Bushwalk Australia

What does Macpac know or think they know?
Do they think men need a pocket to carry their form guide?
Don't women gamble too?
Curious.

WOMENS
MENS

Ha, I love my nitro, just wish they made the men's version without the silly pocket:)

An excellent lightweight top. A friend removed his pocket. Not a good idea. They are sewn and glued on.

Need my pocket, it is where my BIC lighter and the waxed paper firestarter live

Women's anything is less likely to come with usable pockets. There are a few companies that buck the trend, but not many.

north-north-west wrote:Women's anything is less likely to come with usable pockets. There are a few companies that buck the trend, but not many.

Which is an on-going frustration for me. Women apparently never want to carry their phone, GPS or compact camera in a readily accessible place when they're bushwalking. They especially never want to carry 2 said items at a time. Have you found any women's shirts with 2 chest pockets, nnw? I mainly use men's shirts for that reason, but they're not the ideal shape...

Tortoise wrote:

north-north-west wrote:Women's anything is less likely to come with usable pockets. There are a few companies that buck the trend, but not many.

Which is an on-going frustration for me. Women apparently never want to carry their phone, GPS or compact camera in a readily accessible place when they're bushwalking. They especially never want to carry 2 said items at a time. Have you found any women's shirts with 2 chest pockets, nnw? I mainly use men's shirts for that reason, but they're not the ideal shape...

Don't know how to double quote but as you two responded in a way to my question-then why?
What does Macpac know or think they know about women and men?
Now just imagine the pocket was on the female version and not the male.

Not sure how to break the news to you Lamont, but, women often have that pocket area filled with adipose tissue, so not a lot of room for phones etc.

back when I used to bushwalk in mixed company almost all the females wore mens clothing, simply because there was little choice and army surplus was mainly in mens items, except that in the early days K-Mart did sell really good LW synthetic insulated jackets and those were popular, being warmer and lighter than army jumpers

Now just imagine the pocket was on the female version and not the male.

If only...

It does seem weird to have it on one but not the other.

I have a mens medium, I might go try a ladies 16. Could work?

Mark F wrote:Not sure how to break the news to you Lamont, but, women often have that pocket area filled with adipose tissue, so not a lot of room for phones etc.

I'm not so sure Mark, I've spent the last number of years with three adult women. They like pockets.

My wife likes pockets too, and complains that women's clothing rarely has them.

Yet when clothes DO have pockets, she always finds some reason why she doesn't want to buy them (wrong shape, etc). Whereas I might buy the one that's the wrong shape or colour because the others don't have pockets.

If women start to buy more pocketed clothing, manufacturers will respond. Meanwhile, iron-on pockets are available, and it's not hard to sew pockets into some garments e.g. leggings.

Mark F wrote:Not sure how to break the news to you Lamont, but, women often have that pocket area filled with adipose tissue, so not a lot of room for phones etc.

Not sure how to break the news to you MarkF, but backsides - both male and female - usually have a lot more adipose tissue on them, and pockets there are still very common. Also, women -- like men, come in varying shapes and sizes. A lot don't have that much adipose tissue in said area and would like pockets. And pockets can also be positioned differently on a top to provide the same carrying capacity. And then there is also the fact that a lot of men are overweight and have more in the way of excess breast tissue than, for instance, moi.

It comes down to companies deciding that women care more about fashion and style than practicality. Well, said companies can go do something obscene to themselves; a lot of us won't buy their products.

Tortoise wrote:

north-north-west wrote:Women's anything is less likely to come with usable pockets. There are a few companies that buck the trend, but not many.

Which is an on-going frustration for me. Women apparently never want to carry their phone, GPS or compact camera in a readily accessible place when they're bushwalking. They especially never want to carry 2 said items at a time. Have you found any women's shirts with 2 chest pockets, nnw? I mainly use men's shirts for that reason, but they're not the ideal shape...

I have a couple of old short-sleeved shirts I picked up in Rays when still living on the mainland. Chest pockets are big enough to carry sunnies (or mobile) and GPS. Said pockets even have buttons to keep them closed. Don't know how I''ll manage when the shirts wear out.

