Edited by: Nidhi Munot
The dearth of usable pockets in women’s fashion has long been subject to criticism. The discourse on pockets has encapsulated conversations worldwide and has almost become an embodiment of the gender divide. I remember reading somewhere that women’s pockets are significantly smaller or less practical than of men’s because they earn much less and thus require less storage. This ties into a larger narrative of furthering the stereotype of men being breadwinners and women being dependent homemakers. The history of pockets has continually supported this divide and it is worth taking a whirlwind look at. While there has already been much talk about the politics of pockets, I believe that the discourse is worth revisiting through the lens of the financial earnings gap.
In the 17th century, when ‘pockets’ first came into being with pouches being sewed onto clothes, it was noted that these pockets were much more accessible in men’s fashion than women’s. With the latter’s pouch sewn under their petticoats, women had to lift their bottom wear up every time they needed to reach for something in store. Since these pockets were so hidden away and private, a parallel can be drawn with women being tucked away at home, while the men went out to earn a living.
Women’s pockets started to evolve in the late 18th century. According to an article on Medium, these redesigned pockets were “small decorative bags, called reticules, that could scarcely fit a hankie and a coin”. This again speaks to the functionality of the pocket symbolizing that women were less financially independent and resourceful than men.
During World War, there was a slight improvement with the introduction of pants, but all that vanished as soon as the war ended and slim fits were the style of the season. Again, we can tie this to how during the war, the men were away and women had the liberty and need to do work and fend for themselves. When the men came back after the war, the female population was yet again subject to shrinking back into their bubbles.
When women wearing pants finally became common, we all know how that turned out. Haven’t all women experienced the feeling of reaching into their pockets to put their keys only to find out that it is a pseudo creation that is sewn shut? Aesthetics may be important, but functionality trumps looks.
It’s no coincidence that as the handbag industry grew, utilitarian pockets dwindled. Handbags are external storage equipment while pockets safe keep important things by keeping them close to the person. Men continue to keep their money close to them given the convenience of their pockets while women don’t have that liberty. Is the difference in popularity of handbags in womens’ fashion a testament to how as women officially started earning their own money, it got drained out because of their repeated need to pay the cost of being on the lower end of the patriarchal spectrum?
Moreover, a handbag is an additional expense. If all we’ve learnt so far is that women don’t need usable pockets because they don’t earn that much money to store, isn’t it contradictory that they are expected to shell out more money to buy a separate accessory to carry their stuff? It’s almost like their pocket fashion has come full circle. It started out with pouches (bags) before they were sewed onto clothes. Now, with less functional pockets, and a booming handbag market, a touch of the 16th century is back. Is it unfair that women are subject to societal judgements on their outfits that date back to 500 years ago while men get to live in the 21st century? Absolutely. It continues to shock me how something as basic as pockets has perpetually supported the gender divide.