I know it’s counter intuitive but women are allowed to shop in the men’s section if what they want is boring functionality.
Same applies to men. My favorite jacket was found in the women’s section.
Though I understand that if you want pockets on a dress, like a cargo dress, that will have to be a DIY item.
I have a fancy purple dress I bought to wear to a function. Got so many compliments the night I wore it. Everytime, I’d respond by putting my hand in the large pockets, “thanks, it has pockets” with a big ole smile
They’re out there, rare, but out there
I told my partner at the time about this and he didn’t believe me.
We got up early on our day off for a mission to the mall to find two things: Knee length women’s shorts with pockets and women’s pants with pockets that fit my phone. After five hours we found neither.
I bought slim fit men’s pants, like I always do, and took in the waist. Oh, and hospital scrubs.
Ladies, I’ve turned my mother and several friends onto doctor pants — they’re plain in every colour, full of pockets, stain resistant, dry quickly, have drawstring/elastic waists, and people ask you for medical advice at the pharmacy.
These days, can you find them online? I can imagine that a local mall might not have much selection, but the Internets are huge.
Women’s sizes are nuts. That was the other thing we discovered — my ex was just straight up medium shirts, same pants size in every store. I had no idea men had somewhat standardized sizes. Women’s sizes are basically astrology.
Plus, I have hella hips and a narrow waist, so depending on where the pants sit I either have a delicious muffin top or I’m swimming in them. Thus: Hospital pants.
Yeah, I really don’t get the sizing thing. I’ve heard it’s because if the manufacturer makes a bigger size but labels it a smaller size, some women will enthusiastically buy it because they’re happy to be wearing a smaller (labelled) size. But, that sounds like BS to me.
I think maybe a difference is that men tend to rarely wear tight clothing, so even if the arms are a bit too long, or the chest is a bit too tight a medium still works. But, for women, because it’s designed to have a body-hugging style, if it’s too tight anywhere it’s too small. Like, I can’t imagine any men’s shirt that would result in a muffin top. For a guy, that might mean you’re off by two sizes, not just one.
No, it’s definitely a thing, and trends more in clothes geared to older women. When I shopped at Forever 21 back when I was in my 20s, I was a size 4-6; when I shopped at REI I was a size 4. When I shopped at Chicos, on the other hand, which caters almost exclusively to older women, I was a size 0. And sometimes even that was too big on me.
Good news; I found an outfit with pockets.
Bad news; it’s a romper.
What you don’t want to let your tits out to use the public toilet?
The Victorian era (and before) was chock full of ladies’ pockets. It’s just that they weren’t sewn into the garment – you’d have a slit in your skirt, and use a waist pocket like this that was separate and worn beneath your outer clothes as an undergarment. You’d line up the slit in your pocket with the slit in your outer garment.
A bonus was you could misalign the slits to easily thwart pickpocketers whilst travelling.
Women losing pockets to fashion is a fairly recent thing, actually – since the early 1900s when slim, body-conforming things like pencil dresses and trousers entered the scene, and natural, non-bustled hips being on display became cool. The secret pocket turned into a handbag, because women were still expected to carry all and sundry in order to keep their face and hair fresh all day; men weren’t required to carry more than a few paper goods, whereas if a woman couldn’t reapply her face and lips all day, a scandal might ensue. Lipstick, powder, and other accoutrements take up more space than a pencil dress allows without ruining the silhouette, so handbags were just assumed. And if you assume handbags, what use are pockets that might ruin the figure?
Nowadays, couture fashion assumes handbags for the same reason architecture assumes lifts. Why ruin your design with 12 staircases?
I want pockets, too, but anyhow, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Nowadays, couture fashion assumes handbags for the same reason architecture assumes lifts. Why ruin your design with 12 staircases?
Wait, are there places in the world with high buildings without staircases?! What if power goes out?
In hindsight, that was a really weird analogy. In my defense, I was pretty high.
Defense accepted. Even the buildings were high.
Womens clothes with pockets are still available, but usually harder to get and less stylish, and thus women often end up picking other preferences over large pockets.
They might want pockets, but they end up preferring easy availability, style and low price over pockets.
The same thing can be seen in other product categories too. People (used to) often say they want a small phone, keyboard phone or phone with really long battery life, but in the end nobody would pay more or sacrifice other qualities over one of these types of phones and thus they went out of fashion.
To be fair, it’s really hard to design fashion that’s stylish AND has pockets.
It’s hard enough to design something that looks good on a variably sized and kinetic shape. Now make it look good and have storage.
It very much depends on what’s meant by “stylish”.
If the style means “no pockets”, yes, that’s very much contradictory.
But the point remains: If you want pockets but you want to have a pocketless style more, then you won’t have pockets.
