[deleted]

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    6·
    19 hours ago

    Lots of good comments here. My favorite is parenting vs childfree groups. I’ve literally seen the communities back to back on my feed. It’s mostly funny to me, a parent, because I agree with both communities and they aren’t actually in opposition.

    Second favorite are those guys who are all “THIS IS NOT A MEME GTFO” when someone posts a twit or tumbler post or what have you. Lol

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    10·
    22 hours ago

    Uh… Lawns, “electoralism”, meat, anything to do with parenting using consequences of any kind (sub discussions about spanking, withholding or taking away items or privileges, messing with your kids, and “I dIdnT AsK to bE BorN!”), separating the art from the artist, cars, intelligence and the fact that some people are in fact just dumb as a shoe (and the corollary “why don’t they teach me how to do my taxes in school instead of Pythagorean theorem!”), …

    Idk there are lots of them.

    Edit: … But why do you want to know? Do you have something planned? 🧐

    • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
      32·
      22 hours ago

      Planned? Like what? No I’m just trying to tailor my posts is all. Just curious about what I shouldn’t go for. But I guess if someone is annoying me, it’s nice to have options to annoy them back. So, you know, swings and roundabouts…

            • Cyril Strobe@sh.itjust.worksOP
              22·
              19 hours ago

              You’re not kidding there, like. Check this out:

              https://sh.itjust.works/post/66813516

              I made this fun ‘meme’ post in the shitposts where I mocked the red bull slogan and its sugar content, and they turned the comments section into a mad argument about frickin’ sugar! SUGAR! They’re arguing about sugar and aspartame in there like bulls! Even this post asking about divisive topics has itself in places turned argumentative!!! It’s almost laughable.

    • stopforgettingit@lemmy.world
      5·
      21 hours ago

      This is legit but also I super appreciate coming in to the comment of a sexist post and already seeing a snarky comment about it being sexist. Makes my day.

            • velma@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              19 hours ago

              Wow, just read your convo with him. you and he really got into it

              Oh with cattywampas? Yeah, I have a bad habit of talking these types of trolls into the dirt when they want to play like that haha

                • velma@sh.itjust.works
                  2·
                  18 hours ago

                  Ah I’ve been on the internet long enough to know the positives of that advice, thank you :)

                  Pushing back against these types of people help to heal me from many years of being taught to be quiet, meek, and cater to men’s wishes.

    • cattywampas@lemmy.world
      13·
      20 hours ago

      If you want a real hoot, next time the issue comes up point out that women’s clothing is the way it is (form-fitting, small pockets, etc.) because that’s what the majority of women buy and that there are a lot of looser options with big pockets out there.

      Edit: I’m talking about men’s opinions on women’s clothing. Women are well aware of their clothing choices.

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        20 hours ago

        That’s interesting that you chose women’s jeans as a response to a real complaint of the amount of misogyny that’s openly pushed on Lemmy.

        Second, the majority of women buy jeans with small pockets because that’s what is on the majority of shelves. Women’s clothing is purposefully made of less quality than men’s clothing because women purchase clothing at higher rates and capitalism will do what capitalism does.

        There are looser options with bigger pockets out there, but they’re not as available. You have to go hunting for them. And don’t even suggest women just buy men’s jeans as I’ve seen here - women’s bodies tend to be shaped much more differently than men’s bodies especially around our hips. Men’s jeans don’t fit the same.

        Again, very interesting that your response to misogyny is “women complain about pants!”

        • cattywampas@lemmy.world
          12·
          20 hours ago

          My point is that “men complain about women’s clothing” not “women complain about women’s clothing.” They white knight so hard they don’t realize that the choice exists, then they go to “well they feel pressured to wear those things because of societal expectations.” They are just trying so hard to take the agency away from women one way or another.

          Loose fitting women’s clothing is not hard to find. It’s in brick and mortar stores. It’s online. My wife wears it. Kids wear it, loose clothing is very fashionable right now.

          When you say “not as available” what does that mean? That less of it is sold? That’s because it’s what sells. Most women want form-fitting clothing with smaller pockets.

          • velma@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            20 hours ago

            There are more pants with small/no pockets available than there are pants with deep pockets. How is that hard to understand?

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              11·
              19 hours ago

              Bars have more taps with IPAs than stouts or porters. It’s not a grand conspiracy against non-IPA beer, it’s because IPAs sell better. Retail business doesn’t waste significant space on products that don’t sell quickly.

            • cattywampas@lemmy.world
              22·
              20 hours ago

              Yes, and that’s because it’s what most women want to buy. How is that hard to understand?

              • velma@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                20 hours ago

                Source for your claims?

                According to a 2018 study by The Pudding, the front pockets on women’s jeans are on average 48 per cent shorter and 6.5 per cent narrower than they are on men’s jeans.

                You see, since the ’50s, there has been a role reversal of sorts in the fashion industry. Handbags, which started as a convenient accessory and a fun extension of an apparel brand, are major money-makers for many luxury brands. According to Fortune Business Insights, in 2022, the North American handbag market was valued at $16.3 billion. By 2030, that number is projected to grow to $26.47 billion.

                A former designer assistant at McQueen, who wishes to remain anonymous, muses that with so much money at stake, clothing could now almost be considered an accessory to the handbags. “When Tom Ford debuted his first collection for Gucci in the ’90s, almost every single look had a handbag to go with it,” they point out. “Since then, ready-to-wear and purses have gone hand in hand.”

                Fellow Canadian designers Eliza Faulkner (formerly of Erdem, Roland Mouret and Zandra Rhodes and now creative director of her own brand) and Caffery Vanhorne (who worked at an undisclosed luxury house) echo our anonymous source, with Faulkner reiterating that “brands make money off accessories, not clothes.” Vanhorne also admits that he has witnessed seasons where “more than half the clothes shown on the runway never went to production — they were just to showcase bags.”

                What does this mean for our original question: Do brands purposely exclude pockets in women’s clothing so women will be more likely to support the purse industry? Well, it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines above. To quote the great philosophers known as ABBA, it all comes down to “money, money, money.”

                Like J.Lo gaslighting us into believing that her and Ben Affleck’s relationship history was “the greatest love story never told,” the handbag industry essentially barged in and seduced women into believing that the purse was the answer to all their portable needs. The only obstacle in their way? The pocket.

                By that logic, as long as women are denied pockets, they would be forced to spend more money on bags and thus an entire industry could be sustained by reducing the size of pouches or excluding them from women’s clothing.

                Capitalism forced small pockets in women’s clothing.

                • cattywampas@lemmy.world
                  12·
                  19 hours ago

                  When your headline is a question, the answer is “no.”

                  You said yourself “capitalism will do what capitalism does” or words to that effect. So if more women wanted looser clothing, why would companies not start selling it?

                  The answer is that they have. Do just one Google search for “baggy women’s jeans with pockets” and you’ll see that they’re readily available.

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        19 hours ago

        Edit: I’m talking about men’s opinions on women’s clothing.

        It’s clear that you share that opinion. Not sure why you think putting that edit in was going to clear up anything here.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    31·
    21 hours ago

    Mostly debates on leftism (typically anarchist or Marxist-Leninist) vs. Liberalism. This extends to debates where the conflict is sharpest, typically on views of China as an example.