Sisters aren’t doin’ it for themselves

The thesis of the Atlantic piece on The Gender Politics of Pockets is that the patriarchy keeping women from being able to buy the clothing they want:

So how can an industry that focuses on women—whether it be models or products created primarily for a female demographic—consistently dodge the very people it markets to? Camilla Olson, creative director of an eponymous high tech fashion firm, points to inherent sexism within the industry. Mid-range fashion is a male dominated business, driven not by form and function, but by design and how fabric best drapes the body.

“I honestly believe the fashion industry is not helping women advance,” Olson said. And the lack of functional designs for women is one example. “We [women] know clearly we need pockets to carry technology and I think it’s expected we are going to carry a purse. When we’re working we don’t carry purses around. A pocket is a reasonable thing.

“I find it discouraging,” Olson said. “Fashion looks selectively at who they let in and keeps women at a certain place. It’s not helping women move forward in the workplace.” Olson says that some designers have deemed pockets “too ugly” for clothing, while others simply don’t think women need them. And these decisions, she says, have created a chasm in women’s fashion, and hold women back.

The premise is that what women want is understood and achievable, but that stubborn designers refuse to provide it.  But as you read further, it becomes clear that what Olson and other women want doesn’t exist, and so far no one has figured out what exactly would satisfy women.  What women want is purely theoretical.

Cargo pants (something which exists) are out since they are not stylish enough.  Then the article suggests holsters or fanny packs are the answer:

“It’s got to be an accessories solution,” she theorized. “Chanel just came out with a holster type of thing that is really, really pretty. Or a fanny pack that was stylish. Or a shape to wear about [the body]. But not belts. Something that’s comfortable, that’s important.”

There is no link to fanny packs, but this is the holster the article links to!  From the product’s description:

Made from MIL-SPEC webbing and seatbelt. Handcrafted on industrial sewing machines with outdoor-rated thread.

Other solutions offered in the article with a straight face include bras with pockets, high waisted pants, and belts wide enough to disguise a large smartphone:

It’s not as if this thought process is revolutionary with regards to moving the pocket to another location: There are shirts that cleverly disguise your phone, belts that double as hiding places for your beloved device, and even a bra that takes the term “bosom friend” to a whole new level. (Cargo pants, however, have been unanimously dissed by the fashion savvy as the solution of choice for the smartphone dilemma women face.)

The article she links to ostensibly as support is focused instead on lambasting all of Ms. Olson’s wacky theories. It opens with:

Are you ready to sport a man purse? How about high-waisted pants or a chunky bag with your cocktail frock? These are just some of the potentially unfashionable fashion trends that a larger iPhone, and various other larger-screen phones, might bring about.

The article even mocks Olson by name:

1950 called — and it wants its pants back. [So. Much. Yes.] You might be hearing statements like this more often thanks to larger screen phones, some experts say. Camilla Olson, the creative director of high-tech fashion firm Camilla Olson LLC, says the larger phone could lead to higher waistbands on pants and/or deeper pockets.

It also quotes Olson as saying what she wants doesn’t exist, but she hopes that someone will make something she likes:

Many fashion houses have sent models down the runways of recent fashion shows in dresses cinched with wide belts. Soon, says Olson, these kinds of belts might hide an iPhone. “There were some horrible attempts at a new age fanny pack,” she says. But “a wide belt that can hold a phone — that would be more fashionable.”

Make no mistake;  this isn’t about allowing good ideas to see the light of day, it is about nagging men to create something entirely new.  Olson has no idea how to solve the problem at hand, but she is confident someone with a penis can find a solution she will like.  As I’ve pointed out before, Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

See Also:  #poutyface

This entry was posted in Feminists, Nagging, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Sisters aren’t doin’ it for themselves

  1. Will S. says:

    “What do we want?”

    “We don’t know!”

    “When do we want it?”

    “Yesterday!”

  2. Anon says:

    Once again :

    The full burqa enables a woman to have a huge number of pockets. Both on her person as well as in the inner surface of the burqa. 50 pockets is not outside the realm of the feasible.

