is probably higher.
-
I am pretty sure that's spot on worldwide (I can be sure about urban India) and in the first few years of my earning life I was the same. I bought shoes and clothes every weekend and am really thankful that makeup has never been something I had patience for. When we decided to travel more I gave up shoes and a lot of clothes. Last two years we have consciously reduced the number of items we own in terms of clothing and accessories. unfortunately with changing body shape and size in past 9 months I have spent a decent sum to simply be comfortable in my clothes and hope to use them for next year or so.
Clothes for women in general and jeans in particular are made of probably the shittiest and thinnest piece of fabric you can pass off as 'denim'. My husband's jeans last years while mine are in the dump in half a year. The sturdiest jeans I have found in last decade has been the maternity jeans I bought recently.
While I usually struggle to fulfill my tax free uniform allowance of around 350$ a year I know many who far exceed the sum in a quarter.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVIqxM5WkAY6CDD.jpg)
Seems relevant.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVIqxM5WkAY6CDD.jpg)
Seems relevant.
This is partially true. Many women are very critical of other women's appearances and I try to consciously not be like that. My hair is very simple (long and straight) and I don't dye my hair, and I've only ever had women nagging me to get a "real" hairstyle (something complicted and expensive so maintain).
However, don't underestimate how vicious men can be and especially in a business context (source: I work in business). It really works against you to be "dowdy" or "plain" or to look "fat" or "old" while I've met many very overweight, distinctly average or even geeky looking men over the age of 45 who are doing very well in their career. Actually, they are often the men who judge those women who aren't good looking and young enough. I'm not sure where that comes from, I'm sure many of them have wives who look exactly like the women they are rude to at work. I have certainly had comments from much older male coworkers that I shouldn't wear the same rotation of outfits every week. I remember replying to one of them that he only seemed to own three shirts as well, which he confirmed, but "I'm not a woman, men don't have to look nice".
I wear very basic clothing at home, and no jewelry or makeup. At work, I wear slightly more fancy clothes and I put on a bit of make-up, because if I don't, I have noticed I'm not taken as seriously. It's difficult enough to be taken seriously if you're a young blonde woman with a naturally soft voice, it's even worse when you're considered to be "plain" or people think you must be gay, or a feminazi (sadly, that's our perception of women who look natural) . I have been told by people I "scrub up nicely" which is apparantly a compliment.
-
Wow Malkynn, I'm sorry you have to put up with that. When I get comments like that I just smile and change the subject. Those male patients should get the message that they need to keep their opinions to themselves.
I've had my moments of splurging in the past, and I can easily see women spending $250/month. One of the nicest things about being over 50 is that you can get away with a lot more. I've greatly simplified everything from wardrobe to shoes to hair care & makeup - but it takes a lot of inventiveness and willingness to go against the grain. Most women of course won't do this.
For example, I've wanted to grow my hair longer for years, to simplify the hair routine in the mornings, but every time I walked into a salon I'd either be pressed into a short hairstyle or they'd just cut it short despite my requests to keep it longer. I hated how I'd come out looking like a 12 year old boy. Finally I quit going to salons and learned how to cut my own hair. I've been letting it grow for a couple of years now, and I absolutely love how it looks now. And all I have to do in the mornings is brush, tie back or clip if I want, and go.
Another example: I HATE how women's clothes never have pockets. You need pockets in real life! I don't want to have to carry a bag every time I walk down the hall and want to take my cell phone with me. So I learned how to make pockets and sew them into seams on pants and skirts. Since my cell phone now doubles as my wallet (by adding a silicone sleeve on the back), I no longer need to deal with a carrying a purse to work at all.
-
Don’t forget about the “pink tax” where woman’s personal care items cost more than a comparable product for men. Think shaving cream, razors, lotions, etc... that alone won’t account for the extra $3k per year but it adds up
Right! The antiperspirant I buy is about $3 in the women's section, which doesn't have an unscented version. The same stuff in the men's section, unscented and slightly larger, is about $2.
-
I can definitely see where that number comes from, even if I don't personally spend that kind of money. I don't wear makeup or heels, don't get manicures or pedicures, don't dye my hair (I did for about 2 years, what a hassle) and I only get my hair cut every 6 months ish, by students. Brand name clothes and bags cost a lot, and change every season, but I focus on getting practical, long lasting items, and carry a backpack most of the time. But women's products do cost more in general, even when it makes no sense, like unscented deodorant and razors, what's the difference? Shaving or waxing regularly can cost a lot, and women do get judged or at least noticed when they don't shave their legs or armpits. Luckily, I don't give a fuck. It's almost socially unacceptable for women in their thirties to rock grey hair, but I plan on doing it anyway, since I'm already getting a few grey hairs.
I've read the studies about women getting taken less seriously or getting fewer job offers if they don't wear make up or look "put together" so maybe I am paying a price for not doing the normal woman stuff, but society's expectations for women are unreasonable, time consuming and expensive. The more people opt out, the easier it'll be for all of us. Unfortunately most of my friends think I'm crazy and will go on spending a lot to maintain their appearance. I'm clean and presentable, I don't need to be dolled up and glamourous.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVIqxM5WkAY6CDD.jpg)
Seems relevant.
Tying sexuality to clothing needs to end.
-
It all seems nuts to me. Last year as a couple we spent a combined total of $517 on personal care, which for us includes toiletries, haircuts, massage, and laundry. We spent an additional $249 on clothing, which seemed like plenty.
-
A $250/month expense is serious money. That money could be used for long-term investments instead.
I definitely spend more than my husband on appearance but certainly less than $250/month. I do buy some Estee Lauder products - perhaps 2 things per year and usually via gift cards. At most, three pedicures per summer and eyebrow threading every two months. Haircuts every other month. I just added these three items up and it comes to about $850/year.
I buy one tube of under-eye concealer every 2 years and that's it for make up. I have a lot of skin allergies so i'm off the hook on the whole make up thing.
I guess what has saved me in the past is that I don't like browsing/shopping without a specific need. You won't find me shuffling around in the mall without a target. My job doesn't require corporate clothing so I just get away with casual clothes - jeans, t-shirts, capris in warm weather. I own 3 purses - one is a straw bag for the summer.
Two years ago, I stopped colouring my hair and it has grown in very ashy grey at the front where my bangs are. The back is pretty much dark brown still. I get lots of compliments and questions about it. People are curious whether the grey bangs are dyed grey. :0 I say "No. It is natural".
-
Picked this tidbit out of an article about women and their appearance:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/opinions/what-miss-american-still-cant-do-alaimo/index.html
"A 2017 Groupon study found that, over the course of a woman's lifetime, she'll spend over a quarter of a million dollars more than a man on her appearance — spurred on by a vast fashion and beauty industry whose stock in trade is the canard that a woman's worth is tied directly to how good she can make herself look."
Holy crap, can that be right, $250,000 more than a guy?
It's not right, CNN misrepresented the numbers, assuming this is the same study:
https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2017/groupons-mobile-app-and-the-big-business-of-beauty/
It says women spend a lifetime total of $225,360 while men spend $175,680. By comparison women spend around $50,000 or 28% more than men. And that's based on a Groupon survey of 2,000 people. I wonder if it's truly a random sampling of the US population or did they survey their spendy customers who are more likely to be at an age where they care about their appearance.
-
Women on the other hand are naturally and culturally hamstrung. They come in much more varied shapes and sizes which makes finding the right size of an outfit difficult enough. Now factor in how society has insisted those clothes have to hide or accentuate your infinitely-varied outlines.
All made worse by the clothing industry. A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches. Same thing with the length. Women's sizes are not consistent. You can wear a 10 in one brand, and a 12 in another. Pants are often labelled short, average or tall, but there is no actual measurement associated with that, so again, more trying on required.
Men tend to have a similar body shape, and if they gain weight it is often in their stomachs. Women can have a lot of different body shapes - pear, apple, etc. This is where the clothing industry could help by standardizing sizes/fitting. Whether you want to call it fruit, shapes - green triangle, blue circle, or whatever - clothes could be labelled by the body type it is meant to fit. So if you have a large chest and large stomach, but small butt and legs - you would be "Circle" and then try on clothes labelled appropriately. Of course this is nearly impossible to do, since the majority of clothes are designed for sizes 6 and under, which the vast majority of American women do not wear and those women overwhelming have a similar body type - basically skinny everywhere. Then more fabric is added with little to no consideration of the larger size, until you get into the plus sizes, which for most women, you need to be obese to fit into to.
All this adds more time and costs to purchase women's clothes.
-
Oh lord, clothing sizes. I have tops from the same brand in sizes ranging from X-small to medium. Jeans from the same brand (Levi's) marked with three different number sizes that have identical waistband circumferences. I have an X-large T-shirt that is smaller than a couple of my small T-shirts (different brands). It's absolutely ridiculous.
I hate clothes shopping.
-
Oh lord, clothing sizes. I have tops from the same brand in sizes ranging from X-small to medium. Jeans from the same brand (Levi's) marked with three different number sizes that have identical waistband circumferences. I have an X-large T-shirt that is smaller than a couple of my small T-shirts (different brands). It's absolutely ridiculous.
I hate clothes shopping.
Is it a kid's size? Not making fun, I made that mistake one time and they didn't specify kids.
-
Oh lord, clothing sizes. I have tops from the same brand in sizes ranging from X-small to medium. Jeans from the same brand (Levi's) marked with three different number sizes that have identical waistband circumferences. I have an X-large T-shirt that is smaller than a couple of my small T-shirts (different brands). It's absolutely ridiculous.
I hate clothes shopping.
Is it a kid's size? Not making fun, I made that mistake one time and they didn't specify kids.
Maybe! That's at least understandable.
-
Oh lord, clothing sizes. I have tops from the same brand in sizes ranging from X-small to medium. Jeans from the same brand (Levi's) marked with three different number sizes that have identical waistband circumferences. I have an X-large T-shirt that is smaller than a couple of my small T-shirts (different brands). It's absolutely ridiculous.
I hate clothes shopping.
It's frustrating! I have two different pairs of Levi's, one is a 6 and one is an 8, both fit perfectly and both are the same style.
As far as spending oodles of money on style and looks, yes it does cost more to be a woman. We're expected to look a certain way, so we end up spending the money to do so, especially if they work in an office-type of setting. I was never a girlie-girl so I never wore makeup, dresses, heels, etc. so I guess I can say I saved some money there. I used to spend a good amount on my hair, though I've let it go grey and haven't colored in years, more savings. It probably hurts my dating chances, but I'd rather be me and natural.
-
As far as spending oodles of money on style and looks, yes it does cost more to be a woman. We're expected to look a certain way, so we end up spending the money to do so, especially if they work in an office-type of setting. I was never a girlie-girl so I never wore makeup, dresses, heels, etc. so I guess I can say I saved some money there. I used to spend a good amount on my hair, though I've let it go grey and haven't colored in years, more savings. It probably hurts my dating chances, but I'd rather be me and natural.
I always wonder what it's like for guys to see girls without makeup and styled hair for the first time. One of my boyfriends years ago told me the first time he saw his ex without makeup he thought she was sick. Apparently, most guys ignore this facet of reality...? I don't think I'd like going after someone based on their looks, knowing that quite possibly they're not that great looking, maybe even coyote-ugly.
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
-
Don’t forget about the “pink tax” where woman’s personal care items cost more than a comparable product for men. Think shaving cream, razors, lotions, etc... that alone won’t account for the extra $3k per year but it adds up
That's because too many women will pay the higher prices and most men simply won't.
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
As I said upthread, i own 1 item of make-up and replace it every two years. When I worked in an office downtown, I had a similarly sized wardrobe to yours. Once the office manager said to me that probably I had a small wardrobe but $$$ in the bank whereas she had a large wardrobe and not much $$$. I just shake my head at stuff like that.
-
Having spent the last 20 years in offices in NYC, I can tell you $250 a month would be a very conservative number for my colleagues. I only do enough to get by and that includes wearing full makeup every day and professionally cut and colored hair.
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
Yes! If anyone is finding fault with my soap-and-water grooming routine, home haircut and simple wardrobe they're mostly not doing it to my face. I did have a giggle to myself when, after a recent hair trim, a colleague noted for barbed compliments said, "Oh! You've had your hair ... different."
I can totally believe statistics that show women spending much more than men on personal care. I have female colleagues who claim to struggle to get by on their salaries or to need a certain level of income but who seem to prioritise make-up, hair and nail titivation and what I'd describe as "pampering" and are always turning up in new clothes. These things are clearly not optional for many women.
-
Don’t forget about the “pink tax” where woman’s personal care items cost more than a comparable product for men. Think shaving cream, razors, lotions, etc... that alone won’t account for the extra $3k per year but it adds up
That's because too many women will pay the higher prices and most men simply won't.
The sections are kept separate to deter item-by-item comparison shopping.
It's possible to take a mental shortcut and end up in the pink section, then pick something off the shelf that looks right and be blissfully unaware that the same brand has the same product a few feet away that has a higher weight or volume for the same price... or better manufacturing technique (for clothing), or better cloth or similar components, or even a lower price overall. The shelves are stacked high enough, and the sections are spaced far enough apart, that the other options aren't immediately available. Notwithstanding the rather juvenile "BUY ME BECAUSE I AM PINK" codswallop, there are enough other shenanigans that make a person want to show up at the grocery store with a fully automatic assault rifle.
In sports, the philosophy is "shrink it, pink it, and stink it": make it smaller or different-sized for women (like bicycles) without noticeably altering the proportions in a way that might be biologically useful, make it some idiotic "look-at-me, look-at-me" color (such as in women's steel-toed shoes and work shoes-- cough-- Reebok-- cough), and do something that reduces its value overall such as using cheaper components, candy-assed manufacturing, shoddy materials, or anything else to increase the planned obsolescence without reducing the purchase price.
Does this not inspire at least a minor desire to find a discarded liquor bottle, fill it with a mixture of gasoline and dish soap, stuff a rag in the neck, light the rag, and hurl the results at one of those mass marketing displays?
No Mustachian will fall for the obvious marketing bullshit, but unfortunately plenty of people of the XX persuasion get as far as the pink flowery section, decide "I'm here-- I have found the product" and so it doesn't occur to them to nose around in the XY section long enough to notice that there's a better buy available. Gendered departments ensure that the same thing happens with unisex clothing items such as T-shirts, bermuda shorts, flip-flops, socks, and the like. Don't even get me started on the hair care industry because I will be foaming at the mouth in a way that makes my service dog want to call my vet and have me taken in for a saliva test.
I've heard it described as the "pink tax" but that phrase isn't offensive enough because it doesn't capture the full irritation that I experience when I see it in action. So for the past several years I've been calling it the "cunt tax". It's not entirely accurate, since taxes are presumed to accrue to the government as opposed to private industry. Likewise, the word "cunt" has also been in the news a lot recently in Yankistan, where the use of a vulgar term for women's genitalia is deemed to be socially unacceptable although most of the people who use it as an actual perjorative are unaware of the irony of it being the only part of the woman that they value.
I wonder, at times, whether I'm as coarse and immature as some of the people weighing in on both sides of the debate, and whether it would be worth my while to make the effort to be. At times, I think: "yes, I too can aspire to this level of offensiveness." But then, I think: "do I really give a fuck? Probably not so much." Eventually, since I am a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, my desire to kick back and do sweet bugger-all invariably triumphs over whatever passes for ambition. This is probably good for other people's insurance premiums.
All of these verbal shenanigans are probably better than my first instinctive response, which involved at least conflagration and possibly a good deflagration depending on the level of instability I'm prepared to tolerate in Ye Olde Home Lab.
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
Yes! If anyone is finding fault with my soap-and-water grooming routine, home haircut and simple wardrobe they're mostly not doing it to my face. I did have a giggle to myself when, after a recent hair trim, a colleague noted for barbed compliments said, "Oh! You've had your hair ... different."
I can totally believe statistics that show women spending much more than men on personal care. I have female colleagues who claim to struggle to get by on their salaries or to need a certain level of income but who seem to prioritise make-up, hair and nail titivation and what I'd describe as "pampering" and are always turning up in new clothes. These things are clearly not optional for many women.
Have you considered giving them a short but loud briefing on the myriad ways in which they might "fight the power"? If resistance to nail and hair stupidity reaches critical mass, the "not optional" perception can go away quickly from an employment perspective, if not from a mating perspective. Those two perspectives are orthogonal.
-
For me some 'pink tax' stuff is avoidable, but some...I've got a chest. And hips. Shopping in men's for bras is strangely uproductive, and for pants/jeans just does not work. For jeans the best I've been able to find is go to Goodwill on some half-price day (at least once a year, because yep, women's stuff is generally made of thinner/crappier fabric), find a few pairs that fit reasonably well at waist/hips (actual 'size,' forget it, I've know I've got one pair that's labeled 4 and one that's labeled 10 in rotation now), and then hem to length and wear them until they wear out. I'm in an industry where jeans/t-shirt is a perfectly acceptable uniform and am not interested in moving up the ladder into management where a fancier look is expected so it works, but even here the fact that I don't wear makeup is unusual. And given some of the comments ('look sick' as mentioned upthread) when a woman who usually wears makeup doesn't, I don't think the men I work with realize how many women normally have some on.
-
You know, some of the feminist movement's goals (way back when, think 60's, 70's) was to get us out of this trap. I think there is a real feminist backlash in that the expectations today are just as bad as they were in the 50's, they are juts different so we haven't all realised it. Plus women (mostly) in their 20's want to look nice, and they fall for it all. All the fancy nail polish stuff? All the hair stuff? And makeup? And clothes?
And then you hit your 50's and find out that those nice (i.e. stylish, pointy toes, high heels) shoes have ruined your feet and knees. And so on.
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
+1. I work in academia though, but I've gotten away with this strategy in all my other jobs too. When I was teaching I had to wear formal attire (SE-Asia) so I had 2 skirts, 3-4 shirts and one pair of shoes. A friend had a similar wardrobe and we used to share so we had a little more variety. My regular toiletries/care products include toothpaste, shampoo, deodorant and sunscreen and nothing more than that.
Tomorrow I'm going to a semi-formal party and a friend is just asking what I'm gonna wear. In our discussing she's discovered that I don't have any make-up beyond an old mascara and a lipstick, no jewelry, no decent shoes and no hair dryer. She's mind-blown.
Stuff like getting hair/nails done I've never understood and I don't think I ever will. I regularly get to hear "you're like a guy", but I'll take it with pride :)
-
You know, some of the feminist movement's goals (way back when, think 60's, 70's) was to get us out of this trap. I think there is a real feminist backlash in that the expectations today are just as bad as they were in the 50's, they are juts different so we haven't all realised it. Plus women (mostly) in their 20's want to look nice, and they fall for it all. All the fancy nail polish stuff? All the hair stuff? And makeup? And clothes?
And then you hit your 50's and find out that those nice (i.e. stylish, pointy toes, high heels) shoes have ruined your feet and knees. And so on.
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You are absolutely right, except the women in my generation say it's their "own free choice" and rant about us living in a "post - feminist age" where gender inequality doesn't exist.
We like to think society has changed a lot since the 50s, but I don't think it has changed that much at all. I talk about this all the time with my grandmother who was a young wife back then, and we recognize each other's stories. She feels there is much more pressure on women to look good then there used to be when she was young.
I think some of you might like to read Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy. Her book is related to what we're discussing here.
-
You know, some of the feminist movement's goals (way back when, think 60's, 70's) was to get us out of this trap. I think there is a real feminist backlash in that the expectations today are just as bad as they were in the 50's, they are juts different so we haven't all realised it. Plus women (mostly) in their 20's want to look nice, and they fall for it all. All the fancy nail polish stuff? All the hair stuff? And makeup? And clothes?
And then you hit your 50's and find out that those nice (i.e. stylish, pointy toes, high heels) shoes have ruined your feet and knees. And so on.
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
I knew a couple of women about 10 years older than me who had screwed up their feet from wearing heels. Both had to have surgeries on them.
I wore heels in my 20's and not very high ones since I am already 5' 7". I like to walk and have always hated having my feet hurt. So avoided uncomfortable shoes for that reason too.
-
A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches.
Sadly, this is not really the case anymore.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-chart-090710/
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
+1. I work in academia though, but I've gotten away with this strategy in all my other jobs too. When I was teaching I had to wear formal attire (SE-Asia) so I had 2 skirts, 3-4 shirts and one pair of shoes. A friend had a similar wardrobe and we used to share so we had a little more variety. My regular toiletries/care products include toothpaste, shampoo, deodorant and sunscreen and nothing more than that.
Tomorrow I'm going to a semi-formal party and a friend is just asking what I'm gonna wear. In our discussing she's discovered that I don't have any make-up beyond an old mascara and a lipstick, no jewelry, no decent shoes and no hair dryer. She's mind-blown.
Stuff like getting hair/nails done I've never understood and I don't think I ever will. I regularly get to hear "you're like a guy", but I'll take it with pride :)
It's graduation season and party season here. My big kid (12) grew out of his plain black pants, so hubs found him a discount suit - and with concerts, 6th grade grad, etc., he's already worn it four times, and will get one more wearing out of it before he grows out of it.
His best buddy is a neighbor across the street, a girl. And she's awesome. Her fancy wear for all of these functions plus her cousin's bar mitzvah? A suit. Black pants, white shirt, black jacket. Same for her younger sister.
I've got to pack something nice for a graduation on our upcoming vacation. I only own one dress and one skirt. So I'm probably going to go with black pants and a blouse. Unfortunately I still need to take a 3rd pair of shoes. Usually I travel with flip flops and running shoes only.
-
A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches.
Sadly, this is not really the case anymore.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-chart-090710/
Yep. Just the other day I was wearing new-ish size XX shorts which fit me perfectly; I actually had to exchange the original size XX+2 shorts because they were too loose/baggy. Ready to do some home maintenance, I then changed into an old pair of Levi's 5## jeans, also in size XX --I couldn't even button them! I had to rely on my belt keep me modest while I was working.
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
-
A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches.
Sadly, this is not really the case anymore.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-chart-090710/
Yep. Just the other day I was wearing new-ish size XX shorts which fit me perfectly; I actually had to exchange the original size XX+2 shorts because they were too loose/baggy. Ready to do some home maintenance, I then changed into an old pair of Levi's 5## jeans, also in size XX --I couldn't even button them! I had to rely on my belt keep me modest while I was working.
And then there are Chico's sizes:
00 = XS = 2
0 = S = 4
0.5 = S = 6
1 = M = 8
1.5 = M = 10
2 = L = 12
2.5 = L = 14
3 = XL = 16
3.5 = XL = 18
4 = XXL = 20
So size 4 is the new size 20! At least they're up front about it.
-
A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches.
Sadly, this is not really the case anymore.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-chart-090710/
Yep. Just the other day I was wearing new-ish size XX shorts which fit me perfectly; I actually had to exchange the original size XX+2 shorts because they were too loose/baggy. Ready to do some home maintenance, I then changed into an old pair of Levi's 5## jeans, also in size XX --I couldn't even button them! I had to rely on my belt keep me modest while I was working.
And then there are Chico's sizes:
00 = XS = 2
0 = S = 4
0.5 = S = 6
1 = M = 8
1.5 = M = 10
2 = L = 12
2.5 = L = 14
3 = XL = 16
3.5 = XL = 18
4 = XXL = 20
So size 4 is the new size 20! At least they're up front about it.
I thought:
short = S = 8oz
tall = M = 12oz
grande = L = 16oz
vente = XL = 20oz
Wait, where am I? Yes I'll have a 2 please. Black thank you. And supersize it?
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
The white ones are stupid.
I also had to maintain various type of boots (black jungle boots, tan jungle boots, etc), many of which I never used, and I thought that was stupid as well.
-
As far as spending oodles of money on style and looks, yes it does cost more to be a woman. We're expected to look a certain way, so we end up spending the money to do so, especially if they work in an office-type of setting. I was never a girlie-girl so I never wore makeup, dresses, heels, etc. so I guess I can say I saved some money there. I used to spend a good amount on my hair, though I've let it go grey and haven't colored in years, more savings. It probably hurts my dating chances, but I'd rather be me and natural.
I always wonder what it's like for guys to see girls without makeup and styled hair for the first time. One of my boyfriends years ago told me the first time he saw his ex without makeup he thought she was sick. Apparently, most guys ignore this facet of reality...? I don't think I'd like going after someone based on their looks, knowing that quite possibly they're not that great looking, maybe even coyote-ugly.
I wonder if women are more likely to skip their makeup when they're sick. I've never made that comment, or noticed it, but I'm not very observant.
-
A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches.
Sadly, this is not really the case anymore.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-chart-090710/
My husband has commented on that a few times. It's disappointing. I had hoped women's sizing would take a cue from men's sizing and become more standardized, not the other way around.
-
I wonder if women are more likely to skip their makeup when they're sick. I've never made that comment, or noticed it, but I'm not very observant.
Most women I know load up on the makeup when they're sick or tired, trying to hide it. Unless they're staying home of course.
-
For me some 'pink tax' stuff is avoidable, but some...I've got a chest. And hips. Shopping in men's for bras is strangely uproductive, and for pants/jeans just does not work.
This. Sure, I could probably buy men's jeans to fit my hips. And then spend a bunch of money to have them taken in at the waist. And going braless is not an option I am willing to entertain. Jeans are always bought on sale (I haven't had much luck at local thrift stores) and worn until they're practically worn through. Bras are purchased on eBay whenever possible (I can usually find good new with/without tag options) because the ones that fit me are very expensive if purchased through standard retail outlets.
And given some of the comments ('look sick' as mentioned upthread) when a woman who usually wears makeup doesn't, I don't think the men I work with realize how many women normally have some on.
This too. If I leave off the under-eye concealer and mascara, I get questions about my health. If I use them and nothing else, people tend to assume I'm not wearing makeup.
-
Well, here we go...
In a nutshell, yes, the numbers in the article seem reasonable, but it is all a matter of personal choice.
I am going back to work in a professional services firm and had to buy an entirely new wardrobe since I've been removed from this type of environment for the last three years and am now at least one size larger than I used to be (sigh). I consider my position a highly visible one and often have to present to the shareholders and/or the entire firm, so my appearance is important (to me). I have taken the last three years off from most personal grooming (to save money and because I just didn't give a fuck), and honestly I am ready to go back to it.
I just dropped $3K on a somewhat minimalist capsule-type wardrobe, and my hope is that I won't buy any more clothing except for an occasional replacement. I usually buy the same stuff in different colors (black, grey, navy) and keep it super neutral. My typical "uniform" is detailed below, averaging $400+ per outfit. My prior professional wardrobe lasted me six years.
slacks or skirt - $100
shell - $50
blazer - $200 or long cardigan - $75
shoes - $150
I realize this may seem like a lot to most here on the forum, but this is my personal taste. I tend to prefer high-quality pieces with a nice drape and on the conservative side. I am tall with a bit of a bust so standard quick-fashion pieces don't usually work for me.
I do like the look of light make-up on ladies, but I simply am no good at applying it myself, so I just wear mascara and a nice chapstick and the cost is negligible. I am naturally blond so my eyelashes and eye brows are extremely light, and when I don't wear mascara I get MULTIPLE COMMENTS A DAY that I look tired. Fortunately, I've grown increasingly comfortable with my looks as I've aged. Having said that, I do prefer the look of my eyes with mascara. I notice I feel more confident and "put together", but other than that I keep it pretty simple.
So then we move on to personal grooming:
hair cut/highlight - $200 every 2 months (used to go every 3 months but now starting to see grey)
eye cream/moisurizer/cleanser - $150 every 4 months (worth the cost, I long struggled with my skin until finding this brand)
shellac nails - $60/mo
I've never gotten regular manicures/pedicures in the past except for special occasions, but recently I tried a shellac manicure for an event and found that I love the way it makes my nails look and feel. I tend to have dry, brittle nails and prefer to keep them on the short side and have often felt insecure about their appearance (do to lack of care). I've decided that I am going to continue with regular manicures for now because my (now) beautiful nails just look so pretty with a light nude color!!
