Why Do Fashion Designers Refuse To Give Us Pockets?
Women’s clothes are impractical for so many reasons, but the lack of proper pockets is one of my biggest gripes
Please explain to me why on earth pockets on men’s trousers are cavernous entities that seem to be able to hold the contents of an entire shopping cart while women’s pockets can barely accommodate a handkerchief?
Last month I lost my wallet. It took me more than 24 hours to notice it was gone. So when I finally realized it wasn’t in my bag, the chances of it turning up again were slim.
My heart skipped a beat. My credit cards, social security card, driver’s license, and public transit card are all in that wallet. And we’re about to go on vacation.
This is not the time to lose a wallet.
I went into denial. It couldn’t possibly be gone. After all, I had been working at home all day and hadn’t left the house.
It had to be there somewhere.
After 30 minutes of frantically searching every nook and cranny of our apartment, including the fridge, I had to admit defeat. It was gone.
I knew I’d last seen it at lunch the day before. So I jumped in my car and raced to the office, hoping to find the wallet on my desk.
Nope, it wasn’t there either.
But then I remembered that my boss had paid for lunch and I hadn’t used my wallet. There was a slim chance it had slipped from my unreasonably small trouser pocket in the restaurant.
And lo and behold, I got my wallet back with all my cards and all my money in it. The restaurant staff had found it and held it for me.
This little drama reinforced three beliefs I hold: most people are honest and kind, I’m Lady Luck’s favorite daughter, and women’s pockets are a complete nuisance designed to make our lives as difficult as possible.
I rarely envy men, except in two situations: when it would be more convenient or sanitary to pee standing up and when I want to leave the house without a bag or purse.
Obviously, there’s no point raging against nature, but I have a major bone to pick with women’s clothes designers.
Why are women’s clothes so impractical?
Why do our clothes — even our trousers have to reinforce gender norms and role expectations in this inconvenient way?
Isn’t it bad enough that dresses are unsuitable for rigorous activity? Impossible to run, jump and climb in? Why do neither they nor our trousers have pockets that allow us to carry the bare necessities when leaving our homes?
The lack of pockets, this everyday obstacle for women, is rooted deeply in the Western definition of women’s roles, femininity and beauty.
A role that ranks a woman’s beauty and looks above utility and convenience.
I know you might think I’m reaching, but let me explain.
According to the “Handbook of English Mediaeval Costume,” pockets have existed since the 13th century. Originally, they were small slits in clothing through which you could access pouches that were attached to your girdle and contained your valuables.
While pockets began to be sewn into men’s clothing in the 17th century, women continued to use Poketes — little pouches — until the 18th century. They kept their private belongings and cash under their voluminous skirts in these pouches, which were fastened around the waist with a belt.
Historically, working-class women would always have ample storage space in their aprons and smocks to store the tools of their trade and everyday knick-knacks. So did little girls and older women.
However, for upper-class women, the pocket situation worsened drastically in the 18th century. The style of dress became more figure-hugging. The voluminous skirts disappeared, and the convenient poketes vanished with them.
The consensus was that wealthy women who didn’t work didn’t need ugly pockets.
Because, on the one hand, pockets filled with bulging items would interfere with the line of their beautiful garments.
On the other hand, whatever women needed would be carried by servants or — in the case of money — by the men in their lives. Women weren’t supposed to have their own means anyway.
So beauty and subservience won over convenience.
Even when women began wearing trousers at the beginning of the 20th century, pockets remained controversial. According to the Cardiff Book of History, in 1939, Vogue insisted that they should not interfere with the fit and style of trousers.
‘One Iron Rule about slacks’,…, is that they are ‘well-cut and well-creased’ to appear properly ‘feminine’
When the Second World War mobilized women to fill the jobs of absent men to keep the war machine running, pockets came back with a bang.
With no men around to complain about bulges and work to be done, women could have pockets and fill them to the brim with tools.
For a few blissful years, convenience and productivity trumped beauty. Rosie the Riveter and her colleagues wore men’s trousers tailored to fit. With real pockets.
But of course, the war ended, men came back, and fashion designers redoubled their efforts to mold women back into a more feminine silhouette.
According to the Washington Post, Christian Dior said in 1954: “Men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration.”
Second-wave feminism reclaimed functional pockets only to lose them again to the thin ideal of the 70s that again required a slim silhouette without bulges.
It’s been a while since we’ve had servants or men to carry our stuff around for us. We work, and we carry our own money. But clothes designers refuse to give us functional pockets.
Women want pockets. Deep pockets that allow us to store our valuables safely. Pockets that will carry our stuff and keep our hands free.
99% of dresses have no pockets. That’s why a woman will immediately tell you if her dress has pockets when you compliment her on it.
Instead, designers mock us with fake pockets or pockets the size of thimbles.
Thanks to the inverse correlation between the size of cell phones and the size of women’s pockets, it’s getting harder and harder to carry anything other than a piece of gum on your body.
When I complained to my husband about the pocket situation, he replied that we always carry handbags anyway.
True, but I don’t want to carry one — I have to.
Not putting pockets in women’s clothes saves fashion brands money in production and allows them to force us to spend money on handbags, purses, rucksacks, clutches or tote bags.
All my life, I’ve been searching for that one perfect bag. The bag that is the perfect size, easy to carry and will allow me to find my stuff without rummaging for hours.
I now have a wide array of bags and rucksacks at home. In different shapes, colors and sizes, but somehow, when I need one, none seems to fit the occasion.
My husband never carries a bag.
He shoves his keys, phone and wallet in the huge pockets of his pants and leaves the house. And to add insult to injury, if he needs to take anything else with him, he gives it to me to put in my handbag.
All my life, I’ve dreamed of walking out the door without a bag, rucksack or purse. In recent years, my mobile phone, which can store payment cards and — at least here in Austria — my driver’s license and registration, has brought me closer to this dream.
But I still desperately want proper pockets. Women’s pockets are a hazard. Now my AirPods are missing. I think they fell out of my jacket pocket…
If you’ve enjoyed my writing and want to support me, buy me a cup of coffee! For more of my writing, subscribe to my newsletter or follow me on Threads or Linkedin.
A version of this article was first published on my Medium blog