It’s also a different thing entirely to try and sanewash their statement as if it’s a legitimate concern.
It isn’t, she’s declaring the bow is there because it infantalizes women — which is strictly false. We then have to wonder why she made the statement in the first place. This leads us to two options 1) she’s an idiot, or 2) she’s a misandrist.
But you don’t know it’s false. You’re not the designer of the garment. The designer might have seen a reference second hand and for e.g. liked the ‘cute aesthetic’.
A problem with men? It’s one thing to assume and accuse (them). And another to dismiss a concern entirely (you).
It’s also a different thing entirely to try and sanewash their statement as if it’s a legitimate concern.
It isn’t, she’s declaring the bow is there because it infantalizes women — which is strictly false. We then have to wonder why she made the statement in the first place. This leads us to two options 1) she’s an idiot, or 2) she’s a misandrist.
Take your pick. The answer is likely both.
I don’t even know what you’re responding to.
But you don’t know it’s false. You’re not the designer of the garment. The designer might have seen a reference second hand and for e.g. liked the ‘cute aesthetic’.
It’s a well known skeuomorph you trog, you’ve earned your tag.
What’s a yrog?