This is my personal choice and I typically don't spend in other areas. As long as we are meeting our savings rate goal of 50% I am comfortable loosening the reigns and spending on personal care and grooming. DH lusts for cars and I lust for a nicely draped blazer;-)
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
Why are there both black and white oxfords, pumps, and heels... and why does a skirt variation of a uniform even exist? This legitimately does qualify as a cunt tax since government is involved (holy pork, that might just explain the redundancy and inefficiency too).
-
I realize this may seem like a lot to most here on the forum, but this is my personal taste. I tend to prefer high-quality pieces with a nice drape and on the conservative side. I am tall with a bit of a bust so standard quick-fashion pieces don't usually work for me.
...
This is my personal choice and I typically don't spend in other areas. As long as we are meeting our savings rate goal of 50% I am comfortable loosening the reigns and spending on personal care and grooming. DH lusts for cars and I lust for a nicely draped blazer;-)
I agree about quality clothes! The cheap stuff looks all fresh and exciting on the rack, but degrades quickly. The lines start sagging and the nap gets all fuzzy where it rubs on anything. The washable things lose their shape the first time washed, the hems curl up, and they snag easily. When I find something I really like, I'll keep it for years, so I'll pay for something that lasts.
Now days though, it seems like even the more expensive brands aren't necessarily made to last. You really have to look closely at the quality of the fabric and stitching to make sure the item is worth its price.
-
I realize this may seem like a lot to most here on the forum, but this is my personal taste. I tend to prefer high-quality pieces with a nice drape and on the conservative side. I am tall with a bit of a bust so standard quick-fashion pieces don't usually work for me.
...
This is my personal choice and I typically don't spend in other areas. As long as we are meeting our savings rate goal of 50% I am comfortable loosening the reigns and spending on personal care and grooming. DH lusts for cars and I lust for a nicely draped blazer;-)
I agree about quality clothes! The cheap stuff looks all fresh and exciting on the rack, but degrades quickly. The lines start sagging and the nap gets all fuzzy where it rubs on anything. The washable things lose their shape the first time washed, the hems curl up, and they snag easily. When I find something I really like, I'll keep it for years, so I'll pay for something that lasts.
Now days though, it seems like even the more expensive brands aren't necessarily made to last. You really have to look closely at the quality of the fabric and stitching to make sure the item is worth its price.
This is indeed a problem. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for my clothing if they're made durable and preferably also sustainable (e.g. workers get a fair wage) but some of my "nice" clothes fell apart soon while some of my H&M tops have lasted for years. I now try to shop at thrift stores more often as I figure that clothes that have undergone several washings under someone elses regime will most likely survive a few more and the cost is equal to the cheap H&M stuff.
-
Well, here we go...
In a nutshell, yes, the numbers in the article seem reasonable, but it is all a matter of personal choice.
Well, they shouldn't because they're made up :) I was starting to wonder if this was getting missed.
Picked this tidbit out of an article about women and their appearance:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/opinions/what-miss-american-still-cant-do-alaimo/index.html
"A 2017 Groupon study found that, over the course of a woman's lifetime, she'll spend over a quarter of a million dollars more than a man on her appearance — spurred on by a vast fashion and beauty industry whose stock in trade is the canard that a woman's worth is tied directly to how good she can make herself look."
Holy crap, can that be right, $250,000 more than a guy?
It's not right, CNN misrepresented the numbers, assuming this is the same study:
https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2017/groupons-mobile-app-and-the-big-business-of-beauty/
It says women spend a lifetime total of $225,360 while men spend $175,680. By comparison women spend around $50,000 or 28% more than men. And that's based on a Groupon survey of 2,000 people. I wonder if it's truly a random sampling of the US population or did they survey their spendy customers who are more likely to be at an age where they care about their appearance.
Also, I found the numbers on the Groupon website to doublecheck pymnts and it is the same study. CNN was Wayyyy off.
https://www.groupon.com/merchant/blog/true-cost-beauty-americans-spend-most-survey
-
I don't wear make up because I have the world's most sensitive skin.
When people would bug me to try make up in my 20s I would give them a hippy feminist spiel about double standards and equal pay. It was most convincing when I was also going braless due to skin sensitivities. Americans are very distracted by nipples.
-
For example, I've wanted to grow my hair longer for years, to simplify the hair routine in the mornings, but every time I walked into a salon I'd either be pressed into a short hairstyle or they'd just cut it short despite my requests to keep it longer. I hated how I'd come out looking like a 12 year old boy. Finally I quit going to salons and learned how to cut my own hair. I've been letting it grow for a couple of years now, and I absolutely love how it looks now. And all I have to do in the mornings is brush, tie back or clip if I want, and go.
WTH? I hope you demanded your money back when they cut your hair shorter than you instructed. Seriously, that's messed up. They're providing a service, they need to do what they're told to do with your hair regardless of what they think.
-
For example, I've wanted to grow my hair longer for years, to simplify the hair routine in the mornings, but every time I walked into a salon I'd either be pressed into a short hairstyle or they'd just cut it short despite my requests to keep it longer. I hated how I'd come out looking like a 12 year old boy. Finally I quit going to salons and learned how to cut my own hair. I've been letting it grow for a couple of years now, and I absolutely love how it looks now. And all I have to do in the mornings is brush, tie back or clip if I want, and go.
WTH? I hope you demanded your money back when they cut your hair shorter than you instructed. Seriously, that's messed up. They're providing a service, they need to do what they're told to do with your hair regardless of what they think.
This happens to my boyfriend all the time, too -- he has long hair, and will ask stylists to do a long trim/only take an inch off, and they'll take 3 or 4 off at a time.
-
For example, I've wanted to grow my hair longer for years, to simplify the hair routine in the mornings, but every time I walked into a salon I'd either be pressed into a short hairstyle or they'd just cut it short despite my requests to keep it longer. I hated how I'd come out looking like a 12 year old boy. Finally I quit going to salons and learned how to cut my own hair. I've been letting it grow for a couple of years now, and I absolutely love how it looks now. And all I have to do in the mornings is brush, tie back or clip if I want, and go.
WTH? I hope you demanded your money back when they cut your hair shorter than you instructed. Seriously, that's messed up. They're providing a service, they need to do what they're told to do with your hair regardless of what they think.
This happens to my boyfriend all the time, too -- he has long hair, and will ask stylists to do a long trim/only take an inch off, and they'll take 3 or 4 off at a time.
Seriously, I'd make them pay ME if someone did something like that. You can't put hair back on once you've cut it. Your BF needs a better hair cutter - someone who isn't a jerk.
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
To be fair, you did join the Navy where there's a uniform for every single hypothetical occasion.
I do wonder if you could print measurements on women's pants in the same way we get it for men, or are there too many measurements to fit on a tag? Waist, hips, length, inseam - anything else?
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
To be fair, you did join the Navy where there's a uniform for every single hypothetical occasion.
I do wonder if you could print measurements on women's pants in the same way we get it for men, or are there too many measurements to fit on a tag? Waist, hips, length, inseam - anything else?
Bite your tongue, Sirrah! I did not join the Navy. You guys might be lost in a haze of grey, but I'm blaze orange and underway.
I take my revenge for having to own so many shoes out by smiling when the men folk have to polish their acres of oxford leather. The size difference between 5 and 13 seems to equal approximately 30 minutes per shoe.
-
I believe it, especially for women who pay for services.
I know a lot of people totally don't get spending money or time on superficial things, but I've always been stereotypically girly when it comes to appearance and enjoying clothing, beauty, etc. For me it's really not about social pressure. In fact I'd say I'm definitely more put together or high maintenance looking that most women I work with (I have a torn jeans and sandals casual office), but I just don't feel like myself without doing certain things. I take a lot of pride in my appearance and I find personal care routines to be sort of calming and centering. I feel like I can operate better in the world when I look as good as I can and I'm much more confident.
I mitigate costs by DIY-ing a lot and skipping on designer BS. I do my own deep hair conditioning treatments and I cut my own hair (no hair dyeing for me), I have a mani/pedi pretty much at all times but I DIY that too (learned from youtube!) and I buy nail varnish online for the best prices. I wax/shave at home, I pluck my own eyebrows, do my own facials, take long baths/steams at home, etc. I dress fashionably but inexpensively and often shop off season/discount/thrift. I do my makeup every day, but I only have two real looks (daytime natural and going out) so I only own a tiny pouch of quality sephora products, which I buy with points I get through a work rewards program. All in, it's not that expensive to do these things if you do most of it at home. I make a lot of the products I use or find them discounted online, and I don't overbuy or impulse buy.
If I did the same routine I do now, but outsourced it. Whew, well a mani/pedi every week would be about $40 with tip, a facial can be $150 or more and I do one a week with my DIY plan, waxing is at least $120 if you pay a pro and that's once a month, eyebrow threading can be like another $20, hair cut would be at least $80 plus a tip, and this is all without buying makeup or clothing or soap. So yeah, I definitely see how the spending would be so high for many women.
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
To be fair, you did join the Navy where there's a uniform for every single hypothetical occasion.
I do wonder if you could print measurements on women's pants in the same way we get it for men, or are there too many measurements to fit on a tag? Waist, hips, length, inseam - anything else?
Bite your tongue, Sirrah! I did not join the Navy. You guys might be lost in a haze of grey, but I'm blaze orange and underway.
I take my revenge for having to own so many shoes out by smiling when the men folk have to polish their acres of oxford leather. The size difference between 5 and 13 seems to equal approximately 30 minutes per shoe.
The nice thing about the auxiliary is that I can choose not to participate in any event that requires another uniform. So far, I pull off business casual plus ODUs.
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
To be fair, you did join the Navy where there's a uniform for every single hypothetical occasion.
I do wonder if you could print measurements on women's pants in the same way we get it for men, or are there too many measurements to fit on a tag? Waist, hips, length, inseam - anything else?
Bite your tongue, Sirrah! I did not join the Navy. You guys might be lost in a haze of grey, but I'm blaze orange and underway.
I take my revenge for having to own so many shoes out by smiling when the men folk have to polish their acres of oxford leather. The size difference between 5 and 13 seems to equal approximately 30 minutes per shoe.
Coastie?
-
A man can walk into a store a pick up a pair of pants that say the waist is 34 inches and it is 34 inches.
Sadly, this is not really the case anymore.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a8386/pants-size-chart-090710/
My husband has commented on that a few times. It's disappointing. I had hoped women's sizing would take a cue from men's sizing and become more standardized, not the other way around.
At least when you're looking at women's sizing, you know the number is basically made up and the sizing varies by company. With men's sizing, it's supposed to be consistent! Though, as someone who regularly wears men's pants/shirts (love those pockets), this does explain the baffling logic of why a 33" waist is comfortable over my 36" hips.
No Mustachian will fall for the obvious marketing bullshit, but unfortunately plenty of people of the XX persuasion get as far as the pink flowery section, decide "I'm here-- I have found the product" and so it doesn't occur to them to nose around in the XY section long enough to notice that there's a better buy available. Gendered departments ensure that the same thing happens with unisex clothing items such as T-shirts, bermuda shorts, flip-flops, socks, and the like.
The shopping trip itself takes longer, but is oh so satisfying when you get find what you need at the right price. I recently got a brand new sweater from the kid's section in a great color for significantly less than an adult version would have cost (somehow I'm a US size 8 and there's still sizing overlap with children's clothing).
Or that one year when I needed hiking boots with ankle support, and ended up buying a pair from the men's section as apparently women's high-top hiking boots weren't currently in fashion that season (according to salesperson I talked to). Since when is not spraining your ankle a fashion issue? /rant
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
To be fair, you did join the Navy where there's a uniform for every single hypothetical occasion.
I do wonder if you could print measurements on women's pants in the same way we get it for men, or are there too many measurements to fit on a tag? Waist, hips, length, inseam - anything else?
Bite your tongue, Sirrah! I did not join the Navy. You guys might be lost in a haze of grey, but I'm blaze orange and underway.
I take my revenge for having to own so many shoes out by smiling when the men folk have to polish their acres of oxford leather. The size difference between 5 and 13 seems to equal approximately 30 minutes per shoe.
Coastie?
By the grace of God.
-
I do wonder if you could print measurements on women's pants in the same way we get it for men, or are there too many measurements to fit on a tag? Waist, hips, length, inseam - anything else?
Technically, yes, you can print the inseam. That doesn't mean it will be correct. Just like my 3 different pairs of jeans that all different number-sizes but the same waist measurement, I've held up pairs of pants that were marked as having the same inseam but very obviously did NOT.
Women's clothing is such a crapshoot. I once bought one pair of pants that I really liked, bought a second pair in the same size but a different color, got the second pair home, and couldn't squeeze the waistband closed. I then tried on the first pair to confirm that I hadn't gained weight; nope, it was definitely the pants.
-
I've read most of the comments and pretty generally agree. On the topic of sizes, I screamingly agree. I sold Men's Clothing at Nordstrom for a decade. OMG, the inequalities and inconsistencies are vast and real.
The same shirt costs a different price to launder depending on the gender of the person it is believed to belong to.
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
-
In my experience it’s almost always women doing it to each other, so it was interesting to see how many folks in this thread have had men being the one with comments.
My wife is in management but spends essentially nothing on beauty items for work/career reasons because it’s a food processing company and jewelry, makeup, and fragrances are all forbidden for safety reasons. And outside of work she could give a fuck because she knows I hate the stuff.
And +1 to the comments about men’s sizing no longer being very reliable anymore either, though that’s mostly with pants. Shirts are still pretty spot on.
-
As a woman in my early 30s, I'm really starting to notice the expectations that women not age. Botox, fillers, chemical peels, and facials are everywhere. Hair gets dyed as soon as greys start showing up.
I wear blue jeans and sneakers to work and hardly ever wear makeup, but I'm still planning to make a Botox appointment after I get back from vacation next week. I never realized until I started talking about it how many of my friends were already doing these things.
-
Women absolutely do it to each other. We all grow up swimming in the same cultural soup, internalizing the same expectations. Some of us to a lesser degree, or start questioning what we've absorbed and forming different priorities once we're conscious of this, but others buy all the way in, which is the logical thing to do if you've always seen other women rewarded for being decorative and derided for not giving a damn. Reinforcing those standards by criticizing other women who aren't meeting them bolsters your own self-perception as someone who is doing it right and will therefore be safe from such punishment. It's a vicious cycle and sad that it just keeps happening.
-
As a woman in my early 30s, I'm really starting to notice the expectations that women not age. Botox, fillers, chemical peels, and facials are everywhere. Hair gets dyed as soon as greys start showing up.
I wear blue jeans and sneakers to work and hardly ever wear makeup, but I'm still planning to make a Botox appointment after I get back from vacation next week. I never realized until I started talking about it how many of my friends were already doing these things.
I'm early 30s too (urban HCOL area) and I'm curious how you feel/see/experience this expectation of not aging. I do think a lot of women freak out in their 30s but I don't really understand it and if my friends are doing these types of treatments they aren't talking about it. I'm not opposed to treatments necessarily, I just find it interesting you're already seeing it at our age. With the exception of people who get really out of shape I don't think 31 looks that drastically different than, say 26.
I guess what I want to know, because I do hear a lot of women talk about this type of pressure and it's not something I feel externally at all, is how the pressure is applied and what would happen if you didn't conform. Like do you think this would affect your work or personal relationships? I want to look a certain way and I'm willing to do DIY beauty treatments and work out daily to achieve my look, but I don't feel like there would be social backlash if I suddenly gained 10 pounds or had wrinkles around my eyes, etc.
-
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
This one is 1000% self inflicted. It’s possible to buy a $20 white dress, and a $5000 designer tuxedo. The fact that almost no one does those two things tells you all you need to know.
-
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
This one is 1000% self inflicted. It’s possible to buy a $20 white dress, and a $5000 designer tuxedo. The fact that almost no one does those two things tells you all you need to know.
Agreed! I feel like conversations on this topic are always so extreme. It's bizarre how people act as if there's no middle ground reasonable way to buy women's items/feminine things! Men's razors are cheaper, so buy men's razors instead, problem solved. Bras are pricy, so buy them on sale once a year. Designer bridal gowns are insanely overpriced (so are men's designer suits, btw), so set a low budget for your dress and only shop at places that cater to those with your budget. There are even national chains in the USA that sell inexpensive and traditional pretty looking wedding dresses.
ETA: I was curious so I popped over to the David's Bridal site, right now they are selling 166 different wedding dresses, all priced at or under $250; they sell 40 designs that are under $100.
-
I've read most of the comments and pretty generally agree. On the topic of sizes, I screamingly agree. I sold Men's Clothing at Nordstrom for a decade. OMG, the inequalities and inconsistencies are vast and real.
The same shirt costs a different price to launder depending on the gender of the person it is believed to belong to.
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
It cost my husband more to rent his vest than my entire outfit, including jewelry. It helped that in the end the only earrings I could find on the right color came from Claire's.
-
I've read most of the comments and pretty generally agree. On the topic of sizes, I screamingly agree. I sold Men's Clothing at Nordstrom for a decade. OMG, the inequalities and inconsistencies are vast and real.
The same shirt costs a different price to launder depending on the gender of the person it is believed to belong to.
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
It cost my husband more to rent his vest than my entire outfit, including jewelry. It helped that in the end the only earrings I could find on the right color came from Claire's.
My tux was free. Most national chains will give the groom (and father of the bride) a free rental in return for the rest of the wedding party’s business.
-
I've read most of the comments and pretty generally agree. On the topic of sizes, I screamingly agree. I sold Men's Clothing at Nordstrom for a decade. OMG, the inequalities and inconsistencies are vast and real.
The same shirt costs a different price to launder depending on the gender of the person it is believed to belong to.
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
I think generally it will also be more expensive for mother's of the bride/groom than fathers. And bridesmaids versus ushers. Oh joy (future mother of the bride).
-
I've read most of the comments and pretty generally agree. On the topic of sizes, I screamingly agree. I sold Men's Clothing at Nordstrom for a decade. OMG, the inequalities and inconsistencies are vast and real.
The same shirt costs a different price to launder depending on the gender of the person it is believed to belong to.
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
It cost my husband more to rent his vest than my entire outfit, including jewelry. It helped that in the end the only earrings I could find on the right color came from Claire's.
My tux was free. Most national chains will give the groom (and father of the bride) a free rental in return for the rest of the wedding party’s business.
We didn't have a wedding party. We only invited people whose names were on our birth certificates.
-
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
This one is 1000% self inflicted. It’s possible to buy a $20 white dress, and a $5000 designer tuxedo. The fact that almost no one does those two things tells you all you need to know.
This is literally a case of "You get what you pay for." If you choose to buy a $5000 dress, that's what you get. If you choose a thrift store dress, that's what you get.
Here's proof a bride can look stunning in a thrift store dress. Total cost for our wedding in 1983 was $50, that included cost of the dress, so it was probably in the $5 to $10 range.
-
This too. If I leave off the under-eye concealer and mascara, I get questions about my health. If I use them and nothing else, people tend to assume I'm not wearing makeup.
(https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/images/legacy/happyplace.com/4f98722edfe77.png)
-
are: people being told they look sick without makeup I will just leave this gem from Amy Scumer here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=63s&v=fyeTJVU4wVo
-
Every time I read about the pressure many women feel to spend oodles on their appearance I am so glad that I grew up in (and returned to) the hippie granola Pacific Northwest, and spent my career years in grad school and non-profits. It let me get away with no makeup, no fancy hair stuff, no shaving (DH prefers), and a mostly casual wardrobe. Also much less stress overall.
Amen to that. Visiting the east coast was a nightmare for me. I literally had a stranger in a grocery store ask me why I was wearing tennis shoes. Um... to have shoes on? And my friend who had moved there described me as "brave" for not wearing makeup. I'll stick to my crunchy granola hippy paradise filled with rain, TYVM. (Not that there's no pressure here, obviously, but it's easier to buck the more expensive trends of hair/makeup/botox)
-
are: people being told they look sick without makeup I will just leave this gem from Amy Schumer here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=63s&v=fyeTJVU4wVo
OMG, I almost peed my pants!
-
But the best example of all is the wedding day. It costs a metric fuck-ton more money to be the person in the the bride costume than the one in the groom costume.
- Snip -
ETA: I was curious so I popped over to the David's Bridal site, right now they are selling 166 different wedding dresses, all priced at or under $250; they sell 40 designs that are under $100.
Then after the dress, there's:
Shoes
Undergarments
Hosiery
Veil
Hair
Makeup
Mani/pedi
Bouquet
Something old, something new, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but I'm no expert. DH and I eloped. We wore clothes we already owned. There was no one from our birth certificates there, but a couple of my younger siblings were, even though they only got a couple hours notice. It was perfect.
P.S. I see the quotes are a little wonky, but I think it's readable as it is.
-
Every time I read about the pressure many women feel to spend oodles on their appearance I am so glad that I grew up in (and returned to) the hippie granola Pacific Northwest, and spent my career years in grad school and non-profits. It let me get away with no makeup, no fancy hair stuff, no shaving (DH prefers), and a mostly casual wardrobe. Also much less stress overall.
Amen to that. Visiting the east coast was a nightmare for me. I literally had a stranger in a grocery store ask me why I was wearing tennis shoes. Um... to have shoes on? And my friend who had moved there described me as "brave" for not wearing makeup. I'll stick to my crunchy granola hippy paradise filled with rain, TYVM. (Not that there's no pressure here, obviously, but it's easier to buck the more expensive trends of hair/makeup/botox)
Really? When living on the east coast (Boston) I was surprised how everyone seemed to go to work in their running shoes. Like not sneakers, but actual running shoes. I didn't mind, it totally fits my style and I happily picked up the habit, but that's not a normal thing in Europe :p
Also leggings everywhere. People that were certainly not going to the gym looked like they were on their way to the gym continuously..
-
As a woman in my early 30s, I'm really starting to notice the expectations that women not age. Botox, fillers, chemical peels, and facials are everywhere. Hair gets dyed as soon as greys start showing up.
I wear blue jeans and sneakers to work and hardly ever wear makeup, but I'm still planning to make a Botox appointment after I get back from vacation next week. I never realized until I started talking about it how many of my friends were already doing these things.
I'm early 30s too (urban HCOL area) and I'm curious how you feel/see/experience this expectation of not aging. I do think a lot of women freak out in their 30s but I don't really understand it and if my friends are doing these types of treatments they aren't talking about it. I'm not opposed to treatments necessarily, I just find it interesting you're already seeing it at our age. With the exception of people who get really out of shape I don't think 31 looks that drastically different than, say 26.
I guess what I want to know, because I do hear a lot of women talk about this type of pressure and it's not something I feel externally at all, is how the pressure is applied and what would happen if you didn't conform. Like do you think this would affect your work or personal relationships? I want to look a certain way and I'm willing to do DIY beauty treatments and work out daily to achieve my look, but I don't feel like there would be social backlash if I suddenly gained 10 pounds or had wrinkles around my eyes, etc.
I'm not in a super urban environment (In a city, but hardly New York or London) and most of my friends are fairly alternative. Still, over the last couple of years one after the other is having cosmetic treatments.
Recently, at 32-year old friend, who looks about a decade younger than her calendar age, was talking constantly about wanting to do Botox because she had such massive wrinkles and looked so old. She's a close friend and I can be quite blunt, so I asked her if I looked old to her. I'm 4 years younger and objectively my skin looks much older than hers. She was quite surprised and told me that her goal was to have smooth skin like me. We had a close look at our faces, then concluded it was all in her head.
A few overweight friends have also lost a bit of weight recently. Of course, I'm really happy that they chose to have a healthy diet and a healthy weight, but one after the other is considering, or undergoing, surgery as a 'reward'. In some cases I understand, some of them are left with a large amount of sagging skin, but others have this ideal of a skinny teenager they've wanted to be since they were kids, and don't want to let go of that ideal even though they're now healthy adult women. They want stick thin arms and legs that an adult woman is not going to be able to get in a healthy way. I've heard several talk about perceived bingo wings and how you can get surgery to get rid of them, but no one has gone through with it yet. A few had tummy tucks and breast lifts and so far no one is 100% happy with the results.
I'm not naturally insecure and I feel totally comfortable in my own skin, but I can absolutely imagine that body insecurities can rub off on some and cosmetic procedures offer a quick fix. I think most of them should see a psychologist rather than a surgeon.
-
A few overweight friends have also lost a bit of weight recently. Of course, I'm really happy that they chose to have a healthy diet and a healthy weight, but one after the other is considering, or undergoing, surgery as a 'reward'. In some cases I understand, some of them are left with a large amount of sagging skin [...]
A few had tummy tucks and breast lifts and so far no one is 100% happy with the results.
In Belgium such operations after massive weight loss are considered reconstructive surgery and partly covered by the Belgian health system. I have lost a lot of weight myself, and 10 years ago I underwent a series of operations to remove sagging skin from stomach and limbs, and get fake boobs (that part wasn't considered reconstructive but it was lumped with the arm operation). I lost three kilos of skin from the tummy tuck.
I am utterly delighted with the results to this day.
-
A few overweight friends have also lost a bit of weight recently. Of course, I'm really happy that they chose to have a healthy diet and a healthy weight, but one after the other is considering, or undergoing, surgery as a 'reward'. In some cases I understand, some of them are left with a large amount of sagging skin [...]
A few had tummy tucks and breast lifts and so far no one is 100% happy with the results.
In Belgium such operations after massive weight loss are considered reconstructive surgery and partly covered by the Belgian health system. I have lost a lot of weight myself, and 10 years ago I underwent a series of operations to remove sagging skin from stomach and limbs, and get fake boobs (that part wasn't considered reconstructive but it was lumped with the arm operation). I lost three kilos of skin from the tummy tuck.
I am utterly delighted with the results to this day.
Good to hear you're happy with the results! And well done for losing all that weight.
In NL these kind of operations are sometimes also covered by health insurances, but only in case of medical necessity. With none of these friends there was a medical necessity according to doctors, so they paid out of pocket. Most of them had surgery done in other countries so it was quite a hassle when they developed complications.
It's difficult to draw a firm line. On one hand, in cases like you where you had 3 kgs of extra skin, of course there's a real medical necessity and I believe this should be totally covered by health insurance, but it's a major operation that people should think about carefully before undergoing it (if this is covered by the health system I'm sure you went through all the hoops and were well aware of the pros and cons). If you're like some of my friends, and have gained and lost weight a few times and went through a couple of pregnancies, and your stomach doesn't look like a 20-year old fitgirl on Instagram anymore, but you don't have kilos of sagging skin, I think you're probably better off seeing a counsellor than a surgeon in Eastern Europe. The aging process is going to continue and it's much better in the long term to just accept it rather than fight it.
-
A few overweight friends have also lost a bit of weight recently. Of course, I'm really happy that they chose to have a healthy diet and a healthy weight, but one after the other is considering, or undergoing, surgery as a 'reward'. In some cases I understand, some of them are left with a large amount of sagging skin [...]
A few had tummy tucks and breast lifts and so far no one is 100% happy with the results.
In Belgium such operations after massive weight loss are considered reconstructive surgery and partly covered by the Belgian health system. I have lost a lot of weight myself, and 10 years ago I underwent a series of operations to remove sagging skin from stomach and limbs, and get fake boobs (that part wasn't considered reconstructive but it was lumped with the arm operation). I lost three kilos of skin from the tummy tuck.
I am utterly delighted with the results to this day.
Good to hear you're happy with the results! And well done for losing all that weight.
In NL these kind of operations are sometimes also covered by health insurances, but only in case of medical necessity. With none of these friends there was a medical necessity according to doctors, so they paid out of pocket. Most of them had surgery done in other countries so it was quite a hassle when they developed complications.
