Women like pockets, but fashionable dresses, etc, don't have them, why?

[Tired_and_Cranky]

@BippityBoppityBoo

How about for several decades we allow functional pockets in men’s clothing only if there is an offsetting item offered for women in the same price range?

The solution to injustice isn’t more injustice.

@BippityBoppityBoo

I reject that it is my job as a women to look stylish for the male audience.

I think you are suggesting I am in favor of the status quo. I am merely observing it and commenting on it. I reject it wholeheartedly. I agree that it’s not your job. It shouldn’t be any woman’s job. And yet if individual women don’t do that job, society will disadvantage them. It’s institutional sexism. It’s wrong. I understand that. Unfortunately, the rational decisions by individual women faced with this institutional sexism add up to preserving the status quo. When choosing clothes, a woman can opt for practical clothes with pockets and be judged for not buying stylish ones or buy the stylish ones that are offered with no pockets. Women continue to make the decision to buy clothes without pockets. That’s why designers keep selling them.

@BippityBoppityBoo

I have never thought, much less said, “the pockets on that blazer ruin it’s line, therefore he’s unattractive”.

Society doesn’t hold men and women to the same beauty standards. Men exert more control on the beauty standards for women than women do on the beauty standards for men. This is a problem with society, not merely a problem with pants.

@BippityBoppityBoo

The no pants rule was forever by the wayside and 150 years of tradition of that particular subjugation along with it.

I applaud you with all my heart.

@BippityBoppityBoo

Never doubt that appearance expectations and rules are meant to keep us in our place.

I don’t doubt it for an instant. I know that’s the case. I said as much. The problem with no pockets in pants is societal expectations being foisted on women. Women can either suffer to meet them or suffer worse by not meeting them.

@Chronos

Even if most women don’t choose garments with pockets (let’s accept that for the sake of argument), it’s clear that there’s a decent-sized minority, at least, who would. And if there were one clothing company that made women’s clothes with pockets, then all of that minority would buy from that company.

You’re describing a perfect market with perfect information. We don’t live in such a Utopia. It also expects a lot of women to find and buy exclusively from this single company when society’s expectations on women are that they should all look fabulous but distinctive. How mortified would women be if not two but four women at work were all wearing the same pants from the same company?

@Chronos

suspect that what’s happening here is that, every so often, some middling person at some clothing company (likely herself a woman) suggests this, and the male CEO dismisses her and mansplains that all women care about is looking good for their menfolk, and women don’t need pockets, because they have men to take care of all of that serious business for them.

I suspect it’s not. There are women designers too and they don’t universally put pockets in clothes. I don’t even know if they are more likely to put pockets in clothes. Fast fashion gets sold at prices so low the cost of pockets would be meaningful to the bottom line. It gets sold through online ads and organic social media posts. Those selfies on Instagram look better when the wearers don’t have weird bulges on their hips. Designers leave the pockets out because it is cheaper and women still buy them.

If anyone wants to note that society expects women to replace their clothes more often than men do (driving the demand for fast fashion), and that women must comply or be punished, well, that’s just another way of using wardrobe expectations to hold women back.

@Keeve

BTW, my wife informs me that as of a couple of years ago, it is becoming harder and harder to find men’s shirts with pockets. So my genuine sympathy has grown into empathy.

I’m surprised to find there are men who use the shirt pockets. My tailor told me that fewer pockets connotes higher-end shirts. I have a small chest and I’ll be damned but leaving the pockets off cleans up the lines.

@Gorsnak

That this hasn’t happened is due to either 1) women don’t actually want pockets, in spite of saying they do, or 2) garment makers are idiots. I’m going with option 2.

It think it’s option 3. Clothes from specialty manufacturer with pockets are likely to cost more and be harder to find, and probably be judged by society to be less stylish. Women are making the reasonable decision to buy the most stylish, affordable clothes that are readily available to them. They don’t have pockets.

@doreen

Maybe not - jeans are the one type of pants that I have no problem finding with multiple pockets.

Right. There are some comfortable, stylish, affordable clothes that women can readily buy with pockets. Society arbitrarily says women can’t wear them in the workplace. Patriarchy.

@Kimstu

Men often react to these explanations by looking blank and saying “oh, so what you mean is that women don’t really want pockets, because they’re willing to buy garments without pockets”.

For what it’s worth, my view is that the first order problem is that women are willing to buy garments without pockets even if they sincerely want pockets. The second order problem is that there are lots of reasons women rationally make this suboptimal choice. The clothes without pockets are cheaper, more stylish, and readily available. Women have chosen those things over pockets but I can understand why they do.

