26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women”TMs clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman”TMs without tailoring.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Clothing manufacturers actually pay attention to the female form, and she can get things that fit those contours if she wants, or things that are more modest if she wants, but right off the rack, it will generally fit, provided she’s not hugely overweight (a problem that plagues both men and women).

Me? I’m a relatively tall, thin male. Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find shirts that dont’ leave me swimming in a sea of fabric by manufacturers that think the male body is either a rectangle from shoulder to waist, or worse, expects a beer gut? I usually have to alter them myself or special order things.

Seriously, take a look at the T-shirt templates on, say, cafepress.com. Note the women’s shirts, which more or less follow the curves of a woman’s body. Now, look at the one for men, which is not just nearly square, but actually gets wider at the bottom. You call that “well fit”? I’m using these shirts as an example because nearly ALL shirts available to men are like this — and this goes for button-downs as well, by the way.

Pants are just as bad. Everywhere I look, pants for 40 inch waists and 30 inch legs. Must be an awful lot of short, fat men walking around, or at least that’s what the manufacturers seem to think. As someone who is neither, finding pants that actually fit is a nightmare. Women have more choices than they could possibly wear in a lifetime, in any style of fit they want.

The only possible rationale I can think of for your statement is that manufacturers have to anticipate a wider range for women — a 5′5″ tall, 120 pound woman may have small or large breasts, small or large hips, and all these possibly combinations greatly increases the various sizes of the clothes that must be made for a proper fit. I freely grant this — but at least these haberdashers dont’ assume you’re all short, or fat, or both.

I have my steel toe boots (sadly now so worn they are coming apart) that I wear when I can’t wear my birkenstock sandals, black flats, and thats it. I do regret not owning a (as in one) dressier pair of sandals, so that I could wear shorter pants or dresses or something in the summer without my black socks and shoes.

My lack of shoes still offends my (now ex) boss.

A while back, I was working setting up networks for a new hospital data center and associated hospitals. The main focus of the project was writing and installing a new set of business applications for the hospitals, and the software team was about 75% female. We had just set up the data center and the mail slot cabinet was put up. It was a 4′ by 4′ cabinet with about 100 slots in it. One of the women commented that if she took every other shelf out it would be perfect for storing her shoes. This met with general assent. I piped up and said, “That’s 50 pairs of shoes! What the hell do you need 50 pairs of shoes for?”

They all jumped on me. “You’re a guy, what do you know? All you need is a pair of black shoes and a pair of brown shoes and you’re all set!” I asked, “What are you talking about?” The one woman said, “What, you need more shoes than that?” I said, “No, not that - I’m wondering why I’d need a pair of brown shoes.”

I’ve got a pair of army surplus black boots that I use for hiking and that, when polished and shined up, pass for dress shoes if you don’t look close and realize what they actually are. I’ve got a pair of sneakers for when my feet are sore and I don’t feel like wearing my boots to work (I’m not supposed to wear sneakers at work - too bad for them). I’ve got an old pair of sneakers for the gym. And that’s it. I should probably buy an actual pair of black dress shoes. The concept that my shoes should be colored to match any other article of clothing that I wear just seems so odd….

And regarding 26… I’m not exactly disagreeing, but I think mens clothing tends towards more expensive (not cheaper), but when you pay that, it is better constructed. I can get a blouse for 20$ where I’d pay 55$ for a mens shirt, but the blouse might not last me more than a season (I just lost my top button and am holding the top closed with a paperclip) where as the mens shirt (provided I don’t work in an industrial environment, like, say, a steel mill) is more likely to last me 5 or 6 years, minimum. By collalary, spending more on my girly-dress clothes does not seem to equate the longer lasting (or if it does, the price gap is much larger from 20$ blouse to 200$ blouse, not a 50$ man-shirt).

It’s odd… womens clothing yes, has more variety, but we are expected to change our plumage on a regular basis. As long as a guy doesn’t actually wear the exact same sportcoat, every day (EVERY DAY) for the next 12 years, coffee stains and all (we have several profs here with this “style”), no one will notice. If I wear the same 5 blouses and the same five pants all year long, any female coworkers will notice. The men here have no clue. Hell, I’ve had a female boss comment that I only owned one pair of black flats (gasp!) and wore them, every day, for three years.

CK, if you ever start that store, I will be there on opening day.

Swiping suggestions from a few people (but mainly Denise), here’s what “the clothing section” of the list currently says:

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.

I’m not sure about limiting #25 to just work clothing.

It seems to me that even the typical unofficial uniforms of college students - or, for that matter, the typical outfits I see many people wearing in groceries, bus stops, etc - leaves women having to worry about being “dressed like a slut” or, alternatively, “looking like a prude,” while men are entirely free of these concerns. There are message-free outfits for college women, but it’s still something women have to think about and consciously choose, whereas the default outfit for men is relatively message-free.

“My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. Further, I do not have to worry about the message my work clothing sends about my sexual availability or political leanings.”

Generally speaking, men’s chest size that scales with shoulder breadth, the major variation in pants size in the waist rather than the hips, and young and old men can wear the same shirt and pants ensemble reasonably; these are not the case for women. Not only must we navigate the fashions for clothing that sends the message we want to send (professional or laidback, matronly or rebellious) and that fits our age range (I do not want to dress like my grandmother, nor she like I), I must then either search for the one pair of pants that fits my hips (or the shirt that fits both my shoulders and breasts) or have the garment tailored (spending even more money). I have proposed that women’s pants should be sold on a similar measurement system as mens’ with an additional hip measurement. Sadly, I doubt such a system would be adopted, leaving us with the arcane size range of 0-3x or 28W, depending on the store.

My wardrobe is a lot better made and will sustain usage in a given price range.

Roxanne felt that Allie’s insistence that the front desk women wear skirts was a bad idea because they had been told they wanted pants.

The other team went with kind of a chic standardized uniform for both men and women through all of the staff positions - and won.

Glad to hear that the bozo judge in Seattle wasn’t re-elected. I was flabbergasted that the weekly had endorsed her.

Just imagine all the fuss and money we would save! Not to mention the psychological impact of removing such a huge part of the appearance-factor.

Apparently a national Oracle database consulting group called Burleson Consulting feels that the only way a woman consultatnt can look professional is if she lacks ‘facial hair’, ‘armpit hair’ and the dress code includes a skirts only clause.

Here’s a link to this absurdity, including what this idiot clearly thinks is a humorous little pictorial about women’s grooming:

http://www.dba-oracle.com/dress_code.htm