ObjectivityIncarnate

Let’s be realistic here. The majority of people don’t care, at all, about how the workforce of the place they buy things from is being treated. By and large, they happily buy things from companies with MUCH worse practices than Amazon without a second thought. If child and slave labor don’t move the needle for them, why would the (comparatively-speaking) paradise of working at Amazon?

mode != median

Apostrophe placement has no influence on how a word is pronounced; they’re always silent.

An apostrophe is a substitute for omitted letters. It’s “y’all” because the apostrophe is taking the place of the the “ou” in “you all”. “Ya’ll” makes no sense in relation to “you all”.

You’re pathetic when you project your rage onto others. I’ve never written anything like this, but you not only did, you shared it with others. Who knows what degree of darkness you keep to yourself, if that’s what you put out into the world?

Disgusting.

Ok man. I gish galloped a bunch of irrelevant links about history and instead of immediately conceding you identified it, so I’m going to declare victory while ironically ignoring everything you said, which actually had to do with the matter at hand in the present day

Ok

I go with the 6 month (longest interval offered) subscription, then when I get the email reminding me that XYZ is about to be re-ordered, I see whether I actually need/want more of it. If not, I ‘skip’ that order (which it seems you can do as often as you want) while the subscription/discount is maintained, and if I do, I let it get ordered, also maintaining the discount.

End result’s worst-case scenario is that I get bugged twice a year about some items, pretty minor cost for 15% off.

212 warm / 100 warm
warm

Meme was made by a space shuttle tile.

It’s not that

It is that. You literally just used “you can’t get laid” as a personal insult toward a stranger.

It’s that it’s deeply unpleasant to be called out on my flawed logic, and so I must personally insult you to both feel better about myself, and give myself an excuse to not address what you say

Fixed that for you.

You’re going to die alone and lonely, and you deserve to

More pathetic fantasy used as a substitute for learning.

Let the record show that only one of the two of us has been engaged in this childish insult-slinging.

EDIT: You spend a lot of time with these kinds of fantasies, huh? lol

TL;DR: You’ve focused primarily on the history, and barely touched on my actual question of ‘why isn’t anyone taking advantage of this supposed demand today in 2026’? Full reply follows:

Sexism

I can acknowledge this as a motivator 50+ years ago, but today, I can’t see an apparel company refusing to create something that would be profitable for this reason. Businesses, especially large modern ones, have no bias toward anything but the bottom line. That said, Gemini threw me a list of modern companies that are in fact aimed at this demand, so supporting them is the best way to get more companies to do so:

Objectively more effective than simply complaining that more companies aren’t.

Money: Fashion companies make tens of billions selling women purses. If women had real pockets, we may not need purses.

The highest end luxury purses have barely any capacity to actually hold things, and are used more as status indicators than for utility. More ‘regular’ purses that are primarily purchased for their utility/capacity have capacity far beyond what any pair of regular-sized (equivalent to men’s) pockets could hold, and could never be completely obsoleted by pockets. If anything, the prevalence of pockets might over time reduce those purses’ size to compensate.

I don’t think this argument really holds water.

I disagree. Women’s pants with pockets will sell just as well as, if not better than, women’s pants with fake pockets because at the end of the day, there is no difference in pants with vs without except in very limited cases like specific styles of business attire. The pants will sell because women want to wear pants and we buy pants available to us.

If the demand is there, then it’d be a golden opportunity for a clothing manufacturer to corner that market then, wouldn’t it? With how massive the fashion industry is, there must be a reason it’s apparently not been attempted in earnest yet, by any of the over 400,000 apparel companies out there.

What do you think that reason is? Not a rhetorical question.

uhhhhh uhhhhh you don’t have sex haha I win now right?

I pity you.

And the being-wrong streak stays strong!

EDIT: Downvoters are large angry that my SO is crazy about me, and vice versa, lol. You all are just so desperate to paint me with the incel stereotype in your minds, all for pointing out a wee bit of hypocrisy.

but they were lumping it in with a bunch of other stereotypes too, so it’s fine!

ok

Why are men unable to put aside their emotions

Projection. I did nothing more than simply point out an obvious logical fallacy.

anyone someone points out that lots and lots of men do fucked up things

Lots and lots of women do fucked up things, too. If someone reacted to a story about a woman throwing her newborn baby into a dumpster with “geez, what is wrong with women?” you would get, justifiably, offended at the generalization.

There’s no need for a double standard, one standard will do just fine.

and are systematically supported?

Starr (2015) finds that male defendants in U.S. Federal Courts receive 63% longer sentences than females, even after conditioning on observable case characteristics

That doesn’t look like ‘systematic support’ to me.

You hear some men, and because you think emotionally, you hear “all men.”

More projection, especially considering you’ve dived headfirst into “all men” yourself just above.

Rapist in my state almost killed three teenage girls. He got court ordered therapy and community service.

Meanwhile, I couldn’t even get charges pressed against my female rapist.

Your empathy gap is showing.

I like how first you accuse me of emotionally extrapolating “some men” to “all men”, and then you literally do just that, using individual cases of men doing shitty things as argument against my saying not to generalize men.

You don’t even realize how blatantly you’re exposing yourself.

Marital rape wasn’t illegal in every US state until 1993.

Even though women rape men just as often as men rape women (it just doesn’t seem so because of successful lobbying to have unwanted female on male sexual contact labeled with a term other than “rape” so that it wouldn’t be included in “rape statistics”), it still is effectively legal for women to do so. See how long it takes you to find a woman who was convicted for raping a man.

A woman can molest a male child, get herself pregnant, wait until he’s of age, and then successfully sue him for back child support. Good luck finding a case of a man legally winning child support from the girl he molested.

I wonder what Nick Olivas would have to say about that “systematic support” that you claim favors males so heavily.

Ooh are we playing nitpick the word meaning?

No. “Incel” was very obviously used as a pejorative in the comment I replied to.

What I’m doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of using sexual history as a value judgment for one sex, while being outraged at it being applied to the other sex.

When you’re allowed everywhere by default

Men have been forced to change seats on an airplane for the ‘crime’ of being male while adjacent to children.

It doesn’t help matters to generalize like this.

it can bruise something in your brain when you hit a closed door.

Men’s brains ‘bruise against closed doors’ a lot more often than you assume.

The best solution is to give women more options.

The customer will always want their preferred option to exist, but if creating those additional options isn’t profitable for the clothing manufacturer because it doesn’t sell well enough, you shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t do it. After all, from their perspective, it’s not a “solution”, it’s throwing money out the window for no reason. And businesses dislike doing that as much as we do.

I’m not a woman, but I am someone whose preferences are often significantly deviated from what’s commonly available, so I can definitely empathize about this sort of dilemma. But at the same time, I understand why it is the way it is.

I would wager a large sum that you would hypocritically take offense to the notion of using a woman’s (actual or assumed) sexual history as basis to insult her, while readily doing just that to a man, as you just did.

all oranges are fruits, therefore I’m justified in assuming any fruit is an orange by default

How do people not understand how patently ludicrous this line of thinking is?

If the existence of white only spaces is enough to make you feel bad about being black, it seems what you’re actually feeling bad about is not having total access to everything and control over everyone. That’s a different issue, and is solved through therapy.

Behold, your logic.