@Kimstu

Do you really think that there are no other examples of goods that a lot of people really do want but nonetheless aren’t widely available?

Yeah. I can’t buy a new mid-priced wagon with a manual transmission.

@Gorsnak

If there really is demand for pockets on stylish women’s clothing (and I believe there is based on the responses of women both in this thread and those I’ve spoken to irl), then there is a competitive advantage to be gained in the marketplace by producing clothes that satisfy that demand.

Invest in a company that puts pockets in all women’s clothes. I’ll put my money elsewhere. Not because I don’t want pockets in women’s clothes but because I don’t think this is a sufficient differentiator to guarantee success in the market.

@MrDibble

Cost of production is only an afterthought when it comes to women’s clothing pricing. The Pink Tax is real, and eliminating it could easily cover those cost changes.

I don’t think this is right. The pink tax is real but individual articles of women’s clothes are generally cheaper then men’s. The pink tax manifests itself in women’s fashion with the expectation that women replace perfectly useable clothes every season because fashion has moved on. Thus, women are pressed to spend more money in total on clothes. And they are driven to buy cheaper clothes - that lack pockets.

@Mijin

Markets can often lag demand for a very long time, years or even decades. Especially if the balance towards “want pockets” is mild.

The market for rocketships probably lags by decades. The market for women’s clothes has a lead time, in some cases, of weeks. Within two years, there could be a wholesale change in women’s clothes - if we achieve a wholesale change in society first.

@puzzlegal

Why yes, I HAVE spent an inordinate amount of money adding pockets to garments over the years.

Having made the investment, do you wear those clothes for a long time? If so, you aren’t the target market for sellers of fast fashion.

[Mijin]

@Tired_and_Cranky

The market for rocketships probably lags by decades. The market for women’s clothes has a lead time, in some cases, of weeks. Within two years, there could be a wholesale change in women’s clothes - if we achieve a wholesale change in society first.

I agree with your point, but let’s be clear that the leadtime of getting an idea to the market is a different thing from the leadtime of realizing something would benefit sales. It’s not as though if women desire pockets today, within two weeks (or two years) clothes have pockets.
However, I would agree that if there is some kind of visible / vocal demand for pockets, then it will happen.

[Keeve]

@Tired_and_Cranky

I’m surprised to find there are men who use the shirt pockets. My tailor told me that fewer pockets connotes higher-end shirts.

I have (almost) no sense of style whatsoever, and my fashion choices are based on utilitarian factors.

I keep almost nothing in my back pockets, because stuff there makes sitting down uncomfortable. I use one front pants pocket for my wallet and the other for my keys and other stuff. I have tried many times to keep my phone there, but it never works out well, especially if I need my phone while I am sitting. Similarly, prior to cell phones, that’s where I kept my pens and notepad, for the same reason - being able to access them while sitting.

Someone upthread mentioned that things tend to fall out of shirt pockets when one bends down. This is true, if one bends down far enough. But with all the other tradeoffs here, that’s the one that’s least objectionable to me. YMMV.

[Cheesesteak]

@BippityBoppityBoo

I reject that it is my job as a women to look stylish for the male audience. I think men should relieve the women in their life from that expectation and instead enjoy being in the presence of women who enjoy their clothes for their own reasons.

I think you are seriously overestimating how much the male audience cares about your fashion, and underestimating how much the female audience cares about your fashion.

We don’t even care about our own fashion, which is why the men’s department has the same 4 kinds of pants and shirts with no variation except size and color. We basically wear big person Garanimals, and you think we’re capable of criticizing the line of your dress? We’ve been wearing the same suit for every suit-appropriate event we’ve attended for the last 5 years, and we’ll get snarky because you wore the same dress to events 6 month’s apart? We are a LOT more shallow than you give us credit for.

[puzzlegal]

@Tired_and_Cranky

@puzzlegal

Why yes, I HAVE spent an inordinate amount of money adding pockets to garments over the years.

Having made the investment, do you wear those clothes for a long time? If so, you aren’t the target market for sellers of fast fashion.

Oh, I’m keenly aware that I’m not the target market for fast fashion. I don’t usually notice new styles until they are on their way out.

[Keeve]

@Cheesesteak

I think you are seriously overestimating how much the male audience cares about your fashion, and underestimating how much the female audience cares about your fashion.

There was a story a few years ago about a man who was a television news anchor somewhere in the US, I don’t remember where. As an experiment, he wore the very same dark suit on the air, every day for a full year, and not even one person noticed. I doubt any woman would have gotten away with that.

