Slashdot Mirror
Science Confirms That Women's Pockets Suck For Smartphones (theverge.com)
It's a well-documented, often criticized phenomenon that women's pockets are too small to fit a smartphone, but "there's been very little data to back up a wealth of anecdotal evidence," writes Megan Farokhmanesh via The Verge. Now, The Pudding has used scientific findings to fill this absence. From the report: According to The Pudding's findings, pockets in women's jeans are, on average, 48 percent shorter and 6.5 percent narrower than those of men's. To put this into a perspective we all care about, the site says that only 40 percent of women's front pockets can completely fit a iPhone X. The number only goes down for the Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel (20 percent and 5 percent, respectively, though the report doesn't specify which model) of the flagships). As for men's pockets? The Pudding marks a 100 percent success rate for the iPhone X, 95 percent for the Samsung Galaxy, and 85 percent for the Google Pixel. "If you're thinking 'But men are bigger than women,' then sure, on average that's true," the site adds. "But here we measured 80 pairs of jeans that all boasted a 32 inch waistband, meaning that these jeans were all made to fit the same size person."
Has the #MeToo movement taught us nothing?
My sisters and two of the girls in my board game club are nothing but complaints about how women's clothing doesn't come with pockets. Heck half the time i think that's why women stick in things in their bras because half the time pockets on women's clothing are just stitchings of pockets that don't actually hold anything.
Who the hell is putting a mobile phone in their pockets? This has not been tested for humans.
You're supposed to keep the phone 5mm away from your body and head at all times.
(LOL, yes, but... that IS technically the standard. Not safe any other way.)
Is that women ALSO have pockets!
My mind is racing right now!
Maybe the fashion designers could create bigger and more numerous, smartphone compatible pockets on the clothing for women? That would surely lead to handbag manufacturer conspiracy to discredit the designers involved as anti-feminine. Or something of the sort and like that, because, it's very American. (apologies to Philip Glass)
If women cared whether they could out phones in their pockets, they would buy pants that fit then and then all pants would follow suit. Theyâ(TM)ve self selected so give it a rest already.
You get exactly what you buy.
I guess women are stupid.
>> Women's Pockets Suck
Um, yeah. Pretty sure no women were involved in writing TFA's headline.
I still don't get the appeal of modern smartphone form factor, beyond the "OOOH SHINY!" 2001 monolith appearance.
study won't matter: this thing goes deep. You can't fight Big Pocket.
women are more likely to purchase clothes based on form rather than function. Alternatively, it's a global conspiracy.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The wild inaccuracy is that men are bigger than women, in terms of butt size, very inaccurate, as men distribute an excess of carbohydrates (soluble and insoluble) to the belly and then limbs and women focus it to butt and thighs, so pants size in an obese society, in that area, women are bigger than men.
So why the difference, well cargo pants are now coming under fashion attack because of it. In fashion terms pockets are ugly, the add additional lines that are never really form fitting, and create unsightly bulges. So women, out and out, let's no even pretend, are by far the biggest ass hat stupid gullible victims of marketing, and most men routinely mock them for it. Pockets are ugly but useful, so fuck the ugly, I want the useful, I am a man. I prefer my phone in my shirt pocket, it is the most comfortable there and I like the phone and pocket to be a tight deep fit, cover on phone ensure tightness in pocket whilst being form fitting, if pocket to small, no longer wear or buy that brand of shirt, function first.
Why are women's pockets to small, because in reality they are fashion victims, gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods. The more you dress for fashion and the less you dress for function, the more a victim of marketing you are, the more vulnerable your cerebral genes are, the weaker they make you, the more of a conformist schmuck you be. Only you can fight against the marketing targeted at you, no excuses, all of you!
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
complaints about how women's clothing doesn't come with pockets
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets. I do not buy clothes that do not fit my 7" tablet.
Reality: Women buy tight fitting clothes because they want to show off their rears, not big flappy pockets.
women's purses. They have a large enough capacity to contain most things in the known universe.
Not many men are secure enough to carry a man purse, so they're stuck with their pockets. /s
men go goo-goo eyed at extravagant bling.
Its very strange that in the US men get more pockets, but women get purses. I don't know if the difference in pocket size can be attributed to different hip shapes. I can't think of any reason men don't typically carry purses.
Who writes these articles? They suck!
