The Truth Behind Why Women’s Clothing Doesn’t Have Pockets, As Shared By This TikTok User
Interview With Author
Have you ever seen a woman showing off a new piece of clothing and being so happy that it has pockets? Or perhaps you’ve been that person who loves to twirl around with your new dress, hands in your accidentally discovered pockets? Knowing the history of fashion and the reasoning behind why women’s clothing doesn’t have them, suddenly, this whole satisfaction makes a lot of sense. Hearing all those jokes about how women “suffer” from a lack of this detail posed the question of why exactly women don’t have pockets in their pants and other pieces of clothing. TikTok user, video creator, and “fact guy” @dougiesharpe took some time to create a TikTok that reveals this mystery by providing useful historical content. The man started his explanation by touching upon topics such as women’s rights, the suffrage movement, the French Revolution, and the Second World War, and how these important events had an impact on such a little thing as pockets.
More Info: TikTok
TikTok user decided to answer the question of why women’s clothing doesn’t have pockets
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
The content creator revealed that the handbag industry is behind this and shared some historical facts on the matter
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
In the middle ages, people would wear pouches with rope tied around their waist that served as a pocket
Image credits: Medium
The video that now has 268k views starts by stating that the reason why women don’t have useful pockets in which they could actually put their things is because of the handbag industry. And if we think about it, it seems like a plausible reason, having in mind the number of handbag and backpack choices, the advertised need to get the “bag of the season”, and the variety of those found in women’s closets. This reason might seem quite infuriating having in mind the discussion about how much more women have to invest in their appearances, and also remember the “Pink Tax”, which is explained as a trend in which women have to pay more than men for the same type of products.
As women’s clothing became more intricate, they could no longer wear pouches
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: Rijksmuseum
Many layers of clothing made women refuse to wear a rope with a pouch
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: Victoria and Albert Museum, London
The TikTok creator went back to the middle ages when both men and women would wear a rope with a pouch around their waist to be able to put some things in there. But the situation started to change in the 17th century when actual pockets were sewn into men’s clothing. However, the same technique couldn’t be applied to women’s dresses as they had more layers which made it harder for them to reach it, as it would require them to lift some layers of the dress, and who would want to do that in a public setting? Later on, when their clothes were made to accentuate their waist and form, the pockets had to go.
As fashion evolved, women had to say goodbye to their pockets
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: CharmaineZoe’s Marvelous Melange
With no pockets, women were presented with its replacement – a small bag called a reticule
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: Wikimedia Commons
This is when reticules became a thing. Oxford Learners Dictionaries defines it as “a woman’s small bag, usually made of cloth and with a string that can be pulled tight to close it”. It was said that these bags weren’t very practical as there wasn’t much you could put in them, and were created for a sole purpose of being an accessory. It was believed that the bag represented the idea of women not having much wealth or property and thus not needing a big purse because they didn’t have much to carry anyway.
Reticules served more as an accessory than a functional handbag because it was believed that women didn’t have anything to put there anyway
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Another interesting fact mentioned by the TikTok user is the way pockets became an important symbol for women and their rights. It was thought that during the French Revolution, women were even banned from having clothes with pockets as this way they would be able to hide “revolutionary material”. When the women’s suffrage movement started, they used pockets as a symbol that represented the change they were seeking.
Pockets served as a symbol of the women’s suffrage movement that was fighting for women’s rights
Image credits: U.S. Embassy The Hague
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: Medium
Pockets were brought back as a detail of functional clothing with the start of World War II when women were brought to the workforce. Now the number of pockets seen on women’s work clothes also served as an indication of their independence. However, after the war ended, women’s fashion was back to the same tight and form-fitting silhouettes, and so the handbag industry was back on its tracks again. This is where we are now, still experiencing the need for pockets.
What do you think about this sneaky cooperation between clothing brands and handbags? Don’t forget to leave your thoughts in the comments down below!
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: Aimé Dupont
Bored Panda contacted TikTok creator Doug Sharpe to find out more about his creative process when making these informative fact videos. The man didn’t hide his surprise at seeing his videos go viral online. He shared that while the “TikTok algorithm is a mystery”, all he focuses on is what his posts are about and how frequent they are. “As much as I shouldn’t, I do live and die with each post. I put a lot of effort into each video so it feels really nice when people like the video, watch it, and enjoy it. This is my art, so just like any other artist, it feels great to be appreciated and enjoyed,” concluded the creator.
