Men's pants, last I checked, have a waist and inseam measurement, in inches. Women's pants have the size listed in a number like "8" or "14", which varies from brand to brand, and a length like "petite", "average", or "tall", which also varies. My current pants size at the sort of stores at which I normally shop (not ritzy but not quite Salvation Army either) appears to be 16 Petite. This is right on the borderline between "normal" and "plus" size, making finding the right sized clothes all the more fun.
I headed to Mervyn's last week and tried on some Levis jeans and Dockers slacks. The Dockers looked great but had microscopic pockets. I like to put a lot in my pockets, especially as I hate carrying a purse and don't want to go back to wearing an ugly fanny pack. Why can't they make deeper pockets for women? I asked obadiah to show me what he carries in his, and he demonstrated how much he could fit as his men's pants pockets are so deep. I couldn't even fit my wallet into the Dockers pockets.
Anyway, I decided to buy two pairs of the Dockers anyway because they looked really good on me, and a pair of black Levis. Over the weekend I headed to Otsu in the Mission and got a compact billfold-style wallet, and a nice "genuine non-leather" belt. I still have to carry a stupid purse. Maybe when I finally get a Treo (I've heard rumors of a 610 model?) I'll get a belt clip and that will be one less thing I'll have to carry (cell phone is currently in my left pocket and Palm Pilot is in my purse). Then of course, that will only work when I wear pants that can accommodate a belt... sigh...
Naturally, when I was in downtown Berkeley on Sunday I found that Eddie Bauer was having a huge going-out-of-business sale. I walked through but didn't have time to try anything on. I'm not going to return the Mervyn's pants (which were on sale but still more than I normally pay - about $100 total for all three pairs), as I'm not subjecting myself to a BART ride and more agonizing clothes-shopping just to potentially save a few bucks.