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.
>> 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.
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
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.
I can't think of any reason men don't typically carry purses.
My SWAG is that men have a genetic instinct for keeping both hands free to aid in survival, while women are more accustomed to carrying something on their arm.
If I remember correctly, there are also some minor differences in the elbow of the two types of humans, making static carrying with a bent elbow easier for the XX variety.
Go back a few centuries and no one people had pockets. You had pouches to hold stuff attached at the waist, and over time those morphed into pockets for men and purses for women.
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.
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.
Men don't carry purses because if we did they would be incredibly heavy and unmanagable. Mine woul have a full set of hand tools, a dremel tool, etc. Instead I carry the 'Tinker' model of swiss army knife that has the phillips screwdriver 'blade.'
I have never seen or met a straight man attracted to a woman because of her handbag. As for shoes, well, apparently 20% of men have a foot fetish, so maybe, but they don't care about the brand name.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.