Absolutely the most intriguing question of all!

[WSmac]

I mentioned in an earlier post that I am in possession of a women's skirt with a very small pocket about the waistline.
I also have a pair of jeans from Old Navy Women's dept. that have smaller/less deep pockets than my guy jeans. I really like the added stretch in the women's jeans though.

Here's the big question...

Why are pockets on women's clothing so small and so large on men's clothing... specifically clothing for the lower 'half' of the body?

Is it:
1) Because women carry purses and don't need deep functional pockets?
2) Because men like to have a bulge in their pants no matter what is making it (wallet, keys, can of snuff, pocket knife)?
3) Women don't have to 'adjust' their nether parts, and some guys find it convenient to reach deep in their pockets, root around, and get everything back in order, from time-to-time?
4) ?

If men started carrying purses as a general rule, would their pockets shrink from being under utilized?
And
If so, what would this do to their masculinity/virility/ego?

Please, take your time in answering:governments have fallen because of lesser issues than this!
:p

[Ingemar]

Hi!

Not that I am really an expert but here comes my 2 öre´s.

I guess the main reason is that when women first got their "right" to move around without their husbands they started using handbags or "ridicules" for those small things that they were thought to need during their day. As they had gotten used to it the fashion-people thought that as the garments look better without the big pockets that are on the male side they made the women even nicer.

Greetings

Ingemar

[Eagle 95]

probably door #1, mainly. seems like another one of those things most girls learn from an early age...cus I know when I was in high school, most of the girls always carried a purse whether or not their skirts or pants had pockets.
I carry a messenger bag on occasion, like when I have something to send in the mail and can't cram it into a pocket...even then, I'll still wind up putting my wallet in my pocket instead. go figure.

[r1g0r]

4...

i think this is a carry-over from earlier years. some of us are old enough to remember when women didn't carry much at all! they usually didn't have drivers licenses, credit cards were a rarity, and other than that they carried a bag to hold a few cosmetics for "touch-ups" during the day.

i can remember my stepfather carrying items in his pockets FOR my mother (cigarettes, lighter, etc...) and her going out with this little bag that wouldn't carry 1/4 of the stuff a modern woman needs at her constant beck-and-call.

this is in addition to the fact that women were supposed to NEVER put their hands in their pockets. they were to "gracefully" keep their hands poised and on display, especially if they had a manicure.

big difference to what is the norm today!

[Bob]

I think it has to do with hips.

[skirttron]

I'm pretty European so I usually carry a manbag - but not so far when wearing a skirt, as I haven't had the nerve yet. The good thing about a bag is it makes your clothes fit more comfortably, and you can carry extra stuff like pocket computers, and, dare I say it, face wipes.

[ChrisM]

I vote for Door #1.

And this has the added advantage that you don't have to empty it when you change clothes. Ooops I've left my car keys in my other trousers... Nope - All is here in the bag, just as it was yesterday.

C

[Since1982]

I couldn't exist without pockets. Because of my gynecomastia I feel that if I cross my arms over my chest I'm bringing attention to 2 somethings so I stick my hands in pockets whenever I'm stationary. I just let my baggy T-shirt hide the 2 problems I have and stuff my hands in my pockets. Recently my girlfriend Judy has talked me into wearing a fanny pack like a sporran in the front to put all the odds and ends that I formerly had stuffed in my pockets.

I do remember what was said by R1g0r earlier and I do remember those times. My dad used to carry 2 packs of cigarettes, 1 lighter, and mom's compact and lipstick because the rare dress she had that had pockets, the pockets were so tiny she couldn't put anything but a few pennies in them and all the rest of her dresses and skirts had no pockets. She didn't start carrying a handbag until after Dad died in 1967 and he was no longer there to carry her "things". Once she started wearing trousers most of the time in the early 70's she stopped using the handbag and used the pockets in the trousers. Of course those early trousers were all men's trousers as I don't remember that any of the low priced garment manufacturers were making trousers for women yet. Only the high priced places like Saks and Jordan Marsh carried actual women's trousers, A brand called Bleileys or something like that was one of the first really nice women's trousers.( my mom had 3 pair of them ) The real outbreak of trouser wearing for women began (at least in Fort Lauderdale Florida, where I was raised) in about 1972 when both Sears and K Mart brought out a line of less expensive (made for the female shape) trousers. After that nearly all the lower priced clothing stores started carrying tons of trousers for women and it's still snowballing.