It's even worse with trousers. Mont is the only mob I know who make good walking pants - with heaps of well positioned pockets - for the non-modelshaped female body.

north-north-west wrote: Don't know how I''ll manage when the shirts wear out.

I have been known to sew on a pocket or two - even put a zip on one - but we shouldn't have to modify such a basic piece of clothing to use it. I'm annoyed that as you say, that for women, fashion appears to override function. It's like my thread on cars. Does everyone in the entire world (except me) want to pay lots more for complicated technology? Surely if someone was willing to buck the trend, there'd be enough people who want functionality to make it worth their while?

north-north-west wrote:

Mark F wrote:Not sure how to break the news to you Lamont, but, women often have that pocket area filled with adipose tissue, so not a lot of room for phones etc.

It comes down to companies deciding that women care more about fashion and style than practicality. Well, said companies can go do something obscene to themselves; a lot of us won't buy their products.

The three adult women I live with were in agreement -especially with the highlighted (by me) part.

Tortoise wrote:Does everyone in the entire world (except me) want to pay lots more for complicated technology? Surely if someone was willing to buck the trend, there'd be enough people who want functionality to make it worth their while?

Plenty of people would prefer simpler technology in many things - including vehicles. But you can't buy what isn't made. And design regulations (including safety standards) would make it hard to make such a car. So we keep pouring money into older vehicles to keep them on the road because the newer ones are just too fiddly (and, all too often, too unreliable).

north-north-west wrote:

Tortoise wrote:Does everyone in the entire world (except me) want to pay lots more for complicated technology? Surely if someone was willing to buck the trend, there'd be enough people who want functionality to make it worth their while?

Plenty of people would prefer simpler technology in many things - including vehicles. But you can't buy what isn't made. And design regulations (including safety standards) would make it hard to make such a car. So we keep pouring money into older vehicles to keep them on the road because the newer ones are just too fiddly (and, all too often, too unreliable).

Yep, I accept that some technology is inevitable for safety and emissions requirements. But there are plenty of other things that could stay simple. I guess I wonder if there was enough demand, whether any company would be willing to make a basic version of...well, therein probably lies the problem.

I like pull-over shirts, the only pull-over work shirt I can find that isn't in Hi-Vis has short sleeves for *&^%$# sake. I've been trying to get Cecile to sew me some pullover shirts since we got together with zero/nil/zilch success and I can't sew shirts. I have enough trouble sewing canvas rucksacks and HD tents.

Tortoise wrote:

north-north-west wrote:

Tortoise wrote:Does everyone in the entire world (except me) want to pay lots more for complicated technology? Surely if someone was willing to buck the trend, there'd be enough people who want functionality to make it worth their while?

Plenty of people would prefer simpler technology in many things - including vehicles. But you can't buy what isn't made. And design regulations (including safety standards) would make it hard to make such a car. So we keep pouring money into older vehicles to keep them on the road because the newer ones are just too fiddly (and, all too often, too unreliable).

Yep, I accept that some technology is inevitable for safety and emissions requirements. But there are plenty of other things that could stay simple. I guess I wonder if there was enough demand, whether any company would be willing to make a basic version of...well, therein probably lies the problem.

I really dislike how disposable and unreliable cars have become.

We just got rid of an absolute lemon of a Skoda and replaced it with a 2004 vanilla Camry. It has virtually no bells or whistles, is a horrible colour but really reliable. It even has two pockets....

north-north-west wrote:

Tortoise wrote:Does everyone in the entire world (except me) want to pay lots more for complicated technology? Surely if someone was willing to buck the trend, there'd be enough people who want functionality to make it worth their while?

Plenty of people would prefer simpler technology in many things - including vehicles. But you can't buy what isn't made.

Can always buy an older car. Getting to a good condition may take money, but you can chose the amount of simplicity by choosing the vintage of the car. Model T anyone?

Petew beat me too it...