Designer Coco Chanel was taking her inspiration from menswear when designing clothes for women
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: www.careergirldaily.com
During the Second World War, women joined the workforce and had to wear functional clothing that needed to have pockets
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: JarJarDrinks
Doug also added an important detail about the video in question, revealing some insights into how he creates his TikTok videos and how even putting a lot of effort into your work doesn’t save you from making a human error. He explained: “40 seconds into the video I talk about woman’s clothing getting bulkier and to access the pocket around her waist, a woman would need to lift her petticoat and underpetticoat, but I forgot to say that there were also dress designs that had slits in the front so women could reach through their petticoat and underpetticoat and access the pocket around their waist conveniently. This was included in the script but when I recorded the video it somehow got missed and I didn’t notice the omission until a number of TikTok users pointed out in the comments that I had forgotten to mention this dress design in the video.”
The content creator shared that he spends nearly 2 hours researching the facts he’s going to talk about, basing it on at least 3 sources. The mistake he revealed made him even more cautious, so now he takes more than 2 or 3 times to check whether his video matches the original script. While making mistakes might seem like an unpleasant experience, Doug sees it as an opportunity to communicate with his audience, reply to their comments or answer questions.
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: Colorado Women’s Hall Of Fame
The 31-year-old who spent around 10 years living in China, and now resides in Whistler, British Columbia, grew up in a family of high achievers. He is not only known for his created content but also for being a professional snowboarder, mountain biker, and stunt double. Having in mind his adventurous nature, he also revealed some of his future plans: “My biggest goal in life is to live out of my snowboard bag forever and just travel around the world doing fun facts in every location imaginable. I want to do fun facts about the colosseum at the colosseum, facts about Patagonia in Patagonia. I always really try to ensure that the scene behind me matches the fact I’m talking about; like if I’m doing a fact about Ikea, I film it in an Ikea. If I’m doing a fact about roller coasters, I film it on a roller coaster. I think it makes the fact feel a lot deeper if the scene behind you matches the fact you’re talking about.”
The situation changed once again after the war ended and women’s fashion was back to feminine silhouettes
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
Image credits: vintagedancer.com
The TikTok user also shared some information about how he comes up with ideas for his videos, revealing that very often the inspiration comes from someone having a question about something, for example, “why don’t women’s clothes have better pockets”, and this is enough for Doug’s mind to start racing, wanting to find an answer and share it with others by creating a video. “I wouldn’t be able to go through the rest of my day if I had a question sitting in the back of my head. If I have a question or someone near me has a question I NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER, I’ll become obsessed with the question if I don’t learn the answer. And sometimes that leads me down deep rabbit holes,” revealed the creator.
This is when the handbag industry once again came to prominence and remains so to this day
Image credits: vintagedancer.com
Image credits: @dougiesharpe
You can watch the full video down below!
@dougiesharpe I had no idea how deep this went. Collusion between the handbag industry and the womens fashion industry is the reason why womens clothing doesn’t have pockets #womensfashion #womensrights #womenssufferage #pocket #womenspockets #funfact #funfacts #edutok #historytok #womenstok #fact #facts #clothinghistory #handbag #handbaghistory #tailor #clothing ♬ original sound – dougiesharpe
Women prior to 1790 did not have to lift their outer skirt to reach their pocket/pouch underneath -- the skirt was designed with a slit to allow the woman to discreetly reach in.
Fine, but this is now. I hate carrying a handbag. Give me usable pockets. I am wearing jeans that only have back pockets; the front ones are display only. I bought a pair of child's dungarees, to fit age 12 months. The pockets were bigger than on my jeans.
And my phone doesn’t even properly fit into the back pocket of my jeans!
Load More Replies...
Once again, the author has cause and effect backwards and supports a non-existing conspiracy. On Amazon, the #1 selling pair of pants is Lee Women's Relaxed Fit All Day Straight Leg Pants. 26,168 reviews. No pockets. Lee doesn't sell handbags. They make $0 money off of another company's handbags. Beauty standards (unfairly) call for shapely hips, long thin legs, and a bubble like posterior. Pockets break the flow of continuous lines. Lee sells plenty of women's pants with pockets (primarily a jeans company) but their #1 seller is one without them because they look good with the smooth lines. Purses sell to fill a need of no pockets on the perfect pretty black dress, not the other way around. There's a reason they are called accessories and you match them to the primary outfit, not the other way around.
