I joined USENET newsgroups in April 1988 due to the good graces of Massachusetts-based geek Jim Murray. He was running USENET on a home system and wanted to offer it to others.
I'm pretty sure I made a USENET post or two on Rodney King back in 1991, but I haven't been able to find them. But I did find some other old posts. So, from time to time, I'll go back and grab old posts I made. There was no date attached to this posting, but, based on the signature, it was from the spring or early summer of 1993 (before we moved to Pittsburgh). The issue I was complaining about here is something I've never changed my opinion on:
Downloaded from a USENET archive: http://fooo.fr/~vjeux/epita/search/20news-bydate-train/rec.autos/101603
I'm pretty sure I made a USENET post or two on Rodney King back in 1991, but I haven't been able to find them. But I did find some other old posts. So, from time to time, I'll go back and grab old posts I made. There was no date attached to this posting, but, based on the signature, it was from the spring or early summer of 1993 (before we moved to Pittsburgh). The issue I was complaining about here is something I've never changed my opinion on:
Downloaded from a USENET archive: http://fooo.fr/~vjeux/epita/search/20news-bydate-train/rec.autos/101603
From: lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann)
Subject: Clothing (Was Re: male/female mystery [ Re: Dumbest automotive...])
Lines: 41
In article <1pima2INN180@gap.caltech.edu>, wen-king@cs.caltech.edu (Wen-King Su) writes:
> This has me thinking. Is there a biological reason why women can't put
> their keys in their pants pockets like men do? I have two pockets on the
> back of each of my pants. I put my keys in one and wallent in another.
> Many of the pockets even have a botton on them so I can close them securely.
> Everything is that much simpler for me. Why can't women do the same?
> Is is biological (ie, not enough room for a bigger bottom plus keys and
> a wallet) or is it the way they are raised by the parents?
Oh PULLEEZE!
It's not biology at all, it's clothing design. Women's clothing is
generally designed to be as non-functional as possible. It's only been
in the last five years or so that you could buy women's pants with
pockets deep enough to carry anything in. Previously, deep pockets were
virtually unknown in women's clothing. Skirts generally have better
pockets now, too. Dresses, espcially fancy dresses, are still pretty
hopeless. I often hand my driver's license over to my husband if we're
dressed up to go out somewhere, so I don't have to be encumbered by a
purse.
If women consistently bought functional clothing, and boycotted the
manufacturers who refuse to make functional women's clothing, I think
manufacturers would tend to bow to market pressures. There's
an interesting chapter in Susan Faludi's Backlash that described
what happened the LAST time clothing manufacturers ignored the
need for functional women's clothing. The manufactuing industry
lost millions.
From a woman who would rather buy men's clothing WITH decent pockets and
long legs and high waists than women's clothing without....
--
******** lmann@jjmhome.uucp (Internet) Laurie.Mann (GEnie) *********
** Claiming that sex education leads to irresponsible sex is like **
***** claiming that driver education leads to car accidents. *****
