Pockets: Articles of Interest #3

PG: I had never worn a dress before. I’m sure it was slightly graceless, as like all the things I did at the time seem to have been.

AT: I met Piers on our very first week in college.

PG: It must have been day one or two. It was really early.

AT: We went to a super PC liberal arts school, and so our freshmen mixer was a cross-dressing dance. Which is such an outdated term now but whatever, that’s what it was called.

PG: I think all they told us was, “You should wear clothes of the opposite gender.” They probably said it in a way that’s slightly more, you know, more literate in the differences between gender and biological sex than what I just said.

AT: It was a strange way to make first impressions on each other. Not because we were scared of wearing dresses or backward baseball caps, or whatever we wore that night. It was because, for many of us, we had to borrow clothes from the other people in our hall. It was weirdly intimate. Piers and I, complete strangers, swapped outfits.

PG: You’re tall and I’m tall, and I think that you’re probably the only person in the hall, if not the building whose clothes would have fit me.

AT: I remember I loaned Piers a pink swirly-patterned mini dress from the 60’s that I had bought from a thrift store. I had no idea if he would take care of it, or even return it. Piers tried it on, it looked great, and he went to check himself out in the bathroom down the hall. And here’s what happened next.

PG: I immediately locked myself out of my room. And I was like, “Oh no my keys are in my room!” because I didn’t have anywhere to put them! The dress had no pockets.

AT: Piers’ brand new roommate let him back in, but then he went to sleep, so Piers wanted to make sure he didn’t make that mistake again. He couldn’t lose his keys at the party.

PG: We all ended up in the big dancehall where there’s really loud music and it was like, unbearably hot. All the ladies eyebrow pencil mustaches were running onto their teeth with sweat and things like that. And I believe I just clutched my keys in my hand and thought about it really hard all night, which sounds crazy.

AT: Womenswear is littered with fake pockets that don’t open, or shallow pockets that could hardly hold a paperclip. If there are pockets at all, they are just smaller, and they fit less than men’s pockets do. And you don’t have to take my word for it.

AT: Here we are going to the police supply store. I wanted to find an example of a uniform that had pockets, and compare those made for men and those for women. This is the shop that provides the uniforms for the Oakland police. When I asked the store manager if I could look at the men’s and women’s uniforms, this is what he told me.

SM: You ready for this?

AT: I’m ready for this.

SM: The women wear the mens.

AT: Really?

SM: Because the pockets are too small on the women’s.

AT: Wait really? That’s why?

SM: That is why.

AT: But there is a women’s that they make!

SM: But I don’t carry ‘em! Well, I’ve got some over here, but traditionally they use the men’s because the pockets are bigger.

AT: Ahh!

SM: And they can put things in ‘em, and the women’s are smaller, which I can show you, and they won’t fit!

AT: THAT’S FASCINATING.

SM: Now you have something to blog about.

AT: I’ll give you something to blog about! Man’s great evolutionary advantage is the creation of tools. The problem is, we’re not marsupials, we need to carry them somehow. And this idea of who has access to the tools they need, who can walk through the world comfortably and securely; THIS is what we are talking about when we talk about pockets.

HC: Pockets speak to this question of preparedness, and your ability to move in public and to be confident. It’s really difficult to get around if you don’t have what you need, and it’s about, I think it’s about mobility and movement in public.

AT: Hannah Carlson lectures at the Rhode Island School of Design, where she teaches classes in material culture, fashion history, and fashion theory. And she is working on a book about pockets.

HC: If the formal question for me is, “What difference does it make?” “What’s the difference between a pocket and a bag?” And I think the key difference is that the pocket is internal. And it’s secret.

AT: A bag can be stolen. A bag can be lost. And then, that’s it. You don’t have your things anymore.

HC: With a pocket inside, you don’t have to think about it. You forget about it, but you still have stuff in there. It is seen as this territory of your own. That connects you to the objects you carry, in a way. Those objects become part of you.

AT: Case in point, Thomas Jefferson.

HC: Jefferson was called a walking calculator for all the miniature tools and devices he carried. Miniature scales, drawing instruments, a thermometer, a surveying compass, a level, a globe. And he was able to jot down his observations from his daily wanderings

AT: Historically, men have been the ones with these tools for public life on their person at all times. In Hannah Carlson’s research, she found a lot of accounts of women complaining about this.

