Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Confirms That Women's Pockets Suck For Smartphones (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fashion-over-function dept.

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."

7 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. The by reiterate · · Score: 4, Funny

    study won't matter: this thing goes deep. You can't fight Big Pocket.

  2. Women's clothing is what women buy by Kludge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: Women's clothing is what women buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason why there are men's and women's pants is due to having different cuts. Men and women on average have different proportions and as such, having the same cut would require it to be rather baggy or rather uncomfortable.

      Men tend to have longer waists and shorter legs than a similar sized woman who tends to have a shorter waist and longer legs. Most likely a hold over from back in olden times when women had to be able to run and walk at similar speeds to what men were managing.

      But ignoring that, women tend to have proportionally wider hips than a man with similar leg length and men tend to need some sort of allowance for their Balzac otherwise it gets rather painful. Which is something that women don't need to worry about, there isn't anything down there to sit on or squash.

      That being said, by both comfort and utility wearing the same pants wouldn't be particularly practical as they'd have to use more material and not be particularly comfortable for men or women.

  3. This of course totally ignores by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  4. Re: Error In Information by reiterate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Inches and inches by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Or is it that by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.