In 2018, I wrote a post titled “Pockets!” [https://susanjustwrites.com/2018/01/]
I began with these words: “Women’s clothes should all have pockets!”
My focus: How important it was for women to have clothes with roomy pockets. Why? For a fundamental reason: Freedom. The freedom men have, to carry possessions close to their bodies, allowing them to reach for essentials like keys without fumbling through a clumsy handbag.
Although I’ve often wanted to return to this focus, other critical topics have demanded my attention. What has inspired me to return to this focus now?
In June, I came across a book review in The New York Times that made me aware of a leading women’s fashion designer I had never heard of: Claire McCardell. The review noted that, in this biography, Claire McCardell: The Designer Who Set Women Free, author Elizabeth Dickinson noted McCardell’s penchant for pockets.
I quickly got a copy of this new book. I learned that McCardell, a prominent designer in the 1930s, ‘40s, and early ‘50s, consistently added pockets to her designs of women’s clothes. She was an ingenious and daring designer in other respects as well: inventing mix-and-match separates, introducing hoodies, denim, and more. She advocated wearing ballet flats instead of high heels, she banned confining corsets, and she insisted on pockets, even though male designers usually stood in her way. As early as 1933, in her first real job, she wanted every dress and skirt to include pockets. (Pants for women were still on the drawing board—a topic for another day.)
This book notes that pockets had been around since the 1600s. Originally, in men’s breeches. But men opposed pockets for women, largely because they feared that women might conceal dangerous or threatening items: “The more a woman could stash on her person, the more freedom she had to act.”
When McCardell was growing up, “suffragists and dress reformers fought for pocket parity.” In 1915, author and social reformer Charlotte Perkins Gilman noted that American designers “ignored the practical needs of women” and kept pockets out of women’s clothes. McCardell took a stand against this history. “She wanted pockets and believed that other women did, too.” But she had to get her design ideas past the men who dominated the American fashion industry. It became a constant struggle. But as one journalist noted: “Because Claire’s basic principle of design is that the wearer should feel comfortable, she puts pockets into almost everything.”
In the 1940s, Diana Vreeland, the influential fashion editor at Harper’s Bazaar, shared Claire’s “love of pockets,” condemning bulky handbags: “Cigarettes, lipstick, powder, a small comb, money—it should all go into pockets,” she wrote. “Real pockets, like a man has, for goodness’ sake.” Vreeland added, ”Of course, you’d [need] much bigger pockets, and they’d be rather chic.”
According to author Dickinson, Claire has “never been forgotten by the world’s fashion designers….” Designer Tory Burch in 2022 created a spring collection inspired by her designs, and in 2023 the Costume Design Institute at the Met mounted an exhibit featuring women designers and celebrated Claire. Dickinson concludes: “We are the inheritors of her brave risks, her experiments, and her singular focus.”
But what has happened to her focus on pockets?
Here’s what I wrote in 2018, revised just a little. (I’ll follow it with a brief update.)
Women’s clothes should all have pockets.
I admit it. I’m a pocket-freak. When I shop for new pants, I don’t bother buying new pants, no matter how appealing, if they don’t have pockets. Why?
Because when I formerly bought pants that didn’t have pockets, I discovered over time that I never wore them. They languished forever in a shameful pile of unworn clothes.
It became clear that I liked the benefits of wearing pants with pockets. Why then would I buy new pants without pockets when those I already had were languishing unworn?
Result: I simply don’t buy no-pocket pants anymore
Most jeans have pockets, often multiple pockets, and I like wearing them for that reason, among others. [“They’re My Blue Jeans, and I’ll Wear Them If I Want To,” https://susanjustwrites.com/category/blue-jeans/.%5D Most jackets, but not all, have pockets. Why not? They all need pockets. How useful is a jacket if it doesn’t have even one pocket to stash your stuff?
Dresses and skirts should also have pockets. Maybe an occasional event, like a fancy gala, requires a form-fitting dress that doesn’t have pockets. But how many women actually go to galas like that? Looking back over my lifetime of clothes-wearing, I can think of very few occasions when I had to wear a no-pocket dress. As for skirts, I lump them in the same category as pants. Unless you feel compelled for some bizarre reason to wear a skin-tight pencil skirt, what good is a skirt without pockets?
Cardigan sweaters, like jackets, should also have pockets. So should robes. Pajamas. Even nightgowns. I relish being able to stick a facial tissue into the pocket of a nightgown. You never know when you’re going to sneeze, right?
