/fa/ - Fashion

women cannot dress.

>>17376825
I dress like that but I'm a tranny

revival

>>17376838
Hot

cute

>>17376838
well?

>>17379291
we needa see

>>17376825
The women I know only dress this feminine behind "closed doors". Weddings, intimite outings with friends, house parties and so on.
In essence misogynistic retards have branded feminity as weakness. Now all women who want to be taken seriously dress like men. Congratulations male chauvinists you destroyed what you like.
Just look at the judgy bullshit that is going on in this board. Women don't dress sexy enough, women dress too sexy, women this, women that. Leave them alone.
If you want women to dress more feminine again you should smash the patriarchy. Then some of them that like this style will bring it back on their own.

>>17379447
>misogynistic retards have branded feminity as weakness
It is.

>>17379447
>>17379497
>>radical extreme left feminism has branded feminity as weakness
Fixed for you.
They are adamant that women adopt traditional male personas and values.

>>17379542
feminity is in fact weakness and if you think otherwise fucking blind.

>>17379542
femininity is in fact weakness and if you think otherwise you are fucking blind.

>>17379542
second wave feminism died like 20 years ago boomer, the only people who think what you think are "feminists" invented by incels as an explanation for why "roasties" won't have sex with them

>>17379549
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

>>17379553
and did you read the article, dumb phone poster

all that bra burning army boots sex bad stuff is second wave, from the vietnam war era

>>17379555
>bra burning army boots sex bad stuff
No one was talking about that

>>17379557
>They are adamant that women adopt traditional male personas and values.

>>17379559
>They are adamant that women adopt traditional male personas and values
Yes, that has nothing to do with:
>bra burning army boots sex bad

>>17379562
You have no idea what you're talking about

>>17379564
No, you.

>>17379562
Those have everything to do with each other.
>>17379555
>and did you read the article, dumb phone poster
Answer that anon's question please.

>>17379602
Adopting masculine personas and values has nothing to do with burning bras and wearing a fashion article. There is nothing masculine about burning a bra or making a wardrobe change. In fact, protests are not even masculine, men don't 'protest', they change what they want to change using their power.

I don't have to 'read the article' anon was implying it was only second wave feminism which was making women adopt male social roles, except feminism has always been about that. Feminism has always been about 'equality' and 'raising' women to the status of men. That's what 'equality' between men and women means.

>>17379621
You can make a woman equal in worth to a man without making her a man.
That realization is a big difference between second and third wave. Second wavers rejected feminity (that's what burning the bras was about) while third wave feminists don't (they even wear corsets because they like them)
Anons really need to get out and talk to a woman from time to time...

>>17376825
Because most women are no longer being brainwashed into objectifying themselves. This "conservative" look is mostly from the 50's when the woman was supposed to look like a piece of furniture or kitchen appliance (matching dress with window drapes was common). Ridiculed when wanting agency, constantly indebted to the poor, hard working middle class man they lived infantilised lives. Most women know or understand this history, and try to signal that by not dressing like that, unless they themselves still haven't figured this out or grew up in a violent, patriarchal society where differing from this norm would include punishment.

>>17379632
>You can make a woman equal in worth to a man without making her a man.
Then they're not equal. Do you even know what the word 'equality' means? It means being the same.
>they even wear corsets because they like them
This has nothing to do with whether a woman is a feminist or not.
>Anons really need to get out and talk to a woman from time to time...
Most women don't call themselves feminists today. I've only met a handful that really care about feminism. My mother certainly doesn't nor do my sisters, because they are actually hard workers and they don't care about ideology peddled by middle class urban intellectualists.

Case closed.
The 50s trad wife will never come back and that's a good thing.
The look might return when it no longer has a patriarchal connotation, just like cottagecore today.

>>17379663
The 50s trad wife was on average better educated, far wealthier, more cultured, and had a higher life rating than women today.

