Member-only story
Why don’t women’s pants have pockets?
Throughout history, women’s pockets have been associated with periods of progress in women’s rights and with greater gender equality.
There are few things more frustrating than putting on a pair of pants and finding that they have unusable, tiny pockets.
Some brands even sew pants pockets shut or just put in fake pockets (why?!?). A survey of 80 pairs of men’s and women’s pants found that on average, the pockets in women’s jeans are 48% shorter and 6.5% narrower than men’s pockets, when controlling for pant size. We were intrigued to learn that women’s pocket troubles have political roots and are directly tied to women’s independence. We sum it up below.
In the middle ages women had little pouches sewn into their clothes enabling them to carry things (an old-school “life hack”). These pouches provided so much convenience that women would cut holes in their clothes to better access them. In an era where people rarely bathed and owned only a few articles of clothing, women still prioritized personal storage.
In the 17th century, design advancements allowed for construction of more traditional pockets, but they were added mostly to men’s clothes.
Women’s fashion became more complex and less functional (think-corsets and bustles) and garments were designed to fit more tightly. This meant that women couldn’t hide their pouches as easily beneath their clothing, so they’d carry their belongings around in a garment called a reticule (an early version of the purse).
Researchers believe that this trend stemmed from the growing disparity between the social roles of men and women. Men increasingly worked outside the home and women worked in the household. Because women had less independence and fewer out-of-home responsibilities, designers simply didn’t think they needed pockets. Men carried all the money, documents, and keys (to the patriarchy?), so they were the only ones awarded apparel functionality.
