Science finally proves our pockets are bullshit, vindicating women everywhere
I refuse to be gaslit by Big Denim
by Nian Hu
As women, we face many indignities: from getting catcalled on the street to being paid less than men, there is so much injustice that we must endure. But none are as egregious as the lack of pockets.
This is something that we've been complaining about for decades — nay, CENTURIES.
Wtf is up with women's pants and fake pockets. I'm currently wearing pants that have four fake pockets. Like, if you want the pants to look like they have pockets, why not just give them real-ass pockets?
— Raunchy Rachels (@twentieslife_) August 11, 2018
@ designers of all women's clothes: WHERE THE HECK R THE POCKETS
— POESY (@poesyofficial) August 15, 2018
Why are women’s jean pockets the size of my pinky toe?
— Ally Codianna (@ACodianna) August 21, 2018
I just tried to put something in my pocket only it was a FAKE POCKET because women's pants STILL DON'T HAVE REAL POCKETS and I am SICK and TIRED of living under this OPPRESSIVE ANTI-POCKET REGIME
This is PANTS TYRANNY
— Sarah (@Cinesnark) August 14, 2018
But just like all the other times women complained about unequal treatment in society, men insist that we're crazy and making shit up for attention.
Well, someone has finally done the Lord's work and provided us with substantiated EVIDENCE that corroborates what we've all been ranting about. Our saviors Jan Diehm and Amber Thomas measured the pockets in both men's and women's pants in 20 of the most popular jeans brands, and found that women's pockets are 48 PERCENT SHORTER AND 6.5 PERCENT NARROWER than men's.
Furthermore, Diehm and Thomas found that only 40 percent of women's front pockets can completely fit a smartphone and less than HALF can fit a wallet that is specifically advertised to fit inside a front pocket.
Ladiezz, this is definitive proof that we aren't crazy after all! You are actively being LIED to.
This is literally violence against women. Hear me out! There is no greater act of misogyny than buying a pair of jeans only to discover that the pockets are approximately one centimeter deep.
Aside from being a massive scam that forces women to spend twice as much money because we have to buy pants AND purses while men can just get away with buying pants that basically have built-in purses, pocket-less clothing is just another way to reinforce sexism in society.
As Diehm and Thomas point out, the disappearance of pockets from women's clothing started at the end of the 18th century PURELY for aesthetic, sexist reasons — because apparently, women have "four external bulges already — two breasts and two hips — and a money pocket inside their dress would make an ungainly fifth."
Look, I don't give a shit if having pockets makes me look ungainly. As a matter of fact, I embrace the opportunity to repel lascivious men by acquiring a fifth external bulge. In this way, pockets will serve a vital dual function — carry my shit and also make men leave me alone. Take THAT, patriarchy!