Toward the end of the 18th century, women’s fashion changed: waistlines crept up, silhouettes slimmed, and pockets shrunk, sometimes becoming nonexistent. (The last two being absolutely essential for having to deal with the state of women’s pockets.) Women, on the other hand, kept rocking those fanny packs, reportedly stuffing them with all sorts of useful things like perfume, a small-tooth comb, spectacles, a box of bonbons, or a bottle of gin.

But in the 17th century, men’s jackets and pants were adorned with pockets sewn directly into the garment. In medieval times, both men and women had “pockets” that were tied around the waist, hidden underneath clothing, and more akin to highly embellished fanny packs.

While the sheer inconvenience of not being able to keep your belongings in your pocket may seem like a small issue, it is one that women have faced for centuries. We measured the pockets in both men’s and women’s pants in 20 of the US’ most popular blue jeans brands. Afterall, men’s pants pockets are basically the pockets of our dreams.īut, like so many things on the internet, we could find complaints and anecdotes galore but little data illustrating just how inferior women’s pockets really are to men’s. And sure, we could all carry handbags, which is likely what the 8 billion dollar purse industry hopes we’ll do, but not everyone wants to carry a bag.

You don’t have to look far to find Twitter-rants, articles, and videos in which people are either complaining about not having pockets or rejoicing over that rare gem that is the “dress with pockets”. Or worse, the fabric designed to look like a pocket is merely for decoration and doesn’t open at all.įor wearers of women’s clothes, this struggle is so real. There are few things more frustrating than collecting your belongings only to realize that the pockets in your pants are too small to hold them.

Rainfever lensflare studio 6.5