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."
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.
Hand bags.
And sell fewer overpriced handbags? Not likely.
>> Women's Pockets Suck
Um, yeah. Pretty sure no women were involved in writing TFA's headline.
study won't matter: this thing goes deep. You can't fight Big Pocket.
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.
I'm not saying it was aliens but...
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.
I'm not saying it was aliens but...
it was fashionable aliens? The grays are sooo 90s. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
Find me normal sized women's jeans with pocket sizes comparable to men's jeans. Women's clothes are also more expensive but that's due to the cut of the fabric.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Maybe the fashion designers could create bigger and more numerous, smartphone compatible pockets on the clothing for women?
They do. Women can buy clothes with roomy pockets, and some women do buy them. But most don't.
The market is not "forcing" small/no pockets on women. Women are forcing their preferences on the market. Women prefer small pockets, or no pockets. 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.
Here is a question for scientists: If a woman is carrying a purse with the volume of a small refrigerator, why does she never have a pen?
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". ;-)
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.
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.)
Yeah, that's their disclaimer. In reality, this is one of many massive uncontrolled experiments we are currently doing on the human race.
Every guy I know keeps their phone in their pocket as well as every high school and middle school kid.
Even most women do it if their pocket is big enough and/or they don't have a purse.
In those days, men wore fedoras, which is something that would be misinterpreted today.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
That's the reason. Men traditionally had pockets because they didn't using handbags (in recent history anyway). Women typically used handbags and dresses and so didn't get pockets. Later on pantsuits had no pockets at the start. As women started wearing trousers the pockets were initially only added cosmetically - looks like a pocket but sewn shut (like on some suit jackets for men) - then later pockets were added for real but were tiny. Fashion hasn't caught up to the mobile phones yet.
I have had a set of mens jeans that had too small pockets. I didn't check them before hand, I just assumed they'd be ok. It happens. So I think this happens with women, the jeans look ok, they fit, but then then getting home the pockets are inadequate. Or more likely, they tried on 10 pairs of jeans and all of them had small pockets.
I do see quite a lot of women though who do get the men's trousers for casual wear, and women who ditch the handbag for fanny packets. After a certain age comfort and convenience are more important than fashion, it just tends to happen earlier for men than women.
I just replaced a broken phone with an iPhone 6s. I feel a bit lucky because it's a good small size, and all the android replacements and later iPhones were just too big and bulky even for men's pockets. Probably ok for the east coast where more people wear suits and jackets but they're terrible for trouser pockets for both men and women.
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.
Here in the US, there are probably ten women's clothing stores for each men's clothing store. That leads to much more variety for women, and both more expensive and less expensive clothing, simply because there's much more to choose from.
Why this discrepancy?
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.
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.
I always have a pen in my purse. Never say never...
Women's clothes are also more expensive but that's due to the cut of the fabric.
Nope. It is because many women's clothes are Veblen Goods.
They hold them in their hands all day long anyway.
I keep hardware like screws and nails iin that small pocket. At one time it was a watch pocket, but it still exists on jeans because it's useful.
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
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.
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.
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. ;-)
Here is a question for scientists: If a woman is carrying a purse with the volume of a small refrigerator, why does she never have a pen?
Either she has one and can't find it in there, or she has one and doesn't want to admit it because she doesn't want to give you her number, and doesn't care about yours.
I expect my Nobel in the mail within the week.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
What is "occasionally shopping"? I don't think that translated properly.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
In the US, I have never seen a store that only sold clothes, and sold both men's and women's clothes. Never thought about that before. I'd say that most places you can buy clothes here sell both, but also sell other things.
It's odd, there are discount stores for both men and women, but while the cheaper men's stores market as "shop here, we're cheaper", the discount women's stores are very low key. Their pith seems to be "you were smart enough to find this hidden discount store, but don't worry, we won't tell anyone you paid less".
And then there's wish.com. They turned down a multi-billion dollar cash offer from Amazon. Whatever they're doing, they're doing it right.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
looks like a pocket but sewn shut (like on some suit jackets for men)
I can't speak for women's pockets, but on any suit that I ever had, the pockets may have been sewn shut, but there Was still a full pocket there. Some people like to keep the pockets sewn shut because it looks better when they aren't sagging in the middle.
