this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
718 points (97.5% liked)
memes
17255 readers
3813 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is one of many reasons I don't buy textbook economics of capitalism.
For example, if they'd just put lots of pockets in women's clothing decades ago as standard, they'd have sold SOOOO much.
This idea that capitalism and the free hand of the market will gravitate towards bulk of demand is bullshit.
Capitalism’s goal is profits. Not helping the customer, selling more, or anything else. We’re in late-stage capitalism, so it is ‘Profits Uber Alles’.
I use to work retail selling (mostly) women clothes. At one point we had the same model of sundress with and without pockets. Every one of them that was watching or trying the one without got like super hyped and excited when we told them we had it with pockets. The pocketless one still sold better. And it wasn't even a tight fitting dress, it was slack and baggy.
I read a thing (not sure if it's true) that the reason there's no pockets in women's clothing is that women have more diverse body shapes than men. Pockets are designed not to interrupt the lines of the garment where possible - it's more straightforward to place men's pockets because they're going to be in a more predictable place when worn Vs women where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly.
a.k.a makes the clothes fit anything but skin-tight because the pockets need space so the clothes have to be wider-cut
That seems like an oversimplification, outside looking in for me, but there's no way a single dimension could ever adequately describe an item of clothing - my sister and wife have similar sized waists, but something tight round the posterior on my wife would be baggy on my sister.
Random memory unlocked: Back in high school, I had to borrow my girlfriend's jeans for some reason I don't remember. (We happened to wear the same size.) I do remember having SO MUCH room in the pockets, because I had narrower hips.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this is one instance that validates the textbook approach. In addition to the comment here, I had read several on the red site several years ago, one I remember from a buyer for a chain of outdoor gear stores, and another from the owner of a boutique clothing store. Both said that they tried to get women's clothing with real pockets, but eventually gave up because it just doesn't sell.
This topic came up in a group of my sailor friends on a boat last week, and ironically, all of the women's garments had good pockets, so they couldn't provide an example. But then, they were all wearing utilitarian clothing, rather than stylish. One friend had just bought new pants from REI; I've noticed for decades that if you want real pockets, shop at REI.
For what it's worth, stylish, form-fitting men's clothing also has tiny, or no pockets.