Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative marketing?

And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right?

edit: Really should have used the /s, I guess - women's clothing has some appalling aspects to it, one of which is notoriously tiny pockets, which is a source of frustration for many women. For some, it even comes as a shock when they find out men can do things like put phones in their pockets.

The emotional manipulation surrounding many women's products is a different beast entirely from what men experience, generally.

I think the only error here was in thinking that’s a sarcastic explanation. Look up the history of the word ‘negging’ and consider the male-dominant business and marketing industries over the past few decades. Your sarcasm is, no joke, a valid explanation for what’s happening. I can’t assess whether it’s the most likely or how much impact it has, but you’re completely right to call it out as a possible motivation, and if you simply put quote marks around it, that would be plausible rather than sarcastic. Especially given that pockets were taken away from women’s clothing over their objections for similarly disgusting reasons. Here’s highlight from the below article from 10.2979/vic.2010.52.4.561 (2010) as an upsetting example:

> Victorian women were told that they “had four external bulges already — two breasts and two hips — and a money pocket inside their dress would make an ungainly fifth.”

https://fashionmagazine.com/style/womens-pockets/ (which cites that among many others) is a good survey of the historical and current pockets issues for those not yet familiar.