skirtcafe.org

pelmut wrote:You don't live in England where the weather is wet and dull for months at a time, so everyone has the sniffles and needs to carry handkerchiefs. Women often shove them down their cleavage, but if you don't have a cleavage, you need pockets.

I had a co-worker (RIP) who kept her phone in her cleavage. She was very heavy and tattooed so it kind of worked out perfectly as part of her image. When her phone rang I would ask "want me to get that?"

Jean Suifou wrote:Before starting to read more about skirts, I had never considered that pockets could ever be different.
In the mean time, the following link appeared in the diversity & inclusion communication channel of my company, and I think this was worth sharing this study here:

https://pudding.cool/2018/08/pockets/

Therefore, one detail to make skirts look more Masculine would be to extend the pocket depth.

Ugh, the article is just another in the popular "women are oppressed" fad. We could just as easily argue that men's pockets are bigger because men are required to be more rugged and ready and carry all kinds of things on their bodies. There is no "diversity & inclusion" factor here at all.

Women's pockets are smaller because that is how women themselves want them. On close-fitting pants and skirts, not spoiling the smooth curvey lines is the reason. And who can blame them for that? One doesn't deliberately put great art in horrid frames with bad lighting...

Men's pockets tend to take advantage of the fact that men's trousers need a little extra room to account for men's external organalia. Ultimately, the market decides.

For us male skirt-wearers it does mean that buying women's garments causes us to adjust our habits a bit. I use my shirt and jacket pockets a lot more now, and sometimes employ a bit of a mini-chatelaine (mostly just for keys). I also carry a purse, though most frequently it contains things that wouldn't fit in pockets anyway, and gets left in the car or locked in my desk when at work as the number of things that I actually need on my person at any one time is quite small. The skirts that I make for myself all have pockets sewn on, but never quite become the containers that men's trouser pockets have become over time.

Daryl wrote:

Jean Suifou wrote: https://pudding.cool/2018/08/pockets/

Ugh, the article is just another in the popular "women are oppressed" fad.

This article investigate a frustration reported by multiple other media. It does investigate the pocket sizes with "scientific" method, and conclude that women clothes indeed have smaller pockets.

I guess the next study for them would be to determine how dense this population is in order to get this feedback heard and taken into considerations.

Apart from the frustration reported by other media and the quote from Christian Dior, I do not think this article refers in any mean to the "women are oppressed" fad.

Daryl wrote: There is no "diversity & inclusion" factor here at all.

I agree, but since when are communication channels capable of staying on topic?

Daryl wrote: Women's pockets are smaller because that is how women themselves want them.

Interesting theory, can you prove it?

Daryl wrote: Ugh, the article is just another in the popular "women are oppressed" fad.

Someone spent a lot of time and effort measuring and doing those illustrationa, which I found interesting. Probably limited in the brands and styles because some skirts do have big pockets and lots of them, more of the cargo style skirt, so they do exist.

Daryl wrote:Women's pockets are smaller because that is how women themselves want them.

The article and linked video did show that a lot of women would like bigger pockets. Similar to ourselves on this forum; some like good sized pockets and some aren't fussed.

Daryl wrote:Men's pockets tend to take advantage of the fact that men's trousers need a little extra room to account for men's external organalia. Ultimately, the market decides.

I think that skirts would have even more room to share with a good sized pocket. Internal pockets are usually towards the front where there is loose material and external pockets (sewn on) work better on the sides. Back pockets are pretty useless except for a business card.

Daryl wrote:For us male skirt-wearers it does mean that buying women's garments causes us to adjust our habits a bit. I use my shirt and jacket pockets a lot more now, and sometimes employ a bit of a mini-chatelaine (mostly just for keys). I also carry a purse, though most frequently it contains things that wouldn't fit in pockets anyway, and gets left in the car or locked in my desk when at work as the number of things that I actually need on my person at any one time is quite small. The skirts that I make for myself all have pockets sewn on, but never quite become the containers that men's trouser pockets have become over time.

Similarly, I tend to only use pockets for keys and sometimes coins when I don't have my purse with me. I do like them deep enough that contents do not fall out when seated.

moonshadow wrote: I'll betcha if men had cleavage .........