    Give women what they want, I say…

  3. Anon says:

    As I’ve pointed out before, Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

    In other words, the daily reminder that most women are obsolete. They simply cost far more than any useful output they produce, often by a huge margin.

    Artificial Intelligence is going to be a stunningly disastrous thing for women…In fact, the process has already begun….

  4. Will S. says:

    And with Islam, they’d have men, even if they have to share them with up to three other women – not that they’d mind that anyway, seeing as they already do that with high-status men…

  5. Pingback: Sisters aren’t doin’ it for themselves | Aus-Alt-Right

  6. Anon says:

    Situations like this really put the laughable notion of ‘women entrepreneurs’ and women as business leaders into perspective as the fiction that it is.

    The entire set of quotes from the last three articles show that the thoughts that go through the minds of these twats are so far removed from what even a competent middle-manager would think, let alone a hard-charging entrepreneur, that the difference is even greater than that between a child and an adult..

    50% of CEOs are not women? This is proof that anything more than 5% means that there is a thumb or ten on the scale in favor of women as AA tokens….

  7. feeriker says:

    so far no one has figured out what exactly would satisfy women.

    Fried ice. Unfortunately, the inventor died and took the recipe with him. Maybe some archaeologist will get lucky and find it in some Sumerian ruins some where.

  8. Tam the Bam says:

    Decent pockets on this lot

  9. Anon says:

    and even a bra that takes the term “bosom friend” to a whole new level.

    So they want gravitational drag to be a) even greater than it already is, and b) asymmetrical, unless there are pockets on both sides and the user alternates evenly? Instead of two being down to their waist in the long run, they want one to be down to their knee?

    It seems cause and effect is a mystery to women even regarding their own physical characteristics and the ravages of time.

  10. I’m confused.
    Cell phone holsters of all shapes, sizes (though perhaps not colors) have been around since the late 1980s, even when cell phones were as big as a shoe box.
    Are we to believe that for the last 20 years no one in one working in one of the most profitable industries on the planet, male or female, has thought to offer invisible, lined inseam pockets on women’s dress coats and pants, or to offer a range of lightweight, shear, fashionable cell phone holsters (leather or other) with compatible belts and bags to match?

    Ms. Olson’s impatience is perhaps understandable. But it depends when you start watching the movie. Perhaps it is still “early days”. Perhaps patience is in order?

    For another example, the first cup holders for automobiles were invented in 1950 (patent filed 5 June 1950 by Mr. Jack Fazakerley). A man!!!
    But they were never used and applied in most automobile designs until the early 1980s, and then primarily in the new vehicle they started calling “minivans”.
    This is because it took several decades for Americans to “demand” features congruent with their impulsive, time-sensitive eating habits that had evolved (or devolved) with drive-thru fast food service. It eventually happened, even after heavy add campaigns by McDonalds throughout the 1970s for Drive-Thru service.

    I’m far from a fashion expert, but one consistent attribute you will notice about the fashion industry is that one thing its leaders do very well is anticipate and plan for abject failure. They literally expect 90%+ of “whatever new they do” to fail. The stuff that works, is gold and very profitable. But there is so much fail in western fashion it’s not funny. They’re just better at this than other industries are because they can always recover more easily. They’re so good that even when they eff up in colossal fashion (no pun intended), they have secondary markets to dump their experimental crap into, and often at exorbitant prices. Then they can always reset, re-calibrate and return to the production and merchandising of traditional, tried-and-truedesigns and fail safe options that people actually like, use and will buy.

    Patience, Ms. Olson. You will have your pockets and female president one day! I assure you!

  11. Anon says:

    Isn’t it funny that since the vast majority of clothing dollars are on women’s clothing, women still cannot dominate the fashion-design industry? They can’t even design and market clothes to themselves….

    I mean, let that sink in for a minute…

  12. Lyn87 says:

    I already wear a holster… it has a pistol in it. Then I have to hide it under something long and baggy to keep cops and soccer moms from freaking out. Sometimes I wear one on each side to balance the weight. My phone goes in the side pocket of my cargo pants where it belongs.

    Then again, I’m not wearing impractical clothing designed to attract attention that I can then complain about because some of that attention comes from people I’m not attracted to.