I'm a man and the only way I could carry my smartphone in a jeans pocket is via the cargo pocket of a pair of cargo jeans. If you put it in the front pocket, it is likely going to snap in half when you sit. In the back, you're going to smash it on something when you sit.
Most of the time, I'm in shorts given where I live. I buy cargo or hiking shorts and put the phone in the lower pocket. Even there, it has a bad habit of turning sideways where the bend of my leg threatens it (because the pocket is wider than the XL is tall).
I have one pair of shorts with a "device" pocket. The phone sits in it nicely, but anyone walking by could slip it out with ease. In addition, every time I sit down in my car that pocket is slightly upside down and the phone ends up on the floor of the vehicle beside the seat or on the pavement outside.
The general form factor of smartphones sucks for convenience of carry and use while mobile. It would be better to separate the phone and processor from the peripherals. Put the peripherals in some glasses and turn the phone into a pocket computer with a more body conforming shape and a non-slip surface so that it tends to stay in pockets. Then make all input elements use speech or handwaving. Problem solved.
short shorts. Who wears short shorts?
Ah, yes, the good old days, when men were men and women wore short shorts.
IBM's Watson had the same advantage on Jeopardy. It was instantly fed the entire question as soon as it was picked, while the humans had to read and/or listen to the question over an analog interface.
(Do the players see the animations the TV audience sees?)
Anecdote: I cannot read text if someone is reading it aloud. Even if I read faster than them, every word they say makes me "snap" back to that word even if I am ahead. Do other people have this issue? If I was on Jeopardy this would alow me down by a few seconds.
The iPhone X is just a gargantuan bastardized "bigger is better" mutation of Steve Job's perfect one handed smart phone design.
Plus you're still "holding it wrong". ;-)
"only 40 percent of women's front pockets can completely fit a iPhone X"
But here we measured 80 pairs of jeans that all boasted a 32 inch waistband, meaning that these jeans were all made to fit the same size person.
This is not true.
Many might not know this, but the "inches" advertised for jeans, and sometimes printed on the back are not real inches.
For men, the waist size is around 1-2" more than the figure stated. For women, the waist size is around 3-5" more than the figure stated.
A man that wears size 34 jeans can easily fit into women's size 32 jeans. But neither a "34" man nor a "32" woman can wear a 34" belt - that's honest inches, and won't fit either.
The reason? If I were to venture a guess, it's a "feel good" factor, selling more jeans by not letting people in general, but women in particular feel as big as they really are.
Millions of people want a small, thick, sturdy phone not a thin, large, fragile phablet.
Oh, and that men and women are different, get over it.
where's our pity party?
ffs. modern media needs to be purged with a fiery meteor of death.
Im not sure if it is because men delibratly designed the phones so they would not fit into womens pockets. Or maybe the womens pockets designed were designed by white male fashion designers to be to small for cell phones. Or better yet white males used their pervacive control over societal norms to coerce females to feel they have to choose to buy pants that are to small to hold cell phones, in order to live up to the standards of beauty forced on them by white males.
Whatever the case may be, once thing is certain. That is women are unable to have equal access to cell phones due to oppression by white males.
Last week, a feminist reporter ranted about the 'pink tax' on toys. 70 Years of women whinging they can't be men has changed into whinging about the 'cost' of being a woman. If she wants a different colour, she has to pay, the market does not owe her customization. The only thing pink toys tell us, is that parents are willing to spend money to force their daughters into gender stereotypes; and that feminists don't complain about this backwardness.
It boils down to fashion. Women's pants are tight. Men's pants are baggy.
Women's clothing has smaller, fewer, or no pockets to create incentive for the purchase of accessories, particularly purses.
A male and a female person with 32in waists are not the same size at all. The female will be bigger due to her larger butt and hips.
If you don't consider men wearing female clothing women, then you're right.
Tiny fuckin' pocket, huge phone in the back pocket
I can't help but lookin' at dat ASS
Dat bitch gonna fuck if you are single, younger, and less fat than me
We need more pockets and bigger pockets in general. Even for guys. I need a plce to keep my tissues. I also want to look like a Rob Liefeld character. Except for the micropenis.
Here's a topical observation for you.
Women don't put anything in their pockets. Ruins the look of whatever they're wearing, and they care about the look of whatever they're wearing.
Men use pockets to put stuff in. Lo and behold, the phone fits in the pockets designed for men's clothing.
