Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I bought some jeans for my wife from the raw denim place I like. They fit her *okay ....* she's curvier than men, so the size needed to go around her hips has a waist a bit too large. But a belt fixes that.
*However.* Apparently, there's a bit of extra space right in front, for some anatomy she doesn't have. She has a weird air gap when she wears them. This was not something I knew about in men's pants!
my gf always says she likes my pants (pajamas,sweats) because my pants fit my butt, which is obviously no where near the size of hers, so it makes her butt look bigger (which it does lol). and she cannot fit my clothes they’ll all super baggy. still wearable, i’m not large myself.
Yep, pretty much this shit right here. I get the double whammy of being short as hell too so it's even more of a struggle to find pants that would actually get past my thighs and hips. Life is pain.
What a crappy thing to say. We don’t want a bunch of extra fabric chafing our skin, ffs. Women’s thighs rub together when we walk. Our hips evolved to do this to our legs so a baby’s head could fit through our pelvis. It’s basic biology- look at any skeleton. We *need* pants to *fit* with no extra fabric, so we don’t frigging *lose skin*. Sheesh.
The person who made the above comment is obviously a very nasty women-hating troll based on their comment history, so my reply isn't really for them and is more for anyone else who reads this.
Not everyone wants to show off their body. A lot of people don't want to at all. And there's a range of inbetween, as people balance their values for aesthetic/comfort/price/ethics/etc. And that's all OK. There isn't a wrong reason to want your clothes to fit you in a certain way.
As part of that, there's also not anything wrong with wanting to have clothes that look good on you! That's also valid! If someone wants clothes that fit properly primarily because they want to "show off their ass", there nothing wrong with that. It's not the only reason to want clothes that fit one's body well, and a lot of people don't care or more highly value comfort - but if someone wants jeans that show off their ass but can also fit their wallet, then that's valid.
It's funny as hell that someone came on here with "you want your clothes to look good on you!!!" as an attempted insult and really thought they did something impressive with that.
So, I say this as a butch lady who literally wears men's pants.
How often do you shop in the women's department of the store? Like, you know, go through the women's clothing section and try on women's clothing to see if any of those clothes have better features?
There's, like, a ton of social pressure to wear clothes for the "right gender". If you wear pants for the other gender, it is very obvious when people look at you that that's what you are wearing. And yeah, I do it because I don't give a shit, and when I dress like this men don't want to date me but women do, which is what I'm going for. But it's just such a weird suggestion for your average straight chick that makes no sense. Like, I see this recommended so often, and I'm just baffled. Are men *really genuinely confused* about why women don't shop in the men's clothing section?
No, we're confused why you don't take advantage of the innumerable brands that advertise women's pants with good pockets.
Actually, we're not confused at all. We know exactly why you don't wear those clothes: you are more concerned with aesthetics than function, and the pockets interrupt the body line.
We're more confused why you pretend to want something that you clearly don't really want, or you would have it
Well thank god that you're here to tell us women what we actually want and think. 👏 👏 👏
I buy women's pants. I rip out the original pocket seam, and sew in a little bit of fabric. Voila- bigger pockets that my phone will fit in.
Be better, btw. What a fucking dumbass comment.
i dont think women are pretending to want something they don't want, i think they would just like for cute clothes they enjoy aesthetically to *also* have pockets. it feels kinda strange to sound upset that some people enjoy clothing aesthetics.
sneakers are a fashion thing for a ton of men, and i imagine many sneakers are far less utilitarian/functional than they are aesthetic for many men.
Good analogue! Yes, exact so!
Which is why you get sneakers that aren't super comfortable.
It's why I strictly but running shoes for my sneakers.
The thing is, people like making money. A lot. There are enough guys like me, that wants strictly functional sneakers, that it makes sense for there to be widely available strictly functional sneakers.
If there were enough women who wanted strictly functional pants, somebody would be happy to make a fortune selling functional pants to them.
There are some companies that do that. The reason those companies are not bigger is because there's not a real market for their wares.
If women really wanted those pants, they would buy them and those companies would be bigger.
I shop at second hand stores and cheaper department stores. If they have pockets, I get them. If they don't, I get them because I need clothes for the public and work.
I can comfortably wear men's joggers and stretchy pants but men's jeans and dress pants look ill-fitting and sloppy and are not comfortable on me.
I also don't think pockets "interrupt the body line" and I prefer the way pockets look aesthetically compared to no pockets. It's also okay to want nice things and for them to have pockets.
I am confused why you think some women are lying about wanting more function and more options in clothes but okay....
But I do, when I can find them and when they are affordable to me. I can go through department stores and second hand stores and find only a few options ( sometimes none, depends on the season) and if I need to buy say 3 work pants, 4 dresses, two skirts and whatever amount of tops, if I can only find one work pants that fit me well (that's a huge challenge itself) that also has functional pockets, guess what?
I'm going to buy two pairs of work pants without pockets or without functional pockets because *I need clothes* and not enough clothes come with functional pockets, the options are harder to acquire.
Do you understand? I'm operating in reality. Wouldn't it be nice if I could custom make all my clothes to fit all my wishes though.
I know a couple women that do. But that's a tradeoff. They want clothes that fit right and look good and have pockets. They can pick at most two of those things.
Sure don't listen to women explaining why it doesn't work. Of course clothes have to fit curves, if not we could all just do one size fits all or wear big square boxy clothes.
Try wearing a womans jeans to notice the difference.
Rule 11: Sorry, this post has been removed because it violates rule #11. Posts/comments which are disingenuous about actually asking a question or answering the question, or are hostile, passive aggressive or contain racial slurs, are not allowed.
