Vote with your wallet is a terrible system - Rant

[AMFV]

Take my previous example: let's say my wife likes vegetables, and does not want to get eggplant. This does not mean that she doesn't like vegetables, this means that she doesn't like eggplant. You're creating a false dichotomy. Pants with pockets that she does like also exist, and she buys them. They are still difficult to find. Others have claimed the same experience.

My point is that if the demand for the pants with pockets was greater the market would shift. Also many pants manufacturers do not make handbags so that would be in their interests.

[Peelee]

My point is that if the demand for the pants with pockets was greater the market would shift. Also many pants manufacturers do not make handbags so that would be in their interests.

Phones and tablets are being made with pitifully small storage capacity. Storage capacity is both incredibly small and cheap currently, and there is no reason to pay an 80 dollar upgrade fee to have a tablet go from 16 gig to 32 gig memory. The market has addressed this by saying, "suck it."

You'll forgive me if I don't trust the market to act as you think it would.

[AMFV]

Phones and tablets are being made with pitifully small storage capacity. Storage capacity is both incredibly small and cheap currently, and there is no reason to pay an 80 dollar upgrade fee to have a tablet go from 16 gig to 32 gig memory. The market has addressed this by saying, "suck it."

You'll forgive me if I don't trust the market to act as you think it would.

There are other considerations like cost which is a factor here as well. But I think that demand is the principle driver here. I mean that's what voting with your wallet is all about.

[Peelee]

There are other considerations like cost which is a factor here as well. But I think that demand is the principle driver here. I mean that's what voting with your wallet is all about.

Please, tell me the other factors. I'm very interested.

Anyway, wallet voting is a mechanism. It is not a perfect mechanism, and it is subject to being ignored. For instance, people have to buy clothes. If they come with pockets or don't, nobody is going to go around naked. The effect can be mitigated, and the votes can be marginalized.

[Dr.Samurai]

Is there a reason that women's pants with pockets wouldn't be influenced by market demand?

I think the demand is there, and I think voting with your wallet works, and I think it's likely that the market perhaps hasn't caught up just yet and so we still don't see a lot of pants/dresses with pockets for women.

But I'm skeptical of the idea that at some point someone won't clue in on this unfulfilled market demand and start producing women's pants/dresses with pockets in them. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it will, if the demand is there.

Otherwise, I'm curious to hear why it wouldn't?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is there a reason that women's pants with pockets wouldn't be influenced by market demand?

I think the demand is there, and I think voting with your wallet works, and I think it's likely that the market perhaps hasn't caught up just yet and so we still don't see a lot of pants/dresses with pockets for women.

But I'm skeptical of the idea that at some point someone won't clue in on this unfulfilled market demand and start producing women's pants/dresses with pockets in them. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it will, if the demand is there.

Otherwise, I'm curious to hear why it wouldn't?

Because women have been wanting pockets for at least 40 years now, and it hasn't happened yet. This faith in the invisible hand of the market that will surely, any day now, fix things is rather tiresome when a life time of experience tells me that it doesn't actually work like you describe it.

GW

[Peelee]

But I'm skeptical of the idea that at some point someone won't clue in on this unfulfilled market demand and start producing women's pants/dresses with pockets in them. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but it will, if the demand is there.

They do exist, they're just annoyingly hard to find.

[Tvtyrant]

Tada!

https://www.pocheposh.com/pages/about-us

https://www.pocketocracy.com/about

http://www.fyberworks.com

I found two websites for online women's clothes with pockets and 1 boutique next to me in the first five google results. Redirect currency flows.

[Peelee]

Tada!

https://www.pocheposh.com/pages/about-us

https://www.pocketocracy.com/about

http://www.fyberworks.com

I found two websites for online women's clothes with pockets and 1 boutique next to me in the first five google results. Redirect currency flows.

Pocketocracy looks awesome. Thanks!

[2D8HP]

The gender politics of pockets
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets .

Contra one of the articles linked, which seemed to suggest that with smartphones pockets are starting to get bigger, if my wife's experience buying used clothes is any indication, women's pants used to have bigger pockets than new women's pants do, and she's told me it used to be easier to get new women's pants with bigger pockets (she also complains that it's now hard to find women's pants that aren't "low-rise").

My guess is that in the past women wore dresses to be fashionable, and when they did wear pants they more often did so for practicality.