Not to mention that the historical aspects (the stuff before 1900) are plain wrong
Load More Replies...
To those saying to just buy men’s trousers: it doesn’t really work universally, and you must be very lucky if you have the kind of figure where you can do that. I’ve tried buying men’s trousers (and shirts for that matter) but they just look ridiculous on me. If I buy men’s trousers that fit my hips and thighs, they’re so comedically big in the waist that they look like a pair of ballooning clown trousers that have been tied with a piece of string in the middle (think Obelix). Same with men’s shirts, if they fit my boobs, then they are basically two person tents with giant hose like sleeves in which I could smuggle stolen stereos.
Same here. When I wear clothing from the men's section I just look like I'm wearing my boyfriend's clothes. Also, I wish I could upvote you twice bc your description of sleeves that could "smuggle stolen stereos" made me laugh out loud.
Load More Replies...
And this is why I, a 40-year-old woman, buy my shorts from Costco - men's cargo shorts, that is XD I like the length (just around my knee) and there are 7 pockets, including a zippered one! I sew on fun patches to make them more "me" :)
I'd be shocked if my butt would fit in men's wear.
Load More Replies...
actually the reason why in the late 40's, post WW2 , the women's pockets were removed had to do with a theory at the time, that pockets made women's clothing more sexualized, a theory pushed by women magazine editors at the time (Women military Uniforms in ww2 post 1943 had the pockets removed. Bc the pockets were by the thigh, buttocks, and breasts, that they would draw the male gaze there. They have a whole thing at the Museum at FIT in New York on this
So why is it that so many women's shirts and blouses have pockets on the chest? What do designers think we're going to put in them - our cell phones and car keys?
Load More Replies...
bruh ALL I WANT IS POCKETS!!!!!!!!! BUT NO THESE MEN WALKING ROUND HERE WITH POCKETS THAT CAN FIT AN IPAD AND I CANT EVEN FIT MY DA** PHONE IN MINE🤬🤬🤬
... and next week revealed on TikTok: Why the perfidious umbrella industry is responsible for the fact that ladies don't wear hats anymore. Or is it maybe a conspiracy of the sunscreen producers? We'll find out.
Even if l had pockets l wouldn't use them. I carry a kilo of stuff with me so it's easier and more comfortable for me to toss it all in a handbag. And l don't like bulges.
Pockets are expensive because more fabric is needed, the additional weight of the garment is more expensive to ship, paying people to sew the pockets...so there really is NO incentive for garment makers to please women as they will make less of a profit.
i thought it was "bag" enough that women didn't have pockets (I"ll show myself out)
I'm I over simplifying this. If women just stopped buying pants that don't have pockets then manufacturers will stop making them. I don't think the solution to this is just going to happen. Companies only change when it's financially beneficial to do so.
Fir women to be able to buy pants with pockets the must a) exist and b) be affordable. Both is hard to get. If I can get them, & definitely prefer pockets. But in most cases the only things I can find and afford just don't have them
Load More Replies...
Zippers on women's pants went through the same sort of journey. I think they may have started with pull up pants with an elasticized waistband. Not the best look. But I know zippers on pants were originally on the back, similar to skirts and dresses. Then they went to the side. Women didn't wear men's jeans back then, with a fly-front zipper. But it finally caught on and it is so much more practical. The only objection I have is to the new trend of heavy-duty metal zippers on the back of dresses. Those zippers belong on a leather jacket, not on a cocktail dress.
Unpopular opinion but I hate pockets in dresses. My style is exclusively 50s rockabilly and the a-line dresses with pockets don't lay smoothly across petticoats.
False. Pockets only started going out in 20th century, and mid-late 20th century for that matter. More skirts actually meant even BIGGER pockets, because they had more space to hide them and they reached them through slits in their dresses. There are sources from times as late as the 1890s saying that a dress is never truly a completed dress without large pockets. They tried to fit them everywhere. In the 18th century when super wide hips were in fashion, they made the hoops supporting the skirts into massive pockets that could carry probably all your groceries at once. In the 1870-80s when the dresses had bustles and were only poofy at the back and had no space at the sides, what did they do? Put a pocket at the back! You should source from experts like bernadette banner, instead of random tiktokkers
This isn't entirely accurate. Women still wore tie on pockets, some of them really quite wide and deep in the 19th century. There was no need to lift her outer clothing because there was a gap through which the pocket could be reached. In fact more voluminous skirts made tie on pockets the perfect "accessory" for women. Toward the end of the 19th century, as skirts became more fitted the tie on started to disappear but women often had pockets in the bustle of their skirt which was far from ideal and loved by pick pockets. It's still possible to see tie on interior pockets from the Victorian era. It's very much in the twentieth century that we see women's pockets disappearing or just being decorative. Some small advice. When buying jeans, buy men's, they have workable pockets. My lottery dream - which almost certainly won't come true because I only buy tickets once in a blue moon - is to set up a company that makes dresses, skirts and trousers with fabulous workable pockets.
