Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Trouser Pockets

sambleckley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 400 posts

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#71

Post by djrogers »

thebooktocome wrote: post #56
diiq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, when I have a moment I'll rewrite that section. I clearly missed the mark tonally. At least I know folks read all the way to the end, I suppose.

I don't think you missed the mark. Some people just like military cosplay a lot and get offended when you call out what they're doing.

Perhaps, but there are also a lot of people with not-pretend jobs that can and do wear cargo pants (and shorts!). The implication as originally written was that if you can or do wear such clothing at work, you don’t have a ‘real’ job.

That’s patently ridiculous. Heck, some of my highest earning years of late had me working with customers where I’d be more likely to see flip-flops than a collared shirt.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#72

Post by OminousWeapons »

I'd be curious to know how other people are handling this problem without employing cargo pants or custom clothing like this. I'm a guy who likes wearing skinny jeans and agree that stuffing a wallet, too many security keys, a knife, and a huge phone into the pockets kind of distorts the aesthetic. Do other guys / girls just carry their stuff in backpacks?

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#73

Post by nordsieck »

wolfram74 wrote: post #38
diiq wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't meant to be an attack -- they just solve a different problem for a different demographic. Like I said -- if you can wear cargo pants at work, then these pants probably don't mean much to you.

I dunno, "fashion-as-pretend-occupation" feels like a negative connotation, sort of a "stolen valor" for professions the supposed person imagines as more prestigious or moral than what they actually do, adventurer or craftsman vs, say, insurance claims adjuster.

> I dunno, "fashion-as-pretend-occupation" feels like a negative connotation, sort of a "stolen valor" for professions the supposed person imagines as more prestigious or moral than what they actually do, adventurer or craftsman vs, say, insurance claims adjuster.

I mean, the OG "fashion as pretend occupation" are just pants in general. The purpose of pants is a piece of clothing that lets you ride horses comfortably. Everywhere people started riding horses (and hence wearing pants), it became fashionable for non-horse-riders to wear pants as well.

The world is full of people who own objects that help them project an image, essentially the essence of jewelry.

IMO, that's not really a bad thing (unless your highest value is authenticity) it's just what people do.

This isn't to say that there aren't people who actually use the objects for their intended purpose. But what percent of people who drive trucks regularly haul stuff or drive off-road?

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#74

Post by aflag »

glial wrote: post #50

Y'all are a little touchy about someone criticizing your cargo pants! Consider that perhaps his criticism hits a nerve because there is an element of truth in it - for most people (myself included as a younger person), the symbolism of cargo pants is as important as the function.

I never knew cargo pants had a symbolism. I love pockets. I carry as much as I can in my pockets so that I don't need to carry a backpack. I was slightly disappointed with the article because I find the pocket they created seems even smaller than the front pocket, so I don't get how they improve anything.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#75

Post by msla »

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…

> awful hip pocket bulges

Who says they're awful? Why do they say that?

We must be informed and skeptical consumers.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#76

Post by dirtyid »

Alternatively, more pockets on tops. Fall/winter has much more carrying flexibly: anorak with stomach pocket, winter jackets with chest pockets.

Also I find it ironic women's work out tights have phone side pockets already figured out but men's are still limited to a key pouch on the back. Also very functional mesh panels but I suppose that's to close to mesh shirts for most dudes.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#78

Post by msla »

thebooktocome wrote: post #56
diiq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, when I have a moment I'll rewrite that section. I clearly missed the mark tonally. At least I know folks read all the way to the end, I suppose.

I don't think you missed the mark. Some people just like military cosplay a lot and get offended when you call out what they're doing.

The article says that people who like cargo pants are unemployed idiots.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#79

Post by karaterobot »

Ftuuky wrote: post #2

>"Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants? >No. Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventu…

Agreed. He designed something that, by comparison to cargo pants, trades a little usefulness for a little bit more of a certain kind of fashion. Sometimes that's what design is: re-evaluating an existing solution to address a different set of requirements, and making small changes. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The following is not exactly relevant to the article, but it gives me a chance to add the most useful quote I know about fashion design:

>When cuffs disappeared from men’s trousers, fashion designers gave interviews explaining that the cuff was archaic and ill-suited to contemporary living. It collected dust, contributed nothing. When the trouser cuff returned, did it collect less dust and begin at last to make a contribution? Probably no fashion designer would argue the point; but the question never came up. Designers got rid of the cuff because there aren’t many options for making trousers different. They restored it for the same reason. (Ralph Caplan)

Post reply on HN