Ah I see. Unfortunately this happens a lot. The photo may show they can fit their hands inside but there are a lot of times the pockets in person are still just so so small. Its quite disheartening.
I’m not saying these pants don’t exist, I was just pointing out that I’ve never seen them exist at both the size and level of availability you described originally.
I’ll still check out the ones available locally to me that seemed hopefully sufficient and get back to you if they work out!
Hey, thank you for listing them. I’m still looking through them and a lot just say “with pockets” not necessarily with “large pockets” which is fine but I’m willing to bet they’re like every other womens pant in a large store that “has” pockets which is barely enough to fit chapstick in.
Some of these pants are locally available to me so I can go and physically check but just pointing out that off the bat containing pockets doesn’t mean they contain sufficient pockets.
I’ll drop this link to a video that goes over pocket fashion history but from what I know of it the option of large pockets largely never existed for women in a meaningful way. By the time we as a society moved away from men using under garment bags we never gave women the same option.
But yes, currently it’s popular. There is pressure to wear form fitting clothing. There is pressure to have a bag to accomodate the lack of pockets. This will continue a perpetual demand for small/false pockets.
