I am putting out a call to all practical women. It’s time to boycott pants without pockets.
It’s our own faults, really. At least in part. Pants pockets sit on our stomachs, hips and butts, exactly where we don’t want an additional layer or two of fabric.
So we seek pants without pockets, because we think they look better, make us appear more sleek and trim.
Or we take pants into the dressing room, not realizing they are pocketless. Once we get them on and we like them, we may notice that they don’t have pockets but by that time we are sold on how they fit or flatter. We think, “I can do without pockets” and buy them anyway. We settle.
Then the first time we wear them in everyday life, we realize our error.
Sure, we can do without pockets when we are standing in a dressing room looking in a mirror for five minutes. But when we’re at work and need a place to put our cell phone as we’re balancing a briefcase, a laptop and a cup of coffee while unlocking the office door, pockets are more important.
Or if we’re out with the kids and need to stash a pacifier while we pluck a baby out of the stroller.
I suppose the trouser industry, in addition to counting on our vanity, assumes we have other places to store such items. Our bras, maybe? Or a purse?
Well, I don’t know about you, but my iPhone does not fit in my bra. And who wants to be constantly lugging a purse around. Sometimes I’d like to run to the restroom, taking my keys but leaving my purse in the office.
And men shouldn’t take pockets for granted either. Pant makers have yet to eliminate male pockets, but it could be coming.
The “After A Fashion” column by Patricia McLaughlin in today’s paper (I couldn’t find it online so I can’t link to it) says that over the years the companies that make pants have started using cheaper material and making pockets smaller in order to save money.
“So suppose you lop off the pocket tops that would’ve been sewn into the waistband, cut the pocket bags considerably shallower, and make them out of flimsy cheesecloth instead of serviceable twill. You can save as much as $3 or $4 on each pair. Sell a million pairs of pants and that’s $3 million or $4 million you get to keep instead of paying to some fabric supplier.”
Just imagine how much money they’d save if the left off the pockets altogether.
Women have made it easy for them, we’ve been convinced we look better without pockets and we want to be pretty, so we haven’t complained.
It will be more difficult to get rid of men’s pockets, but profits are profits so watch out.
We all need to stop this insanity. Women need to refuse to put our looks over practicalities. Refuse to stuff keys into our bras or be saddled with a purse every time we leave the house.
And men need to hold on to their pockets with both hands.
This is America, damn it. We demand pockets.