You are using an older browser version. Please use a supported version for the best MSN experience.

The Disturbing Reason Women's Clothing Historically Never Had Pockets

Mamamia logo Mamamia 7/17/2017 Danica Lamb

pockets2 © getty pockets2 Friend: ‘I love your dress!’

Me: ‘Oh, thanks! It’s got POCKETS’

Women globally: *shriek with excitement*

If there is one thing women can communally agree on, it’s that we love pockets. We cannot get enough of them. Literally. We can’t, and don’t, get enough of them.

It’s not news to any of us that still, in 2017, women’s clothing either completely lacks the potential for a pouch or, even worse, has COUNTERFEIT POCKETS that inspire a millisecond of hope before crushing your dreams when you realise it only has a depth of two centimetres.

But historically, women have always been deprived of pockets. And the reason why is disturbing.

In a piece on Racked, journalist Chelsea Summers puts it most simply when she writes, "the less women could carry, the less freedom they had."

Related: Ladies Aren't Wearing Clutches Like They Used to Anymore [Provided by PopSugar] Ladies Aren't Wearing Clutches Like They Used to Anymore: For some, the word clutch connotes something small, dainty, and compact - maybe even something elegant, like the Anya Hindmarch bag Kate Middleton wears with all her fancy dresses. But hit the streets during Fashion Week, and you'll find that these days, a clutch is oversize. It's a statement piece that might even work as the focal point of an outfit. A clutch is what women are "doing" with their hands. While you might predict satchels with shoulder straps and pockets to be the most decorative, pouches are quickly becoming the more personalized option. You could invest in designer Dior, which comes complete with an edgy, wear-it-on-your-sleeve handle. But one scroll through the looks here, and we predict you'll be more inclined to pick up a clutch with a vibrant pop of color, a slogan, or an added embellishment. Scroll on for a few examples of the latest in clutchwear, then shop similar styles and tuck one under your arm.RelatedWhy 1 Handbag Is No Longer Enough Ladies Aren't Wearing Clutches Like They Used to Anymore

Think about that for a second.

Before the seventeenth century, both men and women's clothing weren't conducive to pockets, and both genders would have to add purses or bags to their attire. But towards the eighteenth century, men's clothing all of a sudden got pockets. Women, of course, were left behind.

"Take away pockets happily hidden under garments," writes Summers, "and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied".

In the mid to late 1800s, as women were fighting for liberation, pockets were introduced to clothing. Pockets represented independence - as did the pants women started to wear. Post war, however, pockets went out of fashion, in an effort to make women's silhouettes 'thinner' and more feminine, whatever that means.

Throughout history, women have had a complex relationship with pockets. Even now, countless articles have been written lamenting the fact that women's clothes rarely have pockets large enough to fit an iPhone - a piece of property almost every person needs to carry.

No pockets also means women need to invest in clutches and handbags - a strategy that earns the fashion industry more and more money.

So when you do find that dress or skirt or pants that have excellent pockets, be reminded there's something inherently political about them. Ladies - our obsession with pockets could not be more warranted.

Related: Why Do Jeans Have That Tiny Pocket? There Is A Reason [Provided by TODAY] 



More from



image beaconimage beaconimage beacon