  13. Lyn87 says:

    Anon is on fire today! You sound like TFH.

  14. theasdgamer says:

    What women want is purely theoretical.

    Naaah, fried ice is yummy!!!

  15. Novaseeker says:

    Anyone else see this in the WP?

    Yep I saw that as well.

    Lesbian is very “in” now, culturally, because homosexuality is in now and, while men aren’t really capable of switching teams, women are, and so more of them are doing that. She’s UCC, though, not “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

  16. theasdgamer says:

    Cargo pants (something which exists) are out since they are not stylish enough.

    No, they are out because they are masculine in appearance and women want something they can wear that doesn’t make them look like men. Hence, no pockets because women won’t buy pants with pockets.

  17. Novaseeker says:

    No, they are out because they are masculine in appearance and women want something they can wear that doesn’t make them look like men. Hence, no pockets because women won’t buy pants with pockets.

    Yes, of course, that’s the overall underlying reality, and everyone knows it including the silly writer that Dalrock is quoting here. Women will almost all prefer to carry their phones rather than having clothes designed with pockets. The only exception is jeans, where women will wedge the phone into very tight jeans pockets, because the jeans are practically painted on already. There really is no significant market for female clothing which features lots of pockets that get in the way of displaying her physique, other than perhaps for women who have no physique to display, and high fashion clothes are not made for those women anyway, really.

  18. Byzantine says:

    ‘A Christian mom blogger….’
    Ahahahhahahahahahha…..

    I sincerely hope that everyone here understands by now, that… be it ‘Christian woman’ or ‘Muslim woman’ or ‘Hindu woman’ or ‘Black woman’ or ‘Papuan Princess Woman’ or ‘Retarded Midget Woman’ …there is no need for blogosphere anymore to try to divide The Matriarchy based on fake Cultural Marxist choice of race, religion, origin, or lack of brains due to Feelz!
    Equality has been enforced and achieved eons ago.(for them)

  19. Gunner Q says:

    “The thesis of the Atlantic piece on The Gender Politics of Pockets is that the patriarchy keeping women from being able to buy the clothing they want”

    In all fairness, this is on our to-do list. Women should dress feminine, not masculine, and wives should wear what their husbands want to see them wear… which is obviously not what most of them want. Behold the unbearable oppression of patriarchy!

  20. feeriker says:

    She’s UCC, though, not “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

    Yes, that is a very important distinction. UCC = “Unchristian Cult”. There is nothing Christian about them or their theology at all.

  21. feeriker says:

    Isn’t it funny that since the vast majority of clothing dollars are on women’s clothing, women still cannot dominate the fashion-design industry? They can’t even design and market clothes to themselves….

    I mean, let that sink in for a minute…

    Yup.

    Does anyone also ever wonder why, in this day and age of “equality” in the professions, including the medical profession, that the overwhelming majority of gynocologists are MEN? Are women truly that incapable of/uninterested in maintaining their own health as a sex?

  22. g2-cdb27520fb49967abcc1c55ca90a2fef says:

    There have been quite a few garments made with inconspicuous cell phone pockets over the last couple decades. When there was a defacto standard flip phone size, they even worked well. Nowadays, there are many fondleslab sizes and shapes out there, so any well-tailored cell phone pocket won’t work for more than a small percentage of the population.

    Perhaps this is an opportunity in disguise! Time to sell iPhone 6 jackets or Galaxy S7 pants at Amazon! Hmm…

  23. Ollie says:

    “Mid-range fashion is a male dominated business” What *kind* of males, are they Ms. Olson? Those fashion dudes all seem to have a special something in common. What could..it…be?

    Apparently she doesn’t want to point out that it’s the more “fabulous” part of the patriarchy that she thinks is oppressing her.

  24. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Or a fanny pack that was stylish

    Cold fusion is a more realistic possibility.

    How about some of those huge earrings women seem to like so bad, adapted to carry an iPhone?

  25. Frank K says:

    “She’s UCC, though, not “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.”
    A friend once told me that UCC = Unitarians Considering Christ.

