Your perspective seems to be that there is no reason not to make the pockets bigger, but there is, it’s just a reason that affects people other than you
No, my perspective is that the many non form fitting jeans that have space have no reason to have tiny useless pockets. Wide leg jeans have no reason to not have pockets. Any jeans that are not tight in the thighs have no good reason to not have bigger pockets.
Edit: as I’ve stated in another comment
So you’re a pedantic ass. Got it.
I’m going to play in my garden. You should go read a book, maybe start with the one I posted above.
So, I got it right, with the caveat that you’re not talking about all jeans?
But jeans that are not tight on your thighs may be tight on someone else’s. The bigger pockets on those jeans that benefit you will look worse on that person. Bigger pockets add a (small) cost - which is fine if it offers something of value. But to the many women who carry a bag by default, bigger pockets do not add value, only a cost, so you are also asking those to bear the cost.
So those are the two reasons.
Framing the complaint as, “I’m annoyed that jeans designed for women have useless pockets” leaves the space open for those reasons, those other people whose annoyance might also matter. The complaint in the original post, continued by you and others, would erase them.
You’re literally talking to a woman who has bought the same style of jeans and found different pockets sizes between them.
Clearly it’s possible to make women’s pants with deeper pockets. There’s many, many different styles of pants that women wear.
We’re simply talking about the annoyance that deeper pockets aren’t more available to women, the way that men’s pants with deep pockets are available to men.
You should work on having some introspection on why you feel the need to quiet women down when we’re having a conversation about something that directly affects us.
No, my perspective is that the many non form fitting jeans that have space have no reason to have tiny useless pockets. Wide leg jeans have no reason to not have pockets. Any jeans that are not tight in the thighs have no good reason to not have bigger pockets.
Edit: as I’ve stated in another comment
So you’re a pedantic ass. Got it.
I’m going to play in my garden. You should go read a book, maybe start with the one I posted above.
Have a day
So, I got it right, with the caveat that you’re not talking about all jeans?
But jeans that are not tight on your thighs may be tight on someone else’s. The bigger pockets on those jeans that benefit you will look worse on that person. Bigger pockets add a (small) cost - which is fine if it offers something of value. But to the many women who carry a bag by default, bigger pockets do not add value, only a cost, so you are also asking those to bear the cost.
So those are the two reasons.
Framing the complaint as, “I’m annoyed that jeans designed for women have useless pockets” leaves the space open for those reasons, those other people whose annoyance might also matter. The complaint in the original post, continued by you and others, would erase them.
You’re literally talking to a woman who has bought the same style of jeans and found different pockets sizes between them.
Clearly it’s possible to make women’s pants with deeper pockets. There’s many, many different styles of pants that women wear.
We’re simply talking about the annoyance that deeper pockets aren’t more available to women, the way that men’s pants with deep pockets are available to men.
You should work on having some introspection on why you feel the need to quiet women down when we’re having a conversation about something that directly affects us.