Science Confirms That Women's Pockets Suck For Smartphones (theverge.com) 277
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."
What pockets? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 clothing is what women buy (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.
Re:Women's clothing is what women buy (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
It's cute that nerds think the clothing industry works like an idealised free market.
Fact: Anyone who thinks this way has never had to buy clothes for a woman.
Also fact: The same people who say "women should just buy different clothes" are almost always the same ones who complain when women dress "inappropriately" in the workplace. That may not be you personally but it's a common theme.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought that the people who make women's clothes must actually hate women. Seems like a market opportunity, but I've looked for clothes that would fit my wife better, and they aren't there to buy. I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought that the people who make women's clothes must actually hate women.
The people who design them are gay fashion designers.
Re: Women's clothing is what women buy (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
It's cute that nerds think the clothing industry works like an idealised free market.
Fact: Anyone who thinks this way has never had to buy clothes for a woman.
It's not all or nothing.
True, the industry is dominated by gay fashion designers, who seem to think that women should be skinny as rails.
That said, women themselves often want to think of themselves being as skinny as rails. But like any human being, they can be conflicted about things. Thus the various absurdities of women's sizing schemes, etc.
Daisy duke shorts get bigger pockets (Score:2)
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
It's cute that nerds think the clothing industry works like an idealised free market.
Sorry the actual fact is that when women want big pockets they get big pockets. For example big pockets sticking out of the daisy duke cut short shorts. Some women considered that a cute look, the industry delivers big pockets. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if women do start getting more pockets, men will need to compensate with even more & bigger ones. Cargo pants for all!
Re: (Score:2)
Are all the women you know under 25? I seriously doubt that 50-something women are buying too small stretch pants just to show off their butts. But the fashion world ignores them for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that 50-something women are buying too small stretch pants just to show off their butts.
Unfortunately my daily commute on the train has shown me that lots of 50-ish women buy too small stretch pants. ...shudder...
Re:Women's clothing is what women buy (Score:4, Interesting)
Fashion isn't driven by what women buy, it's driven by designers and brands deciding what they are doing this season and then marketing the hell out of it.
It's reasonable to request that they make clothes with bigger pockets and then use their influence to steer fashion in that direction. It happened in Japan a few years back when Muji practical and plain clothing became really popular, but then a popular girl band seemed to steer it towards frilly dresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Fashion isn't driven by what women buy, it's driven by designers and brands deciding what they are doing this season and then marketing the hell out of it.
Almost every fashion designer goes bankrupt. The ones who succeed are the ones who successfully guess what women want, and market the crap out of it. Getting out in front of fashion changes is quite hard, but possible.
As an interesting aside: the stock market works the same way, as stock prices are 80% fashion, 20% fundamentals. Those who can stay out in front of fashion changes do quite well. It's no coincidence 2 of the 10 richest people in the world are fashion designers.
You do know that what people
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> Reality: Women buy tight fitting clothes because they want to show off their rears, not big flappy pockets.
No. The reality is that patriarchal society restricts women's right to have the same size pockets as men do.
It's high time we get rid of that abomination: #largepocketstoo
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
There's is a little-know skill called "sewing" that allows one to turn small pockets into big pockets. True story.
Re: Women's clothing is what women buy (Score:2)
Women's asses are a lot fucking bigger than men's asses.
Which leaves more room for pockets, making this phenomenon even less excusable.
Re:Women's clothing is what women buy (Score:4, Interesting)
If men's clothing were truly about function and not form them in hot weather men world wear dresses made of burlap and covered in pockets. Somehow you never see this. In fact somehow you very rarely see a man in a dress or skirt despite how much more comfortable they apparently are in hot weather.
Men's clothes are also strongly driven by fashion, you just don't recognise it because you think it's natural the way it is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I see it quite frequently. [utilikilts.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A kilt is an absolutely delightful item of clothing. It's not quite as nice in the summer as the thin skimpy things women wear, but it's a lot better than pants.
Men's clothes are strongly driven by tradition. I think of fashion as something that changes regularly. Men the world over generally mimic a particular style of British dress: shirt and pants, jacket because it's always raining, and something around your neck to keep you warm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What pockets? (Score:2)
Men clothing lean more utility than fashion and women clothing leans way the other way. I guess small pockets keep that whole region small, favoring the skinny model look. Which of course doesn't match most sexy, healthy women's appearance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
and low tread count resulting in sheer
Is that of any interest in landlocked countries like mine?
The (Score:4, Funny)
Error In Information (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re: Error In Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Error In Information (Score:2)
I guess nobody must be demanding pay equity, if we all get what we demand.
You can get women's clothing with decent pockets, but it takes a fair bit of searching. eshakti [eshakti.com] has good-quality clothes, some of which have decent pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess nobody must be demanding pay equity, if we all get what we demand.