  26. Snowy says:

    I haven’t had the need to buy dress clothing for quite some time. However, the last time I did, I noted that even men’s “fashion” has dropped breast pockets from shirts. I had to search long and hard to find “fashionable” shirts with at least one breast pocket. Even my work uniform shirt has no breast pockets. Catering for the Mangina? Probably. But sheesh…women’s pocket envy? Another first world problem, but in this case an extremely petty one, and surely one that the women fashion designers can fix for themselves. Maybe not.

  27. Mike T says:

    Cargo pants (something which exists) are out since they are not stylish enough. Then the article suggests holsters or fanny packs are the answer:

    Easily solvable problem. Just be hot enough that men don’t care about your style of pants.

  28. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, perhaps if they deter women long enough with simplistic and myopic problems such as the need for pockets on designer clothes, the rest of the world can be run properly by men and women can leave well enough alone.

    I’m dreaming..

  29. Feminist Hater says:

    The can just stuff their belongings in their vaj, most women have like a gaping hole there anyway, especially after college, loads of room.

  30. thedeti says:

    OT:

    Christian mommyblogger Glennon Doyle Melton is dating female soccer player Abby Wambach. This only 3 months after her divorce.

    The woman is a hot mess, to say the least….

  31. Frank K says:

    “Christian mommyblogger Glennon Doyle Melton is dating female soccer player Abby Wambach. This only 3 months after her divorce.”

    Never heard of her, but this goes to show that the term “Christian” has pretty much lost any real meaning to most people. You can now engage in any sort of depraved behavior and claim to be a Christian.

    The road that leads to destruction is indeed wide.

  32. N Vandenberg says:

    “… Mid-range fashion is a male dominated business…”

    I’m not so sure about that. Anna Wintour, editor at Vogue, has a powerful influence on fashion and fashion design.

  33. Women want cell phone holsters and they think mil-spec webbing is “pretty.”

    Twenty-three bucks and they can get this:

    http://www.tacticaltailor.com/RRPSAccessoryPouch1V.aspx

    in a variety of colors, including black, which goes with everything.

    Have these ladies never gone to a yuppie hiking store like “REI” or “The North Face”? There are tons of companies that sell hiking gear to yuppies who never go camping. There are military-surplus companies like Maxpedition. There are leather-goods companies.

    Have these women forgotten how to shop?

  34. Pingback: Sisters aren’t doin’ it for themselves | Reaction Times

  35. feeriker says:

    Have these women forgotten how to shop?

    If by “shop” you mean search out exactly what they want at the best possible price (something our mothers and grandmothers did as second nature), then yes, they have.

    Actually, scratch that: many (most?) of them never knew how to do it in the first place. Shopping sensibly takes time, patience, and skill and doesn’t instantly gratify. Millennial girls, in particular, can’t deal with that.

  36. greyghost says:

    Eve walked in the garden of Eden and was not satisfied. What makes these dumb PC cunts think any man can come up with something satisfying

  37. RICanuck says:

    @Ollie says
    ““Mid-range fashion is a male dominated business” What *kind* of males, are they Ms. Olson? Those fashion dudes all seem to have a special something in common. What could..it…be?”

    I have always said that if straight men designed women’s clothes, they wouldn’t have to wear those uncomfortable clothes. They wouldn’t even have to wear clothes!

  38. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Novaseeker

    Lesbian is very “in” now, culturally, because homosexuality is in now and, while men aren’t really capable of switching teams, women are, and so more of them are doing that. She’s UCC, though, not “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

    I suspect that as time passes you’re going to see a lot more churches signing on with this, particularly the “conservatives.” Not so much because it’s consistent with their holy scriptures (it’s not) but because it does fit very well with the message they’ve really been preaching for many years now. For a great example of how this could play out, just consider what we usually hear from a good “Christian” like Glenn Stanton: He regularly talks about how men left alone to their own devices are likely to end up being shiftless at best, and violent troublemakers at worst. Not so the women — as he puts it himself:

    “Women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that . . . . And I think that’s the large reason for the man problem today, is that we have to be very intentional about man-making, man-creating. And I can hear all the women saying, ‘Absolutely!’ It doesn’t just naturally happen. It happens more naturally with women than it does with men.”