So many facts wrong. Petticoat pockets (used from 1600s through to 1900s)were reached through Slits in the skirts. Reticle were often large and women did carry their own money, even though it was generally given to them by male relatives. Skirts of the 1950s had pockets in the side seams or patch pockets. The only times pockets didn't feature much was when the fashions went for a narrow shape. Saying that though modern women's clothes do tend to have undersized pockets Please do proper research
Reading all these posts about women longing for clothes with pockets, I must be the only one who hates pockets on my clothes. They make my hips look wider than they already are, or frumble up and make creases on my clothes that look silly. Then again, I also hate handbags and even more those ridiculous clutch bags that you actually have to hold in your hand. I either carry a small backpack, put all my stuff in the kids diaper bag or use my husband pockets to carry my phone :)
Then why tf doesn't any woman who's bothered by it build a company on that huge demand? Entry into the market has bever been that easy, as you can easily set up an online shop, use amazon marketplace, ... plus for marketing you just jump on the meme train. I couldn't care less about fashion amd I'm not bothered by it. But I'm so annoyed by the online moaning about this. Who has written at least a jeans company about it instead of 20 identical comments into the internet void?
A man posted what dozens of female clothing historians have been talking about for years.
Please don't tell me there are some women's clothes that have no pockets.
It appears to come down to whom you feel should wear the pockets in the family.
If I had a purse I would lose it all the time. Pockets keep thinks close to you and you don't have to remember to take them with you
I recently discovered that vintage clothing has pockets and it’s been a game changer ever since! Nothing infuriates me more then a fake pocket! You went to the trouble of making the pocket you just also went to the trouble of making sure it’s useless. I would still need a purse but having a place to put my phone while at work would be nice.
My wife says the reason is that large pockets would mess with the aesthetics of the jeans. No idea if she is right, but I can see her point. Personally I'll go with the proper usage of 'The customer is always right... in matters of taste' - if it ain't right, don't buy it! The manufacturer will get the message and change the design when they start to lose money.
All you need is one company or one designer to make clothing for women like jeans and pants and jackets that have pockets as mens do. They will be rich. Have you seen the yoga pants with the deep side pockets?? I keep my huge phone in one and my keys in the other and there is still room. Short of taking thrift pants and jackets from mens lines and taking those pockets and putting them into clothes I like or tailoring them to me that's the only way women would have or I would have larger pockets. Boobs can only hold so much. And it's not nice to dig in them for stuff in public. So just...Bring. Back. Pockets!!!
Maybe I'm an outlier then. My jeans will comfortably hold my phone and a small card wallet and my house keys. But I carry a handbag because I'm carrying things for both of us - husband's pockets won't carry his wallet, keys, phone *and* his spare glasses, so they go in the bag. The bag also holds tissues and hand sanitizer. And a spare power bank. Any man who can carry all these extras in just his pockets can say women don't have pockets just to support the handbag industry.
I make my husband carry our essentials when we go out. Not even sure where my purses are anymore.
Load More Replies...
I don't think he was "mansplaining" in a condescending or offensive way. I think he actually did his research and presented the historical facts accurately and without bias. His gender has no bearing on it.
Load More Replies...
Women prior to 1790 did not have to lift their outer skirt to reach their pocket/pouch underneath -- the skirt was designed with a slit to allow the woman to discreetly reach in.
Fine, but this is now. I hate carrying a handbag. Give me usable pockets. I am wearing jeans that only have back pockets; the front ones are display only. I bought a pair of child's dungarees, to fit age 12 months. The pockets were bigger than on my jeans.
And my phone doesn’t even properly fit into the back pocket of my jeans!
