Funny

I thought this was mostly a joke, but there really are men in the comments telling us to just buy men's pants 🙄

Not all men are neoliberals

This reads exactly like The Devil wears Prada which was very on the nose. Great film about terrible culture.

It takes guts and perseverance to beat that, but even with lots of it there's still no guarantee.

Wanna bet that the old hag has some stakes in handbags?

Actually, peer pressure from the fashion elite might be enough. They all wanna sell as much bullshit as possible, so of course they'd want you to have clothes in a dozen different color shades with fitting large handbags, small handbags, clutches, shoes, shades...

Yeah, I can see why she'd be allergic to unprofitable convenience.

Untrue. Girls with pockets are sexy.

I, too, eliminate every woman from dating consideration the moment I see pockets. That extra 1/8th inch of feminine form is everything.

/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.

My friend once snuck an entire subway footlong into a movie theater by just putting it in his pocket

iPad Mini ... phone

There's a size difference?

Dress pockets, if done well, are god tier

Yeah, right? I thought this was settled at least five years ago. Preface: I get we're not in a ~~frictionless vacuum~~ free 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.

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.

I'll drop this link to a video that goes over pocket fashion history but from what I know of it the option of large pockets largely never existed for women in a meaningful way. By the time we as a society moved away from men using under garment bags we never gave women the same option.

But yes, currently it's popular. There is pressure to wear form fitting clothing. There is pressure to have a bag to accomodate the lack of pockets. This will continue a perpetual demand for small/false pockets.

https://youtu.be/jA_elEw-Oog