Guys, Pockets Are Sexist!

One of the rites of passage of being a girl is figuring out what to do with all your stuff when you're going out. We all need money and communication and probably some chapstick, but most clothing choices for women are not equipped with the proper device to hold these items, i.e. Pockets!

In response, women have taken to other means and sometimes even extremes. Some get large purses to lug everything around, while others ball their wallets up in a jacket and put it somewhere where they're constantly thinking about it as they try to cut loose on the dance floor. In some cases women have been known to acquire mobile sentient purses to hold their things, these slaves are sometimes referred to as "boyfriend" or "hubby". 

It's a problem that all women face and solve through a variety of means listed above. But it's weird how we never stop to think about *why* this is. Why is it that we buy jeans with pockets we could barely fit a quarter into?

Basically, pockets are sexist. 

Just after the first presidential debate, Chelsea G. Summers wrote a great piece for racked.com titled: "The Politics of Pockets: The History of Pockets Isn't Just Sexist, It's Political". In this article she gave a great historical breakdown of pockets that would make even my super tough 11th grade history teacher give her an A. 

Stretching from fashion in the 18th century, to the French revolution, to the suffragette movement and now modern times, the basic truth behind pockets is that they've evolved to be useful for men and decoration for women. By extrapolating even further, we could make a clear statement about women's versus men's fashion: "Men's dress is designed for utility, women's dress is designed for beauty". 

So do you think this issue of utility and beauty will eventually be amended? Read the article to find out if someday it may.