Pantyhose sales sag as trends change

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
AMM
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: Thanks for all the fish!

Post by AMM »

crfriend wrote:I routinely wear opaques, even under tr*users, in winter; they provide a nice layer of extra warmth with scarcely any bulk at all
I've tried tights under trousers, but I do feel like they add a feeling of bulk, or at least it's more effort to bend and twist at the waist and hips.

The fact that the crotch and waistband tend to head south on me after a few minutes of moving around doesn't help. And the trouser legs tend to tug on the legs of the tights, which makes the tights pull down even faster than in a skirt.

It's too bad, because I've found a number of brands of tights that I would love if the legs were long enough -- Lands' End has some nice microfiber tights (in boring colors :(, but then, they do advertise that they supply "casual" = boring clothes), but they won't stay up.
crfriend wrote:I get 'round the problem nowadays with most skirts by wearing knee-highs (Thanks John!).
I prefer knee socks, which I can get from Sock Dreams. "Knee-highs" have all the disadvantages (from my point of view) of standard hose, and none of the advantages.

-- AMM
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14433
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Post by crfriend »

AMM wrote:It's too bad, because I've found a number of brands of tights that I would love if the legs were long enough -- Lands' End has some nice microfiber tights (in boring colors :(, but then, they do advertise that they supply "casual" = boring clothes), but they won't stay up.
I'll second you on the "casual == boring" notion. Yawn. (Actually, the first skirt of my wife's that I tried is a Land's End number, and is actually very attractive and comfortable. One of them forms the bottom half of a particularly flashy outfit I wear sometimes. Of course the pattern has since been discontinued.)

Too, and this may not be your cup of tea, shaving one's legs helps keep "nylon migration" to a minimum. The hair acts as a lubricant.
AMM wrote:I prefer knee socks, which I can get from Sock Dreams. "Knee-highs" have all the disadvantages (from my point of view) of standard hose, and none of the advantages.
The ones I have seem to be of a heavier gauge of nylon than regular sheer hose; I can get a couple of months out of a single 8 (pair) pack. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's been my experience.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
AMM
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: Thanks for all the fish!

Post by AMM »

sapphire wrote:[T]he sheer ones are ... the ones that are the most acceptable in a business environment, especially if the woman is in management.

I might add that the dress code expectations for women in management are almost as rigid as those for men.
True.

Fortunately, the number of places where these rigid requirements are in place is slowly but surely decreasing, and even if it starts to increase, it's unlikely to reach the level of the 1950's and 1960's.

To respond to Bob's original post, which was about Hanes' management moaning and groaning about their market dwindling. My answer (to Hanes) was and is that a large part of this particular company's problem is their lack of imagination. They're doing the same thing that the major US automobile manufacturers did: not changing their way of doing business as the market changes.

I think there is (or would be) a much larger market for their hosiery, if they would add to their product line things like:
-- hosiery that isn't "business formal"
-- hosiery that fits other body shapes.
-- hosiery that doesn't fall apart after one wearing.



And now, to get onto my soapbox about women's fashion as a feminist issue:

There's a big asymmetry between men's business formal clothing and women's business formal clothing.

Men's clothing covers the entire body, except for hands and head and is in most places fairly loose; this covers any physical "imperfections", plus making the man look a little bigger. Women's business clothing usually exposes more of their body, especially if they wear a skirt with it. Blouses are usually more revealing (often sheer!), stockings (or knee-highs) are required to be sheer (requiring leg shaving.) In many places, high heels (the kind you can't really walk in) are required.

All these differences tend to display wonen as sex objects in a way that men's clothes don't. In other words, women in business settings are expected to symbolicly "put out" as a condition of participating as "equals." It all fits in with the rest of the double standards, which I won't bore you all by repeating.

To relate this to men in skirts: I came to this realization when I thought about how I might make a business suit for myself with a skirt. I realized that if I were going to be in a formal setting, there is no way I would have a knee-length wool skirt like most women's business suits have. It would be inappropriately sexual. Maybe not exactly Chippendale's, but tending in that direction. And any leg that was visible would have to be covered with opaque socks, not transparent stockings.

(Maybe that is why there is so much resistance to kilts for men in the workplace. They're considered OK as "costumes" for men, or for casual wear, but they don't fit in with the sexual politics of dress in business environments where how you dress is important.)

-- AMM
User avatar
Pythos
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:38 pm
Location: USA west coast

Post by Pythos »

So showing your legs under a knee length cotton skirt is too sexual? WTF? At times a knee length skirt can make one look frumpy really.

AMM, you are really quite limiting on things that really don't matter. Men wear shorts (not in usual business situations ) and there is no thought that they are too sexual. The Croc hunter was never in pants, he was always in shorts.

And if it is too sexual, then I say turn about is fair play. Women have been wearing stuff that drive men crazy, perhaps it is the ladies turn to have to control their natural urges. And don't tell me that women don't act that way, cause I am quite sure they would, if guys were not so ashamed of their bodies.
User avatar
AMM
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: Thanks for all the fish!

