why women's pockets are useless | Answer in Progress
why women's pockets are useless | Answer in Progress
The sheer comedy of the guy in this video throwing a baseball and half a litre of water in his pockets made me seek out this community just to share it with others.
I had a pair of JNCO's in the 2000's that could hold four 2 liter bottles of soda, one each in the front side pockets and one each in the back pockets. This also meant that I could carry my entire mid-sized laptop in one pants pocket.
Not a phone. A laptop.
I would buy another pair of those pants instantly today if I could find them again.
JNCO is making a comeback. Go find those pants and live your uncomfortably lopsided dreams.
And girls wore jnncos too! The 2000s truly was an equitable time.
Great channel, thanks for sharing
I, male, once bought a pair if jeans that had shorter than usual pockets. After a few uses I essentially stopped using them. Now whenever I buy pants, first thing I check is pocket depth
I have a strong memory from high school of a girl ahead of me in the lunch line having difficulty working two fingers into her hip pocket to fish out a dollar bill, while I sank my arm down to the elbow to pull out my lunch money.
Women wear their clothes a lot tighter than men which limits the usability of pockets. If you had a pocket that reached down to mid-thigh she couldn't get her hand in deep enough to retrieve it because her pants are too tight to allow an arm in. So why make them longer?
Then there's shorts. There's a limit to how big the pockets in a pair of hot pants can get before they hang out the leg holes.
Notice how in clothing designed to fit looser, there are often pockets. How often have you heard the "ITS GOT POCKETS!" story about a sun dress or similar?
My issue with gym short pockets is that they should put a stitch at the bottom of the pocket to the side of the shorts so you don't have the weird thing where the pocket drops out the shorts like Grandpa's saggy balls.
Women's pants are generally stretchier even if they are tight denim so actually getting things in and out of pockets would not be an issue...if they had actual functional pockets that were more than 1" deep.
I have noticed a gen Z trend around here to not have ultra tight pants and actually having pockets. Not sure if that is more than a regional trend though.
Again, I watched a girl struggle to work two fingers into her hip pocket. Even if they are stretchier, some of that stretch will have been taken up when she buttoned them.
And knowing the world's factories the way I do, I'm sure there's at least one clothing manufacturer out there that makes (or made) both long jeans and hot pants to mostly the same pattern, ie the jeans are just ankle length versions of the shorts, and to save money on tooling they use the same pattern of pockets for both.
I really liked the Suffragette pants, ngl.
She also did a fucking great job considering she had never made pants before.
Protip, in general: Buy workwear. No, not high-viz stuff, look at trousers for plumbers, for carpenters, cooks, catering, etc, you'll find good quality at good prices instead of good quality at insane prices (fashion) or shoddy quality at insane (but the other direction) prices (fast fashion). They will have a cut that first and foremost focuses on comfort and function (i.e. you can squat in them), only then go for looking somewhat stylish. Which, yes, works. Colour choice will be limited, but black will be among them so stop complaining.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY KEEP BUYING THAT SHIT.
Honestly this is the answer. If women stopped buying these pants because of "style" they'd stop being sold in the first place.
Now either go to the men's section or get used to carrying a bag everywhere you go.
I’ve fit an entire Nintendo Switch in my pocket before
I can fit the same amount in my jacket pockets as fits in one bag of groceries. I am literally saving money by wearing a jacket for men lol
I thought I'd already seen the video but it was a few different ones