[HN Gopher] Women's Pockets Are Inferior (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
Women's Pockets Are Inferior (2018)
Author : bjourne
Score : 33 points
Date : 2021-05-03 22:14 UTC (48 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (pudding.cool)
(TXT) w3m dump (pudding.cool)
| dang wrote:
| Discussed a few weeks ago:
|
| _Women 's Pockets are Inferior (2018)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26579484 - March 2021 (33
| comments)
|
| and at the time:
|
| _Women 's Pockets are Inferior_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17769517 - Aug 2018 (52
| comments)
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I've heard that pockets add bulk and warping to the clothing, so
| this might be a stylistic thing as well. Especially since female
| jeans tend to be stretchier and more form-fitting.
| cdot2 wrote:
| I don't think this is taking into account the fact that men's and
| women's jeans are made to different shapes to conform to
| different male and female bodies. Perhaps the difference in
| design constrains the effective maximum depth of front pockets on
| women. As evidence that pocket size differences are not merely
| because clothes companies don't think women need pockets I would
| point to their data that shows that women's back pockets are the
| same size as men's. If clothes companies were giving women
| smaller pockets for arbitrary reasons wouldn't that also carry
| over to back pockets?
| laurent92 wrote:
| > For women, it was (and still is) about equality. Pockets,
| unlike purses, are hidden, private spaces. By restricting the
| space in which women can keep things safe and retain mobility of
| both hands, we are also restricting their ability to "navigate
| public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or
| to travel unaccompanied."
|
| Although I came to the same observation and desire of change (I'm
| annoyed at the idea that me, godfather, has to assist my
| goddaughter by carrying her handkerchief because dresses have no
| pockets... how can we reach female independance if they have to
| rely on men being around to carry their stuff as early as 6 years
| old).
|
| ...the idea that men conspire to restrict women's pockets is
| quite the biggest conspiracy theory I've heard. We gather at
| night with the council of men and decide "What should we do
| next", "Let's restrict women's pockets", "Let's make them eat
| less meat so they are smaller", "Why not everything" and we do
| everything.
|
| She phrases it as a conspiration, but it could also be that men
| are so much available to help them that they overuse this
| service.
|
| In any case, cargo pants are available, boys often choose
| function over form and marketers know it; Girls often choose form
| over function, and very very little function doesn't seem to be a
| problem for many other types of accessories, as long as beauty is
| there.
| seumars wrote:
| Not to undermine the point of the article, but this isn't so much
| a "women's vs men's clothing" issue as much as it is a "clothing
| manufacturers have streamlined production to the point that
| nobody will pay extra to redesign clothes that very few people
| will buy". This affects sizing standards the most, because there
| are basically none. Even the most cutting edge, eco friendly,
| forward thinking clothing brands get their patterns from copying
| the proportions off vintage or competitors clothes, usually made
| to fit a tall european twenty-something.
| legitster wrote:
| This page is really cool.
|
| Although I'm not sure I am on board with the synthesis - it wants
| to play it both ways: that women are unfairly given smaller
| pockets but are also incapable of prioritizing it for themselves.
|
| Out of curiosity I showed this page to my wife (who loves to
| complain about pockets). When seeing the pants with the bigger
| pockets, she complained about the fit or aesthetics of those
| brands, so I think the traits may be linked. She also admitted
| she doesn't much care for things in the front pockets anyway.
|
| Still, amazing presentation and data set.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| First... duh.
|
| I mean it is something everyone has known for a long time. That
| said, I think it goes a little bit deeper than just simply the
| fashion industry is trying to screw women over.
|
| You can buy women's pants with pockets, some of them have an over
| abundance of pockets, for example these Carhartt Overalls:
| https://www.carhartt.com/products/womens/Carhartt-Rugged-Fle...
|
| In general, women don't buy these sort of utility pants as much
| as they buy other types of pants. Well many women won't. My wife
| has about 50% utility pants and 50% pocketless pants.
|
| The problem is those pants are not particularly flattering and
| even to this day, women wearing pragmatic/ practical clothing are
| shamed for wearing unflattering clothing. This isn't just men,
| other women do it also.
|
| Tight pants don't really work well with big pockets filled with
| stuff.
|
| I will say... the fashion industry doesn't help. Brands like
| Levis who sell few utility type pants for women and don't
| advertise any of them.
|
| The big thing is people need to stop giving women crap for being
| practical with regards to clothing.
| coward76 wrote:
| If they made fully functional pockets for women's clothing would
| they be purchased? I have found several pockets sewn shut and
| people act like it isn't a big deal.
| ecmascript wrote:
| This reminds me of a funny story that happened to me as I was
| looking to buy some new clothes. I ventured into a mens clothing
| store in the city centre of the town I lived in. A happy salesman
| welcomed me and we got on our way looking at different jackets.
