Imagine walking down the aisle and feeling the buzz of your phone vibrating. Imagine no more as wedding dresses now come with pockets. No longer limited to just bouquets, brides now have ample space to carry loose change and keys to the alter.
It seems so unremarkable, especially as if there's a groom he'll likely have not just trouser, but an inside blazer pocket in his suit. Yet, the it was The Times today that noted there is an increase of wedding gowns with the pockets. ‘While in the old days it would have been considered bad mannered, now, a bride can stand in a £6,000 dress, hands in pockets’, Maria Yiammikaris, the co-owner of bridal boutique Mirror Mirror Couture told the paper, ‘Society has changed and everything’s got a lot more casual’.
No doubt, the pocket is political. Though a recent study by the American website The Pudding revealed that women’s jeans pockets were smaller (by 48 per cent) and narrower (by 6.5 per cent) than men’s, it’s long been known that the humble adornment is a gendered matter. Some argue women’s hands are smaller or that women prefer handbags. But, this is obviously wrong.
At the Chanel spring Couture show, women unburdened by the swing of a chain handbag as their hands were occupied by pockets. But, this was abnormal as so often women’s outfits are designed to skim the form, to fall flat, which means pockets are out of the question. Just ask Hilary Clinton who famously wears suits that omit this singular detail. In 1954, Christian Dior summed it up when he said: ‘Men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration.’ This idea of who deserves pockets has long haunted women’s fashion. It’s a feminist issue, one that symbolizes the concept of being merely the ‘fairer’ sex.
The addition of the pocket onto a bridal gown may seem like a designer attempting to be different, but perhaps this is a watershed moment.