Want to read in Dutch? Click here
If there’s one thing women often complain about in clothing, it’s the size of their pockets. That is, if they have any at all—many women’s clothing items come without pockets altogether. And that’s not surprising, since research has shown that the pockets in women’s jeans are, on average, half the depth of those in men’s jeans. In this article, I’ll explain why women’s pockets are so small and why you’re less likely to run into this problem with workwear.
After reading countless complaints about tiny pockets, journalists Jan Diehm and Amber Thomas decided to investigate the issue in 2018. They compared the pockets of jeans from the 20 biggest American denim brands, analyzing the size of both men’s and women’s front and back pockets.
After examining 80 different models, they concluded that women’s front pockets are on average 48% shorter and 6.5% narrower than men’s. The fit of the jeans also played a role in pocket size—those percentages applied specifically to skinny jeans. For straight-leg jeans, women’s pockets were 46% shorter and 10% narrower.
The difference in back pockets was much smaller: for skinny jeans, women’s back pockets were 5% shorter and 2% narrower. For straight-leg jeans, they were 7% shorter and 2% narrower on average.
This is why women’s pockets are so small
With those numbers in mind, it raises the question: why are women’s pockets so small in the first place? To answer that, we need to dive deep into history.
In the 13th century, both men and women carried a kind of pouch or purse on their belts. These were made of fabric or leather and typically worn over the clothing. But as cities grew and crime increased in the 16th century, people began to hide these pouches. Men wore them under their tunics or jackets, and women under their skirts.
In the 17th century, this changed. Men began to have pockets sewn into their clothing, while women continued to use pouches. At this point, the function of pockets also shifted. Men’s pockets focused more on practicality, while women’s pockets were designed to be decorative and embellished. This marked the beginning of the inequality in pockets between men and women.
Women lost the right to pockets
The fact that women carried their belongings in pouches under their clothing meant they couldn’t easily access their things in public. Many people didn’t see this as a problem, as men held a higher place in the social hierarchy.
During the French Revolution (1789–1799), things took a step further. Women were no longer allowed to have pockets, neither on the inside nor outside of their clothing. The only form of pockets allowed were small coin purses. But these were so tiny that hardly a coin could fit in them, and women who wore them were often ridiculed. The reason for the ban was the fear that women could carry “revolutionary items” in their pockets.
Women were told that carrying a mini wallet symbolized a relaxed life. After all, the man took care of the finances, and she should be happy with that, they were told. Meanwhile, dresses became tighter and tighter, making it impossible to carry a pouch.
More pockets for women
It wasn’t until clothing became looser in the 1840s that more room was made for pockets. This allowed women to occasionally have a small pocket in their dresses where they could store items like their handkerchiefs. However, this still had to be done discreetly, as only men were entitled to the privilege of pockets.
But women didn’t sit idly by. Protests arose to abolish the corset and make women’s clothing more functional, including adding pockets. It wasn’t until World War I, when many women took over the jobs of their husbands, that they finally got the pockets they had longed for. Fashion changed, becoming looser and more functional. Unfortunately, this didn’t last long, because when the men returned from the war, women were required to dress as they had before.
Clothing with pockets was seen as masculine, and women were not supposed to dress that way. Society wanted the female silhouette to be visible through tight clothing, and pockets would disrupt this. The famous fashion designer Christian Dior once said, “Men have pockets to put things in, women’s pockets are for decoration.”
The idea that men needed pockets and women’s pockets were only for decoration led to the rise of the handbag industry. After all, women wanted to carry things, but simply didn’t have the option. Since they also wanted to keep up with fashion, the handbag increasingly became a status symbol, replacing the pouch, which was also said to be merely decorative.
Workwear and women’s pockets
To this day, the pockets in women’s clothing are still significantly smaller than those in men’s clothing, at least when it comes to fashionable clothing. Workwear, however, is a different story.
On the worksite, both men and women have the same tools to manage. And all of those tools need to be stored somewhere. It makes sense, then, that the pockets for both sexes should be the same size. When this is not the case, it’s more noticeable. The inequality becomes immediately visible, and people today are quick to point it out.
You also can’t tell a woman on the worksite to carry a handbag. In most physical jobs, that’s simply not practical. So, although functional women’s workwear is a recent development, there has been more progress in this area than in fashionable clothing.
So, ladies, if you’re looking for pants with plenty of pockets, it’s advisable not to skip the workwear section. From personal experience, I know that workwear brands now sell pants without too many pockets on the hips, so it doesn’t look like they’re made for work. But the pockets on the inside are significantly larger. And that’s definitely a bonus.
Cheers,
Aileen