Cookie banner

This site uses cookies. Select "Block all non-essential cookies" to only allow cookies necessary to display content and enable core site features. Select "Accept all cookies" to also personalize your experience on the site with ads and partner content tailored to your interests, and to allow us to measure the effectiveness of our service.

To learn more, review our Cookie Policy, Privacy Notice and Terms of Use.

or
clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

The Sexist History of Pockets

Your daily reminder to never accept a pocketless pant.

Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.

There's a reason why the white pantsuit Hillary Clinton wore to accept the Democratic presidential nomination — a perfect choice, by the way, for its connection to the suffragette movement — didn't have pockets: womenswear designers have long omitted them.

From the 17th century onwards, the difference between men and women's clothing has been clear: men's are designed for utility; women's for beauty. The history of pockets isn't only sexist, it's political.

Read more about it here, and for the latest in Racked video, check out our Facebook page.