Cue men telling us that it’s our fault because we don’t have pockets because we only buy pants with no pockets.
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
I thought this was mostly a joke, but there really are men in the comments telling us to just buy men’s pants 🙄
Yeah, I love when men tell me about how they know women’s clothing better than us. :)
Well nobody stops you from buy men pants.
Yes yes I know not that easy. But it could start a protest
I work in a place that requires everyone entering to pull out their pockets for a few years.
Still amazed at the tiny front pockets most women have. Recently I’ve been seeing pants where the front pocket is completely fake.
And yet, someone bought those pants and is wearing them.
The discrepancy between the size of pockets in men’s and women’s pants is nuts. I can comfortably fit an entire iPad Mini in my pants pockets, while my gf is lucky to fit her phone in her’s.
Why doesn’t she buy men’s pants with the correct measurements for her needs? Unlike the arbitrary garbage system for women, us guys just have inch measurements of the important stuff.
The inch measurements for men don’t account for wider hips/bum so it takes a bit of trial and error to figure out what size to buy. Whenever I buy men’s trousers I have to buy them 4 or 6 inches bigger than my own waist and then wear a belt to cinch the excess in. It’s kind of a hassle and it’s definitely not considered a put-together look by most women so the appeal is limited to the less fashion conscious of us.
This would be a $10-$20 adjustment at your local tailor.
Wait, you have a local tailor?
Several, actually.
Tell me you live in a major city without telling me you live in a major city.
Probably European, but not necessarily.
European, 20000 inhabitants.
Women usually have smaller waists compared to the width of their hips than men, so the ratio would be off, and she would likely end up with pants that might fit the width of her hips/butt, but are way too loose in the waist area.
I mean, belts exist.
You either get big pockets or tight fitting, sexy clothes. Pick one.
Everyone in this thread is acting like guys’ clothes don’t also have a huge range of fits even within the same measurements…
Let me tell you as a guy with big thighs, the ‘difficult fit’ problem is not unique to women’s clothing. It’s just exacerbated by the norm of tight clothes for women. If you want to wear guy’s clothes for the pockets, you’ll have to deal with the norm of not-tight looks, and that often means belts.
Getting something that has both good form (stylish, fitting) and good function (large pockets) is not easy. For any gender. Especially if you’re not willing to throw on a belt and/or wear something baggy.
You either get big pockets or tight fitting, sexy clothes
I just want to say, this is not true. I have a couple pairs of jeans, some skirts, and a few super cute dresses that all have functional sized pockets and yes some are tight fitting and “sexy”. Even my workout leggings have functional pockets. We can have both, they are just difficult to find because so many companies add pockets that can barely hold a chapstick.
Then do what the other commenter said and compete and drive them out if it’s so undesireable.
My main point still stands that you’re not going to magically get good fits with guy’s clothes either. Especially when a belt is a befuddling option.
That was unnecessarily rude.
Have a nice day 🖖
Most modern pants aren’t waist-high, and the ones that are are almost always aimed at women (called “high-rise” pants). Most pants rest on top of the hips. I (woman with wide hips) usually wear men’s pants and the waist thing is a non-issue. The only issue is that the longer crotch area bunches up when you sit down.
the waist thing is a non-issue
Depends on the shape of your hips. I wore men’s pants almost exclusively until my hips changed a lot during pregnancy and I haven’t been able to find a comfy pair of men’s pants since (and I’m far from the only woman I know with this problem). Glad it works for you, though! The huge pockets are so nice and the fabric is usually sturdier, too.
Oh, I’m sure it does, plus whatever pants you happen to try. I wear men’s athletic pants most of the time these days. Women’s versions are mostly all tight in the crotch and I’ve never been a big fan of fabric crushing my vulva.
Ha, I do miss the extra crotch room. Here’s actually an interesting article about why women’s pants have been getting even tighter in the crotch (spoiler alert - it’s money):
What if I told you that women’s clothing is form-fitting with small pockets because that’s what is popular among women?
