"You just found the perfect pair of jeans. On sale, exactly your size, not too long or too short, and it makes your waist look fabulous. There’s just one small problem: you realize the pockets are fake." -- Bailey Estrella-Kowal, 9th grade
You look over at a pair of men’s jeans, only to be baffled at the fact that they have pockets that can fit a whole iPhone! A whole wallet! Hell, even an entire Nintendo Switch! Is it really too much to ask for women to have some pockets, at least deep enough to hold a phone without it slipping out? Women’s fashion is very problematic in that it holds “beauty” standards (which are not always defined by women) higher than practicality. As a result of patriarchally dominated clothing industries, women are not afforded the same luxuries as men. That is, if you can even consider a mere pocket a luxury.
It wasn’t always this way. In the 16th century, before pockets were invented, both men and women carried their possessions in small pouches tied to their waists underneath their clothes. Their clothes had small slits so that they could access the pouches. In other words, everyone was equal in terms of having something that acted like a pocket. In the 17th century, the invention of the pocket was born, though, the design for pockets was different for men and women. For men, small pouches were sewn directly into their pants. For women, pockets were sewn underneath the many layers of fabric that made up 17th century dresses. For that reason, women were able to have pockets, but could not access the contents unless they lifted up their dress, which they could not do in public.
From that time on, as fashion styles evolved, pockets for women became less and less common. Moreover, there was an inaccurate perception that women had no need for pockets, since all possessions technically would belong to a woman’s husband. It is not clear whether and how clothing designers perceived the needs of unmarried women–perhaps they didn’t. At the turn of the 20th century, women rebelled against pocket inequality, and women’s fashion with pockets became all the rage. This was only for a short period of time, because after the major wars ended, suddenly women’s pockets started to disappear once more. Women were expected to give up pockets in order to have the perfect slim figure for their returning husbands. Also, at this time, clothing became more and more mass produced by large industries and fewer women made their own clothes. With clothing design out of womens’ hands, pockets became less common as the male-dominated clothing industry once again opted not to provide pockets for women.
Even now, there is still a double standard when it comes to pockets. As described in a New York Times article, “Why Don’t Women’s Clothes Have More Pockets?”, (H. Carlson, NY Times, Nov. 6th 2023), in men’s fashion, there is an expectation that clothes must come with pockets, as pockets are considered to be “a part of doing business in men’s wear.” However for women, the standard is that vanity comes above all else, and women are expected to be slim, sleek, and have a “perfect”, petite silhouette. Pockets (especially if filled) obstruct that silhouette since they “bulge out”. Even after many people have protested pocket inequality, we are still met with either small and impractical pockets, or, for some illogical reason, fake pockets. For some reason, clothing companies seem to be unable (or unwilling) to respond to the simple request to add pockets to women’s clothing. Then again, perhaps the reason is fairly obvious: money. Clothing industries benefit from women not having pockets because it forces them to buy purses and handbags, once again feeding money into patriarchal systems. Companies like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Prada make a fortune off of these handbags and purses, which are advertised as “accessories” when in reality, in absence of any pockets, they are actually necessities. Extremely expensive necessities.
The idea of “pocket activism” and “pocket inequality” may sound silly and frivolous, but really, this issue has real-life implications beyond simply being annoying or inconvenient. For example, being forced to carry possessions in a purse rather than on your person makes you a target for muggings. This is one of the many reasons why the limitations of women’s fashion can actually be quite dangerous. This issue is even present for modern youth. An anonymous OSA 9th grader said, “My phone has almost never fit in my front pockets, which means that it's more possible for someone to pickpocket me and other people who put their phone in their back pocket.” This issue also causes many women to have to carry protection devices such as pepper spray, tasers, and rape whistles. If you are in danger, the last thing you want to do is have to dig around in your purse to find a protection weapon. Ironically, men can carry a whole weapon–multiple weapons, even, in their pockets, while women don’t even have pockets to hold a phone to call for help.
Women need pockets just as much as men do, maybe even more so. Not only do women have to carry the same things as men – like phones, wallets, keys, etc – but they also need to carry feminine products, makeup (if they choose), and if they are mothers, they must have supplies for their children on hand. That said, there are many modern companies actively trying to put an end to this pocket discrimination. One of these companies was founded by a woman who was frustrated by the lack of pockets in women’s fashion, and so she decided to take matters into her own hands. “I was so sick of struggling to find clothes with decent pockets on other websites, I decided to make one myself.” (Mandy Fletcher – Founder, Pockets for Women). Pockets For Women offers a wide variety of women’s clothing, from activewear to loungewear to formal clothing, all of which include pockets. One quick look at the clothing options on this website proves false the myth that having pockets makes a woman “bulge out.” Many of the clothes on the site still give a “sleek” look, even dresses and tight-fitting activewear. One more website that is helping women find clothing with pockets is called Dresses With Pockets. This website has many different options of dresses that include pockets, including formal dresses, skirts, jumpsuits, plus size dresses, kids sizes, and even wedding gowns.
Though there have been steps forward to gain pocket equality for all genders, this issue is still quite prevalent. Not only does this subject prove problematic to adults, but also youth – especially young children. When asked how pocket inequality has affected her life, OSA 9th grader, Georgia Petersen, said “I remember when I was younger all of my jeans had fake pockets in the front and I hated it because I could never have anything on me. I always felt so jealous when I saw men taking so many things out of their pockets – how do you fit everything in there?!” Young girls notice early on that boys have nice and convenient pockets on their clothing but, for some reason, girls don’t. That’s a confusing dilemma for a young girl – why do boys get something I don’t? There doesn’t seem to be a “right” answer to this question–or at least not a comfortable one. Unfortunately, pocket inequality, once again, teaches young girls the sexist ideology that women are inferior to men. Inferior to the point that having a pocket seems too much to ask.