    Key to this is recognizing that a woman’s female nature provides her with an innate righteousness the men don’t (and can’t) have:

    “Lord of the Flies is a tale not so much about the dark nature of humanity as about the isolation of the masculine from the feminine. Had there been just a few confident girls amongst those boys, its conclusion might have been more Swiss Family Robinson.

    Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. That is hardly her only power, but it is among her most formidable. Christianity has always known this.”

    So there you have it: A “Christian” message — just one that’s carefully tuned to agree with a feminist view of power for women coupled with accountability for men. So where do we go from here? Well, as for myself, I’ve got no children. But I do know that Glenn Stanton has several daughters, and if he believes what he says he believes about men’s and women’s natures then I’ve got to imagine that his best hope for their future happiness in a relationship . . . would be in a lesbian marriage. Why not? If men really are the brutes and slackers that he says they are, then a woman joining her life with one can’t look forward to much more than a future of constantly kicking him off the couch or pulling him back from the brink of needless danger. Why not instead consider a future with a person whose inborn nature is fundamentally more pure and lovely and essential for a functioning society? And what a perfect match when that other person’s nature also mirrors the same one that she happens to possess herself! In fact, Under Stanton’s logic, gay unions wouldn’t just be the best option for marital bliss, they’d actually be the better choice altogether for building up a society to begin with. Think of it: We can get the most naturally virtuous and gifted members (that would be the women) to join and collaborate with each other where they’re more likely to do greater good surrounded by others of a similar nature, while also segregating the most unstable and unproductive members (that would be the men) to a corner on their own where their destructive tendencies can be limited to playing out only against the others possessing a likewise destructive nature.

    “Conservative” churches will probably protest the idea that they’d ever endorse such an outcome, but why? When they’ve already accepted the their enemies’ premises and their logic, at some point they’ll probably have to start accepting their conclusions.

    Links to Stanton’s quotes can be found here: http://media.focusonthefamily.com/boundless/mp3/tbs_20120126_seg1.mp3

    And Here: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/why-man-and-woman-are-not-equal

  39. patriarchal landmine says:

    I guess women forgot what a purse is.

    but you would think at least they would be motivated, get off their lazy asses, and create something on their own. nope, just demand men do it.

  40. feeriker says:

    Eve walked in the garden of Eden and was not satisfied. What makes these dumb PC cunts think any man can come up with something satisfying

    Women don’t really want their problems solved. That would leave them with nothing to complain about and thus without drama in their lives. That would be equivalent to slow death by starvation and suffocation.

  41. Novaseeker says:

    But I do know that Glenn Stanton has several daughters, and if he believes what he says he believes about men’s and women’s natures then I’ve got to imagine that his best hope for their future happiness in a relationship . . . would be in a lesbian marriage. Why not? If men really are the brutes and slackers that he says they are, then a woman joining her life with one can’t look forward to much more than a future of constantly kicking him off the couch or pulling him back from the brink of needless danger. Why not instead consider a future with a person whose inborn nature is fundamentally more pure and lovely and essential for a functioning society? And what a perfect match when that other person’s nature also mirrors the same one that she happens to possess herself! In fact, Under Stanton’s logic, gay unions wouldn’t just be the best option for marital bliss, they’d actually be the better choice altogether for building up a society to begin with. Think of it: We can get the most naturally virtuous and gifted members (that would be the women) to join and collaborate with each other where they’re more likely to do greater good surrounded by others of a similar nature, while also segregating the most unstable and unproductive members (that would be the men) to a corner on their own where their destructive tendencies can be limited to playing out only against the others possessing a likewise destructive nature.

    It does have a certain logic to it. I’d think, however, that given what Stanton has written, he would not be happy having so many unattached men, because he thinks they are a “cancer”. That is, his point is that unless men are submitted to women in marriage and under a female’s yoke, they are a problem. So that’s a glitch in the theory that this all leads to support for large numbers of lesbian couples, really. My guess is that the “family oriented” public Christians like Stanton will continue their support for de facto feminism (notice he confirms his essentially feminist bona fides by insisting on equality in the workplace, politics and public square) while pushing down men because it feels “good” and “right” to attack men and build up women, as Dalrock has discussed many times here, and marriage rates will continue to decline among Christians and these fools will be totally clueless as to why.