>>17379653
>Anon is confused about equality
Four quarters is equal to one dollar bill, they are not the same thing.
>This has nothing to do with whether a woman is a feminist or not.
Correct. It has to do with second vs third wave feminism. Wearing a corset meshes well with third wave feminism. You wouldn't catch a second wave bra burner in a corset. At least not in public ;)

>>17379632
>Anons really need to get out and talk to a woman from time to time...
But andrew tate said girls are yucky

>>17379669
[citation needed]

>>17379672
>Four quarters is equal to one dollar bill, they are not the same thing.
No they are not equal, they can equal in measured monetary price but not equal in value. For example, a dollar bill is useless to pay the bus fare whereas a quarter is useful. They are by definition 'unequal'.
>You wouldn't catch a second wave bra burner in a corset. At least not in public
Not every second wave feminist was a bra burner, likewise not every feminist today thinks wearing corsets is ok. The two are equally stupid, because bras were invented by women and provide support, and the corset was invented by a woman too and provides support for posture.
>>17379684
>citation needed
My knowledge of educational standards, the economy at the time, the rates of depression, and the culture at that time.

>>17376825
What happened to this thread discussion? It's just now an argument regarding feminism.

>>17379621
>men don't 'protest', they change what they want to change using their power.
me when im a man and i activate my man powers so mcdonals isnt closed anymore nd i can get yummy snakc
awesome bait anon, but if it wasnt bait it is the stupidest thing ive read in a long time
>>17379653
>My mother certainly doesn't nor do my sisters
anon this is just sad... plz go outside
>>17379669
ok nvm its gotta be bait
>>17379688
you love goalposts fr, i cant even see them anymore
>>17379695
welcome to /fa/shion

>>17379740
This post said nothing of substance.

>>17379688
>equal in measured monetary price but not equal in value
Jesse. What the fuck are you talking about?
>For example, a dollar bill is useless to pay the bus fare whereas a quarter is useful.
Just like a man isn't useful when you want to breastfeed and a woman isn't useful when you want to haul heavy stuff.
We shouldn't value one of the sexes less than the other -> Different but equal.
>My knowledge
Source: It came to me in a dream.
People in the 50s had a lot more buying power. Most people could actually support a large family with only one person working. Very few people can do that today. You have control for that by comparing people of equal buying power otherwise you're just saying that being rich is better than being poor...
>>17379695
>What happened to this thread discussion? It's just now an argument regarding feminism.
What did you expect? If you want to know why women don't dress like this anymore you have to talk about feminism. Whatever your position regarding it is you can't deny that the reason women don't dress like this anymore has to do with feminism.

>>17376825
Because its expensive, it attracts unwanted attention, and its not in style.

>>17380093
>What the fuck are you talking about?
Reread the example I gave, Walt.
>Just like a man isn't useful when you want to breastfeed and a woman isn't useful when you want to haul heavy stuff.
This implies different value and inequality .
>We shouldn't value one of the sexes less than the other
No but we can make quantitive value judgments on the sexes, and each sex is more or less valuable depending on what the situation calls for.
>People in the 50s had a lot more buying power
So you're just confirming what I already. Certainly being rich is better than being poor, but the quality of wife for the fabled 50s housewife is certainly a lot more better than today. Not having to work is privilege, in the old days it was only the peasentry that 'worked'. Of course the house wife still worked, domestic duties are certainly work—but quality of life, education, culture used to be far better for women and of course men as well.

>>17381468
>This implies different value and inequality .
Equal but different is possible.
>quality of wife for the fabled 50s housewife is certainly a lot more better than today.
We can agree on 'There was a lot of economic stability to be had if you were willing to submit to your husband.'
>quality of life
If you wanted to be a mother and wife, sure. If you didn't not at all. Women couldn't chose.
>education
No. There was no real access to higher education for women.
>culture
Largely dependant on your husband. If he didn't give a shit about it there was no way to participate in culture.

But yes. Being rich is better than being poor. Amazing analysis Anon.

>>17382070
>Equal but different is possible.
If two quantities are different then they are not equal.
>We can agree on 'There was a lot of economic stability to be had if you were willing to submit to your husband.'
There was economic stability, full stop.
>If you didn't not at all. Women couldn't chose.
Neither women or men have the freedom 'choose' to have a job. It's an economic necessity. Women have been active in the workforce ever since the industrial revolution, which happened a whole century ago by the time the 1950s came.
>No. There was no real access to higher education for women.
Stop spreading around bullshit. In the United States the percentage of adults with 4 year degrees in 1952 was 8.3% for men and 5.8% for women. Women are not barred from higher education. Their only limit is the capacity of their mind.
>Largely dependant on your husband.
Tell that to every lesbian author ever, lol.

