My Brooks Brothers button-down oxford shirts are 100% cotton. They are my de facto business wear. (They button on the lady’s side, opposite side of men’s shirt buttons.)
One is pink. Let me know if you are a women’s size 10, I think I’ve worn it twice. It was a gift from my mom, who bless her heart, had her ideas about pink. As a half-Asian, pastels mostly make me look pallorous, especially in office buildings with fluorescent and LED lighting with either “full spectrum” or “daylight” color temperature bulbs.
I’ve done this for years, because the difference in the weight of denim used by default in jeans is another scandal. For shoes, I pick a size two below whatever woman’s size I might buy, and it works. The second-best part is better toe room and arch support (right after finding a loophole in “the game”). .
How is this bad faith? It’s a fair question. There are lots and lots of stupid tariffs and lots of enterprising orgs that have tried to work around them.
One random example: “Shaoxing wine” is a staple of Chinese cooking and is ubiquitous. However China or the US charges a tax on wine from China. What do the suppliers do? Salt it so that it’s no longer “drinkable”, no tarriff.
@kanadanmajava suggesting that clothing manufacturers could make underwear that looks like one gender to get around this is perhaps silly (unless we think there’s suddenly going to be a bunch of folks wearing underwear that doesn’t really work for their respective anatomy), but in “bad faith”?
Intentionally missing the point is a rhetorical tactic some people use to divert from and dismiss the point itself.
The truth is there is underwear marketed to one sex that intentionally resembles the other, and vice versa, but the tax isn’t really on the type of underwear, the tax is on the intended customer.
Unfortunately most brands aren’t great about offering multiple widths of shoe. I struggle to find narrow shoes, buying men’s shoes is much worse. I’m often better off buying stuff made for Asian markets. I also just wear stuff that’s a little too short most of the time. I wear a lot of boots that I can tie up tight. Since I hate heels I get to avoid the worst of it.
On the other hand my partner has the opposite problem and struggles to find basic stuff wide enough and can’t wear any of the cute goth boots he’d really like to wear.
It does make it harder that we both want cute goth stuff and hate bright sporty or rugged brown footwear.
Ostensibly, the shirts that can’t fit on the press need to be “hand ironed”, and cost much more. The existence of such machines make ultracheap shirt fees economically plausible.
This conversation is perhaps the first time I’ve felt fortunate to have such long feet! Well, also grateful that I hardly ever topple over.
I wear women’s 10.5 or so, but narrow. When I was traveling in Asia and needed new shoes there was absolutely nothing in the women’s section for me.
Here in the US I seem to be able to find men’s shoes that fit, at least as well as any of the women’s options.
contains 190mg Na per 30 ml serving.(far too much to sip, so it can be sold in stores that don’t have a liquor license, can be sold in dry counties, etc. Apparently it also lasts a long time, too.)
Still, I’m pretty sure that Great Wall etc have liquor licenses. They still sell salted yellow wine.
It’s also possible to get the point, agree with it, and make another, related point.
It’s also possible to agree that such a misogynistic tax is a bad thing, and to suggest ways manufacturers could get around it. That these ideas might not actually be viable doesn’t mean one doesn’t take the problem seriously.
The current system leaves apparel makers with few enviable options, executives said. They can stop making a product with a higher tariff, charge more for it or make less money on it.
Pearl Izumi, for example, makes a cycling sneaker in China called the Vagabond for men and women, charging $85 for both. But the company pays a tariff of 4.3 percent for the men’s version, and zero for women. As a result, it makes less money on every Vagabond sold to a man.
You’d think that some of these lawsuits would be resolved, by now,
This. There are other interpretations to “I am speaking as an aside to the original point” that do not involve doing so in bad faith. I think you are spot on here with your assessment and it repeats what I said above. It’s also a great example of why we ask that people assume good faith or flag instead, as calling them out publicly instead virtually guarantees a derail.
.
