[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

Where the f*&k are my pockets?! When did we decide women’s clothing doesn’t need pockets anymore? When trying to leave La Piazza safely while balancing a coffee, wallet, pizza, and a phone the size of my face, the utility of some nice deep pockets is sorely missed.

The depth of pockets might not seem like a big deal, but let’s put it into perspective, the lack of pockets in women’s clothing is immobilizing in a metaphorical and literal sense. Jeans with fake pockets or pockets that are microscopic in size limit how women go about their daily routines. Women are required to add purses or handbags to their non-essential expenses. Lugging a purse around can be a major annoyance and slows the pace that a hands-free approach would allow. It’s not fun to have to bring a purse to the club, or on a packed bus, or when you’re going to Canada’s Wonderland for the day and have to make sure you put your purse in a cubby before getting on a ride. The fashion industry limits women on a daily basis by withholding functionality.

The more impractical the clothing design is, the higher the fashion. The development of women’s fashion promotes tight and revealing looks, showing all the nooks and crannies to be the desirable norm. The underlying idea is to show how slender a woman can truly be and this has justified eliminating the utility of pockets. Fatphobia has driven female fashion to make any practicality obsolete. Fashion will go to any end to prevent extra folds in fabric that might make a lady have unflattering bulges. Small pockets are one thing, but it is baffling to look down and realize after you purchased a pair of pants that the pockets are sewn shut for no apparent reason, other than for aesthetic purposes. You would think the clothing we wear would adapt to the technology that we acquire. It looks ridiculous when a giant iPhone 6 Plus is sticking halfway out of your miniscule front jean pocket.

When trying to leave La Piazza safely while balancing a coffee, wallet, pizza, and a phone the size of my face, the utility of some nice deep pockets is sorely missed.

It shouldn’t be so absurd to have functioning pockets while maintaining fashion appeal. Wouldn’t it be more fashion forward to be able to combine a hot new look with practical pockets? Is it that complex of an idea? The simplicity of a pocket should not be seen as preventing women from looking their best. It may be in the distant future before any large changes are made, but hopefully the women’s fashion industry can take baby steps to implement practical clothing. No one should have to put their phones in their bras as a go-to. Let’s take a stand against gender-coded clothing and put the utility back into our pants.

Photo Credit: Jon White/ Photo Editor

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Julie Huff
The Silhouette

My friends and I have long claimed that a woman’s wardrobe is not complete without one pair of Lululemon pants and a scuba hoodie. I have spent most Tuesday mornings scanning Lululemon Athletica’s website for their weekly product uploads and Sunday nights scouring the “We Made Too Much” section (that’s Lulu’s fancy way of saying “on sale”). But over the past year, my Lulu addiction has slowly diminished.

Simply put, their clothes are not what they used to be. Lululemon’s signature luon fabric and Groove pants are what made them famous, yet customers have lately been experiencing sheerness with their once-beloved pants. Last March, Lululemon was forced to pull thousands of Wunder Unders and Groove pants off their shelves, causing stocks to take a “downward dog” and CEO Christine Day to step down (although she will not leave until they find a replacement). But it is not only women who find that Lulu leaves much to be desired. Even men have noticed a quality decline in the Game On boxer briefs and five-year basic Tees (yes, I read the men’s reviews, too).

What has been the cause of this mishap? Some suggest that Lulu has gotten too big for its britches. Founded by Chip Wilson in 1998 and based out of Vancouver, B.C., Lululemon Athletica was celebrated for being an all-Canadian company. But Lulu has begun to outsource. Although the tags on their clothes boast that they are designed in Vancouver, they also state that they are actually made in Vietnam, China, and other parts of Asia. While outsourcing is not necessarily the reason why Lulu’s quality has declined, it certainly seems to be a contributing factor. Lulu is blamed for having become too greedy. They’re using cheaper fabrics, yet their prices continue to rise.

Last week, Lulu experienced yet another setback. On Nov. 5, Bloomberg TV interviewed Wilson in an attempt to respond to the latest issue with the luon pant: pilling. Women claim that their pants pill between the thighs after only a few uses and washes. This seems to be an issue only with pants that have been made recently, as women say that their ten-year-old luon pants show little signs of wear. But it is not this design flaw that has taken center stage. Instead, it is Wilson’s response to the latest scandal that has incited a roar of media backlash. When Wilson was asked why the pants are pilling, he replied:

“Quite frankly, some women’s bodies just actually don’t work for [the pants]. It’s really about the rubbing of the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time and how much they use it.”

Wilson implies that Lululemon is not made for “plus-sized” women. While this may not be so, Lululemon Athletica is indeed made for athletes, and not all athletes have a gap between their thighs. Wilson’s remarks suggest that only thin women are athletic, therefore only thin women can wear Lululemon. Instead of promoting a healthy lifestyle, Wilson employs the image of a thin woman to endorse his company.

For some women, being fit does mean a slim body type. But the fact is that healthy and athletic body types come in all shapes and sizes. Women who are “plus-sized” (what Lulu considers size 14 and up) can be equally athletic as women who are, say, a size 4. As a company who claims that it endorses health, fitness and wellbeing, Lululemon should exemplify this definition through a myriad of body types instead of casting only one image as a representation of their company. Wilson has been accused of “fat shaming” women. After all, what kind of message does Lululemon convey by suggesting that only thin women are athletic and healthy?

After being confronted by the media, Wilson addressed his interview with Bloomberg and “apologized.” He stated:

“I’m sad for the flagyl 250mg repercussions of my actions, I’m sad for the people of Lululemon who I care so much about that have really had to face the brunt of my actions. I take responsibility for all that has occurred, and the impact it has had on you.”

But Wilson’s “apology” leaves me bereft. He’s not apologizing to his customers or the public, but rather apologizing to his employees. Wilson needs to stop blaming women for Lululemon’s declining quality and instead take responsibility. Perhaps he should read Lulu’s manifesto and pay specific attention to these words: “The world moves at such a rapid rate that waiting to implement changes will leave you two steps behind. Do it now, do it now, do it now!” Yes, Lululemon. Improve the quality of your product now. Do it before customers become so frustrated that they leave.

Although customers’ complaints prove that women are sorely disappointed with Lululemon’s quality decline, they are not ready to give up on the yoga-inspired company. Indeed, Lulu has a cult-like following and has inspired a “Lululemon culture” that seems to be aimed toward the elite. