Regardless of colour, do you think women's clothes are designed to make women look ridiculous?

Pockets!! Yes to pockets!!

I can get over my excitement of ordering one maxi dress and discovering it had (big) pockets!! It was like Christmas day.
Also when a tshirt dress arrived and again not only the pockets weren’t just for show,they were a decent size as well.

As for style I have none,which is probably why I easily find (cheap) clothes. I probably look awful but I feel comfy and confident(because I really like them) in them, so that’s good enough for me.

As a butch dyke, so someone who doesn't wear a whole load of this nonsense, and never has, I give you:

High heels (well, womens shoes in general and stuff like ugg boots which are bad for your feet. Ditto many other styles of womens shoes that are bad for your feet.)
Tights. Stockings and assorted flummery.
Womens shoes in general given that when I was a teenager, even the 'sensible' girls shoes didn't fit my feet, so I finally went to the mens rack. I mean, shoes okay, surely, are thing that should be designed to be walked in not a 10 mile hike across ploughed fields perhaps, but at least ordinary everyday walking to and from bus stops, whilst at work etc. Yet there are even special cushions and add-ons women can get to try and make the ridiculous shoes more comfortable, rather than designing them for usability in the first place. Unless you are a male french aristocrat, or used to wear winkle-pickers, the whole footwear you can't walk in phenomenon seems to have passed men by.
Tights and socks are just then a sub-problem of the whole footwear issue!
And I haven't even got past the ankles yet..............Add in the trousers dragging in the wet, shoes that don't keep the wet out etc etc, and seems I never will.

Feet are a feminist issue, where can I find a good rad-fem chiropodist??????????

Pckets

Stuff thats too short...whyyyyyy

It's exacerbated at the cheap end. Cheap, poorly-made clothing is all a lot of people can afford, and it tends to use a lot stretchy and flimsy fabrics, squarely cut, with flimsy fastenings. The problem is that for women, it tends to be uncomfortable and impractical (can't deal with variation in the bust, waist and hip ratios), whereas for men it's still passable (less variation in the chest to waist ratio, hips don't come into it).

Go upmarket, and you'll be able to find properly-cut clothing in more durable fabrics that can deal with all the above. For some body shapes, you gave to spend a lot of money to find something that fits right.

Fashion for men tends to be pretty ridiculous as well- skinny jeans don't look good on any of them, and neither do trousers hanging off their arses and showing their pants. The difference is that only the youngest and most foolish men go along with it- the rest wear the same things with minute variations in cut and colour year after year.

I was driving in torrential rain the other day and watching people. The women had trousers dragging in the puddles, small jackets that didn't cover them up, ruined hair from the rain, heels that were hell in the puddles, carrying things because less pockets, skirts that made it difficult to run to shelter.

Men; short hair which is fine in the rain, big coats and practical clothes that were great to run to shelter in.

Well, last time I wore a dress was for a thing where I had to look nice and matching. I had a wrap over style (ie not wrapped over - just looks like that) dress in polyester with a polyester slip underneath to protect my modesty and nylon tights to cover the bruises. And £20 slingbacks to match.

The dress wasn't actually overly cheap (reduced from £55) but the whole combination slid upwards whilst sitting (apart from the tights that slide down) and necessitated the use of small safety pins to keep anything from accidently gaping. When I stood up, I had to remember to firmly yank it all into place.

Fortunately, it was only for a couple of hours.

I think a lot of the cheap fashion around these days relies on stretch instead of structure. It is all very well if you body is structured and the appropriate shape for the garment, but stretch is not a suitable alternative for good shape and structure in a garment for the majority of people. The trouble is, all the clothing is either cheap and unstructured and sleeveless and business make money on it. If you try to find something properly made in a decent fabric, the expertise and profits are not as easy to obtain, so they cost a lot, lot more.

All I want is some bloody pockets I can fit stuff into.
It's like rocking horse shit.

As a woman with a waist, bust and hips I know from the days when I occasionally borrowed a white shirt or a jumper from my husband that despite having the same chest measurement his shirts were too wide at the neck, too baggy at the waist, too long in the sleeve and too narrow over my hips. They might have fitted over the chest but that was the only point.

I have to say I disagree with the whole premise of the OP . This nonsense that anything aimed at women is bad but if it is men's it is good. And us poor women are too brainwashed by the patriarchy to choose clothes we like.

There are is a vast range of clothes available. Find something that fits and you are comfortable with. It isn't that difficult. If you don't like other women's choices fine - but is there a need for this sort of whinging?

My husband complains a lot about the lack of shops selling clothes he likes. As far as he is concerned there is a small number of expensive top end shops and the rest is dull, poorly made high street rubbish.

One look which always makes me cringe is women crammed into jeans which are obviously far too tight at the waist. It looks painful. How anyone can think that is better than a well cut dress is beyond me.

Clothes are designed on a 'fashion' cycle and the main aim is to sell more clothes. It's not about whether people look good or ridiculous, it about ensuring they feel a need (one that is artificially stoked) to buy new stuff frequently (ideally every season) and to revile the previous looks.

That women are disproportionately affected by this is a reflection of women being seen as decorative objects in the development world.

Manufacturers do keep trying to sell in this way to men, but apart from store aiming for a very young demographic, they didn't really make much progress. Because they're not forming the situation and can't change it to their advantage. But they can and do exploit it as far as they can to maximise sales.

Yes, I agree. Lots of it seems to be designed to make women feel ashamed of their bodies as well. But that may just be me.