Pockety Women Unite?

Pockets are what women need more of. The women's movement in the past decade has made giant strides in achieving greater social justice for females, but there's a great deal of work yet to be done. And it can't be done without pockets.

It has been commonly thought that men get the best jobs and make the most money and don't have to wash the dinner dishes simply because they're men, that cultural traditions and social conditioning have worked together to give them a special place in the world order.

While there is undoubtedly some truth to this, the fact remains that no one has investigated the role that pockets have played in preventing women from attaining the social status and rights that could and should be theirs.

Consider your average successful executive. How many pockets does he wear to work? Two in the sides of his trousers, two in the back, one on the front of his shirt, three on his suit coat, and one on the inside of the suit coat. Total: nine.

Consider your average woman dressed for office work. If she is wearing a dress or skirt and blouse, she is probably wearing zero pockets, or one or two at the most. The pantsuit, that supposedly liberating outfit, is usually equally pocketless.

Now, while it is always dangerous to talk in general terms, it seems quite safe to say that, on the whole, the men of the world, at any given time, are carrying about a much greater number of pockets than are the women of the world. And it is also quite clear that, on the whole, the men enjoy more power, respect, and wealth than women do.

Everything seems to point to a positive connection between pockets, power, respect, and wealth. Can this be?

An examination of the function of the pocket seems necessary. Pockets are for carrying money, credit cards, identification (including entry to those expensive clubs where people sit around scaring powerful secrets about how to run the world), important messages, pens, keys, combs, and impressive-looking handkerchiefs.

All the equipment essential to running the world. And held close to the body. Easily available. Neatly classified. Pen in the inside coat pocket. Keys in the back left trouser pocket. Efficiency. Order. Confidence.

What does a woman have to match this organization? A purse.

The most hurried examination will show that a purse, however large or important-looking, is no match for a suitful of pockets. If the woman carrying a purse is so lucky as to get an important phone number or market tip from the executive with whom she is lunching, can she write it down? Can she find her pen? Perhaps she can, but it will probably be buried under three old grocery lists, two combs, a checkbook, and a handkerchief, all of which she will have to pile on top of the lunch table before she can find the pen.

Will she ever get another tip from this person of power? Not likely. Now she has lost any psychological advantage she may have had. He may have been impressed with her intelligent discussion of the current economic scene before she opened her handbag, but four minutes later, when she is still digging, like a busy little squirrel, for that pen, he is no longer impressed.

He knows he could have taken his pen in and out of his pocket and written fourteen important messages on the table napkin in the time she is still searching.

What can a pocketless woman do?

Two solutions seem apparent. The women can form a political group for pockets (Pocket Power?) and march on the New York fashion center.

Or, in case that effort fails (and well it might, since it would, by necessity, have to be run by a bunch of pocketless women) another approach remains.

Every man in the country for his next birthday finds himself the lucky recipient of one of those very fashionable men's handbags, and to go with it, one of those no-pocket body shirts.