Friend: ‘I love your dress!’
Me: ‘Oh, thanks! It’s got POCKETS’
Women globally: *shriek with excitement*
If there is one thing women can communally agree on, it’s that we love pockets. We cannot get enough of them. Literally. We can’t, and don’t, get enough of them.
It’s not news to any of us that still, in 2017, women’s clothing either completely lacks the potential for a pouch or, even worse, has COUNTERFEIT POCKETS that inspire a millisecond of hope before crushing your dreams when you realise it only has a depth of two centimetres.
But historically, women have always been deprived of pockets. And the reason why is disturbing.
In a piece on Racked, journalist Chelsea Summers puts it most simply when she writes, "the less women could carry, the less freedom they had".
Think about that for a second.
LISTEN: Maggie Alderson on fiction, Anna Wintour and fashion after 40. Post continues...
Before the seventeenth century, both men and women's clothing weren't conducive to pockets, and both genders would have to add purses or bags to their attire. But towards the eighteenth century, men's clothing all of a sudden got pockets. Women, of course, were left behind.
"Take away pockets happily hidden under garments," writes Summers, "and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied".
In the mid to late 1800s, as women were fighting for liberation, pockets were introduced to clothing. Pockets represented independence - as did the pants women started to wear. Post war, however, pockets went out of fashion, in an effort to make women's silhouettes 'thinner' and more feminine, whatever that means.
Throughout history, women have had a complex relationship with pockets. Even now, countless articles have been written lamenting the fact that women's clothes rarely have pockets large enough to fit an iPhone - a piece of property almost every person needs to carry.
No pockets also means women need to invest in clutches and handbags - a strategy that earns the fashion industry more and more money.
So when you do find that dress or skirt or pants that have excellent pockets, be reminded there's something inherently political about them. Ladies - our obsession with pockets could not be more warranted.
Top Comments
What a complete load of lies. Its only got to do with fashion designeers. Putiing a pocket in a tight dress and then putting a hanky in it spoils the line. Even the pocket itself make a bump. Before the 20th century ,, goto the V&A and see for yourself.
yet another reason why we're here. xox
The answer is quite simple:
Go into a shop and say "I love that item of clothing, the colour and the style. But I'm not going to buy it"
They respond "Why not?"
You say "Because I only buy clothing that has usable pockets".
In other words, use your customer power.
If every woman demanded pockets and refused to buy any clothing without them, the manufacturers would buckle in a week.
Problem solved.
hear you, although i think that's simple in theory, but difficult in practice. Even so, no matter what pockets are in clothing, at times you sit on, sweat on and bend on your stuff. And things fall out of pockets, too. So there's not really a perfect solution. We all just do the best we can :)