HC: One woman noted that her son was better equipped than she or her daughter, and she concludes that “A boy’s pockets are his certificate of empire. All through life, he will carry the scepter of dominion by the right of his pockets.” I mean, so it’s this great language I loved. It’s playful, it’s funny, but there’s some seriousness here about what later costume historians call a real social handicap.

AT: Pockets are just a perfect metaphor for privilege. Not only because they are so easily taken for granted by the people who have them, but also because, like the categories of race and gender themselves, pocket disparity is construct! It’s made up! There’s no reason for women’s pockets to be so small! Back In the 18th century, women’s pockets were quite large!

CE: She could hold quite a lot in them! There are accounts of women putting food in it to eat later.

AT: hahaha

CE: They would have, writing tools. Maybe a small diary, sewing implements; they could carry quite a lot. Especially if you had two.

AT: This Clarissa Esguerra

CE: Yes, I’m Clarissa Esguerra. I am the Associate Curator of Costume and Textiles at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

AT: And where are we now?

CE: We are in a storage area at the museum for our department. And so we have everything laid out on a table currently covered with tissue, but I will reveal them one at a time.

AT: This is a little hard to picture on the radio, but indulge me for a second. Pockets used to be a completely separate garment. They were really more like pouches.

CE: Pockets being suspended from the waist has a really long history, actually. It started, for both men and women, in the Medieval era. They were suspended from their waist over their clothes. And then sometime in the late 17th century, men started having clothes made where pockets were incorporated. They were in their waistcoats and their breeches.

AT: And women’s pockets remained separate from the rest of clothing.

“Oh, Kind of like a fanny pack?”

CE: No, no no no. Okay, think of the pockets on the inside of your jeans, right?. Those teardrop shaped pouches. They were like that, but just on their own, separate from pants, attached to a string.

“And these would be tied around the waist?”

CE: Yes.

AT: And in some cases, the pouches were really really big, like the length of your forearm. And these detachable pockets were then worn under women’s dresses. So though old dresses look like they have pockets, they really just have cut slits in them.

CE: Women had slits made in the petticoats and dresses and they could access their pockets by going through those slits.

AT: You could reach through to get to your detachable pocket pouches. Does that make sense?

“Eh. Sure why not?”

CE: Would you like to see them?!

AT: Yes!

CE: Okay, so I thought we would start with the more simpler ones, and then go into the more complicated ones because they were really functional, but also they were an opportunity for splendor.

AT: I’m just going to cut to the complicated, expensive, fancy pockets because they are indeed very splendid.

AT: Oh wow.

CE: So these were very very finely embroidered. This one is a silk pocket, and it’s lightly quilted. And then it is covered with this beautiful floral design chain stitch embroiderys. So these are all tiny, tiny little chain stitches.

AT: Oh my god!

CE: It’s really fine. And there’s a pair of them that match. And this is something that she just wore. and only she and the woman who helped her get dressed, and perhaps her lover saw.

AT: Pockets were almost like lingerie, especially the beautiful expensive ones. The pockets were this intimate thing, close to the body, holding your most precious items safe under the layers of your ginormous fluffy dress. And then came the French Revolution.

CE: The French revolution happened…

AT: Which, in many ways, was a revolution against excess.

CE: These dresses that were made with voluminous silk skirts were no longer fashionable, and what was fashionable were muslin dresses that clung to the body.

HC: So when you get to the 1800s, and the empire style where the waist is pretty much gone, think of Jane Austin movies. You have the columnar silhouette.

AT: And some of these dresses have a slit for pockets, but a lot of them are too body-hugging to accommodate extra bulge.

CE: There’s no space for pockets and so suddenly women begin to carry little purses. And there’s lots of ridicule of women having to lose their pockets and having to carry these silly bags.

CE: And at the time they called the “reticules” because they were so small.

AT: Reticule? Like “ridiculous?”

CE: Like ridiculous.

AT: Reticules, were teeny, teeny, tiny little drawstring pouches. Elaborately beaded and decorated. They held maybe a few coins, and some keys but like, that’s it. And you could hang the loops of the drawstring around your wrist, which was another reason why it was considered ridiculous.

HC: You have to remember to carry it, it’s easy to lose, people can steal it. That’s the formal difference.

AT: But that’s kind of the price you pay for fashion. The little bags were in style. And I mean you can see why, if you look at them. They’re beautiful.

BB: Very fancy beautiful thing, shell-shaped or made of silk. Gorgeous things, they are to be seen. Not particularly capacious.