Apparently they are, to a much higher extent than they're demanding equal-sized pockets, otherwise the pockets would be only 10% shorted and not 50% shorter as the summary claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Telling it like you believe it is--if what you believe is misogynistic--is misogynistic.
I like the claim that men aren't also gullible led by marketing and never buy things for looks rather than utility. No man ever bought an expensive, macho truck for his daily commute to the office. None at all. And no marketing ever influences purchases by persuading men they are more manly because they have some vehicle, aftershave or running shoe. And those campaigns never worked ever.
Never happened, only weak feeemal
Re: (Score:2)
Telling it like you believe it is--if what you believe is misogynistic--is misogynistic.
And it isn't if it isn't.
I like the claim that men aren't also gullible led by marketing and never buy things for looks rather than utility. No man ever bought an expensive, macho truck for his daily commute to the office. None at all. And no marketing ever influences purchases by persuading men they are more manly because they have some vehicle, aftershave or running shoe. And those campaigns never worked ever.
Lots of them do those things. Lots of them don't. Like women, they have the option not to do them. I'm not sure if you've noticed it but they still get criticized for making those decisions, even in the US. Hell, the rest of the world makes jokes about American car choices in general. It's just that the topic of the submission is pockets, not trucks this time. Whataboutism doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
And it isn't if it isn't.
Spoiler alert: it was.
It's just that the topic of the submission is pockets, not trucks this time.
The topic moved on from pockets, to the GGP basically saying women are shit to people calling him out to people defending him. And you appear to be defending his claim that women are shit.
Whataboutism doesn't cut it.
You clearly have no idea what whataboutism is.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler alert: it was.
By gods! That settles it.
The topic moved on from pockets, to the GGP basically saying women are shit to people calling him out to people defending him. And you appear to be defending his claim that women are shit.
Perhaps you're projecting, since that claim doesn't appear there.
You clearly have no idea what whataboutism is.
I'm pretty sure that "But some men are buying impractical trucks!" definitely counts as whataboutism. And apparently I'm not the only one with that opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
post A: "women ... are ... gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods.
strongly implied in post A: *only* women are gullible idiots.
post B: men are gullible idiots too. Here are some cases where that happened.
The problem is that because of US market realities, it is *mostly* women who *actually* get manipulated by modern marketing methods. Men would be too, if they were interesting to marketers...but they mostly aren't. [businessinsider.com] So they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's whataboutism
No it isn't. You clearly have no idea what that even means.
You didn't actually refute anything that I said.
Yes I did. Not only are you too thick to understand whataboutism, you're not bright enough to even read a few simple lines of text.
You posted about how you believe that "telling it like it is is misogyny",, because you believed the GGP was "telling it like it is". I posted a coherent argument about how the GGP was misgyistic because he singed out women for something that seems to be
Re: (Score:2)
There are many men who are fashionistas too. However I do agree that women love to shop more and men tend to hate it. So you ask a man "why those ugly pants?" and the answer is "they were the first ones I saw in the store".
Re: (Score:2)
"... if pocket to small, no longer wear or buy that brand of shirt, function first."
"Only you can fight against the marketing targeted at you, no excuses, all of you!"
On the subject, I knew a woman who tucked her phone into her bra. It was very practical, particularly sensitive to vibration. With breasts, it was limited to a smaller, rounder cellphone, but since you're not a victim of fashion, maybe if you wore a bra, you wouldn't have to worry so much about finding shirts which fit your phone? You can
Re: (Score:2)
> well cargo pants are now coming under fashion attack because of it. In fashion terms pockets are ugly,
The best garment for men to carry slartphones is a classic jacket with inner pockets: it accentuates shoulders, hides the pot belly and even covers the butt.
It does nothing of that sort to women. I am starting to think that maybe women should not be allowed to own smartphones.
This of course totally ignores (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:3)
Fanny packs. They come in his and hers so you can go arm in arm down the street and shock everyone you meet with how cool you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used a man bag ....
You mean a "tactical satchel" ;-)
Strange divergence (Score:2)
Its very strange that in the US men get more pockets, but women get purses. I don't know if the difference in pocket size can be attributed to different hip shapes. I can't think of any reason men don't typically carry purses.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of any reason men don't typically carry purses.
A number of us do, we just call it a laptop bag and occasionally store a laptop in there too with all the other heavy pocket junk.
Also would a briefcase count?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, I can't be the only one who misses attache cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, I can't be the only one who misses attache cases.
Maybe ;P Actually never heard of that name before.
A quick google turns up a bunch of briefcase looking items. Certainly man-purse IMHO, was just wondering if I was missing anything special about them.
