[deleted]

  • velma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • cattywampas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.