Why did jeans and shirts become the "default clothing" for both genders everywhere from Bangladesh to romania?
>>18457950It's easy to mass manufacture for goyim chattel slaves. We pushed it in movies with guys like James Dean too to make you feel less like the proletarian trash you are.
America won
>>18457950it’s practical, easily made and fine for pretty much every climate.
>>18457950I noticed a pattern with gendered words and items, such as "guys" and pants: If its gender is detached in a new social context it is always something that was originally masculine. You can see women calling each other "bros" and "guys" nowadays with the gender of the word being completely detached from how it is used. I personally hold the belief that, socially (in an unconscious way), masculine behavior, vocabulary, fashion, etc. is somehow more "prestigious" to the point where it is either "cooler" or just somehow the default where it is acceptable for women to assimilate. Compare this with feminine counterparts. If you want to present yourself as a heterosexual and heteronormative man you'd be embarrassing yourself (or everyone thinking you're joking around) if you adapt a more feminine culture like calling your friends "sis."
>>18457950Cheap and lazy fashion.
>>18457950Lightweight, dirt resistant, and durable. Also strong enough to mend when torn without much sewing skills.>>18458759>originally designed for miners and ranchers>lazyRetard.
>>18458786T shirts are originally designed as underwear and most people who wear jeans aren't ranchers. It's lazy fashion for lazy people who don't mind looking like shit in public.
>>18457956Now I understand why he did it