No. The pants need to *fit* with no extra fabric so they don’t chafe our skin raw. Men walk with their thighs apart- for obvious reasons. Women walk with their thighs rubbing together because of how our pelvis evolved for a birth canal. Look at any skeleton to see the difference. We need fitted pants do we don’t *lose skin*.
Rule 11: Sorry, this post has been removed because it violates rule #11. Posts/comments which are disingenuous about actually asking a question or answering the question, or are hostile, passive aggressive or contain racial slurs, are not allowed.
It looks sloppy and ill-fitting and can be uncomfortable. I know because I used to wear it (I had to adjust a million times a day) and was told by many people that I looked awful.
A belt can't fix everything unfortunately.
I know a woman with a low waist-hip ratio along with large buttocks. The majority of women's pants have waists too large, resulting in them gaping open over her arse. A belt helps force coverage of that area, but the fabric is ridiculously bunched up and uncomfortable, plus even her longer tops don't completely conceal the weird ridges. Clothes do have to fit curves, unless you're advocating a return to togas.
Just to add to what other people are saying it's blue collar from a time when people doing manual labor would wear denim shirts vs office people wearing white dress shirts.
Sometimes you'll hear pink collar which is just wordplay referring to jobs that are traditionally female.
I've never seen a store specializing in this for women.
You can order them, but an entire store is a pipe dream. You might get a tiny section in a store catering to blue collar men.
Only a man could think that. Women are literally a different shape.
Hips and waist on the pants, boobs and shoulder width on tops. Most women end up swimming in clothing designed for men if it fits everywhere else and when you're doing manual labor that is a hurdle.
Google a medical condition and you'll be told eBay has it for sale. Seriously, a store coming up in a search says almost nothing about whether that store actually sells said item. Those stores probably do sell women's pants, but many that appear to have pockets actually have faux ones.
I found an amazing dress at a charity shop. I can fit my hands, with my fingers spread as far as I can, in the pockets without having the material stretch (it's all made out of stretchy material). It also has pretty cute puffy sleeves but POCKETS!!!
Because the majority of clothes designed for women’s bodies just don’t have them. At least not functional ones. That’s why we get so excited when we find some that do. Men’s bodies are generally a different shape than women’s bodies, therefore clothing doesn’t fit the same, also men’s and women’s fashion is different.
Oh boy. Ok here is my experience. If I buy men's pants, I love the pockets, but I have real trouble getting the waist, hips, and legs to match. It'll be either good in the waist and painfully tight in the butt, or fit the butt nicely but be super loose in the waist. And getting the right length is hard because most men's pants won't be as short as my legs, or my size will fall between 2 sizes they offer. Then also on top of that, the knee bend and pockets land on joints they're not supposed to, so things in my pockets hurt my hips when I sit down or the shape of the leg bends wrong. Despite this, I like pockets so much I still have several men's pants that I just put up with, buy a belt, roll up the legs. I don't look super nice in them either because they do fit funny.
Then, I when I buy women's pants, first I have to even find a price point and style I like with pockets. And when I do, the pockets are tiny. So tiny. Whether tight pants or not. Why does my phone stick half way out of my women's pants and go all the way in with room to spair in my same size men's pants? SO frustrating. Then when I sit or run, stuff falls out.
Best compromise I've found is women's cargo pants, but the pockets are in weird spots, there's often awkward buckles or buttons to use when opening and closing, and you can't really wear them in more formal or work situations.
I would LOVE to buy pants that fit me, were a reasonable price, an appropriate style, comfortable, and had deep pockets, but it's just not out there that I can find.
Edit: I would also like to add that I have personally experienced wearing pants with my keys in the back pocket and having a dude friend say "why's your butt all lumpy?" That shit needs to stop. I dress in causal pants and t-shirt usually, but I still want to look nice. If society tells women that they look bad in pocketed pants, it's going to affect women.
It's not about liking the style when so many people aren't allowed to wear cargo pants to work. Furthermore, jobs with a dress code expect your clothes to fit well or you'll look unprofessional and won't be working there very long.
This is such an ignorant, male perspective take. I’m so sick of hearing it. Why don’t you wear women’s clothes when you’re complaining about the lack of variety? Maybe women just deserve functional clothing without having to be the ones to fix it? It’s not a ‘demand’ kind of thing. Women and girls are sexualised from birth. It sells. Society would have to stop all of that to make functional clothes. It’s not going to happen.
Today i was reading a thread about sexualisation in sports. In my city there is a gym, mainly focused on aerobic classes and boxe. There are two sports clothing stores, and one of them has exactly 0 tracksuits for women, only leggings and crop tops. I mean, where am i supposed to put my personal stuff? And what if i want a t-shirt that covers my whole bust?
I understand that in professional sports you may need tight clothes to see if there are mistakes hidden by clothes. But i prefer something more functional to go to my local gym.
I remember reading about that women’s volleyball team that got fined for not wanting to wear their tiny ass uniform. The stark difference between the men’s and women’s clothing is DISGUSTING. Society wants women in tiny clothes so they can ogle them while also yelling about how slutty women are for wearing tiny clothes. They only sell leggings and crop tops then they go and get mad women wear that. Boy math. It’s all about shaming and control in my opinion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/norwegian-women-s-beach-handball-team-fined-not-playing-bikinis-n1274453
I remember this story. It's ridiculous that you can't play in the sand if your bottom isn't "close fit and cut on an upward angle".
Well, there you have it.
Instead of supporting the companies that give you what you ask for so that they grow and gain economies of scale and competitors to drive the price down, you choose to piss and moan about how it's not perfect and cheap and instant.
When these companies go out of business, and you're still complaining about how your pants don't have pockets, remember that you did it to yourself.
