Pocket Patriarchy

Written & Graphic by Ella Orlando

Every thrifting session, I grab a handful of men’s jeans guaranteed to be too large for one simple reason: a relaxed fit and pocket that can actually fit a smartphone. Meanwhile, my boyfriend leafs through each pair on the rack, meticulously checking their waist and length. Pockets aren’t a consideration, of course, because he’s never owned a pair of pants with pockets he couldn’t shove his wallet, keys, and phone in. He picked a pair of plain black slacks in his size and wore them to work a few days later. He texted me complaining about how inconvenient it was that he couldn’t fit anything in them. Little did he know, they were women's pants. 

While I doubt anyone would disagree with this existing size discrepancy, let’s put some math where my mouth is. Jan Diehn and Amber Thomas, journalists for the online publication The Pudding, researched the modern day differences between men and women’s pockets in their article Someone Clever Once Said Women Weren’t Allowed Pockets. Diehm and Thomas observed the sizes of pockets in skinny jeans, finding women’s pockets to be 48% shorter and 6.5% narrower than men’s skinny jeans of the same size. They also measured straight jeans, finding that women’s pockets were 46% shorter and 10% narrower than men’s straight jean pockets. 

Pockets have a long history with the patriarchy, and are just one example of how fashion has perpetuated gender roles throughout the decades. 

It’s difficult to pinpoint a specific time that pockets were created. There has always been a need for a pocket or pocket-like accessories. The earliest version of a “pocket” can be traced back to 3275 BCE. Otzi, or the “Iceman,” was a mummy found with a pouch containing valuable items.

In their research, Diehm and Thomas found that pockets began as a universal tool across genders. In the 16th century, pockets were pouches attached to a belt or girdle, typically concealed within garments. However, in the 17th century, a divide between men’s and women’s pockets began to grow. Garment makers started sewing pockets  into men’s garments, while women continued to don ornate, fastened pouches. A distinction was created between the functions of each gender's version of a “pocket.” Men’s pockets were a seamless part of their fashion. They were made to be functional and convenient. On the other hand, the pouches women carried were essentially ornaments. Functionality, when it came to women’s fashion, was an afterthought. 

As women’s fashion became more form-fitting, the fastened pouches were abandoned. C.T. Matthew’s academic article, “Form and deformity: The Trouble With Victorian Pockets,”delves into the contextual reason internal pockets were absurd for women, “women had four external bulges already — two breasts and two hips — and a money pocket inside their dress would make an ungainly fifth.” The pouches were replaced with reticules, an early form of the handbag. Reticules were made laughably small. What would a leisurely, sophisticated woman need to carry anyway? Certainly not money. Her husband manages that. 

By this point, Pockets were now woven into traditional gender roles. Countless examples of movements in women’s fashion see the appearance and disappearance of the pocket. A recently spread rumor stated that pockets phased out of women’s fashion due to witchcraft. Hidden pockets, supposedly, were used to hold potions and herbs. To avoid suspicion, women would wear garments without pockets all-together, as a way to say, “A witch? Me? I have nothing to hide.” While pockets were associated with secrecy throughout literature, as it was believed women would conceal love letters and keepsakes, the connection between pockets and witchcraft is fabricated. However, there’s a reason why so many believed the rumor as it circulated around social media, because there’s a very real association between women’s oppression and fashion, including pockets. 

During the French Revolution, pockets of all forms were banned in women's clothing. The French government feared women, being the secretive and allusive creatures we are, would conceal “revolutionary materials” within our pockets. No matter how trivial the role of pockets seems to us today, throughout history, their presence illustrates women’s involvement in political and social activism. 

During the World Wars, the “suffrage suit” along with other more masculine styles for women, popularized the pocket. As with the flapper movement, fashion was used as a tool of defiance, a weapon against the gender roles women were put into. This popularization was short lived, as after the war, women’s styles once again became hyperfeminized. Christian Dior famously stated, “Men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration,” in 1954.

The long fight for pockets might never end. The popularization of cargo pants, thrifted jeans, and gender-neutral styles has helped women reclaim the pocket. Afterall, we have more to carry than delicate handkerchiefs, love letters, or potions.