Is Pocket in Her Suit a Lot to Ask? Well, Yes
Dear Fashion Police: Why can’t the makers of women’s jackets (often a part of my business attire) create inside pockets like the ones found in men’s jackets? They are sometimes found in the very expensive jackets but never in the price range I can afford. But price shouldn’t be an excuse, because even the cheapest of men’s jackets has them. I find it a nuisance to have to carry pens and the like in my hand because there is no place for them in my jacket. I’ve even had a tailor create them in my favorite suits, and I shouldn’t have to do that!
--DOESN’T SUIT ME
Dear Suit: We’re a nut for pockets too, but we’re not convinced that the majority of women pine for them on the inside of their jackets. We’ve had a couple of vintage men’s jackets and, out of curiosity, put stuff in the pockets to see how it feels. In a word, ouch.
It’s an anatomical thing, and we don’t think we have to go much further than that. Maggie Murray, director of the new museum at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles, put it this way: “Putting things in an inside pocket would present lumps. What would a woman put in that pocket? A notebook? That would make a great big lump in her clothing.”
There’s another reason they don’t exist: Women have handbags, and even though you may not want to schlep one to a meeting across the office, the assumption is that you have a place for pens, keys, your wallet, etc.
Said Murray, “Women have been used to carrying things around in a bag for hundreds of years. I can understand wanting a pocket, I don’t want to drag stuff around, but I wouldn’t start tucking objects in there.”
Other than having a tailor put pockets in, we recommend buying skirts and pants with pockets, and stowing your stuff there. Fanny packs are fashion felonies, so don’t even think about them. You might want to get a very small purse in which you can tuck essentials, instead of lugging some enormous tote to and fro.
*
Dear Fashion Police: Could you please explain to me the insanity of modern sizing? I know that a size 4 nowadays used to be a size 8, so I guess a 0 used to be a 4? And what happens if the 0s are too big? Is there such a thing as a minus-2?
--SIZE WISE
Dear Wise: Women’s clothing sizes are indeed wacky. Most women have between two and four sizes in their closet--not because of any weight loss or gain, but because one designer’s 10 is another’s 12. Designers and manufacturers have their own fit models and make their patterns accordingly. Some may even add an inch or two above those measurements. While most stay within reasonable boundaries, there is still a lot of variation.
There is no set size standard for the industry--although there was, up until the 1980s. That’s when the National Bureau of Standards decided to let the garment industry decide sizing on its own.
And yes, it’s true, over the years sizes have expanded. If you look at clothing patterns from the 1950s, a size 14 meant a 32-inch bust, a 26-inch waist and 35-inch hips. Today’s patterns list size 14 as having a 36-inch bust, a 28-inch waist and 38-inch hips. Ready-to-wear takes it even beyond that.
Why this happened is pretty simple to figure out--all you have to do is look around you. People have gotten bigger. Yet no one wants to admit they’ve gotten bigger.
It’s also safe to say that most women would rather buy size-8 pants than size-12 pants. The psychology isn’t difficult to figure out: We’re a weight-conscious society that says thin is good and heavy is bad.
Size 0 is the smallest misses’ size, so no, there is no minus-2. But let’s not hate our size-0 sisters just because they happen to be tiny. We can’t help our DNA.
Write to Fashion Police, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053, fax to (213) 237-4888, or send e-mail to socalliving@latimes.com.