Load More Replies... Once again, the author has cause and effect backwards and supports a non-existing conspiracy. On Amazon, the #1 selling pair of pants is Lee Women's Relaxed Fit All Day Straight Leg Pants. 26,168 reviews. No pockets. Lee doesn't sell handbags. They make $0 money off of another company's handbags. Beauty standards (unfairly) call for shapely hips, long thin legs, and a bubble like posterior. Pockets break the flow of continuous lines. Lee sells plenty of women's pants with pockets (primarily a jeans company) but their #1 seller is one without them because they look good with the smooth lines. Purses sell to fill a need of no pockets on the perfect pretty black dress, not the other way around. There's a reason they are called accessories and you match them to the primary outfit, not the other way around.
Not to mention that the historical aspects (the stuff before 1900) are plain wrong
Load More Replies... To those saying to just buy men’s trousers: it doesn’t really work universally, and you must be very lucky if you have the kind of figure where you can do that. I’ve tried buying men’s trousers (and shirts for that matter) but they just look ridiculous on me. If I buy men’s trousers that fit my hips and thighs, they’re so comedically big in the waist that they look like a pair of ballooning clown trousers that have been tied with a piece of string in the middle (think Obelix). Same with men’s shirts, if they fit my boobs, then they are basically two person tents with giant hose like sleeves in which I could smuggle stolen stereos.
Same here. When I wear clothing from the men's section I just look like I'm wearing my boyfriend's clothes. Also, I wish I could upvote you twice bc your description of sleeves that could "smuggle stolen stereos" made me laugh out loud.
Load More Replies... And this is why I, a 40-year-old woman, buy my shorts from Costco - men's cargo shorts, that is XD I like the length (just around my knee) and there are 7 pockets, including a zippered one! I sew on fun patches to make them more "me" :)
I'd be shocked if my butt would fit in men's wear.
Load More Replies... actually the reason why in the late 40's, post WW2 , the women's pockets were removed had to do with a theory at the time, that pockets made women's clothing more sexualized, a theory pushed by women magazine editors at the time (Women military Uniforms in ww2 post 1943 had the pockets removed. Bc the pockets were by the thigh, buttocks, and breasts, that they would draw the male gaze there. They have a whole thing at the Museum at FIT in New York on this
So why is it that so many women's shirts and blouses have pockets on the chest? What do designers think we're going to put in them - our cell phones and car keys?
Load More Replies... bruh ALL I WANT IS POCKETS!!!!!!!!! BUT NO THESE MEN WALKING ROUND HERE WITH POCKETS THAT CAN FIT AN IPAD AND I CANT EVEN FIT MY DA** PHONE IN MINE🤬🤬🤬
... and next week revealed on TikTok: Why the perfidious umbrella industry is responsible for the fact that ladies don't wear hats anymore. Or is it maybe a conspiracy of the sunscreen producers? We'll find out.
Even if l had pockets l wouldn't use them. I carry a kilo of stuff with me so it's easier and more comfortable for me to toss it all in a handbag. And l don't like bulges.
Pockets are expensive because more fabric is needed, the additional weight of the garment is more expensive to ship, paying people to sew the pockets...so there really is NO incentive for garment makers to please women as they will make less of a profit.
i thought it was "bag" enough that women didn't have pockets (I"ll show myself out)
I'm I over simplifying this. If women just stopped buying pants that don't have pockets then manufacturers will stop making them. I don't think the solution to this is just going to happen. Companies only change when it's financially beneficial to do so.
Fir women to be able to buy pants with pockets the must a) exist and b) be affordable. Both is hard to get. If I can get them, & definitely prefer pockets. But in most cases the only things I can find and afford just don't have them
Load More Replies... Zippers on women's pants went through the same sort of journey. I think they may have started with pull up pants with an elasticized waistband. Not the best look. But I know zippers on pants were originally on the back, similar to skirts and dresses. Then they went to the side. Women didn't wear men's jeans back then, with a fly-front zipper. But it finally caught on and it is so much more practical. The only objection I have is to the new trend of heavy-duty metal zippers on the back of dresses. Those zippers belong on a leather jacket, not on a cocktail dress.
Unpopular opinion but I hate pockets in dresses. My style is exclusively 50s rockabilly and the a-line dresses with pockets don't lay smoothly across petticoats.
