Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1880-11-26
WOmen's Pockets.

One of those most popular journals
which are the organs of feminine
clothing has recently begun to agit-
ate with much earnestness and eIo-
quence in behalf of the rights of wo-
men to have and enjoy pockets-ex-
elusive of overcoat pockets-womsn
has either one solitary pocket or
none at all. The withholding of
pockets from women has undoubted-
ly had its origin in the fact that
among girls of tender years there
has been no apparent desire for
pockets. The boy is eminently .
string consuming animal. In his
sports and occupation he has con-
slant need of strings, and hence he
is properly provided with a pocket
in which to carry kite strings, shoe
strings, top strings and general
strings. The girl never uses string
in any form, and therefore does not
feel the need of pocket. As tho
boy grows to be q man his pockets
increase and expand with constant
use, so that he is finally able to use
ten or fifteen all at once. The girl,
on the other hand growing up with
out pockets, reaches womanhood
without them, and as much as she
may then desire pockets, custom ID
then against the qualification of her
desire. The ono pocket with which
On occasional woman is provided,
and in which she carries her keys,
her handkerchief. her smelling salts,
her pin cushion and q quantity Of
miscellaneous articles, is nothing
more than make-shift. Il has no
precise locality prescribed for IT,
Its owner, although she knows that
she has pocket somewhere beneath.
her skirt, can seldom find it withcAt
prolonged and irritating ssarch.
to'some women direct ncC6ss to, the
| pocket by sA3s s0f = slit n ths dfese
Is denied, III M III q q y sonsifS = i
who wants to get 81 q thimble is com-
PEELED to seek the isolation 81 : corn-
er of room, where she goes through
mysterious and protraoted process
by which her pocket is finally reached
and exhumed. 1t is obvious that
this inconvenient substitute for the
free and open pocket of tho mail sex,
is by no means sufficient to satisfy
the deep wants of the femme nature,
and that its existence is no answer
to the complaint that women aro
virtually pocketless. There is not
only no reason why woman should
be deprived of pockets, hut there is
abundance reason why her pockets
should be even larger and more nu-
merous than those of man. Nature
seems to have designed her to blos-
som into innumerable pockets. A
mans clothing, with the solitary ex-
teption of his coat tails, fits closely
to his person, and affords no room
for really capacious pockets. The
skirts of women may. however, hang
with pockets within and without, and
the capacity of each one may be
three fold that of the largest pants
or coat pocket. In the concealed
pocket she might carry weeks sup
ply of clothing and hair pins, and
he visible pocket might be put to
uses of which the masculine pocket
is totally incapable. Woman is un-
doubtedly made to be pocket wear
ing person. Now that she has awak-
ened to the fact that she is unreason-
ably deprived ofpockets, let us hope
that she will insist upon her rights.
and in a short time a woman with
out pockets will become a, rare as .
pocketless man.