AT: This is dress historian Barbara Burman

BB: The reticule becomes a kind of a temporary fashionista thing, and so you get journalists writing in the first and second decades of the 19th Century about the pocketists and anti-pocketists.

AT: The fashion press made pockets seems like they were for housewives. For women who needed to lug around sewing kits, and bits of food they were saving for later. The Anti-pocketists were the ones going out dancing and gambling.

BB: They have these beautiful little reticules and they’re much more fashionable. They don’t need to carry keys and bibles and stacks of pins and all these useful things in their pockets because they don’t have that kind of life. They’re much more out and about. And this pocketists anti-pocketist debate was strung along to gain readership I suppose.

AT: In the 19th century, fashion magazines were saying it was a liberating thing for women to not have pockets. To be free from tasks. Reticules, which hardly held anything, were kind of like long nails that don’t let you use your hands, or stiletto heels that don’t let you walk far. There’s that luxury in not moving much or doing much, and just looking really good. And it’s always been an ongoing debate if that is empowering or not. But it’s not like the reticule completely killed the tie-on the pocket. They were still around.

BB: A woman could perfectly well have a pair of pockets and also a reticule for when she wanted to be a bit showy. They co-exist. And this kind of pocket clearly outlives the reticule.
You find them in use in the 17th century, going right through to the 20th century.

AT: So why don’t we have these anymore, if it wasn’t the columnar silhouette?

BB: Search me! Search me. I mean if you can come up with a good answer… It’s very difficult to pinpoint it. They fade from use, they become old-fashioned, more dresses start to have integrated pockets but they’re often very small. Not always, but they are often very small and very difficult to access.

AT: The womenswear that had integrated pockets were kind of feminized version of menswear.

BB: Made by men. Made by tailors, not dressmakers; and out of habit the tailors would be putting in proper, fitted in pockets so to speak like men’s pockets, because they are using male tailoring techniques.

AT: Basically, if an outfit had an inset pocket, it was a uselessly proportioned version of a man’s pattern.

BB: The pocket is seen to be a monopoly of the male sex eventually. Pockets and trousers are one, and as women’s fashions change, pockets can be lost.

AT: And as men’s fashions change, pockets can be gained. And they were, again and again and again, pockets were getting added, and added, and added over the course of decades. And by the early 20th century it was just getting ridiculous.

CE: Copious amounts of pockets. I can’t even, like, you have your ticket pocket for the train, you have your coin pocket, watch pocket, breast pocket. Then you have all the pockets in your waistcoat and then in your trousers. It’s really interesting, and women have one purse.

AT: Both gendered extremes were starting to get terrible.

HC: Because pockets had proliferated, they had become completely worthless. You couldn’t find anything! You’d stop on the street, you had to pat yourself down to remember where you left your wallet!

AT: The average man of 1944 had 24 pockets. Which was way too many. At least according to Bernard Rudofsky.

HC: He was kind of enraged by the way pockets kept popping up.

AT: Bernard Rudofsky was an architect. A modernist architect, and modernists were really into sleek, simple buildings that were absolutely functional with no excess.

HC: He was this modernist that wanted to make clothing perfectly rational.

AT: And he found it ironic that the rational modernist architects were all wearing suits.

HC: He wanted to shake up this confidence that we have about the suit and suggest, no no, it is not modern in any way! It has all sorts of old ideas and beliefs. And this pocket that was once functional is now no longer functional because we have so many.

AT: And to prove his point, God love him, Rudofsky puts on an exhibit at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1944. And It was called Are Clothes Modern?

HC: “Are Clothes Modern?” was the question.

“Pssst, the answer was no.”

AT: The central piece in Rudofsky’s MoMA exhibit was a big multilayered infographic chart, it looked like an x-ray of a man’s 3 piece suit.

EC: We have color-coded the pockets in his shirt, in his vest, in his coat. and overcoat. And you see this wonderful chaotic overlay of 24 pockets.

AT: The average suit had 24 pockets and 70 buttons. Rudofsky was really passionate about how completely silly and redundant this was.

EC: The guy is a wonderful nutball.

AT: But Rudofsky was really onto something. Because he wasn’t only about abolishing suits. He thought that at the root of this insane pocket conundrum, was a much larger problem. Which is about generally what we consider clothing to be.

HC: Clothing hanging on hangers to him looked like people’s sort of, dead skins. You know, and he wanted to be able to show that you could travel to a friends house and they would have clothes for you because clothing wouldn’t be individual to the body. Universal size, universal clothes, unisex clothing.