Re:Strange divergence (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I love the evolutionary just-so stories how they so neatly explain the exact status quo right now, not e.g. a few hundred years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the evolutionary just-so stories how they so neatly explain the exact status quo right now, not e.g. a few hundred years ago.
Except that this one explains the past better than the present. Women were both gatherers and carried children, while things like shields and papooses are much newer inventions.
That there are skeletal differences between the genders isn't controversial. The wider hips of human females is the primary means of guessing the gender of a skeleton, but shoulders and elbows are also useful markers.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Strange divergence (Score:2)
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.'
"fit" is not the real problem (Score:2)
I'm a man and the only way I could carry my smartphone in a jeans pocket is via the cargo pocket of a pair of cargo jeans. If you put it in the front pocket, it is likely going to snap in half when you sit. In the back, you're going to smash it on something when you sit.
Most of the time, I'm in shorts given where I live. I buy cargo or hiking shorts and put the phone in the lower pocket. Even there, it has a bad habit of turning sideways where the bend of my leg threatens it (because the pocket is wider tha
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a man and the only way I could carry my smartphone in a jeans pocket is via the cargo pocket of a pair of cargo jeans. If you put it in the front pocket, it is likely going to snap in half when you sit.
Carrying a phone in the front pocket is never a problem for me, even with skinny jeans. There's oodles of space. Are you fat?
Re: (Score:2)
I’m in IT. Cargo pants are the de facto uniform of this field.
So Steve Jobs WAS Right!!! (Score:4, Informative)
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". ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe for a second that they deliberately designed it to be that size. It would have been constrained by the available LCDs and the limited GPU power.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone wants a small tablet as a phone. I'm still on my iPhone 5s that I got a few months after it started shipping. I won't replace it until Apple delivers a small phone that has all of the features of the larger ones (or I'm forced to because my current one dies). But Apple won't do that because they know that there's a demand for smaller screens and it will kill much of their larger screen phone sales.They are doing this now by having some features only available on the Plus models. Some people wou
Inches and inches (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine the inchage of jeans is measured along the beltline, and the body is wider somewhere below that.
A good guess, but incorrect. The belt line is longer than what you get with a honest measuring tape for the same circumference.
Just one inch discrepancy might be explained by people wanting a loose fit, or possible future shrinkage (although that's generally not the direction jeans shrink), but for some jeans, the difference between real and advertised measurements can be 3-4". When 32" on the tab on the back is really 36", there's a different reason. To me, the simplest suggestion is that it sells more
Re: (Score:2)
[sound of the world crushing around me]
Reason seems simpler to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It boils down to fashion. Women's pants are tight. Men's pants are baggy.
IMHO, part of the reason for baggy pants on men is the insistence of some men to carry everything in their pockets. To me, carrying wallets and phones in trouser pockets is ugly, uncomfortable and unwieldy. If the pockets are large enough for me to move comfortably, it invariably means the phone etc. will wobble around and potentially hit things around me. Of course, there are legitimate reasons to have some loose space, such as anatomy and mobility, but that doesn't explain something like cargo pants (whic
The underlying reason (Score:3)
Women's clothing has smaller, fewer, or no pockets to create incentive for the purchase of accessories, particularly purses.
Anyone talk to actual women? (Score:3)
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.
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
They hold them in their hands all day long anyway.
men's pockets do too (Score:2)
Don't think it is forced on them. (Score:2)
And that's how women want it (Score:2)
Believe me, I live with four of them. They do not want any kind of visible, practical pocket.
They don't even want seams underneath to show; you think they want a big bag sewn inside their pants?
If they wanted larger pockets, their clothes would have them. It's not a conspiracy by the patriarchy to keep them down ...
This just in (Score:2)
Well, if SCIENCE confirms it... (Score:2)
The headline could have stopped with "Science Confirms That Women's Pockets Suck".
Every woman I know complains about the lack of pockets in women's clothes. You'd think someone out there would design a line of women's clothing that had pockets. From the sounds of it they'd make a gajillion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the fashion designers could create bigger and more numerous, smartphone compatible pockets on the clothing for women?
They do. Women can buy clothes with roomy pockets, and some women do buy them. But most don't.
The market is not "forcing" small/no pockets on women. Women are forcing their preferences on the market. Women prefer small pockets, or no pockets. My wife has bought many blouses and jackets that have fake pockets, with just a flap or button but no actual pocket. I have never seen that on men's clothing.
Here is a question for scientists: If a woman is carrying a purse with the volume of a small refrigerato
Re: (Score:2)
I have had a set of mens jeans that had too small pockets. I didn't check them before hand, I just assumed they'd be ok. It happens. So I think this happens with women, the jeans look ok, they fit, but then then getting home the pockets are inadequate. Or more likely, they tried on 10 pairs of jeans and all of them had small pockets.
