Someone commented to me today that her impression was that women’s clothing wasn’t designed to last as long as men’s clothing.
Fashions change, says I; they’re always coming out with new lines and colors.
No, she says: women’s clothing is actually made to last less long. Men’s seams are double-stitched and women’s single-stitched. A pair of men’s pants can last for years while women’s last only a few months.
Is this, the Event Stitch Horizon, true?
Well, the one is related to the other. Women’s clothing goes through more noticable style changes AND it doesn’t last as long. And unless you shop at Nordstrom’s, you have to pay extra to get it altered, if it can be done at all.
I remember reading than the fashion for sheer stockings was invented right after nylons, because nylon stockings were orginally so tough they lasted for years. Women were convinced to buy thinner stockings so that they would be forced to constantly replace them.
I contend that if womans’ clothes don’t last as long as mens it is because they (women) have demanded it in the market (clothes that last don’t sell).
It could be that they sell, but don’t fetch a price sufficient to justify their additional manufacturing cost.
Maybe this says more than I want it to about me as a husband, but most of my wife’s clothes are pretty old, and in pretty good shape. In fact, I end up buying clothes more often because, uh, crotches don’t seem to last that long with me.
Well … it’s not evil marketers, women generally get less durable clothes because they vote their dollars and purchase these clothes. Thicker, more rugged fabrics, and double seamed construction are not generally conducive to the clothes being lightweight or “draping” the light, clingy way that many women seem to like, that accentuate their shape more and/or are more sensually pleasing to wear.
No hard facts here, but i wouldn’t be surprised if textile companies haven’t decided to go that extra mile for their Male customers based on complaints.
I’m sure it’s no secret that males are tougher on their garments (even the really fancy ones)–the industry has no doubt caught on.
We haven’t even established the factual answer to the OP’s question: namely, Are women’s clothes made to be less durable than men’s?
Unsupported arguments ab ano that less durable clothing must be what female customers really want are, to say the least, premature.
My only contribution here is that the flannel shirts I buy in the men’s department last me 2 or 3 times longer than the ones I buy in the women’s department. Since it’s the same person wearing the two types of flannel shirts, perhaps that is a valid comparison?
The OP is a unspupported argument also. This just goes into another way it could be proven. If we could establish that women do infact demand such clothes, or men demand more durable clothes (which is established in fact with Levies in the mining towns), all we would then have to establish that marketers fill such demands.
I don’t know that the OP has a documentable “right” answer, but I do know that my MIL, who always loved to sew, would never sew clothes for boys (even though she had five of them), but only girls. She said that boys’ clothes, with their sturdier fabrics and triple-stitched seams were much harder to sew.
If you make a direct comparison, like for like, I think you’ll find no difference.
IOW, Womens’ Levi brand 501 jeans and mens’ Levi brand 501 jeans are made from the same fabric, same thread, same stitching pattern, etc.
Likewise, my mens Hanes bikini-style undies (for wear under shorts in the summer) are the same fabric weight & stitching as my wife’s Hanes girl-undies. In fact, unless hers have some decorative border or pattern, it’s hard to tell hers from mine after they come out of the dryer. They seem to last equally well too.
Now when you compare non-like, of course you get differences. Is a women’s DKNY silk blouse going to last less well than a men’s Carhardtt heavy flannel work shirt? Of course it is. What about a cheap TJ Maxx polyester copy of the DKNY blouse vs the same Carhardtt shirt? The comparison is almost laughable. Cheap knockoffs are often good for only one or two wearings / washings before failing.
So it seems to me the OP’s question, at least in one interpretation, is mere tautolgy: “Many women on many occasions wear lighter, more decorative, or even near-disposable, clothes than their male counterparts. Are these lighter clothes less durable?”
Well, yes, by the definition of the question.
Now as to Broomstick’s flannel shirts, I wonder about the fabric weight. I have flannel shirts ranging from flimsy to thick-and-stiff. They’re all from the same catalog & vary from from 4 oz fabric to 10 oz fabric. One wears out, the other wears like iron. But those shirts are not a true like-for-like comparison.
Finally, given the entire universe of clothes for women, and for men, how do those Venn daigrams overlap for durabillity? IMHO:
So for a woman, her experience with clothing durabliity depends a lot on where in that diagram she shops. Does she live in gowns & silk blouses, or on TJ Maxx seconds, or does she shop at Tractor Supply where Carhardtt & Levi are the only brands on offer?
This breakdown is pure opinion, and worth 100% of what you paid for it.
The comparison between men’s and women’s clothing is usually made in the arena of business clothes. Women’s suit jackets, specifically, ought to be comparable to men’s, but they’re not: at every price point, they’re less sturdily sewn – and less carefully sewn – than the men’s jackets. A top-notch women’s suit jacket from Macy’s may have superior fabric and styling, but the sewing wouldn’t pass muster anywhere in the men’s department – 'cept maybe Alfani.
That’s a very good point.
However, it’s MUCH harder to find heavyweight flannel shirts in the women’s department than the men’s department (The flip side of why it’s so hard to find sequins and feather boas on the men’s racks, I guess). What’s offered to women is frequently not an exact comparison.
Of course, the fact that in our society it’s OK for woman to buy and wear a man’s heavy-duty flannel shirt probably factors in here somewhere. Maybe they aren’t offered in the women’s department because all the women looking for them are already riffling the racks over by in the men’s section?
Moved to IMHO.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
My understanding is that tougher nylons are available, but they’re thicker and not as sheer, so they don’t look as good (to men or women) and most women don’t buy them.
Oh, yeah, that explains why no one ever buys tights anymore…
… oh, wait, haven’t opaque tights become fashionable lately?
Nope, doesn’t hold water. Some people like sheer nylons, some don’t. In particular, older women, those with varicose veins, and anyone with scars on their legs don’t like sheer. That’s actually a significant number of women out there, which is why heavier nylons/tights/etc. are still available.
I started wearing men’s (bikini) underwear years ago when I discovered quite by accident that they don’t ride up like women’s underwear. The only down side (other than no pretty colors) is that they wear out much faster than women’s.