TheMikman97 t1_j2dk4e5 wrote
Reply to comment by tempodad in Baby clothes have pockets but babies have zero need for pockets. Meanwhile women's clothing often lacks pockets when women desperately need them. by HalfLawKiss
If this was the case, women could simply have forced the pants without pockets out of the market by not buying them. The fact pants without pockets became the norm is because they were successful enough to keep being produced.
tempodad t1_j2dk8uh wrote
but how? How could you just stop wearing pants?? And clothes?? I mean jeans aside, none of women’s clothing has pockets. We can’t just not wear clothes
Antisocialite99 t1_j2dsc5j wrote
I've seen women's pants with pockets. They exist.
tempodad t1_j2dsg7q wrote
I said that wrong- even with clothes that have pockets they are usually decoration and are barely big enough to fit your fingers inside of let alone put stuff inside
Antisocialite99 t1_j2du5c0 wrote
North face Patagonia etc all make women's pants with functional pockets might even be cargo pockets which might ruin your sense of style
TheMikman97 t1_j2dl977 wrote
How do you think this happened? One day all pants producers collectively said no pockets? No. It was done progressively, just like phones with no exchangeable battery, and now no charger. One company does it, backlash is not sufficient to harm sales, the practice gets normalized and other companies copy it
There is nothing that can be done now, but people could have acted when it was time if they cared enough
tempodad t1_j2dljsj wrote
Yes but they’re never going to make women’s pockets with jeans because of the purse industry. It profits way too much off of women not having pockets. And right now there is no big brand that has made that decision to add pockets so there’s no options. And you can’t just make your own company from nothing.
TheMikman97 t1_j2dlpd1 wrote
Yeah, some practices are almost irreversible once normalized.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments