On the importance of having pockets (or not)

[ed_rex]

The pocket is political

Women’s pockets were private spaces they carried into the public with increasing freedom, and during a revolutionary time, this freedom was very, very frightening. The less women could carry, the less freedom they had. Take away pockets happily hidden under garments, and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied.

Normally this is the sort of thing I would just post a link to on the faceplace or the twit, but the person I am almost certain would find this interesting (if they haven't already seen it) has withdrawn from the hurly-gurly of Zuckerealm, if only temporarily.

And so, I commend to your attention the surprising history of pockets and why — if you're a woman — your clothes probably don't have any. None usuful, at least.

The Politics of Pockets.

Comments

[silverflight8]

The other day I bought a skirt that had pockets! I only realized after the fact and was very pleased. It's even business casual.

Endangered, but not extinct

[ed_rex]

Judging by the exclamation point, I take it the pockets are functional, not just decorative. I used to have a peasant skirt with nice deep pockets. The article's suggestion that part of the lack is a desire to sell more purses and handbags (is there a difference?) certainly seems plausible.

Re: Endangered, but not extinct

[nanila]

In UK English, a purse is a wallet/billfold or change purse, and a handbag is the larger container that would hold said item.

The exhorbitant price of designer handbags supports the thesis. Even "lower end" stuff like the Radley bags are still pretty costly for someone on an average income.