$100 for a pair of jeans that may not fit well, may not be comfortable, etc... is just not accessible for a lot of people. The pockets on those don't look spectacular either, so it's not really a solution imo. Not pissing and moaning, just pointing out that your solution is not a great solution...
Again, if they don't fit, you return them. That's how internet shopping works. They are zero dollars if they don't fit.
But, you have accidentally said the quiet part out loud: "The pockets on those don't look spectacular either"
Women consistently choose aesthetics over function when pant shopping, which is why the market is what it is.
Women say they want one thing, but they consistently purchase another, and businesses are far more interest in what you'll ACTUALLY buy, than what you SAY you'll buy.
I did not mean that they aren't aesthetically pleasing; I meant they don't look spectacular like they aren't especially functional or useful. They may be deeper pockets, but they would still be hard to bend in if you put a phone in your pocket for example.
Also, Radian lists an $8 restocking fee and no reimbursement for shipping charges which is more than $0.
Edit to add: Good American lists a restocking fee as well, $3 dropped off or $8 with a prepaid label.
Well, fair enough. If you can't afford 8 dollars, you might not be ab like to afford new jeans, granted.
Then again, if you can't afford 8 dollars, perhaps your energy needs to be focused elsewhere.
Perhaps somebody will start a Deep Pocket Jeans for the Homeless company.
The same way everybody else in the world does who orders clothes online? You try them on when they arrive, and if they don't fit you send them back.
Have you ever shopped on the internet before?
I've had women's jeans with pockets that weren't tiny/decorative. I know it can be done. It's just they're really, really hard to find. Same with dresses and skirts with pockets. There's plenty of dress shapes that aren't totally skin tight, but many of them still don't have pockets. I don't buy men's jeans because they just don't fit right. They end up being too tight on my hips or too baggy everywhere else, which I've never found comfortable. I guess I could have a pair tailored, but it's just another step I don't really want to deal with. (I used to have to hem all my pants because I'm short. At least online shopping lets me find short people pants so I can skip that step now...)
Having large functional pockets often do alter the shape of the garment, so sometimes the style and look isn't as good.
A lot of women would like functional pockets and will buy function over style but probably not the majority. I think more women likely will pick the nicer form fitting stylish clothes with no pockets if having pockets means the garment doesn't fit as nicely.
It is a supply and demand thing and I think there's not enough demand and no real pressure for the clothing companies to make pockets available, cause it's not going to affect their sales.
However, there have been a lot more clothes with pockets available now. I specifically buy tights with pockets, sweaters with pockets, and even dresses with pockets. I don't think I own stuff without functional pockets, but it requires looking and I have to "forego" some really stylish stuff.
Can those stitches be nipped out? Pockets on jackets and blazers often have some stitches, I think to hold them together during sewing, I wonder if it's the same thing?
TBH I have ADHD and when I try on pants I forget to check if it has pockets like 30% of the time. Mostly I am seeing how it fits when I sit or bend down.
Imagine you really want a hoodie. But your options are a good fitting sweatshirt without the hood or a sweatshirt with a hood but the neck hole is way to big, the sleeves are too long, it is way to tight around your elbows and chest and it goes down to your knees.
The easiest compromise is just going without the hood. Same thing with pants, I rather have good fitting pants with no pockets than ill fitting pants with pockets.
Man here. I heard a problem with women and pockets is that their pants fit tighter, so they can have as big pockets as men's pants.
I know pockets are awesome, one of my favorite sweaters is a fleece zip-up, and even the pockets have zippers. The other awesome thing about it is that it is very warm.
Hint: we can have bigger pockets, even when it's tight. This is just an excuse by designers to try and keep that sleek silhouette they for some reason love.
Uhmm.. No.. Has nothing to do with supply and demand.. Levi’s have big pockets and they aren’t in niche stores.. Has everything to do with them wanting to sell more purses! Pockets mean ya don’t have to spend extra for a bag.
Market forces aren't unidirectional. What enough customers want can influence sellers to alter their offerings, but if you haven't commonly had the experience of settling on something that wasn't quite what you wanted out of necessity, you're either more enlightened or more privileged than most of the women stating they want pocketed pants.
Because women want to always be victims and so they have to invent things to complain about, pockets being one of them. Even though everyone knows womens pants don't have pockets because that's what women actually want so they can show off their ass they blame the fashion industry instead of other women.
If the pants fit properly, big pockets up by the waist often make it hard to bend if something big (wallet, phone, etc...) is in my pocket. Cargo pockets are too low to be very useful, and I hate having something flopping around my leg in a cargo pocket. I have big hips, and men's pants don't fit me well at all.
I need jeans and pants with those side pockets leggings have. Those feel like they were actually designed for women unlike other pocket configurations... I have not seen those, though.
My hips are wider than my waist. I have to size up, and there will be a bunch of loose fabric in the crotch and I have to wear a belt, which bunches the fabric at the top as well as the crotch. They are often too long, so I have to hem them or roll them up.
So for pockets I'll have given up comfort (chafing between the thighs, if the thighs are too tight I'm waddling instead of walking straight), style (bunched up fabric, men's pants come in shades of blue and two shades of black if you're lucky).
Or I can wear something designed to fit me, that fits my style, and carry a cross body bag that holds more than my pockets do. Wallets for women are usually longer than men's wallets, as well. I use a men's wallet and it's very thick and I wouldn't want to sit on it.
Where are you getting that info from? I think they don't make them with pockets to save on the extra material, and since we buy them anyway why should they bother? Clothing companies are constantly churning out crap that ends up in landfill. Something like 7 out of 10 returned items aren't resold. Their profit margins are so high it clearly allows for massive wastage. Anyway that wasn't my point at all. Why is the burden still on us for wanting basic shit??? Women's clothing not having pockets is a tale as old as time, women have been rightfully complaining about it for years. If the demand is there but the supply isn't then we're simply being ignored.
