Pockets imply intimacy, discretion, and security. Whether functional or merely decorative, the inclusion of a pocket plays an integral role in how a garment serves the wearer. 

During a time when so many garments are labeled as “uni-sex,” a functional pocket still remains to be a feature that is typically reserved for men. For clothing targeted for women, pockets tend to be non-existent, decorative, or nonfunctional. The simple inclusion of a pocket within a garments design, reflects the centuries of societal rules that categorizes women’s clothing as  merely decorative. 

The binary division between menswear and womenswear is crucial to who gets pockets and who doesn’t. Pockets have been ubiquitously tied to menswear for centuries. Clothing that is intended for men are meant to be functional and utilitarian by default. The same cannot be said for womenswear, where the idea of a visible and practical pocket has been to say the least contentious. 

However, this divide between menswear and womenswear that resulted in the lack of pockets for women hasn’t always existed. Prior to the 1550s, the earliest forms of pockets began as drawstring pouches that were tied at the hip and were worn by both sexes. But as tailoring and garment construction progressed and became more advanced, pockets became a unilateral motif within garments created for men. 

This was not so much the case for women, who’s clothing by this point had become more restrictive and served mostly to reflect their wealth. With the mass adoption of hidden pockets within menswear, this marked the beginning of when the idealized female silhouette excluded pockets and cemented the pocket as a masculine feature. 

It wasn’t until the beginning of the nineteenth century, where the gendered politics of pockets became really cemented into Western culture. In her 2008 essay “Idle Hands and Empty Pockets: Postures of Leisure,” the academic Hannah Carlson writes that standing with one’s hands in their pockets became extremely tied to asserting a man’s masculinity. For women however, this body pose was seen as improper and “unladylike” further showcasing how pockets have been inextricably tied to masculinity.  

In response, bags or other accessories that function as “external pockets” became popular. Women have created “innovative” or  ways to include pockets within their garments; with the majority of them being external or separate from their actual garments. The handbag industry is an over $8 billion industry; an industry that would have probably never amassed much wealth if women’s garments have  historically included pockets. 

The twentieth century marked the beginning of pockets becoming a common feature within women’s garments. During both World Wars, the most requested design for workwear by women entering workforces were pockets. By the mid century, the need for pockets was slowly but steadily becoming a must have as women began entering the workforce and womens fashion became more simplistic and less rigid.

Notable designers like Yohji Yamaoto and Rei Kawakubo used pockets as a staple motif within their garments and collections. However, these designers only represent a small fraction of the fashion industry, and are practically out of reach for most consumers. 

Nonetheless, pockets still remain to be basically practically for garments made for women. For centuries, the fashion industry has been fueled by their female consumers, and yet it has failed to provide them with the simplistic inclusion of pockets. The gender divided and connotations of pockets reinforce the idea that men and women are inherently unequal, and their clothing should reflect that.