WHY this difference exists, I am not going to hazard a guess.

[carrps]

@thorny_locust

And when they do, they usually also adjust the rise in the same direction as the inseam. I need a short inseam and a long rise

Holy moly, I knew you were my sister under the skin!

[TRC4941]

I complain about this every day as I get dressed. I don’t care too much about pockets if I’m wearing dressy clothes but why in the heck don’t the pants that I wear when I walk the dogs have pockets? They’re kind of like sweatpants but not as baggy. I always take my phone with me because I listen to books or podcasts while I’m walking. Nothing like trying to hold on to a leash and a phone. I usually take a jacket even if it’s warm and tie it around my waist just so I have the jacket pocket to use. I have some jeans that look like they have front pockets, but it’s just stitching. I also have jeans that have front pockets so shallow that I can barely get my fingertips in the pocket. Chapstick wouldn’t even fit. What is the purpose!?

[MrDibble]

@Tired_and_Cranky

individual articles of women’s clothes are generally cheaper then men’s

That’s definitely not my experience.

[Mighty_Mouse]

@Keeve

There was a story a few years ago about a man who was a television news anchor somewhere in the US, I don’t remember where. As an experiment, he wore the very same dark suit on the air, every day for a full year, and not even one person noticed. I doubt any woman would have gotten away with that.

In the mid 1990s my future wife who had been my coworker for years came to my home for the first time.

She went into the closet and found that I really had about 15 suits the majority of which were grey with no pattern discernible from a distance, and about 15 white shirts many of which were absolutely identical.

She had assumed I was wearing the same grey suit day after day for years with three or four white shirts. The only thing I changed, she thought, was neckties.

Seeing that I actually had a closet full of clothes that were so similar as to be indistinguishable to her, a presumably keen observer of my appearance was mind blowing to her.

In her closet on the other hand was a variety of colorably BUSINESS attire that in turn blew my mind. I didn’t notice how varied womens clothing was nor how flimsy the construction seemed to be. Even business suits were featherweight compared to the mens versions. And she was buying pretty expensive clothes.

[Eonwe]

@Gorsnak

The barriers to entry in the clothing market are not that high.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching Shark Tank, this is false.

@Kimstu , thanks as always for being able to clearly communicate valuable perspectives on social issues.

One anecdote of interest:

I’m a man. A few years ago my wife bought me an incredible winter jacket from LL Bean. It’s very stylish (much more fashionable than anything I typically choose), fits me perfectly, I often get compliments on it, and I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed a coat as much as this one. It also happens to be a women’s coat. It’s got two, um, vertical pockets in the front that are deep and functional. It also has, like many/most coats, side pockets where you’d put your hands (and/or other items). These side pockets? I can’t fit my whole hand into them. And, they’re shallow enough that I wouldn’t trust any item that does fit in them to not fall out. To use a phrase from upthread, they are absolutely “vestigal pockets” on a winter coat where you would 100% expect functional pockets. It turns a perfect winter coat into an exercise in frustration every time I wear it. And this is from a company whose brand is all about functional, traditional yet fashionable outdoor wear.

[carrps]

@Keeve

There was a story a few years ago about a man who was a television news anchor somewhere in the US, I don’t remember where. As an experiment, he wore the very same dark suit on the air, every day for a full year, and not even one person noticed. I doubt any woman would have gotten away with that.

Rachel Maddow.

I just skimmed @MrDibble 's article on the evolution of lingerie, which triggered another rant. Why do all the pretty colors stop when you get above a C cup??? Although that does seem to be changing slowly.

[doreen]

There are probably a few reasons and my guess is that one of them is related to what @Mighty_Mouse described - there are only a few acceptable colors for male business attire and if a man is wearing either a gray suit or a blue suit every day people aren’t likely to notice if he has one of each or ten of each. The same thing actually goes for women when they dress that way - if a woman wears black pants everyday, no one will notice if it’s the exact same style every day or if there are minor differences. But if a man was to wear one of these to work , it would be memorable and people would notice if he wore the fuchsia suit twice in a week , just like people would notice if I wore a fuchsia blouse twice in a week. The thing is , women are more likely to wear those colors than men are.

@MrDibble

That’s definitely not my experience.

That really depends a lot on what’s being compared - good quality clothes for me are probably more expensive than my husband pays for similar quality. But I can go to certain stores and buy a variety of tops for under $15 (regular price) while my husband can maybe get a T shirt for under $15 . Of course, mine might not last for more than a couple of wearings and almost certainly not until next summer.