AT: Universal clothing, according to Rudofsky, would be more like a toga, or apparel that embraced the nature of cloth itself. Something that would drape and move naturally.

HC: He hated the idea that through clothes we could show ideas of status and gender that were unfair. He hated the expense, the waste. And so he wanted this really simple cloth, and of course, the images that he showed, his ideas for this new utopian future, are very simple clothing that have no pockets!

AT: A world with no pockets at all. And no bags!

PG: You might know the perfect world when you arrive there by its pocketlessness.

AT: My college friend Piers got really into researching and reading about pockets, long after his debacle with my dress.

PG: There’s this whole strain of thought which suggests that if the world were perfect, if society were perfect, if we lived in a utopia of some kind, where you didn’t have to worry about your physical safety, you didn’t have to worry about somebody robbing your house, you wouldn’t need pockets, in order to carry money, in order to carry keys

AT: And certainly in the course of time, we have come to hold fewer and fewer things in our pockets.

HC: All those little devices of Jefferson’s are contained in a single phone that we carry externally on our body. And the pocket really is this sort of, knowledge envelope. This compartment.

AT: But the phone stays adjacent to us, removed. Encased in a bag or pocket. Tech companies have tried to sell us on wearables; on Apple watches and Google glasses, which would take your tools out of your pocket entirely. And maybe bring us a step closer to that pocketless utopia. But these products haven’t taken off in the way they were supposed to.

HC: Wearables were foreseen a long time ago and we’re still a little anxious about their use. I think there’s just too much doubt at the moment about whether that utopia can ever work.

AT: And perhaps one day we’ll have all our tools implanted in our skull, or embedded on an accessory, which everyone will be able to access in the same way. And then, when we get there, pockets will seem just as ancient as Rudofsky thought them to be. Already, it seems so antiquated that clothes are needlessly gendered in the way they are. Because we all should have access to the tools we need. Or at least a place to put our hands.

Credits

Production & Music

Articles of Interest was created by Avery Trufelman; this episode was edited by Katie Mingle and Joe Rosenberg; Sasami Ashworth wrote the theme songs for the show; Rhae Royal made the rest of the music; Graham Hacia did the fact checking; Sharif Youssef did the mix; photography by Matty Lynn Barnes; Roman Mars is the executive producer.

Special thanks to Piers Gelly for raising this topic on his podcast Cellar Door, as well as to Delaney Hall, Emmett Fitzgerald, Vivian Le, Kurt Kohlstedt and the rest of the 99pi team.

Comments (27)

Share

    1. drlandsnark

      What I came here to comment. The expert at the museum needs to stop telling people this unless it can be backed up with references to the use at the time. (Which is possible, regardless of the etymology of the words themselves–we often use words that sound similar, or adopt one term into common usage partly because it sounds like another.)

      “Ridicule,” according to my dictionary, stems from the Latin root for laughing.

  1. This was an excellent episode and so far a great series. I hope y’all find a reason, or way, to make more than six Articles of Interest.

  2. Nick K

    What song was at the end? With the lyrics

    “A pocket

    A piece of paper

    words from yesterday”

    Thank you

  3. Brian Dicey

    There’s a clip of haunting & beautiful music in the AOI episodes…. I want to hear more!
    The lyric goes something like, “a pocket, a paper, a piece of yesterday…”
    Who’s the artist? Didn’t have any luck searching the names listed in the credits.
    Thanks!

  4. Jacob Hitt

    Hi. Was the song used at the end of the episode an original production? Might be my mind playing tricks on me but it sounds very familiar.

  5. Rob

    I’m really enjoying this series: the episodes are short and snappy, entertaining and informative. But this is a series where some visuals would be really helpful – it seems a shame that you don’t have full accompanying blog posts as you do with normal 99PI episodes.

  6. In The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame (via Toad, who has dressed as a washerwoman to break out of prison) has a great little summation of the importance of pockets to social standing in 1908:

    He gave the name of the station that he knew to be nearest to the village of which Toad Hall was the principal feature, and mechanically put his fingers, in search of the necessary money, where his waistcoat pocket should have been. But here the cotton gown, which had nobly stood by him so far, and which he had basely forgotten, intervened, and frustrated his efforts. In a sort of nightmare he struggled with the strange uncanny thing that seemed to hold his hands, turn all muscular strivings to water, and laugh at him all the time; while other travellers, forming up in a line behind, waited with impatience, making suggestions of more or less value and comments of more or less stringency and point. At last—somehow—he never rightly understood how—he burst the barriers, attained the goal, arrived at where all waistcoat pockets are eternally situated, and found—not only no money, but no pocket to hold it, and no waistcoat to hold the pocket!