With that in mind, 34 years ago in 1972 the trouser rebellion really got going for women, I figure in 34 years or less the Skirt rebellion for men will be snowballing and it will all end up within 50 years as just normal for either to wear whatever they feel like. We can only hope. I, of course won't live to see that but I'm enjoying wearing skirts whenever I want already and intend to continue. :dance: :ninjajig:

[WSmac]

I think it has to do with hips.

a good point from a man-of-few-words

I got sick of wearing out my pants right over the pockets.
This would happen in my jeans mostly because that's what I wore the majority of the time.
Whether it was my keys, a pocket knife, or something else, I always wore through the pocket material and next through the pantleg material.

I wore a fannypack for many years and never had anyone call it a 'fagbag' to my face. Wouldn't have mattered much at that time anyway.
I have a nice one that looks like a sport/hiking fannypack but has a compartment for a concealed carry handgun (for those who have a CCW permit - in the U.S., that is).

Once I discovered cargo pockets (that were not attached to military uniforms), I switched over to shorts with the baggy pockets on the legs.
Those have been my mainstay along with a shoulder bag of sorts.

I find myself wiping my hands on my skirts (the ones with little or no pockets) trying to hook them into the pockets. Once I remember there are no pockets big enough for my hands, I have to figure out where I'm gonna put them... the hands that is.

Skip, I read a really good letter from a guy who has gynocomastia.
His take was that as long as it wasn't causing him any physical problems, why should society expect him to 'lop-them-off'?
If I find the link, I'll send it to you.

[davereporter]

Maybe there is some difference in language but I always understood that a fanny was slang for a vagina. So what is a fanny pack???

[Since1982]

Things sure are different between Australia and the rest of the Western world. In the USA and maybe the UK the fanny is a slang term for the buttocks. There was a semi-porn cartoon in the Playboy Magazine some time ago about a very curvy young woman with a huge buttocks and she was called "Little Annie Fanny" for that very reason.

The "fanny pack" is a zip type bag with straps that go around your waist and clip in the front. The fanny pack sits right on top of your "fanny" or "buttocks".

[kabbak]

Maybe there is some difference in language but I always understood that a fanny was slang for a vagina. So what is a fanny pack???

dave,

this is one of those very interesting 'separated by a common languange' things we all enjoy so much. in the UK (from where some of you hail, so feel free to correct) i believe the entire term 'fannie pack' is actually slang for homosexual intercourse. it may be that their term for the article is the same as in australia 'bum bag'. whether or not that's true, think early nineties (usually neon) zippered pouch with attached straps you clipped around your waist and you'll know what we yanks mean by 'fannie pack'.

As a side note to the post as a whole, i have just cracked the seal on unbifurcated garments and this subject is a question i've given quite a bit of consideration. the traditional sporran is the most obvious answer to the problem of where to put what would otherwise be pocketed; but so far i haven't seen one that has caught my fancy. my own feelings about fannie packs are all negative, and like previous posters, while i'd happily carry a manbag with trousers i can't imagine doing so with a skirt for reasons i think are obvious to us all. so apart from making it even more obvious that i've burned all my bridges, can anyone offer a solution (i'm thinking a modern sporran manufacturer)? i'd appreciate any redirecting you can provide.


kabbak

[Departed Member]

"Things sure are different between Australia and the rest of the Western world. In the USA and maybe the UK the fanny is a slang term for the buttocks."

Skip, it seems to be a 'word-use' peculiar to the USA! Davereporter's spot on with the 'usual' definition. Many folk in the UK (still!) would be offended by the use of the word in that sense. However, the term "fannying around" (meaning: attempting a task in an unstructured manner, or similar) seems to be a perfectly acceptable phrase! I assume the USA "f*nny pack" probably means the same as the term "bum bag" now heard in the UK, in some quarters. Why these receptacles are called thus, I cannot really conjecture, as they seem to be invariably worn at the front, and never at the rear, as the name would suggest. I'd always assumed this was yet another 'word twist' from the USA, but no doubt someone here will have a definitive answer!

[deebee]

Why these receptacles are called thus, I cannot really conjecture, as they seem to be invariably worn at the front, and never at the rear, as the name would suggest. I'd always assumed this was yet another 'word twist' from the USA, but no doubt someone here will have a definitive answer!

Bum bags are worn by active types round the back, or on the side on the hip. I think, but could be completely wrong, that they started off as "active wear" for runners and the like, as running shorts don't have pockets. In such circumstances they don't work at the front, because they bounce around too much.

David

[Since1982]

I can't wear my fanny pack on the side as it gets in the way of my holster. Neither side works because of my fancy 2 holster rig. I never run anymore so I don't need it in the rear, I wear mine like a sporran. I leave the strap a bit loose so the pack sorta holds my skirt down in the front if it's windy and I'm wearing an A-line skirt.