One of the most spoken about topic among today’s Gen-Z fashion influencers is how sexism plays a major role in whether a garment gets a pocket. While men’s clothing does have spacious and visible pockets, women’s clothing mostly has small pockets, if at all. Men naturally don’t have much to say about it, as they are content. Whereas, women, dissatisfied by the inadequacy of their pockets, have taken to the social media platforms to complain. But this is not a new advent of design. Women’s clothing has been deprived of pockets since the beginning. And the protests are going on for over a century now. In 1905, Charlotte P. Gilman wrote in the New York Times, “Women have from time to time carried bags, sometimes sewn in; sometimes tied on, sometimes brandished in the hand, but a bag is not a pocket.” This cannot be truer. A bag cannot be a pocket. Thus pockets, more than any other clothing or component of it, are the issue of gender divide in fashion.

According to a study, pockets of womenswear jeans are 48 per cent smaller in length and 6.5 per cent narrower than pockets of menswear. With the increasing demand of big screen smart phones, men’s pockets grow to fit the utility, but in contrast womenswear pockets are either getting smaller or there is a complete absence of it.

In the medieval era, bags were used by both men and women to carry their belongings. These bags were similar to fanny packs suspended from the waist belts. With the rise of urban areas, these bags were often worn under layers of clothing for protection from theft. Slits were introduced in the apparels to access these bags or pouches. By late seventeenth century, pockets became an integral part of men’s clothing. These pockets were stitched into the coats, waistcoats and pants. However, no such evolution happened in women’s clothing. Women continued to use huge and voluminous bags hidden under their petticoat to carry everyday objects. A drastic change came with the French Revolution when the lavished and wide skirts were pulled closer to the body. The end of eighteenth century was a time of restraint. The natural waistline moved upward and the slender and streamlined silhouette was adopted. This slim look lacked the room for hidden pouches and a small, decorated purse came into use. Waist chains also became popular, where the belongings were hanged from these belts.

By the turn of twentieth century, women rebellion was at an all-time high. This also brought forward the necessity of pockets and instruction manuals on how to sew pockets into skirts became popular. In 1910, a New York Times headline read, “Plenty of Pockets in Suffragette Suit”. These suits were said to have seven or eight pockets. World War II paved way to functional clothing with pockets. This was not due to the demand from women, but because they were doing jobs in factories and workplaces that were previously done only by men. However, this inclusivity did not stay for long. As men came back from war, the women stepped down from these jobs. The post-war fashion expected women to be feminine and discard all masculine and practical styles. The silhouette was back to an hourglass, with no room for pockets.

Paul Johnson rightly states in The Spectator in 2011, “Men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration.” Thus, it is very evident that gender plays a very important role in the purpose of clothing. Menswear is often designed for utility, whereas womenswear is concerned about the aesthetic. Even with the start of gender-neutral clothing, women often struggle to find clothes with decent sized pockets. Women’s clothing frequently has ridiculously small pockets. Quite a few apparels exclude pockets all together. However, the most infuriating of all are the fake pockets. This is just not an issue with pants, but also sweater, cardigans, hoodies, jackets, skirts and dresses.

These clearly establishes the issue of inconvenience. However, the lack of pockets in womenswear also indicates the issue of inclusivity in design. Pockets are just not a fashion choice. These also serve a utilitarian purpose. When brands design womenswear and deny that purpose, they essentially assume that women and gender non-conforming people using womenswear will carry a purse. The logic for this seems to be a very evident one. Post-World War II, the handbag industry has seen tremendous growth. Denying pockets in womenswear creates the demand for handbags. This well documented conspiracy theory backs on the logic that the global bag industry is of $47 billion dollars and brands design handbags that match their glamorous clothing.

Some brands, however, are taking lead in making a change in how gender defines clothing. Even with the rising demand of women’s handbags, pockets are required in athleisure wear. Brands like Superfit, Hero and Bandier sell leggings with spacious pockets for gym workouts and running. The WSLY collection by Bandier makes sustainable sweatsuits that are gender neutral and have pockets. Argent designs high-end workwear for women, with pockets as their central USP. Their designs consist of deep trouser pockets and iPhone pockets inside blazers.

Nonetheless, there is still a gap in this area that needs attention and design innovations. With the increasing role of women in working sector, it is high time that brands design more inclusive clothing. Pockets serve a purpose, and nobody should be denied of that utility on the basis of gender.