8 ms·

The Politics of Pockets

23 points by prismatic 10y ago

Animats 10y ago
How did Clinton get into this? She's at the level where someone else carries your stuff.
- tormeh 10y ago
  Or, as Thatcher said: "I have people for that". Obama doesn't have keys.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Does the Whitehouse even have them? I expect it has security, who would recognise Obama..
- gkya 10y ago
  What happens when people are paid to write silly things... It's obvious why there wouldn't be anything unnecessary like pockets on her suit: you don't carry a phone or a lighter or whatnot on the stage in front of hundreds of people. On the other hand, if I'm allowed to generalize based on my intuition, usually women carry more items regularly than men do (make-up items if they wear make-up, sometimes a bottle of perfume, a pack of pads on their periods, etc...), and it's not practical for them to put all them things in their pockets, especially given that stretchy garments are a la mode for both sexes.
exstudent2 10y ago
> Men are busy doing things The "things" that have historically dictated men's fashion usually involve being shot/stabbed at. Usually by force of draft. A lot of men's clothing comes from the battle field. I'm not sure that counts as a privilege as this article would have you believe. Not everything male is a net positive.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Which clothing comes from the battlefield? I can only think of codpieces.
  - Lio 10y ago
    > Which clothing comes from the battlefield? Examples from the top of my head and without verification: * Trenchcoats. Used in World War 1 by British Officers. * Fishtail Parkas. As favoured by Mods on scooters. * Combat trousers. Were a big 90s fashion trend. * MA-1 style bomber jackets. * Boots with a heel. Originally used to keep feet in stirrups by horse cavalry soldiers. I would imagine there were many more. William Gibson uses this trend for military fashions as a subplot in his Blue Ant trilogy.
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    In addition to Lio's list I would add: * Ties/cravats * Belts * Watches * Epaulettes * Hair styles
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Watches originate in the military?
      - exstudent2 10y ago
        For men they did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Wristwatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Wristwatch
dlss 10y ago
1. Are you a woman who wants bigger pockets? Those are for sale. Buy them! 2. Are you a man who wants no pockets? Those are also for sale. Buy them! That's really all there is to it. Stores stock what customers buy, not the other way around. I'm sure Macy's would love nothing more than every woman on the planet deciding to buy a new wardrobe of pocket-laden pants... the weak link in that plan is not Macy's management, but rather women not wanting to buy those pants. OP sounds about as sane as a die hard haskell programmer claiming haskell books don't sell because booksellers secretly want to oppress programmers.
- mc32 10y ago
  And, importantly, more women than men carry purses or accessory bags which can divert the need for actual pockets. In some men's fashions the pockets are ersatz. There is no sack behind the sealed slit under the flap --all for show.
- brenschluss 10y ago
  > in that plan is not Macy's management, but rather women not wanting to buy those pants. And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than understanding the cause. You're doing the former. History allows us to actually understand how historical/societal trends have changed over time. To ignore that is to be overly simplistic. Like saying "Q: Why is the '<a>' tag used to make links in HTML?" "A: Because browsers interpret <a> as a link!"
  - dlss 10y ago
    > And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than understanding the cause. You're doing the former. When you're talking about emergent behavior of extremely complex systems, "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer inaccurately. I honestly have no clue why women en mass (apparently) don't care for pockets. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate preference. Can you honestly tell me that anyone can say more? For example, I also can't tell you why I exist. I'm aware that there are many groups who claim to know why (god), but in my opinion their explanations are wrong. I'm satisfied to simply #include evolution, and note that my female ancestors and male ancestors probably liked each other, at least on average. I also can't really tell you why I checked a bug into the project I'm working on yesterday. I can tell you what the bug was, and what the fix is... but why? I'm not sure. Maybe human brains just have a non-zero failure rate? I really didn't want to code it wrong, but it happened anyway. All I'm really sure about with respect to my bug is that the answer probably isn't because there's a historical trend toward bugs. Circling back, there are many areas in modern life where women have deviated strongly from their historical conditions. You might even say that deviation from historical trends is itself a historical trend. But you can't say that without giving up on historical trends as a useful explanation :p
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
parsnipsumthing 10y ago
If you are a woman or spend any time in feminist circles, you will come across the "lack of pockets" argument multiple times. It's a bad argument. Fundamentally, "pockets" have only become a feminist rallying cry because of their unpopularity. Even if you assume that women's clothes do not contain pockets because of underlying misogyny, that same argument would apply to any other parts of women's grooming that do not apply to men. Skirts, makeup, dresses etc. Yet, no-one is willing to openly rally against makeup or skirts or dresses because feminist women want to wear them. "Pockets" are a safe repository for illusory protest because they have very few IRL defenders. There is simply no demand for them. This is simply virtue signaling. Nothing more and nothing less.
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  There are people rallying against makeup, high heels and bras.
  - parsnipsumthing 10y ago
    Yes, but those are the more radical anti-femme feminists. There's very little ideological consistency. The author of the post decrying the lack of pockets wears makeup, high heels and bras on her blog.
Lio 10y ago
Off topic:- For an article stressing the importance of small sartorial details they missed at least one detail in their photographs. "Women riding 1880's bicycles" is clearly women riding 1880's tricycles. I have no opinion on the politics of that extra wheel.
wodenokoto 10y ago
I don't get this kind of writing. It starts out with a detailed description of Clinton suit, but is full of pictures of fashion models. Am I supposed to go on Google to look at it? Why isn't it included in the article?

