Pockets Might Be Shrinking, Again
Here’s what that says about today’s political climate.
When I was growing up, I used to relish any opportunity I had to watch my mom get ready for work. A cutting blazer, a sterling silver brooch, a patent shoe, a spritz of perfume; she metamorphosed from my mom, the gentle woman who often woke up before the sun to make us Crêpes Suzette before school, to my mom, the principal architect who wears hardhats on job sites and possesses intimate knowledge about hospital helipads. She has always worked with mostly men and so her clothing became part of the veil between one world and the next.
I learned early that our clothing “is the most political decision we make every day” — a quote from Indigenous designer Sage Paul. (You should watch her whole TED Talk.)
The recent discourse around “quiet luxury” is proof enough: The traditional, modest, and restrained “old money” mania wasn’t only a bridal aesthetic devoured by Sofia Richie, but a harbinger of conservative sentiments. As @aghostinmypocket posted on “X” back in November: “Fashion trends predict future political sentiments.” The signs were there.
Which brings me here, to pockets.
About eight years ago, amid the girl-boss era of #PantsuitNation and the surge of Trump 1.0, I became obsessed with women’s pockets — or the lack thereof. There was a lot of chatter about the politics of pockets at that time: a 2016 Racked (RIP) package here, a 2018 “Articles of Interest” episode there.
All pointed to the same thesis, which was that, historically, pockets are a complicated issue. Designers (men) believed pockets would disrupt the clothing silhouette; retailers (men) wanted to sell handbags; societal norms (set by men) instated that women remain at home, where there was no need to carry stuff on you. (You can learn more about pockets’ long and often complicated history via the Racked or “Articles of Interest” resources I linked above; they do a better job explaining it than I ever could.)
The suffragette movement, in particular, made pockets a political symbol. “Man’s pockets have developed, improved, and increased with the advances of civilization,” reads a 1899 New York Times article. “Woman is actually retrograding — losing ground and pockets.”
So in recent months, I’ve been thinking a lot about whether pockets are just as potent a forewarning of rising conservatism as that of something like “trad wives” or “cottagecore.”
Honestly, yes, they are. And here’s why.