Workwear Finds June 2022: Readers’ Most Bought!

Comments

1. anon

   07/14/2022 at 11:18 am

   I think the post is wayyyy too long and includes too many items. I also think a collage would be a lot easier to digest so you didn’t have to scroll so far, or at least organize some of the items horizontally across the page.

   • anon

     07/14/2022 at 11:19 am

     Also, I think you could do like the top ten most sold items for the month.

   • Anonymous

     07/14/2022 at 11:41 am

     I don’t even remember that most of these items were featured. Are they other things people bought after clicking links and having affiliate cookies saved?

     • Kat G

       07/14/2022 at 12:41 pm

       A lot of them are from older posts that are still getting traffic (like all the suiting, pantyhose, camisoles); they may also have been featured on CMoms, mentioned in comments here or in CMoms (we don’t add affiliate links to comments but a purchaser may still have a cookie in place when she purchased) — or it could be a follow up sale after clicking on a recent or older post. Thank you for reading!

   • Cat

     07/14/2022 at 12:39 pm

     +1, it is way too much scrolling even on a laptop. I also would find it way more helpful to be able to quickly see the brand.

   • REAtty

     07/15/2022 at 9:47 am

     Yes, this! I always think I want to read this post and then I get SO overwhelmed and can’t stop thinking, “This is just everything that was posted last month, no?”

2. Ann(e)

   07/14/2022 at 11:42 am

   I think it would be helpful to have it organized by brand. Or to at least note the brand with the link! It’s frustrating to see so many links without knowing whether they’re worth clicking. For instance, I know off the bat that I can’t buy slacks from Theory because of their sizing, so I’d rather save myself a click.
   And I agree that the post is a bit unwieldy due to its length!

3. Vicky Austin

   07/14/2022 at 1:17 pm

   What about like a master post somewhere that gets updated, and the monthly post becomes a “here’s what’s new to the Most Bought list” instead?

4. Anon

   07/14/2022 at 1:19 pm

   My question is related to the stories about women claiming their fetus should count as a person for carpool in states that have banned abortion. Could the same argument be made for taxes? Claiming the fetus as a dependent if the state is calling it a person.

   • Anonymous

     07/14/2022 at 1:23 pm

     What I want to know is whether a fetus’s being a person means that the mother/incubator/host/landlord can bring eviction proceedings against it.

     • Anon

       07/14/2022 at 1:35 pm

       I am pretty pro-life personally (while preferring a pro-choice political system) and even the carpooling thing fails to me as it doesn’t take another driver off the road. I am not carpooling with I drive my ex-utero kids around since they are below the driving age in my state.

       • Senior Attorney

         07/14/2022 at 1:39 pm

         Except plainly you are legally carpooling when you have your ex utero kids in the car.

         • Anon

           07/14/2022 at 2:32 pm

           I’m not carpooling. Carpooling implies a valid forgone choice of not carpooling. Kids too young to drive could make a bad choice, but not a legal choice.

         • Anon

           07/14/2022 at 2:33 pm

           I’d even posit that an Uber / cab is not carpooling, as either way you’d have one driver on the road for that trip.

           /endrant

       • Anon

         07/14/2022 at 1:55 pm

         OP: I understand that is the intent of carpooling but that doesn’t mean that is how the law/regulation is written. Fines or benefits are not based on intent, they are based on how the law/regulation are written.

         • Senior Attorney

           07/14/2022 at 2:20 pm

           You lost me, OP. In my state it’s just “occupants” which clearly includes ex utero children.

         • Anon

           07/14/2022 at 2:31 pm

           Some states explicitly state that the additional people must occupy their own seat that is not the driver’s seat.

           I maintain that the entire thing is foolish: this argument plainly applied to 8-month old in utero babies before Roe, but it was very rarely used, and when it was, the judge ruled against the driver. We’ve had double homicide laws for decades in which killing a pregnant woman counted as two homicides, but never told a pregnant woman that it was illegal for her to drive because she had two people behind the wheel. We can understand that a foetus is a “person” for certain situations (I’m all for nailing the father for child support in utero), but, given the unique state of pregnancy, not in others (e.g., for counting the number of people in the driver’s seat, or, in a place that does not have free admission for infants and toddlers, for charging women entrance fees).

         • Anon

           07/14/2022 at 2:36 pm

           Seriously. It’s a HOV lane in my state. High occupancy vehicle. You just need two people. Period. Kids are people and you’re legally allowed to use the HOV lane. What a weird hair to split!

       • Anon

         07/14/2022 at 2:47 pm

         But you ARE legally carpooling if you’re driving in a car with a human infant. Just has to be two people, not two people of driving age.

   • anonshmanon

     07/14/2022 at 2:08 pm

     is it women or one woman?

     • Anon

       07/14/2022 at 2:34 pm

       I’ve heard news stories of it when we went from HOV-2 to HOV-3, eons ago. Was cute at first.