    To his horror he recollected that he had left both coat and waistcoat behind him in his cell, and with them his pocket-book, money, keys, watch, matches, pencil-case—all that makes life worth living, all that distinguishes the many-pocketed animal, the lord of creation, from the inferior one-pocketed or no-pocketed productions that hop or trip about permissively, unequipped for the real contest.

  7. corky

    I am loving this series! This one hits on one of my pet peeves.
    as a female who will not carry a purse, I am constantly trying to find jeans, pants, and shorts with pockets big enough to carry a wallet, keys and cell phone. This drives me crazy. One brand of jeans had these ridiculously small front pockets that would not hold anything. The explanation on the website was that the pockets were designed to be more flattering! But why put pockets at all if they won’t hold anything!

  8. Dana

    You’re killing me with a MAJOR missing piece – purses are AMAZING and men aren’t allowed to carry them. I have loved being able to drag my purse around with me since I was a kid. I am like a turtle that wants to drag my house everywhere. Which will not fit in any pocket, any gendered clothing.

    Men are ALWAYS handing me their wallets and phones to carry because their pants are too tight for our giant phones these days anyway. I am not saying there aren’t some issues and the historical stuff is great context, but give me my mega bag I drag everywhere, full of food and water bottles, eyeglass wipes, and pocketknife.

    Shout out to my husband who has more than once been teased by stangers for carrying it for me when my hands were full. It’s another type of misogyny, of course, people hate women so much that they mock a man for taking on any aspect of womenhood, but also, he doesn’t get sunburnt because I always have sunscreen.

  9. Dan

    Another comment looking for more info on that song. From the credits I think it’s by Sasami Ashworth but I can’t find this tune on her SoundCloud or any other channel. Is it a full-length track, and if so where can we hear/buy it?

  10. Thank you for this episode! While I have recently found and am frequently patronizing a new-to-me purveyor of dresses-with-useful-pockets, the lack of a place to put things for most of my life has always been frustrating. My 1.5 to daughter was wearing her older brother’s hand me down pants today and was so delighted with the pockets; none from her girl cousins have any.

    Once, a female colleague and I were in the service corridor of our labs trying to fix a power supply when our Nobel-Laureate boss came by to chat and offer his advice. He started saying how he has always believed every experimental physicist should have a pocket knife with them (we needed a small screwdriver at that moment.). It was summer, and I stood up to show him the fake pockets on my Capri pants and explained a little of what it was to operate as a woman in this world. He was (rightfully) stunned and had never considered such a thing before.

  11. I wondered if you were going to get around to Rudofsky sooner or later. My copy of “Are Clothes Modern?” even has provenance — it’s Elia Kazan’s copy.

  12. What’s also interesting to me (sorry these are coming in bits and pieces) is how pockets can interact with other objects.

    Example: Breast pockets and 8″x10″ paper. Fold a letter in thirds, like you would for an envelope. Now fold it in half the opposite way. It fits a breast pocket almost perfectly. Tough for me to believe that isn’t by design.

  13. Peter Willis

    I felt disappointed by this report. It ignores the modern aspect of pockets that I found out after googling for a half hour.

    Men still have useless pockets. The “coin pocket” in jeans is actually for a pocketwatch. So why do we still have it? It’s not because fashion simply couldn’t do without it – it’s because we found another utility for it, namely, holding coins. If it had no utility, it would have been faded out, since mostly only jeans had the pocket. Now even regular trousers have a small inner cloth pocket that serves much the same modern function. And this is adaptation to market forces is what causes women’s clothes to not have pockets.

    Women’s pockets are nonexistent because women’s fashion is intense. Go into any clothing store (I notice it especially in thrift stores) and you will notice there is between 2 and 10 times more clothing for women than men. This isn’t because women need more clothes, like they’re constantly falling apart, or because they’re losing their clothes all over the place. It’s because the women’s clothing fashion industry responds to a demand for constantly new and different articles of clothing. Our culture reinforces the idea that women must always be fashionable and attractive, and if a woman isn’t buying the newest fashions, she isn’t fashionable. That’s been true for a long time, but industrialization has lowered the cost of new fashions significantly, and consumers no longer focus as much on quality. The result is a lot more affordable, fashionable clothes.