It's difficult to draw a firm line. On one hand, in cases like you where you had 3 kgs of extra skin, of course there's a real medical necessity and I believe this should be totally covered by health insurance, but it's a major operation that people should think about carefully before undergoing it (if this is covered by the health system I'm sure you went through all the hoops and were well aware of the pros and cons). If you're like some of my friends, and have gained and lost weight a few times and went through a couple of pregnancies, and your stomach doesn't look like a 20-year old fitgirl on Instagram anymore, but you don't have kilos of sagging skin, I think you're probably better off seeing a counsellor than a surgeon in Eastern Europe. The aging process is going to continue and it's much better in the long term to just accept it rather than fight it.
Thank you :D. It went so well actually that one of my relatives in the same situation as me did a couple of operations with the same surgeon a few months later. Also totally delighted.
I have been extremely lucky to have had a tummy tuck specialist in the plastic and reconstructive surgery department of my usual hospital in Brussels. Such a great surgeon.
Turns out the main risk factor for such operations is smoking because it decreases the oxygenation of tissues, apart from that they are not as major as they look. They can be lengthy though as the surgeon must be very careful about scars (it's cosmetic so by definition it is entirely about the looks). I was on the table for 6 hours for the tummy tuck.
I have not gained the weight back (I had already kept the weight off for 3 or 4 years prior to the ops), and I never intended to have children. I assume those are the reasons why the results have held on so well.
I was morbidly obese from 8-year-old to 20-year-old so you can imagine how fucking happy I am now with my normal weight and the sagging skin off. The statistics indicate it's nothing short of a miracle. I have average looks now, and it is all I ever wanted when I was younger.
-
Every time I read about the pressure many women feel to spend oodles on their appearance I am so glad that I grew up in (and returned to) the hippie granola Pacific Northwest, and spent my career years in grad school and non-profits. It let me get away with no makeup, no fancy hair stuff, no shaving (DH prefers), and a mostly casual wardrobe. Also much less stress overall.
Amen to that. Visiting the east coast was a nightmare for me. I literally had a stranger in a grocery store ask me why I was wearing tennis shoes. Um... to have shoes on? And my friend who had moved there described me as "brave" for not wearing makeup. I'll stick to my crunchy granola hippy paradise filled with rain, TYVM. (Not that there's no pressure here, obviously, but it's easier to buck the more expensive trends of hair/makeup/botox)
Really? When living on the east coast (Boston) I was surprised how everyone seemed to go to work in their running shoes. Like not sneakers, but actual running shoes. I didn't mind, it totally fits my style and I happily picked up the habit, but that's not a normal thing in my part of Europe :p
Also leggings everywhere. People that were certainly not going to the gym looked like they were on their way to the gym continuously..
FTFY
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4195036/What-not-to-wear-in-winter.html
-
Women in their early 30s getting Botox and cosmetic surgery to improve on natural appearance?? Really? I don't suppose there's ever any consideration of the risks of such procedures, like nerve injuries, anesthesia accidents, and infection? It just feels wrong that in order to fit society's expectations for being a woman, you not only have to incur added expenses but also painful procedures with real medical risks. I guess we shouldn't be so quick to judge other societies that practice female mutilation, like foot binding, lip/ear stretching, and genital surgeries.
I thought that we were finally heading in the right direction with the demise of stockings, the advent of flats rather than heels to pair with skirts, and generally more comfortable women's shoes so it's no longer necessary to put up with blood blisters and screwed up knees and backs from high heels (how well I remember those days). I guess we still have a ways to go, but I'm still thankful for the progress that's been made.
To the poster who reported that work shoe requirement nightmare: it may be worth trying to educate management on the medical risks of wearing heels, so they'll at least give you the option of wearing just one pair of flats with both pants & skirts. If they cover your health insurance costs that may actually be the wedge you need.
-
I'm not in a super urban environment (In a city, but hardly New York or London) and most of my friends are fairly alternative. Still, over the last couple of years one after the other is having cosmetic treatments.
I used to be part of a feminist message board that has now migrated to Facebook, and recently there was a thread in which so many women wrote gleefully about how they have had cosmetic surgery, or are looking forward to getting some. Of course, people get to do what they want with their own bodies, but I have to admit, it really bummed me out. If even powerful badass feminists feel the need or desire to cut into their perfectly healthy flesh to look a certain way, then it becomes clear that we have a long, long way to go to getting over our culture's obsession with the way women look, and recentering our value as human beings in who we are and what we do instead.
As for me, it's fun to play with my look, though I don't feel the need to wear makeup every day. It's more a fun-times optional thing for me. I have for sure spent too much in my life on the momentary mood boost of buying a new lipstick or blouse or pair of shoes ... but that feels different to me from voluntarily undergoing surgery without some underlying medical need. I'm 45 and fat and also pretty cute, I think, and this whole obsession with looking younger is something that I personally feel the need to resist as a political statement and also to normalize the idea that yeah, this is what a 45-year-old woman looks like!
(Side note: there is no such thing as a "healthy weight." Unhealthy skinny people and healthy fat people abound in this world!)
-
You ladies are making me very grateful for my circle of friends! I can definitely see how insecurities would grow if women I was close to were picking apart their own appearances and doing cosmetic surgery. I'm wondering if some of this is an earning level thing? Like, maybe me and my peers just don't have high enough incomes to do this stuff, so no one does it, so then no one needs to do it? Now that I think of it we don't really talk about appearance much at all beyond "i got a new conditioner" small talk.
I think if you stay super fit and take care of your skin, teeth, and hair then you'll already be more attractive than most of the population, at any age. I'll happily put my time and energy into that stuff but it's hard to imagine a scenario where I'd shell out thousands on treatments to look like I've lived fewer years than I've lived. As long as the husband still wants to hit it, I'm good, hahaha.
I also love reading about the style differences by region. Whenever I go to the PNW I feel insanely overdressed. That place has got to be the denim and fleece capital of the world. I def got some "looks" when I went hiking while wearing makeup. Apparently that's a super weird thing to do. *shrug*
-
I think earning level has something to do with cosmetic surgery of course. In my friend circle, lots of women dye their hair but haven't gone in for any plastic surgery. I definitely don't have the income to support stuff like that. Not to mention that botox and fillers need to be redone a few times a year, IIRC.
I guess I've got to be grateful that i am also in the PNW.
-
I have a colleague who gets chemical burns (facials? I forget what they are called) every few months. She walks around for two weeks looking like she has a bad, painful sunburn in an attempt to look better for a few months. As I understand it, she doesn't even have them done locally, so there are travel expenses, as well.
-
I saw a documentary about Korean men wearing makeup to make their skin look flawless, and one of the guys they interviewed talked about how it builds his confidence, how he likes to look like a man who could handle any situation. My first thought was, "What about the situation where you have no makeup?"
The appearance = confidence = attractiveness thing baffles me in this day and age. It's just seems so primitive. It's understandable that someone with healthy skin, symmetrical features, good muscle tone, and large sexual organs would be confident and attractive from the standpoint of reproduction, but there's more to consider wrt a good mate, and society should be advancing along that line of reasoning. But no, we're moving in the opposite direction, the direction of insecurity and greed.
Which one takes more self-confidence, waltzing into a room looking good because of the layers you've put on, or waltzing in with no layers, perfectly at ease and in control? If it's sex we're concerned with, that bare type of confidence seems more appealing to me, and it seems superior in other areas as well, such as intelligence and insightfulness.
-
I saw a documentary about Korean men wearing makeup to make their skin look flawless, and one of the guys they interviewed talked about how it builds his confidence, how he likes to look like a man who could handle any situation. My first thought was, "What about the situation where you have no makeup?"
The appearance = confidence = attractiveness thing baffles me in this day and age. It's just seems so primitive. It's understandable that someone with healthy skin, symmetrical features, good muscle tone, and large sexual organs would be confident and attractive from the standpoint of reproduction, but there's more to consider wrt a good mate, and society should be advancing along that line of reasoning. But no, we're moving in the opposite direction, the direction of insecurity and greed.
Which one takes more self-confidence, waltzing into a room looking good because of the layers you've put on, or waltzing in with no layers, perfectly at ease and in control? If it's sex we're concerned with, that bare type of confidence seems more appealing to me, and it seems superior in other areas as well, such as intelligence and insightfulness.
That’s cool that that’s your preference, but I can tell you from experience that that isn’t most people’s preference.
Most people respond much better to the makeup layers, the heels, the long shiny hair, etc, etc.
I am 100% comfortable in my own skin, walking in to almost any environment with no makeup, no frills clothes, and a pair of running shoes, but I would be absolutely lying if I didn’t say that I get infinitely more and better attention when I scrub up, spackle on the war paint, and cram my toes into torture shoes. It’s not even a small difference in how people react. The social pressure is very real.
I don’t hold it against anyone that they conform to expectations, not everyone enjoys consequences of rebellion.
I concur. Although I have made a choice, I cannot deny that it has had an effect on my career.
And someone who has out make up on everyday for a couple of decades is going to feel naked without, rather than fake with it. Remember when phones started replacing watches? How long did it take you to stop looking at your wrist?
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm?
I'm stealing this. So you know.
[/quote]
It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.[/quote]
These are all for the same job? Different jobs? (cannot picture work that requires both steel toed and pumps...)
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm?
I'm stealing this. So you know.
It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.[/quote]
These are all for the same job? Different jobs? (cannot picture work that requires both steel toed and pumps...)
[/quote]
This is the contents of her closet.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FdK6JLbqee4/Sxb5344hhuI/AAAAAAAAAEk/QYrBA7pwRJM/s400/Coast+guard+uniforms.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FdK6JLbqee4/Sxb5344hhuI/AAAAAAAAAEk/QYrBA7pwRJM/s400/Coast+guard+uniforms.png)
-
I saw a documentary about Korean men wearing makeup to make their skin look flawless, and one of the guys they interviewed talked about how it builds his confidence, how he likes to look like a man who could handle any situation. My first thought was, "What about the situation where you have no makeup?"
The appearance = confidence = attractiveness thing baffles me in this day and age. It's just seems so primitive. It's understandable that someone with healthy skin, symmetrical features, good muscle tone, and large sexual organs would be confident and attractive from the standpoint of reproduction, but there's more to consider wrt a good mate, and society should be advancing along that line of reasoning. But no, we're moving in the opposite direction, the direction of insecurity and greed.
Which one takes more self-confidence, waltzing into a room looking good because of the layers you've put on, or waltzing in with no layers, perfectly at ease and in control? If it's sex we're concerned with, that bare type of confidence seems more appealing to me, and it seems superior in other areas as well, such as intelligence and insightfulness.
That’s cool that that’s your preference, but I can tell you from experience that that isn’t most people’s preference.
Most people respond much better to the makeup layers, the heels, the long shiny hair, etc, etc.
I am 100% comfortable in my own skin, walking in to almost any environment with no makeup, no frills clothes, and a pair of running shoes, but I would be absolutely lying if I didn’t say that I get infinitely more and better attention when I scrub up, spackle on the war paint, and cram my toes into torture shoes. It’s not even a small difference in how people react. The social pressure is very real.
I don’t hold it against anyone that they conform to expectations, not everyone enjoys consequences of rebellion.
Thumbs up to your bolded. I'm the breadwinner for my family and while I am lucky enough to work from home often (with all of the no makeup, grungy hair, jeans and tshirtness that I want), I wouldn't have my job if I wasn't willing to to look how I'm expected to look when it comes to meeting with customers, vendors, industry folks, etc.
I'd love to never wear make up, flat iron my hair, or traipse around in uncomfortable shoes ever again, but I like supporting my family more!
-
My mom, my wife, and my wife's mom all sew.
They made stylish clothes that fit them much better than store-bought ones for a fraction of the cost.
(No reason men can't sew also, though since our fashion needs are typically simpler, the opportunity cost of developing sewing skill doesn't get compensated for by as large a benefit.)
-
My mom, my wife, and my wife's mom all sew.
They made stylish clothes that fit them much better than store-bought ones for a fraction of the cost.
(No reason men can't sew also, though since our fashion needs are typically simpler, the opportunity cost of developing sewing skill doesn't get compensated for by as large a benefit.)
I do this too, but I’ve had to invest thousands in learning how, and I’m still only passably decent at it.
I would never be able to make suits, which both DH and I need for work.
Also, fabric is crazy expensive and it can easily end up more expensive than buying cheap clothes at discount stores. I cannot make clothes for cheaper than I can buy them at Costco, so I don’t tend to make clothes from scratch, I learned to sew so that I could tailor my own clothes properly as I have an extremely hard time finding anything that fits off the rack.
Sewing has saved me a fortune in alteration costs, but not much in terms of actually buying clothes.
That logic doesn't make sense in the context of this thread. Sorry.
Either
a) Clothes are horribly expensive for women because of "the pink tax" or,
b) Clothes are too inexpensive for sewing to save money.
Reminds me of this scene in Raising Arizona:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9OLZKSC5k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9OLZKSC5k)
-
I've only had men at work comment that I should wear make-up more often. Lucky for me even when I'm in a suit I'm in a job where I don't have to wear make-up.
But even without:
Hair cuts, I have a simple hair cut but have to pay 50% more than a man. (Straight cut to shoulder length)
Suits, many women's suits only come in sets, I do not wear the same size coat and pants. And finding ones with pockets scavenger hunt.
Shoes, lucky for me I can get by with half boots with my pantsuits so not as much of an issue.
I do get my revenge on the guys with being able to wear no collared blouses instead of dress shirt with tie though.
-
Hand sewn clothing by amateurs is unlikely to be practical for professionals who require a sharp, tailored look for work: big law, finance, etc particularly in the NE US and Europe. Fabric prices comprise a high proportion of the cost for many off-the-rack clothes, since labor costs are so low in the countries where they're made.
Where I live in Hong Kong there are dozens of tailor's shops clustered into several neighborhoods - like this one, where 3 tailored shirts will cost about US $50 https://www.hokobuy.com/Experiences/Services/Tailor-custom-made-items/Suit-Shirt/Kahn-Tailor/3-TailorMade-Cotton-Shirts/p/10306701006C00000115A6WIAU on HK's Groupon site. Fabric makes up most of the cost since orders are made over the border in China.
-
Every time I read about the pressure many women feel to spend oodles on their appearance I am so glad that I grew up in (and returned to) the hippie granola Pacific Northwest, and spent my career years in grad school and non-profits. It let me get away with no makeup, no fancy hair stuff, no shaving (DH prefers), and a mostly casual wardrobe. Also much less stress overall.
Amen to that. Visiting the east coast was a nightmare for me. I literally had a stranger in a grocery store ask me why I was wearing tennis shoes. Um... to have shoes on? And my friend who had moved there described me as "brave" for not wearing makeup. I'll stick to my crunchy granola hippy paradise filled with rain, TYVM. (Not that there's no pressure here, obviously, but it's easier to buck the more expensive trends of hair/makeup/botox)
Really? When living on the east coast (Boston) I was surprised how everyone seemed to go to work in their running shoes. Like not sneakers, but actual running shoes. I didn't mind, it totally fits my style and I happily picked up the habit, but that's not a normal thing in Europe :p
Also leggings everywhere. People that were certainly not going to the gym looked like they were on their way to the gym continuously..
There's a lot of variation between cities as well. Obviously New York City is going to have different standards than Atlanta; if nothing else, weather considerations are going to make a big difference, but the overall formality differs too. Even moving from central VA to the DC area, I notice a significant difference in standards of dress.
-
Every time I read about the pressure many women feel to spend oodles on their appearance I am so glad that I grew up in (and returned to) the hippie granola Pacific Northwest, and spent my career years in grad school and non-profits. It let me get away with no makeup, no fancy hair stuff, no shaving (DH prefers), and a mostly casual wardrobe. Also much less stress overall.
Amen to that. Visiting the east coast was a nightmare for me. I literally had a stranger in a grocery store ask me why I was wearing tennis shoes. Um... to have shoes on? And my friend who had moved there described me as "brave" for not wearing makeup. I'll stick to my crunchy granola hippy paradise filled with rain, TYVM. (Not that there's no pressure here, obviously, but it's easier to buck the more expensive trends of hair/makeup/botox)
Really? When living on the east coast (Boston) I was surprised how everyone seemed to go to work in their running shoes. Like not sneakers, but actual running shoes. I didn't mind, it totally fits my style and I happily picked up the habit, but that's not a normal thing in Europe :p
Also leggings everywhere. People that were certainly not going to the gym looked like they were on their way to the gym continuously..
There's a lot of variation between cities as well. Obviously New York City is going to have different standards than Atlanta; if nothing else, weather considerations are going to make a big difference, but the overall formality differs too. Even moving from central VA to the DC area, I notice a significant difference in standards of dress.
It was a city in Virginia where I had the comment about tennis shoes. On that same trip, any time my friend and I would try to get places walking, people would stop and ask if we needed a ride. So weird to me. People walk places in OR all the time, it was bizarre to have a bunch of people assume we were lost or wanted a ride trying to walk a mile to the grocery store or beach!
-
My mom, my wife, and my wife's mom all sew.
They made stylish clothes that fit them much better than store-bought ones for a fraction of the cost.
(No reason men can't sew also, though since our fashion needs are typically simpler, the opportunity cost of developing sewing skill doesn't get compensated for by as large a benefit.)
I do this too, but I’ve had to invest thousands in learning how, and I’m still only passably decent at it.
I would never be able to make suits, which both DH and I need for work.
Also, fabric is crazy expensive and it can easily end up more expensive than buying cheap clothes at discount stores. I cannot make clothes for cheaper than I can buy them at Costco, so I don’t tend to make clothes from scratch, I learned to sew so that I could tailor my own clothes properly as I have an extremely hard time finding anything that fits off the rack.
Sewing has saved me a fortune in alteration costs, but not much in terms of actually buying clothes.
That logic doesn't make sense in the context of this thread. Sorry.
Either
a) Clothes are horribly expensive for women because of "the pink tax" or,
b) Clothes are too inexpensive for sewing to save money.
Reminds me of this scene in Raising Arizona:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9OLZKSC5k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9OLZKSC5k)
There's a critical piece of data missing from your analysis:
(c) Compared to the price of clothing-- the contents of which are bought by the manufacturers in super-bulk quantities, and the labor costs for which are artificially low-- the price of fabric at retail prices is extremely high due to relatively low demand for it and the higher costs for distribution, storage, cutting, and wastage.
The economics of by-the-yard fabric production and distribution are different from the economics of clothing manufacture, and the difference is visible to the consumer at the till. If it were possible for an end consumer to buy fabric at the same price as Land's End, Brooks Brothers, etc. gets it, and to have a reasonable chance of getting product that resembles what they pay for and that will arrive in a reasonable time, then yes: sewing would be a big money-saver. Sadly the raw material cost, supply chain cost, and retail markup for fabric is huge.
-
Every time I read about the pressure many women feel to spend oodles on their appearance I am so glad that I grew up in (and returned to) the hippie granola Pacific Northwest, and spent my career years in grad school and non-profits. It let me get away with no makeup, no fancy hair stuff, no shaving (DH prefers), and a mostly casual wardrobe. Also much less stress overall.
Amen to that. Visiting the east coast was a nightmare for me. I literally had a stranger in a grocery store ask me why I was wearing tennis shoes. Um... to have shoes on? And my friend who had moved there described me as "brave" for not wearing makeup. I'll stick to my crunchy granola hippy paradise filled with rain, TYVM. (Not that there's no pressure here, obviously, but it's easier to buck the more expensive trends of hair/makeup/botox)
Really? When living on the east coast (Boston) I was surprised how everyone seemed to go to work in their running shoes. Like not sneakers, but actual running shoes. I didn't mind, it totally fits my style and I happily picked up the habit, but that's not a normal thing in Europe :p
Also leggings everywhere. People that were certainly not going to the gym looked like they were on their way to the gym continuously..
There's a lot of variation between cities as well. Obviously New York City is going to have different standards than Atlanta; if nothing else, weather considerations are going to make a big difference, but the overall formality differs too. Even moving from central VA to the DC area, I notice a significant difference in standards of dress.
It was a city in Virginia where I had the comment about tennis shoes. On that same trip, any time my friend and I would try to get places walking, people would stop and ask if we needed a ride. So weird to me. People walk places in OR all the time, it was bizarre to have a bunch of people assume we were lost or wanted a ride trying to walk a mile to the grocery store or beach!
Interesting. Of course Northern VA is part of the DC area, but it sounds more like you were in a coastal area. I can't imagine people questioning athletic shoes in such an area, unless they're just worried about you getting sand in your shoes?
OTOH, the ride thing doesn't surprise me; I used to live close to work, but it was a treacherous walk due to lack of sidewalks, etc. Several times my coworkers stopped on the way home and asked if I needed help. The walking for health 'memo' hasn't reached all parts of the country yet, with the South being one of the last to pick it up. Plus points deeper South get so hot & humid in the summer that walking just isn't pleasant, so people aren't the habit of doing it.
-
Hand sewn clothing by amateurs is unlikely to be practical for professionals who require a sharp, tailored look for work: big law, finance, etc particularly in the NE US and Europe. Fabric prices comprise a high proportion of the cost for many off-the-rack clothes, since labor costs are so low in the countries where they're made.
If you're working in big law or big finance, you're presumably making big bucks, so the cost of a good quality wardrobe should be of no particular importance.
I spent several thousand dollars putting together a wardrobe with really nice quality suits, shirts, ties, shoes, etc., before I went off to Ethiopia to work with their government for a year. I was also making $120k. Those clothes lasted for years. Even a conservative reckoning would put my professional clothing cost at less than $1,200 a year. Not chump change, but go out and ask how many people would be willing to cough up $1,200 to $2,000 a year for clothes to make $120k a year. You'll find out that damn near all of them making less than that will say, "Hell, yes!"
For those making 2 to 3 times that amount, 2 to 3 times that amount for clothes is still of no particular consequence.
As a programmer, I didn't pay a lot for my wardrobe but I did spend $1,200 to $2,000 a year on computer publications and software tools. No different than a mechanic's set of tools. Just a cost of doing business.
But that's not what this thread was about. It's about regular folks with regular wages buying decent looking clothes.
Don't confuse the two situations. It just leads to muddled logic.
And, since the folks refuting my suggestion to learn to sew seem to feel that it's possible to get inexpensive clothing, then that makes the portion of this thread complaining about how much women HAVE to pay for clothing wrong. They don't HAVE to do that. They CHOOSE to do that. And because so many women CHOOSE to pay more for clothes, manufacturers CHOOSE to supply those garments at a price the market will bear.
As one person said so aptly, it's possible for men to get a $5000 tuxedo and for brides to get a $20 dress from the thrift store to get married in and most don't. It's clearly a matter of personal choice that people don't make those choices.
-
(cut out some stuff)
And, since the folks refuting my suggestion to learn to sew seem to feel that it's possible to get inexpensive clothing, then that makes the portion of this thread complaining about how much women HAVE to pay for clothing wrong. They don't HAVE to do that. They CHOOSE to do that. And because so many women CHOOSE to pay more for clothes, manufacturers CHOOSE to supply those garments at a price the market will bear.
As one person said so aptly, it's possible for men to get a $5000 tuxedo and for brides to get a $20 dress from the thrift store to get married in and most don't. It's clearly a matter of personal choice that people don't make those choices.
Well said (credit to @Chris22 for the tux comment) It's easier to blame "society" or "patriarchy" rather than take accountability for your own actions. My wife works beside folks with brand new cars and designer wardrobes, while she rarely buys clothes (maybe $200/year) and uses minimal makeup (mostly face lotion and on occasion some foundation plus cheap mascara) and drives a 15 year old worthless car (on paper). She very much has a client facing role full of old school finance type guys, and it hasn't hurt her thus far. She keeps moving up due to the quality of her work.
I hope that she instills those same values in our daughter. Not in the sense that I hope that she's just like her mom, but more in the sense that she should live life on her own terms and be happy with it. If she's a girly girl, by all means. If she's a tomboy, have fun. But don't go blaming society or patriarchy for choices she can make herself.
For what it's worth, other than feminine required products, everything else we shop for is based on its merits: a "men's" razor is cheaper than a "woman's". We buy the men's and share the pack. I bought a $2 pink hammer for our house because I needed to hang pictures, not do major work, and it was far cheaper than the normal $5 option. So, now I have a "girly" hammer. Whatever.
-
I bought a $2 pink hammer for our house because I needed to hang pictures, not do major work, and it was far cheaper than the normal $5 option. So, now I have a "girly" hammer. Whatever.
I have a rolling toolchest full of tools, some bought, some gifted, handmedowns, whatever. Lots of tools.
The tool I use the most? The $3 pink and purple flowered screwdriver my wife got in her Christmas stocking one year, because it's in the drawer inside the house so whenever I am doing a quick job (i.e., replacing batteries in kids' toys) it's the most convenient to grab.
-
I bought a $2 pink hammer for our house because I needed to hang pictures, not do major work, and it was far cheaper than the normal $5 option. So, now I have a "girly" hammer. Whatever.
On the plus side if a neighbor borrows it you'll be sure he brings it back right away or the least doesn't hoard it.
-
@Chris22, @patchyfacialhair, you are aware that your boasting of your gender liberation, while also carefully explaining to a bunch of women how their world works? Right? Bueller? Anyone?
-
My response was not confusing two situations, it's stating your solution of women sewing their own clothes is not ok for most professional work situations - particularly those where clothes need to be durable. I have friends who like to sew handmade dresses and to me they look cheap - usually it's because the fabric available at stores is mediocre quality, their seams aren't great, and can't compare to that used in high street or designer clothes I can purchase on ThredUp for $20.
In my industry (the arts) we can supposedly wear whatever we want - with allowances for the conservative culture I live in where anything close to cleavage is uncool but you can show as much leg as you like. I always dress a level or two higher than is required (though likely at 20% the price of my colleagues), and it increases the perception of my professionalism vs those who dress frumpily. There's not an overt expectation that we dress well, but it's noted and is influential in how we're perceived. This has been the case in the 8 countries I've worked in.
Most of my clothes are secondhand and cost max US$10-15. As a 'regular sized' woman (US size 8) it's easier for me to find clothes that fit. Fabrics are typically cashmere, silk, linen, quality synthetics etc that flatter and perform well in SE Asian heat. A few are very expensive from companies and communities I like to support. Some of my clothes are tailored from silk patterned from my artwork, one was hundreds of $ - those are advertising.
Different women go about things differently. As was stated several times upthread, the stats in the original post are wrong.
-
@Chris22, @patchyfacialhair, you are aware that your boasting of your gender liberation, while also carefully explaining to a bunch of women how their world works? Right? Bueller? Anyone?
Something something...mansplaining? Do I win?
Oh come on. Everyone has their own set of challenges. Yes, my wife has complained to me that she can say something to someone and get crickets or negativity, while I can say literally the same words and get a different result. She gets to benefit from the fact that if she wanted to accuse me of violence or other bad stuff, I'd most certainly be removed without a shred of proof. Neither of those are fair, but it is what it is.
The only constant? We all have the ability to make our own choices. Please don't extend that sentence into a "bootstrap" thing. I get that some have it harder than others. Complaining about it does nothing. Vote with your wallet and buy the men's razors and narrow that quarter million dollar lifetime number a little bit.
-
(cut out some stuff)
And, since the folks refuting my suggestion to learn to sew seem to feel that it's possible to get inexpensive clothing, then that makes the portion of this thread complaining about how much women HAVE to pay for clothing wrong. They don't HAVE to do that. They CHOOSE to do that. And because so many women CHOOSE to pay more for clothes, manufacturers CHOOSE to supply those garments at a price the market will bear.
As one person said so aptly, it's possible for men to get a $5000 tuxedo and for brides to get a $20 dress from the thrift store to get married in and most don't. It's clearly a matter of personal choice that people don't make those choices.
