I suppose that assumes a woman cares about fashion and that fast fashion is something every woman wants to buy into. A lot of women I know shop vintage because they want items they can wear reliably for years and modern items do not offer that level of quality. If you want to buy out of the fast fashion assumption of “need” it seems like you have to literally go back in time because if you buy fast fashion it is literally trash in a year. Nobody will thrift it worn because it will be worn out. It doesn’t seem like brands have options for women that lie outside of this system in addition to those junky options or offer those junk items at a lower cost. If all you can buy new is junk then stepping outside of the system requires you to avoid the ease of simply buying new off the rack. It requires work and luck. If you grew up inside that system that’s your established normal.
We can say that mens fashion is static… But why can’t both gendered fashion silos have more static options or at least price fast fashion at a different price point to reflect those cheaper materials? It seems like saying one sex has inherent requirements for fubgibillity which seems honestly kinda sexist. There’s a lot of men who want more interesting fad like stuff and women who want staples that will last a decade.
Oh, I full-on agree, hence that final paragraph. I’m one of those idgaf-about-fads types, but I know plenty of folks who do care and who get hosed by the system as it currently exists. Fashion as a whole is pretty much a racket as far as I’m concerned. But what isn’t these days?
The reason they won’t price fast fashion bs lower is because they don’t have to. Trendy things sell at inherently predatory price points, then they declare a new “what’s hot” before the sales drop off. Capitalism is a mfer, and folks are exploited at every rung of the fashion ladder.
I guess that would change if enough people stopped buying in, but do either of us see that happening any time soon? I don’t, and as frustrating as it is, I think you don’t, either. So garments marketed primarily to women remain pocketless and flimsy, and those marketed primarily to my-tastes-don’t-change men continue to trend towards work-wearish looks that are at least marginally sturdier at roughly equivalent cost.
Except for those goddamn fishing shirts. Who decided that was a thing? They’re terrible.
I suppose that assumes a woman cares about fashion and that fast fashion is something every woman wants to buy into. A lot of women I know shop vintage because they want items they can wear reliably for years and modern items do not offer that level of quality. If you want to buy out of the fast fashion assumption of “need” it seems like you have to literally go back in time because if you buy fast fashion it is literally trash in a year. Nobody will thrift it worn because it will be worn out. It doesn’t seem like brands have options for women that lie outside of this system in addition to those junky options or offer those junk items at a lower cost. If all you can buy new is junk then stepping outside of the system requires you to avoid the ease of simply buying new off the rack. It requires work and luck. If you grew up inside that system that’s your established normal.
We can say that mens fashion is static… But why can’t both gendered fashion silos have more static options or at least price fast fashion at a different price point to reflect those cheaper materials? It seems like saying one sex has inherent requirements for fubgibillity which seems honestly kinda sexist. There’s a lot of men who want more interesting fad like stuff and women who want staples that will last a decade.
Oh, I full-on agree, hence that final paragraph. I’m one of those idgaf-about-fads types, but I know plenty of folks who do care and who get hosed by the system as it currently exists. Fashion as a whole is pretty much a racket as far as I’m concerned. But what isn’t these days?
The reason they won’t price fast fashion bs lower is because they don’t have to. Trendy things sell at inherently predatory price points, then they declare a new “what’s hot” before the sales drop off. Capitalism is a mfer, and folks are exploited at every rung of the fashion ladder.
I guess that would change if enough people stopped buying in, but do either of us see that happening any time soon? I don’t, and as frustrating as it is, I think you don’t, either. So garments marketed primarily to women remain pocketless and flimsy, and those marketed primarily to my-tastes-don’t-change men continue to trend towards work-wearish looks that are at least marginally sturdier at roughly equivalent cost.
Except for those goddamn fishing shirts. Who decided that was a thing? They’re terrible.