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."

Comments

Women's clothing is what women buy

[Kludge]

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.

Re:Women's clothing is what women buy

[Pseudonym]

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.

Fact: Anyone who thinks this way has never had to buy clothes for a woman.

Also fact: The same people who say "women should just buy different clothes" are almost always the same ones who complain when women dress "inappropriately" in the workplace. That may not be you personally but it's a common theme.

Re:Women's clothing is what women buy

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from you being a wad of crap, many women do in fact purchase their pants from the boys/mens department because of the whole undersized pocket thingy. Get a freaking life...

You must be the type of person to think that this statement from the summary is true:
"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."

No, that doesn't mean they fit the same size person. Women's asses are a lot fucking bigger than men's asses. The waist is the fucking waist, and on a woman is measured higher up because the hip bones are slightly different. Guess what, different pants have different inseam measurement for the same waist size. Some are "skinny cut", some are loose, some are cut for huge fucking fatasses. Men's cuts have less ass fabric than women's cuts. The pockets are smaller on women's pants because the pocket style is used to make their asses look better. Women's clothing is almost entirely about fashion, no function. Go get some fucking cargo pants/shorts if you want pockets that bad, or do like a billion other women and carry a handbag.

Re:Women's clothing is what women buy

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Fortunately pockets on women's pants seem to be more socially acceptable than skirts on men... Or should I say "unfortunately"?

This of course totally ignores

[bobstreo]

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

Re: Error In Information

[reiterate]

The malice towards women says "unlaid underling" but the terrible sentence structure, grammar amd spelling says "high paid MBA". If only I could understand you as perfectly as you understand everything.

Inches and inches

[arth1]

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.

Re:What pockets?

[Anonymous Coward]

if fashion industry was not 99% women and 1% gay men i would agree with "patriarchy oppression"

this is more about women don't know what women want kind of deal

Re:Or is it that

[ShanghaiBill]

men go goo-goo eyed at extravagant bling.

Nope. Men don't care about bling. Women wear bling to impress OTHER WOMEN.

No sensible man is going to be attracted to a woman because she has an LV bag. Most men will see it as a sign that she is self-absorbed and high maintenance ... or already has a rich boyfriend.

This is also true of fashionable behavior, like the anorexic emaciated look of models on the cover of Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and other magazines TARGETED AT WOMEN. But if you look at men's magazines, you see healthy women with full breasts and muscular abs. The pressure to be ultra-thin is not coming from men. It is something women are doing to themselves.