Well said (credit to @Chris22 for the tux comment) It's easier to blame "society" or "patriarchy" rather than take accountability for your own actions. My wife works beside folks with brand new cars and designer wardrobes, while she rarely buys clothes (maybe $200/year) and uses minimal makeup (mostly face lotion and on occasion some foundation plus cheap mascara) and drives a 15 year old worthless car (on paper). She very much has a client facing role full of old school finance type guys, and it hasn't hurt her thus far. She keeps moving up due to the quality of her work.
I hope that she instills those same values in our daughter. Not in the sense that I hope that she's just like her mom, but more in the sense that she should live life on her own terms and be happy with it. If she's a girly girl, by all means. If she's a tomboy, have fun. But don't go blaming society or patriarchy for choices she can make herself.
For what it's worth, other than feminine required products, everything else we shop for is based on its merits: a "men's" razor is cheaper than a "woman's". We buy the men's and share the pack. I bought a $2 pink hammer for our house because I needed to hang pictures, not do major work, and it was far cheaper than the normal $5 option. So, now I have a "girly" hammer. Whatever.
So, to have the same job as a man and have the same salary and opportunities, I have to take lessons to sew my own clothes, buy a sewing machine and sew during the week-end if I want to have the same saving rate as him?
Envoyé de mon SM-G920W8 en utilisant Tapatalk
-
Grim Squeaker, when you want to hit the barricades, let me know. I have a lousy throwing arm but I can hand you the bottles and light the fuses.
You know what fills my personal rage bucket with napalm? It's the number of fucking stupid uniform shoes I'm required to own. Steel toed boots, black oxfords and white oxfords for the pants uniforms, black pumps and white pumps for the skirt variation of the same uniforms, black heels and white heels for the white tie uniforms. Seven. SEVEN pairs of uniform shoes, and 4 of the pairs are stupid.
The guys have 3 pairs. None of them are stupid. This idiocy leaps straight over the cunt tax and bounds into straight forward cunt highway robbery
I don't miss that part in the slightest!! Plus whites, khakis, blues, dress blues - pants and skirts in each combo of course.
-
(cut out some stuff)
And, since the folks refuting my suggestion to learn to sew seem to feel that it's possible to get inexpensive clothing, then that makes the portion of this thread complaining about how much women HAVE to pay for clothing wrong. They don't HAVE to do that. They CHOOSE to do that. And because so many women CHOOSE to pay more for clothes, manufacturers CHOOSE to supply those garments at a price the market will bear.
As one person said so aptly, it's possible for men to get a $5000 tuxedo and for brides to get a $20 dress from the thrift store to get married in and most don't. It's clearly a matter of personal choice that people don't make those choices.
Well said (credit to @Chris22 for the tux comment) It's easier to blame "society" or "patriarchy" rather than take accountability for your own actions. My wife works beside folks with brand new cars and designer wardrobes, while she rarely buys clothes (maybe $200/year) and uses minimal makeup (mostly face lotion and on occasion some foundation plus cheap mascara) and drives a 15 year old worthless car (on paper). She very much has a client facing role full of old school finance type guys, and it hasn't hurt her thus far. She keeps moving up due to the quality of her work.
I hope that she instills those same values in our daughter. Not in the sense that I hope that she's just like her mom, but more in the sense that she should live life on her own terms and be happy with it. If she's a girly girl, by all means. If she's a tomboy, have fun. But don't go blaming society or patriarchy for choices she can make herself.
For what it's worth, other than feminine required products, everything else we shop for is based on its merits: a "men's" razor is cheaper than a "woman's". We buy the men's and share the pack. I bought a $2 pink hammer for our house because I needed to hang pictures, not do major work, and it was far cheaper than the normal $5 option. So, now I have a "girly" hammer. Whatever.
So, to have the same job as a man and have the same salary and opportunities, I have to take lessons to sew my own clothes, buy a sewing machine and sew during the week-end if I want to have the same saving rate as him?
Envoyé de mon SM-G920W8 en utilisant Tapatalk
Hi there, welcome to the forums.
I'm not sure how you're making those connections. I never said anything like what you've posted, so I'm not sure what to say about your assertion that anyone has to make their own clothes to make the same as a man.
If my daughter wants a high paying job, I'm going to suggest she go into STEM or the medical field or perhaps finance if she gets into a top university. All those will require diligent and consistent hard work on her part, so if she goes that direction, it'll be because she wants to. If her passion is women's studies or underwater basket weaving, sure, go for it, but don't complain later when your income isn't as high as the engineer or business professional.
I'll also make her aware that men sometimes have an "easier" time moving up the career ladder because they have the support of a woman with a less demanding job or no job at home, so she'll be competing with that. It won't meant to be discouraging (hopefully), but will hopefully make her aware that she will have unique challenges because of her gender. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess I'm trying to say that I hope that she owns her choices when she's grown up. That's all. Coming up with absurd suggestions like making her own clothes or whatever you're trying to say isn't at all what I'm getting at.
-
(c) Compared to the price of clothing-- the contents of which are bought by the manufacturers in super-bulk quantities, and the labor costs for which are artificially low-- the price of fabric at retail prices is extremely high due to relatively low demand for it and the higher costs for distribution, storage, cutting, and wastage.
The economics of by-the-yard fabric production and distribution are different from the economics of clothing manufacture, and the difference is visible to the consumer at the till. If it were possible for an end consumer to buy fabric at the same price as Land's End, Brooks Brothers, etc. gets it, and to have a reasonable chance of getting product that resembles what they pay for and that will arrive in a reasonable time, then yes: sewing would be a big money-saver. Sadly the raw material cost, supply chain cost, and retail markup for fabric is huge.
Grim hits the nail on the head.
I can sew - I made a dress or two back in the day, but mostly I stick to flat things like quilts and curtains. I have been unable to make suitable clothing at home that is of good quality, and that fits, for a reasonable price.
- first, the quality fabric is going to cost a lot more money if you are buying it yourself. (Side note, my sister was in textiles for decades, she spent the last 10 years working herself out of a job as all manufacturing was moved overseas).
- second, it does take quite a long time of practice to get good at it - and you might never get good at it. I have a friend who is fantastic at making clothing - she's in her 70s and has been making clothing for 50 years. Same with my aunt. Another friend was profiled in a national article in the newspaper for making dresses for her daughter - but what SHE noted (10 years ago) was that it was only really cost-effective if you were trying for high end and fancy - in her case, a confirmation dress. This friend had been making clothing for 15 years by then and didn't have a full time job on the side.
Now, in my very limited experience (because I'm an engineer and I wear jeans to work), where you can really make it happen is thrift stores, and learning how to alter clothing. I have a small waist and bigger hips - I've found tutorials on things such at how to lengthen a skirt, or how to sew in an adjustable elastic waistband (like are in kids' jeans) into my own clothing. You can find used quality items that fit. Especially if you are good at hemming, because I'm not even 5'3".
-
(c) Compared to the price of clothing-- the contents of which are bought by the manufacturers in super-bulk quantities, and the labor costs for which are artificially low-- the price of fabric at retail prices is extremely high due to relatively low demand for it and the higher costs for distribution, storage, cutting, and wastage.
The economics of by-the-yard fabric production and distribution are different from the economics of clothing manufacture, and the difference is visible to the consumer at the till. If it were possible for an end consumer to buy fabric at the same price as Land's End, Brooks Brothers, etc. gets it, and to have a reasonable chance of getting product that resembles what they pay for and that will arrive in a reasonable time, then yes: sewing would be a big money-saver. Sadly the raw material cost, supply chain cost, and retail markup for fabric is huge.
Grim hits the nail on the head.
I can sew - I made a dress or two back in the day, but mostly I stick to flat things like quilts and curtains. I have been unable to make suitable clothing at home that is of good quality, and that fits, for a reasonable price.
- first, the quality fabric is going to cost a lot more money if you are buying it yourself. (Side note, my sister was in textiles for decades, she spent the last 10 years working herself out of a job as all manufacturing was moved overseas).
- second, it does take quite a long time of practice to get good at it - and you might never get good at it. I have a friend who is fantastic at making clothing - she's in her 70s and has been making clothing for 50 years. Same with my aunt. Another friend was profiled in a national article in the newspaper for making dresses for her daughter - but what SHE noted (10 years ago) was that it was only really cost-effective if you were trying for high end and fancy - in her case, a confirmation dress. This friend had been making clothing for 15 years by then and didn't have a full time job on the side.
Now, in my very limited experience (because I'm an engineer and I wear jeans to work), where you can really make it happen is thrift stores, and learning how to alter clothing. I have a small waist and bigger hips - I've found tutorials on things such at how to lengthen a skirt, or how to sew in an adjustable elastic waistband (like are in kids' jeans) into my own clothing. You can find used quality items that fit. Especially if you are good at hemming, because I'm not even 5'3".
There's also a significant time cost associated with handmade clothing. I've started knitting my own sweaters because I find it enjoyable, but it's a big time sink and not particularly cost-efficient.
-
@Chris22, @patchyfacialhair, you are aware that your boasting of your gender liberation, while also carefully explaining to a bunch of women how their world works? Right? Bueller? Anyone?
Something something...mansplaining? Do I win?
Oh come on. Everyone has their own set of challenges. Yes, my wife has complained to me that she can say something to someone and get crickets or negativity, while I can say literally the same words and get a different result. She gets to benefit from the fact that if she wanted to accuse me of violence or other bad stuff, I'd most certainly be removed without a shred of proof. Neither of those are fair, but it is what it is.
The only constant? We all have the ability to make our own choices. Please don't extend that sentence into a "bootstrap" thing. I get that some have it harder than others. Complaining about it does nothing. Vote with your wallet and buy the men's razors and narrow that quarter million dollar lifetime number a little bit.
At the end of the day, simple economics tells us that women's clothing is more expensive than men's simply because women will pay it.
-
As someone who has lived for longer than many of the protagonists here, has made all her own clothes for many years, and has pursued a fashion degree after I retired (I am FIRE, and of course, the fashion degree included the economics of fashion) I think I have something to add to this argument.
Firstly, the woman’s body is a different shape to the man’s, and a shapely garment needs somewhat more labor to produce. As a result, clothing for women is inherently somewhat more expensive.
Secondly, throughout my life, the price of clothing has reduced enormously, due to free trade and the reduction in tariffs throughout the world. This has moved the production of clothing and material to third world nations where wages are much cheaper. It has also meant that people have enormous wardrobes compared to their size in my youth. When I was young, it was rare for people to have more than three working day outfits for a particular season. People saved up for weeks for a winter coat. People spent a much higher percentage of their income on clothing than they do now. All people, not just women.
Thirdly, for a long time, women’s clothing has been intrinsically more expensive than men’s. The garments are made of more flimsy materials that last for a shorter time. The garments have less utility (for instance women’s garments tend to lack pockets, whereas men’s garments have them), so to buy the same level of utility and durability, women need to buy a garment made at a higher price point than men do. Consequently, women need to pay more. The fashion industry knows it can charge more for women’s garments and does so.
Fourthly, because of the world wide reduction of tariffs and charges over the past 30 years, and the offshoring of the fashion industry, any person making their own clothes in a developed economy is going to be making clothes at the costs that one off bespoke types of pieces command. This means that women who try to make their own clothes are simply not able to do so for anywhere near the cost of ready to wear. To imply that they can is simply displaying ones ignorance of the fashion industry and of world economy. Moreover, some fabrics and finishes are not readily available to the home sewer, and these generally include items used in more expensive garments - including bras - which have more margin, and could be cheaper (but more time consuming) to make in the home.
-
Dang. This is reminding me of some of the case studies where people just can't can't CAN'T accept that three fancy vehicles, a fancy boat, and a really fancy house are not the minimal level of expense that someone can barely survive at.
If you are in a high paying job that requires nice clothes, then buy the clothes and quit crying about it. You can afford it.
And while you're buying them, be smart about it, and you'll spend a lot less.
If you're not in such a job, then you just need to dress well. "One notch better than average" isn't a bad measuring stick if you want to stick out as stylish or feel it matters to your promotional potential. Again, that can, in most professions and companies, be done in an affordable manner with a reasonable amount of effort. Or it can be done very expensively. Your choice. Choose wisely.
I just read a comment where sewing wasn't an option because one could buy a good shirt for $20. Well, hell, then why are people bitching about the cost of clothing? Unless someone sets out to be the Imelda Marcos of tops, you can get 2 work week's worth of tops for $200. For anyone in a job that pays middle class wages this isn't horribly expensive. (For the younger crowd, Imelda Marcos was the wife of the president of the Philipines, and owned thousands of pairs of expensive shoes.)
I'm just not buying the scenario being presented, that women can't get adequately clothed for a reasonable cost. Too many women are giving too many examples of reasonably priced clothing.
As for sewing, the ability to sew can enable someone to buy a garment on sale that isn't a perfect fit and make it a perfect fit. It widens options. This isn't an either-or suggestion. One does not have to sew 100% of one's garments. Just use the skill where it makes sense. For example, I use it to make leather tools or protective garments because it's very cost effective for me, in my life situation, for those goals. It would be great for some people, worthless for others. Poo-pooing it for everyone because it doesn't meet one person's needs is silliness. It's as foolish as a person with vertigo claiming no one should buy a ladder for do-it-yourself work around the house because it won't help them in their life circumstances.
-
Dang. This is reminding me of some of the case studies where people just can't can't CAN'T accept that three fancy vehicles, a fancy boat, and a really fancy house are not the minimal level of expense that someone can barely survive at.
If you are in a high paying job that requires nice clothes, then buy the clothes and quit crying about it. You can afford it.
And while you're buying them, be smart about it, and you'll spend a lot less.
If you're not in such a job, then you just need to dress well. "One notch better than average" isn't a bad measuring stick if you want to stick out as stylish or feel it matters to your promotional potential. Again, that can, in most professions and companies, be done in an affordable manner with a reasonable amount of effort. Or it can be done very expensively. Your choice. Choose wisely.
I just read a comment where sewing wasn't an option because one could buy a good shirt for $20. Well, hell, then why are people bitching about the cost of clothing? Unless someone sets out to be the Imelda Marcos of tops, you can get 2 work week's worth of tops for $200. For anyone in a job that pays middle class wages this isn't horribly expensive. (For the younger crowd, Imelda Marcos was the wife of the president of the Philipines, and owned thousands of pairs of expensive shoes.)
I'm just not buying the scenario being presented, that women can't get adequately clothed for a reasonable cost. Too many women are giving too many examples of reasonably priced clothing.
As for sewing, the ability to sew can enable someone to buy a garment on sale that isn't a perfect fit and make it a perfect fit. It widens options. This isn't an either-or suggestion. One does not have to sew 100% of one's garments. Just use the skill where it makes sense. For example, I use it to make leather tools or protective garments because it's very cost effective for me, in my life situation, for those goals. It would be great for some people, worthless for others. Poo-pooing it for everyone because it doesn't meet one person's needs is silliness. It's as foolish as a person with vertigo claiming no one should buy a ladder for do-it-yourself work around the house because it won't help them in their life circumstances.
Except the post started because someone found an article noting that this trend has been observed and they are surprised. And the majority of responses from forumers was that they don't, but can easily understand how and why people do.
If we look at gender as performance, and I tend to do so, then gender performance is more or less successful according to how well you conform to a theoretical idea of how your gender acts. As a femme female, I note that there are a number of markets that display the quality of a woman's performance of her gender. Women may choose to participate in the action for personal satisfaction, personal and workplace relations, career success, or any of a myriad of other choices. They may also choose to opt out. However, when you opt out of gendered trappings, you undeniably make life harder for yourself. I applaud the women who find that the personal benefit of opting out is worth more than the crappy treatment they risk by opting out.
One of the handiest trappings that you can employ to safely act out gender, is a spouse of the opposite gender. My people have known for millennia that this is hands down the safest, easiest choice. Plus, if you get one of those little accessories then you can opt out of icky stuff like high heels, long hair and make-up, and still be living up to gendered expectations. Not only that, but spouses are money savers.
The other key pieces can vary a bit by gender - long hair is generally a winner, but there are usually some short cuts that you can do too. Feminine, career specific clothes, shoes and makeup are all useful.
And the easiest way to play your gender correctly, especially if you aren't passionate about the trappings, is to throw some fucking money at it.
If you like doing your hair and make-up (I do) then you can do it all for cheap. If you like sewing, you can make your own clothes, although this might not be workplace appropriate or save you money (I don't but want to). If you like living with men, you can just get hitched (I don't). If you like jewelry and purses, buy them (I do purses with my backpack). If you like shoes, do them.
By all means it's a choice, but don't pretend that the choice is consequence neutral.
-
OP created a thread about the apparent heavy cost difference in men's spending and women's spending on their appearances over time.
What almost all of the posters here have been getting at is:
(a) they don't spend nearly as much as the folks cited in the original article
(b) but they understand/are trying to understand how some women get there
(c) especially since a woman's grooming is more important to their income than a man's grooming is (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562416300518)
(d) and many women buy products branded for women, which are typically more expensive than products produced for men (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/dca/partners/gender-pricing-study.page)
(e) and lots of women are just plain spendy, just like lots of men are just plain spendy.
The people posting here are talking about how they economize their spending on appearance, especially when working within the constraints of a world where women are expected to pay way more attention to their appearance than men do, and are expected to pay more for identical beauty products than men do. I don't think a single person posting here thinks it's reasonable to spend $250/month on their appearance, but they want to understand how and why we get this gendered difference in spending.
Somehow it seems to me that I can both buy cheaper men's razors and also get really ticked at a corporate world that is intentionally charging women more. Somehow it seems to me that I can say "fuck highlighter and eyeliner" and still get really pissed that I'm expected to have any opinions about highlighter or eyeliner at all, and that I'm going to get judged about those opinions.
(I should note that I'm also pissed that men don't get to use makeup without repercussions, including violence, or that they have a narrower variety of clothing and product options available to them, and on and on. I'm pissed that attractive people of whatever gender are treated better than less attractive people. But that's a different conversation from the one directly related to OP's article.)
-
By all means it's a choice, but don't pretend that the choice is consequence neutral.
^This! Bravo
-
OP created a thread about the apparent heavy cost difference in men's spending and women's spending on their appearances over time.
What almost all of the posters here have been getting at is:
(a) they don't spend nearly as much as the folks cited in the original article
(b) but they understand/are trying to understand how some women get there
(c) especially since a woman's grooming is more important to their income than a man's grooming is (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562416300518)
(d) and many women buy products branded for women, which are typically more expensive than products produced for men (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/dca/partners/gender-pricing-study.page)
(e) and lots of women are just plain spendy, just like lots of men are just plain spendy.
The people posting here are talking about how they economize their spending on appearance, especially when working within the constraints of a world where women are expected to pay way more attention to their appearance than men do, and are expected to pay more for identical beauty products than men do. I don't think a single person posting here thinks it's reasonable to spend $250/month on their appearance, but they want to understand how and why we get this gendered difference in spending.
Somehow it seems to me that I can both buy cheaper men's razors and also get really ticked at a corporate world that is intentionally charging women more. Somehow it seems to me that I can say "fuck highlighter and eyeliner" and still get really pissed that I'm expected to have any opinions about highlighter or eyeliner at all, and that I'm going to get judged about those opinions.
(I should note that I'm also pissed that men don't get to use makeup without repercussions, including violence, or that they have a narrower variety of clothing and product options available to them, and on and on. I'm pissed that attractive people of whatever gender are treated better than less attractive people. But that's a different conversation from the one directly related to OP's article.)
... and (f) the default/acceptable/mainstream choice for men happens to be cheaper in terms of both money and effort, whereas the default/acceptable/mainstream choice for women requires significant additional time, or money, or both.
-
OP created a thread about the apparent heavy cost difference in men's spending and women's spending on their appearances over time.
What almost all of the posters here have been getting at is:
(a) they don't spend nearly as much as the folks cited in the original article
(b) but they understand/are trying to understand how some women get there
(c) especially since a woman's grooming is more important to their income than a man's grooming is (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562416300518)
(d) and many women buy products branded for women, which are typically more expensive than products produced for men (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/dca/partners/gender-pricing-study.page)
(e) and lots of women are just plain spendy, just like lots of men are just plain spendy.
The people posting here are talking about how they economize their spending on appearance, especially when working within the constraints of a world where women are expected to pay way more attention to their appearance than men do, and are expected to pay more for identical beauty products than men do. I don't think a single person posting here thinks it's reasonable to spend $250/month on their appearance, but they want to understand how and why we get this gendered difference in spending.
Somehow it seems to me that I can both buy cheaper men's razors and also get really ticked at a corporate world that is intentionally charging women more. Somehow it seems to me that I can say "fuck highlighter and eyeliner" and still get really pissed that I'm expected to have any opinions about highlighter or eyeliner at all, and that I'm going to get judged about those opinions.
(I should note that I'm also pissed that men don't get to use makeup without repercussions, including violence, or that they have a narrower variety of clothing and product options available to them, and on and on. I'm pissed that attractive people of whatever gender are treated better than less attractive people. But that's a different conversation from the one directly related to OP's article.)
So well stated!
---
"Opting out" of the trappings of femininity may be an option for some; opting out of being judged for it, or feeling judged for it, and the consequences thereof are not a choice we get to make. The consequences of being judged may differ based on genetics/natural appearance, personality, chosen field of work/study, dating situation, etc. but very few can avoid them completely, their whole lives. The specifics will vary: maybe one woman can't do without mascara without being seen as unwell; another has trouble finding inexpensive clothes that look professional, another has to wear heels in her industry (and yes, maybe she can afford those heels, but why does her male coworker not have to choose between painless shoes and career success?) As @diapasoun wonderfully stated: it's not that we all do each these things and spend $50k more than men over a lifetime. It's that we have all encountered *ASPECTS* of the problem that we can relate to, so that we can see how someone *CAN* rack up those bills. Furthermore, we can absolutely sympathize with the fact that men face certain inconvenient and uncomfortable standards as well (e.g. wearing suits in hot, humid summers, or not having the option to tweak their appearance and tame self-consciousness about imperfections). Our calling out the ridiculous standards we have to navigate in no way lessens that.
I'm a grad student in engineering. Most days, I wear jeans and t-shirts or similar casual wear. Today my feet are rocking Chacos. I've recently started using neutrally scented men's deodorant. But I have fine hair that tends to frizz and an oily scalp that never accepted "no-(sham)poo" regimens. I spend $7/quart on cleansing conditioner and prob $5/mo on leave in product that makes my hair manageable and look socially acceptable. I could cut it short, but it wouldn't work well with my face shape...it would make me look more masculine and older. I have a suit for interviews, and slacks and blouses/button downs for conferences. I'll also wear light/natural makeup on those occasions because I don't want blemishes on my appearance to distract from my competence (or detract from my confidence!). Shoes. Shoes are hard. Flats and heels actually hurt the same amount after a full day on your feet...you need *structure*. In this field I can definitely get away with "masculine" shoes, but try finding a pair of plain oxfords in women's size 6.5 (men's 4-4.5) that aren't made with the crummy materials and workmanship of kids shoes! I managed to score some at Ross for $50, but they were light grey which didn't quite work with my darker suits...years later I found a shoe repair shop with excellent reviews that dyed leather and suede and took the risk for either $20 or $30...now I have excellent shoes. Though, when I'm actually presenting, my 5'3" self likes the extra height of a heel...fortunately, I recently discovered ankle boots, although they're a bit warm in summer.
So...basically even opting out is hard, logistically. "Just buy men's" doesn't really fly when our bodies are literally built differently. My bf and I have the same chest measurement, but his rain jacket doesn't zip over my hips and the sleeves on my fleece end up comically short on him. It didn't sit well with my feminist ways but I've found much better fit when I started looking at women-specific gear: bikes, backpacking packs, sleeping bags. Not quite relevant to the "appearance" aspect of the thread but the same definitely holds for clothes and such.
-
What would y'all think if I told you the last man I dated didn't shave his legs, OR his armpits?
You think I'm weird, because of course he didn't. Why would I even mention that?
What if I told you that the last woman I dated didn't shave her legs, OR her armpits?
Gross. Hippie.
Even if you're okay with it, you're probably still surprised.
The "default" woman requires more work than the "default" man. That work can be reflected in time or money, but it's gonna come from somewhere. Many of us on the boards are not "default" anything and do not spend the kind of money other people do. But if you have more average consumers, the women have a lot more temptation and pressure to spend money on their appearance compared to the men. Regardless of how valid the numbers in this particular survey are, I can see many reasons for a differential.
Some men seem to have zeroed in on clothing, and in particular outerwear, while that is only one tree in the forest. Maybe because for men, that is the only tree?
Someone posted in the beginning that there are a ton of factors that affect women more. Bras, more complex body shapes, shoddier construction, more options >> more temptation (and more confusion/false starts), jewelry and accessories, hair care, hair removal, skin care, makeup, plastic surgery. Sure, you can go without. When you do, you risk paying a price. Men can go without and do not pay a price.
Even if some things don't matter as much as women are told they do, we are still told they matter. For example, variety of clothing. You can choose to risk it, but you have to fight cultural messaging. Men do not have to fight the messaging in the first place. And in some cases, defying those cultural expectations does matter.
-
In all the discussion about sewing and the “pink tax”, has anyone mentioned menstrual supplies? In addition to bras, that’s an expense that is both woman-specific and absolutely necessary. I use reusable cloth pads and inexpensive tampons (the cups don’t work for me and yes, I’ve tried different types), but I’m in year 28 of having to purchase these supplies and it does add up. These products would never even be on my husband’s radar if he didn’t see the box of tampons in the bathroom once a month.
I’m not whining or complaining—it is what it is—but that’s another line item to consider in the cost differential.
-
So, it appears that quite a few folks ARE in agreement that spending large sums of money on clothes for most people in most jobs is not required, and that far more Mustachian choices are available.
Good.
Because that's what I've been saying all along.
=================
Now that that's settled, if we want to get into whether it's fair or not that there are double standards for the different genders, we can.
There ARE double standards. No ifs, ands or buts. There just are.
It IS NOT fair. Period.
See, that was easy.
===========================
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
-
Has anyone else noted the disadvantage of needing more clothing simply by being female?
Firstly, my weight fluctuates monthly by about 5 lbs, so I need different pants for different days from the bloating.
Secondly, I've given birth twice. In the last 12 years, my non-pregnant weight has had a span of 40 pounds from lowest to highest. It took 2+ years to lose the baby weight, meaning extra clothing to "get by". Twice. Of course, things don't end where the started. First pregnancy ended with even wider hips, second ended with wider shoulders and ribcage.
I get that Americans in general are gaining weight, but our clothing has much less flexibility.
-
I see a business opportunity - making women's clothes that meets its buyer's expectation - - - but has pockets. Maybe someone ought to call one of the troubled mall retailers and throw them a bone... ;)
-
On the other hand, regarding gender expense inequalities, guys are generally expected to spend more on women than visa versa. Diamonds for Valentines day, expensive meals for Mothers' day, surprise getaways for birthdays, and for Christmas a shiny new luxury SUV with a big red bow! I feel kinda sorry for the boys in this respect, it's a lot of pressure.
-
On the other hand, regarding gender expense inequalities, guys are generally expected to spend more on women than visa versa. Diamonds for Valentines day, expensive meals for Mothers' day, surprise getaways for birthdays, and for Christmas a shiny new luxury SUV with a big red bow! I feel kinda sorry for the boys in this respect, it's a lot of pressure.
I actually LIKE giving gifts to my wife.
But buying really expensive items like a car that will be used by her without her input in the choice? That's just foolishness.