    I do think Christianity, including Evangelicals, will drift in favor of gay marriage, however. That will follow the general culture.

  42. Dale says:

    @theAsdGamer
    >No, they are out because they are masculine in appearance and women want something they can wear that doesn’t make them look like men.

    It is ironic that you wrote this about the cargo pants suggestion. If a woman really wanted to not look like a man, she would not be wearing an outer layer of pants of any kind, pockets or not. Pants are distinctly masculine, at least in my opinion.
    A woman who genuinely does not want to look like a man would have a skirt or dress over top of whatever pants/leggings she was otherwise wearing — that way you see feminine clothes and thus see a woman.
    On a somewhat unrelated note, this is also how a woman can be dressed in a suggestive way while also being dressed modestly. I have seen women with mini-skirts in church, over top of their pants. She is completely covered, due to the pants, and thus modest. But she is also suggesting that she is wise enough to know something about a few of the marital desires God gave to men.

  43. Oscar says:

    You know what has pockets? An apron. The type you wear in the kitchen. Problem solved.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    I propose a simple solution, long T-shirts with breast level pockets as well as pockets at the bottom of the shirt. Of course this won’t really solve anything. It will just lead to another….

    Tempest in a T-pocket.

    Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week.

  45. Lost Patrol says:

    @Novaseeker, @Darwinian,

    That is, his point is that unless men are submitted to women in marriage and under a female’s yoke, they are a problem.

    It didn’t take you gents long to run this to ground. Lesbian matches spiritually ideal but too many men running loose. Men need to be controlled by women. Hmm. Who are the easiest men for women to control? Pastors! More men should become pastors and marry the BeautifulX3 women.

    My guess is that the “family oriented” public Christians like Stanton will continue their support for de facto feminism (notice he confirms his essentially feminist bona fides by insisting on equality in the workplace, politics and public square) while pushing down men because it feels “good” and “right” to attack men and build up women, as Dalrock has discussed many times here, and marriage rates will continue to decline among Christians and these fools will be totally clueless as to why.

    Witnessed this one just yesterday! Despite Dalrock and commenters often making it plain how these sermons go, I was still surprised at this church when the exalt-women-admonish-men standard package was issued. I had seen evidence making me think the upcoming wives submit, husbands love lesson would be “fair and balanced” at this place. No chance. They must pull these from a manual somewhere. I am not exaggerating (for once) when I say he threw every cliche Dalrock has highlighted plus the kitchen sink at the men. He literally said – Man Up! at one point. It was funny to see. And sad.

    However, a couple of younger men were grumbling afterwards. I spoke with them. They are getting to where they’ve heard enough of this theme. As this spreads, marriage rates will no doubt decline.

  46. Lyn87 says:

    DA wrote, ““Conservative” churches will probably protest the idea that they’d ever endorse such an outcome, but why? When they’ve already accepted their enemies’ premises and their logic, at some point they’ll probably have to start accepting their conclusions,” [Emphasis added.] which may be the best thing I’ve read in a long time (although the process isn’t waiting to start – it’s already well underway. For proof, just look at all the churches that accept divorce and/or have women preachers.).

    But, you see, there IS a solution to the problem of “unattached men” in that scenario, and it has been seriously floated by feminists: reduce the male portion of the population by 90%, and keep the survivors in comfortable concentration camps (wait… isn’t that what Betty Friedan complained was so terribly unjust that it required society to rearrange itself to get rid of?).

    So… everybody wins (except men, but screw them, right?). Women get to marry other women in beautiful, beautiful, beautiful bonds of no-conflict bliss, while men supply sperm on demand but are kept in prison camps where they can be called upon to provide sperm on demand. (There’s been no word on who’s going to pave the roads, plant and harvest the crops, pump the oil, build the houses, or keep the lights on.)

  47. Otto Lamp says:

    Pocket hats?

  48. Lyn87 says:

    “…while men supply sperm on demand but are kept in prison camps where they can be called upon to provide sperm on demand.”

    Cut-and-paste error, obviously.

