|
Grex > Femme > #109: Disadvantages of being female | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 30 of 71:
| 
Sep 25 13:17 UTC 1999 |
Both, I think.
|
iggy
|
|
response 31 of 71:
|
Sep 30 00:44 UTC 1999 |
if i dont like the sleeve length, i just roll 'em up
to my elbow.
|
otter
|
|
response 32 of 71:
|
Oct 18 23:26 UTC 1999 |
I suppose sleeve length would be a problem for someone who is as long of
limb as I, but I hadn't noticed. Hmmm. I have a broad back and large
breasts, so by the time a blouse is large enough to fit, sleeve length
has taken care of itself. ref #27: Mens' suits, even the summer ones,
tend to contain some wool in the blend. Great for durability.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 33 of 71:
|
Oct 19 17:13 UTC 1999 |
What drives me nuts is the fact that all the sleeves/hems/etc are way
too long for me. I don't sew, and I find myself being frustrated by the fact
that short-legged short-armed women are always looking like they're int
their mother's (or father's ) clothes.... since I am rather largebodied,
I can't get away with buying a petite or boy's clothes or any of the other
solutions that others have proposed.
|
keesan
|
|
response 34 of 71:
|
Oct 19 20:21 UTC 1999 |
I wish some manufacturer would start selling clothing designed not only for
some particular dimension but for ratios of dimensions - i. e., measure the
waist but specify if you are skinny, 'normal' or fat so that the lengths would
come out right, too. I always have a choice of too short or too wide. Is
there any clothing manufacturer that specifically designs for thin people,
like there are for 'big' people?
Tall and Petite only fit people with standard amounts of fat.
|
swa
|
|
response 35 of 71:
|
Oct 24 20:41 UTC 1999 |
Right... it seems like the designers could figure out that different people
are different, and design clothes accordingly. Petite clothes fit me
sometimes -- I'm short and have a standard amount of fat, I guess -- but I
have short legs and long arms compared to most people my "size". The
result is pants that are too long, and sleeves that are too short
(actually, I can buy baggy shirts a size or so too big and the sleeves
will fit). Grr. I'm definitely going to have to expand my sewing skills.
I've been realizing that practically all my jeans are threadbare right
now, but the idea of shopping for more jeans and spending hours trying to
find something that fits me around the waist *and* hips, isn't too ugly or
too tight, and ideally isn't too long (though I can hem if I have to)
isn't all that appealing.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 36 of 71:
|
Oct 26 02:05 UTC 1999 |
You might want to try Eddie Bauer. They have jeans in different lengths.
Petite, regular and tall I think. If they're not in the store you can
order them, and I think if you order directly from the store then
shipping is free (they have a red phone that automatically connects to
the catalog if what you need is not available in the store). As I recall
they were not expensive as far as jeans go. Less than $30?
I've also had good results with J. Crew, but I am not sure how they work
for short-legged people. I have the opposite problem. I'm like all legs.
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 71:
|
Oct 29 17:37 UTC 1999 |
It takes maybe ten minutes to hem a pair of pants. You need a pair of
scissors, a needle, and thread. I can give lessons. Lengthening sleeves is
more of a problem.
|
clees
|
|
response 38 of 71:
|
Nov 1 08:55 UTC 1999 |
It's not only that, but if you are skinny and very long legged pants
always tend to be too wide. Any pair of pants hangs like a bag of
potatoes around my buttocks, as like to call it.
No, whistling ladies for looking at my butt unfortunately.
|
ponder
|
|
response 39 of 71:
|
Nov 4 23:29 UTC 1999 |
I think that whatever disadvantages there may be are most likely
outweighed by the advantages. People just spend too much time looking at
the downside. :p
|
swa
|
|
response 40 of 71:
|
Nov 9 01:34 UTC 1999 |
Re 36: Cool, I shall have to check them out. Thanks.
Re 37: I can hand-sew, in theory, but tend to make clumsy large stitches.
On the other hand, I dont' know how big a deal that is if it's my *ankles*
that will be badly stitched...
|
mta
|
|
response 41 of 71:
|
Dec 31 21:32 UTC 1999 |
I'll in all, I prefer being a woman. We may not have all the cultural perqs
yet, but we seem to have most of the biological ones. ;)
|
clees
|
|
response 42 of 71:
|
Jan 2 01:23 UTC 2000 |
At least you can bear children, which we can't unfortunately.
|
mta
|
|
response 43 of 71:
|
Jan 2 12:58 UTC 2000 |
That's the biggy, for me. I may be past that in this lifetime, but I'm
grateful to have done so.
Women, on the whole, also have a greater life span and a greater pain
threshhold. Not bad perqs if you ask me. ;)
|
clees
|
|
response 44 of 71:
|
Jan 3 13:23 UTC 2000 |
To think society refers to women as the weaker gender.
Yeah, right!
If men would have to bear children...
nah... we cannot cope with that. It's too much.
|
mta
|
|
response 45 of 71:
|
Jan 3 14:44 UTC 2000 |
There's a joke in circulation on the net that postulates that labour pains
would kill most men. I doubt that's true -- but it certainly seems to be the
case that, on the whole, women are better suited to it.
Then again, what do I know. My labours were an endorphin high and lots of
fun.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 46 of 71:
|
Jan 4 19:52 UTC 2000 |
For that matter, that much fun might kill some of us men. I guess we'll just
never know.... :)
|
mta
|
|
response 47 of 71:
|
Jan 5 00:13 UTC 2000 |
<laugh>
|
clees
|
|
response 48 of 71:
|
Jan 10 00:11 UTC 2000 |
I guess within a decade it'll be possible ofr men to have children, not by
giving birth like women but surgically. In theory men can make a placenta in
the abdominal membrane.
Ten years ago I was seriously contemplating on this...nowadays...?
I wouldn't know whether men's glands would be able tp produce all the required
hormones, though, like oxitocyn or oestrogene (hmmm, methink we actually do,
but in minor quantities).
|
orinoco
|
|
response 49 of 71:
|
Jan 10 02:24 UTC 2000 |
<raises an eyebrow>
Isn't having a womb sort of an important part of the process?
|
gypsi
|
|
response 50 of 71:
|
Jan 10 04:21 UTC 2000 |
I seriously can't think, scientifically, how it would be possible for a man
to carry a developing child to term. You need certain hormones in
*abundance*, plus a space to develop the child. Men aren't built to expand
and carry a fetus. Look at your pelvic structure.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 51 of 71:
|
Jan 10 15:50 UTC 2000 |
True. I read an article on this. It's very unlikely we'll see pregnant
males waddling around.
|
clees
|
|
response 52 of 71:
|
Jan 11 09:27 UTC 2000 |
In that case, I will develop womb envy, I guess, haha.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 53 of 71:
|
Jan 11 23:50 UTC 2000 |
I think there's an item for that in here too, somewhere.
|
keesan
|
|
response 54 of 71:
|
Jan 12 06:28 UTC 2000 |
Some day robots and computres will take over hard jobs like pregnancy.
|