On Trouser Pockets • Hacker News Board

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#221

Post by KozmoNau7 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

jessewmc wrote: post #55

The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve. It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the p…

>Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.

You're getting the wrong pants if that's the case.

For a time now, I've been buying work pants almost exclusively. Not the cargo pants with flappy hip pockets, but the lighter duty work pants or "service pants", though I'm not 100% sure of the correct english word for them. They're work pants, but not made for heavy physical labor.

Specifically I've been buying pants from the Swedish brand Blåkläder. The quality is just so far beyond chinos or affordable jeans you can get today, and there are so many practical pockets. Even though I work in an office as a computer toucher, I like wearing these work pants, also as a statement of solidarity with the people who ply their trades out in the real world.

If you want something that doesn't have cargo pockets, Varusteleka's tactical jeans are utterly amazing, the most comfortable jeans I've ever worn. Their worker pants are great too, but somewhat more old-fashioned in design.

Slim fit pants just need to go away forever, honestly. They're needlessly uncomfortable for literally not benefit at all, plus you even look stupid in them.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#222

Post by harimau777 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

MattRix wrote: post #189

lsaferite wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a little disheartening to spend so much time talking about cargo pants, when I relegated them to a postscript and only mentioned them to say "I am not talking about cargo pants". But that is totally your own fault for denigrating cargo pant wearers in the initial version of the post.

He didn't denigrate cargo pants wearers, he just said this design isn't for people who wear them... And then cargo pants wearers decided that was reason to complain even more.

He said that people who wear cargo pants just do it dress up like their "pretend job".

Edit: It appears that this was unintentional on the authors part and he has since edited it. Which is great!

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#223

Post by randomchars » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #219

randomchars wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So not wanting to wear cargo pants because I think they look like shit makes me classiest and racist? This kind of behavior where people are labeling anything and everything racist is very much harmful, and makes every sensible people less sensitive to racist claims.

No, saying cargo pants are ugly because they look like what a laborer (or a "pretend-laborer" to use the article's wording) wears is classist.

And? Is it not true? Manual labor is not a profession where you're dressing to impress. Their clothes are functional, but are quite ugly.

I did manual labor for a while, and guess what: my clothes sucked too.

No laborer is going to get offended if you tell them that their clothes are not good looking.

Stop getting offended in the name of a random group of people.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#224

Post by noodlenotes » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #115

Cargo pants are not the only pants with side pockets. I suggest that you take a look at hiking pants. Hiking clothing is my preferred kind, even if I am not hiking. Here are some arguments: - They tend to look neutral. Not flashy like other kind of sportswear, and not as obvious as cargo pants. - They are comfortable, reasonably durable, and low maintenance. They are made for hiking after all. - They tend to have ple…

I love hiking pants! But as a woman, my hiking pants pockets are not large enough to hold my (large) phone, making the zipper useless. I'm actually trying to remember if I have any pants pockets that fully encapsulate my phone and nothing is coming to mind. I usually work on the principle that if my pocket holds at least 50% of my phone, my phone probably won't fall out. Unfortunately this doesn't work for hiking over rough terrain.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#225

Post by dahdum » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #198

ebg13 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. At first I was intensely disappointed by the post ("why so wordy?", "why no pictures?"), but then I got to the design part and said "holy shit I want this". If people are happy with their cargo pants, no worries . It doesn't conform to a lot of current fashion aesthetic, but if that doesn't hit a person's radar, then cool, great. But a lot of people in the thread here are feeling attacked because someone…

This is denigrating cargo pants because they're associated with manual labor. It's classist, and, to some extent, racist.

I associate cargo pants with middle aged and older men, a holdover from the 90's when they were popular, not manual labor.

Not many "work pants" even have cargo pockets,

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#226

Post by vngzs » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

rm445 wrote: post #13

vsskanth wrote: post #8

Pretty much all work pants (like Dickie's) have this, in addition to regular pockets.

They're good pockets, aren't they? But the ones I've owned seem to be sized and proportioned for a stanley knife or similar, not a phone or wallet. I think the author is onto something, though I'm still not convinced these pockets give a nice line with much in them, which people generally care about. Dickies-type trousers tend to have a looser fit than the pictured trousers. The article photos with a phone held partl…

For pockets to look good with items in them, they need to be big. For pants to look good when the pockets are big, the articles themselves need to be designed to be worn big. Most modern clothing is designed to hug the body and constrain movement, not enable movement. Hence most pants look bad with objects in their pockets.

I know of a few brands that buck this trend, but they're basically constrained to wealthy aestheticians.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#227

Post by ordu » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:37 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #194

groby_b wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification? Why yes, yes we can. But, OK, let's answer it. The first answer is right in the fine article: Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain. The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette. And if you…

> Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification? Yes, which is why I'm suspicious of people who make dictates and maxims about fashion. My point is that those maxims were created by people who have an obvious incentive to sell you more things, and having you supplement pants with carrying bags would benefit them. We must also take unconscious racis…

> We must also take unconscious racism and classism into account when judging the fashion dictates of others: "Big pockets make it look like you work for a living! We must therefore shun big pockets!" is not exactly value-neutral.

No, we must not. The only thing fashion miss is ideological foundations, then it'd take just one more step for it to make following fashion mandatory for everyone with legal repercussions for not following fashion trends enough.

There are different reasons to dislike big pockets. Different people have different reasons. If some people have racist between their reasons to dislike baggy pants, it doesn't mean that to dislike baggy pants is equal to be a racist. If the most stupid person in the world believes that sky is blue, it doesn't mean, that sky is green.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#228

Post by 42droids » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #153

amelius wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because Apple wants to sell us something else than a phone. They want to sell us a vending machine for entertainment . Probably it's the same for the other phone companies.

Actual phones are going out of fashion quite quickly. People want communication devices with several usage options, that once in a full moon work as phones too. And yes, people want entertainment too. Apple is just submitting to their customers desires.

It feels to me that customers submit to Apple's desires...

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#229

Post by diiq » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:42 PM UTC

samstave wrote: post #160

What sort of pattern did you start with? Did you DL one, buy one or make your own?

I drafted from scratch; not shown here (for fear of distracting from the pockets) are the high waist, button fly, and swallowtail back that make them deeply unfashionable :)

But you could easily add this to almost any pants pattern, so long as the inseam isn't flat-felled.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#230

Post by maxander » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

mike_h wrote: post #209

Nobody would miss the pockets on top for a place to hang your hands? I depend on this to take some load off my spine sometimes. And I feel like pocketing away my hands is like a “mute button” on a certain amount of proprioception when I need to really do some thinking or relaxing. Love everything else about this btw.

Hook your thumbs through your belt loops. Same effect, slightly less slouchy, and more panache.