[puzzlegal]

@doreen

The same thing actually goes for women when they dress that way - if a woman wears black pants everyday, no one will notice if it’s the exact same style every day or if there are minor differences.

That’s not actually true. When i find something i like i buy a lot of it. And I’ve definitely had questions from people who thought i was wearing the same item every day, and disapproved.

@doreen

@MrDibble

That’s definitely not my experience.

That really depends a lot on what’s being compared

Yeah, there exists a lot of cheap crappy clothing for women.

Also, if you can find the same style of shoes for both men’s and women’s sizes (and you sometimes can – i have wide feet and sometimes the men’s version fits me better) the men’s version will often cost 20% more. I believe the cost of the materials must be enough to matter, and the men’s shoes, on average, are larger.

[doreen]

@puzzlegal

And I’ve definitely had questions from people who thought i was wearing the same item every day, and disapproved.

I might have worded that poorly - few people are paying so much attention that they will notice that the black pants I wore on Monday had useless slash pockets while the nearly identical pair I wore on Tuesday had useless horizontal pockets that zipper at the top. And even the people who think they can tell make mistakes in both directions - I had the opposite of your experience happen to me. I had ten or so similar but not identical pairs of black pants and someone though I had two pairs and was washing a pair every night.

[puzzlegal]

@doreen

someone though I had two pairs and was washing a pair every night.

So your experience is the same as mine. You wore something boring, and got negative comments because you weren’t varying your wardrobe enough.

[puzzlegal]

@Eonwe

These side pockets? I can’t fit my whole hand into them. And, they’re shallow enough that I wouldn’t trust any item that does fit in them to not fall out. To use a phrase from upthread, they are absolutely “vestigal pockets” on a winter coat where you would 100% expect functional pockets.

All too common in women’s winter coats. Let me not bore you with my attempts to replace a coat that’s wearing out but has excellent pockets.

The good news is that you can probably get those modified to be useful pockets for $20-$50, depending on your local tailors. You might want to provide your preferred fabric, as the flannely stuff that makes nice hand pockets on a winter coat might not be something the tailor just had lying around.

[Chronos]

@Tired_and_Cranky

You’re describing a perfect market with perfect information. We don’t live in such a Utopia.

It’s not like we’re trying to scrute the inscrutable, here. You do surveys, and focus groups, and ask customers what they want. If the information isn’t good enough, that’s still the result of companies making stupid business decisions.

@Tired_and_Cranky

How mortified would women be if not two but four women at work were all wearing the same pants from the same company?

I don’t know, how mortified? Men wouldn’t be mortified at all. Are women? Should they be? If a woman ever says “I wish I could wear clothes with pockets, but then I might end up wearing the same clothes as some other woman at the office who also likes pockets”, I’m comfortable saying that that’s 100% that woman’s problem. But does that ever actually happen outside of sitcoms?

@Tired_and_Cranky

If anyone wants to note that society expects women to replace their clothes more often than men do (driving the demand for fast fashion), and that women must comply or be punished, well, that’s just another way of using wardrobe expectations to hold women back.

I see at least as many women as men buying clothes at secondhand stores. Apparently wearing Last Year’s Fashions isn’t the cardinal sin it’s made out to be.

@Tired_and_Cranky

I’m surprised to find there are men who use the shirt pockets.

Well of course, they’re convenient. Where else would I put my pens and pencils, or my glasses when I take them off briefly? In my purse?

@carrps

Holy moly, I knew you were my sister under the skin!

I think, if you’re wearing your clothes under your skin, fashion might be the least of your issues…

[kenobi_65]

@Gorsnak

or all clothing manufacturers are simply missing this business opportunity, either because they’re tradition-bound misogynists, or they’re idiots, or some combination of the two.

As alluded to by someone upthread, the women’s fashion industry has a long tradition of designing primarily for the appearance of the garment, not for its functionality. Adding pockets – and the way that the garment looks when those pockets have things in them – has, I suspect, been a disincentive.

[Kimstu]

@Cheesesteak

it’s generally a bad bet to think that outfits like WalMart and Target are leaving profits on the table because they don’t understand that half of their customer base really really wants something simple and obvious. It isn’t that hard for Target to say “put pockets in more of our women’s clothes” to the people who only make clothes for Target, and steal that customer set from WalMart. The fact that they don’t should make you ask why, and the answer probably isn’t “they’re just stupid”.

Thank you. I’m surprised that so many people seem unwilling to recognize this.