It's not something that you'd wear every day, though. Apart from some professions and cultures, in many parts of the world you don't wear suits regularly to work anymore. And often, a suite worn out of place is "overdressing" and a faux pas.
Wearing cargo pants or similar will usually draw less attention, in most every day situations.
There are at least a couple out there. eShakti will put pockets on any of the clothes they make (but their whole thing is they custom tailor everything they sell) and Svaha is focused on both 'geeky' and 'has pockets' as differentiators.
I've actually thought about this multiple times (this complaint comes up once a month minimum). The big deal to me is that it's super-easy to copy. You'd spend a few years marketing and growing a startup and then once it became popular, every major competitor would copy it. There's no moat. I think at that point you'd need branding strong enough for a stand-alone fashion firm that's not tied to just large pockets. Doable, but not my wheelhouse
> Pockets, unlike purses, are hidden, private spaces.
Purses are private spaces. And I assure you the baggiest cargo pants in the world aren't keeping that Note 8 hidden.
> And sure, we could all carry handbags ....men’s pants pockets are basically the pockets of our dreams.
It's far more socially acceptable for a woman to wear men's jeans than men to carry woman's handbags (speaking for the US). If you're buying pants that don't fit your needs, shame on you.
EDIT: I'm getting some well-deserved criticism below for being a bit harsh above. I don't speak as someone who has worn woman's clothing or has had to deal with their shortcomings, and I don't have any issues with the analysis (I didn't that part too closely, I always thought woman's pockets being smaller was common knowledge). My issue is the false characterization as a patriarchal design choice ("patriarchy of pockets") as opposed to a pervasive fashion choice which nobody is obligated to participate in.
I'm serious. I carry one of these [1]. The most common problem I have is w/ businesses getting sketched out. Costco asks to look inside it more often than not for example. Its not like it is one of the large ones, it is pretty much a glorified fanny pack, and is about the same size as an average purse. Costco has never asked to look inside my wife's purse.
It seems you are arguing that pockets on women's clothing are usually adequate? Do you know this from experience? Both questions are asked honestly: I don't know what kind of clothing you wear, and I might have misunderstood your comment in the first place.
That being said, I can only offer anecdotical evidence, but my fiancée complains often about her lack of pockets, and is sometimes surprised at what I fit in my "normal" pockets.
When she then shows me her pockets, I am often astonished at how artificially dysfunctional they are. Things like pockets that are sewed shut, or, somehow more laughably, only 1cm deep. Yet when I wore skintight jeans, they almost fit my smartphone (wether that looks good is an entirely different question, the option is there).
But maybe she's just wearing the wrong brands or something?
As soon as you have to open your purse, it ceases being an entirely private space. If your pockets are inferior, that means you have to open the purse that much more often.
And just because women can wear men's clothes, we should force them to do so to get functional ones?
I'm failing to understand the hostility to a fairly objective look at the situation.
>If you're buying pants that don't fit your needs, shame on you.
The issue as I understand from more than a few women I've heard complaining about it is that it is simply very difficult to even find pants with the desired pocket space and many pockets aren't even pockets, just decoration.
We have plenty of alternatives though! I purchased myself a sweet man bag from Alcatraz about this time last year and I've been toting it ever since. The country I live in has a bit of a 'manly man' culture problem, but nobody has ever batted an eye. I guess even if they did, I'm old enough now that they wouldn't get a rise, only a snort of derision.
If you're buying pants that don't fit your needs, shame on you.
Women's pants near-universally have pointlessly small and tight pockets. The issue isn't that functional pants don't exist, it's that the selection is extremely limited, and I don't throw around adverbs like "extremely" just to exaggerate a point.
You realize that females are shaped differently than males, right? That clothing is as much a fashion statement as it is functional, right? It's incredibly silly to tell women to just start wearing men's jeans.
>It's far more socially acceptable for a woman to wear men's jeans than men to carry woman's handbags (speaking for the US).
Women's and mens jeans have different fits. Womans jeans tend to have a looser cut around the hips and butt for their waist size. And mens jeans tend to have a larger leg length.
Pants with a small cut will also be way more tighter on womens pants than mens. They also often have a much higher waist.
Men who wish to carry more than their pants allow can always carry a small backpack or satchel too. (which, if you know how to dress, will often count as a plus to your look)
> My issue is the false characterization as a patriarchal design choice ("patriarchy of pockets") as opposed to a pervasive fashion choice which nobody is obligated to participate in.