By the way, I view fake pockets as an abomination. Why do designers think it’s a good idea to put a fake pocket on their designs? Sewing what looks like a pocket but isn’t a real pocket adds insult to injury. Either put a real pocket there, or forget the whole thing. Fake pockets? Boo!
Despite the longing for pockets by women like me, it can be challenging to find women’s clothes with pockets. Why?
Several women writers have speculated about this, usually blaming sexist attitudes leading to no-pocket clothing for women. Those who’ve traced the evolution of pockets throughout history discovered that neither men nor women wore clothing with pockets until the 17th century. Pockets in menswear began appearing in the late 1600s. But women? To carry anything, they were forced to wrap a sack with a string worn around their waists and tuck the sack under their petticoats.
These sacks eventually evolved into small purses called reticules that women would carry in their hands. But reticules were so small that they limited what women could carry. As the twentieth century loomed, women rebelled. According to London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, dress patterns started to include instructions for sewing pockets into skirts. And when women began wearing pants, they finally had pockets.
But things soon switched back to no-pocket pants. The fashion industry insisted on “slimming” designs for women, while men’s clothes still had scads of pockets. The result has been the rise of bigger and bigger handbags (interestingly, handbags are often called “pocketbooks” on the East Coast).
Enormous handbags create a tremendous burden for women. Their size and weight can literally weigh a woman down, impeding her ability to move through her busy life the way men can. I’ve eschewed bulky handbags, often wearing a backpack instead. Unfortunately, backpacks are not always appropriate attire.
Today (in 2018), many women are demanding pockets. Some have advocated pockets with the specific goal of enabling women to carry their iPhones or other cell phones that way. I’m a pocket-freak, but according to recent scientific research, cell phones emit dangerous radiation, and this kind of radiation exposure is a major risk to your health. Some experts in the field have therefore advised against keeping a cell phone adjacent to your body. So, advocating pockets for that reason may not be a good idea. [Please see my update below.]
We need pockets in our clothes for a much more important and fundamental reason: Freedom.
Pockets give women the kind of freedom men have: The freedom to carry possessions close to their bodies, allowing them to reach for essentials like keys without fumbling through a clumsy handbag.
I propose a boycott on no-pocket clothes. If enough women boycott no-pocket pants, for example, designers and manufacturers will have to pay attention. Their new clothing lines will undoubtedly include more pockets.
I hereby pledge not to purchase any clothes without pockets.
Will you join me?
Update in August 2025:
I still endorse almost everything I wrote in 2018. But I have a few new thoughts:
First, instead of keeping my previously-purchased no-pocket pants in a shameful pile, I’ve donated almost all of them to charity. My hope is that shoppers will find some use for these pants, possibly using the fabric alone to create something wearable.
Next, although I’m still concerned about the radiation risk posed by cell phones, my thinking evolved during the pandemic. Instead of carrying a handbag/purse, I carry all my valuables on my person. [Please see susanjustwrites.com/2021/08/06/outsmarting-the-bad-guys/ ] This includes my cell phone, which I now put in a roomy pants pocket whenever I leave home. I’ve reduced the radiation risk by invariably removing my phone from my pocket as soon as I return home, where I place it in a prominent place (and try to remember where it is). A backpack can sometimes be useful, but I still prefer pockets.
Third, I haven’t been doing much shopping for new clothes in the past few years, but one item I occasionally seek out is new black pants or jeans. After all, pants do wear out. And I’ve been delighted to discover that many more pants are now available with pockets! Is it possible that my advocacy of a boycott on no-pocket pants has had some effect? I’d like to think so, but I doubt it. I simply think that the fashion industry has finally come to acknowledge that women want pants with pockets, and the bigger the pockets the better. By purchasing more and more pants with pockets, women themselves are now influencing what’s for sale.
One more thing: When I recently read a book describing the efforts of many Italians to resist the fascist takeover of their country in the 1930s and ‘40s, I learned that Italian women often sewed large pockets into their voluminous skirts. They filled those pockets with items like guns and explosives that were passed on and used to resist the fascists ruling their country. These brave women helped the resistance overcome the fascists and return Italy to democracy. Brava!! Their history is inspiring. But I truly hope that, here in the United States, we can preserve our democracy without having to resort to using pockets in this very scary way.
susanjustwrites
Susan Just Writes 