I'm thinking of my grandmother who when she went to work in a munitions plant in the 1940's, cut and tailored my grandfather's pants to fit (he was in uniform so he didn't need them).

A whole generation did that,

Spoiler: See!

Show

and after the war she still had jeans for camping and working in the yard.

My mom also had jeans with useable pockets.

I'm guessing the no or little pockets for women's pants is probably a more recent thing.

You would have thought that dresses would start to have pockets instead of pants losing them but market!

Also, my grandmother had aprons that had pockets and, while not with floral prints like hers, I've seen some in woodworking tools catalogs!

Spoiler: Este delantal es muy macho!

Show

[Lemmy]

The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most. Sure, there'll always be some products that break the mold, but the vast majority of what's produced will be whatever sells most. Most women's pants are "pocketless" simply because women have consistently bought "pocketless" pants waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than ones with sizable pockets. I'm sure many women complain about their lack of pockets, but clearly many more prefer to the ones that look better, but have no pockets.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most. Sure, there'll always be some products that break the mold, but the vast majority of what's produced will be whatever sells most. Most women's pants are "pocketless" simply because women have consistently bought "pocketless" pants waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than ones with sizable pockets. I'm sure many women complain about their lack of pockets, but clearly many more prefer to the ones that look better, but have no pockets.

I'm sure that having a man tell the thread how they are the ultimate experts on how the fashion industry operates and what women buy and don't buy for the third time, presenting no evidence other than their supposed expertise on women's actions, ignoring all arguments against it and indeed the actual business practices of the fashion industry will do the trick. Sure of it.

GW

[Dr.Samurai]

Because women have been wanting pockets for at least 40 years now, and it hasn't happened yet.

So because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen? Yeah, I doubt you'll defend this position any further...

This faith in the invisible hand of the market that will surely, any day now, fix things is rather tiresome when a life time of experience tells me that it doesn't actually work like you describe it.

We live in a world now where social media can breathe life into any movement imaginable and force people to take notice and respond. So your comment about "for at least 40 years now" means little to me, because we live in a different world from then.

So... can women make companies notice that they want pockets? I think the answer is yes, absolutely.
Is there enough demand for pockets that it is profitable for companies to start including them? I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not vested one way or the other.
Do I think that if companies were aware of the demand and it was profitable they would start including them? Yes, I do.

So my question, again, is why do you think, under these assumptions, companies wouldn't include pockets on jeans and dresses? You're claiming the demand has been there for 40 years, and I think baked into that complaint is that companies have been aware. So why haven't they done it? I'd like to know.

[Lemmy]

I'm sure that having a man tell the thread how they are the ultimate experts on how the fashion industry operates and what women buy and don't buy for the third time, presenting no evidence other than their supposed expertise on women's actions, ignoring all arguments against it and indeed the actual business practices of the fashion industry will do the trick. Sure of it.

GW

You speak as if anyone on the other side offered any more evidence (other than the laughably hypocritical implication that some arguments should weigh less because of the gender of their speakers). I'm much more inclined to believe the industry doesn't see enough of a a market to exploit than to think that the fashion industry would opt out of making millions of dollars out of sexism. But to each their own, I guess.

Oh, and AFAICT, no one claimed expertise on anything.

[Tvtyrant]

Pocketocracy looks awesome. Thanks!

You are welcome! I particularly like the synergy between them using democracy as part of their name and us discussing the idea of voting with your wallet. It is most droll.

[WarKitty]

There's also entry cost to consider. If most styles of women's pants don't have useful pockets, then women will be more likely to buy those because of the lack of choice. (I'd not all styles with pockets are ultra-casual too, and typically only come in straight cuts. No dress pants and nothing for curvier women.) So it may not be enough for clothing manufacturers to invest in making the change, because women will still buy pocketless pants if that's what's available.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen? Yeah, I doubt you'll defend this position any further...

I don't need to. You position that something will happen because it hasn't happened yet is irrational.

So my question, again, is why do you think, under these assumptions, companies wouldn't include pockets on jeans and dresses? You're claiming the demand has been there for 40 years, and I think baked into that complaint is that companies have been aware. So why haven't they done it? I'd like to know.