But as a guy I'm expected to actually give a damn about collegiate and professional sports and, what's worse, participate in the endless discussions on same. I just plain didn't. Didn't give a damn and wasn't going to pretend I did. It stunted promotional opportunities into the higher management ranks. That was fine by me. Thank God I'm now FIRED and don't ever, ever have to spend hour upon hour, workday upon workday listening to that drivel anymore.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
-
@SwordGuy, I wanted to say that I very much appreciated your post -- it means a lot to me to have men see what's going on, and articulate it. Please don't leave the conversation! We don't continue to learn and grow if we don't keep butting up against each other. :)
I feel like this thread can so accurately be summed up as "societal pressures blow, goddamn it sucks to be punished for being yourself."
-
@SwordGuy, I wanted to say that I very much appreciated your post -- it means a lot to me to have men see what's going on, and articulate it. Please don't leave the conversation! We don't continue to learn and grow if we don't keep butting up against each other. :)
I feel like this thread can so accurately be summed up as "societal pressures blow, goddamn it sucks to be punished for being yourself."
Indeed. And in some ways this point in history is the most free we've ever been to choose our own lives.
On the other hand as soon as I say that I can't help but think of the influence advertising has on society and how pervasive it is today vs the past.
-
On the other hand, regarding gender expense inequalities, guys are generally expected to spend more on women than visa versa. Diamonds for Valentines day, expensive meals for Mothers' day, surprise getaways for birthdays, and for Christmas a shiny new luxury SUV with a big red bow! I feel kinda sorry for the boys in this respect, it's a lot of pressure.
I actually really appreciated this comment because at first I bristled at it, and was like "No one expects a new car or diamond earrings! This is not an apples to apples comparison." But maybe some of the guys on this board do feel pressure to provide those things. As a mustachian woman I, of course, roll my eyes but that doesn't mean it isn't a real concern that dudes have. I wonder if that is my equivalent of men being eye-rolly at women's costs.
As a woman I feel like it should be obvious that there are additional costs that I must incur to move through society, but maybe it truly isn't so obvious to some of the men here, just as it wasn't obvious to me before this comment that some men might feel like they need to provide women in their lives with nice gifts!
If men feel like they have to provide nice gifts to women, mothers, wives etc to get ahead and be treated with respect in the workplace then that is just plain wrong.
-
On the other hand, regarding gender expense inequalities, guys are generally expected to spend more on women than visa versa. Diamonds for Valentines day, expensive meals for Mothers' day, surprise getaways for birthdays, and for Christmas a shiny new luxury SUV with a big red bow! I feel kinda sorry for the boys in this respect, it's a lot of pressure.
Nobody expects anything *that* over the top, I hope. Not when most of the women on this forum would be satisfied with a pair of jeans that (a) fit, (b) are comfortable, (c) look good, and (d) have functional pockets. Any man who can provide that is marriage material. (The diamond or the luxury SUV is probably easier to find.)
Seriously, though, I've noticed that men (or the lesbians in an "issuing the invitation" role) tend to be the ones who pay more for dating expenses. The restauranting and show-watching rituals that people tend to go through to avoid having to talk to each other while they decide whether there's enough sexual chemistry and compatibility to justify repeating the process can get very expensive. Most first dates are also last dates.
-
I actually really appreciated this comment because at first I bristled at it, and was like "No one expects a new car or diamond earrings! This is not an apples to apples comparison." But maybe some of the guys on this board do feel pressure to provide those things. As a mustachian woman I, of course, roll my eyes but that doesn't mean it isn't a real concern that dudes have. I wonder if that is my equivalent of men being eye-rolly at women's costs.
I was just thinking of all the ads that come on around those times. Like the Shane Company ads for diamonds at Valentines day and the Lexus ads a Christmas. DH and I rarely do gifts, even on birthdays, and some women I know and men he knows can't believe he's off the hook on those occasions.
-
But as a guy I'm expected to actually give a damn about collegiate and professional sports and, what's worse, participate in the endless discussions on same. I just plain didn't. Didn't give a damn and wasn't going to pretend I did. It stunted promotional opportunities into the higher management ranks. That was fine by me. Thank God I'm now FIRED and don't ever, ever have to spend hour upon hour, workday upon workday listening to that drivel anymore.
HEAR! HEAR! HEAR!
I don't mind listening to a good friend talk about sports b/c it is something they are enthusiastic about. I have hobbies I am enthusiastic about too that give rise to all sorts of arcane fascinations. "Look at how the car factory chose to build this body panel - its a junction of the base of the A-pillar, the rocker panel, the body skin and a frame outrigger... In in order to fix the rot I'll need to.... Or - look how the company packaged the drivertrain and suspension within that 40 year old Vespa. Goofy little thing but no wonder it was so durable..."
I don't like getting trapped at work in an involuntary conversation about whatever was on the sports channel over the weekend during/after a meeting or over lunch. I was expected to be present so I had to endure it. So be it. Not my set of topics but whatever , i was getting paid for my time. That boss more or less used participation in the conversation as a yardstick to see who was part of the "team" aka the "boy's club".
I ditched another employer that had a fascination with our wardrobe. ;) My current employer worries the most about how clever (or not) I am.
-
On the other hand, regarding gender expense inequalities, guys are generally expected to spend more on women than visa versa. Diamonds for Valentines day, expensive meals for Mothers' day, surprise getaways for birthdays, and for Christmas a shiny new luxury SUV with a big red bow! I feel kinda sorry for the boys in this respect, it's a lot of pressure.
Nobody expects anything *that* over the top, I hope. Not when most of the women on this forum would be satisfied with a pair of jeans that (a) fit, (b) are comfortable, (c) look good, and (d) have functional pockets. Any man who can provide that is marriage material. (The diamond or the luxury SUV is probably easier to find.)
Seriously, though, I've noticed that men (or the lesbians in an "issuing the invitation" role) tend to be the ones who pay more for dating expenses. The restauranting and show-watching rituals that people tend to go through to avoid having to talk to each other while they decide whether there's enough sexual chemistry and compatibility to justify repeating the process can get very expensive. Most first dates are also last dates.
I like how Dave Chappelle talked about this in his standup bit from 2000, Killin them softly. Women want nice things, Men want women, so Men buy nice things to lure in the Women. Hilarious standup special, in my opinion. It's the bit where he ends it saying "Gotcha [b-word]!"
Obviously it's unscientific and oversimplified, but I like to think that comedy usually includes a grain of truth in it.
-
I actually do find that pretending to have a modicum of interest in sportsball and other cultural phenomena tremendously helpful career wise. I'm not great at pretending, but it helps when I do.
-
I really don't mind subsidizing these little extra expenses for my lovely wife, like getting her hair color redone or whatnot. Some benefits are intangible.
-
I actually do find that pretending to have a modicum of interest in sportsball and other cultural phenomena tremendously helpful career wise. I'm not great at pretending, but it helps when I do.
Absolutely!
I used to work for a Dutch firm and was in Rotterdam on business when the Americans went to the World Cup for the first time. (That's a soccer game - the one with the black and white round ball where they kick it around. I add that for folks who are even more happily ignorant about ball games than I am. )
We were sitting in the hotel bar with some of the local employees after work. In the background was a soccer game going on. I made a comment that I liked soccer better than American football, baseball or basketball. ( Wasn't that tactful? What I actually thought was it was marginally less boring.)
Suddenly, I was "one of the club". I was their buddy. They went out and bought me a Netherlands team hat, something to wave in my hand, and some orange face coloring (that being the national color there). It was actually rather creepy.
And it was a very real object lesson in the cost and benefit of being oneself vs. going with the crowd.
I'm happy with my choice and the price I paid for it. Shame I had to pay the price, but it was worth it to me.
-
I can see how women spend more than med on their appearance, especially if they feel pressured by society to look a certain way. I must confess I spend the most money on skincare because it's important to me, but I can't remember the last time I bought a new pair of shoes or an outfit. Especially now that I work at home, I don't care what I wear.
-
For what it's worth, it seems to me like as women, we can also just skip all that stuff. I've worked in offices for years, and don't own one item of makeup. My work wardrobe right now is three shirts, two pants, one skirt, two dresses, and the majority of pieces predate my relationship (our nine year anniversary is next month). I use all the same soaps and stuff as my boyfriend as well. Nobody gives a shit.
Yes! If anyone is finding fault with my soap-and-water grooming routine, home haircut and simple wardrobe they're mostly not doing it to my face. I did have a giggle to myself when, after a recent hair trim, a colleague noted for barbed compliments said, "Oh! You've had your hair ... different."
I can totally believe statistics that show women spending much more than men on personal care. I have female colleagues who claim to struggle to get by on their salaries or to need a certain level of income but who seem to prioritise make-up, hair and nail titivation and what I'd describe as "pampering" and are always turning up in new clothes. These things are clearly not optional for many women.
Have you considered giving them a short but loud briefing on the myriad ways in which they might "fight the power"? If resistance to nail and hair stupidity reaches critical mass, the "not optional" perception can go away quickly from an employment perspective, if not from a mating perspective. Those two perspectives are orthogonal.
Nope, advising my work colleagues, however tangentially, on such matters is beyond my personal boundaries. Though when one of them was yattering on about needing a specific day off for a chiropody appointment, our one male colleague said, "Can't you do your own feet like everyone else does?"
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you weren't clear. If you are saying that to the men, then it's a great statement. If you are saying it to the women, it's mansplaining. So I will assume you were aiming it at the men.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you weren't clear. If you are saying that to the men, then it's a great statement. If you are saying it to the women, it's mansplaining. So I will assume you were aiming it at the men.
I didn't see a "Post only to men" button on my message submission screen. Perhaps you should ask the moderators for gender-specific posting buttons.
Or just figure out that this forum, along with all other public communication media, don't discriminate as to who receives the message. I post an opinion and everyone gets to read it. And since it's a forum in which all are invited to express their opinion, that's what we do.
When an original poster starts a thread, if they want to limit who responds, it's traditional to start off with statements like "Only reply if you are already FIRED." or "Only reply if you have an income below the median family income." I don't recollect any such limitation when this thread started off. If there was one and I forgot, my apologies. Otherwise, I have every right to politely express an opinion you do.
I don't get to dismiss your opinion because you are a woman. And you don't get to dismiss mine because I'm a man.
Incidentally, for those of you who think it's appropriate to dump on people who are your allies, have you been taking diplomacy lessons from Trump?
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you weren't clear. If you are saying that to the men, then it's a great statement. If you are saying it to the women, it's mansplaining. So I will assume you were aiming it at the men.
I didn't see a "Post only to men" button on my message submission screen. Perhaps you should ask the moderators for gender-specific posting buttons.
Or just figure out that this forum, along with all other public communication media, don't discriminate as to who receives the message. I post an opinion and everyone gets to read it. And since it's a forum in which all are invited to express their opinion, that's what we do.
When an original poster starts a thread, if they want to limit who responds, it's traditional to start off with statements like "Only reply if you are already FIRED." or "Only reply if you have an income below the median family income." I don't recollect any such limitation when this thread started off. If there was one and I forgot, my apologies. Otherwise, I have every right to politely express an opinion you do.
I don't get to dismiss your opinion because you are a woman. And you don't get to dismiss mine because I'm a man.
Incidentally, for those of you who think it's appropriate to dump on people who are your allies, have you been taking diplomacy lessons from Trump?
@SwordGuy feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
@RetiredAt63 I got the sense that SwordGuy wasn't "mansplaining" but rather attempting to showcase that he "gets it" to a degree, and that he's not one of these guys going around with his head in the sand about the fact that, generally women have more challenges in life than men.
Side Note Not Directed at Any Individual Specifically :
I think right now we're in an era where it's very difficult for people (even those that have fairly closely aligned views) to have a discussion without someone shouting "snowflake" or "mansplainer" or "white tears". Nothing is ever going to get better if we're all super reactive and sensitive without ever giving the benefit of the doubt. I think most people only really care about things that directly affect them, it's why men tend to only become educated about female stuff when they're in a serious relationship and a woman is important to them (or they have a daughter), and why celebrities start charities for diseases they or someone they now has, and why self made millionaires reach out to help those in poverty, like they once were. People are not good at putting themselves in other people's shoes, period.
Most women tend to dismiss social pressures and disadvantages towards men as infinitely less pervasive and damaging than what women experience, regardless of anecdotes or data. After all, look at how much power men have, and how women have been treated historically and are still treated in many countries. How could it possibly be hard to be male? That can't be!
Most men tend to dismiss the way women describe their experience because they don't quite believe things are *that* bad or that *those* comments *really* happen that often. After all, the guys they know are good guys, and if it happens that often...maybe some of them aren't? Maybe they even occasionally act in a sexist way? That can't be!
All humans do this with pretty much everything. The fact that we're all trying to close that gap a little bit is a good thing and I think the sign of a kinder and softer society, but I think it would be much easier to progress if we didn't jump to the worst possible conclusion or totally dismiss experiences that aren't familiar to us.
-
I actually do find that pretending to have a modicum of interest in sportsball and other cultural phenomena tremendously helpful career wise. I'm not great at pretending, but it helps when I do.
Absolutely!
I used to work for a Dutch firm and was in Rotterdam on business when the Americans went to the World Cup for the first time. (That's a soccer game - the one with the black and white round ball where they kick it around. I add that for folks who are even more happily ignorant about ball games than I am. )
We were sitting in the hotel bar with some of the local employees after work. In the background was a soccer game going on. I made a comment that I liked soccer better than American football, baseball or basketball. ( Wasn't that tactful? What I actually thought was it was marginally less boring.)
Suddenly, I was "one of the club". I was their buddy. They went out and bought me a Netherlands team hat, something to wave in my hand, and some orange face coloring (that being the national color there). It was actually rather creepy.
And it was a very real object lesson in the cost and benefit of being oneself vs. going with the crowd.
I'm happy with my choice and the price I paid for it. Shame I had to pay the price, but it was worth it to me.
Hahaha I know exactly what you went through! Our football team is our national religion. Which is why I make sure I know a little bit about it, even though I don't care much - in my case that doesn't take too much effort because my s/o is just like the people you've encountered. I prefer football over some other sports because at least the game is easy to follow for someone not too familiar with the rules.
I absolutely agree that knowing a little bit about certain things people commonly like is very helpful for your career. I really can't be bothered to watch TV so I can talk about it at work the next day, but I hopefully compensate that by more or less keeping up to date with our local football team and cycling, which is another really popular sport here, especially in the south.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you weren't clear. If you are saying that to the men, then it's a great statement. If you are saying it to the women, it's mansplaining. So I will assume you were aiming it at the men.
I didn't see a "Post only to men" button on my message submission screen. Perhaps you should ask the moderators for gender-specific posting buttons.
Or just figure out that this forum, along with all other public communication media, don't discriminate as to who receives the message. I post an opinion and everyone gets to read it. And since it's a forum in which all are invited to express their opinion, that's what we do.
When an original poster starts a thread, if they want to limit who responds, it's traditional to start off with statements like "Only reply if you are already FIRED." or "Only reply if you have an income below the median family income." I don't recollect any such limitation when this thread started off. If there was one and I forgot, my apologies. Otherwise, I have every right to politely express an opinion you do.
I don't get to dismiss your opinion because you are a woman. And you don't get to dismiss mine because I'm a man.
Incidentally, for those of you who think it's appropriate to dump on people who are your allies, have you been taking diplomacy lessons from Trump?
I am at a loss to who you think is "shitting" on you? Somehow it's OK for you to share your opinion but not for others to say "duh" because your opinion is obvious to anyone who is already a woman?
-
Side Note Not Directed at Any Individual Specifically :
I think right now we're in an era where it's very difficult for people (even those that have fairly closely aligned views) to have a discussion without someone shouting "snowflake" or "mansplainer" or "white tears". Nothing is ever going to get better if we're all super reactive and sensitive without ever giving the benefit of the doubt. I think most people only really care about things that directly affect them, it's why men tend to only become educated about female stuff when they're in a serious relationship and a woman is important to them (or they have a daughter), and why celebrities start charities for diseases they or someone they now has, and why self made millionaires reach out to help those in poverty, like they once were. People are not good at putting themselves in other people's shoes, period.
Most women tend to dismiss social pressures and disadvantages towards men as infinitely less pervasive and damaging than what women experience, regardless of anecdotes or data. After all, look at how much power men have, and how women have been treated historically and are still treated in many countries. How could it possibly be hard to be male? That can't be!
Most men tend to dismiss the way women describe their experience because they don't quite believe things are *that* bad or that *those* comments *really* happen that often. After all, the guys they know are good guys, and if it happens that often...maybe some of them aren't? Maybe they even occasionally act in a sexist way? That can't be!
All humans do this with pretty much everything. The fact that we're all trying to close that gap a little bit is a good thing and I think the sign of a kinder and softer society, but I think it would be much easier to progress if we didn't jump to the worst possible conclusion or totally dismiss experiences that aren't familiar to us.
Thank you for that. It's something most of us probably understand but sometimes forget.
As for the words you mentioned, I think the world would be a better place if we could just strike them from our vocabulary. There's about a 0% chance that they add anything productive to a conversation.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you weren't clear. If you are saying that to the men, then it's a great statement. If you are saying it to the women, it's mansplaining. So I will assume you were aiming it at the men.
I didn't see a "Post only to men" button on my message submission screen. Perhaps you should ask the moderators for gender-specific posting buttons.
Or just figure out that this forum, along with all other public communication media, don't discriminate as to who receives the message. I post an opinion and everyone gets to read it. And since it's a forum in which all are invited to express their opinion, that's what we do.
When an original poster starts a thread, if they want to limit who responds, it's traditional to start off with statements like "Only reply if you are already FIRED." or "Only reply if you have an income below the median family income." I don't recollect any such limitation when this thread started off. If there was one and I forgot, my apologies. Otherwise, I have every right to politely express an opinion you do.
I don't get to dismiss your opinion because you are a woman. And you don't get to dismiss mine because I'm a man.
Incidentally, for those of you who think it's appropriate to dump on people who are your allies, have you been taking diplomacy lessons from Trump?
I am at a loss to who you think is "shitting" on you? Somehow it's OK for you to share your opinion but not for others to say "duh" because your opinion is obvious to anyone who is already a woman?
Well this has become a silly tangent, but apparently I can't help myself.
Swordguy specifically said "Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention".
That seems pretty clear to me. If you think similarly, he wasn't referring to you. In fact saying "anyone who doesn't get it is not paying attention" is basically long form for "duh".
-
@Dabnasty My question was really, how does someone saying "duh" constitute being shat upon? I don't get that ...
-
@Dabnasty My question was really, how does someone saying "duh" to you constitute being shat upon? I don't get that ...
How does it not?
Maybe there was a bit of an overreaction, but it sucks when you try to extend an olive branch and you get your hand smacked.
It may not have the same punch in text form but "duh" is typically accompanied by an eye roll in person, which is the body language for patronizing dismissal. I'm not criticizing the person who said it so much as acknowledging that the eye roll/duh can be quite hurtful. It's one of those things that comes out real easy but often has more impact than was intended. My eyes tend to roll without my permission, especially when discussing finances, so I need to be extra aware of this :)
-
@Dabnasty My question was really, how does someone saying "duh" to you constitute being shat upon? I don't get that ...
How does it not?
Maybe there was a bit of an overreaction, but it sucks when you try to extend an olive branch and you get your hand smacked.
It may not have the same punch in text form but "duh" is typically accompanied by an eye roll in person, which is the body language for patronizing dismissal. I'm not criticizing the person who said it so much as acknowledging that the eye roll/duh can be quite hurtful. It's one of those things that comes out real easy but often has more impact than was intended. My eyes tend to roll without my permission, especially when discussing finances, so I need to be extra aware of this :)
It was definitely a bit of an overreaction. You see an olive branch, but many of the women on the thread saw condescension and yes, the dreaded word MANSPLAINING.
At some point men are going to have to learn that some proportion of women are much more interested in being listened to when we discuss our experience, than having men try to explain our experience to us. (Just as I as a white woman am not gonna tell black people what is what with their experience.) When in doubt, hush. It's extremely mustachian / free!
-
@Dabnasty My question was really, how does someone saying "duh" to you constitute being shat upon? I don't get that ...
How does it not?
Maybe there was a bit of an overreaction, but it sucks when you try to extend an olive branch and you get your hand smacked.
It may not have the same punch in text form but "duh" is typically accompanied by an eye roll in person, which is the body language for patronizing dismissal. I'm not criticizing the person who said it so much as acknowledging that the eye roll/duh can be quite hurtful. It's one of those things that comes out real easy but often has more impact than was intended. My eyes tend to roll without my permission, especially when discussing finances, so I need to be extra aware of this :)
It was definitely a bit of an overreaction. You see an olive branch, but many of the women on the thread saw condescension and yes, the dreaded word MANSPLAINING.
At some point men are going to have to learn that some proportion of women are much more interested in being listened to when we discuss our experience, than having men try to explain our experience to us. (Just as I as a white woman am not gonna tell black people what is what with their experience.) When in doubt, hush. It's extremely mustachian / free!
This is men are from Mars/Women are from Venus stuff.
Generally speaking, when you tell a man about a problem, his natural instinct is to try and solve it. Part of that solving process may be understanding the scope of the issue, which means pushing back on certain things ("did he really mean that"). It's not meant to be patronizing or anything else, it's how we solve problems.
Women, on the other hand, don't necessarily want their problems solved as they want them understood and sympathized with. This confuses men, because if you don't want us to try and solve a problem, why would you tell us about it? A problem not looking for a solution is not a problem to men.
I feel comfortable "mansplaining" this because I am literally explaining about men.
-
It's possible to be condescending without intending to be so.
It's also amazing to me how much emotional work women are expected to do to dive into and understand a man's intentions. Why is it on US to be tap-dance around so we can be understanding about that? Why isn't rather on men to try to be less condescending in the first place?
This is a silly tangent for sure, but it's also a perfect illustration of the extra work that's required of women day to day in everything from caring more about our appearance than men do, to caring more about the feelings of men than they do ours.
-
In the western world, in most circumstances, being female is a disadvantage. In the rest of the world it's more of a curse.
In the entire world, in most circumstances, being male is an advantage.
That's just plain true. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
Oh we've noticed, believe us.
Duh.
Well, I included that so I didn't have to (falsely) get shit on for not understanding that.
So, now I get to be shit on for showing I understand it.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you weren't clear. If you are saying that to the men, then it's a great statement. If you are saying it to the women, it's mansplaining. So I will assume you were aiming it at the men.
I didn't see a "Post only to men" button on my message submission screen. Perhaps you should ask the moderators for gender-specific posting buttons.
Or just figure out that this forum, along with all other public communication media, don't discriminate as to who receives the message. I post an opinion and everyone gets to read it. And since it's a forum in which all are invited to express their opinion, that's what we do.
When an original poster starts a thread, if they want to limit who responds, it's traditional to start off with statements like "Only reply if you are already FIRED." or "Only reply if you have an income below the median family income." I don't recollect any such limitation when this thread started off. If there was one and I forgot, my apologies. Otherwise, I have every right to politely express an opinion you do.
I don't get to dismiss your opinion because you are a woman. And you don't get to dismiss mine because I'm a man.
Incidentally, for those of you who think it's appropriate to dump on people who are your allies, have you been taking diplomacy lessons from Trump?
I am at a loss to who you think is "shitting" on you? Somehow it's OK for you to share your opinion but not for others to say "duh" because your opinion is obvious to anyone who is already a woman?
Well, if only women were reading this thread, it still might not be obvious to all of them.
Here's an example of a woman who appears to be pretty clueless about the issue of equal rights for women. I've seen stats that 53% of the people who look like her voted for Trump and Pence.
Mustachean points, though, for the low cost outfit and haircut.
-
@Dabnasty My question was really, how does someone saying "duh" to you constitute being shat upon? I don't get that ...
How does it not?
Maybe there was a bit of an overreaction, but it sucks when you try to extend an olive branch and you get your hand smacked.
It may not have the same punch in text form but "duh" is typically accompanied by an eye roll in person, which is the body language for patronizing dismissal. I'm not criticizing the person who said it so much as acknowledging that the eye roll/duh can be quite hurtful. It's one of those things that comes out real easy but often has more impact than was intended. My eyes tend to roll without my permission, especially when discussing finances, so I need to be extra aware of this :)
It was definitely a bit of an overreaction. You see an olive branch, but many of the women on the thread saw condescension and yes, the dreaded word MANSPLAINING.
At some point men are going to have to learn that some proportion of women are much more interested in being listened to when we discuss our experience, than having men try to explain our experience to us. (Just as I as a white woman am not gonna tell black people what is what with their experience.) When in doubt, hush. It's extremely mustachian / free!
Why would it be taken as condescension? The statements A) gave acknowledgement that he understood the issues B) stated that the issues are fairly obvious. The statements were never an "explanation" of anything and even if they were, they were quite specifically directed at "Anyone who thinks differently".
-
At the end of the day, simple economics tells us that women's clothing is more expensive than men's simply because women will pay it.
This is a great point. We should all go naked instead.
-
I have a "low femme" look, and I can't separate the various factors that influence that. There's the societal pressure I face as a woman, there's the need to present adequately feminine for safety reasons because I'm transgender, and there's the decades where I was denied expressing myself. I'm not sure if the safety factor counteracts my avoiding the societal pressure as a child.
-
Here in Norway female razors are sometimes cheaper than male razors. When that is the case, my DH buys female razors for himself. He is a pragmatic person.
-
Is the razor thing that big of a deal to people?
I "fell prey" to the famous Gillette razor/razor blade model a long time ago. They sent me a Mach 3 razor for my 18th birthday, and I've been basically using it ever since (on probably my third handle). I don't shave every day, as my beard doesn't grow in that fast and my office isn't that formal, so I can get away with shaving 3-4 times a week. Doing this a blade lasts about 2-3 weeks judging by the little blue strip on the blade. A 4-pack lasts about 3 months. A 4-pack of Mach 3 blades, which are pretty pricey as razors go, is around $12. So a dollar a week, more or less. Is that really what people are bitching about?
-
Is the razor thing that big of a deal to people?
I "fell prey" to the famous Gillette razor/razor blade model a long time ago. They sent me a Mach 3 razor for my 18th birthday, and I've been basically using it ever since (on probably my third handle). I don't shave every day, as my beard doesn't grow in that fast and my office isn't that formal, so I can get away with shaving 3-4 times a week. Doing this a blade lasts about 2-3 weeks judging by the little blue strip on the blade. A 4-pack lasts about 3 months. A 4-pack of Mach 3 blades, which are pretty pricey as razors go, is around $12. So a dollar a week, more or less. Is that really what people are bitching about?
Not to mention butterfly/safety razors are unisex (maybe some are advertised for men, but they're all plain silver and black). I bought one for less than $20 a few years ago and get replacement blades 5/$1. With two sides per blade I use slightly more than 1/month. My total ongoing cost of shaving is <$3/year. If you use them on your body you may replace them more often but you could use a blade every week and spend ~$10/year.
-
Is the razor thing that big of a deal to people?
I "fell prey" to the famous Gillette razor/razor blade model a long time ago. They sent me a Mach 3 razor for my 18th birthday, and I've been basically using it ever since (on probably my third handle). I don't shave every day, as my beard doesn't grow in that fast and my office isn't that formal, so I can get away with shaving 3-4 times a week. Doing this a blade lasts about 2-3 weeks judging by the little blue strip on the blade. A 4-pack lasts about 3 months. A 4-pack of Mach 3 blades, which are pretty pricey as razors go, is around $12. So a dollar a week, more or less. Is that really what people are bitching about?
It is a mild annoyance for me to see that almost any product marketed at women is more expensive than a similar product designed for men, but there's a very easy solution: don't use more products than necessary for hygiene and choose the cheapest product or a neutral alternative. My s/o and I only use neutral products and we use the same shampoo, deodorant and toothpaste. I use a small amount of make-up when I have to.
What does feel very unfair to me, even though we're talking about very small amounts of money, is that in my country female sanitary products are considered a luxury and we are charged 21% VAT on it. Even though we're talking about an expensive of maybe €5/month it still feels unfair. Women have periods every month for half of their life, and products that we need during our periods are not luxury items.
-
What does feel very unfair to me, even though we're talking about very small amounts of money, is that in my country female sanitary products are considered a luxury and we are charged 21% VAT on it. Even though we're talking about an expensive of maybe €5/month it still feels unfair. Women have periods every month for half of their life, and products that we need during our periods are not luxury items.
Political pressure - Canada finally exempted feminine hygiene products for the HST back in 2015. It was from a private member's bill from an NDP (i.e. left wing) MP, Irene Mathyssen.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tampon-tax-will-end-july-1-1.3091533 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tampon-tax-will-end-july-1-1.3091533)
-
Is the razor thing that big of a deal to people?
I "fell prey" to the famous Gillette razor/razor blade model a long time ago. They sent me a Mach 3 razor for my 18th birthday, and I've been basically using it ever since (on probably my third handle). I don't shave every day, as my beard doesn't grow in that fast and my office isn't that formal, so I can get away with shaving 3-4 times a week. Doing this a blade lasts about 2-3 weeks judging by the little blue strip on the blade. A 4-pack lasts about 3 months. A 4-pack of Mach 3 blades, which are pretty pricey as razors go, is around $12. So a dollar a week, more or less. Is that really what people are bitching about?
I don't know if it is that big of a deal (other than systemically) but some of the men upthread expressed surprise (and possibly disdain? Hard to read intent on the interwebs) that women would pay that much more over the course of a lifetime for appearance.
I think the women here are just pointing out the things that add up that men might not be thinking about (Tampon tax, tampons/pads, razors, haircuts, the very real income restrictions that might come from not following societal norms etc).
Another point that was made upthread that is worth reiterating: yes there are workarounds for women (for most things), but we have to go and seek out that information and those services/products. We have to do work, just to learn that alternatives exist. For men, these are often the default product.
-
Y’know what absolutely sucks for women???
Our clothes falling apart after very little use.
I remember back when I used to love fashion and buying new clothes, I would always dread putting new pieces in the wash because you never knew if they would come out looking like crap.
I bought a very nice suit for my corporate finance job.
I wore it twice.
Both the pants and the jacket now need to be repaired.
This is not unusual in women’s clothes, even “high quality” pieces. This is why I pretty much gave up on buying nice clothes and have stuck with almost 100% athletic gear for the past 5 years, because athletic gear is designed to take a beating, so I don’t worry about torn seams and broken zippers all the time.
Fucking hell.
During every year I bought a woman's winter jacket in a clothes shop for women, the zipper fell apart after some months. That sucks, having to either repair an otherwise good jacket. But when I buy a winter jacket in a shops shops, it holds on many years. I have stopped buying winter jackets in clothing shops. And I still use my winter jacket from the sports shop for the 5th or 6th winter now. Although there is a bit of down coming from the seems.
-
Y’know what absolutely sucks for women???
Our clothes falling apart after very little use.
I remember back when I used to love fashion and buying new clothes, I would always dread putting new pieces in the wash because you never knew if they would come out looking like crap.
I bought a very nice suit for my corporate finance job.
I wore it twice.
Both the pants and the jacket now need to be repaired.
This is not unusual in women’s clothes, even “high quality” pieces. This is why I pretty much gave up on buying nice clothes and have stuck with almost 100% athletic gear for the past 5 years, because athletic gear is designed to take a beating, so I don’t worry about torn seams and broken zippers all the time.
Fucking hell.
I don't buy a lot of clothing (my wife does most of the clothes shopping in our household), but I do buy a lot of tools. There are cheap tools that fall apart really fast, there are cheap tools that don't work very well, there are cheap tools that don't work well AND fall apart quickly, and then there are cheap tools that do a fine job and last a long time. I've pretty much learned how to tell the difference most of the time. I've learned what brands to trust and which to avoid. I've learned how to spot a lot of the subtle differences between shoddy or quality tools.
I've bought a few men's "fashion" clothing items over the years. All turned out to have shoddy construction and they didn't last. But if I buy sensible clothing that's made out of fabrics that have staying power, and constructed in a reasonable way, the clothes last.
My wife doesn't seem to have a problem with buying clothes for herself that last, either. She rarely purchases expensive clothing items, either. Dresses well when she wants to and doesn't when she doesn't. Maybe it's because she took the time to learn how to sew and therefore understands fabrics and and garment construction, so she can recognize quality when she sees it.
Maybe folks are shopping in the wrong stores or looking at the wrong products.
Or maybe my wife is just the Warren Buffet of finding inexpensive, long-lasting garments. Dunno.
If you're happy with your clothes shopping results, then by all means, carry on.
If you're not, and you spend a lot on clothes and don't want to, then maybe there's room for improvement in how you go about it.
And if you're absolutely sure you're doing everything right but don't like how much you're paying, and are absolutely positive it's society's fault despite the evidence that other women have succeeded at dressing well on a budget; then blame away.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Yep. I remember well the dress that had to be cut off of me as I was getting dressed one morning because the zipper went halfway up, locked itself, and would not budge in either direction. Fortunately, I was able to pay a tailor to replace the zipper (for about US$30 plus the cost of the zipper itself), but as I'd already paid $60 for what was billed as a good quality dress, I was a bit annoyed.
-
Ugh I have lost many a dress to cheap zippers, and fancy work shirts to fingernails. Nobody let me loose around silk. I have sturdy, cheap clothes that last years, and expensive stuff that I'm afraid to take outside. Unfortunately the cheap, sturdy stuff generally doesn't look as good.
I'm grateful for my new office, where people wear shorts and flip-flops. Well. One person wears shorts and flip-flops. At least it means nobody looks askance at my bright teal sneakers.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Okay? I do all of that stuff and my clothes don't just fall apart, and like I said, I just buy normal stuff and take care of it.
I swear, I feel like I'm living in some sort of alternate reality sometimes, because I hear all this stuff about women having it tough in all these weird ways, and in 31 years I have yet to experience it.
-
I also don't have this problem, or at least not to the extent it's described here. Sure I've had a cheap H&M top losing its color after a few washings, but that's about how bad it got. Now I also rarely/never buy high-end stuff so no clue about the quality of that.
I have to admit that I only have 1 dress with a zipper though. And it's a zipper with relatively big teeth so probably more durable. I honestly don't know why I would want to buy things with those tiny zippers - they're annoying even if they don't break!
Apart from the zipper problem, what else falls apart easily?
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
For my winter jackets: I use the zipper several days a year in exactly the same fashion for jackets bought in women's shops and jackets bought in sports shops. The fancy store zippers break, the sports shop zippers last.
I have learned to look at the zipper brand. YKK is good quality. And there is another brand that I don't recall now, but I've got it in a book somewhere. I don't buy jackets with zippers from other brands.
The rest of my clothes last quite well. Although I have twice needed to replace a zipper in trousers (myself, while being totally inexperienced in sewing).
-
I also don't have this problem, or at least not to the extent it's described here. Sure I've had a cheap H&M top losing its color after a few washings, but that's about how bad it got. Now I also rarely/never buy high-end stuff so no clue about the quality of that.
I have to admit that I only have 1 dress with a zipper though. And it's a zipper with relatively big teeth so probably more durable. I honestly don't know why I would want to buy things with those tiny zippers - they're annoying even if they don't break!
Apart from the zipper problem, what else falls apart easily?
I have one blouse that has torn in a seam. But it is too small for me, so that is the main cause.
I also used to have a discolouring H&M shirt. It has such a nice colour to start with. But it said on the label not to expect the colour to last.
Some trousers get chafed in the thighs when you walk a lot. But as seen in another thread here, that also happens to men in some cases.
Some T-shirts get rough in the cloth after washing them many times or not quite so many times. I think I have one shirt that is washed less than 10 times and the cloth is already looking less pretty. While others look that way after washing weekly for 2 years.
-
Zikoris, what stuff is normal for you? Maybe I can buy it.
For me, I find that buying new or new to me clothes has a 50 50 chance of lasting 2-4 years heavy use, or falling apart way too fast. When I go to replace the longer lasting stuff, it is often discontinued or the new version is worse quality. So a pair of leggings I replace 3-4 times in a year, and then not again for 3-4 years. It looks like sweaters are going to need to get bought this fall unfortunately.
Shoes I just go through absurdly fast, partially due to walking.
-
I also don't have this problem, or at least not to the extent it's described here. Sure I've had a cheap H&M top losing its color after a few washings, but that's about how bad it got. Now I also rarely/never buy high-end stuff so no clue about the quality of that.
I have to admit that I only have 1 dress with a zipper though. And it's a zipper with relatively big teeth so probably more durable. I honestly don't know why I would want to buy things with those tiny zippers - they're annoying even if they don't break!
Apart from the zipper problem, what else falls apart easily?
In my case, the bad zipper was in a dress purchased online from a company that I had trusted.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Okay? I do all of that stuff and my clothes don't just fall apart, and like I said, I just buy normal stuff and take care of it.
I swear, I feel like I'm living in some sort of alternate reality sometimes, because I hear all this stuff about women having it tough in all these weird ways, and in 31 years I have yet to experience it.
So I'm going to try and treat lightly here. But my impression, Zik, given your veganism and general focus on health and life balance, is that you're on the slender side? Or at least don't fluctuate weight a lot? I'm of a similar ilk, and one of my good friends who struggles with weight pointed out to me that was key in my clothes lasting so long (she's my frugal bestie, we've had this exact convo). I'm comfortable buying stretchier fabrics since I don't mind the clinging as much. And less weight fluctuation means fewer demands on seams and zippers. This also held up to me because the big thing that does wear out for me- I am fairly tall, and for a time all the shirts I could find for sale were just a touch too short. I found myself tugging them down constantly. These developed little holes at the bottom where I had been tugging the shirts down. They didn't last a year, whereas I have other shirts by the same company in the same fabric that have lasted over 6 years now. So I think fit, and wear, and body type, are all playing roles here.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Okay? I do all of that stuff and my clothes don't just fall apart, and like I said, I just buy normal stuff and take care of it.
I swear, I feel like I'm living in some sort of alternate reality sometimes, because I hear all this stuff about women having it tough in all these weird ways, and in 31 years I have yet to experience it.
This is the exact kind of situation we make merciless fun of when people don't believe it's possible to save and invest your way to wealth.
You know it's possible to do this because you've been living it for decades. And yet people who are bound and determined to continue doing whatever it is that they're doing, are unwilling to accept that their misery is self-inflicted because of the choices they are making.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Okay? I do all of that stuff and my clothes don't just fall apart, and like I said, I just buy normal stuff and take care of it.
I swear, I feel like I'm living in some sort of alternate reality sometimes, because I hear all this stuff about women having it tough in all these weird ways, and in 31 years I have yet to experience it.
So I'm going to try and treat lightly here. But my impression, Zik, given your veganism and general focus on health and life balance, is that you're on the slender side? Or at least don't fluctuate weight a lot? I'm of a similar ilk, and one of my good friends who struggles with weight pointed out to me that was key in my clothes lasting so long (she's my frugal bestie, we've had this exact convo). I'm comfortable buying stretchier fabrics since I don't mind the clinging as much. And less weight fluctuation means fewer demands on seams and zippers. This also held up to me because the big thing that does wear out for me- I am fairly tall, and for a time all the shirts I could find for sale were just a touch too short. I found myself tugging them down constantly. These developed little holes at the bottom where I had been tugging the shirts down. They didn't last a year, whereas I have other shirts by the same company in the same fabric that have lasted over 6 years now. So I think fit, and wear, and body type, are all playing roles here.
Good point. I used to work with a woman who, despite being a US size 4, carried all extra body fat in her hips and thighs. This meant that her thighs rubbed together when she walked. With regular wear, the chafing would eventually wear holes right through the fabric.
I don’t have that particular problem because even though I’m slightly larger (US size 6), my hips are built differently and I carry more weight in my upper body; this means that I have a slight thigh gap and don’t have to worry about chafing. I do, however, carry more fat in my backside, so the fabric on pants tends to wear out around the rear pocket stitching after a few years. The extra fat distribution on top means that even though I buy good bras (expensive and a giant pain in the ass as I need a size 30 band, which is not made by US companies), they are subject to heavy use. I will therefore need to replace them more frequently than would someone who wears a B-cup.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Okay? I do all of that stuff and my clothes don't just fall apart, and like I said, I just buy normal stuff and take care of it.
I swear, I feel like I'm living in some sort of alternate reality sometimes, because I hear all this stuff about women having it tough in all these weird ways, and in 31 years I have yet to experience it.
So I'm going to try and treat lightly here. But my impression, Zik, given your veganism and general focus on health and life balance, is that you're on the slender side? Or at least don't fluctuate weight a lot? I'm of a similar ilk, and one of my good friends who struggles with weight pointed out to me that was key in my clothes lasting so long (she's my frugal bestie, we've had this exact convo). I'm comfortable buying stretchier fabrics since I don't mind the clinging as much. And less weight fluctuation means fewer demands on seams and zippers. This also held up to me because the big thing that does wear out for me- I am fairly tall, and for a time all the shirts I could find for sale were just a touch too short. I found myself tugging them down constantly. These developed little holes at the bottom where I had been tugging the shirts down. They didn't last a year, whereas I have other shirts by the same company in the same fabric that have lasted over 6 years now. So I think fit, and wear, and body type, are all playing roles here.
I suppose I've pretty average for my area? Maybe slim by American standards?
(https://i.imgur.com/OtqQSOZl.jpg)
I've been kind of wondering the same thing but couldn't think of a delicate way to put it - maybe people are buying stuff that's just too small, and it's wrecking the zippers/seam/buttons? I actually don't own many things with buttons or zippers, more for comfort and ease than anything. Almost everything I own is stretchy.
-
I bought pants from the Gap twice. The hems on each started to unravel after two wears (not washes, wears). I have never again bought pants from the Gap. On the other hand, I bought jeans from Forever 21 for like 7 bucks each -- and I rotated three pairs for over a year as pretty much the only thing I wore. One now needs patching and is a bit stretched out several years later, but they're still wearable (especially post-patching) and the other pairs are in good condition.
There are some serious differences based on where you're buying, and it seems to me like a lot of the cheaper places often end up with better construction than "nicer" stores.
-
Some of it is has to do with whether your clothes are stretchy or not. If not, then of course there's going to be more stress on seams/zippers/etc. Common sense, I should think.
A lot of it also has to do with the fact that quality assurance on clothing and fabric in general is shit. My friend who is a fit model told me that some jeans construction contracts have a 1.5 inch error allowance built into the contract. That means that you could buy one pair of jeans in a certain size from a certain brand and have them fit perfectly, and then the next one you purchase could have up to 1.5" difference in any/all of the measurements. Which could of course impact the stress placed on the garment not to mention the frustration of having "the same" item not fit properly. If you bought the second pair of jeans without trying them on, trusting that they would fit since the first ones did, and you couldn't return, you'd be SOL.
When I was running my dressmaking company, I ran into fabric issues all the time. The pattern you use for any garment has to be altered depending on the stretch and thickness of a fabric, so I once ordered just a few yards of an expensive double-knit wool to test with. Once I got my pattern working well with it, I went back and placed a much larger order, and the fabric was completely different. I was able to change my pattern again but I can imagine that large producers might not bother with this. This would also lead to differences in the stress placed on a garment and how it fits.
I get around this by buying 5-10 items online, trying them on, and keeping only the ones that fit me. So I end up only buying from companies who make it easy to return. I'm pretty sure this is a lot more work than men have to do to be properly clothed.
One more thing -- over the years, even casual women's garments have started to be produced in flimsier and flimsier fabric. This is sold as a fashion feature -- layering is in this season so why not wear 3 shirts at a time! -- but really it's a way to get women to buy and wear several layers at a time. I haven't seen this happening with dudes' clothes.
Body size also comes into play in a major way. Plus sized women (68% of the population in the US) have far fewer choices, and end up having to settle for the 60% okay pants because that's all there is for them on any particular shopping trip ... whereas straight sized women (32% of the population) have far more choices. Again I get around this by planning ahead, but if you need black pants today and you're a size 20 and you go to the mall or to a place like Target? Your options are going to be extremely limited.
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
Now I do love skirts... but most of them don't have pockets.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
Sure, that could definitely work for some women ... but as you might expect, there are complicating factors :)
For instance, I am not a fan of how a-line skirts look on me -- I prefer the look of slim skirts and trousers.
Skirts can also be kind of limiting if you have to, for instance, crawl under your desk to hook something up or sit on a cold airplane or climb on a chair to do something. And many of us also face the dreaded chub-rub issue. You can wear leggings or tights or bike shorts underneath, but it's again another garment and another thing to purchase/maintain/think about.
Honestly, I would be very surprised if a man was able to offer helpful advice on women's clothing -- and that is NOT a knock against any particular dude or dudekind in general -- it's just similar to how women are generally not going to have helpful advice on what kind of underwear will be most comfortable for a man's anatomy. No experience, and plus it varies greatly from person to person.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
Skirts are not good for all seasons, and also not as good to bike in, depending on the cut. And in the winter, wearing tights with skirts, you will end up replacing way more tights than pants, since those are not made to last (but somehow still cost a lot).
I have lots of clothes that have lasted me at least 10 years, but I have also tossed or donated plenty of clothes that wore out before their time. Sometimes it's the cheap stuff that lasts longer, but it's hard to predict. I don't buy high end clothing, but I try to find quality for affordable prices.
I have also grown and my body shape has changed over time, and that means buying new clothes, or old ones wear out in weird spots. I don't know if it has come up in this thread yet, but my biggest issue with pants is finding ones that fit both hips and waist, and that won't wear out in the crotch. I have yet to find a pair that satisfies all the criteria and lasts a long time. I also never use a dryer and wear things more than once, even handwashing delicate stuff, but I prefer clothing that doesn't need special treatment.
-
@Zikoris you're definitely slender by american standards. And I don't think the issue is always buys too small. A couple thoughts: for my friend, the process of pregnancy/post partum weight/etc leads to a lot of size variation. Or even just people who see large weight fluctuations, without it being maternity related. Rather than buying a whole new wardrobe at each incremental change, it ends up being more cost effective to just let your current collection wear out faster.
Some of it is has to do with whether your clothes are stretchy or not. If not, then of course there's going to be more stress on seams/zippers/etc. Common sense, I should think.
A lot of it also has to do with the fact that quality assurance on clothing and fabric in general is shit. My friend who is a fit model told me that some jeans construction contracts have a 1.5 inch error allowance built into the contract. That means that you could buy one pair of jeans in a certain size from a certain brand and have them fit perfectly, and then the next one you purchase could have up to 1.5" difference in any/all of the measurements. Which could of course impact the stress placed on the garment not to mention the frustration of having "the same" item not fit properly. If you bought the second pair of jeans without trying them on, trusting that they would fit since the first ones did, and you couldn't return, you'd be SOL.
When I was running my dressmaking company, I ran into fabric issues all the time. The pattern you use for any garment has to be altered depending on the stretch and thickness of a fabric, so I once ordered just a few yards of an expensive double-knit wool to test with. Once I got my pattern working well with it, I went back and placed a much larger order, and the fabric was completely different. I was able to change my pattern again but I can imagine that large producers might not bother with this. This would also lead to differences in the stress placed on a garment and how it fits.
I get around this by buying 5-10 items online, trying them on, and keeping only the ones that fit me. So I end up only buying from companies who make it easy to return. I'm pretty sure this is a lot more work than men have to do to be properly clothed.
One more thing -- over the years, even casual women's garments have started to be produced in flimsier and flimsier fabric. This is sold as a fashion feature -- layering is in this season so why not wear 3 shirts at a time! -- but really it's a way to get women to buy and wear several layers at a time. I haven't seen this happening with dudes' clothes.
Body size also comes into play in a major way. Plus sized women (68% of the population in the US) have far fewer choices, and end up having to settle for the 60% okay pants because that's all there is for them on any particular shopping trip ... whereas straight sized women (32% of the population) have far more choices. Again I get around this by planning ahead, but if you need black pants today and you're a size 20 and you go to the mall or to a place like Target? Your options are going to be extremely limited.
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
Madgeylou made the point I was trying to make in a much more clear fashion, with the sizing issues.
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
To put it delicately... fuck no =P My mama didn't participate in sit-ins in school to get the right to wear pants for me to capitulate to those... jk, that's not at all why, I'm just way too active and clumsy for that. My skirts end up snagged and ripped too often. Bikes, dogs, gardens, not flashing the public... I have some summer dresses, and I *do* like them, but shorts have better odds of survival in my life. So while the fit of skirts might lead to longevity, everything else in my life would undo that.
-
I have also grown and my body shape has changed over time, and that means buying new clothes, or old ones wear out in weird spots. I don't know if it has come up in this thread yet, but my biggest issue with pants is finding ones that fit both hips and waist, and that won't wear out in the crotch.
Yes. The crotch is always the first to go for me, too, and if it's the fabric that wears through, it's almost impossible to patch in a way that looks presentable. Seems like someone should have come up with a solution for this by now! Maybe my next business :D
-
I love skirts and do wear them. A-line skirts are great (the more fitted ones that come with suits are tricky after accounting for hip and rise measurements). However, they are not always practical and require an extra layer of bike shorts or similar because it is frequently windy in my area. Found this out the hard way when a sudden gust of wind gave a major intersection a flash of my underwear. Good times.
-
Question: What the hell are you guys doing to your clothes that they fall apart and break so quickly? I don't even buy high end stuff, and most of my work wardrobe is 10+ years old. I anticipate wearing most of what I've got now right through to retirement.
Most of my clothes have never seen the inside of a dryer, and I wear things a few times between washes, so there's some stuff to try.
We do high-end ninja stuff like "sitting", "walking", "putting the clothes on" and "taking the clothes off". The latter two are more than enough to destroy the kind of zipper you find in women's clothing. They aren't actually designed to be zipped up or unzipped. The teeth are microscopic and frequently misaligned.
Okay? I do all of that stuff and my clothes don't just fall apart, and like I said, I just buy normal stuff and take care of it.
I swear, I feel like I'm living in some sort of alternate reality sometimes, because I hear all this stuff about women having it tough in all these weird ways, and in 31 years I have yet to experience it.
Ditto! I also line dry nearly all of my clothes (inside my tiny apartment as well!) which is a well known way to make clothing last longer. I never dry my jeans, shirts, dresses, panties, tights, or bras. I do dry workout t-shirts that I don't care about, sheets, towels, that kind of thing.
I think the quality of clothing across the board (men's and women's) has declined. I do most of the clothing shopping for me and my husband and I don't see any difference in durability along gender lines, but I do see a durability difference when it comes to fabric types and price points and brands. I also see the massive sizing differences brand to brand, which can be annoying.
I never thought about body size impacting clothing lifespan, but it does make sense. I think that may be a better explanation for clothing not lasting than gender difference. I buy according to sale schedules (off season) so I shop for DH and I at the same time, and our items wear out nearly identically.
-
Zikoris and rdaneel0, maybe instead of assuming all the other women who are talking about differences in their experience based on gender are wrong or lying, maybe you could just feel gratitude that you don't experience them.
For instance, I am a rich white American woman who is tall and large and confident and educated. Even though I do experience gender and size discrimination in some ways, I also have plenty of power in other ways, which means that there are a lot of examples of smaller, poorer, less-educated, non-white women experiencing gender discrimination that I don't personally experience. But that doesn't mean they don't happen to anyone, just that they don't happen to me. I would suggest that it's the same in your case.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I switched to skirts and dresses, partly because my jeans would develop holes, partly because I prefer how they look. Doesn't solve every problem. Since I have a large bust and small waist, only certain styles, fabrics, and brands fit well. These tend to be more expensive, have long zippers that break, don't have pockets (although some do). I spend very little now, clothing swaps and thrift stores help. But it's time consuming to hunt for the rare dress that works for me, and it's taken many years to figure out what suits me. I still am not great at it.
I prefer jeans for practicality, though, and not everyone wants to wear skirts all the time.
-
Skirts and fit - not everyone will have the same length from waist to widest part of hip - so a skirt may ride up, or the waist may not sit at the right spot for the hips to fit. Or a skirt's waist may be too large/small relative to hips, compared to an actual real body. Same with dresses - I almost never wear dresses, because I am long in the torso, and a dress waist that should be at my waist will be sitting on my ribs. It makes bathing suits hard to fit as well, I have totally given up on one-piece suits.
-
Zikoris and rdaneel0, maybe instead of assuming all the other women who are talking about differences in their experience based on gender are wrong or lying, maybe you could just feel gratitude that you don't experience them.
For instance, I am a rich white American woman who is tall and large and confident and educated. Even though I do experience gender and size discrimination in some ways, I also have plenty of power in other ways, which means that there are a lot of examples of smaller, poorer, less-educated, non-white women experiencing gender discrimination that I don't personally experience. But that doesn't mean they don't happen to anyone, just that they don't happen to me. I would suggest that it's the same in your case.
Woah, I didn't say anyone was lying! I don't know why anyone would lie about something like this, seems like a weird con. I do feel like I live in an alternate world sometimes because my experiences seem to be highly atypical in many areas, but I don't see how that equates to me assuming women are wrong or lying.
I think this forum is all about different people sharing their experiences, giving possible tips/recommendations for better outcomes, debating approaches, questioning things, expressing surprise at other's priorities/resources, etc. I don't think every recommendation or tip works for every person, but I also don't think that's a reason to stop sharing alternative perspectives/tips.
For me, not using a clothes dryer and shopping quality fabrics and trusted brands works well most of the time. Plenty of people toss everything in the dryer and never look at fabric type when they shop, so that's an easy tip that *may* work for some, and that many people probably don't know. I was also pointing out that it's interesting that two of the women who don't experience this clothing issue both do some of the same things. I also acknowledged that size may be a factor I hadn't considered before, mentioned that I had seen clothing quality decline overall, and that I also experienced the absurdly irregular sizing standards.
I'm not sure why on top of this, in this context, I need to expressly state my gratitude that I don't have an issue with my clothing wearing out too quickly. I can't help but feel that if this were about a non-gendered area of optimization the way I stated my opinion wouldn't be given a second thought.
-
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
I agree with you that everyone should be able to find clothes that fit on their body, but come on with this fat-logic. Losing weight isn't easy, but it is simple - take in less energy than you expend. It doesn't necessarily make things less expensive though - it's easier to want to spend more once you start looking good in clothes.
-
I also don't have problems with clothing falling apart or wearing out quickly. I don't buy much new since i usually shop at Value Village so not sure how old some stuff is.
However, my work place is casual so I can wear jeans and t-shirts. My fabric of choice is 100% cotton. It is a pretty hard-wearing cloth. Also, like previous posters, I always line dry t-shirts and other tops. And line-dry jeans in the warm months. But during the cold months, I put jeans in the dryer. And I wear things a few times before washing them.
To me, it makes sense that the flimsier stuff would tear more easily.
-
The other thing is women generally wear clothes that hug their body. I'm sure this is more strenuous than loose fitting clothes that I wear. I've never had to squeeze into a pair of jeans for example.
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
I agree with you that everyone should be able to find clothes that fit on their body, but come on with this fat-logic. Losing weight isn't easy, but it is simple - take in less energy than you expend. It doesn't necessarily make things less expensive though - it's easier to want to spend more once you start looking good in clothes.
Yes, just eat less energy than you expend. The problem is the how you do that. The low carb diets are really efficient at weight loss, but carbs also affect your mood:
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/how-food-affects-your-moods#1
Some people are more susceptible than others. Personally, the easiest way for me to lose weight is for me to out exercise my food intake, but to generally keep the carbs, proteins, and fats, just relatively healthy versions, and maybe slightly increase them. Of course that only works if I'm healthy enough for exercise.
