When considering the history of women’s fashion, one might not immediately think about pockets as a symbol of gender inequality. However, the absence of functional pockets in women’s clothing is more than a design choice—it reflects broader historical efforts to limit women’s mobility, independence, and contributions to society. This blog post delves into the fascinating and often overlooked story of why women’s clothes lack pockets and what that says about gender roles.

A Brief History of Pockets in Women’s Clothing

In the 17th and 18th centuries, men’s clothing began to feature sewn-in pockets, a significant leap towards practicality. Women, on the other hand, were still using tie-on pouches hidden under layers of skirts, accessed through small slits in their dresses. While men could conveniently carry personal items like money, tools, and documents, women had to wrestle with layers of fabric to reach their belongings.

By the 19th century, fashion took a drastic turn. Women’s clothing became slimmer and more fitted, leaving no room for these bulky pouches. Instead, the “reticule”—a small, often decorative handbag—became popular. These bags were fashionable but impractical, holding little more than a handkerchief and perhaps a coin or two. Men’s clothing, however, retained its functional, pocket-rich design.

The Societal Implications of Pocketless Clothing

The exclusion of pockets from women’s fashion has always had societal undertones. Functional clothing enables independence. Pockets provide a way to carry essentials: keys, money, identification, or work-related tools. Without them, women were reliant on external accessories, such as handbags, which reinforced the idea that they were decorative rather than active contributors to public and professional life.

Historically, pockets have been associated with power. Men’s pockets were filled with items that symbolised political and economic control, such as documents, wallets, or even weapons. Women’s exclusion from this convenience perpetuated the notion that they did not need to access these symbols of authority and autonomy.

Control and Confinement

There is a deeper, more symbolic reason for the absence of pockets in women’s clothing: control. By restricting what women could carry, society subtly reinforced their confinement to domestic spaces. Public life demanded functionality, and without pockets, women’s clothing was ill-suited to active participation in political or professional arenas.

As cultural historian Barbara Burman noted, pockets represent “an intimate possession of the body’s space.” To deny women this intimate space was to deny them autonomy. The very idea of women carrying their own money, documents, or tools could be perceived as threatening in an era when women were expected to be dependent on men.

The Rise of the Rational Dress Movement

The late 19th century saw the emergence of the Rational Dress Society, which challenged restrictive and impractical clothing for women. These advocates argued for more functional fashion, including the incorporation of pockets. They understood that practical clothing was essential for women’s mobility and independence.

During the World Wars, women took on roles traditionally held by men, necessitating more practical work attire, complete with functional pockets. Yet, once the wars ended, fashion quickly reverted to prioritising aesthetics over utility, reinforcing traditional femininity.

The Modern Pocket Problem

Even today, women’s clothing is often designed with either small, decorative pockets or none at all, despite the growing need to carry smartphones, wallets, and other essentials. This pocket disparity highlights ongoing gender-based inequalities in fashion design. Modern advocacy for functional clothing aligns with broader discussions about gender equality and the need for clothing that reflects women’s active, independent roles in society.

The Economic Motivation

It’s worth noting that the fashion industry has also played a significant role in this inequality. By designing pocketless clothing, the industry created a profitable market for handbags. This dependency on handbags was not only a fashion trend but also a commercial strategy, reinforcing women’s reliance on an additional product.

Conclusion

The story of women’s pocketless clothing is a reminder that even seemingly small design choices can have significant cultural and societal implications. Pockets are a symbol of autonomy, mobility, and independence. While the fight for gender equality has made significant strides, the pocket problem endures as a reminder of past and present inequalities.

Reclaiming the pocket is not just about practicality; it is a call for representation and recognition. Women deserve clothing that reflects their modern realities and supports their autonomy.

References

• Burman, B. (1999). Pockets of History: The Secret Life of an Everyday Object.
• Hysteric Mag (2023). “Who Decided Women’s Clothing Shouldn’t Have Pockets? A Look at the Gendered History of Fashion.” Retrieved from [https://hystericmag.jusmedia.shef.ac.uk]
• Telegrafi (2023). “The Story of Why Women’s Clothes Never Had Pockets.” Retrieved from [https://telegrafi.com]
• Vogue Business (2023). “Here’s What Our Clothes Would Look Like If More Women Designed Them.” Retrieved from [https://www.voguebusiness.com]

Tags

#GenderEquality #FeministFashion #PocketsInClothing #FashionHistory #RationalDressMovement #HistoricalFashion #ModernFashion #ClothingEquality #PracticalFashion