It wasn’t always this way. In the 16th century, before pockets were invented, both men and women carried their possessions in small pouches tied to their waists underneath their clothes. Their clothes had small slits so that they could access the pouches. In other words, everyone was equal in terms of having something that acted like a pocket. In the 17th century, the invention of the pocket was born, though, the design for pockets was different for men and women. For men, small pouches were sewn directly into their pants. For women, pockets were sewn underneath the many layers of fabric that made up 17th century dresses. For that reason, women were able to have pockets, but could not access the contents unless they lifted up their dress, which they could not do in public.
From that time on, as fashion styles evolved, pockets for women became less and less common. Moreover, there was an inaccurate perception that women had no need for pockets, since all possessions technically would belong to a woman’s husband. It is not clear whether and how clothing designers perceived the needs of unmarried women–perhaps they didn’t. At the turn of the 20th century, women rebelled against pocket inequality, and women’s fashion with pockets became all the rage. This was only for a short period of time, because after the major wars ended, suddenly women’s pockets started to disappear once more. Women were expected to give up pockets in order to have the perfect slim figure for their returning husbands. Also, at this time, clothing became more and more mass produced by large industries and fewer women made their own clothes. With clothing design out of womens’ hands, pockets became less common as the male-dominated clothing industry once again opted not to provide pockets for women.
Even now, there is still a double standard when it comes to pockets. As described in a New York Times article, “Why Don’t Women’s Clothes Have More Pockets?”, (H. Carlson, NY Times, Nov. 6th 2023), in men’s fashion, there is an expectation that clothes must come with pockets, as pockets are considered to be “a part of doing business in men’s wear.” However for women, the standard is that vanity comes above all else, and women are expected to be slim, sleek, and have a “perfect”, petite silhouette. Pockets (especially if filled) obstruct that silhouette since they “bulge out”. Even after many people have protested pocket inequality, we are still met with either small and impractical pockets, or, for some illogical reason, fake pockets. For some reason, clothing companies seem to be unable (or unwilling) to respond to the simple request to add pockets to women’s clothing. Then again, perhaps the reason is fairly obvious: money. Clothing industries benefit from women not having pockets because it forces them to buy purses and handbags, once again feeding money into patriarchal systems. Companies like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Prada make a fortune off of these handbags and purses, which are advertised as “accessories” when in reality, in absence of any pockets, they are actually necessities. Extremely expensive necessities.
The idea of “pocket activism” and “pocket inequality” may sound silly and frivolous, but really, this issue has real-life implications beyond simply being annoying or inconvenient. For example, being forced to carry possessions in a purse rather than on your person makes you a target for muggings. This is one of the many reasons why the limitations of women’s fashion can actually be quite dangerous. This issue is even present for modern youth. An anonymous OSA 9th grader said, “My phone has almost never fit in my front pockets, which means that it's more possible for someone to pickpocket me and other people who put their phone in their back pocket.” This issue also causes many women to have to carry protection devices such as pepper spray, tasers, and rape whistles. If you are in danger, the last thing you want to do is have to dig around in your purse to find a protection weapon. Ironically, men can carry a whole weapon–multiple weapons, even, in their pockets, while women don’t even have pockets to hold a phone to call for help.
Women need pockets just as much as men do, maybe even more so. Not only do women have to carry the same things as men – like phones, wallets, keys, etc – but they also need to carry feminine products, makeup (if they choose), and if they are mothers, they must have supplies for their children on hand. That said, there are many modern companies actively trying to put an end to this pocket discrimination. One of these companies was founded by a woman who was frustrated by the lack of pockets in women’s fashion, and so she decided to take matters into her own hands. “I was so sick of struggling to find clothes with decent pockets on other websites, I decided to make one myself.” (Mandy Fletcher – Founder, Pockets for Women). Pockets For Women offers a wide variety of women’s clothing, from activewear to loungewear to formal clothing, all of which include pockets. One quick look at the clothing options on this website proves false the myth that having pockets makes a woman “bulge out.” Many of the clothes on the site still give a “sleek” look, even dresses and tight-fitting activewear. One more website that is helping women find clothing with pockets is called Dresses With Pockets. This website has many different options of dresses that include pockets, including formal dresses, skirts, jumpsuits, plus size dresses, kids sizes, and even wedding gowns.
Though there have been steps forward to gain pocket equality for all genders, this issue is still quite prevalent. Not only does this subject prove problematic to adults, but also youth – especially young children. When asked how pocket inequality has affected her life, OSA 9th grader, Georgia Petersen, said “I remember when I was younger all of my jeans had fake pockets in the front and I hated it because I could never have anything on me. I always felt so jealous when I saw men taking so many things out of their pockets – how do you fit everything in there?!” Young girls notice early on that boys have nice and convenient pockets on their clothing but, for some reason, girls don’t. That’s a confusing dilemma for a young girl – why do boys get something I don’t? There doesn’t seem to be a “right” answer to this question–or at least not a comfortable one. Unfortunately, pocket inequality, once again, teaches young girls the sexist ideology that women are inferior to men. Inferior to the point that having a pocket seems too much to ask.