I see advertizing for Wish.com quite often, especially on FB. ... never really checked as they require you to log in.
They are incredible cheap with accessories, like small leather bags or phone "power banks" (extra battery with USB plug and sometimes solar)
In Europe we have many shops only for cloth, e.g. H&M (a dutch brand), Zara (Spanish, afaik), Orsay (french), Anson's (men only, but high class, no idea if they even sell T-Shirts ;D ), my favourite is Springfield (obviously british), they are mens only but unfortunately either have no shops in Germany, or when they try to open one, they don't have the original repertoire (hence they fail, how stupid can one be to open a shop and tailor its range of products to the "perceived market" instead of offering everything and let the customer decide).
As you see, for female only shops, I don't remember the names, H&M might be female only. And then there is s.Oliver (no idea why they write it that way).
Of course those shops sometimes have some make up or jewelry, shoes, or an occasional purse etc.
So in Germany I only by the essential stuff, but that I don't need to do more often than once a year or every second year. When I'm in Spain I visit Springfield, because there they have the same range of products as in UK, and are 30% cheaper than in Germany.
Depending to where I travel, I have an half empty suitcase and buy some cloth :D
Paris e.g. is full with small boutiques that sell cloth and accessories, often designer stuff where each piece is unique or exists only in amounts of low two digit numbers.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I own several pair of Duluth Trading cargo pocket pants that have awesome deep pockets, I can stick my hands in there past the wrist. My wife is an astronomer, manages a crew that operates a multi-million dollar 3.5 meter telescope. Between her telescope and the 2.5 meter companion, there's over a half dozen women astronomers. They handle nitrogen dewar wrenches, custom-made tools, all sorts of tools on the job, and they can't get decent work pants. My wife bought a pair of women's Duluth Trading cargo pocket pants, allegedly the same model as mine: pockets are ridiculously dinky.
Women work real jobs and need pants with real pockets, regardless of whether it holds a cell phone or not (it's probably not holding a cell phone when they're working as they don't work well on the mountain). Go ahead and continue making fashionable pants for women who want them, but also make work pants for women who need them!
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
H&M (a dutch brand)
Swedish. The full name is Hennes & Mauritz, where the Hennes part is because it means "Hers" in Swedish, and was a women's only clothing store before it merged with Mauritz Wildforss, a hunting clothes store.
Equality? whereâ(TM)s my handbag dammit?
wish.com's core business is unbranded fashion accessories. Not counterfeits, as there's no logo, but the same item from the same Chinese factory. So they'll sell a $1500 handbag for $15, or a smart watch for $9 or whatever.
It's evidence that people maybe aren't so much the fashion victims we easily assume.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Dickies. Best work pants around.
You can solve half of that: "No worries; I've got a business card."
I guess it's because women tend to buy more clothes than men. And the ratio of stores for each sex is probably the same everywhere
As incentive to get women bigger pockets, I would like to remind all men that they will no longer have to hold their wive's purses if they actually had decent pockets.
Thank you! We don't have a lot of shopping options in our area, but we can certainly look around.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
While I have held purses for girl friends before, my wife isn't the type to use one in normal circumstances. Her wallet is fatter than mine!
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
https://www.dickies.co.za/pant...
Thats one of my favorite fits
It's not just clothing, it's other items as well. My wife wears men's hiking boots exclusively because they're comfortable and designed for, you know, hiking. She finds women's hiking boots are only useful if you're planning to hike down to the nearest cafe. Weird thing is that unless you point out they're men's boots, you can't actually tell. Somehow designers have managed to make two items of footwear that look more or less identical be quite comfortable and useful in the designed-for-men version and uncomfortable and awkward in the designed-for-women version.
The players see a signal light that goes on shortly after the question is exposed, which means that their clickers are active. Clicking before the light goes on does nothing.
But how does this relate to pockets?
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? ;-)
How dafriek did this get posted to this thread? *sigh* Too many browser windows open at once...
But that's treating a crock of shit "study" as "science".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"