TheMikman97

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

1

TheMikman97 t1_j2dk4e5 wrote

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.

0

TheMikman97 t1_j2deuwr wrote

I'm pretty sure the emergence of vestigial pockets was allowed and facilitated by women who simply didn't care enough about them because they had bags anyway.

You might think you really need them, but then you buy the clothes without them anyway, therfore commercially they weren't essential.

I doubt men would buy pants without pockets at all, which forces clothing companies to keep making them

4

TheMikman97 t1_j2d808y wrote

Technically yes as long as restrictions were in place, but apparently bacterial respiratory infections skyrocketed lately in both numbers and severity due to the fact that 2 years of reduced contact seems to make people's immune system less prepared against them once said restrictions are lifted.

Tho this theory is controversial

−5