Stop being retarded, thank you.

>>17376825
>Why can't women dress like this more often?
Because it's December you dumb fuck.

>>17382096
it's summer in australia

>>17382078
>If two quantities are different then they are not equal.
Are you too autistic to understand the difference between people and numbers? Genuine question.
>>17382078
>Neither women or men have the freedom 'choose' to have a job. It's an economic necessity.
You got to decide where to work. As a man.
> Women have been active in the workforce ever since the industrial revolution
Ther have always worked, but mostly in tasks that didn't win them a wage. Like child or elderly care, housework and so on. That's the problem. An economic base was denied to almost all of them.
>In the United States the percentage of adults with 4 year degrees in 1952 was 8.3% for men and 5.8% for women.
That's a significant difference. The overwhelming majority of the economy was male. The wealth was held by men.

>>17382130
>Are you too autistic to understand the difference between people and numbers?
Are you too retarded to understand that things that are different cannot be equal?
>You got to decide where to work
Deciding where to work is a privilege. People who work jobs are at the mercy of the market.
>Ther have always worked, but mostly in tasks that didn't win them a wage
No, during the industrial revolution women worked wage labor.
>An economic base was denied to almost all of them.
No, it wasn't. Poor women have always worked wage labor.
>That's a significant difference.
No it isn't, but that's subjective.
>The overwhelming majority of the economy was male
No it isn't and wasn't, assuming women did not work—the economy isn't only production but also consumption. However unmarried women have always been working in significant numbers.
>The wealth was held by men.
It still is, even though women attend university more than men do today. This is because men and women have different drives. They are not equal, they never have been, and they never will be.

>>17379447
>male chauvinists
lefties
>smash the patriarchy
lefties

>>17379549
>2+2=4
>boomer

>>17376825
this is a modern promiscuous outfit, retard
>knees showing
>torso showing
>fabric looks like paper
>ugly bead decorations
we need to retvrn to the 50s if you want a similar flavor of femininity

>>17379447
>>17379542
It was both, people are retarded.
Femininity isn't weakness, it's just that clothing practical for physical "masculine" jobs is masculine, a dress and heels would not be practical.

>>17382426
femininity is LITERALLY weakness. i will die on that hill.

Each and every one of you needs meds.

>>17376825
Girls should dress like this

Probably because men larp as wanting a woman in conservative dress but give all their attention and neetbux to women who dress for attention rather than style.

I just want everyone to dress the way they like. To be themselves.

>>17382625
Yes.

>>17379643
I agree that some women may want to avoid the style for this reason but this is like saying that men won’t dress in the neofolk style because it harkens back to an age when they were viewed as largely expendable by the state and sociologists and worked long hours with few amenities and the expectation that around 4-10 other souls be completely dependent on them and those people will die if they don’t work today.

I still think it looks nice regardless and aim to emulate it.

>>17376825
what is this style of dress called?

>>17376825
Why can’t men dress like this more often?

>>17376825
because that looks like shit, op.

because its not comfortable, next?

>>17379643
Look guys, its Captain Save-a-Hoe. Keep repeating this and maybe some feminist will eventually take pity on you and sleep with you.

>>17376838
Please have a penis.

All the simps ITT. Femininity is weakness. We only enjoy looking at weak women in dressed because that's what biology forces us to like. For instance I would ruin >>17385397 asshole if you get my metaphor.

>>17382426
Agreed.

>>17382453
>>17382604
>>17382631
Mal is a goddess

>>17376825
Theyre ugly now and you need to be attractive to dress like that

>>17379447
>women cut their hair shirt die it and get bull dyke nose rings not becuase they are fitting into radical feminism scene, but because someone said women are weak
Wrong so wrong

Woman don’t dress like that cuz they have nowhere fancy to go… wake up and stop dreaming.

>>17379669
What's a "life rating"?

>>17388358
quality of life

Women don't dress like OP's pic because the fit is fugly. As the kids would say, it's "cheugy". I mean, certain elements are fine, I enjoy a good crop top/skirt combo, but the hoity toity lace and florals with bedazzled collar and waistband, it's just, bleh. I feel like this was maybe sort of in in like, I dunno, the 2010's.

>>17379669
bullshit

>better educated
only 1.2% of women in America went to college in the 50s

>far wealthier
Women couldn't open bank accounts or credit cards in the 50s

>more cultured
meaningless term when comparing across generations

>a higher life rating
Without a study/source cited here any talk of a "rating" is 100% bullshit.

You've had a significant lack of women in your life so you project your own desires onto an older generation that you don't understand and then complain when people disagree with your fantasy. Pathetic. Go talk to your grandmother. You're a piece of shit but I bet she loves you anyway. Learn from her. Do better.

>>17389045
the fifties sound like a really great time

>>17389050
weak post.

gonna make a sandwich comment next?

>>17389045
based post

>>17389045
>bullshit
your post is bullshit
>only 1.2% of women in America went to college in the 50s
I already posted the statistics here >>17382078
>Stop spreading around bullshit. In the United States the percentage of adults with 4 year degrees in 1952 was 8.3% for men and 5.8% for women
>Women couldn't open bank accounts or credit cards in the 50s
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA where from your ass did you pull that infromation from. women could open bank accounts since the 19th century in america LMAO. especially women who owned businesses. here's a news clipping from the 1920s of the increase in influx of women opening bank accounts
are you trying to say that women could be legally discriminated against opening bank accounts? yeah that's true but so can literally everyone LOL.
>meaningless term when comparing across generations
>people, including women being more cultured is meaningless
sure pal
>Without a study/source cited here any talk of a "rating" is 100% bullshit.
motherfucker, the fact that purchasing power was much higher in the 50s is a fact.
>You've had a significant lack of women in your life so you project your
the only one projecting here is you buddy. you have no women in your life so you're pulling 'facts' out of your ass.

you're a piece of shit, dumb autistic anime poster who has no idea of what reality was like, and likes to spread propaganda they learned from stupid internet articles online. you don't know jack shit, unironically kill yourself. people as stupid as you should have no right spreading their opinions and garbage.

>>17389045
>>17389094
DUMB. MOTHERUCKER.

>US, 1839: Mississippi allows women to own property in their own names. It is the first state to do so.

>US, 1844: Married women in Maine become the first in the US to win the right to “separate economy”.

>US, 1862: California passed a law that established a state savings and loan industry that also guaranteed that a woman who made deposits in her own name was entitled to keep control of the money.

>US, 1919: First Women’s Bank of Tennessee (Clarksville) opens to cater to women customers only.

>>17389045
>or credit cards in the 50s
credit cards didn't even exist in 'the 50s' retard. the first one came out in 1958. dumb anime poster

>>17389092
It's a bullshit post and you are all retarded.

>>17382078
Are you guys restarted? A dollar and four quarters are equal in value. Equality requires a context. You can have a suitcase full of money that is equal in value with your house at a certain point in time. What the fuck are you even arguing about. Metaphors are supposed to make a concept more tangible, but if you analyse them and focus into them all metaphors break. You are annoying as fuck. Women are obviously more valuable to men than most of things in life, you dress well and make money to have pussy and have the attention of pussy. Without women you turn into rapey pajeet. And get into some of the economics basics ffs, formal logic too. Then you LL get why u don't get any attention. Fgts

>>17376831
>>17376838
>>17379447
This is the facts. Women want gender equality. They don't want to be "feminine". They want to sue men for sexual harassment if they compliment their appearance. Trannies on the other hand wouldn't exist if both genders were truly equal. They need to cover themselves in femininity to make up for their natural masculinity and are validated by compliments.
Conclusion: men are better than women at being women.

>>17390494
i would like to study you in a lab

>>17376825
weather and obesity

>>17376825
its like -1 degree outside bro

>>17390494
>Women want gender equality.
Yes.
>They don't want to be "feminine".
Depends. Some want to be feminine some don't. Neither like to be forced to be feminine.
>They want to sue men for sexual harassment if they compliment their appearance.
Nope. They want to not be sexually harassed. "I like your sweater, it really fits your hair" will not land you in HR.
>Trannies on the other hand wouldn't exist if both genders were truly equal.
?
They need to cover themselves in femininity to make up for their natural masculinity and are validated by compliments.
??
>Conclusion: men are better than women at being women.
???
>>17390544
>i would like to study you in a lab
I wanna go second.