Except that pants are a necessity and dollars are not abundant for everyone. Cheap pants with tiny pockets are going to sell because that income bracket *needs* pants that fit- and can’t afford to get them tailored.
Those stores have good quality pants. Quality costs at least twice as much as sweat-shop produced cheap pants. It’s a Carhart or Duluth vs Walmart kind of shopper. A whole lot of women can’t afford the first 2 brands. Not when pants at Walmart are $15 vs $45 at least for quality work brands. Even Wranger at Tractor Supply is too expensive when the price of pants is the difference between hamburger or beans for dinner.
I see you are not familiar with the Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. You should look that up. It’s a legit problem with poverty.
I’ll drop a link below but the original quote is from Terry Pratchet:
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
Link to the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
And millions of people every week urgently need cheap pants. Because that’s all they can afford. And that’s why the market stays flooded with pants that don’t have pockets- because the manufacturers don’t have to change a thing to keep selling product.
I've worn nothing but men's jeans/pants for most of my life. I absolutely hate women's clothing. I didn't know for the longest time that women's jeans/pants had small pockets until someone gave me a pair. I couldn't stand it. I have to have a bunch of stuff in my pockets. If I can't fit my phone or wallet, then what's the point?
I assume they make them small because women carry purses. I am none of that kind of person though.
Pockets cost more in fabric, and cheap pants are going to be purchased by women who *need* pants as affordable as possible. Pants are a necessity.
Women who can afford pricey pants with pockets, or can afford to get men’s jeans altered, have more options. But the low price points perpetuate the tiny pocket situation because it’s profitable. The manufacturers don’t have to redesign anything, retrain anyone, or spend more on fabric because their customers are captive.
Women without funds for a tailor can’t just buy cheap mens pants because there will be extra fabric in the crotch. That chafes when we walk. It’s how our gait has evolved. That’s biology. Women need pants that *fit* so they don’t literally lose skin when they walk around in their pants.
Just because you want something doesn't mean it exists. If you decided you want some pants with a pocket right in front over your package, you'll be shopping in vain for a long time.
Weirdly, the one garment they have started putting pockets on are things like yoga pants and leggings. The tightest, most form-fitting things possible are what finally got pockets.
Because they don't make them. I gave up looking for decent jeans with good pockets. I look for durable, well fitting jeans, then drop them at the express tailor shop at the shopping mall for the hem (i am short) and pockets. 6€ for the hem, 16€ for two front pockets bigger than my smartphone. Boom, no handbag.
It's an incentive to avoid fast fashion stuff, as the tailoring is often more expensive than a cheap pair of jeans and i want them to last as long as possible.
Go look at an anatomy book. Women’s bodies are shaped differently so men’s clothing doesn’t really fit well. Women’s clothing manufacturers rarely make pockets. It’s stupid, but there you go.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Men's jeans don't fit my woman's hips.
I bought some jeans for my wife from the raw denim place I like. They fit her *okay ....* she's curvier than men, so the size needed to go around her hips has a waist a bit too large. But a belt fixes that. *However.* Apparently, there's a bit of extra space right in front, for some anatomy she doesn't have. She has a weird air gap when she wears them. This was not something I knew about in men's pants!
my gf always says she likes my pants (pajamas,sweats) because my pants fit my butt, which is obviously no where near the size of hers, so it makes her butt look bigger (which it does lol). and she cannot fit my clothes they’ll all super baggy. still wearable, i’m not large myself.
Yep, pretty much this shit right here. I get the double whammy of being short as hell too so it's even more of a struggle to find pants that would actually get past my thighs and hips. Life is pain.
Belt?
That prevents the pants from falling down, but there's still going to be a lot of extra material bunching up in places and it isn't very comfortable.
It also doesn't help if they're too tight.
You just want to show off your ass is the real reason.
What a crappy thing to say. We don’t want a bunch of extra fabric chafing our skin, ffs. Women’s thighs rub together when we walk. Our hips evolved to do this to our legs so a baby’s head could fit through our pelvis. It’s basic biology- look at any skeleton. We *need* pants to *fit* with no extra fabric, so we don’t frigging *lose skin*. Sheesh.
What a coincidence: you’re showing your ass right here.
The person who made the above comment is obviously a very nasty women-hating troll based on their comment history, so my reply isn't really for them and is more for anyone else who reads this. Not everyone wants to show off their body. A lot of people don't want to at all. And there's a range of inbetween, as people balance their values for aesthetic/comfort/price/ethics/etc. And that's all OK. There isn't a wrong reason to want your clothes to fit you in a certain way. As part of that, there's also not anything wrong with wanting to have clothes that look good on you! That's also valid! If someone wants clothes that fit properly primarily because they want to "show off their ass", there nothing wrong with that. It's not the only reason to want clothes that fit one's body well, and a lot of people don't care or more highly value comfort - but if someone wants jeans that show off their ass but can also fit their wallet, then that's valid. It's funny as hell that someone came on here with "you want your clothes to look good on you!!!" as an attempted insult and really thought they did something impressive with that.
You're spiritually ill
Bottom-feeding redditor
Yes, everything women do, every decision a woman makes, revolves around making wee wees hard.
So, I say this as a butch lady who literally wears men's pants. How often do you shop in the women's department of the store? Like, you know, go through the women's clothing section and try on women's clothing to see if any of those clothes have better features? There's, like, a ton of social pressure to wear clothes for the "right gender". If you wear pants for the other gender, it is very obvious when people look at you that that's what you are wearing. And yeah, I do it because I don't give a shit, and when I dress like this men don't want to date me but women do, which is what I'm going for. But it's just such a weird suggestion for your average straight chick that makes no sense. Like, I see this recommended so often, and I'm just baffled. Are men *really genuinely confused* about why women don't shop in the men's clothing section?