Because there is no such thing as an invisible market hand that will force companies to change their ways. The fashion industry big players, like all big market players everywhere, are conservative. They sell what sold well in the past. They have no incentive to break into new markets because they are already at the top, and barrier entries prevent others from making a dent. In short, they don't put pockets in women's clothes because they've never put pockets in women's clothes. This hypothesis matches reality much better than your pie-in-the-sky "capitalism will fix sexist tendencies in the fashion industry", just like capitalism has failed to make that change in other markets (video games, film, business word, etc).

(other than the laughably hypocritical implication that some arguments should weigh less because of the gender of their speakers).

You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.

Grey Wolf

[Amazon]

It's so funny how some people see the market as an all knowing deity capable of doing no wrong. The market is composed of businesspeople who have their own interests, ideas and agendas, some which sometimes don't align with the consumers.

[lio45]

I intended not to see it as a way of voting with my wallet. However, my girlfriend wants to see it, so I will in fact be seeing it soon. It's unfortunate, because my tiny vote will be disingenuous. How can I let the powers-that-be know that Dr. Samurai doesn't like the direction they're going in if I am paying to see their movie?!?!?!?!

I don't know if movie theaters still work like that in your neck of the woods, but around here, there's a person who looks at your ticket, tears it, and tells you which room to head to for your movie. During all my moviegoing days, I would usually "vote with my wallet" for the one original-version (English language) Hollywood movie they had at the moment, and that would have no bearing on which movie I'd then go see.

Worst case, if they actually pay attention to which room you're going once you're beyond the gate, enter the room for which you voted with your wallet, wait a bit then leave to go to the restroom, then go to the room of the movie you want to see but didn't want to patronize.

[Fyraltari]

To be fair, I count two men who are wholly on your side (myself and 2D8HP ). To be even more fair, of course, I don't see any women at all on the opposing side, so it's still telling.

You can get that number up to three again by adding yours truly to that list.

Assuming a sexist conspiracy seems to be absolutely reaching here. At least to my vision.

The idea that the clothes manufacturing industry cares more about some sexist agenda than profits is laughable. Those companies don't care one way or another about sexism or equality. They'll produce the products that sell the most.

No one is saying that half a dozen old rich WASP men sat down with three lizardmen and four little green men to implement a dastardly plan to rob women of their agency by reducing their pocket size all over the world orwhatever other weird scenario.

Sexism (and pretty much every other "-ism") and tricky to fight because they are insidious. We all hold beliefs or repeat behaviour we learned from our models we never really questionned and thus never realized they could be harmfuf to others or ourselves.

Historically society was shaped in ways that severly reduced the freedoms and capabilities of women and wether we like it or not our current society is built on that one, that we are aware of the problem does not mean we have solved it because we are still to some degree part of it.

Even the most innocnents of actions that, taken alone, would do no harm can still participate to a snowball that ends up doing harm.

The Patriarchy is not a plot by some nebulous forces (though that there are genuinely mysoginistic people in power in many places everywhere oes not help at all) it is an emergent property.

There are other considerations like cost which is a factor here as well. But I think that demand is the principle driver here. I mean that's what voting with your wallet is all about.

The laws of the market do not exist in a vacuum. People make decisions that don't benefit them all the time.

You are welcome! I particularly like the synergy between them using democracy as part of their name and us discussing the idea of voting with your wallet. It is most droll.

Err, that name really only means "the power of/to pockets".

[AMFV]

It's so funny how some people see the market as an all knowing deity capable of doing no wrong. The market is composed of businesspeople who have their own interests, ideas and agendas, some which sometimes don't align with the consumers.

But their interests are always making money. So if the demand was great enough to offset the fabric cost and whatnot, you'd see them.

[Peelee]

But their interests are always making money. So if the demand was great enough to offset the fabric cost and whatnot, you'd see them.

And that's the story of why no company went out of business ever, and every economist is obscenely rich.

[Lemmy]

You spoke as if you knew better than women what they want. I suggest you read into the realities of mansplaining, and why there is nothing hypocritical about calling such people out.

Hah! "Mansplaining" is literally a term created to devalue someone's opinion based on their gender. If you think I'm mistaken or being condescending, you could say something like "you're mistaken" or "you're being condescending" (happens both men and women), but instead you prefer to imply that a opinion is worth less because the speaker is male. It's extremely hypocritical. Or do you think that when a woman comments on the behavior of men and I disagree with what she says, it'd be perfectly reasonable and to accuse her of "femsplaining" or some other silly BS term made to silence dissent based on her gender?