Oh no, the vision of a plumber comes to mind.

denimini wrote: I think that skirts would have even more room to share with a good sized pocket. Internal pockets are usually towards the front where there is loose material and external pockets (sewn on) work better on the sides. Back pockets are pretty useless except for a business card.

My back pocket is where I carry a clean handkerchief for cleaning glasses (or giving to my wife, who often forgets hers).

Jim wrote: My back pocket is where I carry a clean handkerchief for cleaning glasses (or giving to my wife, who often forgets hers).

True, a hanky would be soft and compact enough.

From what I see, back pockets for many women's clothes are simply for decoration. The men's pants, however, are designed to hold a wallet, as many men use the back pocket for that. I stopped using the back pocket for my wallet years ago so it isn't a problem.

Most skirts, and even kilts, that I've purchased don't have pockets, so I've adjusted by using jacket pocket or other. When going out to a restaurant or music club I like to have my pockets on my body, not a jacket that could be picked. I have a "travel Wallet" by Rick Steves that works as it is worn under the clothes.

Another thing I was going to try is the "Stashbandz Unisex Travel Money Belt" that might work, but I am put off by the 20 buck cost.

Jean Suifou wrote:

Daryl wrote: Women's pockets are smaller because that is how women themselves want them.

Interesting theory, can you prove it?

I think the burden is on the writer to disprove that the market would respond if the demand were sufficient.

Jean Suifou wrote:

Daryl wrote: There is no "diversity & inclusion" factor here at all.

I agree, but since when are communication channels capable of staying on topic?

Good point. Ummm, what WERE we talking about again?

Jean Suifou wrote:

Daryl wrote:Women's pockets are smaller because that is how women themselves want them.

Interesting theory, can you prove it?

I can,

There is quite literally nothing stopping any woman living in the "free world" from adopting trousers with larger pockets, all they have to do is venture over to the mens side of the store. If more women cared about it this much, then more women would purchase mens pants, and in time, womens pants would be designed with larger pockets mainly because those with the small pockets would suffer lost sales...

It's literally the same argument that comes up when we ponder why more clothing designers don't make skirts for men... because most men don't want to wear them, the market is just too small. Those who do, as is proven on this site: simply go over to the womens side of the aisle and wear what they want.

So it's provable simply by way of the consumer setting the trends.

I'd agree with Moon on this and I have an example based on experience.
Male and Female technical hiking trousers are designed in different sizes according to aisle.
However, the pockets remain identical in terms of size and number.
I would suspect that this is simply due to the fact that the whole premise has evolved from considerations other than simple gender.

Steve.

moonshadow wrote:

Jean Suifou wrote:

Daryl wrote:Women's pockets are smaller because that is how women themselves want them.

Interesting theory, can you prove it?

I can,

There is quite literally nothing stopping any woman living in the "free world" from adopting trousers with larger pockets, all they have to do is venture over to the mens side of the store. If more women cared about it this much, then more women would purchase mens pants, and in time, womens pants would be designed with larger pockets mainly because those with the small pockets would suffer lost sales...

It's literally the same argument that comes up when we ponder why more clothing designers don't make skirts for men... because most men don't want to wear them, the market is just too small. Those who do, as is proven on this site: simply go over to the womens side of the aisle and wear what they want.

So it's provable simply by way of the consumer setting the trends.

Well, that's not "proof" in any formal sense, but I think close ones count, just as in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I recall the time before jeans were even made for females. All the girls who wore jeans in my school were wearing boys jeans. That was high school, grade 9. In grade 7 and 8, girls only wore skirts and dresses, because that was just what females wore. The blue jeans revolution was also the trousers revolution, for women. Sure, slacks and that sort of thing were already available for women, but were unusual and unusual to even see in a store. The pant suit for women and the leisure suit for men followed closely behind blue jeans.

Wouldn't it be funny if the status quo in terms of the supply of female/male jeans/trousers remained the same because women were venturing and buying men's and the men were similarly foraging and buying the women's? One balancing the other out and labels producing goods for consumers and markets markets that they think exists but in actuality are the wrong ones. How would one even go about measuring this mismatching of market to consumer? And yes, I find the pockets on my wumen's trousers woefully inadequate.

Therefore I wouldn't buy 'em. They're all the wrong shape for me & I'm not into jeans anyway. Recently I've come across some skirts with large patch pockets in the right place, which I like.

Tom