Michael O’Hare of WWW.samefacts.com/archives/feminism/2009/02/annals_of_sexist_oppression.php”>The RBC makes what might be considered a belated discovery…
In the middle of a long thread on a writers’ list-serv, provoked by my post on fashion models, it occurred to me that one of the unrecognized ways women are kept dependent and threatened is simply denying them pockets. This is more important than one might think, right up there with hobbling them with high heels and way more effective than an upper-body-strength advantage.
...
Why does this matter? Well, think what autonomous adults do, almost tautologically: they admit themselves to secure locations with keys, show identification, write on paper, start a car, read (think glasses), spend money with cash and credit cards, check mail and talk on their cellphones.
I can do any of those grownup things instantly, almost all with one hand, while walking, and neither miss a step nor look away from my surroundings for a second. With the jacket, I have pockets to spare for an iPod, papers, a candy bar, and even a book. A woman, however, dressed for business in slacks or a skirt and a jacket, or even wearing loose-fitting casual clothes, will have no usable pockets and has to carry a handbag. It takes both her hands and several therbligs to accomplish any adult task, never mind looking and groping inside the bag for the appropriate tool.
The handbag itself is disempowering; it’s prey to a thief just walking on the street unless clutched (there’s one hand occupied), and for sure hanging on a chair in a cafe, while a man only has to worry about a skilled pickpocket or a strongarm mugger.
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-02-23 21:53.
It's absolutely true. Women's clothing is slim and form-fitting, and pockets would ruin the image. Try being a teenage girl trying to hide a tampon in a non-pocket. Not fun. Or a post-college young woman trying to figure out how to stash an ID and some cash in the clothes you're going to wear to a dance club.
I recently bought a couple of nice looking jeans after several years of wearing only men's jeans. They look great, but I can't tell you how many lip balms have fallen out of the ridiculously shallow pockets. I don't know why, even when the pockets do exist, they have to be so @!#% shallow.
Pockets are a large reason why I wore military surplus style pants throughout most of college. And if my regular clothes don't have pockets, I'll typically wear a jacket or fleece vest with pockets.
But I no longer keep a wallet in my back pocket -- sitting on that lump every day for a decade messed with my spinal alignment. I do carry a bag -- used to be a huge backpack, then a small backpack, now a messenger bag -- the one thing they've all had in common is multiple pockets so that I can find things without having to dig (too much).
Hrm. Although I wonder if, out of necessity, people who don't have pockets develop greater dexterity. I can fish things out of multiple pouches of a backpack, and zip them back up, without taking the pack off. I can find items by touch without ever looking at what my hands are doing.
For many, many years, I wore almost exclusively men's or androgynous clothes. It was a rebellion against all sorts of stuff, and pockets were definitely not least on the list. I think it's good that I can now occasionally enjoy wearing more "feminine" or women's clothing (not necessarily the same thing), but still. Sheesh.
Sorry. The pockets thing really gets to me. I love pockets. All my jackets have bazillions of pockets. I love cargo pants with lots of pockets. The military style pants I wear when I play paintball have a bajillion pockets, and they're awesome. I don't understand why women aren't supposed to have pockets. And for all the reasons Mr. O'Hare points out, purses are not at all the same thing.
And I really really really hate it, have hated it since back in high school, when I go to some fancy-dress event and have to rely on my date to carry all my crap in his pockets, because the other option is to leave my stuff in a bag hanging on a chair somewhere, ready to be stolen.
Grrr.
[To be fair you can find men's pants with dead-useless front pockets -- either too shallow or else sewn into the seam so if you sit down (to, oh, say, drive) everything in them rolls out. But yeah, that's quibbling compared to the tiny bags of fail they sew to women's clothes. Thanks, Monique. --fl]
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-24 08:00.
I bought a pair of jeans a while ago. They have pockets, but the front ones aren't large enough for both housekeys and chapstick, and the back ones aren't large enough for a driver's license.
The back pocket cannot hold a driver's license.
