According to a 2018 study by The Pudding, the front pockets on women’s jeans are on average 48 per cent shorter and 6.5 per cent narrower than they are on men’s jeans.
You see, since the ’50s, there has been a role reversal of sorts in the fashion industry. Handbags, which started as a convenient accessory and a fun extension of an apparel brand, are major money-makers for many luxury brands. According to Fortune Business Insights, in 2022, the North American handbag market was valued at $16.3 billion. By 2030, that number is projected to grow to $26.47 billion.
A former designer assistant at McQueen, who wishes to remain anonymous, muses that with so much money at stake, clothing could now almost be considered an accessory to the handbags. “When Tom Ford debuted his first collection for Gucci in the ’90s, almost every single look had a handbag to go with it,” they point out. “Since then, ready-to-wear and purses have gone hand in hand.”
Fellow Canadian designers Eliza Faulkner (formerly of Erdem, Roland Mouret and Zandra Rhodes and now creative director of her own brand) and Caffery Vanhorne (who worked at an undisclosed luxury house) echo our anonymous source, with Faulkner reiterating that “brands make money off accessories, not clothes.” Vanhorne also admits that he has witnessed seasons where “more than half the clothes shown on the runway never went to production — they were just to showcase bags.”
What does this mean for our original question: Do brands purposely exclude pockets in women’s clothing so women will be more likely to support the purse industry? Well, it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines above. To quote the great philosophers known as ABBA, it all comes down to “money, money, money.”
Like J.Lo gaslighting us into believing that her and Ben Affleck’s relationship history was “the greatest love story never told,” the handbag industry essentially barged in and seduced women into believing that the purse was the answer to all their portable needs. The only obstacle in their way? The pocket.
By that logic, as long as women are denied pockets, they would be forced to spend more money on bags and thus an entire industry could be sustained by reducing the size of pouches or excluding them from women’s clothing.
When your headline is a question, the answer is “no.”
You said yourself “capitalism will do what capitalism does” or words to that effect. So if more women wanted looser clothing, why would companies not start selling it?
The answer is that they have. Do just one Google search for “baggy women’s jeans with pockets” and you’ll see that they’re readily available.
Yeah, yeah, it’s all women’s fault for how we’re treated, the products we’re offered, probably even the “pink tax”. It’s our fault, we should shut up. You’re totally right!
Thanks for derailing the topic of misogyny to complain about some women’s pet peeves about pants.
You could buy, in the next five minutes, three different styles of baggy pants in three sizes each. They’d be at your front door in a couple of days. You could try them on, test out the fit and pockets, and return the ones you don’t like.
If you live in a big city or near a shopping mall, you could walk into a store and buy some big ol’ pants within the hour.
If by “less available” you mean there are more SKUs offered or shelving space dedicated to “traditional” women’s pants, then yeah I’ll agree with you there. But it’s 2026, you don’t even need brick and mortar, and you can just order whatever you want.
Source for your claims?
Capitalism forced small pockets in women’s clothing.
When your headline is a question, the answer is “no.”
You said yourself “capitalism will do what capitalism does” or words to that effect. So if more women wanted looser clothing, why would companies not start selling it?
The answer is that they have. Do just one Google search for “baggy women’s jeans with pockets” and you’ll see that they’re readily available.
Yeah, yeah, it’s all women’s fault for how we’re treated, the products we’re offered, probably even the “pink tax”. It’s our fault, we should shut up. You’re totally right!
Thanks for derailing the topic of misogyny to complain about some women’s pet peeves about pants.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=baggy+womens+jeans+with+deep+pockets&iar=shopping&t=fpas
Anybody can buy baggy pants with pockets. From shein to Levi’s to designer.
My issue is with men. Specifically chronically online white knights and their ironically misogynistic stances. My issue is not with women.
Saying that pants with deep pockets are less available than pants with small pockets does not mean pants with deep pockets don’t exist.
You are pushing the false narrative that women want small pockets and then want to complain about small pockets.
They are quite available.
You could buy, in the next five minutes, three different styles of baggy pants in three sizes each. They’d be at your front door in a couple of days. You could try them on, test out the fit and pockets, and return the ones you don’t like.
If you live in a big city or near a shopping mall, you could walk into a store and buy some big ol’ pants within the hour.
If by “less available” you mean there are more SKUs offered or shelving space dedicated to “traditional” women’s pants, then yeah I’ll agree with you there. But it’s 2026, you don’t even need brick and mortar, and you can just order whatever you want.
Ok.