Equal does not mean identical.
4" screen with small bezels (not like the 2007 enormous ones Apple uses) makes for a phone with comfortable to use screen, but small enough to fit in a pocket. IMO, great phones should come in 4", 5", and 6" sizes, and then you can pick what works best.
... I thought "Doesn't science have better things to do?"
They hold them in their hands all day long anyway.
i think jeans and trousers & slacks and shirts should start including a smartphone pocket, a 7 inch deep pocket about 4 inches wide, where it wont get sat on, like on the front leg, and if on a shirt it should be the same size and with a button to keep the phone from falling out,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
no text
... women have that one big pocket nature gave them where they can stick the smartphone, in addition to that other big pocket nature gave both women and men. And that's where the authors of this article can stick their smartphone. Geez, what utter stupidity.
*mom's. Idiot. You stupid idiot.
Pockets with stuff stuffed into them would ruin the display of their body shape. And they are naturally motivated to display that.
E Proelio Veritas.
These women totally get it: http://www.cbc.ca/baroness/sketches/season-2/pockets
Believe me, I live with four of them. They do not want any kind of visible, practical pocket.
They don't even want seams underneath to show; you think they want a big bag sewn inside their pants?
If they wanted larger pockets, their clothes would have them. It's not a conspiracy by the patriarchy to keep them down ...
Women are smaller than men and tend to were slimmer fitting clothes. Shocker. No one knew these things before.
This is one of those articles the subtext of which is to ridicule science.
Seriously? Science? A study? Or is it a couple of people talking over drinks?
My wife has bought many blouses and jackets that have fake pockets, with just a flap or button but no actual pocket. I have never seen that on men's clothing.
I've seen that on men's suit jackets. Apparently where the goal was to lay flat for a stylish look.
:-)
I wouldn't be surprised if some men's casual jackets that are designed to be fashionable do so too. But I wouldn't know since my casual jackets are more likely to be field jacket style with abundant pockets. At an impressional age I discovered my Dad's old Army field jacket could carry a six pack of beer in its 4 pockets.
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
It's cute that nerds think the clothing industry works like an idealised free market.
Sorry the actual fact is that when women want big pockets they get big pockets. For example big pockets sticking out of the daisy duke cut short shorts. Some women considered that a cute look, the industry delivers big pockets. ;-)
The headline could have stopped with "Science Confirms That Women's Pockets Suck".
Every woman I know complains about the lack of pockets in women's clothes. You'd think someone out there would design a line of women's clothing that had pockets. From the sounds of it they'd make a gajillion dollars.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is just fine. Nobody needed to actually study this. Whoâ(TM)s stupid idea was it to do this study?
That isn't 'science'. The term has been so perverted by the current generation of autistic twerps we might as well come up with something else at this point. Is it any wonder that innovation is dead in the United States? We'll get back to it with the next couple of generations.
no u have two moms cuz their lesbos
Hmmm, isn't Scott-E-Vest doing something about that?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
... at my local Chaos Computer Club a while ago. She was wearing workers pants. She had taken the extra trip to another town to get them at a large hardware store for professionals and tradesmen. "I got these because they have a good measure of useful pockets." she said. She was playing "The binding of Isaac" on her Nintendo Switch. ... Total wife material IMHO.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe having a phone constantly right next to your reproductive organs isn't such a bad thing in the long run.
Study must not have been in the US.
u lesboz mom haha tey gettin on and fucking producin more retard babies
You need to take your phone out anyway, before you sit.
Having a phone in my front pocket, and then sitting down cause the phone to torque at my hip, and cracked the screen. .
the solution is obvious; stop buying big phones.
"Whatever you can let be will let you be."
When are women going to wear cargo pants, the perfect smartphone carrier? ;-)
If only there were some way to remedy this lack of sufficiently sized pockets. If only there were people who didn't merely construct clothes, but, you know, actually designed clothes.
If only clothes didn't last forever and need to be replaced occasionally. If only clothes could be replaced when found to be inadequate in some way. If only clothes could be replaced even when nothing was wrong, just a stylistic change was desired.
If only women could decide for themselves to trade a certain measure of style for functionality. If only the clothes could combine both style and function. If only!
Well, it's no use. This situation is broken and it will not change. It can never change!
It's not like they ever stop yakking into their phones to need to use them for it?