23 points by prismatic 10y ago

Animats 10y ago

How did Clinton get into this? She's at the level where someone else carries your stuff.

tormeh 10y ago
Or, as Thatcher said: "I have people for that". Obama doesn't have keys.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Does the Whitehouse even have them? I expect it has security, who would recognise Obama..
gkya 10y ago
What happens when people are paid to write silly things... It's obvious why there wouldn't be anything unnecessary like pockets on her suit: you don't carry a phone or a lighter or whatnot on the stage in front of hundreds of people. On the other hand, if I'm allowed to generalize based on my intuition, usually women carry more items regularly than men do (make-up items if they wear make-up, sometimes a bottle of perfume, a pack of pads on their periods, etc...), and it's not practical for them to put all them things in their pockets, especially given that stretchy garments are a la mode for both sexes.

exstudent2 10y ago

> Men are busy doing things The "things" that have historically dictated men's fashion usually involve being shot/stabbed at. Usually by force of draft. A lot of men's clothing comes from the battle field. I'm not sure that counts as a privilege as this article would have you believe. Not everything male is a net positive.

Chris2048 10y ago
Which clothing comes from the battlefield? I can only think of codpieces.
- Lio 10y ago
  > Which clothing comes from the battlefield? Examples from the top of my head and without verification: * Trenchcoats. Used in World War 1 by British Officers. * Fishtail Parkas. As favoured by Mods on scooters. * Combat trousers. Were a big 90s fashion trend. * MA-1 style bomber jackets. * Boots with a heel. Originally used to keep feet in stirrups by horse cavalry soldiers. I would imagine there were many more. William Gibson uses this trend for military fashions as a subplot in his Blue Ant trilogy.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  In addition to Lio's list I would add: * Ties/cravats * Belts * Watches * Epaulettes * Hair styles
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Watches originate in the military?
    - exstudent2 10y ago
      For men they did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Wristwatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Wristwatch

dlss 10y ago

1. Are you a woman who wants bigger pockets? Those are for sale. Buy them! 2. Are you a man who wants no pockets? Those are also for sale. Buy them! That's really all there is to it. Stores stock what customers buy, not the other way around. I'm sure Macy's would love nothing more than every woman on the planet deciding to buy a new wardrobe of pocket-laden pants... the weak link in that plan is not Macy's management, but rather women not wanting to buy those pants. OP sounds about as sane as a die hard haskell programmer claiming haskell books don't sell because booksellers secretly want to oppress programmers.

mc32 10y ago
And, importantly, more women than men carry purses or accessory bags which can divert the need for actual pockets. In some men's fashions the pockets are ersatz. There is no sack behind the sealed slit under the flap --all for show.
brenschluss 10y ago
> in that plan is not Macy's management, but rather women not wanting to buy those pants. And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than understanding the cause. You're doing the former. History allows us to actually understand how historical/societal trends have changed over time. To ignore that is to be overly simplistic. Like saying "Q: Why is the '<a>' tag used to make links in HTML?" "A: Because browsers interpret <a> as a link!"
- dlss 10y ago
  > And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than understanding the cause. You're doing the former. When you're talking about emergent behavior of extremely complex systems, "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer inaccurately. I honestly have no clue why women en mass (apparently) don't care for pockets. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate preference. Can you honestly tell me that anyone can say more? For example, I also can't tell you why I exist. I'm aware that there are many groups who claim to know why (god), but in my opinion their explanations are wrong. I'm satisfied to simply #include evolution, and note that my female ancestors and male ancestors probably liked each other, at least on average. I also can't really tell you why I checked a bug into the project I'm working on yesterday. I can tell you what the bug was, and what the fix is... but why? I'm not sure. Maybe human brains just have a non-zero failure rate? I really didn't want to code it wrong, but it happened anyway. All I'm really sure about with respect to my bug is that the answer probably isn't because there's a historical trend toward bugs. Circling back, there are many areas in modern life where women have deviated strongly from their historical conditions. You might even say that deviation from historical trends is itself a historical trend. But you can't say that without giving up on historical trends as a useful explanation :p

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

parsnipsumthing 10y ago

If you are a woman or spend any time in feminist circles, you will come across the "lack of pockets" argument multiple times. It's a bad argument. Fundamentally, "pockets" have only become a feminist rallying cry because of their unpopularity. Even if you assume that women's clothes do not contain pockets because of underlying misogyny, that same argument would apply to any other parts of women's grooming that do not apply to men. Skirts, makeup, dresses etc. Yet, no-one is willing to openly rally against makeup or skirts or dresses because feminist women want to wear them. "Pockets" are a safe repository for illusory protest because they have very few IRL defenders. There is simply no demand for them. This is simply virtue signaling. Nothing more and nothing less.

wodenokoto 10y ago
There are people rallying against makeup, high heels and bras.
- parsnipsumthing 10y ago
  Yes, but those are the more radical anti-femme feminists. There's very little ideological consistency. The author of the post decrying the lack of pockets wears makeup, high heels and bras on her blog.

Lio 10y ago

Off topic:- For an article stressing the importance of small sartorial details they missed at least one detail in their photographs. "Women riding 1880's bicycles" is clearly women riding 1880's tricycles. I have no opinion on the politics of that extra wheel.

wodenokoto 10y ago

I don't get this kind of writing. It starts out with a detailed description of Clinton suit, but is full of pictures of fashion models. Am I supposed to go on Google to look at it? Why isn't it included in the article?