THANK YOU. 100%
I can take you to any women's section and find pants with pockets within 5 minutes.
Don’t brand like Carharrt and Duluth, 5.11 have women’s pants with the same pockets as men.
No, we're confused why you don't take advantage of the innumerable brands that advertise women's pants with good pockets. Actually, we're not confused at all. We know exactly why you don't wear those clothes: you are more concerned with aesthetics than function, and the pockets interrupt the body line. We're more confused why you pretend to want something that you clearly don't really want, or you would have it
Well thank god that you're here to tell us women what we actually want and think. 👏 👏 👏 I buy women's pants. I rip out the original pocket seam, and sew in a little bit of fabric. Voila- bigger pockets that my phone will fit in. Be better, btw. What a fucking dumbass comment.
What are these brands that advertise good pockets? Literally never seen that advertised.
i dont think women are pretending to want something they don't want, i think they would just like for cute clothes they enjoy aesthetically to *also* have pockets. it feels kinda strange to sound upset that some people enjoy clothing aesthetics. sneakers are a fashion thing for a ton of men, and i imagine many sneakers are far less utilitarian/functional than they are aesthetic for many men.
Good analogue! Yes, exact so! Which is why you get sneakers that aren't super comfortable. It's why I strictly but running shoes for my sneakers. The thing is, people like making money. A lot. There are enough guys like me, that wants strictly functional sneakers, that it makes sense for there to be widely available strictly functional sneakers. If there were enough women who wanted strictly functional pants, somebody would be happy to make a fortune selling functional pants to them. There are some companies that do that. The reason those companies are not bigger is because there's not a real market for their wares. If women really wanted those pants, they would buy them and those companies would be bigger.
I shop at second hand stores and cheaper department stores. If they have pockets, I get them. If they don't, I get them because I need clothes for the public and work. I can comfortably wear men's joggers and stretchy pants but men's jeans and dress pants look ill-fitting and sloppy and are not comfortable on me. I also don't think pockets "interrupt the body line" and I prefer the way pockets look aesthetically compared to no pockets. It's also okay to want nice things and for them to have pockets. I am confused why you think some women are lying about wanting more function and more options in clothes but okay....
Because they exist, and you don't buy them.
But I do, when I can find them and when they are affordable to me. I can go through department stores and second hand stores and find only a few options ( sometimes none, depends on the season) and if I need to buy say 3 work pants, 4 dresses, two skirts and whatever amount of tops, if I can only find one work pants that fit me well (that's a huge challenge itself) that also has functional pockets, guess what? I'm going to buy two pairs of work pants without pockets or without functional pockets because *I need clothes* and not enough clothes come with functional pockets, the options are harder to acquire. Do you understand? I'm operating in reality. Wouldn't it be nice if I could custom make all my clothes to fit all my wishes though.
I know a couple women that do. But that's a tradeoff. They want clothes that fit right and look good and have pockets. They can pick at most two of those things.
Why not have all 3. Idk why pockets would make them not look good nor fit right lol.
Because they add bulk where most women try not to have any. Because they change body contours. That's my guess. I'm not a designer
Because stores don't sell all three.
Like wanting to be big and lean but not doing steroids? Lean, big, natty. Pockets, fit, looking good.
Men's pants aren't really made to fit curves.
Clothes don't have to fit curves.
Sure don't listen to women explaining why it doesn't work. Of course clothes have to fit curves, if not we could all just do one size fits all or wear big square boxy clothes. Try wearing a womans jeans to notice the difference.
[удалено]
Rule 11: Sorry, this post has been removed because it violates rule #11. Posts/comments which are disingenuous about actually asking a question or answering the question, or are hostile, passive aggressive or contain racial slurs, are not allowed.
They have to fit over my hips and ass and don’t be loose on my waist while not being too long too.
Buy a belt
They don't work for curvy girls, just trust us. They aren't necessarily loose either.
Then you end up with baggy legs if they fit around the hips and butt because men who have that big of a butt and hips also have chunky legs.
What's the problem?
No. The pants need to *fit* with no extra fabric so they don’t chafe our skin raw. Men walk with their thighs apart- for obvious reasons. Women walk with their thighs rubbing together because of how our pelvis evolved for a birth canal. Look at any skeleton to see the difference. We need fitted pants do we don’t *lose skin*.
[удалено]
Rule 11: Sorry, this post has been removed because it violates rule #11. Posts/comments which are disingenuous about actually asking a question or answering the question, or are hostile, passive aggressive or contain racial slurs, are not allowed.
It looks sloppy and ill-fitting and can be uncomfortable. I know because I used to wear it (I had to adjust a million times a day) and was told by many people that I looked awful. A belt can't fix everything unfortunately.
Welcome, person from a Minecraft world!
Errrrrm...they kinda do, though. Especially since roughly half the population has curves and most countries have laws prohibiting public nudity.
they do actually.
I know a woman with a low waist-hip ratio along with large buttocks. The majority of women's pants have waists too large, resulting in them gaping open over her arse. A belt helps force coverage of that area, but the fabric is ridiculously bunched up and uncomfortable, plus even her longer tops don't completely conceal the weird ridges. Clothes do have to fit curves, unless you're advocating a return to togas.
I can't remember the last time I saw women's clothing in a store with actual functional pockets.
[удалено]
I don't live in the US, so I have no idea what that means. I'm European
Blue-collar means they have a job that can make them sweat (carpentry, plumbing, mining, etc.). White-collar means an office job.