(Also, here's a secret: You don't have to be affected by an issue to learn/understand/know about it. Nor does being affected by it necessarily make you better at understanding it or its causes).

Until you can provide actual evidence that the fashion industry is more interested in keeping women pocketless than in making a profit, I'll be far more inclined to believe that it has the same agenda as every other industry in a capitalist society: "Make more money".

But, hey! If you're so convinced that deep-pocketed pants for women has such a huge potential market, that's your chance to become a millionaire!

[Heliomance]

But their interests are always making money. So if the demand was great enough to offset the fabric cost and whatnot, you'd see them.

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway. Adding pockets is unlikely to change the number of pairs of trousers that get sold, it'll just make the female population a lot happier. Unfortunately, that doesn't affect the companies' bottom lines, so they don't bother.

[Lemmy]

As has been said several times, not buying trousers is not a feasible option. Women buy pocketless trousers because that's what's available, and they need trousers. The companies have no incentive to add pockets because women will buy their trousers anyway. Adding pockets is unlikely to change the number of pairs of trousers that get sold, it'll just make the female population a lot happier. Unfortunately, that doesn't affect the companies' bottom lines, so they don't bother.

This is only true if either there's a monopoly on clothes production/sales or... Literally all suppliers refuse to sell a (supposedly) high-demand product no one else offers.

Neither sounds accurate.

[Tvtyrant]

This is only true if either there's a monopoly on clothes production/sales or... Literally all suppliers refuse to sell a (supposedly) high-demand product no one else offers.

Neither sounds accurate.

I did link companies that actually sell women's pants with pockets. Those were out of the top 5 results, there are likely thousands more.

So it is more like "It is slightly inconvenient to get women's pants with pockets" then that you can't (as inconvenient as looking at google).

[Shamash]

This is only true if either there's a monopoly on clothes production/sales or... Literally all suppliers refuse to sell a (supposedly) high-demand product no one else offers.

Neither sounds accurate.

Why sell pants with pockets if I can sell pants, purses and handbags making double the amount of money? *Evil capitalist laugh*

[Kyberwulf]

Yeah, I think that.. if you think there is a market for Pocket-full set or trousers for ladies. You should look into making some. I think that's how the whole thing of Spanks got going. Not joking here either.

Serious question though, how hard is it to add pockets to trousers, or modify existing pockets?

Also, using the term mansplaning, is the same as telling a woman to get back to the kitchen. It's very condescendingly dismissive.

[WarKitty]

I did link companies that actually sell women's pants with pockets. Those were out of the top 5 results, there are likely thousands more.

So it is more like "It is slightly inconvenient to get women's pants with pockets" then that you can't (as inconvenient as looking at google).

Noticed a couple of things there.

(1) Those links are pretty much entirely casual wear. Like many women, I wear dress clothes to work, so most of my pants are black slacks. I didn't see a pair of basic dress pants in the list. Searching for "dress pants with pockets" returns significantly fewer results.

(2) Online ordering can be a significant hassle. Remember the other feature of women's clothing - sizes are kinda arbitrary. I can wear anything from an 8 to a 12 and have it be the right size, depending on the brand. Online ordering clothes usually involves ordering 2 or 3 sizes, hoping one of them fits (often none do), and shipping everything that didn't fit back. A lot of times you have to pay for all that shipping too.

(3) Boutique or custom pants are a pretty significant upcharge for women's pants, often double or more the price of department store pants. That's probably not worth it.

[Peelee]

Noticed a couple of things there.

(2) Online ordering can be a significant hassle. Remember the other feature of women's clothing - sizes are kinda arbitrary. I can wear anything from an 8 to a 12 and have it be the right size, depending on the brand. Online ordering clothes usually involves ordering 2 or 3 sizes, hoping one of them fits (often none do), and shipping everything that didn't fit back. A lot of times you have to pay for all that shipping too.

On top of that, texture, fit, even color cannot be judge online as well as in person. One of my best friends could very easily be a professional costumer if he wasn't already a very good prosthodontist, and he has given me a lot of insight into how valuable it is to always be able to inspect fabrics and clothes in person.