Clothing is sexist now

File: hoodrat_gucci.jpg (45KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x492px

Women's clothing is genuinely worse than men's clothing - it is generally thinner, less flexible, has shallow pockets, if it has pockets at all, is designed to need multiple layers, and so on.

This is partly because the fashion industry is controlled by gay men, and partially because many women buy clothing for status reasons rather than practical factors.

This is actually something that has good points to argue about.

I say we go commando but then I realized how many fat hambeasts there are and shudder.

Day of the snapped rope when?

>>135898796
they make pants for women too

File: 1499901416193.png (14KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 657x527px

>>135897217
Bras have pockets. She probably burned all of hers. What a cunt.

you choose what clothes you buy, nothing is forced on you.
women have way more choices in designs and functions in their clothes.
if clothes would be sexist, it would be against men.you can also just buy mens clothes since gender is a social construct ))

>>135899225
Nevermind, it's a cuck. What a cuck.

>>135899093
Yeah and they're shit.
Thats the point.

>>135897217
But it actually is true. Clothing has been very sexist since forever. OP is a faggot

>>135899273
>you choose what clothes you buy, nothing is forced on you.
>women have way more choices in designs and functions in their clothes.
ding ding ding. Another fucking non-issue being blown out of proportion and deemed problematic. What a world

File: 1435923787123.png (509KB, 650x850px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 650x850px

>>135899093
Women's pants are almost always less durable & have worse pockets than similarly priced men's pants. And due to differences in hip shapes, just wearing men's pants isn't comfortable for many women.

If the gays running the fashion industry were purged, and women & married men put in charge, I bet that high status cloths would get a lot more practical.

How long til common sense is sexist

>>135899562
>>135897217
Clothing is sex-bound, not sexist. Sexual dimorphism means the same thing is not going to look god in both men and women. You can dress however you like but don't whine if you look like a horse wizardly gas.

>>135898796
>hoodrat_gucci.jpg

Nigga that's Chanel get gud

File: 1484486348780.jpg (471KB, 1818x1400px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1818x1400px

>>135899644
Just to add, women buying cloths based on the brand name rather than practical matters is the other half of this issue. But I think getting rid of the gays would be easier than convincing women to not prioritize status symbols over utility.

>>135897217
1)The universe is selectively sexist, it advantaged men in most things and women in some, let us all cry a river because of this
2)Women's clothes are like that because most women like it
3)This person can buy men's clothes and stop complaining

>>135899076
>Day of the snapped rope when?
kek

>>135897217
Oh no! MUH POCKETS! Does this faglord know why there aren't pockets? Because they're bulky and women wear tight pants. Also because women carry bags and purses and wallets that are too big to fit in a pocket. All the fucking time.

There should be a clothing company that makes non-sexist clothes for women.
I bet it would fail either because it's run by a commie-loving cuck like this guy, or because there aren't enough women buying "practical" clothes except the occasional female carpenter, farmer, truck driver, mechanic etc. who buys practical work clothes because they actually do real work.
"Prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong!" -Skinner

If clothing is sexist, I should expect no problem in exercising the right to wear a linen toga in the summer without being called a faggot? Much more practical and comfy for the balls than sexist oppressive pants.