The blog A Dress a Day is a dressmaking blog, general sewing, things like that. The author, Erin, is a pocket fiend.
If we can tailor suit jackets for detectives so they don't expose a weapon or pull when it is drawn, we should be able to tailor pants for women that include some storage space. Not everyone is willing to pull her ID and keys out of her bra.
["If we can tailor..." Now that you mention it one claim you hear from fashion industry insiders is that designers often do put in pockets, especially in really expensive and/or custom tailored women's wear, but that they're not considered a priority by manufacturers who then leave them out. I'm not sure why that would be true -- they cheerfully manage to fit dozens of pockets in to, say, cargo pants for men without going broke. But... I dunno. Thanks Diatryma. --fl]
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-24 11:44.
Okay, I've been making this argument (usually to my date at any dress event where I have no pockets, or pretty much anyone in person/on the phone who will listen), but in my study, I would like to add to the no pockets/shallow to the point of being entirely useless pockets. There are
1. Actual, Useless Pockets: the kind that are added to clothing (based apparently on the expectation that pockets should be present on things like jackets) that are sewn shut (which I have been known to snip open and use)
2. Pseudo-Pockets: The kind where you find some clothes that *look* like they have pockets, and they don't. It's not even sewn shut, it just doesn't exist.
These last two arguably annoy me even more than no pockets, because they seem to be acknowledging pockets- either in the sense of being necessary for certain types of clothing (as if to say "to leave pockets out will be wrong, here, fool everyone!"), or for purely decorative purposes (like those pockets that barely fit a quarter on the front of t-shirts).
Erm, thank you. I will return to lurking, now.
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-24 19:56.
It takes a little effort, but now you can find girls clothes with meaningful pockets. There was a time when men's sweatpants had no pockets. When I started working where I needed pockets, I wore painters pants, jeans made by Levi's, Wrangler and Lee's(not fashion ones). The better skirts(waited for a mark down, mark down) have pockets. Upper middle class women somehow always liked pockets in their skirts and slacks. I don't have a hard time any more, finding sweats or other pantswith pockets. I think some designers have realized that women who work need pockets. We no longer lunch. A purse or tote is still needed to transport ones business; stuff you need to take care of during your working day.
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-24 21:04.
Ooh - you hit the nail on the head. This is one of my top 5 pet peeves. Even a dress jacket that is designed to have pockets often just has fake pocket flaps - wtf? I am looking for a man's leather jacket so I can have one with a little extra room and lots of pockets!!!
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-02-26 08:17.
In addition to all that, women are expected to carry around more junk than men are (and some junk is legitimate: tampons or pads): mascara, lip balm, tiny mirrors, contact lens solution, painkillers for the inevitable cramps, hair brush. Plus car keys and the grossly-oversized wallet. (Don't get me started on women's wallets.)
Men carry as little as they can get away with - and often rely, meanwhile, on women to have an aspirin if they need it, or to carry around their prescription bottle, and keep the folding umbrella.
At high-flautin' affairs, it goes the other way: the woman carries nothing or very, very little, and has to rely on her (male) date if she needs the car keys or extra money, because you cannot fit anything but an ID and a 20$ bill in that pretty clutch that matches the dress and the shoes ..
Submitted by 2732 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-03-02 09:55.
Yes! So true. Even in my jeans, which are not fancy model-style designer jeans or anything, I can't fit my wallet in the pocket. I never carry makeup and thanks to the Keeper Cup don't have to carry tampons any more, but still I want to have my keys, wallet, maybe my cell phone, a snack to avoid hypoglycemia, and maybe my glasses or pen or pencil. And I don't want a purse that could get stolen or lost. I want that shit in my pockets!
yes recent few years the
Submitted by handbag (not verified) on Tue, 2009-12-08 04:33.yes recent few years the fashion trends has grown up very rapidly that actually has caused the new clothings for girls but the parents has to decide which type of clothing that theire girs should wear mey it be the Patriarchy types or the moder dresses.