This morning I read a post from Lauren Williams called Purses-are-pains-in-the-----. I agree with her, although I think our viewpoint is probably a minority opinion. But here's what popped next into my head- the reason we have to use purses is because women's clothing is different than men's and we can't throw a wallet into our pocket. And that brought my pondering to all the ways women's clothing is inferior to mens. That is the point of this non-real-estate post.
So here we go.
First, to get the REASON clothing is different right out there. It's because the fashion industry wants to make sure women's clothing is form fitting and sexy. Not useful. There is no industry requirement that women's clothing be useful. There should be. And if there were, we'd have a lot more options. I do think it's possible to make sexy clothing that is useful. So here are the issues, female clothing designers. Please help!
Warmth
Did you ever pick up a men's flannel shirt, and compare it to a women's? The male version is WARM. It's thicker, usually has a pocket or two, and can be worn by itself if needed and will keep the wearer toasty. The women's is much thinner material, with no pockets or just decorative ones, and is intended to look good.
And this doesn't just pertain to shirts. Pick up two sweaters, again to compare the difference between men and women's choices. One is nice and warm and cozy. One is not. Guess which is which.
And gloves! I was trying to find work gloves, you know, for doing work outside, that fit me AND were warm and well-made. I'm still looking. Men's work gloves are for working. Women's come in pink. Please.
And don't even get me started on socks.
Pockets
This was already mentioned above, but is important to mention here. Women's pockets are made to be virtually undetectable. So they are typically small. Maybe you could stick a few dollar bills or a key with no keychain in your pocket. Maybe. They're useless for actually putting things in. Men's pants have tons of room in those pockets for stuff.
C'mon!
Belt Loops
Another issue with women's clothing - lack of belt loops. I just compared jeans. First, a pair of women's blue jeans from Duluth, a company that sells "workwear" for men and women. And the jeans are good quality (and actually do have some pockets, which is rare). BUT they have just four belt loops in total. One on each side of the front snap, and one on each side. So there are NO belt loops in the back. Which is a problem for several reasons.
1) If you put a belt on the pants, and sit down, the belt is no longer resting on the pants, it's resting on your back. How useful is that?
2) You cannot use the belt for anything except decoration. So let's say you wanted to attach something to the belt in the back. You can't. Useless.
By the way, I compared the jeans above to a pair of Dickies men's jeans, and then to a pair of Redhead brand men's jeans. Both had five belt loops in the back and two in the front. Now THAT makes sense.
Comfort
I can't believe there was ever a customer usage study in the clothing industry that assessed whether women wanted comfortable clothing. Because most of women's clothing is not comfortable. Unless you buy sweats but that's not the most professional look.
Some of the issues? Snaps that dig. Waist bands that are too loose or too tight (neither are comfortable). We already talked about belts that ride up onto your back. Uncomfortable. And about warmth. If you're freezing, you're not comfortable.
Summary
I totally believe women's clothing can look good AND be comfortable and useful. Come on, clothing industry, let's change some things. Instead of the flannel LOOK of clothes, what about making a shirt that is the same flannel material found in men's clothes but in solid colors. A dark forest-green flannel shirt. That is warm. And looks great. That would work! Or jeans that are measured using a real women's body - not a barbie doll. With pockets that have room for stuff. So those of us who hate carrying around a purse won't have to.
Am I alone in this wish?
Comments(29)