    If you talk to women’s clothing designers today, they _want_ to put pockets in their clothes, but they are often forced to remove them. Why? One reason is cost. Because designers have to churn out new articles all the time, they fight a very narrow window between the cost to produce clothes, and the consumer’s available money to buy new clothes. Often, the only way to churn out a new clothing line every season is to reduce the cost of production – namely, spending less on material and speeding up production. Cut out the pockets and you save on materials and production costs, and thus save money.

    Another common reason is that it is indeed hard to relocate a pocket on a garment and not make it look ridiculous. Imagine a big fat pocket on your calf, or the front of your thigh, or the back. Or even on a dress, putting the pocket at or above the hip. Now put something inside it. Now I have either thick hips, or these weird lumps all over my body. This is not the aesthetic most women are looking for. Not only is it awkward to relocate pockets, it makes the clothing look weird. So you can try to use the same old front-thigh-hidden pocket, but if it makes the clothing hang weird on the body, or lumps in it break up the silhouette, it’s no longer fashionable or attractive, which kills its marketability. An actual women’s clothing designer reports here that women complain about similar issues when pockets are added: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-womens-clothes-seem-to-lack-pockets-Is-this-really-an-effort-to-make-women-buy-handbags

    To reintroduce pockets, women’s fashion needs to do three things: 1) embrace less tight-fitting clothes, 2) re-introduce pockets through consumer demand, and 3) produce less clothing lines less frequently. It seems like the third thing is actually what’s holding back pocket introduction more than 1 and 2.

  14. Erin

    Love the series, and especially the all-important issue of POCKETS! I’m sure a study can or has been done of pockets across literature (see Wendy’s offer to make pockets for the Lost Boys in Neverland…), but this passage in particular came to mind:

    Often, people want to say that things are ‘for men’ or ‘for women,’ but I think that many of these items just share the property that they can or can’t fit into the shitty pockets women get. Of course, if girls were less focused on their appearance, maybe they would wear carpenter’s pants and carry whatever they wanted. Who is to say? It is inarguable, though, whomever’s fault it is, that having small pockets is terrible.
    ~Jesse Ball, “How to Set a Fire and Why”

    [Also, second the error on “reticule,” which comes from the Latin and refers to a “netlike” shape/structure. Perhaps this misinterpretation with “ridicule” was a false-cognate of its time…?]

  15. Dave Warda

    Loved this episode on pockets on my drive into work this morning. As a man, I have always loved pockets. All my favourite pants or jackets always have unique or comfortable pockets. This episode made me think differently about how pockets have shaped my thoughts about clothing and my identity. It also triggered a memory of when as a teenager in the 1980s, it was my choice to buy a pair of winter boots with a pocket just above the ankle. So unique, so foolish, yet I loved them. (I think they were Kangaroo boots…)

  16. Josie Beller

    People who say women must not buy clothing with pockets, or more women’s clothing would have pockets, are ignoring the catch-22 exemplified by the police uniform shop. Women who actually demand pockets can only get them by buying men’s clothing, therefore those sales which would go to women’s clothing with pockets if such things were available, end up being sales of “men’s” clothing to women, and thus they are counted as sales of men’s clothing (thus assumed to be sales to men), adding to the assumption that men buy clothes with pockets and women buy clothing without pockets.

    The idea that pockets ruin the line of a woman’s clothing ignore the fact that over half the population is a size 14 or larger, aka “plus-size”, and thus can’t wear the latest fashion anyway! The most fashionable clothes are designed for skinny little models, and then are scaled up without adequately changing the style to suit the differences that curves make in how clothing hangs on the body. Plus-sized fashions, where they exist, are still designed for women who male designers find appealing — that is, women who have curvy butts and hips, but are compensated with extra-large busts as well. (They don’t even *make* bras in, say, 46B or 48A, so plus-size women who don’t get that compensation are forced to get a 36C and add a couple of extenders to the back in order to get the smaller cup size and larger band.) Most plus-size women have very little hope of finding flattering styles of clothing anyway, so would gladly accept the trade-off of having pockets! And again, they often wind up choosing men’s clothing, which also isn’t designed to flatter their shape but at least it has pockets….

    A quick check shows that “pocketsforwomen.com”redirects to a sculptor’s website, but the URL “womenspockets.com” is available. Is there anyone out there up for the challenge of designing jeans, shorts, etc. with pockets in them???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All Categories

Playlist