I can assure you that it can be done with relative ease, for example I usually wear cargo pants, anime/metal/old CRPG tshirts, with a Czech military field jacket. I have all the pockets and make it work damned well, but I’m also five foot five and look like someone who would try to steal an mrap if I found one unprotected so your mileage may vary.
So… you dress “like a man”?
Don’t get me wrong, I like it. But, there should be a middle ground where someone can not completely abandon the modern standards of feminine clothing, while also having decently sized pockets. The problem seems to be that every time women are asked to choose between style and pockets they choose style. Every time it’s between cost and pockets, they choose cost. If it’s between availability and pockets, they choose the thing that’s more easily available.
BTW, have you heard of Articles of Interest? It’s a podcast from a former 99 percent invisible producer(?) who went on to make a podcast about clothing. The first episode is all about how military clothing came to influence almost all modern non-military clothing.
I personally look best in dresses with a fit and flare silhouette. It’s so easy to sneak pockets in those, but often designers just refuse to. I’ve personally added some to off the shelf dresses, but now I’m pretty much having dresses made for me (surprisingly cheaper than one may expect).
My mom has clothes made for her too, often made in Eastern Europe. It’s not exactly cheap, but neither were the off the shelf things she would otherwise be buying.
Motherfucker. Didn’t realize I accidentally forgot a word, I’m a dude and not in the gender neutral way either. I was making a shit post about mine fucken appearance.
Was “Motherfucker” the world you forgot? If so, where does it go in that post?
No just a point of irritation. Pretty sure the area I forgot to note my gender in was where I was describing myself as looking like id steal an mrap. Pretty sure I forgot that due to a cat launching himself into my gut at top speed, his name is Barca and he inherited none of his namesakes intellect.
We might be twins.
Well, yes, but I meant the form-fitting fashion that was the rage when pockets disappeared from womenswear between like 1910 and the late 1950s. Women still weren’t allowed to wear overtly manly clothes except in certain contexts, so everything from the waist down had to be overtly feminine, since just wearing man pants was too subversive.
I’d never heard of tie-on pockets. Cool!
The word pocket comes from pouch. Originally all “pockets” were bags worn either over or under clothing. Attaching them directly to the garment was a 15th century(?) twist.
Well, OP, how about you start a new sewing business?
I think OP is drawing comics.
They would be richer if they sew pockets onto women’s clothes, and sold them to women. Imagine the money!
EDIT: OH , HI MARK!
I’m gonna start doing amateur pocket elongation with my bad sewing skills
Any garment can have a pocket if you sew some cool fabric to the outside!
Works even better if you leave an opening too! Wasted many a garment till I learned that trick
Glad I waded past the armchair speculators for this field-wrought wisdom.
At your service!
Fishing vests are unisex.
Now that I think about it neither my wife nor I own one - a christmas opportunity lost
Tactikool pants also have big pockets, even the women’s version.*
Find them wherever cops get there uniforms at. (Galls comes to mind.)
*Not necessarily fashionable.
I’m lucky enough to have overalls supplied and washed by my work. Pockets for days - I’ll have to do an EDC post one day.
Wanna know why nobody has capitalized on this and added pockets to garments? Because women WONT BUY THEM. The end.
Or, hot take, a company that sells clothes with pockets makes less money than a company that sells clothes without pockets and then offers ladies $50-150 purses to compensate. If you think the fashion industry hasn’t noticed that, you’re crazy.
It’s like how the American auto industry noticed they could make more money selling big vehicles and so all of them just stopped making smaller cars. Plenty of Americans say they want smaller cars, but the American auto makers don’t care.
It’s not that they won’t buy them, it’s just that there’s typically a list of priorities including fashion, availability, price, durability, etc., and pockets is low on that list of concerns. If something is cheap, durable, looks good, can be bought easily nearby or online, and has pockets, it’s going to sell well. The problem is that most designers seem to feel that pockets ruin fashion, so you rarely get things that are both fashionable and have useful pockets. Even when there are knock-offs of clothes where fashion isn’t the main point, they tend to keep small / no pockets just because whatever they’re copying had small / no pockets.
has this been tested?
Yes. They’re out of business now.
People like to bitch, they don’t actually want the thing they’re bitching about.
In the town I grew up was a tailor who only sold jeans and would fit them to you right there. Every single woman I knew went there for pants because you could get pockets put in and a proper fit. I still have three pairs.
RIP
Yes. They’re out of business now.
Who is this “They”?
People like to bitch, they don’t actually want the thing they’re bitching about.
I know someone who made themselves a pouch in order to remedy this, so it honestly sounds like you’re pulling this out of your ass.
Lmm I imagine there is a pocket event horizon that woman have failed to cross
I’m listening…
No pocket sand or ravioli without pockets
Or tots
Bc capitalism, ofc.
I’ve seen some men’s clothing without pockets as well.
They wouldn’t exist if people refused to buy them. Vote with your wallet.
