Why I think the most feminist outfit ever is a flirty, flowing dress, with pockets

These words first appeared in an 1899 New York Times article, titled, “World’s Use Of Pockets: Men’s clothes full of them, while women have but few”.

The fight for pockets in female clothing has been a long one — and a political one at that. Before you go on and accuse me of being irrational and over-dramatic, allow me to explain how pockets serve as a powerful tool of empowerment, or oppression, depending on whether you have them or not. I will not delve into the history (although it is rather interesting). I will instead explain the importance of pockets with some simple facts:

Pockets free up our hands and shoulders.

Men’s pockets are often more functional — that is, spacious enough to hold the essentials, such as cash and identity cards, a phone, perhaps some face tissues — than women’s are.

Most women’s outfits — even pants and jackets — don’t have pockets. When they do, they are aesthetic, not functional.

Carrying heavy handbags has been shown to cause neck and shoulder pain, headaches, backaches, and even aggravate pre-existing arthritis. It’s the load.

Many women don’t carry a lot in their handbags though — just the essentials, just like men.

What I’m trying to say is, pockets are essential — and women have been deprived of them for far too long.

Let me share a recent incident: A few days ago, my partner and I decided to walk to the local grocery store. It was a Sunday evening, and we’d been lounging in our pyjamas all day. It didn’t occur to me to carry a bag. Heck, I didn’t want to. He had his wallet, and all I needed was my phone. A few minutes into the walk, I wanted to stow away my phone. Alas, my comfortable pyjamas didn’t have pockets. Neither did my sweatshirt. His, on the other hand, did. Both of them. Two on each. I had to seek him for my comfort. In that moment, I depended on him to be able to walk freely.

This is a minor incident — but one that adds to the many inconveniences of being a woman in a man’s world.

The late French fashion designer, Christian Dior, whose legacy lives on, described this subtle sexism perfectly: “Men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration.

If at all, if I may add.

In the recent past, though, we have seen a glimmer of victory. Last year, dresses with pockets became all the rage.

As I stocked up my wardrobe with several flowy dresses featuring pockets that were big enough not only for my phone, but also my stash of cash, my ID card, my debit cards, and a lip balm, I began to realise that this is the most feminist outfit ever made.

Here’s how.

In two words, feminism means ‘gender equality’ — a closer analysis reveals that it implies embracing the feminine and the masculine. A flowy dress is a feminine outfit. Pockets, as history has demonstrated, are a symbol of masculinity because they permit mobility and agency, both of which have been restricted to the male for far too long. In combining the two, we offer fashion for women that is both aesthetic and functional, and to many, including myself, comfortable. While wearing a dress with pockets, I don’t have to carry a bag to a coffee date. Or, drinks with friends. Or, a walk around the neighbourhood. Or, a trip to the grocery store. I can navigate the world with the comfort a man takes for granted — while I embrace my femininity.

After all, that’s what feminism is. It is not in banishing the feminine and elevating the masculine in order to be able to get things done, though that’s what many would have us believe.

Consider “power dressing”. The concept originated in the late 1970s and meant that women had to dress a certain way (read: in pantsuits or jackets that “de-emphasised the breasts”) in order to assert authority in professions dominated by men. Some may consider this a feminist move — but doesn’t it ultimately pander to the male standards of attire? True feminist attire would be one that doesn’t de-emphasise any of the female characteristics, yet allows for the movement and comfort that is warranted to men, sartorially speaking.

And that is a pocketed dress.

Recently, I came across a campaign of a soon-to-launch line of kurtas with pockets for the “modern Indian woman”.

I cannot begin to tell you how joyous it made me to think that in the near future, women will be able to adorn Indian attire — and not have to carry a purse. Here’s hoping sarees with pockets are the next gift of fashion!

Also Read: Just too tight: Who decides that a saree is 'female' and a tuxedo is 'male'?