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."
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.
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
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.
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.