|
| Just a little while later, the salesman came up to me and said
| something in the lines of "don't worry we know what men wants,
| nice fit looking clothes with lots of pockets".
|
| It made me chuckle and I ended up later buying several items from
| that store. He was a good salesman but that sentence really made
| me realize that this is what this is about.
|
| Men WANTS pockets and women seems to not care about it as much in
| general. Men REQUIRE pockets or else we don't buy the clothes and
| that is the key reason why womens pockets are useless.
|
| EDIT: I am not saying that every woman don't care about pockets.
| I just think it's a reasonable explanation that most of women
| don't care enough to not buy the clothes. I think women tend to
| value other stuff higher than the amount of pockets or how
| functional they are.
|
| Don't just downvote people for sharing a friendly, alternate
| explanation. This is not reddit.
| ghiygbjy wrote:
| You are downvoted because you are saying there are differences
| in man and woman preferences, in your case functionality vs.
| aesthetics.
|
| This is also known as "neurosexism":
|
| > _So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent
| than men, just 'different' in a way that happens to coincide
| with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles._
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x
| ecmascript wrote:
| > You are downvoted because you are saying there are
| differences in woman and man preferences.
|
| But men and women have different preferences in general?
|
| > his is also known as "neurosexism"
|
| Cool, so now I am a sexist? I really am posting in the SV
| timezone, aren't I?
| prvc wrote:
| >So women, we've got a right to be upset. The data proves it.
|
| This is one of the dangers of scientism. Without widespread memes
| about taking "data", "peer-reviewed studies", and long articles
| presented in a magazine-style web theme being authoritative, we
| would never see an attempt of this kind to transmogrify seam
| measurements from a small, arbitrary sample of garments into
| proof of a grand societal conspiracy to restrict "women's private
| spaces".
| young_unixer wrote:
| Meanwhile, society seems to be on a war against cargo pants.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| I would regard this as "common" knowledge but it's great to see
| empirical data backing it up in a pretty cool presentation.
| seriousquestion wrote:
| Because that's what women buy. It's not some conspiracy where
| clothing companies are making something women don't want,
| suppressing their own sales. If GAP et al could sell more
| clothing with bigger pockets, they would in a heartbeat. If you
| think an entire industry is wrong, you should start a clothing
| line or become a fashion designer to tap an untapped market.
| wolfadex wrote:
| Firstly, my wife would strongly disagree with you.
|
| Your argument implies that women are given the option between
| many nearly identical pairs of pants, some with large pockets
| and some with small pockets. Instead they're presented with
| dozens of pants with only small pockets. Given the choice
| between pants with small pockets or no pants, they buy pants
| with small pockets.
| tester756 wrote:
| So apparently clothing industry lacks of diversity?
| ecmascript wrote:
| So you are suggesting that there are no options, seriously?
| Clothing stores that serves both genders usually caters 90%
| of the store to women, because they are the ones who buy a
| lot of clothes.
|
| Men usually get a small corner somewhere. Also, there is
| online shopping with literally thousands of stores to choose
| from and you are suggesting none of these offers pants with
| larger pockets?
|
| Probably, she don't care enough about pockets to really
| search for it?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post shallow dismissals or take HN threads into
| flamewar.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| freshair wrote:
| From where I am sitting, your characterization of
| seriousquestion's comment as a "very shallow dismissal" is
| itself a very shallow dismissal. Substantially shallower than
| seriousquestion's comment, which at least contains an
| argument about consumer demand shaping the products the
| clothing industry creates.
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| I don't believe it's that simple. At least in the past. When
| you have no options to buy another product then all the trends
| will point towards that being the consumer demand.
|
| That's like saying everyone loves Comcast because everyone in
| my area has them. They are the only provider, so maybe sales
| numbers isn't the best metric to determine consumer desire in
| all cases.
|
| Within recent years this argument becomes a bit less viable as
| there are so many ways to purchase clothing and near infinite
| options, but it then becomes about brand reputation and
| quality. How many vendors have the capability to meet consumer
| demand with a high quality, available product. And how easy is
| it to get funding for this business when, as you say, consumers
| don't APPEAR to want it?
|
| So this argument feels lazy imo. I don't think it's a
| conspiracy insofar there is a cabal refusing to put pockets in
| their clothing for some nefarious reason. But that doesn't mean
| that the consumers are being listened to, and brands aren't
| responsible for the lack of available pocket space in women's
| clothing.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| It doesn't really look like women have any choice considering
| this data, and from their description it sounds like it has
| been that way for over a century.
|
| Maybe jeans manufacturers have some internal research showing
| providing larger pockets would reduce sales, but it seems just
| as likely that they just rarely doubt the conventional wisdom.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-03 23:02 UTC)