  49. adam says:

    “Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

    Followed by more assertions that men hold all the jobs created to solve women’s problems (wage gap).

  50. Gaza says:

    The average American woman weighs 166 pounds (75.3 kg). Pockets would make her look fat, so no pockets.

    Instead, a tacky handbag will do. As for the phone, I haven’t seen a woman in public without her phone held in front of her face in over three years.

    In fact, they only put the phone down long enough to put the fork in. And that’s only the less dexterous ones. The rest never put the phone down even while feeding.

    I’m quite certain the two dozen women that read the entire piece through, without drifting to FB-Instaslut-tinder, did so while eating – and texting some male orbiter about where they are going to eat later.

    Pockets lol. The most empty generation in the history of humanity is obsessing over where to put all thier stuff.

    VR is going to crush it and the cat collecting generation of SIW will still be wondering where all the good pockets went.

  51. Cecil Henry says:

    Men went to the moon.

    Women want better pockets.

    Freedom now from this enforced, coercive, parasitic, anti-white, genocidal diversity. Its a crime, not a ‘policy option’

  52. Design clothing women want…

    OR

    Divide by zero.

  53. I’m more sad that there is enough discussion of Pockets that Dalrock can make multiple posts about the Great Pocket War of 2016.

  54. BillyS says:

    Speaking of lesbian marriage, anyone see the Zales add during football? They slipped in a lesbian couple there. I guess a guy giving another guy a ring wasn’t attractive enough.

    I know where I will not buy a ring at least, should the need ever arise.

  55. Tom C says:

    How about a harmonica-holder that rides low so you can look at your phone all the time?

  56. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Novaseeker: given what Stanton has written, he would not be happy having so many unattached men, because he thinks they are a “cancer”. That is, his point is that unless men are submitted to women in marriage and under a female’s yoke, they are a problem.

    That’s also Dennis Prager’s theory. Prager thinks that, because single men have time on their hands, they’re more likely to engage in extremist politics, conspiracy theories, criminal activity, porn, video games, and other destructive or non-productive pursuits

    Prager says that men need a reason to live. Men seek to fill their time with meaning and purpose. Women and children provide men with that purpose. A purpose that’s productive for society.

    Prager believes that political extremists and conspiracists, men who live for the revolution or to protest or to pursue UFOs or join a militia, are disproportionately single men. They have no families to provide them with purpose, so they seek meaning elsewhere. So yes, single men can be a “cancer” on society unless they are tamed by marrying women and raising families.

    Prager acknowledges that single men can find purpose in positive pursuits — charity work, etc. But on the whole, married men are more likely to have productive pursuits than are single men.

    Untamed (by women) single men are always a potential threat to society.

  57. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Male backlash against Swedish feminism: http://www.thelocal.se/20161114/mansplaining-campaign-faces-sexism-backlash

    Men complain that the term “mansplaining” is demeaning to men.

  58. Lost Patrol says:

    @RPL

    Sweden – ‘Gender-Equal Snow Ploughing’ Plunges Stockholm into Chaos: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/14/gender-equal-snow-removal-policy/

    “The city switched to a “feminist” system of clearing snow last winter but last week’s burst of snow, which threw the city into chaos, has cast doubt on its effectiveness.”

  59. Roger says:

    Doesn’t it get old? I don’t know how many times I’ve heard women complain that they “have” to wear makeup. Do they? Who makes them? I certainly don’t. I find lipstick absolutely repellent, and no woman has ever worn it for my sake.
    Do you recall the movie “Mrs. Doubtfire”? As she’s getting off the bus, she says “Wait until I get my hands on the misogynist bastard who invented high heels!” Huh? How about: “Wait until I get my hands on the misandrist bitch who invented neckties!” I doubt that would elicit any guffaws among the Perpetually Angry Sisterhood. For some reason, Robin Williams thought it necessary to kiss up to that cohort. I’m trying to recall the last time I told a woman to go home and put on some pumps, or to paint her face to look like a vampire, or to wear something that exposes lots of cleavage and creases. I’ve never insisted on any of those things. They can wear whatever the hell they like, and paint themselves however they like, but PLEASE don’t blame me for their choices.

