Comment by observationist
5 days ago
Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative marketing?
And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right?
edit: Really should have used the /s, I guess - women's clothing has some appalling aspects to it, one of which is notoriously tiny pockets, which is a source of frustration for many women. For some, it even comes as a shock when they find out men can do things like put phones in their pockets.
The emotional manipulation surrounding many women's products is a different beast entirely from what men experience, generally.
And despite all of that, women keep buying those products.
I have difficulties believing that your observations are a real issue. If they were, rest assured the free market would have found out about it and would have offered the right product for those women.
Reality is that most women buy based on looks and not practicality. I really had not heard before your comment any women complaining about small pockets.
> Reality is that most women buy based on looks and not practicality. I really had not heard before your comment any women complaining about small pockets.
I've had the exact opposite experience. I've heard this complaint many, many times, and for good reason because it really is laughable.
> Reality is that most women buy based on looks and not practicality.
Well, it's a tradeoff, isn't it? As a man, I also wear a (fake) leather jacket that has some fake pockets and I complain about them, because they're dumb and unnecessary. Still like the look of it, which is why I bought it, because it's not a -huge- issue.
To put it another way, why couldn't you have both? Why not have good-looking clothes that also have proper pockets? That's the really ridiculous part about it.
Also, there's a third variable you didn't factor in at all: Comfort. It's not enough to produce clothes that look good, they need to fit as well...which is exactly what the article is about.
So now you need to find clothes that are at least mostly comfortable, look at least okay to you and have proper pockets. And that is the point where you're really going to have a hard time in women's clothing and that's why a lot of the time, women will take the more comfortable, better-looking option. 2 out of 3 at least. But the fact remains that the pockets are completely idiotic.
I think the only error here was in thinking that’s a sarcastic explanation. Look up the history of the word ‘negging’ and consider the male-dominant business and marketing industries over the past few decades. Your sarcasm is, no joke, a valid explanation for what’s happening. I can’t assess whether it’s the most likely or how much impact it has, but you’re completely right to call it out as a possible motivation, and if you simply put quote marks around it, that would be plausible rather than sarcastic. Especially given that pockets were taken away from women’s clothing over their objections for similarly disgusting reasons. Here’s highlight from the below article from 10.2979/vic.2010.52.4.561 (2010) as an upsetting example:
> Victorian women were told that they “had four external bulges already — two breasts and two hips — and a money pocket inside their dress would make an ungainly fifth.”
https://fashionmagazine.com/style/womens-pockets/ (which cites that among many others) is a good survey of the historical and current pockets issues for those not yet familiar.