-
I have also grown and my body shape has changed over time, and that means buying new clothes, or old ones wear out in weird spots. I don't know if it has come up in this thread yet, but my biggest issue with pants is finding ones that fit both hips and waist, and that won't wear out in the crotch.
Yes. The crotch is always the first to go for me, too, and if it's the fabric that wears through, it's almost impossible to patch in a way that looks presentable. Seems like someone should have come up with a solution for this by now! Maybe my next business :D
You can try applying seam tape on the inside of the seam that needs repair. We have done that to one of my hiking trousers. By the way, these trousers are homemade by DH, from a solid fabric. Still, there are folds in the thigh area that rub together and that got damaged extremely quickly. I think the cause was twofold. The trousers are a little wide so there are unnecessary folds. And the fabric is so stiff that it doesn't fall very smoothly there. My old similar hiking trousers made from the same pattern, but a slightly smoother fabric, many years ago, lasted for 10 years of intensive use. Now the place where my backpack touches my lower back is almost worn through. Therefore the replacement.
-
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
I agree with you that everyone should be able to find clothes that fit on their body, but come on with this fat-logic. Losing weight isn't easy, but it is simple - take in less energy than you expend. It doesn't necessarily make things less expensive though - it's easier to want to spend more once you start looking good in clothes.
The thermodynamics of weight loss may seem simple to you, but the fact remains that if there were a reliable protocol for losing weight and keeping it off, then we wouldn't have ~95% of people failing to lose and keep weight off (https://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/do-95-of-dieters-really-fail/)
And if there were any other set of medical advice with a 95% failure rate, one would think that the folks offering the advice would begin to think "Hmm, maybe we don't understand this quite as well as we thought." But no, still everyone thinks they know everything about this topic that there is actual very little scientific understanding of.
But this is off topic so I will let it rest there with an exhortation to please educate yourself before spouting nonsense like this.
This goes for @MrMoogle too.
-
I have also grown and my body shape has changed over time, and that means buying new clothes, or old ones wear out in weird spots. I don't know if it has come up in this thread yet, but my biggest issue with pants is finding ones that fit both hips and waist, and that won't wear out in the crotch.
Yes. The crotch is always the first to go for me, too, and if it's the fabric that wears through, it's almost impossible to patch in a way that looks presentable. Seems like someone should have come up with a solution for this by now! Maybe my next business :D
You can try applying seam tape on the inside of the seam that needs repair. We have done that to one of my hiking trousers.
Normally for me it's not the seam that goes, it's the fabric itself that gets worn through. I'm not sure this trick works in that case ...
-
The other thing is women generally wear clothes that hug their body. I'm sure this is more strenuous than loose fitting clothes that I wear. I've never had to squeeze into a pair of jeans for example.
Yeah, and this also means replacement is required more frequently. It noticeably changes the fit if I gain or lose a little weight. It seems men's clothing hides changes more. Not if you're a guy into skinny jeans and super tailored suits, of course.
-
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
I agree with you that everyone should be able to find clothes that fit on their body, but come on with this fat-logic. Losing weight isn't easy, but it is simple - take in less energy than you expend. It doesn't necessarily make things less expensive though - it's easier to want to spend more once you start looking good in clothes.
The thermodynamics of weight loss may seem simple to you, but the fact remains that if there were a reliable protocol for losing weight and keeping it off, then we wouldn't have ~95% of people failing to lose and keep weight off (https://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/do-95-of-dieters-really-fail/)
And if there were any other set of medical advice with a 95% failure rate, one would think that the folks offering the advice would begin to think "Hmm, maybe we don't understand this quite as well as we thought." But no, still everyone thinks they know everything about this topic that there is actual very little scientific understanding of.
But this is off topic so I will let it rest there with an exhortation to please educate yourself before spouting nonsense like this.
This goes for @MrMoogle too.
You're conflating people not being able to do something that can be pretty hard with not understanding how it works. It's complicated to figure out exactly what your TDEE is. It's very hard in some cases to reduce calorie consumption, especially if you're short and/or female. But there's no mystery to it. There really isn't. There's no magic reason why some people are thin, and I hate this nonsense being espoused on a forum created around doing something most of the population isn't going to do, even though we can tell them how. Would you tell someone who was trying to FIRE that there's no point since 95% of the population can't do it? In both cases, success results from personal choices and priorities, not some random magical unknowable force that keeps people fat, or slaves to their jobs. I'd rather see you looking for help and encouragement than saying fuck you to anyone who implies that your situation isn't hopeless, because I've seen so many people close to me lose weight, and seen the dramatic improvements in their quality of life. Please don't spew defeatist bullshit like this. Please. It doesn't help your own situation, and it might discourage others from trying. If my husband had read enough posts like yours and took them to heart before he figured out how to tackle the very simple, yet very difficult task of losing 150 lbs, he'd probably be dead.
-
I also don't have this problem, or at least not to the extent it's described here. Sure I've had a cheap H&M top losing its color after a few washings, but that's about how bad it got. Now I also rarely/never buy high-end stuff so no clue about the quality of that.
I have to admit that I only have 1 dress with a zipper though. And it's a zipper with relatively big teeth so probably more durable. I honestly don't know why I would want to buy things with those tiny zippers - they're annoying even if they don't break!
Apart from the zipper problem, what else falls apart easily?
Office shoes, if you actually walk in them at least a couple miles a day. Panythose falls apart if you look at it the wrong way. The first thing to go on cheap jeans is either the belt loops or the inside of the thighs. Then of course there are the socks that keep disappearing for both men and women... oops that's another thread. Buttons and eyelets are easy to reattach when they fall off, but zippers are a pain. Then of course there's all the (expletive deleted) knitwear that starts to ravel and run around every major seam and also where the tag is attached.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
-
I have also grown and my body shape has changed over time, and that means buying new clothes, or old ones wear out in weird spots. I don't know if it has come up in this thread yet, but my biggest issue with pants is finding ones that fit both hips and waist, and that won't wear out in the crotch.
Yes. The crotch is always the first to go for me, too, and if it's the fabric that wears through, it's almost impossible to patch in a way that looks presentable. Seems like someone should have come up with a solution for this by now! Maybe my next business :D
You can try applying seam tape on the inside of the seam that needs repair. We have done that to one of my hiking trousers.
Normally for me it's not the seam that goes, it's the fabric itself that gets worn through. I'm not sure this trick works in that case ...
I have this same problem. But, I found a really helpful trick to make my jeans last longer after they've ripped. I do this: https://www.goheendesigns.com/blog/invisible-denim-repair
It makes my jeans last twice as long. Usually they get torn after about 3 months of intensive wear and this costs 5 minutes to fix. Then I can wear them again for another month or two. Until I have to patch too much, only then I'll replace them.
Hopefully this works for you as well :)
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
Yup, definitely not obligatory. I haven't shaved my legs in years, and I often wear outfits that expose all my hairiness to the world. No complaints so far, some people mention it but no one has been rude about it. My hair is moderately dark, but I think it may also be easier for me to get away with it because of the environment I work in. Honestly it's one of the best decisions I've made.
-
The thermodynamics of weight loss may seem simple to you, but the fact remains that if there were a reliable protocol for losing weight and keeping it off, then we wouldn't have ~95% of people failing to lose and keep weight off (https://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/do-95-of-dieters-really-fail/)
And if there were any other set of medical advice with a 95% failure rate, one would think that the folks offering the advice would begin to think "Hmm, maybe we don't understand this quite as well as we thought." But no, still everyone thinks they know everything about this topic that there is actual very little scientific understanding of.
But this is off topic so I will let it rest there with an exhortation to please educate yourself before spouting nonsense like this.
This goes for @MrMoogle too.
You're conflating people not being able to do something that can be pretty hard with not understanding how it works. It's complicated to figure out exactly what your TDEE is. It's very hard in some cases to reduce calorie consumption, especially if you're short and/or female. But there's no mystery to it. There really isn't. There's no magic reason why some people are thin, and I hate this nonsense being espoused on a forum created around doing something most of the population isn't going to do, even though we can tell them how. Would you tell someone who was trying to FIRE that there's no point since 95% of the population can't do it? In both cases, success results from personal choices and priorities, not some random magical unknowable force that keeps people fat, or slaves to their jobs. I'd rather see you looking for help and encouragement than saying fuck you to anyone who implies that your situation isn't hopeless, because I've seen so many people close to me lose weight, and seen the dramatic improvements in their quality of life. Please don't spew defeatist bullshit like this. Please. It doesn't help your own situation, and it might discourage others from trying. If my husband had read enough posts like yours and took them to heart before he figured out how to tackle the very simple, yet very difficult task of losing 150 lbs, he'd probably be dead.
I mostly agree with you Dividend, but it must be said that the human body is very keen and resourceful at keeping its fat. You have to find a way to lose the fat without triggering any kind of response to a perceived famine threat, which means losing weight very slowly and not going into punitive diet mode. Some medicines are also well known to cause fat gain.
I lost 40 kg and have been keeping the weight off for more than a decade. I was a morbidly obese from ages 8 to 21 (I let you imagine the joy of being publicly mocked, bullied, yelled at over all those years). Everyone told me during that time I'd stay morbidly obese all my life. Yet here I am wearing a medium to large size now.
It is no easy process, but it is not impossible.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
Yup, definitely not obligatory. I haven't shaved my legs in years, and I often wear outfits that expose all my hairiness to the world. No complaints so far, some people mention it but no one has been rude about it. My hair is moderately dark, but I think it may also be easier for me to get away with it because of the environment I work in. Honestly it's one of the best decisions I've made.
Free ourselves from the tyranny of the blade!
I lost a razor on a trip two years ago and basically stopped bothering to shave my legs after that. I exclusively wear skirts, dresses, and running shorts. I notice people noticing it sometimes, and I probably would start again if I lived or worked in a conservative environment. My last office was borderline, but I didn't care about promotions. I figured nobody would dare fire me for it, so eff it.
It limits my dating prospects a bit, but I prefer more open minded people anyway.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
Yup, definitely not obligatory. I haven't shaved my legs in years, and I often wear outfits that expose all my hairiness to the world. No complaints so far, some people mention it but no one has been rude about it. My hair is moderately dark, but I think it may also be easier for me to get away with it because of the environment I work in. Honestly it's one of the best decisions I've made.
Free ourselves from the tyranny of the blade!
I lost a razor on a trip two years ago and basically stopped bothering to shave my legs after that. I exclusively wear skirts, dresses, and running shorts. I notice people noticing it sometimes, and I probably would start again if I lived or worked in a conservative environment. My last office was borderline, but I didn't care about promotions. I figured nobody would dare fire me for it, so eff it.
It limits my dating prospects a bit, but I prefer more open minded people anyway.
My ex-boyfriend said: "You don't shave your legs, but the hairs are so soft that I don't even feel it so actually it doesn't matter!!"
Take home message for me: guys mostly care about the rough feeling of stubbles. Softish hair doesn't matter. Win!
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
I'm a fairly hairy guy, and have found that 10 - 15 minutes of shaving my legs each week is enough to keep them hair free during the summer. It's significantly less work than shaving my face. :P
-
Guitars TV, I would have a large, terrible beard if I were a dude. Shaving is so boring. I remember legs taking me longer, though, unless I just did the calves.
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
Yup, definitely not obligatory. I haven't shaved my legs in years, and I often wear outfits that expose all my hairiness to the world. No complaints so far, some people mention it but no one has been rude about it. My hair is moderately dark, but I think it may also be easier for me to get away with it because of the environment I work in. Honestly it's one of the best decisions I've made.
Free ourselves from the tyranny of the blade!
I lost a razor on a trip two years ago and basically stopped bothering to shave my legs after that. I exclusively wear skirts, dresses, and running shorts. I notice people noticing it sometimes, and I probably would start again if I lived or worked in a conservative environment. My last office was borderline, but I didn't care about promotions. I figured nobody would dare fire me for it, so eff it.
It limits my dating prospects a bit, but I prefer more open minded people anyway.
My ex-boyfriend said: "You don't shave your legs, but the hairs are so soft that I don't even feel it so actually it doesn't matter!!"
Take home message for me: guys mostly care about the rough feeling of stubbles. Softish hair doesn't matter. Win!
Some people care. OKC questions let me know who I shouldn't bother meeting. Some people are into it. What cracks me up is the people who don't notice until after we've hung out multiple times. I sat next to you in a park with my legs out in front of me, AND I slept over, how did you never notice?
Also entertaining: the guy who tried to bang me on a park bench on our first date and said mid-makeout, "I like you, but if you really want to turn me on, you'd shave your legs."
I don't think I have a problem turning you on, buddy. This bench is forever scarred.
And of course did he ever think that I might prefer his legs shaved?
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
TIL that sitting in my office chair working on spreadsheets, etc, as well as going to the occasional meeting is not "real work" and I shouldn't expect to get paid like the guys in the factory next door that I help oversee.
Got it.
-
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does.
Daaamn. I get paid plenty in dresses and I almost never preen. Of course certain industries are less amenable to this, but are you seriously saying everyone wearing a skirt or dress is just looking for attention and lounges around all day flipping their hair?
It is a strange time when I am in agreement with Chris22...
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
It can't be as useless as you make it out to be. Wasn't the kilt worn by Scots while lifting, carrying, climbing, riding horses, etc. in the 1700s?
-
I would agree with the article that most women spend $250+ more on appearance every month than men. Women are definitely expected to wear a more varied wardrobe and cosmetics are considerably more expensive.
I think on a whole, quality mens clothing is more expensive for like garments like pants, dress shirts, etc. The variety is what makes women's wardrobes more expensive by adding dresses, tanks, cardigans etc. Men can get away with pants, button down shirt, sport coat, and nice shoes in some combination every day while women can't.
That said, being expected to wear a more varied wardrobe cuts both ways. Men have to wear the same thing (pants, dress shoes, long sleeve shirt, sport coat) minus and overcoat whether it is below freezing or 100+ out. I would kill to wear shorts, sandals, and a sleeveless shirt in the summer!
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
It can't be as useless as you make it out to be. Wasn't the kilt worn by Scots while lifting, carrying, climbing, riding horses, etc. in the 1700s?
Skirts are identified in Western society as female only. (except kilts of course) Pant until recently were male-only - my mother told me how scandalized her father was when she, an adult woman in her 20's, wore slacks. Skirts definitely hinder movement, so in an environment where a person needs to be able to move and do things, pants are much more preferable. In an office environment women's skirts and men's suits both limit movement - would a man in a good suit want to get on his knees to crawl around, and ruin his trousers? Would a woman in a skirt want to get down and do the same thing and hurt her knees (or ruin her expensive pantyhose) and also potentially reveal more of her body than she wants to? Skirts also limit girls - a boy can play in his pants or shorts, a girl in a skirt is not going to be on the monkey bars or doing somersaults or handstands.
One advantage of skirts (not full-length) is that loose ones are cooler in summer. Of course they are also colder in winter. When my high school uniform was a skirt and blazer, and I walked to school, I wore snow pants under my skirt. So fun getting those off at school, in front of my locker, in company with all the other girls who were in the same circumstances.
PS Index, pantyhose are the invention of the devil when it is hot and humid. Horrible horrible things.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
Yup, definitely not obligatory. I haven't shaved my legs in years, and I often wear outfits that expose all my hairiness to the world. No complaints so far, some people mention it but no one has been rude about it. My hair is moderately dark, but I think it may also be easier for me to get away with it because of the environment I work in. Honestly it's one of the best decisions I've made.
Free ourselves from the tyranny of the blade!
I lost a razor on a trip two years ago and basically stopped bothering to shave my legs after that. I exclusively wear skirts, dresses, and running shorts. I notice people noticing it sometimes, and I probably would start again if I lived or worked in a conservative environment. My last office was borderline, but I didn't care about promotions. I figured nobody would dare fire me for it, so eff it.
It limits my dating prospects a bit, but I prefer more open minded people anyway.
My ex-boyfriend said: "You don't shave your legs, but the hairs are so soft that I don't even feel it so actually it doesn't matter!!"
Take home message for me: guys mostly care about the rough feeling of stubbles. Softish hair doesn't matter. Win!
Last month as the first time in several decades that I spent some days in shortsin public with hairy (blond) legs. I don't think anyone noticed, except for myself. I have learned from childhood that shaving legs was normal. My MIL once told me she didn't know at all that women did that. She thought leg shaving was something only cycling men did.
As I think shaving once a week is too much work, I don't bother wearing skirts.
I guess that at work or at a party I would feel uncomfortable having visible hairy legs, but in private, during sports it's okay.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I don't wear skirts. Skirts show your lower legs. You need either a tanned skin + shaved legs or thin panties + shaved legs or thick panties. My lower legs never get a tan, no matter whether I lay in the sun or not, which I don't do often. Shaving legs regularly is a lot of work. Thin panties are a PITA. I always need to bring an extra pair in a handbag in case of tearing and often need it at an inconvenient moment. Thick panties are not pretty under all shirts and is more a winter thing. Although winters here are so cold, that I wouldn't wear a dress outside anyway. Trousers are a lot warmer.
Shaving legs isn't obligatory!
Signed: A pale person who went to work in skirts with unshaven legs for 4 months out of laziness.
(I do have brownish leg hair and it's a loooot)
Yup, definitely not obligatory. I haven't shaved my legs in years, and I often wear outfits that expose all my hairiness to the world. No complaints so far, some people mention it but no one has been rude about it. My hair is moderately dark, but I think it may also be easier for me to get away with it because of the environment I work in. Honestly it's one of the best decisions I've made.
Free ourselves from the tyranny of the blade!
I lost a razor on a trip two years ago and basically stopped bothering to shave my legs after that. I exclusively wear skirts, dresses, and running shorts. I notice people noticing it sometimes, and I probably would start again if I lived or worked in a conservative environment. My last office was borderline, but I didn't care about promotions. I figured nobody would dare fire me for it, so eff it.
It limits my dating prospects a bit, but I prefer more open minded people anyway.
My ex-boyfriend said: "You don't shave your legs, but the hairs are so soft that I don't even feel it so actually it doesn't matter!!"
Take home message for me: guys mostly care about the rough feeling of stubbles. Softish hair doesn't matter. Win!
Last month as the first time in several decades that I spent some days in shortsin public with hairy (blond) legs. I don't think anyone noticed, except for myself. I have learned from childhood that shaving legs was normal. My MIL once told me she didn't know at all that women did that. She thought leg shaving was something only cycling men did.
As I think shaving once a week is too much work, I don't bother wearing skirts.
I guess that at work or at a party I would feel uncomfortable having visible hairy legs, but in private, during sports it's okay.
Yeah, it's definitely a cultural thing. I was given a razor when I was 11 and basically shamed into using it by my mother (it didn't help that my Catholic school uniform was a skirt and both the other girls and boys used visible leg hair as one of many targets for bullying).
-
I'm surprised it's only a quarter million more. What do men even spend money on? Soap, deodorant, shaving gear, hair cuts and hair products ... sturdy, well made clothes and shoes that go out of fashion slowly ... a watch ... maybe cologne? Or am I just totally out of it?
-
I'm surprised it's only a quarter million more. What do men even spend money on? Soap, deodorant, shaving gear, hair cuts and hair products ... sturdy, well made clothes and shoes that go out of fashion slowly ... a watch ... maybe cologne? Or am I just totally out of it?
Nobody wears a watch any more, and most of the guys I know cut their own hair. To shave my face (and legs in the summer) works out to about five dollars a year using safety razors.
:P
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
It can't be as useless as you make it out to be. Wasn't the kilt worn by Scots while lifting, carrying, climbing, riding horses, etc. in the 1700s?
Skirts are identified in Western society as female only. (except kilts of course) Pant until recently were male-only - my mother told me how scandalized her father was when she, an adult woman in her 20's, wore slacks. Skirts definitely hinder movement, so in an environment where a person needs to be able to move and do things, pants are much more preferable. In an office environment women's skirts and men's suits both limit movement - would a man in a good suit want to get on his knees to crawl around, and ruin his trousers? Would a woman in a skirt want to get down and do the same thing and hurt her knees (or ruin her expensive pantyhose) and also potentially reveal more of her body than she wants to? Skirts also limit girls - a boy can play in his pants or shorts, a girl in a skirt is not going to be on the monkey bars or doing somersaults or handstands.
One advantage of skirts (not full-length) is that loose ones are cooler in summer. Of course they are also colder in winter. When my high school uniform was a skirt and blazer, and I walked to school, I wore snow pants under my skirt. So fun getting those off at school, in front of my locker, in company with all the other girls who were in the same circumstances.
PS Index, pantyhose are the invention of the devil when it is hot and humid. Horrible horrible things.
One of my girls prefers skirts. Her body shape is not fit for pants, and skirts are much more comfortable for her. 90 % of her skirts are "skorts" from lands' end. These have integrated shorts, to stop her being careful while playing. They are also short and loose enough that they don't stop her from doing any kinds of gymnastics. https://www.landsend.com/shop/girls-skirts-skorts/-/N-g12Zkdq?cm_re=lec-_-kids-_-global-_-glbnv-girlsskirtsskorts-_-20160316-_-txt Winter wear is woolen thights and snow pants (again; important that the skirt is short enough when you put a pair of snow pants on over it.)
I have streamlined my wardrobe to only consist of dresses with Pockets, cardigans, and thights. Everything in the same color scheme, so I don't have to think while dressing or packing for travels. The dresses are all from the same brand, where I trust the quality, and where the fit is consistent so I can order online. A bit pricey, but very time and energy efficient. And since they last for years, TCO is not too bad. My biggest cost, and sole reason for visiting normal clothes stores, are thights/panty hose. No matter which brand, they only last a limited amount of wears.
The shaving thing is extremely annoying. My grandfather had to shave his face twice a day if he wanted to look decent, and my legs have the same type of growth. I can keep it down with epilators, but that is not very comfortable. I have tried to skip shaving all together, but get very self consious when I'm out in the public. So I only shave my legs during summer, when it is too warm to wear thights. Luckily, I live in Norway, where summer only comes around a few days a year.
-
GAja, skorts are a great invention. But not everyone can wear them everywhere - like an office. Or to school if the school uniform doesn't include them. Stupid schools.
Re the leg hair, everyone, wait until you are 10-15 years into menopause, it just slowly disappears. Or at least it does in my family.
General look at women and fashion - let's drop clothes for a second, we have about exhausted that part of the topic. There is a pile more stuff expected of someone staying in fashion than there was 20-40 years ago. All this fancy nail polish, and little crystals in nail polish - that did not exist when I was at the fashionable age. Eyebrow threading (ouch). How much is business trying to get more things fashionable so they can make more money, and how much is a feminist backlash, I do not know - but it seems to take more effort (money and time) these days to be girly. Actually the late 60's, early 70's were easy, long straight hair for white girls, long hair for white guys, Afros for black girls and guys. (yes, I am talking people in their teens, and 20's, everyone else still looked like the 50s). Curly hair got ironed. Then Farah Fawcett hit and we all had to have hair with masses of waves and body and it has been downhill ever since.
-
Re the leg hair, everyone, wait until you are 10-15 years into menopause, it just slowly disappears. Or at least it does in my family.
General look at women and fashion - let's drop clothes for a second, we have about exhausted that part of the topic. There is a pile more stuff expected of someone staying in fashion than there was 20-40 years ago. All this fancy nail polish, and little crystals in nail polish - that did not exist when I was at the fashionable age. Eyebrow threading (ouch). How much is business trying to get more things fashionable so they can make more money, and how much is a feminist backlash, I do not know - but it seems to take more effort (money and time) these days to be girly. Actually the late 60's, early 70's were easy, long straight hair for white girls, long hair for white guys, Afros for black girls and guys. (yes, I am talking people in their teens, and 20's, everyone else still looked like the 50s). Curly hair got ironed. Then Farah Fawcett hit and we all had to have hair with masses of waves and body and it has been downhill ever since.
I LOL's at your last sentence! I was a teen during the early 80's and really, really tried to get my hair to be all puffy. Well, I have the world's flattest, straightest hair. :)
Personally I don't mind eyebrow threading but I know lots of people find it a bit painful.
-
Nobody wears a watch any more, and most of the guys I know cut their own hair. To shave my face (and legs in the summer) works out to about five dollars a year using safety razors.
I like to wear a watch and I know many people who do. Some wear a smartwatch.
I know surprisingly many man who do no cut their own hair with a razor. Many of my male colleagues have haircuts that look to be done by a hairdresser. Even my brother who has trouble finding a fulltime job is going to a hairdresser and let him boys go to a hairdresser. Some smart men cut their hair short with a razor (Mustachian male grooming device), but there are many men that are not so smart.
-
I'm surprised it's only a quarter million more. What do men even spend money on? Soap, deodorant, shaving gear, hair cuts and hair products ... sturdy, well made clothes and shoes that go out of fashion slowly ... a watch ... maybe cologne? Or am I just totally out of it?
It's not, it's much less. More like $50,000, at least according to the real survey cited by OP's original article which misquoted the survey.
It says women spend a lifetime total of $225,360 while men spend $175,680. By comparison women spend around $50,000 or 28% more than men. And that's based on a Groupon survey of 2,000 people.
https://www.groupon.com/merchant/blog/true-cost-beauty-americans-spend-most-survey
-
I'm surprised it's only a quarter million more. What do men even spend money on? Soap, deodorant, shaving gear, hair cuts and hair products ... sturdy, well made clothes and shoes that go out of fashion slowly ... a watch ... maybe cologne? Or am I just totally out of it?
Nobody wears a watch any more, and most of the guys I know cut their own hair. To shave my face (and legs in the summer) works out to about five dollars a year using safety razors.
:P
Safety razor high five! (be careful though)
Do you bother with shaving cream? I've found I don't need it with a safety razor but that's just on my face.
-
I'm surprised it's only a quarter million more. What do men even spend money on? Soap, deodorant, shaving gear, hair cuts and hair products ... sturdy, well made clothes and shoes that go out of fashion slowly ... a watch ... maybe cologne? Or am I just totally out of it?
Nobody wears a watch any more, and most of the guys I know cut their own hair. To shave my face (and legs in the summer) works out to about five dollars a year using safety razors.
:P
Safety razor high five! (be careful though)
Do you bother with shaving cream? I've found I don't need it with a safety razor but that's just on my face.
Shaving cream if I'm in a hurry (which is most of the time). If you've got time to soak your skin in warm water, work up a nice lather with soap, and then be careful with the razor it's not necessary.
-
but it seems to take more effort (money and time) these days to be girly. Actually the late 60's, early 70's were easy, long straight hair for white girls, long hair for white guys, Afros for black girls and guys. (yes, I am talking people in their teens, and 20's, everyone else still looked like the 50s). Curly hair got ironed. Then Farah Fawcett hit and we all had to have hair with masses of waves and body and it has been downhill ever since.
If you didn't retire at 63 too long ago, you are around my parents' age. I am so glad I grew up in a village far away from the city, where few people were into fashion at all. I'm in my late 20s now and I've always looked like your description. My clothes have also always been 70s-inspired: boots, T-shirts, bellbottom jeans, peasant dresses, the majority of it homemade. It's just how my parents dressed us and I liked it. Most of the clothes were unisex too. My s/o and I both have natural hairstyles that we cut ourselves. I didn't really know shaving any kind of bodyhair was a thing non-Hollywood women did until I was like 16 and I never bothered much with it. I'm naturally not extremely hairy, but I've hardly ever had any comments about it at all and certainly not from men.
It's a challenge sometimes to get dressed for work because it's any "business" like clothing is so far removed from what I feel comfortable in and I never really learned how to do hair and make-up properly. I'm currently discovering 50's style dresses as a style that is acceptable in my office, but it's hard to find good quality comfortable shoes to wear with them.