Post by AMM »

Pythos wrote:So showing your legs under a knee length cotton skirt is too sexual? WTF? At times a knee length skirt can make one look frumpy really.

AMM, you are really quite limiting on things that really don't matter. Men wear shorts (not in usual business situations ) and there is no thought that they are too sexual.
I'm not limiting anyone. Anyone here can wear whatever they like, as far as I care.

But I think that you, Pythos, like a number of people on the 'net, don't seem to have much understanding of the many jobs, professions, and situations where the consequences of not dressing "professionally" can be severe. If you are in the executive ranks in even a moderately large corporation, or are involved in politics, you either dress "professionally" or you can kiss your career goodbye. If you appear in court, either as an attorney or as a client, how you dress may affect whether you win or lose. If you are in a client-contact position where professional attire is expected, failing to do so for whatever reason can get you fired on the spot. FYI, a cotton skirt would *not* be "professional" in my part of the world, it would have to be worsted wool. And remember, it's not me that's picky, it's the people hiring and firing. And promoting.

You also don't seem to appreciate the subtleties here. It's not about being "sexy". It's about power and subordination, dominance and submission. In my part of the world, if one person has to be partially undressed while the other is fully dressed, the less dressed one is in a psychologically more vulnerable, thus less powerful position. What does it say if one gender has to be essentially naked from the knees down while the other remains fully clothed? (Yes, there are womens' suits with pants -- tailored so as to show the figure -- and even with long skirts, but they are considered less "professional" and some dress codes don't allow them.)

Pythos wrote:And if it is too sexual, then I say turn about is fair play. Women have been wearing stuff that drive men crazy, perhaps it is the ladies turn to have to control their natural urges. And don't tell me that women don't act that way, cause I am quite sure they would, if guys were not so ashamed of their bodies.
If you think this is about sex and "natural urges," you have missed the point entirely.

-- AMM
User avatar
Pythos
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:38 pm
Location: USA west coast

Post by Pythos »

On the contrary, I am in a field that is very power struggle related.

I am in aviation, I am a commercial pilot. Therefore most if not all of the outfits I like to wear are off limits in the world I work. But why is it someones ability is based off what they wear, or how they look. The men currently in charge of my nation dress pretty well in a business sense, and yet they have been one of the most incompetent group of people to command the US.

When will people stop paying attention to the wrapping and pay attention to the person.

Oh, and it was not I that brought up the sexual term, it was you, when you stated a knee length skirt would be too sexual.

"I realized that if I were going to be in a formal setting, there is no way I would have a knee-length wool skirt like most women's business suits have. It would be inappropriately sexual"

I went into a court setting, as a defendant wearing black leggings (Shiny ones), my ankle boots, a white men's dress shirt, and a black jacket.

I won the case.

AMM, I would suggest you look at your earlier posts. At one time you were much less limited in your views.

I hope I don't lose the enthusiasm in the way you seem to have.

My clothing had zero bearing on my case.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14433
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

All in context

Post by crfriend »

AMM wrote:[Quite a few] people on the 'net, don't seem to have much understanding of the many jobs, professions, and situations where the consequences of not dressing "professionally" can be severe. [...] And remember, it's not me that's picky, it's the people hiring and firing. And promoting.
Truth, plain and simple, and put well. I'm not saying that it's right, just that it's the truth in many settings.

Every time one of these "but it's not fair" themes comes up all I want to do is hang my head. I've been there, had the various injustices tossed at me, and shot my mouth off about it "not being fair" (because, put bluntly, it's not); and, time after time, it all came to nothing. I've worked for companies that have had dress codes, and I've worked for companies that clearly needed dress codes -- interestingly, the ones with dress codes tended to be slightly saner places, at least on the surface.

There's a time and a place for everything, and fighting this sort of fight in the same arena as your profession can spell disaster -- not that it necessarily will, just that it can. The place I work for now lacks a dress code (and lots of the employees lack any sense of taste or style) and I refuse to wear a skirt there. Why? Because it would cause friction that need not be present in my work environment; it would cause people to question what I was wearing insted of concentrating on my work (and, more importantly, allow me to concentrate on my work).
AMM wrote:It's not about being "sexy". It's about power and subordination, dominance and submission.
There it is in a nutshell -- power and dominance. Whether we like it or not, that's the way it works. It's wrong, of course, most of us know it and have been on the "receiving end" of it, but we don't have the gold (i.e. we don't make the rules); we just "go along" with it so we can pay our bills and support our families. "He who has the gold makes the rules" is how it works in business; hence, if we wish to remain employed, we play by those rules. At least while we're "on the clock".

There are also subtleties in what society expects, and societies can be notoriously slow to change; constancy is comforting to many people, and challenging that constancy has the power to make many people quite uncomfortable. Dress codes are a codification of that in addition to the rather despicable notions brought up by AMM. It'd be nice to see the playing field leveled out once and for all, especially in regard to gender-based restrictions, but it's not likely to happen in any of our lifetimes; we can gently press for it, but if we shove too hard society will vigourously smite us for it.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Post Reply