Pockets of history: Why is women's clothing lacking in pockets?

"Thanks, it has pockets."

There are plenty of men reading this in confusion. And plenty of women agreeing with the sentiment. Because it's true - if someone compliments a dress with pockets, that will be the response.

It's such a well-known and relatable conversation that it has inspired a slew of memes and viral videos. And yet it's a conversation that only half the population knows about. It's hard not to see it as an issue of gender.

Even when clothing does have pockets, they're often so small as to be barely functional.

A 2018 study by digital publication Pudding examined both men's and women's pants in 20 of America's most popular jeans brands. Comparing 80 garments, it found on average, pockets in women's jeans are 48 per cent shorter and 6.5 per cent narrower than men's pockets.

From a functionality point of view, only 40 per cent of the women's jeans could fit an iPhone X in the front pockets, 20 per cent could fit a Samsung Galaxy, and only 10 per cent could fit a woman's hand. Meanwhile, 100 per cent of men's garments could fit an iPhone X and 95 per cent could fit a Samsung Galaxy. And every single pair of men's jeans could fit a larger man's hand.

But this wasn't always the case, historically speaking.

Believe it or not, there was a time when women not only had functional pockets, they also had pockets large enough to fit a loaf of bread.

Or at least, they had something similar to a pocket that could fit a loaf of bread.

The 17^th century saw the development of "tie-on" pockets. The highly functional answer to the men's sewn-in pockets - which had been around since the Renaissance - were typically pear-shaped, with a vertical opening, and worn as a single pocket, in pairs or even threes, tied around the waist independently of the clothing. They would be worn under the top layers of the outfit, accessible through openings in the dress and petticoats.

According to the Victoria and Albert Museum, pockets were generally quite big - many 40cm long and 30cm wide - and made of durable materials, and often had embroidery added to them.

"Although it is tempting to link the disappearance of tie-on pockets as coinciding with the uptake of handbags, the story is in fact more complex and more interesting," says the museum.

"Bags and pockets for women had long coexisted, acting as complementary rather than competing."

So what happened?

According to Canberra Institute of Technology senior fashion teacher Shelley Campton, there are a few different theories. Partly it was due to a change of fashion trends, from the large hourglass-creating silhouettes to more figure-hugging dresses that dispensed with the bulky outlines of pockets.

But an issue also arose much further back, during the French Revolution, when men started to realise that pockets were linked to women's independence.

MUST READS:

"They didn't want women to have pockets, because they didn't know what they'd be carrying in them, so they were seen as a bit of a danger and a bit of a risk," Campton says.

"There are theories that it kept women in their place because they couldn't carry things with them."

Fashion publications, such as Journal des dames et des modes and Tableau Général du Gout - which were edited by men - would declare that pockets were out of fashion as they housed women's secrets. Even large bags were looked with suspicion.

"One can leave a husband, a lover, never the bag: it is the indivisible companion of our beauties, the faithful depository of their most secret thoughts," Tableau Général du Gout wrote in 1799.

As women's rights started to take centre stage, discussion around pockets began to appear.

The Rational Dress Society was formed in London in 1891, as part of the movement for Victorian dress reform pushing for women to dress for health - ditching corsets and heavy skirts for functional clothing they could move in. And considering men's suits had about 15 pockets at this time, it's not surprising women's sights were also on pockets.

In response to this organisation and others like it, the New York Times wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece in 1899 tying pockets to the makings of modern civilisation.

"As we become more civilised, we need more pockets," the piece reads.

"No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us while it is pocketless."

Still, according to Manning Clark professor of history at Australian National University Angela Woollacott, it wasn't until the assumption that trousers and suits were only for men changed, that pockets started to come back into the possibility for women.

And the catalyst for this change? The world wars.

As women entered the armed forces, and started taking up the factory work the men could no longer do, trousers with pockets became the outfit of choice.

"World War I this change started to begin, but World War II even more so, women entered the armed forces," Woollacott says.

"Once women were in the armed forces and wearing uniforms ... it becomes quite common for women in the armed forces to wear trousers.

"So, for example, my mother was in the Australian Army, she was a trained nurse who was in the medical corps as part of the Australian Army. And, of course, she had her nursing uniform, and she also had an army uniform, that included trousers.