Women want pockets, it's a meme among women that any piece of clothing becomes 10x better if it has 'real' pockets (and even those are smaller, as this article shows).
Why don't women's clothes have pockets? I doubt every modern day fashion designer is horribly sexist, they just don't put real pockets on because it's 'unseemly' or 'unfashionable', but the reason they think that _is_ historically patriarchical. As the article does provide quotes for towards the end.
> It's time to bring fanny packs back, but please don't turn them into power banks.
They're already on their way back. Several friends in Colorado have told me they've been thinking about buying one or have bought one. I'm also starting to see college kids here at U Florida wearing them around.
The ugrads I've seen have been wearing them around the waist, but now that you mention it, I do recall seeing older folks (older than ugrads, I mean) wearing them over the shoulder.
I can't fit my one plus 6 in most of my jacket pockets let alone jeans. It means I'm walking around with my phone in my hand when I go out mid work day which is super annoying. Good to see some data on how far off pocket size actually is.
I am a man and I've never had pockets that can hold a phone bigger than my old 4S, and every phone since the 4S is much bigger than the 4S. But I don't want pockets to change, I want phones to get smaller again. Remember when making phones smaller was the trend?
What pants are you wearing? I can easily fit my girlfriend's 8+ in my Levi's pocket below my X, which I often do since she often has no pockets. The other pocket has my wallet, airpods and a small flashlight with some room to spare.
Can't get VC money or free PR unless you apply the thin coat of buzzwords and shiny tech - should probably add a VR P2P neural network blockchain protocol to the business model for good measure.
In terms of fashion, weird pockets and false garments are a thing for men, too. Men's suits, for example, used to be cut much looser and wider. You could keep half your dirty laundry in those pockets. Now fashionable suits are slim or skinny, and anything in those pockets stick out like a symbiotic mutant tumor reading Arnold Schwarzenegger's mind.
But at least they have pockets. Men's fashion garments sometimes have false pockets, but most men's garments are predominately functional, so the false pocket for men is extremely rare. But women's garments are heavily fashion-oriented, where adding pockets doesn't make financial sense. So because women's garments are more fashion-forward, they're less likely to be functional.
Besides sexism and politics, what it seems to come down to is men don't mind looking frumpy, and women really do mind. (Unless you're under 25, and then the hipster fashion trend for both is looking as much like a thrift store hobo from the 90's as humanly possible, which accepts wearing dad jeans with functional pockets)
Pockets cost money to make, and therefore could be removed to cut costs if buyers do not value them. Do men value pockets more than women?
Speaking as an owner of very few items of clothing, just one item with inadequate pockets causes a lot of inconvenience, so my tolerance for them is zero. Manufacturers of inadequate pockets can wipe this segment right out of their market - although I only have evidence to confirm segment size of 1.
This is about the majority of women wanting something different than what the majority of men want. Men are more likely to be utilitarian, women are more likely to want to look nice.
The market is simply providing what women want and have proven will pay for. Same with men.
53 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 57.5 ms ] threadWearing cargo pants or similar will usually draw less attention, in most every day situations.
Sadly neither run a very large gamut of style.
Branding about "buy our clothes: put us out of business" (then explaining the corporate self destruct mechanism) could catch people's attention
Why they're not any larger, I have yet to ask. Perhaps their branding or marketing doesn't appeal to more folks.
Purses are private spaces. And I assure you the baggiest cargo pants in the world aren't keeping that Note 8 hidden.
> And sure, we could all carry handbags ....men’s pants pockets are basically the pockets of our dreams.
It's far more socially acceptable for a woman to wear men's jeans than men to carry woman's handbags (speaking for the US). If you're buying pants that don't fit your needs, shame on you.
EDIT: I'm getting some well-deserved criticism below for being a bit harsh above. I don't speak as someone who has worn woman's clothing or has had to deal with their shortcomings, and I don't have any issues with the analysis (I didn't that part too closely, I always thought woman's pockets being smaller was common knowledge). My issue is the false characterization as a patriarchal design choice ("patriarchy of pockets") as opposed to a pervasive fashion choice which nobody is obligated to participate in.