False. Pockets only started going out in 20th century, and mid-late 20th century for that matter. More skirts actually meant even BIGGER pockets, because they had more space to hide them and they reached them through slits in their dresses. There are sources from times as late as the 1890s saying that a dress is never truly a completed dress without large pockets. They tried to fit them everywhere. In the 18th century when super wide hips were in fashion, they made the hoops supporting the skirts into massive pockets that could carry probably all your groceries at once. In the 1870-80s when the dresses had bustles and were only poofy at the back and had no space at the sides, what did they do? Put a pocket at the back! You should source from experts like bernadette banner, instead of random tiktokkers
This isn't entirely accurate. Women still wore tie on pockets, some of them really quite wide and deep in the 19th century. There was no need to lift her outer clothing because there was a gap through which the pocket could be reached. In fact more voluminous skirts made tie on pockets the perfect "accessory" for women. Toward the end of the 19th century, as skirts became more fitted the tie on started to disappear but women often had pockets in the bustle of their skirt which was far from ideal and loved by pick pockets. It's still possible to see tie on interior pockets from the Victorian era. It's very much in the twentieth century that we see women's pockets disappearing or just being decorative. Some small advice. When buying jeans, buy men's, they have workable pockets. My lottery dream - which almost certainly won't come true because I only buy tickets once in a blue moon - is to set up a company that makes dresses, skirts and trousers with fabulous workable pockets.
So many facts wrong. Petticoat pockets (used from 1600s through to 1900s)were reached through Slits in the skirts. Reticle were often large and women did carry their own money, even though it was generally given to them by male relatives. Skirts of the 1950s had pockets in the side seams or patch pockets. The only times pockets didn't feature much was when the fashions went for a narrow shape. Saying that though modern women's clothes do tend to have undersized pockets Please do proper research
Reading all these posts about women longing for clothes with pockets, I must be the only one who hates pockets on my clothes. They make my hips look wider than they already are, or frumble up and make creases on my clothes that look silly. Then again, I also hate handbags and even more those ridiculous clutch bags that you actually have to hold in your hand. I either carry a small backpack, put all my stuff in the kids diaper bag or use my husband pockets to carry my phone :)
Then why tf doesn't any woman who's bothered by it build a company on that huge demand? Entry into the market has bever been that easy, as you can easily set up an online shop, use amazon marketplace, ... plus for marketing you just jump on the meme train. I couldn't care less about fashion amd I'm not bothered by it. But I'm so annoyed by the online moaning about this. Who has written at least a jeans company about it instead of 20 identical comments into the internet void?
A man posted what dozens of female clothing historians have been talking about for years.
Please don't tell me there are some women's clothes that have no pockets.
It appears to come down to whom you feel should wear the pockets in the family.
If I had a purse I would lose it all the time. Pockets keep thinks close to you and you don't have to remember to take them with you
I recently discovered that vintage clothing has pockets and it’s been a game changer ever since! Nothing infuriates me more then a fake pocket! You went to the trouble of making the pocket you just also went to the trouble of making sure it’s useless. I would still need a purse but having a place to put my phone while at work would be nice.
My wife says the reason is that large pockets would mess with the aesthetics of the jeans. No idea if she is right, but I can see her point. Personally I'll go with the proper usage of 'The customer is always right... in matters of taste' - if it ain't right, don't buy it! The manufacturer will get the message and change the design when they start to lose money.
All you need is one company or one designer to make clothing for women like jeans and pants and jackets that have pockets as mens do. They will be rich. Have you seen the yoga pants with the deep side pockets?? I keep my huge phone in one and my keys in the other and there is still room. Short of taking thrift pants and jackets from mens lines and taking those pockets and putting them into clothes I like or tailoring them to me that's the only way women would have or I would have larger pockets. Boobs can only hold so much. And it's not nice to dig in them for stuff in public. So just...Bring. Back. Pockets!!!
Maybe I'm an outlier then. My jeans will comfortably hold my phone and a small card wallet and my house keys. But I carry a handbag because I'm carrying things for both of us - husband's pockets won't carry his wallet, keys, phone *and* his spare glasses, so they go in the bag. The bag also holds tissues and hand sanitizer. And a spare power bank. Any man who can carry all these extras in just his pockets can say women don't have pockets just to support the handbag industry.
I make my husband carry our essentials when we go out. Not even sure where my purses are anymore.
Load More Replies... I don't think he was "mansplaining" in a condescending or offensive way. I think he actually did his research and presented the historical facts accurately and without bias. His gender has no bearing on it.
Load More Replies...
120
71