I have always wondered why not more people (m/f) were skirts. I wear skirts and dresses almost exclusively, I'm quite clumsy and very active. It's not difficult for me to garden or cycle in a skirt at all. I guess it's just a matter of what you're used to. I've seen pictures of my grandma in the 50s putting up wallpaper in their home wearing kitten heels and a pencil skirt (and a head scarf, of course!) - they were quite poor at that time, so I assume those were the only "old" clothes she had. Of course in some circumstances overalls are the best option, but I don't need overalls that often in my daily life. What I like prefer in skirts/dresses over any kind of pants, personally, is that they are much easier to make yourself and depending on the model it's often easy to add pockets to an existing skirt/dress. They feel warmer in winter and cooler in summer than jeans/trousers. I wear supersoft woolen thermal leggings that are as comfortable as any pyjama's and I like styles that are slightly wider. It's hard to find jeans or trousers that are not tight but also don't look lik something your grandmother would wear.
-
Nobody wears a watch any more, <snip>
I like to wear a watch and I know many people who do. Some wear a smartwatch.
<snip>
We don't have smartphones/smartwatches in my workplace. Everyone wears a watch, men, women, military, civilians, contractors, janitors, cafe staff, etc. I haven't seen anyone not wearing a watch in the 6+ years I've worked here. If you don't know the time, you can't get to meetings on time, get your tasks done by the deadline. Wall clocks are only in selected meeting rooms. You aren't at your computer all day. In fact, in-processing paperwork highly suggests wearing a "sensible simple watch".
Recently specific fitness bands have been allowed to be worn in the workplace, so some folks have taken to wearing those in lieu of a watch.
-
Nobody wears a watch any more, <snip>
I like to wear a watch and I know many people who do. Some wear a smartwatch.
<snip>
We don't have smartphones/smartwatches in my workplace. Everyone wears a watch, men, women, military, civilians, contractors, janitors, cafe staff, etc. I haven't seen anyone not wearing a watch in the 6+ years I've worked here. If you don't know the time, you can't get to meetings on time, get your tasks done by the deadline. Wall clocks are only in selected meeting rooms. You aren't at your computer all day. In fact, in-processing paperwork highly suggests wearing a "sensible simple watch".
Recently specific fitness bands have been allowed to be worn in the workplace, so some folks have taken to wearing those in lieu of a watch.
Seems to me most people use their phone to tell time. Everyone using a watch suggests a secure facility to me, no phones, no non-work computers of any sort. I know people working in construction who have had this requirement when working in buildings that need higher security.
-
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
Without getting on board with the "attention-seeking" part (I used to wear skirts to work because most dress pants assume that women have some hips, and I do not; fortunately the dress code now allows jeans), I will say that the bolded is almost always a pertinent question.
-
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
Without getting on board with the "attention-seeking" part (I used to wear skirts to work because most dress pants assume that women have some hips, and I do not; fortunately the dress code now allows jeans), I will say that the bolded is almost always a pertinent question.
In our society skirts are coded female. Look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, they wore the equivalent of skirts. It isn't that long ago that a woman wearing any sort of pants was scandalous - when she needed pants a woman wore a divided full skirt. Social norms tend to win.
-
I was at an event with two coworkers, one female, one male. The place was crowded and hot, and the guy said how jealous he was of our skirts. His pants didn't allow for any circulation.
Our office is liberal enough that he could probably wear a skirt if he wanted to. The real obstacle is that he's too cheap to buy new clothes. Respect.
-
A guy at my office was wearing a skirt the other day, when it was super hot. And at my curling club, men often wear kilts. It's not daily wear for most, but nothing wrong with it.
-
I'm very contrary to the majority of the population. Looking at the expectation gap between standard female grooming and standard male grooming, I don't want the female standard to lower. I want the male standard to increase. I'm in the wrong audience, but would you women please help with this? If a woman needs to shave her legs, pits, and body, then a man should be just as shaved. I don't get what the deal is with guys who take their shirts off and look like they have a rug on their chest and back. Any man pressuring a woman to lose weight should be sporting a six pack to start. Woe to him if we bring out the calipers and he has a higher body fat percentage than she does. And if any man gives too many bonus points to a woman with a large chest, then he better have a minimum of 17 inch biceps to match.
I can get away with shaving my head, and with my balding scalp it's the only thing that looks good on me. I buy about two hair cuts a year while my wife spends exponentially more on her stylings every two months. More and more women are getting away with short to shaved heads, but nowhere near the majority. If we don't accept female shaved heads as the standard, I am going to have to buy some rock star wigs.
As part of my education, next time I pass Sephora I'm going to ask for a makeup demonstration on me. I have no idea what standard male makeup will look like when it takes off, but it seems like an untapped market.
-
I'm very contrary to the majority of the population. Looking at the expectation gap between standard female grooming and standard male grooming, I don't want the female standard to lower. I want the male standard to increase. I'm in the wrong audience, but would you women please help with this? If a woman needs to shave her legs, pits, and body, then a man should be just as shaved. I don't get what the deal is with guys who take their shirts off and look like they have a rug on their chest and back. Any man pressuring a woman to lose weight should be sporting a six pack to start. Woe to him if we bring out the calipers and he has a higher body fat percentage than she does. And if any man gives too many bonus points to a woman with a large chest, then he better have a minimum of 17 inch biceps to match.
I can get away with shaving my head, and with my balding scalp it's the only thing that looks good on me. I buy about two hair cuts a year while my wife spends exponentially more on her stylings every two months. More and more women are getting away with short to shaved heads, but nowhere near the majority. If we don't accept female shaved heads as the standard, I am going to have to buy some rock star wigs.
As part of my education, next time I pass Sephora I'm going to ask for a makeup demonstration on me. I have no idea what standard male makeup will look like when it takes off, but it seems like an untapped market.
I kind of agree with you! I am a very coiffed woman by MMM standards. I do everything in house, and don't pay for minor items, but IRL i just look like a typical spendy lady with nice hair, done nails, and good fashion. At the same time though, my husband is similarly coiffed. He also keeps up with body hair, he also keeps up with body type by working out, and he also has an excellent sense of style. I think regional expectations probably play a role in this as well though, I see very groomed/stylish men frequently.
-
I love my furry man! A certain amount of grooming is useful for certain activities, but to me a hairy chest is appealing. I think in the end, a lot of this issue just comes down to personal preference, and people will select into relationships that fit them. I won't date a guy who finds my leg hair unappealing, and I'll never ask a guy to remove his hair either. It's only when there's a mismatch of expectations, or when external society feels a need to manage how people look in a certain industry and punishes people for not conforming (by limiting advancement, etc) that we have a problem. Especially when those expectations are higher and more expensive for women.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
If it's that much easier and better overall, why aren't men doing it?
People hate skirts and dresses for a reason. It's attention-seeking attire in which it's very difficult to function or contribute. If all you have to do is sit around preening and looking decorative all the time, then sure, go for it and get a skirt. Just don't expect to get any actual work done, and don't expect to get paid like someone who does. Lifting, carrying, going up stairs or ladders, operating machinery and doing anything important in a lab, hospital, commercial kitchen, or construction site is downright dangerous.
It can't be as useless as you make it out to be. Wasn't the kilt worn by Scots while lifting, carrying, climbing, riding horses, etc. in the 1700s?
Skirts are identified in Western society as female only. (except kilts of course) Pant until recently were male-only - my mother told me how scandalized her father was when she, an adult woman in her 20's, wore slacks. Skirts definitely hinder movement, so in an environment where a person needs to be able to move and do things, pants are much more preferable. In an office environment women's skirts and men's suits both limit movement - would a man in a good suit want to get on his knees to crawl around, and ruin his trousers? Would a woman in a skirt want to get down and do the same thing and hurt her knees (or ruin her expensive pantyhose) and also potentially reveal more of her body than she wants to? Skirts also limit girls - a boy can play in his pants or shorts, a girl in a skirt is not going to be on the monkey bars or doing somersaults or handstands.
One advantage of skirts (not full-length) is that loose ones are cooler in summer. Of course they are also colder in winter. When my high school uniform was a skirt and blazer, and I walked to school, I wore snow pants under my skirt. So fun getting those off at school, in front of my locker, in company with all the other girls who were in the same circumstances.
PS Index, pantyhose are the invention of the devil when it is hot and humid. Horrible horrible things.
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
-
I'm very contrary to the majority of the population. Looking at the expectation gap between standard female grooming and standard male grooming, I don't want the female standard to lower. I want the male standard to increase. I'm in the wrong audience, but would you women please help with this? If a woman needs to shave her legs, pits, and body, then a man should be just as shaved. I don't get what the deal is with guys who take their shirts off and look like they have a rug on their chest and back. Any man pressuring a woman to lose weight should be sporting a six pack to start. Woe to him if we bring out the calipers and he has a higher body fat percentage than she does. And if any man gives too many bonus points to a woman with a large chest, then he better have a minimum of 17 inch biceps to match.
I can get away with shaving my head, and with my balding scalp it's the only thing that looks good on me. I buy about two hair cuts a year while my wife spends exponentially more on her stylings every two months. More and more women are getting away with short to shaved heads, but nowhere near the majority. If we don't accept female shaved heads as the standard, I am going to have to buy some rock star wigs.
As part of my education, next time I pass Sephora I'm going to ask for a makeup demonstration on me. I have no idea what standard male makeup will look like when it takes off, but it seems like an untapped market.
Male makeup is already used. Just look at celebrities in TV shows that interview them. Often they and the male cost are covered in subtile, but noticeable makeup. At least here on the Norwegian TV I have seen eye pencil and eye shadow used on male presentors.
Another market that is already used in Asia is male bras. More and more men are overweight and have boobs. In some Asian countries, men have started to wear a bra.
-
For TV and theatre usually everyone - including males - wears make up for the sake of the light/camera. Without the make-up apparently you'd look weird and your skin reflects the light or sth?
I've never seen the male bra thing. A quick Google search told me some Asians had done it out of protest, but couldn't find anything in relation to being overweight?
-
For TV and theatre usually everyone - including males - wears make up for the sake of the light/camera. Without the make-up apparently you'd look weird and your skin reflects the light or sth?
I've never seen the male bra thing. A quick Google search told me some Asians had done it out of protest, but couldn't find anything in relation to being overweight?
About the TV makeup. Yes, everyone is covered with cream/powder against the light reflections. But they are also wearing eye makeup, I think with the goal to make them look more attractive.
Those Asaian men, I saw that on TV many years ago.
-
For TV and theatre usually everyone - including males - wears make up for the sake of the light/camera. Without the make-up apparently you'd look weird and your skin reflects the light or sth?
I've never seen the male bra thing. A quick Google search told me some Asians had done it out of protest, but couldn't find anything in relation to being overweight?
About the TV makeup. Yes, everyone is covered with cream/powder against the light reflections. But they are also wearing eye makeup, I think with the goal to make them look more attractive.
Those Asaian men, I saw that on TV many years ago.
Who would have guessed that Seinfeld would be so prophetic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfONNfAjyrc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfONNfAjyrc)
-
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
Gin, I think the point is not that you can do anything in a skirt that you can do in pants - I can think of things I can do in a loose knee-length skirt that I can't do in tight pants - like run faster. The point is that to be equally functional, girls have to take that extra step - like wear the skort, or shorts under their skirt, or snow pants over their tunic. And sometimes the "right kind of skirt" is not what will be socially acceptable - can you do all those things in a pleatless pencil skirt? Or a long (1" off the floor) skirt? I remember midis, and ick the dirt and slush they picked up.
-
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
Gin, I think the point is not that you can do anything in a skirt that you can do in pants - I can think of things I can do in a loose knee-length skirt that I can't do in tight pants - like run faster. The point is that to be equally functional, girls have to take that extra step - like wear the skort, or shorts under their skirt, or snow pants over their tunic. And sometimes the "right kind of skirt" is not what will be socially acceptable - can you do all those things in a pleatless pencil skirt? Or a long (1" off the floor) skirt? I remember midis, and ick the dirt and slush they picked up.
This. I attended Catholic school through 8th grade. The girls wore skirts, boys wore pants. We were given recess twice per day, and we had access to a playground with many climbing structures. The boys didn't spare a second thought before running and climbing. The girls weren't allowed to do either unless we had worn gym shorts under our skirts.
-
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
Gin, I think the point is not that you can do anything in a skirt that you can do in pants - I can think of things I can do in a loose knee-length skirt that I can't do in tight pants - like run faster. The point is that to be equally functional, girls have to take that extra step - like wear the skort, or shorts under their skirt, or snow pants over their tunic. And sometimes the "right kind of skirt" is not what will be socially acceptable - can you do all those things in a pleatless pencil skirt? Or a long (1" off the floor) skirt? I remember midis, and ick the dirt and slush they picked up.
This. I attended Catholic school through 8th grade. The girls wore skirts, boys wore pants. We were given recess twice per day, and we had access to a playground with many climbing structures. The boys didn't spare a second thought before running and climbing. The girls weren't allowed to do either unless we had worn gym shorts under our skirts.
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
-
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
Gin, I think the point is not that you can do anything in a skirt that you can do in pants - I can think of things I can do in a loose knee-length skirt that I can't do in tight pants - like run faster. The point is that to be equally functional, girls have to take that extra step - like wear the skort, or shorts under their skirt, or snow pants over their tunic. And sometimes the "right kind of skirt" is not what will be socially acceptable - can you do all those things in a pleatless pencil skirt? Or a long (1" off the floor) skirt? I remember midis, and ick the dirt and slush they picked up.
This. I attended Catholic school through 8th grade. The girls wore skirts, boys wore pants. We were given recess twice per day, and we had access to a playground with many climbing structures. The boys didn't spare a second thought before running and climbing. The girls weren't allowed to do either unless we had worn gym shorts under our skirts.
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
Oh man, I’m having so many unpleasant 6th grade flashbacks right now. There were a couple of bullies in my class who teamed up to grab unsuspecting girls around the waist and pull up their skirts at recess. The adult monitors did nothing (this actually worked in my favor, as I sunk my nails into the hand of the bully who grabbed me and drew blood in multiple places. The monitor assessed the situation and walked away).
-
A guy at my office was wearing a skirt the other day, when it was super hot.
Where do you live/work? Goals.
-
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
Oh man, I’m having so many unpleasant 6th grade flashbacks right now. There were a couple of bullies in my class who teamed up to grab unsuspecting girls around the waist and pull up their skirts at recess. The adult monitors did nothing (this actually worked in my favor, as I sunk my nails into the hand of the bully who grabbed me and drew blood in multiple places. The monitor assessed the situation and walked away).
I literally don't understand how this is the girl's fault, and why this wasn't considered a situation of harassment. If I was a parent and found that my daughter had been punished when a boy indecently exposed her at school, the school director and full board would have it from me.
-
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
Oh man, I’m having so many unpleasant 6th grade flashbacks right now. There were a couple of bullies in my class who teamed up to grab unsuspecting girls around the waist and pull up their skirts at recess. The adult monitors did nothing (this actually worked in my favor, as I sunk my nails into the hand of the bully who grabbed me and drew blood in multiple places. The monitor assessed the situation and walked away).
I literally don't understand how this is the girl's fault, and why this wasn't considered a situation of harassment. If I was a parent and found that my daughter had been punished when a boy indecently exposed her at school, the school director and full board would have it from me.
Assuming you found out, and assuming the school officials owned up to having punished her in the first place. Things are marginally better in the modern era but that's just because cell phones and cameras are everywhere so people charged with protecting the public peace have to at least pretend to do their jobs at least some of the time.
There's such a thing as a toxic operating environment that enables one person, or one group of people, to mistreat others and get away with it. The problem is perpetuated not by the aggressive person but by nearly everybody else around him or her, who engage in enabling behaviors that started out as survival strategies. I wrote about it in one of my books (the one on social self defense won't be out for several months).
I'll provide an anecdote that explains how systems and groups of people protect abusers. When my kid brother was in school, one of his teachers was somebody who probably shouldn't have been teaching. Several parents complained about her screaming at the kids, pounding on desks, and threatening to gouge out the children's eyes. Some of the students were traumatized to the point of wetting the bed or requiring psychiatric help. Eventually some of the parents started to believe their children because they were in communication with other parents and the topic of conversation came up. But complain as the parents would, the principal and school board were on the teacher's side or the staff member's side 100% of the time, the school did not permit students to transfer out of their second grade class, and meanwhile the law required the parents to continue to bring their kids to school. The teacher was extremely popular because of the high level of discipline in her class.
Regarding the rule for blaming the person on the receiving end of an attack, the rationale goes like this: most humans don't attack other humans that way, and the ones that do-- the aggressors-- tend to be well known. The interaction model is a fight between two peers of roughly equal power, in which the situation escalates until it sort of explodes. (Other interaction models between people in conflict aren't acknowledged, because according to the pie-in-the-sky mentality of most people in education and academia there's no such thing as conflict between people of radically different power or privilege levels.) So if there's an incident, the target must have done something to contribute to it such as failing to avoid the aggressor sufficiently or somehow instigating. Furthermore, there are separate rules for aggressors or targets. The aggressor belongs to a people for whom the predatory conduct is deemed to be right, normal, and acceptable, or at least harmless because it's "only in fun". It's within the acceptable range of behaviors for the people in the aggressor's category. But the target belongs to a different group that has different rules. It's the target's responsibility to control not just the target's behavior but also the aggressor's. If there's trouble that's serious enough for an authority figure to get involved, then the target must be at least partially to blame.
-
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
Oh man, I’m having so many unpleasant 6th grade flashbacks right now. There were a couple of bullies in my class who teamed up to grab unsuspecting girls around the waist and pull up their skirts at recess. The adult monitors did nothing (this actually worked in my favor, as I sunk my nails into the hand of the bully who grabbed me and drew blood in multiple places. The monitor assessed the situation and walked away).
I literally don't understand how this is the girl's fault, and why this wasn't considered a situation of harassment. If I was a parent and found that my daughter had been punished when a boy indecently exposed her at school, the school director and full board would have it from me.
The main bully was a girl, and I'd had several previous run-ins with her that got absolutely no response from the school office or associated Catholic parish (private school = no board), even though things were bad enough that my parents filed a formal complaint during my 3rd grade year. I don't think I even bothered to tell my parents about the 6th grade incident because I had no reason to expect that 1) the school would do a damned thing or 2) my parents would let me leave and go to the very good public schools in our city. This particular bully didn't return for 7th grade, so I suspect that enough other victims and their parents complained that the school finally had to step up.
-
A bit late to the party, my opinions have already been worded by other people, but I chime in to testify that I literally lost a job over my refusal to have stylish hair and wear make up. I literally lost my income because of it. So yeah, personal choice and all that jazz, but it is NOT consequence-free.
Receptionist in a 4* hotel, if you must know.
-
A bit late to the party, my opinions have already been worded by other people, but I chime in to testify that I literally lost a job over my refusal to have stylish hair and wear make up. I literally lost my income because of it. So yeah, personal choice and all that jazz, but it is NOT consequence-free.
Receptionist in a 4* hotel, if you must know.
Yes, this is a concern of mine too. Can't wear most make-up because I have lots of skin allergies. No lip colour or else the skin on my lips weeps.
-
I don't think that's the norm for receptionists, for what it's worth. I've been a receptionist for quite a few years at a number of different places, including one very high end law firm, and nobody ever cared about my lack of makeup or fancy hair.
-
I don't think that's the norm for receptionists, for what it's worth. I've been a receptionist for quite a few years at a number of different places, including one very high end law firm, and nobody ever cared about my lack of makeup or fancy hair.
That specific hotel was a very unhealthy work environment, and I was glad someone had made for me the decision to get another job, but none of this was my landlord's problem, and for a less lucky woman it could have been a serious setback.
-
A guy at my office was wearing a skirt the other day, when it was super hot.
Where do you live/work? Goals.
At a university, he's a computer guy in my department. We have a pretty relaxed dress code.
-
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
Gin, I think the point is not that you can do anything in a skirt that you can do in pants - I can think of things I can do in a loose knee-length skirt that I can't do in tight pants - like run faster. The point is that to be equally functional, girls have to take that extra step - like wear the skort, or shorts under their skirt, or snow pants over their tunic. And sometimes the "right kind of skirt" is not what will be socially acceptable - can you do all those things in a pleatless pencil skirt? Or a long (1" off the floor) skirt? I remember midis, and ick the dirt and slush they picked up.
This. I attended Catholic school through 8th grade. The girls wore skirts, boys wore pants. We were given recess twice per day, and we had access to a playground with many climbing structures. The boys didn't spare a second thought before running and climbing. The girls weren't allowed to do either unless we had worn gym shorts under our skirts.
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
A hakama is pretty skirt like (still technically pants I guess though). Typically worn in traditional Japanese martial arts (kendo, iaido, aikido), it's great for concealing foot and leg position.
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
-
I can do anything in the right kind of skirt that I can do in pants, as I could as a girl. And just wear shorts under your skirt, as a girl and you can do anything.
Gin, I think the point is not that you can do anything in a skirt that you can do in pants - I can think of things I can do in a loose knee-length skirt that I can't do in tight pants - like run faster. The point is that to be equally functional, girls have to take that extra step - like wear the skort, or shorts under their skirt, or snow pants over their tunic. And sometimes the "right kind of skirt" is not what will be socially acceptable - can you do all those things in a pleatless pencil skirt? Or a long (1" off the floor) skirt? I remember midis, and ick the dirt and slush they picked up.
This. I attended Catholic school through 8th grade. The girls wore skirts, boys wore pants. We were given recess twice per day, and we had access to a playground with many climbing structures. The boys didn't spare a second thought before running and climbing. The girls weren't allowed to do either unless we had worn gym shorts under our skirts.
Then of course there was the entire trend of skirt pulling in which the object of the game was to expose the girl's shorts, or panties, or legs, or whatever. They'd pull the skirt up, or down, or wherever. Meanwhile, while wearing pants with a belt, they couldn't be attacked the same way. So it was all tee-hee and ha-ha, and if a teacher noticed, he or she would generally find a way to punish the girl.
It's harder to physically humiliate or attack someone who's wearing pants. That makes pants the superior default garment for self defense.
How many martial arts uniforms do you see that feature a skirt?
A hakama is pretty skirt like (still technically pants I guess though). Typically worn in traditional Japanese martial arts (kendo, iaido, aikido), it's great for concealing foot and leg position.
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
-
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
Well, we now know GuitarStv wasn't a jerk in elementary school, he doesn't know the technique. ;-)
-
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
Well, we now know GuitarStv wasn't a jerk in elementary school, he doesn't know the technique. ;-)
I’ve written and deleted so many responses to this series of posts...
Instead, I’m just going to go sew some belt loops into all of my skirts to keep myself safe from my skirt ever being pulled down. Seems like the rational thing to do...
I had my pants pulled down by another (male) kid in front of the whole class in grade four, and everyone but me (teacher included) had a good laugh about it. I've been wearing a belt with my pants every day since then. It seemed like the rational thing to do at the time, although obviously not the ideal (or really, any) solution to the problem.
-
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
Well, we now know GuitarStv wasn't a jerk in elementary school, he doesn't know the technique. ;-)
I’ve written and deleted so many responses to this series of posts...
Instead, I’m just going to go sew some belt loops into all of my skirts to keep myself safe from my skirt ever being pulled down. Seems like the rational thing to do...
I had my pants pulled down by another (male) kid in front of the whole class in grade four, and everyone but me (teacher included) had a good laugh about it. I've been wearing a belt with my pants every day since then. It seemed like the rational thing to do at the time, although obviously not the ideal (or really, any) solution to the problem.
Your teacher sounds like a total fucking asshole
Seconded.
-
So, uh, not a girl and also someone without much fashion sense . . . but couldn't you just switch to wearing skirts instead of pants? If the skirt has pleats, or is wider at the bottom than the top, then you really would only have to mess around with a single waist measurement. I'd think it would be massively easier all around.
I hate skirts. For many many reasons. I only own one.
-
The other thing is women generally wear clothes that hug their body. I'm sure this is more strenuous than loose fitting clothes that I wear. I've never had to squeeze into a pair of jeans for example.
(And if anyone wants to come back with a snarky statement like "Well you should just lose weight then," let me invite you to please go fuck yourself. There is no proven protocol for losing weight and fat people also need to be clothed.)
I agree with you that everyone should be able to find clothes that fit on their body, but come on with this fat-logic. Losing weight isn't easy, but it is simple - take in less energy than you expend. It doesn't necessarily make things less expensive though - it's easier to want to spend more once you start looking good in clothes.
Yes, just eat less energy than you expend. The problem is the how you do that. The low carb diets are really efficient at weight loss, but carbs also affect your mood:
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/how-food-affects-your-moods#1
Some people are more susceptible than others. Personally, the easiest way for me to lose weight is for me to out exercise my food intake, but to generally keep the carbs, proteins, and fats, just relatively healthy versions, and maybe slightly increase them. Of course that only works if I'm healthy enough for exercise.
You can't out-exercise a bad diet.
or, in other words...that stops working at some point for everyone. For some? They can keep it up until age 60. For me, it was 25, on the nose.
-
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
Well, we now know GuitarStv wasn't a jerk in elementary school, he doesn't know the technique. ;-)
I’ve written and deleted so many responses to this series of posts...
Instead, I’m just going to go sew some belt loops into all of my skirts to keep myself safe from my skirt ever being pulled down. Seems like the rational thing to do...
I had my pants pulled down by another (male) kid in front of the whole class in grade four, and everyone but me (teacher included) had a good laugh about it. I've been wearing a belt with my pants every day since then. It seemed like the rational thing to do at the time, although obviously not the ideal (or really, any) solution to the problem.
Your teacher sounds like a total fucking asshole
Seconded.
If it makes you feel better, a couple weeks later I threw my chair at that teacher (and was consequently suspended from school for a day). It happened because the teacher was laughing at me when the chair was yanked out from under me by a classmate while I was sitting down and I fell on my ass in front of everyone. This was both the most trouble I ever got into in school in my life, and totally worth it.
:P
-
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
Well, we now know GuitarStv wasn't a jerk in elementary school, he doesn't know the technique. ;-)
I’ve written and deleted so many responses to this series of posts...
Instead, I’m just going to go sew some belt loops into all of my skirts to keep myself safe from my skirt ever being pulled down. Seems like the rational thing to do...
I had my pants pulled down by another (male) kid in front of the whole class in grade four, and everyone but me (teacher included) had a good laugh about it. I've been wearing a belt with my pants every day since then. It seemed like the rational thing to do at the time, although obviously not the ideal (or really, any) solution to the problem.
Your teacher sounds like a total fucking asshole
Seconded.
If it makes you feel better, a couple weeks later I threw my chair at that teacher (and was consequently suspended from school for a day). It happened because the teacher was laughing at me when the chair was yanked out from under me by a classmate while I was sitting down and I fell on my ass in front of everyone. This was both the most trouble I ever got into in school in my life, and totally worth it.
:P
Oddly, yes, it does make me feel better. Teacher apparently needed to learn that actions have consequences.
-
Putting belt loops on a skirt and wearing a belt would prevent most of the attacks you're describing here.
I think you missed the point. The skirts were being lifted up by the hem, not pulled down over the hips.
Well, we now know GuitarStv wasn't a jerk in elementary school, he doesn't know the technique. ;-)
I’ve written and deleted so many responses to this series of posts...
Instead, I’m just going to go sew some belt loops into all of my skirts to keep myself safe from my skirt ever being pulled down. Seems like the rational thing to do...
I had my pants pulled down by another (male) kid in front of the whole class in grade four, and everyone but me (teacher included) had a good laugh about it. I've been wearing a belt with my pants every day since then. It seemed like the rational thing to do at the time, although obviously not the ideal (or really, any) solution to the problem.
Your teacher sounds like a total fucking asshole
That happened to a kid in my daughter's 4th grade class recently. The teacher was horrified though and put the culprit in detention.