Penis news is torn between hating capitalism and adoring genderwoowoo

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from (archive.vn)

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 15 insightful - 10 fun15 insightful - 9 fun16 insightful - 10 fun -  (12 children)

Another said: “I mean it’s definitely nice to have an option since I never have one, but does suck that the ‘them’ section is a photo of multiple people instead of a non-binary model.”

Okay I'll bite. Does that mean there can never be photographs with multiple non-binary people in them? Does using "they" correctly to refer to a group of NBs somehow constitute invalidation? /s

[–]fuck_reddit 9 insightful - 10 fun9 insightful - 9 fun10 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

Of course not, non-binary people are too narcissistic for there to be more than one per photo!

[–]8bitgay 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I'm more interested about the "never have one" claim.

So, uh, what's stopping you from buying clothing from male or female sections? They have an incredibly limiting view on gender norms.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

And isn't the main difference nowadays the body shape the clothes makers had in mind? Like, men's and women's jeans are very similar except men get pockets and the way they're designed to fit on the body. A lot of women's tops take breasts into account wheras men's shirts don't, men's underwear is designed for something to be there while women's underwear isn't. The sexual dimorphism of humans is the number one reason to keep separated clothing sections or at least labels

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I almost commented on this as well, for the same reasons as both of you. I was buying stuff from both departments by the time I was a teenager. This is not that hard.

To have an NB section they'd have to either mix everything all together or duplicate their inventory just to have an extra section for The Specials™.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

It would be easy in online stores, just have the NB "section" include the ugliest items from the men's and women's sections

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

That'd be a way to move some old stock, too. Brilliant.

[–]8bitgay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's either one of these two situations:

  1. They simply put everything from the Male and Female sections in the NB section. Because there was some magical barrier blocking you from buying from the opposite sex section before, I guess?

  2. They create specific new items for the NB section. Because non-non-binary (lol) men can't wear anything that isn't manly, so the non-manly items go only for non-binary people, I guess?

Either way you think about it, it's incredibly restrictive on gender norms. It depends on the idea that men can't wear anything that isn't masculine (and vice-versa for women), so you need to identify as non-binary and buy non-binary outfits if you wanna go outside of these norms.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The closest thing to a magical sex-barrier that there is would have to be them fleeing the area the moment the clothes use pronouns that don't match their personality

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, once again the "freedom" is all about stuffing themselves into a new box they pretend isn't there.

Time to learn how to make their own clothes if walking from one department to another in a store is too ordinary for them.

[–]MrFahrenheit46 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Plus whoever said that just assumed the gender of the people in the photo! For shame!

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I suppose they mean it will cause confusion among the horribly uninformed cishets who want to do good but fail when they interpret it to mean gifts for a group of people. Because, by the logical interpretation of the language used, it would seem to indicate that the gifts are somehow meant to be given to several people at once

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Or worse, that it means you can get just one gift and it covers all of the available NBs at once.

A large mirror comes to mind as an option.

[–]fuck_reddit 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Really shocked that these people expect any meaningful gesture from a company... it's sole purpose is to generate profit for shareholders, of course it's "meaningful gestures" are two-faced and back-handed...

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is a good point.

I don't want to sound like a cantankerous old fool but I can't explain why people care about companies being woke or actually giving a shit about anything other than their bottom line.

Does anybody believe that the multibillion dollar international banking conglomerate cares about gay people and their issues when they change their logo to a black horse on a rainbow background from a green background?

Or when Apple and Nike perform woke for their domestic audiences by promising to make a fairer world for black people but then lobby the US senate (or Congress or whatever) to relax restrictions on supply chains that use sweatshops and slave labour in other parts of the world.

Corporations aren't your friends. They may have cutesy social media presences but even that is cynical ploy to put a human face on an international banking conglomerate.

[–]fuck_reddit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Also, the legal purpose of corporations is to reduce individual liability. IMO, one of the core aspects of sincerity is taking responsibility for your actions. So, by (my) definition, corporations are incapable of sincerity. That isn't so much a critique of corporations as asking these idiots why they are looking to a faceless company for their political and moral views.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Another excellent point.

[–]fuck_reddit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You as well. I don't see why people expect companies to do things that aren't to their (perceived) self-interest (like try to appear virtuous in their main market and enslave the population that makes their products). Perhaps that's a reason to not separate the manufacturing population from the consumer population...

[–]artetolife 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm sure multi-millionaire CEO Ben Cohen really hates capitalism.

[–]cure_osa_disorder 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can tell you stories about how they tried and failed to run a very popular locally-owned ice cream store in Richmond, VA out of business by opening up a B&Js close to it.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah yes, because not only are clothes still gendered in the 21st century, but now fake genders get their own clothing expectations to follow. How progressive!