My antifeminist Handbag

pockets, handbags, & how inequality learned to dress itself

This was supposed to be a post about history and how it empowers you.
But while researching, the feminist in me got angry—and that anger led me here.

Anyway, let’s get started.

---

Story Time!

The farthest Susan could remember about the women in her ancestry was 18^th century Madeleine Fournier, her great-great-maternal grandmother. She showed the journalist the only two pictures of her that had survived, all through those years.

In one, Madeleine had pockets tied around her waist. In the other—taken later—she wore a smooth Empire-line dress, with a small reticule awkwardly clutched in her hand.

Madeleine was a Parisian dressmaker’s wife, widowed in her thirties. The pockets had disappeared because fashion decided they ruined the silhouette. She adjusted.

Then came her daughter, Charlotte Whitefield, married at nineteen to a London-based civil clerk in the Admiralty. She grew up believing pockets were inelegant. She owned an assorted collection of handbags -- elegant, but reassuringly small, as if careful not to take up space, more than required.

Charlotte’s daughter, Eleanor Bennett, was the rebellious suffragette. A late 19^th century school teacher who dressed for convenience. Chose skirts that could hold the deepest hidden sewn-in pockets. These pockets were usually stuffed with pamphlets for protest. Since handbags could be checked, confiscated so they were a liability.

She never thought she would marry, but she fell in love with a radical journalist who was reporting on a protest she was in. They had one daughter: Vivienne.

“She was a peace-loving homemaker, a war bride with quiet strength,” Susan said, showing her picture.
“Mum often told me how Granny’s protesting destabilized her childhood. Even though she admired her, all she wanted was to settle down, to not argue, and just agree for once. Granny never approved of her fashion choices.”

The journalist noticed Vivienne standing in front of the Eiffel Tower, wearing a lean cinched-waist, full-skirt silhouette. The handbag she carried was an elegant Louis Vuitton Susan had gifted her.

Then there was Susan Clarke herself.
A working mother of two. A permanently tired paralegal who had fake pocket jeans, so she carried a large handbag filled with everything she could ever need. It was a purely logistical choice.

She adjusted the weight on her shoulder. She knew complaining and protesting wouldn’t lead her anywhere.

Next, the journalist spoke to Freya Reed (née Clarke).

He got an uncomplicated vibe from her, mostly because the capitalists had her confused to the point she’d stopped caring. Fashion, to her, was how she expressed herself. Nothing more than a style statement. She genuinely believed patriarchy was an issue her mother’s generation had already solved.

Women in the workplace were a normal sight and the society was (somewhat) inclusive. Problems in her life (like when her boss promoted her male colleague over her) felt personal, not systemic.

And finally, there was Iris Reed.

A 21^st century Parisian social media manager at a fashion magazine. She grew up online, watching videos comparing men’s pockets to women’s. Eventually became a radical feminist TikTok influencer making viral content under #WeWantPockets

“She owns a crossbody bag she insists is for convenience, not surrender.
Celebrates dresses with pockets like minor revolutions,” the journalist writes.

“She kept her maiden name, after marriage.
She is 5 months pregnant now, and they found out it’s a daughter.
She’s already sewing pockets into the dungarees she bought for her.”

This is fiction, yes.
But the references are very real.

So are the expectations of the society to make women AND their clothing bend to the whim of patriarchal agendas.

Capitalism, of course, always benefits.

Where are we now?

Its 2025. Women’s clothing still lacks spacious pockets. A woman without a handbag is still considered incomplete.

History gave women pockets when they were needed as workers, during world wars, and took them away as soon as they weren’t. Even the most powerful woman in the colonialized world, Queen Elizabeth II, was rarely seen without a handbag. She used it as a symbolic silent communication tool. But it quietly showed how even power didn’t translate to hands-free dressing in women’s fashion.

This isn’t about making handbags evil.

But look at the nature of fashion for women. Every single accessory – pointed heels, body-hugging dresses, tiny purses - consistently makes them more ornamental (a show piece, if you will) and less mobile.

It screams discomfort → helplessness → dependency !!

And all this while what did men use? Big-pocketed comfort clothing, sturdy shoes and a POCKET-SIZED wallet to keep ALL their belongings

while women were stuck carrying a big, inconvenient handbag with makeup, keys, snacks, tissues, and everyone else’s responsibilities.

This made me furious.

---

But then I look around.

Women today are finally becoming sure of themselves. Handbag or no handbag; they listen to themselves. Sneakers with miniskirts, big totes that take up space are a sensation.

And this, more than anything, stayed with me. Feminism has taken on a new, more sustainable shape.

Gen Z women today post photos of their boyfriends: adorable (pookie🎀) men holding their purses, a scrunchie around their wrist. And NO, they don’t consider themselves less masculine.

(hahaha patriarchy—the joke’s on you👀)

Of course their parents would disagree but that’s just how generational upbringings work.

And for the first time, I feel hopeful enough to say this debate might actually be nearing its end. I love that I might be able to teach my kids the same notions of gender equality that I believe in, instead of disapproving of their fashion choices or how they choose to express themselves.

There’s still a lot of work to do—but we’re getting stronger as a community, more aware and supportive, healing together🩷

---