Comics
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine π΅πΈ . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple β- Meβ would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the βLinkβ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
view the rest of the comments
It's a trick from the industry to force women to buy purses.
But if this logic works, why aren't they tricking men into buying something else too?
trust me, there's a lot of marketing and bs for men to buy stuff they don't need.
Yes, but this is also true for women. I feel like pant/skirt companies would make more money just selling pants/skirts with pockets if their competitors weren't, unless all bottom-clothes companies also started selling purses at the same time in some sort of anti-female-pocket cartel.
I'm sure there's some history behind this that I don't fully understand. The logic just seems flawed to me.
didn't mean to say it's an issue that affects one gender.
it affects everyone, some effects are gender specific. it's generally very toxic and sucks for everyone.
I hate when my daughters hand me stuff to carry because they don't have pockets (I'll carry anything for them), and I always try to get them clothes with pockets.
I didn't think you were lol, I just meant within the context of legwear/purses, that selling an extra thing to one gender at the expense of a feature in another product seems like it would make more sense if you did it for 100% of the pocketed-clothing market, rather than focusing on 50% of the potential customers.
But then, such is marketing and human behavior.
Good on you! You sound like a good parent.
It comes from exploiting patriarchal beauty standards. Clothes for women were pushed to be designed with the mindset of fashion first, functionality second to "accentuate the female form" and it was argued that pockets detract from this so it was "necessary" to omit them from women's clothing.
Men's clothing is designed to be functional first, fashionable second so that angle of exploiting gender norms wasn't available for men.
Maybe they tried, but faced cultural resistance. Instead, they target other things to men, like wallets and watches.