I mean it is something everyone has known for a long time. That said, I think it goes a little bit deeper than just simply the fashion industry is trying to screw women over.
You can buy women’s pants with pockets, some of them have an over abundance of pockets, for example these Carhartt Overalls: https://www.carhartt.com/products/womens/Carhartt-Rugged-Fle...
In general, women don’t buy these sort of utility pants as much as they buy other types of pants. Well many women won’t. My wife has about 50% utility pants and 50% pocketless pants.
The problem is those pants are not particularly flattering and even to this day, women wearing pragmatic/ practical clothing are shamed for wearing unflattering clothing. This isn’t just men, other women do it also.
Tight pants don’t really work well with big pockets filled with stuff.
I will say... the fashion industry doesn’t help. Brands like Levis who sell few utility type pants for women and don’t advertise any of them.
The big thing is people need to stop giving women crap for being practical with regards to clothing.
Also form fitting clothing is a pain with bulky devices. Nothing says fun like keys being jammed into your leg or trying to wiggle a phone in and out. Looser fits are almost needed.
But I agree with your final statement, let's not give people crap for choosing practical pockets. Wear what you will!
But I suspect one of the big reasons women complain about pockets is because there are occasions where having to carry around a purse is a needless hassle. I totally agree that tight pants are largely cross purpose with big pockets.
All of my knowledge on the topic is second hand so I lack the foundation to disagree.
Men do not care about what women wear. If men were even 10% of people applying peer pressure on women to not wear practical clothing, I'd be amazed.
Women's Pockets are Inferior (2018) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26579484 - March 2021 (33 comments)
and at the time:
Women's Pockets are Inferior - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17769517 - Aug 2018 (52 comments)
Although I'm not sure I am on board with the synthesis - it wants to play it both ways: that women are unfairly given smaller pockets but are also incapable of prioritizing it for themselves.
Out of curiosity I showed this page to my wife (who loves to complain about pockets). When seeing the pants with the bigger pockets, she complained about the fit or aesthetics of those brands, so I think the traits may be linked. She also admitted she doesn't much care for things in the front pockets anyway.
Still, amazing presentation and data set.
It's fully possible to have aesthetically pleasing clothing with pockets, but very few companies are doing it. MM Lafleur is rather more than I want to pay, but I am willing to do so for their pocket-inclusive suits and dresses.
This is a great insight. Women's fashion tends to run more form-fitting than men's. Even empty pockets add fabric and seams. It's not hard to imagine a generous pocket hidden in a hoop skirt somewhere, but in a pair of fashionable women's pants?
Although I came to the same observation and desire of change (I’m annoyed at the idea that me, godfather, has to assist my goddaughter by carrying her handkerchief because dresses have no pockets... how can we reach female independance if they have to rely on men being around to carry their stuff as early as 6 years old).
...the idea that men conspire to restrict women’s pockets is quite the biggest conspiracy theory I’ve heard. We gather at night with the council of men and decide “What should we do next”, “Let’s restrict women’s pockets”, “Let’s make them eat less meat so they are smaller”, “Why not everything” and we do everything.
She phrases it as a conspiration, but it could also be that men are so much available to help them that they overuse this service.
In any case, cargo pants are available, boys often choose function over form and marketers know it; Girls often choose form over function, and very very little function doesn’t seem to be a problem for many other types of accessories, as long as beauty is there.
Tbf though, it's quite possible at this point that there are so few women's pants with pockets that even those who do see it as a deal-breaker are unable to express their preference with their wallets. I also suspect those that don't value pockets would change their minds the moment they actually got pants with real pockets too.
I don't think this is going to change until enough women band together and start boycotting brands with tiny/absent pockets and start championing brands that do offer proper pockets. This kind of strategy does work btw, possibly a little too well. It certainly worked in make-up industry where up until recently they basically didn't offer shades for non-white people and now overnight all of them are viciously competing on who offers the most shades (in some cases hundreds). This issue may not have the same importance and power as racial equality does, but it's proof enough that if you kick up enough stink the market will respond. I wouldn't be surprised if women's pockets dwarfed mens if this ever happened.
Some parts of the clothing industry have razor-thin margins. Some of them sell you a $200 shirt that cost $20 to make, and they don't care that for every shirt they sell, eight will be returned to the manufacturer.
This is one of the dangers of scientism. Without widespread memes about taking "data", "peer-reviewed studies", and long articles presented in a magazine-style web theme being authoritative, we would never see an attempt of this kind to transmogrify seam measurements from a small, arbitrary sample of garments into proof of a grand societal conspiracy to restrict "women's private spaces".
I love the presentation of data though
That's like saying everyone loves Comcast because everyone in my area has them. They are the only provider, so maybe sales numbers isn't the best metric to determine consumer desire in all cases.
Within recent years this argument becomes a bit less viable as there are so many ways to purchase clothing and near infinite options, but it then becomes about brand reputation and quality. How many vendors have the capability to meet consumer demand with a high quality, available product. And how easy is it to get funding for this business when, as you say, consumers don't APPEAR to want it?
So this argument feels lazy imo. I don't think it's a conspiracy insofar there is a cabal refusing to put pockets in their clothing for some nefarious reason. But that doesn't mean that the consumers are being listened to, and brands aren't responsible for the lack of available pocket space in women's clothing.
Your argument implies that women are given the option between many nearly identical pairs of pants, some with large pockets and some with small pockets. Instead they're presented with dozens of pants with only small pockets. Given the choice between pants with small pockets or no pants, they buy pants with small pockets.
Men usually get a small corner somewhere. Also, there is online shopping with literally thousands of stores to choose from and you are suggesting none of these offers pants with larger pockets?
Probably, she don't care enough about pockets to really search for it?
The GP comment is actually a string of internet clichés: (1) "it's not some conspiracy", (2) "if they could sell" (3) "if you think [...] you should". That plus the confrontational edge makes it a flamewar comment. We're trying to avoid those here.
Btw, one key thing to look for is whether a comment engages anything specific in an article, or is just using it to make a generic point. The latter is always a bad sign in HN threads.
You only do that on certain topics.
Just a little while later, the salesman came up to me and said something in the lines of "don't worry we know what men wants, nice fit looking clothes with lots of pockets".
It made me chuckle and I ended up later buying several items from that store. He was a good salesman but that sentence really made me realize that this is what this is about.
Men WANTS pockets and women seems to not care about it as much in general. Men REQUIRE pockets or else we don't buy the clothes and that is the key reason why womens pockets are useless.
EDIT: I am not saying that every woman don't care about pockets. I just think it's a reasonable explanation that most of women don't care enough to not buy the clothes. I think women tend to value other stuff higher than the amount of pockets or how functional they are.
Don't just downvote people for sharing a friendly, alternate explanation. This is not reddit.
This is also known as "neurosexism":
> So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent than men, just ‘different’ in a way that happens to coincide with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles.
But men and women have different preferences in general?
> his is also known as "neurosexism"
Cool, so now I am a sexist? I really am posting in the SV timezone, aren't I?