Beech Tree News Network

Handy as a pocket on a shirt.”Garey often uses this saying. I wouldn’t know how handy that is, because women’s shirts don’t have pockets. As a matter of fact, many women’s pants don’t have pockets, or if they do, the pockets are so shallow all they can hold is a couple of peppermints and a tissue or two.

The last time we visited Garey’s sister, Charlotte, her phone fell out of one such shallow pocket and into the toilet.  This has happened to a few of my other friends, as well.  Shallow pockets are very frustrating, no pockets even more so.

It’s not just old people like me who want pockets.  During the holidays, my youngest daughter, Nikki, offered to pick up groceries for us.  As she picked up her phone, I handed her my credit card.  She started to put the items into her pocket, so she wouldn’t have to carry a purse.  Discovering she had no pockets, she shook her fist at no one in particular, and said, “Women need pockets too!”

The yoga pants people have figured this out.  My daughter, Natalie, has yoga pants with pockets deep enough to hold her cell phone, keys and a card or two.  This is a must when she goes for a walk or a bike ride alone.  Yoga pants are designed for activity.  Dress pants are designed for style.  There are a couple of reasons the garment industry gives for shallow or no pockets in women’s clothing.  According to the research done by the folks at mentalfloss.com, the fake pocket doesn’t alter the shape of the garment, and “the apparel is able to maintain its aesthetic profile.”  An interview with designer, Emily Keller, explains the second reason that women’s pockets are smaller or non-existent.  “It cuts costs to reduce the size and fabric used” (the-sun.com).

On the site medium.com, you will find an article entitled “The Bewildering and Sexist History of Women’s Pockets: A Glimpse of Gender Equality…Through Pockets” by Chanju Mwanza.

According to this article, during the Middle Ages, both men and women carried little pouches for their essentials.  These pouches were attached to their waists by ropes.  In terms of pockets, the genders were equal.  It was during the 17th century that someone came up with the idea of sewing these pouches right into the clothing.  The pocket was born.  It is at this juncture that the inequality of pockets takes place.  Men’s pockets were “sewn right into the innings of their coats, waistcoats and breaches.”  Women had “separate pockets that sat underneath their petticoats.”  Women couldn’t get to their pockets without undressing.  “And thus,” the article concludes, “the inequality of men’s and women’s pockets was born” (medium.com).

Until I began researching this subject, I never realized how much attention the gender wars of the past centuries gave to pockets.  On the site wearfranc.com, the writer explains that during the 1790s, slimmer dresses were the fashion, and pockets began disappearing from women’s garments.  At the time, women had almost no access to money or property, so it was assumed they didn’t need pockets.  During the 1800s, the Rational Dress Society led the push for more functional pockets in women’s clothing.  They issued instruction manuals on how to sew pockets into your clothing—wonder if that’s still in print.  The 1910 Suffragette suit had at least six pockets, and during both World Wars, women began to wear trousers with large pockets.  Alas, the progress didn’t last.  Once again, the attitude that men need pockets to keep things in, and women need pockets just for decoration reared its ugly head, so here we are again at the intersection of pocket inequality (wearfranc.com).

Do you remember the Perry Como song, “Catch a Falling Star?”  The lyrics go:

Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket

Never let it fade away

Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket

Save it for a rainy day.

If I were lucky enough to catch a falling star, odd are I’d be wearing a pair of pants without pockets.