What Women Want: Functional Pockets and Equality

It's time to go workout. You are off to the gym before an evening out with your friends. As you gather your keys, phone, water bottle, debit card, ID, and other essentials it occurs to you that you'll need to bring your gym bag for all of these things and you sigh as you lug it out. You grab a piece of paper and pen because you can never seem to remember the combination on the gym locker and you'd rather not have to ask the attendant to open it for you again. "It would be so much easier if I had pockets" you grumble heading out with a bag that at least saves you from holding everything in your hands. At the gym, you fumble trying to fit your phone into your waistband and your sportsbra while lifting weights and doing cardio cognizant of how it slips and slides against your sweaty skin with every movement. "Why can't I find leggings with pockets?", you query in exasperation, "Working out would be so much easier if I just had one good pocket". You wonder why functional pockets are so hard to find when most women pointedly want increased functionality, especially now when most people carry mobile phones in addition to the usual keys, cards, and ID. As this scene plays out daily in the lives of many women and girls, the question begs an answer: Why are usable pockets in women's clothes such a rarity and what does this have to do with gender and power? 

Becky Barnicoat Art

In truth, the answer is not so mysterious. As with most things which diminish the quality of many women's lives, it comes down to a complex convergence of sexism, politics, and capitalism which would normalise women's pocketless clothing as just "how it is". 

"Female friends enjoying their pockets in 1926." Photo Davis/Getty

Looking back to the past, in medieval times both men and women carried external bags at their waists either tied around or attached to a belt. As the danger of cut-purses grew in an increasingly urbanising world, clothing began to feature slits through which people could access their belongings now carried concealed under their clothes. It wouldn't be until the latter part of the 17th century that pockets would become a permanent part of men's clothing but not women's. Hidden under layers of petticoats and other undergarments, women continued to carry separate pendulous, decorative pockets to carry everything from jewelry and money to cakes and gin. As women's fashion began to move towards slimmer styles and silhouettes more closely outlining the body's form towards the end of the 18th century, however, the ability for women to conveniently carry what they needed also had to slim down into non-bulky external alternatives. Reticules - small ornate purses - and chatelains - small to large waist devices that boasted a Swiss army knife versatility and customability replaced the hidden pockets women carried under their skirts as external carriers and, in the case of the chatelain, a noisy tinkling announcement of her presence. Where women were once able to conceal many things, now carrying what they needed became a very visible practice impossible to hide and ripe for conspicuous consumption as wealthier women could display their wealth through finer, more ornate accessories. It would not be until 1891 when the Rational Dress Society would openly advocate that women should eschew corsets for boneless stays, loose trousers, and other clothing which allowed for movement - particularly bicycling - that pockets would return to at least some women's wardrobes and would simultaneously become gendered and signatory of a the "new woman" or suffragette. As one 1910 New York Times article titled "Plenty of Pockets in Suffragette Suit" discusses, pockets are what a woman with voting on her mind wants (read a feminist bent on disrupting the status quo) while other articles concern themselves with the fact that women's thrusting of their hands into their trouser pockets made shyness and modesty impossible as they could now take up a traditionally masculine power stance. Over a century later, those same concerns about women's acceptable public displays of power and ability to conceal items secretly - thus reducing their accessibility and vulnerability - are still relevant along with the nudges by capitalist society towards the conspicuous consumption of purses rebranded as "fashion savviness".  

For modern women, the lack of pockets or, arguably worse, the inclusion of very shallow or fake pockets meant only for appearances epitomise how the common primary goal in women's clothing is still oriented towards promoting the visibility of the wearer's body through clothing that has grown ever tighter and shorter often at the expense of comfort and functionality. Writing for The Spectator, Paul Johnson quips " I remember Christian Dior saying to me in 1954: 'Men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration'" in a quote which would seemingly become more true with time  (Johnson 2011). And even when there are efforts to address the lack of functionality of women's clothing, attention to appearance must still weigh as a significant factor. According to Sara Kozlowski, a developer and critic associated Council of Fashion Designers of America, the blame lands on both fast fashion and high end designers who don't believe pockets to be a necessary part of women's wear or even a desirable addition keeping with the value placed on maintaining a smooth, slender silhouette acceptably interrupted by only the curves of the breasts, hips, and buttocks. Yet even styles which factor in pockets must be ever conscious of how they look and how stylish they are: "Active brands are relevant,” she said, referring to running designs that seamlessly maintain shape while holding technology. “Patagonia has high levels of functionality. It’s all about the architecture of the garments. You can’t be too gadgety—if form overtakes function, it won’t be elegant. You have to be elegant.” (Basu 2014). Other concerns about where to place pockets engage cultural anxieties about so-called "problem areas" such as the hips often perceived as too "fat" or which may inadvertently overemphasise femininity. 
                                          

At the heart of this battle over the pockets is a political battle engaging several questions relating to gender: who may be confident in public places, who may use their bodies to their full extent, and who may maintain privacy and secrecy in the public sphere. When you workout in a pair of leggings with a pocket for your phone and personal items, your hands and your mind are free to workout harder focusing on your workout instead of the accessories you're trying to manage in order to be comfortable and not embarrass yourself. The focus upon the appearance of the body is severed in favour of what your body can do. And if that's the power of the pocket, we could all use a few. 

Works Cited & Consulted: 

Johnson, Paul. “The Power of a Pocket.” The Spectator, 3 Oct. 2012, https://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/06/the-power-of-a-pocket/. 

Summers, Chelsea G.  “The Sexist, Political History of Pockets.” Vox, Vox, 19 Sept. 2016, https://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-suffragettes-women.

Basu, Tanya. “The Gender Politics of Pockets.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 30 Sept. 2014, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-gender-politics-of-pockets/380935/.