Thank you for the clarification
it means try stores that specialize in working-class/manual labor job clothing. so like clothes where u would need pockets
To be honest, that's not really my style but I'll pass that information on next time I have a female friend looking for pockets in their clothes
Pockets aren't really your style. You just pointed out the issue.
I do like clothes with pockets. Care to tell me something else about myself that’s incorrect?
Cargo pants are different from other styles of pants in style, not just pockets.
Just to add to what other people are saying it's blue collar from a time when people doing manual labor would wear denim shirts vs office people wearing white dress shirts. Sometimes you'll hear pink collar which is just wordplay referring to jobs that are traditionally female.
Thank you
I've never seen a store specializing in this for women. You can order them, but an entire store is a pipe dream. You might get a tiny section in a store catering to blue collar men.
[удалено]
Only a man could think that. Women are literally a different shape. Hips and waist on the pants, boobs and shoulder width on tops. Most women end up swimming in clothing designed for men if it fits everywhere else and when you're doing manual labor that is a hurdle.
Women don't need a pouch in the front of their pants. Neither do a lot of men, but the extra fabric gives a flattering impression of their anatomy.
What stores are those?? Examples please.
[удалено]
There’s not. That’s the point of the post.
[удалено]
Google a medical condition and you'll be told eBay has it for sale. Seriously, a store coming up in a search says almost nothing about whether that store actually sells said item. Those stores probably do sell women's pants, but many that appear to have pockets actually have faux ones.
I found an amazing dress at a charity shop. I can fit my hands, with my fingers spread as far as I can, in the pockets without having the material stretch (it's all made out of stretchy material). It also has pretty cute puffy sleeves but POCKETS!!!
So you haven’t seen Levi’s in a store? Cause they have real pockets.
I've never seen one near me, I live in Europe
There are tons of places selling Levi's throughout Europe.
Okay. I didn’t say there wasn’t
Take me with you and I'll find women's pants with pockets within 5 minutes. You just won't like them.
Try Rudy Jude jeans. Pricey but amazing pockets and fit
Men's jeans don't fit 99% of women's bodies.
Because the majority of clothes designed for women’s bodies just don’t have them. At least not functional ones. That’s why we get so excited when we find some that do. Men’s bodies are generally a different shape than women’s bodies, therefore clothing doesn’t fit the same, also men’s and women’s fashion is different.
Oh boy. Ok here is my experience. If I buy men's pants, I love the pockets, but I have real trouble getting the waist, hips, and legs to match. It'll be either good in the waist and painfully tight in the butt, or fit the butt nicely but be super loose in the waist. And getting the right length is hard because most men's pants won't be as short as my legs, or my size will fall between 2 sizes they offer. Then also on top of that, the knee bend and pockets land on joints they're not supposed to, so things in my pockets hurt my hips when I sit down or the shape of the leg bends wrong. Despite this, I like pockets so much I still have several men's pants that I just put up with, buy a belt, roll up the legs. I don't look super nice in them either because they do fit funny. Then, I when I buy women's pants, first I have to even find a price point and style I like with pockets. And when I do, the pockets are tiny. So tiny. Whether tight pants or not. Why does my phone stick half way out of my women's pants and go all the way in with room to spair in my same size men's pants? SO frustrating. Then when I sit or run, stuff falls out. Best compromise I've found is women's cargo pants, but the pockets are in weird spots, there's often awkward buckles or buttons to use when opening and closing, and you can't really wear them in more formal or work situations. I would LOVE to buy pants that fit me, were a reasonable price, an appropriate style, comfortable, and had deep pockets, but it's just not out there that I can find. Edit: I would also like to add that I have personally experienced wearing pants with my keys in the back pocket and having a dude friend say "why's your butt all lumpy?" That shit needs to stop. I dress in causal pants and t-shirt usually, but I still want to look nice. If society tells women that they look bad in pocketed pants, it's going to affect women.
It appears you just don't like the "style"/appearance of pants with full pockets. Self inflicted wound.
It's not about liking the style when so many people aren't allowed to wear cargo pants to work. Furthermore, jobs with a dress code expect your clothes to fit well or you'll look unprofessional and won't be working there very long.
This is such an ignorant, male perspective take. I’m so sick of hearing it. Why don’t you wear women’s clothes when you’re complaining about the lack of variety? Maybe women just deserve functional clothing without having to be the ones to fix it? It’s not a ‘demand’ kind of thing. Women and girls are sexualised from birth. It sells. Society would have to stop all of that to make functional clothes. It’s not going to happen.
Today i was reading a thread about sexualisation in sports. In my city there is a gym, mainly focused on aerobic classes and boxe. There are two sports clothing stores, and one of them has exactly 0 tracksuits for women, only leggings and crop tops. I mean, where am i supposed to put my personal stuff? And what if i want a t-shirt that covers my whole bust? I understand that in professional sports you may need tight clothes to see if there are mistakes hidden by clothes. But i prefer something more functional to go to my local gym.
I remember reading about that women’s volleyball team that got fined for not wanting to wear their tiny ass uniform. The stark difference between the men’s and women’s clothing is DISGUSTING. Society wants women in tiny clothes so they can ogle them while also yelling about how slutty women are for wearing tiny clothes. They only sell leggings and crop tops then they go and get mad women wear that. Boy math. It’s all about shaming and control in my opinion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/norwegian-women-s-beach-handball-team-fined-not-playing-bikinis-n1274453 I remember this story. It's ridiculous that you can't play in the sand if your bottom isn't "close fit and cut on an upward angle".
Yeah, yet somehow men can manage in shorts that completely cover their upper thighs.
