Post by @WorziArmin@sueden.social

2026-06-30 09:06 UTC

@regina_nyckelharpista@sunny.garden As far as I’m concerned, there are two theories: 1. Greed, 🧐, because then you can produce two instead of one bag. (Practicality doesn’t matter here) 2. Sexism (warning 😉), trouser pockets – especially the front ones – have always been regarded as the MEN’S handbag, 😇, so women must be denied them. 😂😂 Übersetzt mit DeepL (https://dee.pl/apps)

Replies (2)

@regina_nyckelharpista@sunny.garden 2026-06-30 09:36

@WorziArmin@sueden.social Theory 1 would also apply to menswear and they usually have GENEROUS pockets 🤔 Theory 2 reminds me of another one I've read: they make the pockets tiny so we have to buy handbags. 💵 And as we all know, shopping for handbags and shoes is our favorite thing to do anyway, riiiight? /sarcasm

Open ##5202611
@raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie 2026-06-30 10:17

@WorziArmin@sueden.social @regina_nyckelharpista@sunny.garden Greed is becoming dominant as pockets on some brands of men's clothing are shrinking. So even buying "men's" jeans is a shrinking solution. Historically a mix of sexism and the "designers" not wanting to "spoil" the line which often meant no pockets on slacks, jackets, skirts etc. So fashion? Before handbags there was the reticule. Earlier, both men & women tied or tucked a bag to the waist belt or an over the shoulder "wallet.

Open ##5202614