Author Topic: Patriarchy  (Read 5208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Patriarchy
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:49:26 AM »
Old Navy had sleep pants on sale this weekend. The guys' pants had pockets but the women's didn't. WTF?

This is a huge problem in the women's clothing industry. Small or non-existent pockets. This is why women are forced to carry purses; which hinders their movements and leaves them more vulnerable to attacks by men.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63974
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2017, 08:51:12 AM »
Beyoncé says girls run this [redacted]
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2017, 08:52:30 AM »
Beyoncé says girls run this [redacted]

That song was written in the future.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15208
    • View Profile
Patriarchy
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2017, 08:57:08 AM »
Just wanted to say I’m very disappointed the title of this thread is not “Pantriarchy”

Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14953
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2017, 09:05:55 AM »
I'm officially boycotting Old Navy now.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2017, 09:16:22 AM »
I'm sure if women had a high demand for pockets in their pajama pants, Old Navy would sew them on.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 21307
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2017, 09:18:03 AM »
Just wanted to say I’m very disappointed the title of this thread is not “Pantriarchy”

^^^

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2017, 11:21:20 AM »
Wear dresses?

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2017, 11:30:28 AM »
Wear dresses?

Do you think that dresses have pockets?

Offline everyone shut up

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1051
  • “On paper, we feel good.”
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2017, 12:46:48 PM »
No way women are ever fitting all the contents of their purses in a couple pant pockets.

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2017, 12:58:13 PM »
No way women are ever fitting all the contents of their purses in a couple pant pockets.

I don't think you understand how purses work. First, you have a small purse (because NO POCKETS!) to carry the stuff you actually need. Then you have a little extra room so you add a few items. Then your husband keeps asking if you have ibuprofen so you add ibuprofen to the purse. Then your purse is stuffed full so you have to get a bigger purse, which means now there's more room for more stuff. Then when you go somewhere your husband asks you to put the car keys in your purse....etc....etc...etc....
....And then you end up with a big purse full of junk you don't need....when if your damn pants just had pockets in the first place, you wouldn't have even needed a purse to begin with!

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2017, 01:13:06 PM »
You can buy women's pants with pockets, Mrs. Gooch. Dresses, too.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2017, 01:17:35 PM »
Bibbed overalls?  Lots of pockets. 

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2017, 01:30:53 PM »
You can buy women's pants with pockets, Mrs. Gooch. Dresses, too.

Sure, there are a few pants with pockets but the majority of women's pants have no or very shallow pockets. Try putting a wallet or a phone in a pocket that is only 2 inches deep.

And there are "specialty" dresses that have pockets, but not most dresses.

Offline Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9492
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2017, 01:45:44 PM »
You guys are all now fully aware with what I have to deal with on a daily basis. :goodbyecruelworld:

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2017, 03:15:50 PM »
For what it's worth, I'm not sure anyone here contends it is better to be a woman.

But I just ran this pantriarchy theory past Mrs. Dub and she looked at me like I was crazy. Her exact words were "I don't need pockets that's what I've got you for."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2017, 03:35:28 PM »
If most women wanted deep pockets, then most women's pants would have them.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63974
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2017, 03:38:55 PM »
Would raise the cost of pants for chicks
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2017, 03:43:45 PM »
I like the pants with the little decorative pockets sewn on that can't possibly hold anything. Ladies' fashion is pretty ridiculous.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2017, 03:53:40 PM »
For what it's worth, I'm not sure anyone here contends it is better to be a woman.

But I just ran this pantriarchy theory past Mrs. Dub and she looked at me like I was crazy. Her exact words were "I don't need pockets that's what I've got you for."

That's fine for women who like to depend on a man all the time.

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2017, 03:56:31 PM »
Would raise the cost of pants for chicks

I don't think the 64 square inches of thin pocket fabric is going to add that much cost.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63974
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2017, 04:00:16 PM »
 :th_twocents:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2017, 05:25:54 PM »
You can buy women's pants with pockets, Mrs. Gooch. Dresses, too.

Sure, there are a few pants with pockets but the majority of women's pants have no or very shallow pockets. Try putting a wallet or a phone in a pocket that is only 2 inches deep.

And there are "specialty" dresses that have pockets, but not most dresses.

What kind of pants are you talking about with 2 inch pockets? Like > 75% of girls I see wearing jeans but their phone in their back pocket. That pocket is deeper than 2 inches.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30377
    • View Profile
Re: Patriarchy
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2017, 07:05:58 PM »
Would raise the cost of pants for chicks

I don't think the 64 square inches of thin pocket fabric is going to add that much cost.

.20 cents could be the difference between acceptable profitability or not.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best