Skip to main content

pants pants pants

why am i writing about pants?  there are three key components to any item of clothing, that most manufacturers seem to only pick and choose.  the 3 f's:

  • function
  • fit
  • flattery

and possibly a 4th - financial practicality.. but i tend to be a hoarder of workwear and i continue to wear the shitty things that don't fit, so that kind of balances out..

but back to the three.

function: pants - intended for covering one's backside and legs.  must allow for movement in all that carpentry demands, whether standing, climbing, squatting, crawling/rolling around on the floor, or sitting for a brief moment.  a blogger i used to read coined the phrase "segmented worm syndrome" in which your body is divided [often to the point of discomfort] by your bra band, pants/skirt, slip/tights, underwear, resulting in lumpy lumps all the way down.  workwear is also required to stay on, though i fight gravity and plumber's butt every day in every way, and must hold the things; ie functional pockets.  when women gained the right to vote, and to wear pants, designers determined, well fuck, they don't also get real pockets; they should still have to carry purses and make sandwiches and be in the kitchen.  right? 

fit:  having only somewhat recently discovered menswear [and the inherent sizing flaws therein] i realize women's choices are legion, and thus terrible.  sizing between brands are completely arbitrary, whether odd or even numbers, inches, or letters.  sometimes size charts give the size of the clothing, sometimes they give the size your body needs to be to fit into the clothing, and often, the difference is not distinguished.  then there's cut; high/low/midrise waist, skinny/slim/wide/girlfriend/boyfriend/taper/bootleg leg, inseam in inches, or cropped, extra long, cuffed.  if you've ever shopped for pants you understand my pain.

flattery:  i obviously don't need to look like a runway model to build a house.  and i could be perfectly functional in a pair of sweatpants, but i don't want to look like a goddamn delinquent.  if my ass looks halfway decent, so the better.  but also, see above where too much stretch for "a more feminine fit" results in detrimental gravitational pull. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

carhartt slim-fit crawford

oh carhartts.  when i first moved to maine, i had only ever seen carhartts as farm outerwear.  on old men.  welp, stick with what you know, or actually listen to your customers.  i digress.  of course i bought these full price, $50, and a size larger than usual.  6/10   website description : where do i even begin?  generally i wear a size 12, across the board.  fortunately i went into an actual carhartt store to try on pants, and out of vanity, only sized up to a 14.  turns out, this style/cut runs the gamut of inconsistencies.  i vaguely remember checking the website post-purchase, and seeing most recommendations for sizing at least 2 sizes larger than your norm; now half the reviews say everything is too large.  back to sizing.. the "contoured waistband" somehow allows for gapping at the small of my back, while the front and sides are cutting into my internal organs.  regular inseam is a joke, and the 32" is b...

dickies double-front carpenter

the dickies double-front duck carpenter pants.  the poor working woman's alternative to carhartts, with much the same failings, but at half the price!  $35 for your choice of 3 colors, and no inseam options.  6/10  the deets: ok.  so they're pants.  ostensibly, they're not hateful; they have functional pockets, a real hammer loop, a tool loop, multiple side pockets, and doublefront knees for when you have 45 minutes to try and cram a kneepad in there.  and they make my ass look pretty ok.  but those are the extent of the plusses.   upon initial donning of the pants, one leg at a time mind you, the front is somehow too tight while the back gaps out away from the body.  throughout the day, the crotch sags and bags in only the way duck pants can, but ... they function as pants.  my standards get lower day by day.

dickies heritage stonewashed duck carpenter

where to begin with these pants.  the website  shows a model donning the pants with some rather hideous open-toed stack heeled boots cos you know, women amirite?  thats all we care about.  but sexist pandering aside, these pants are pretty alright, especially given the cost - originally $45, now on clearance.  7/10 the stretch canvas isn't overly-immediately-fall-off stretchy, but it is a bit thin.  i don't know that they'll last very long, but they do allow for full range of movement, with actual functional back and front pockets and a hammer loop.  no pencil/tool pocket on the side though, which is a downfall.  as i continuously bake and eat during quarantine, i predict the visible bulges in the front waist of these pants will be more and more apparent, but through no fault of the manufacturer's.  the legs aren't awkwardly tight or twisty, and the inseam is accurate. as these are more fashion than function pants, they aren't re...