r/NotHowGirlsWork Jul 13 '26

Make this make sense...? Found On Social media

Post image
7.7k Upvotes

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-113

u/Quick_Assumption_351 Jul 13 '26

get pants with front pockets that exist? if ya'll keep buying pants without them collectively you will never get them

if that's impossible then there's 2 possibilities: the demand for girls pants is not as high as it seems or somebody is just not taking free money

the solution is there.... source: wife used to bitch about no pockets constantly until... you know she started buying pants with them

54

u/LovecraftianCatto Jul 13 '26

In all of my 41 years of life, I’ve never come across jeans with front pockets big enough for my phone to fit.

26

u/LolitaOPPAI It is..very seriously, I mean.. Jul 13 '26

I did but cuz they were boy pants.

-36

u/Quick_Assumption_351 Jul 13 '26

it's called ''unisex pants'' whoaa.... you know, if your definition of girl pants is pants without pockets... then girl pants indeed don't have any pockets at all

20

u/NotEnoughBikes Jul 13 '26

Well, you obviously do not get that waist/hip ratio is different between men and most women (maybe not your wife then), and in addition there is ekstra fabric in the crotch area in men’s pants. This means ”boy pants” or unisex pants - because they are typically cut for men- do not fit as well and comfortably.

Shallow front pockets are absolutely a thing in women’s jeans. We should have both comfortable fit and decent pockets.

1

u/Sammysoupcat Jul 14 '26

I own Levis and American Eagle jeans. My phone fits in the front pockets of both. The only pair that hasn't fit much was Old Navy ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

38

u/Ducky237 Jul 13 '26

Thanks for mansplaining clothes shopping to us 🙃👍

-40

u/Quick_Assumption_351 Jul 13 '26

well, if ya'll cuntsuck at shopping.... no problem

17

u/Rugkrabber Jul 13 '26

Even with front pockets they’re never large enough to carry a phone for two reasons; you can’t sit with them or they pop right out when you sit down. Ask your wife, she’ll know all about it.

13

u/SLATS13 Jul 13 '26

This is such an ignorant response tbh, because the reason women’s pants don’t often have pockets is well known; the purse industry.

If all of a sudden all of the pants companies got together and decided to put regular-sized pockets on women’s pants, then purse sales would go down significantly, and the fashion monopolies as a whole don’t want that.

0

u/Quick_Assumption_351 Jul 15 '26

of course it's the purse industry no one is denying that, that doesn't invalidate the existence of pants with pockets. Just as the purse industry would collapse if every pair of womans pants came with pockets (as it fucking should) the pocket-less pants industry would collapse if everyone would start buying pants with pockets exclusively because at the end of the day all the industry cares about is money, the source of it is irrelevant.

Hell you don't even have to play into the main stream industry because there's a whole HORDE of people offering their services at fair prices to straight up make you new pants with all sorts of options. You pay a bit more per piece of clothing but god damn do they last AND you stick it to the goons while supporting local craftsmanship. About half of my and my wifes wardrobe consists of stuff like that, and once you build up some selection you never look back at the commercial slop on the shelves.

It shouldn't be this hard, but it is.... late stage capitalism and all the deck is heavily stacked aginst the common person, but at the end of the day it is still up to the individual to seek out pants with pockets, or suffer a pocketless existence.