I do see quite a lot of women though who do get the men's trousers for casual wear, and women who ditch the handbag for fanny packets. After a certain age comfort and conve
Re: Bigger Pockets (Score:2)
Field jacket holds a six pack of beer (Score:2)
My wife has bought many blouses and jackets that have fake pockets, with just a flap or button but no actual pocket. I have never seen that on men's clothing.
I've seen that on men's suit jackets. Apparently where the goal was to lay flat for a stylish look.
:-)
I wouldn't be surprised if some men's casual jackets that are designed to be fashionable do so too. But I wouldn't know since my casual jackets are more likely to be field jacket style with abundant pockets. At an impressional age I discovered my Dad's old Army field jacket could carry a six pack of beer in its 4 pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
lol they come stitched shut and you're supposed to cut the threads. there is in all likelyhood, pockets under all of them
I double checked. :-)
The lower outer pockets of the jacket are fake, the outer chest pocket is insufficiently sized and possibly designed for an accessory pocket square only. There are two inner chest pockets of good size. The suit is a fairly recent one. All other suits over several decades had real outer pockets on the jacket. All suits were nothing special, off the rack at Macy's or equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a question for scientists: If a woman is carrying a purse with the volume of a small refrigerator, why does she never have a pen?
Either she has one and can't find it in there, or she has one and doesn't want to admit it because she doesn't want to give you her number, and doesn't care about yours.
I expect my Nobel in the mail within the week.
Re: your moms meat curtains suck for my DICK (Score:3)
Um, yeah. Pretty sure no women were involved in writing TFA's headline.
Or is it that (Score:2)
men go goo-goo eyed at extravagant bling.
Re: (Score:2)
Those tiny pockets bring the boys to her yard, and they're like, what fits in those.
Re:Or is it that (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.
Re:Or is it that (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Find me normal sized women's jeans with pocket sizes comparable to men's jeans. Women's clothes are also more expensive but that's due to the cut of the fabric.
Re: (Score:2)
Women's clothes are also more expensive but that's due to the cut of the fabric.
Nope. It is because many women's clothes are Veblen Goods [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, there are probably ten women's clothing stores for each men's clothing store. That leads to much more variety for women, and both more expensive and less expensive clothing, simply because there's much more to choose from.
Why this discrepancy?
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, I have never seen a store that only sold clothes, and sold both men's and women's clothes. Never thought about that before. I'd say that most places you can buy clothes here sell both, but also sell other things.
It's odd, there are discount stores for both men and women, but while the cheaper men's stores market as "shop here, we're cheaper", the discount women's stores are very low key. Their pith seems to be "you were smart enough to find this hidden discount store, but don't worry, we won't
Re: (Score:2)
I see advertizing for Wish.com quite often, especially on FB. ... never really checked as they require you to log in.
They are incredible cheap with accessories, like small leather bags or phone "power banks" (extra battery with USB plug and sometimes solar)
In Europe we have many shops only for cloth, e.g. H&M (a dutch brand), Zara (Spanish, afaik), Orsay (french), Anson's (men only, but high class, no idea if they even sell T-Shirts ;D ), my favourite is Springfield (obviously british), they are mens on
Re: (Score:2)
H&M (a dutch brand)
Swedish. The full name is Hennes & Mauritz, where the Hennes part is because it means "Hers" in Swedish, and was a women's only clothing store before it merged with Mauritz Wildforss, a hunting clothes store.
Re: (Score:2)
What is "occasionally shopping"? I don't think that translated properly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it was aliens but...
it was fashionable aliens? The grays are sooo 90s. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell is putting a mobile phone in their pockets? This has not been tested for humans.
You're supposed to keep the phone 5mm away from your body and head at all times.
(LOL, yes, but... that IS technically the standard. Not safe any other way.)
Yeah, that's their disclaimer. In reality, this is one of many massive uncontrolled experiments we are currently doing on the human race.
Every guy I know keeps their phone in their pocket as well as every high school and middle school kid.
Even most women do it if their pocket is big enough and/or they don't have a purse.
Re: (Score:2)
In those days, men wore fedoras, which is something that would be misinterpreted today.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the reason. Men traditionally had pockets because they didn't using handbags (in recent history anyway). Women typically used handbags and dresses and so didn't get pockets. Later on pantsuits had no pockets at the start. As women started wearing trousers the pockets were initially only added cosmetically - looks like a pocket but sewn shut (like on some suit jackets for men) - then later pockets were added for real but were tiny. Fashion hasn't caught up to the mobile phones yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I just replaced a broken phone with an iPhone 6s. I feel a bit lucky because it's a good small size, and all the android replacements and later iPhones were just too big and bulky even for men's pockets. Probably ok for the east coast where more people wear suits and jackets but they're terrible for trouser pockets for both men and women.