  60. Lyn87 says:

    Roger,

    My last girlfriend before I met my wife put on make-up with a trowel. She just slathered it on, and I didn’t like it at all. She had enough other good qualities to keep it from being a deal-breaker, but I ended up telling her several times that she ought to go easy with it.

    The fact is, she had a “Plain Jane” face, but I was willing to accept that in view of her other qualities. Then one day she didn’t wear any make-up at all. Yikes. I suggested that there was a middle ground between too-much and nothing-at-all, and a little judicious eye-liner would go a long way. The poor girl just didn’t know how to use make-up properly, and everything she did either didn’t help or made her plain looks worse.

    And I’m definitely with you on neck-ties. If there is a more stupid fashion accessory than a colored noose worn tightly around one’s neck, I’m not sure what it would be.

  61. Damn Crackers says:

    @Cecil Henry

    Black women made it to the Moon. Where have you been?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/15/hidden-figures-trailer-octavia-spencer-janelle-monae

  62. feeriker says:

    And I’m definitely with you on neck-ties. If there is a more stupid fashion accessory than a colored noose worn tightly around one’s neck, I’m not sure what it would be.

    My previous employer mandated business dress (for male employees only, of course. Female employees could wear anything they wanted, or nothing at all) every day, everywhere. That was a real problem in the D.C. area during the summer when temperatures soared up into the high 90s (high 30s Celsius) with 90 percent humidity. Having a silk noose around one’s neck made the experience even more miserable, as well as made one look and feel like an idiot. Clients also asked us on more than one occasion “why are you wearing suits and ties when it’s high summer, looking like you’ve just stepped out of the shower fully clotheded?”, to which we could only reply “Ask our bosses. While you’re at it, introduce them to ‘common sense.’ We tried, and failed.”

    Yes, our bosses were either women or manginas.

  63. thedeti says:

    It’s really something to see folks like Glenn Stanton tell us that girls naturally grow into morality, family orientation, and “goodness” even when untrained.

    No.

    What happens to untrained girls is that they grow into women who are narcissistic, bitchy, lazy, rude, unkempt, disorganized, undisciplined, slutty, promiscuous, and entitled.

  64. Anon says:

    Men complain that the term “mansplaining” is demeaning to men.

    ‘Mansplaining’ is just another word for ‘logic’.

  65. Luke says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:
    November 15, 2016 at 4:45 am
    “Novaseeker: given what Stanton has written, he would not be happy having so many unattached men, because he thinks they are a “cancer”. That is, his point is that unless men are submitted to women in marriage and under a female’s yoke, they are a problem.

    That’s also Dennis Prager’s theory. Prager thinks that, because single men have time on their hands, they’re more likely to engage in extremist politics, conspiracy theories, criminal activity, porn, video games, and other destructive or non-productive pursuits

    Prager says that men need a reason to live. Men seek to fill their time with meaning and purpose. Women and children provide men with that purpose. A purpose that’s productive for society.

    Prager believes that political extremists and conspiracists, men who live for the revolution or to protest or to pursue UFOs or join a militia, are disproportionately single men. They have no families to provide them with purpose, so they seek meaning elsewhere. So yes, single men can be a “cancer” on society unless they are tamed by marrying women and raising families.

    Prager acknowledges that single men can find purpose in positive pursuits — charity work, etc. But on the whole, married men are more likely to have productive pursuits than are single men.

    Untamed (by women) single men are always a potential threat to society.”

    Men with even a middle-middle-class income in some numbers might do well to become fathers without the heavy, risky, low-return yoke of a wife. No, not by bastardy. Rather, by paying the $50K or so that it costs to go the egg donor/gestational surrogate route, all without involving a woman in his life, excepting relatives or ones whom he pays for explicit services with a clear end point. I’m a father by that route (excepting that I made the mistake of getting remarried first). Every major decision I make, I do with an eye towards how it affects my kids’ prospects. If I had a town job, all I’d need would be someone to watch my kids while I was at work, with the rest of my time mainly going for them, with at worst equanamity in my heart about the bargain I made.

  66. Pingback: MS: Pockets and Sundry | Morning Sprinkles and Evening Gunfire

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s