[1] https://www.timbuk2.com/collections/all-messenger-bags
That being said, I can only offer anecdotical evidence, but my fiancée complains often about her lack of pockets, and is sometimes surprised at what I fit in my "normal" pockets.
When she then shows me her pockets, I am often astonished at how artificially dysfunctional they are. Things like pockets that are sewed shut, or, somehow more laughably, only 1cm deep. Yet when I wore skintight jeans, they almost fit my smartphone (wether that looks good is an entirely different question, the option is there).
But maybe she's just wearing the wrong brands or something?
And just because women can wear men's clothes, we should force them to do so to get functional ones?
I'm failing to understand the hostility to a fairly objective look at the situation.
The issue as I understand from more than a few women I've heard complaining about it is that it is simply very difficult to even find pants with the desired pocket space and many pockets aren't even pockets, just decoration.
Women's pants near-universally have pointlessly small and tight pockets. The issue isn't that functional pants don't exist, it's that the selection is extremely limited, and I don't throw around adverbs like "extremely" just to exaggerate a point.
Women's and mens jeans have different fits. Womans jeans tend to have a looser cut around the hips and butt for their waist size. And mens jeans tend to have a larger leg length.
Pants with a small cut will also be way more tighter on womens pants than mens. They also often have a much higher waist.
Men who wish to carry more than their pants allow can always carry a small backpack or satchel too. (which, if you know how to dress, will often count as a plus to your look)
> My issue is the false characterization as a patriarchal design choice ("patriarchy of pockets") as opposed to a pervasive fashion choice which nobody is obligated to participate in.
Women want pockets, it's a meme among women that any piece of clothing becomes 10x better if it has 'real' pockets (and even those are smaller, as this article shows).
Why don't women's clothes have pockets? I doubt every modern day fashion designer is horribly sexist, they just don't put real pockets on because it's 'unseemly' or 'unfashionable', but the reason they think that _is_ historically patriarchical. As the article does provide quotes for towards the end.
In terms of patriarchy and oppresion, this is more of funny then serious. Like, extremely unserious.
But the point that no, I don't have actual choice in terms of pockets, stands.
They're already on their way back. Several friends in Colorado have told me they've been thinking about buying one or have bought one. I'm also starting to see college kids here at U Florida wearing them around.
for easy reach, my iphone typically goes in a back pcoket if i have one (usually jeans of some sort), or a side pocket on my laptop bag if not.
EDIT:
One way to do this is as a reshipper - customer buys a new item, you order item to factory, alter pockets, then ship the product to end customer.
"butWithBiggerPockets.com"
Sizing issues could be a challenge though - if you alter an item, it can't be returned.
Here are bunch of links on why they are this way: https://www.marketplace.org/2014/09/18/tech/why-womens-pocke... https://www.quora.com/Womens-Fashion-and-Style-Why-do-girls-... https://www.racked.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pocket... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-g...
In terms of fashion, weird pockets and false garments are a thing for men, too. Men's suits, for example, used to be cut much looser and wider. You could keep half your dirty laundry in those pockets. Now fashionable suits are slim or skinny, and anything in those pockets stick out like a symbiotic mutant tumor reading Arnold Schwarzenegger's mind.
But at least they have pockets. Men's fashion garments sometimes have false pockets, but most men's garments are predominately functional, so the false pocket for men is extremely rare. But women's garments are heavily fashion-oriented, where adding pockets doesn't make financial sense. So because women's garments are more fashion-forward, they're less likely to be functional.
Besides sexism and politics, what it seems to come down to is men don't mind looking frumpy, and women really do mind. (Unless you're under 25, and then the hipster fashion trend for both is looking as much like a thrift store hobo from the 90's as humanly possible, which accepts wearing dad jeans with functional pockets)
Speaking as an owner of very few items of clothing, just one item with inadequate pockets causes a lot of inconvenience, so my tolerance for them is zero. Manufacturers of inadequate pockets can wipe this segment right out of their market - although I only have evidence to confirm segment size of 1.
This is about the majority of women wanting something different than what the majority of men want. Men are more likely to be utilitarian, women are more likely to want to look nice.
The market is simply providing what women want and have proven will pay for. Same with men.
I can still sympathize... the struggle is real.
"Women Wear Cargo Shorts For A Week": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cthA22qL9AI
Especially if it means I can wear cargo pants without getting weird looks from women.