"She would never have worn trousers before that. And now there are all the photos of her looking terrific and proud to be wearing trousers in the 1940s.

"World War II was quite a turning point because suddenly, more women started wearing trousers because of war participation. From the 40s onwards, it became much more acceptable for women to wear trousers in general, and started to enter fashion. By the 50s, you've got women in jeans, to some extent."

While trousers may have reached mainstream popularity in the 1940s, there was one designer in particular leading the charge on pockets and other "masculine" design elements in women's clothing, two decades prior - Coco Chanel.

Chanel, herself, was a lover of trousers, wearing them as early as 1918, reportedly sporting the risque option of "beach pyjamas" while on holiday on the French Riviera. Even earlier than that, Chanel was known for altering jerseys with patch pockets in the 1910s.

This masculine influence leaked into her design, and the 1920s saw the introduction of the now iconic Chanel suit, a feminine take on a masculine silhouette that included pockets.

"Chanel popularised the pocket along with this new kind of silhouette as well," Campton says.

"She would put pockets on everything. She was this key figure, moving the garments from corseted, quite restrictive clothing into a much more boyish silhouette that was a lot more functional, that had pockets.

"And that legacy of pockets for women's clothing has continued."

While there was all of this movement on the pocket front last century, it doesn't explain why there is still an issue with women's clothing and pockets.

From an educational point of view, pockets are something students learn. And not just in the how-to sense, but about knowing which pockets to use, and when.

Take the small pocket in your jeans. While there's a common belief it's for coins, Levi Strauss & Co originally designed it for a pocket watch.

"Every single pocket they use, there's a reason behind it, and the placement of that pocket, there's a reason why it's placed in that particular place on the garment," Campton says.

"What's the purpose of it? Is it to put your hands in, to warm your hands up? Is it to put your phone in? Or is it something else? So we actually look at that in one of the design briefs quite a bit."

So why wouldn't you have a pocket?

The first thing that comes to mind is an evening dress. And yet in the past six months alone, Florence Pugh, Jennifer Garner, Zendaya, and - in the past week - Cate Blanchett have all made headlines for gracing red carpets in evening gowns with pockets. Even some wedding dress designers are including pockets in their designs.

Campton says one of the reasons for a lack of pocket could be the fabric choice. For example, if you were making a pair of trousers out of a transparent or thin material, you wouldn't put pockets on the back because you would be able to see the pocket bag through the material.

It's common, however, to find a faux pocket - something that is potentially more frustrating than having small or no pockets at all.

Hannah Knight has been a designer with Cooma-based clothing company Birdsnest since it began producing its own labels in 2013. And for the most part, the company's designs have pockets.

"Our girl wants pockets. There's nothing worse than when you move your hand automatically - it's just a reflex - and there is no pocket there,' she says.

"We strive to have pockets, especially in dresses, pants, and skirts in any possible way that we can. Anything that is bottom half, we want pockets. It's fun, it's functional, and it gives you options. And it's quite joyful to have pockets."

That said, for Birdsnest, faux pockets or no pockets mean a lack of extra bulk in unflattering areas. One of the company's most popular items, the Every Day Blazer, for example, has faux pockets because real ones would add extra bulk around the stomach area.

But pockets, Knight says, can be as much (if not more) about money as design. Cheaper clothing will often include faux pockets to cut down on cost.

"Adding in the fabrication and then the freight into the cost of the garment and the details of embellishment and things, may overprice the garment," she says.

"Paying that extra money to add pockets in - if you're trying to pull the cost back - could just be the deciding factor of an extra $10 to $20 retail.

"It depends on your target market and what your price bracket is for each brand. Each brand at Birdsnest has a price bracket of what we want to aim for because it's different for each customer. So really, it depends on what your budget is and who your audience is, basically.

"But I guess pockets for us, they're such an important feature and they just create joy."

Knight's right - pockets do create joy, if only because women have gone without for so long.

And of course it costs more to add a pocket - but can that not also be said for men's clothing? It's not as if women are the only ones with the option of cheap clothing.

In an ideal world, they wouldn't make headlines for gracing the red carpet. Pockets aren't a fashion choice. They're a part of functional clothing, used not to hold secrets - as 18^th century France would have us believe. But it would be nice if a pocket could hold our phone. Is that too much to ask?