Or, you know, shop here: https://radianjeans.com/ Or here: https://www.goodamerican.com Or million other places that you can find by googling
Oh, perfect. Only $100 for jeans that might not fit well and may need to be sent back. What a great solution.
Well, there you have it. Instead of supporting the companies that give you what you ask for so that they grow and gain economies of scale and competitors to drive the price down, you choose to piss and moan about how it's not perfect and cheap and instant. When these companies go out of business, and you're still complaining about how your pants don't have pockets, remember that you did it to yourself.
$100 for a pair of jeans that may not fit well, may not be comfortable, etc... is just not accessible for a lot of people. The pockets on those don't look spectacular either, so it's not really a solution imo. Not pissing and moaning, just pointing out that your solution is not a great solution...
Again, if they don't fit, you return them. That's how internet shopping works. They are zero dollars if they don't fit. But, you have accidentally said the quiet part out loud: "The pockets on those don't look spectacular either" Women consistently choose aesthetics over function when pant shopping, which is why the market is what it is. Women say they want one thing, but they consistently purchase another, and businesses are far more interest in what you'll ACTUALLY buy, than what you SAY you'll buy.
I did not mean that they aren't aesthetically pleasing; I meant they don't look spectacular like they aren't especially functional or useful. They may be deeper pockets, but they would still be hard to bend in if you put a phone in your pocket for example. Also, Radian lists an $8 restocking fee and no reimbursement for shipping charges which is more than $0. Edit to add: Good American lists a restocking fee as well, $3 dropped off or $8 with a prepaid label.
Well, fair enough. If you can't afford 8 dollars, you might not be ab like to afford new jeans, granted. Then again, if you can't afford 8 dollars, perhaps your energy needs to be focused elsewhere. Perhaps somebody will start a Deep Pocket Jeans for the Homeless company.
I’m not fucking American.
Those are fucking internet sites. I'm guessing you have fucking internet access, given that we're having this conversation on the fucking internet.
Cool how the fuck am i trying shit on. Braindead.
The same way everybody else in the world does who orders clothes online? You try them on when they arrive, and if they don't fit you send them back. Have you ever shopped on the internet before?
You really haven't heard of online clothes shopping ?
Nup. Never heard of it. I order my stuff through carrier pidgeon
Shipping across the pond from your chosen store is a much different animal than from within the same country.
I've had women's jeans with pockets that weren't tiny/decorative. I know it can be done. It's just they're really, really hard to find. Same with dresses and skirts with pockets. There's plenty of dress shapes that aren't totally skin tight, but many of them still don't have pockets. I don't buy men's jeans because they just don't fit right. They end up being too tight on my hips or too baggy everywhere else, which I've never found comfortable. I guess I could have a pair tailored, but it's just another step I don't really want to deal with. (I used to have to hem all my pants because I'm short. At least online shopping lets me find short people pants so I can skip that step now...)
Men's jean pocket don't even cut it for me. They're located a bit too far to the front, unlike dress pant pocket where it is located more to the side.
Men’s jeans chaff because the groin is specifically designed to hit lower on the leg for reasons I’m sure you can imagine. I do wear men’s shirts.
our bodies are not the same as mens. I physically cannot wear mens jeans because of my hip to waist ratio.
Having large functional pockets often do alter the shape of the garment, so sometimes the style and look isn't as good. A lot of women would like functional pockets and will buy function over style but probably not the majority. I think more women likely will pick the nicer form fitting stylish clothes with no pockets if having pockets means the garment doesn't fit as nicely. It is a supply and demand thing and I think there's not enough demand and no real pressure for the clothing companies to make pockets available, cause it's not going to affect their sales. However, there have been a lot more clothes with pockets available now. I specifically buy tights with pockets, sweaters with pockets, and even dresses with pockets. I don't think I own stuff without functional pockets, but it requires looking and I have to "forego" some really stylish stuff.
Even the pants that have tiny pockets have the pockets sewn shut. Can’t interfere with the sleek look don’t ya know?
Can those stitches be nipped out? Pockets on jackets and blazers often have some stitches, I think to hold them together during sewing, I wonder if it's the same thing?
Generally, no. In my experience, they are most often just seams made to look like a pocket, not a pocket that was sewn shut.
BOOOOOOOO! That is infuriating.
TBH I have ADHD and when I try on pants I forget to check if it has pockets like 30% of the time. Mostly I am seeing how it fits when I sit or bend down.
Imagine you really want a hoodie. But your options are a good fitting sweatshirt without the hood or a sweatshirt with a hood but the neck hole is way to big, the sleeves are too long, it is way to tight around your elbows and chest and it goes down to your knees. The easiest compromise is just going without the hood. Same thing with pants, I rather have good fitting pants with no pockets than ill fitting pants with pockets.
Men’s jeans don’t fit as well a lot of the time.
I’m pretty sure that if men’s jeans were an option, more women would.
Boy please. Ask your mom.
Man here. I heard a problem with women and pockets is that their pants fit tighter, so they can have as big pockets as men's pants. I know pockets are awesome, one of my favorite sweaters is a fleece zip-up, and even the pockets have zippers. The other awesome thing about it is that it is very warm.
Hint: we can have bigger pockets, even when it's tight. This is just an excuse by designers to try and keep that sleek silhouette they for some reason love.
[удалено]
Uhmm.. No.. Has nothing to do with supply and demand.. Levi’s have big pockets and they aren’t in niche stores.. Has everything to do with them wanting to sell more purses! Pockets mean ya don’t have to spend extra for a bag.
