Pocketed Oppression: Why Women Aren’t Allowed to Have Pockets

Alright ladies, I’m talking to you. Picture this with me: it’s time for a new pair of jeans. You spot the most perfect dark-wash pair of jeans you ever did see from afar, and, as you get closer and closer, your heart drops. They’re seemingly perfect, aside from a single tragic flaw: NO POCKETS. Ah, yes, right where the pockets should be, there is a pathetic, lazy yellow thread in its place, only to create the mere illusion of a pocket. How does this make for a structurally sound piece of clothing? And why are women robbed of pockets but not men? Hold on to your pocketless pants, because boy do I have a theory for you.

Women aren’t allowed to have pockets because they are expected to maintain an unrealistic body image, and pockets would hinder this process. Think about it: a standard pair of male jeans can fit the local butcher in the right pocket, a soft-serve ice cream machine in the left, and two large butter buns in the rear pockets. If WOMEN had this pocket availability, it would be impossible to maintain the idealized body shape, thus shattering all norms.

Women are pocketless in order to preserve the idea that they should have less money than men. Since their pants are pocket deficient, they are forced to put their belongings in purses. This puts money into the pockets of the purse industry, but takes money out of the pockets of women (or lack thereof). Also, carrying purses makes women victims of theft. Therefore, it can be correctly deduced that theft is a direct result of the lack of pockets in women’s clothing.

So what’s the answer to all of this? I refuse to stand idly by while men walk around with pocket privilege. Soon enough, women are going to be forced to wear cargo pants and fanny packs, and that is outright atrocious. My parents did not come to this country to have their daughter wear such despicable clothing, so let us spread this pocket manifesto and inform the public.