Is The Patriarchy Responsible For Lack Of Pockets?

submitted by sproketboy from (youtube.com)

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EternalSunset 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

If there was demand for female pants with pockets, someone would produce them and gain a lot of money by selling them. You get the market that your consumer behaviour creates.

[–]sproketboy[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is what Vee is pointing out.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's my observation that people buy what they're sold. In recent years there was a massive uptake of those super high jeans, titty warmers I called them. Well that's what people wore even if they were uncomfortable and looked like a horse because that's all that was on the shelf. Now low rise jeans are back and the titties are swinging freely. Consumers behave how they are told to behave.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's cause women have hips and when their pockets are full they tend to look like over stuffed gerbils. There are "mom jeans" with pockets.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The patriarchy is responsible for jeggings.