4 ms·

You can already return (confection) clothes for a full refund for any reason within a certain time frame (two weeks is common); even just 'I don't like it'.

AlecSchueler 4y ago
Don't think they were saying it needs to become possible, only it should become more of a social expectation that these intentonally impractical clothes are rejected and better demanded from the manufacturers. It's so weird when all the women I know have "favourite" articles of clothing that are purely the only version of a particlar garment they could find that had pockets. It's not only pockets too it's also often things like the quality of the seam etc.
- mcv 4y ago
  Exactly. Too often people keep clothes that are needlessly crippled or otherwise don't really meet their requirements because at least they fit. It's often hard enough to find something that fits, that we just accept other needless limitations. But if enough people do it, we can demand better. But for that, it has to become common, and not merely possible.
  - Freak_NL 4y ago
    > But if enough people do it, we can demand better. 'If' is the problem. As it is, selling clothing means following trends and offering fast-fashion for a large part of the market. There is a sizeable group of people who are completely fine with getting the latest trend cheaply at Primark. These people might like real pockets (and post memes about it on social media), but you won't activate them to actually make that a requirement. The people who do find brands which simply do offer it (the economic model works so far), and those brands know that this is a feature people like, and they can afford to invest in the extra costs this brings (sewing, design) and the raised cost of their end product. But a large part of the market simply won't bear those costs. Pockets on dresses is not much different from sustainable clothing (both in terms of production and in terms of durability) and fair pay for people who work in the garment industry: most people do not care enough to change their behaviour (or can't afford to).
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  What's strange to me is that you don't know any women who fit the norm of wanting clothes that don't gape and/or show unexpected forms due to pockets. Men's suits have sewn up pockets too for the same reason. Aren't most clothing buyers for and designers for high-street shops women? Yet this is always presented as some sort of conspiracy against women.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    Look at it this way: there's a societal pressure for women to appear secondary, by presenting as more aesthetic than practical. That's patriarchy and it's enforced both by men and women. We raise girls in this climate and they develop what's called internalized misogyny. At the same time we chastise men who wear things for pure aesthetics for being weak, unmanly and feminine. Everyone then reinforces this stuff through design and consumer habits. Then we come online and argure that it's just an inherent thing about the sexes, or that women actually want to be dressed less practical because they're just aesthetic creatures. It's not a conspiracy where men are trying to hold women back. I hope I didn't imply that. It's the tide of a strong patriarchal system. Yes, it could change faster if it wasn't benefiting those in power so much, but it's inaccurate to say it's a directed conspiracy (though there is an increase of this with a lot of alt-right YouTube stuff these days).

AlecSchueler 4y ago

Don't think they were saying it needs to become possible, only it should become more of a social expectation that these intentonally impractical clothes are rejected and better demanded from the manufacturers. It's so weird when all the women I know have "favourite" articles of clothing that are purely the only version of a particlar garment they could find that had pockets. It's not only pockets too it's also often things like the quality of the seam etc.

mcv 4y ago
Exactly. Too often people keep clothes that are needlessly crippled or otherwise don't really meet their requirements because at least they fit. It's often hard enough to find something that fits, that we just accept other needless limitations. But if enough people do it, we can demand better. But for that, it has to become common, and not merely possible.
- Freak_NL 4y ago
  > But if enough people do it, we can demand better. 'If' is the problem. As it is, selling clothing means following trends and offering fast-fashion for a large part of the market. There is a sizeable group of people who are completely fine with getting the latest trend cheaply at Primark. These people might like real pockets (and post memes about it on social media), but you won't activate them to actually make that a requirement. The people who do find brands which simply do offer it (the economic model works so far), and those brands know that this is a feature people like, and they can afford to invest in the extra costs this brings (sewing, design) and the raised cost of their end product. But a large part of the market simply won't bear those costs. Pockets on dresses is not much different from sustainable clothing (both in terms of production and in terms of durability) and fair pay for people who work in the garment industry: most people do not care enough to change their behaviour (or can't afford to).
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
What's strange to me is that you don't know any women who fit the norm of wanting clothes that don't gape and/or show unexpected forms due to pockets. Men's suits have sewn up pockets too for the same reason. Aren't most clothing buyers for and designers for high-street shops women? Yet this is always presented as some sort of conspiracy against women.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  Look at it this way: there's a societal pressure for women to appear secondary, by presenting as more aesthetic than practical. That's patriarchy and it's enforced both by men and women. We raise girls in this climate and they develop what's called internalized misogyny. At the same time we chastise men who wear things for pure aesthetics for being weak, unmanly and feminine. Everyone then reinforces this stuff through design and consumer habits. Then we come online and argure that it's just an inherent thing about the sexes, or that women actually want to be dressed less practical because they're just aesthetic creatures. It's not a conspiracy where men are trying to hold women back. I hope I didn't imply that. It's the tide of a strong patriarchal system. Yes, it could change faster if it wasn't benefiting those in power so much, but it's inaccurate to say it's a directed conspiracy (though there is an increase of this with a lot of alt-right YouTube stuff these days).