Yeah, right? I thought this was settled at least five years ago. Preface: I get we’re not in a
frictionless vacuumfree market with perfectly rational agents acting on perfect information. Auto makers in the US, for example, induce demand for massive fuck-off pickup trucks – which exploit regulatory loopholes and are worse than standard cars for most people – by driving down the supply of alternatives and massively marketing trucks to people who categorically don’t need them.However, pants are an obvious case where you can’t have both: you can’t have normal-sized pockets (let alone the Felix the Cat-ass ones men can have with cargo pants) and elegant, form-fitting clothing. Demand always exists for big pockets because big pockets are objectively beneficial, but at a population level in a zero-sum game, women prefer form (fitting) over function (bigger pockets). This does leave a minority who actually would prefer and buy the larger pockets, but because this is a minority, it’s also the minority of supply, and these women are faced with fewer options. Because the supply of pants is highly elastic, the amount of pants with good pockets is probably close to its actual demand – even accounting for imperfect information where some women may truly want but just not know how to buy them. It’s also true that demand for bigger pants would go up if purses weren’t so normalized among women, but they are, and there’s not a strong force acting to reverse that.
On a personal note: I don’t get what the big deal is (I mean I do, but not from what I’d see myself wearing); the women I’ve known who wear looser pants with baggier pockets to me have usually looked better.
I’ll give you points for the elegant part because formal dresses are hard to add pockets to. But my bootie is currently sitting in a pair of form fitting flare jeans with functional sized pockets. There are pockets added to workout leggings to at least carry phone, ID, and keys in. I also have some cute skirts and dresses with functional sized pockets. I don’t want cargo pants size pockets, but at least enough to hold my ID and some cash without fear of losing them.
These things do exist, they are just hard to find because companies don’t manufacture them. Most women I know would buy pants with functional sized pockets even if they didn’t use them and pretty much every woman I know has complained about our barely able to hold a chapstick sized pockets.
Women never got the option to buy pants with pockets. It was decided for us and now it’s intentional to prop up the purse industry, one of the most profitable items in fashion.
Check my other comment, pants with pockets are widely available.
I saw your comment. You’re wrong.
No, they are available online. That’s not the same thing. Buying clothes online is a gamble especially in women’s clothing where the sizing is all over the place and the numbers are arbitrary.
I promise those retailers do not carry pants with real pockets in physical stores. I have, on multiple occasions, bought clothing in the men’s dept after checking all the available options in the women’s dept.
Yeah, the reality is, if women really wanted pockets in their clothes then any one of them could start making clothes with large pockets, sell them, capitalize on this market, and make oodles of money
They’re already widely available. Just google “women’s pants big pockets.” You can buy women’s pants that have a looser fit with big pockets almost anywhere, in many styles and materials, from any major retailer, at price points ranging from Walmart to designer.
I’m not sure that they’re necessarily “widely available” or available “from any major retailer” I searched what you suggested and found a bunch of drop shipped results on amazon, walmart, and random sketchy sites.
I guess to me “widely available, almost anywhere, from any major retailer” sounds like these pants have saturated the market enough that I should be able to find them at any department store but honestly I have never seen large pocket options for women in a physical store. If there are physical stores carrying this option that you know of please let me know because I would love to be able to go try them out!
Hey, thank you for listing them. I’m still looking through them and a lot just say “with pockets” not necessarily with “large pockets” which is fine but I’m willing to bet they’re like every other womens pant in a large store that “has” pockets which is barely enough to fit chapstick in.
Some of these pants are locally available to me so I can go and physically check but just pointing out that off the bat containing pockets doesn’t mean they contain sufficient pockets.
You can see quite clearly in many of the pictures that the models have their whole hands in them. And I’m not just talking about the ones where they hook the thumb and stop there.
Idk what people want, I’m a male and I have never in my life had a regular pair of jeans that “fit an iPad in them” except for when I had JNCOs as a kid. My Levi’s pockets are not much bigger than my smartphone. And I can personally tell you that there are women’s pants with pockets as big as men’s as that’s all that my wife wears.
Yea but you see, people like being victims not responsible for their own problems. Otherwise they might have to do the work of looking for solutions, or feel embarassed when they learn of an easy fix for a long standing problem!