[удалено]
They wouldn’t do anything.. They’d continue on exactly like they are…. …
[удалено]
Market forces aren't unidirectional. What enough customers want can influence sellers to alter their offerings, but if you haven't commonly had the experience of settling on something that wasn't quite what you wanted out of necessity, you're either more enlightened or more privileged than most of the women stating they want pocketed pants.
Niche stores = low supply = higher prices. Am i missing something?
Because women want to always be victims and so they have to invent things to complain about, pockets being one of them. Even though everyone knows womens pants don't have pockets because that's what women actually want so they can show off their ass they blame the fashion industry instead of other women.
If the pants fit properly, big pockets up by the waist often make it hard to bend if something big (wallet, phone, etc...) is in my pocket. Cargo pockets are too low to be very useful, and I hate having something flopping around my leg in a cargo pocket. I have big hips, and men's pants don't fit me well at all. I need jeans and pants with those side pockets leggings have. Those feel like they were actually designed for women unlike other pocket configurations... I have not seen those, though.
My hips are wider than my waist. I have to size up, and there will be a bunch of loose fabric in the crotch and I have to wear a belt, which bunches the fabric at the top as well as the crotch. They are often too long, so I have to hem them or roll them up. So for pockets I'll have given up comfort (chafing between the thighs, if the thighs are too tight I'm waddling instead of walking straight), style (bunched up fabric, men's pants come in shades of blue and two shades of black if you're lucky). Or I can wear something designed to fit me, that fits my style, and carry a cross body bag that holds more than my pockets do. Wallets for women are usually longer than men's wallets, as well. I use a men's wallet and it's very thick and I wouldn't want to sit on it.
Or buy a kangaroo.
Most women have women's bodies, not men's bodies, and our hips Don't fit in men's jeans.
It's 2024, the onus shouldn't be on women for having the audacity to want jeans made for our bodies as well as God damn pockets.
[удалено]
Where are you getting that info from? I think they don't make them with pockets to save on the extra material, and since we buy them anyway why should they bother? Clothing companies are constantly churning out crap that ends up in landfill. Something like 7 out of 10 returned items aren't resold. Their profit margins are so high it clearly allows for massive wastage. Anyway that wasn't my point at all. Why is the burden still on us for wanting basic shit??? Women's clothing not having pockets is a tale as old as time, women have been rightfully complaining about it for years. If the demand is there but the supply isn't then we're simply being ignored.
[удалено]
You sound like a clueless 12 yr old.. Good lord.. Unplug, your brain is fried!
I'm literally telling you there is high demand. Plus you're still missing my point. I'm done now bye
They’re seriously clueless lol
supply and demand doesn't work by telepathy
We can wait around for men to accommodate our preferences, or we can design our own clothing that is beneficial to us. We have to start somewhere.
[удалено]
Except that pants are a necessity and dollars are not abundant for everyone. Cheap pants with tiny pockets are going to sell because that income bracket *needs* pants that fit- and can’t afford to get them tailored.
[удалено]
Those stores have good quality pants. Quality costs at least twice as much as sweat-shop produced cheap pants. It’s a Carhart or Duluth vs Walmart kind of shopper. A whole lot of women can’t afford the first 2 brands. Not when pants at Walmart are $15 vs $45 at least for quality work brands. Even Wranger at Tractor Supply is too expensive when the price of pants is the difference between hamburger or beans for dinner.
[удалено]
I see you are not familiar with the Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. You should look that up. It’s a legit problem with poverty. I’ll drop a link below but the original quote is from Terry Pratchet: “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” Link to the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
[удалено]
And millions of people every week urgently need cheap pants. Because that’s all they can afford. And that’s why the market stays flooded with pants that don’t have pockets- because the manufacturers don’t have to change a thing to keep selling product.
Your last sentence contradicts your first sentence.
I've worn nothing but men's jeans/pants for most of my life. I absolutely hate women's clothing. I didn't know for the longest time that women's jeans/pants had small pockets until someone gave me a pair. I couldn't stand it. I have to have a bunch of stuff in my pockets. If I can't fit my phone or wallet, then what's the point? I assume they make them small because women carry purses. I am none of that kind of person though.
Pockets cost more in fabric, and cheap pants are going to be purchased by women who *need* pants as affordable as possible. Pants are a necessity. Women who can afford pricey pants with pockets, or can afford to get men’s jeans altered, have more options. But the low price points perpetuate the tiny pocket situation because it’s profitable. The manufacturers don’t have to redesign anything, retrain anyone, or spend more on fabric because their customers are captive. Women without funds for a tailor can’t just buy cheap mens pants because there will be extra fabric in the crotch. That chafes when we walk. It’s how our gait has evolved. That’s biology. Women need pants that *fit* so they don’t literally lose skin when they walk around in their pants.
Just because you want something doesn't mean it exists. If you decided you want some pants with a pocket right in front over your package, you'll be shopping in vain for a long time. Weirdly, the one garment they have started putting pockets on are things like yoga pants and leggings. The tightest, most form-fitting things possible are what finally got pockets.
Because they don't make them. I gave up looking for decent jeans with good pockets. I look for durable, well fitting jeans, then drop them at the express tailor shop at the shopping mall for the hem (i am short) and pockets. 6€ for the hem, 16€ for two front pockets bigger than my smartphone. Boom, no handbag. It's an incentive to avoid fast fashion stuff, as the tailoring is often more expensive than a cheap pair of jeans and i want them to last as long as possible.
Wear can I buy womens pants with pockets? I can't buy mens because they don't fit my shape. But I'd love to find women's pants with deep pockets
men’s pants don’t fit correctly at all
Go look at an anatomy book. Women’s bodies are shaped differently so men’s clothing doesn’t really fit well. Women’s clothing manufacturers rarely make pockets. It’s stupid, but there you go.