Fashion

Invisible pockets are just trickier to do. It used to be a way clothes manufacturers would show off how well made their products were.

You can still find pockets in women's clothes if you're willing to pay for well made things. You should be looking for brands that line their skirts at the bare minimum.

pockets add bulk (ie. makes you look fat)

also women always have a purse for storage so pockets are vestigial

You don't have any points. You can shit on capitalism in a thousand different ways but this is not one of them. There is more shit for us to buy than there ever has been. These businesses that make clothes for women want to SELL clothes to women. If their market research was showing that women want good pockets companies would be racing to be the first ones to sell pants with good pockets because they want to out-compete the other companies.
You do not know more about what women want to wear than these companies. Even if you were a woman this would still be true because you would be a single woman vs all the women a whole research department contacted.

Right...

Because they have vaginas to put stuff in

they have nothing important to carry

Womens clothing is form above function. They are more vain than men and traditionally didnt have to work etc.

I honestly think it's companies trying to sell less product and as little man hours as possible for the most money they can squeeze out of us. Then they can just market it to women as some cute/sexy new trend, ~empowering~ their womanhood or exploiting the consumer's insecurities so that they need to get onboard with the trend otherwise they don't embody the zeitgeist.

It's not that women don't want functional clothing, it's that somehow the way clothing is produced and marketed moves product quickly and really well even when the items themselves are complete and utter shit.

Women don't need pockets, they carry all there stuff on hand bags.

It's actually way cheaper to cut out the extra fabric you'd need to make pockets. You can actually save about 100k if you mass-produce pocketless pants. It's the same reason why flare pants or pants with extra buttons tend to be more expensive, and why the most basic closet essential for so many women usually ends up being plain skinny jeans with no front pockets.
t. Retailcuck

This too desu.

women don't do anything productive therefore have no need for a place to store useful items + their phone never leaves their hand

>"Womens clothing is form above function." he says, while wearing his fake rick owens from aliexpress

Nice rebuttle you fucking twat.

Sad but true

They have a nice cozy pocket in the front.

They want women to keep buying purses and wallets and other stylish receptacles.

Like how market research is churning out such consistent blockbusters in the DC cinematic universe? It's true that companies process data by the fuckton-gross, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily GOOD at it. And even if market research indicates customers want something if good quality, companies are still gonna look to cut corners instead. Look at the Model T. When people wanted it in other colors, Ford quipped that they could buy black cars or get fucked. Nobody's saying that about women's pockets in public, but you can't claim there's no way they're not saying it in boardrooms.

tight pants = you can see the sape of the ass

>because you work retail you believe you know about all the goings on of the supply side of clothing manufacturers
makes me laff

No use if you think the market is that simple

Because companies want to sell purses, also pockets make pants more baggy.

because it really, really makes me wanna slide my hand inside her pocket hole

really wish i could

women have purses to keep their phones or wallets so they don't need them. if women don't need pants with pockets then the manufacturers won't make pants with pockets.

>"i learned about supply and demand economy yesterday"

they're carrying a purse anyway