In the late '80s I interviewed a designer of women’s clothes (he was doing a trunk show of a line of what the store called “mid-priced” skirted suits–they were $700, in the late '80s I did not consider that mid-priced, just saying this for the record). He said, “Because women would put things in them, and that would ruin the line.” So I asked him how come men got pockets and put things in them and didn’t ruin the line, and he went into a whole thing about how men’s clothes used more fabric and had a looser fit and men’s clothes were not necessarily designed to show off the shape of the man. So I said something about, “So the primary thing in women’s clothes is to show off the shape of the woman?” And he said basically yes. Or not to hide it. And also, women being generally smaller than men, the pockets would also be generally smaller. But the basic thing was not to hide the woman’s shape. To enhance it.
(I have to say that a woman approximately 6’2" in height and weighing maybe 108 pounds was walking around in his suits and she looked fabulous. During the course of the interview a dumpy normal-sized middle-aged woman came in for her fitting and once in the outfit, she also looked fabulous, much less middle-aged and considerably less dumpy.)
It seemed to me (and still does!) that a clothing designer with enough talent to make clothes that turn a short dumpy woman into a sleek-looking fashion statement ought to be able to incorporate a couple of useful pockets in a garment somewhere or other. But this designer seemed to think there was no demand. Every woman I knew would have bought things with pockets but maybe I knew a bunch of outliers. It’s possible.
Now at that time Chanel did in fact include pockets. It was not a mid-priced line. Even inside breast pockets, although they were small. But certainly large enough to accommodate a small wallet with a bit of cash and your credit cards and driver’s license, if anybody made a small wallet for women.
But the other thing is that designers who make garments also make handbags. If you put in useful pockets maybe women wouldn’t buy your handbags. Of course they don’t want to tank the market for handbags. So those have been turned into fashion statements and necessities, by marketing and the lack of any place else to carry your stuff.
And then there are tennis clothes. For a brief halcyon period it was possible to buy tennis skirts and tennis dresses that had pockets sufficient to hold tennis balls, which in my mind is a completely necessary function of tennis attire. I still have a tennis skirt circa mid-'90s, made by Descent, that can hold three balls, two in the left pocket adn one in the right, and can do it without making me look bulgy. But then the makers of tennis attire decided that an upside-down pocket in the shorts that go under the skirt would be better. It is not better. It’s upside-down! Along with learning the technique of picking a ball up off the court without bending over women now have to learn the technique of getting the ball into and out of the pocket gracefully. And by gracefully I mean with one hand, quickly, without having to lift up the skirt and futz about. And there is still a bulge. I would much prefer to just drop the ball into the pocket, not to mention that as a casual player I put other things into those pockets than tennis balls (like my keys, and my sunglasses if the day is going from sunny to cloudy and back), and these things would absolutely fall out of an upside-down pocket, and so will the ball on occasion. Or women just tuck the balls inside their compression shorts or into their waistband–and yes they look bulgy. And it’s awkward. And who cares if your hips look bigger, on the tennis court?
So every woman I play tennis with either sews on a patch pocket or two, or takes the new $70 tennis skirt to a seamstress/tailor and pays another $50 to get pockets put into it.
This is not reasonable. If I could find a ready-to-wear tennis outfit with pockets I would buy it, and I have looked. They just aren’t there. Why not? Tenniswear makers don’t even have the excuse of not wanting to tank their handbag business.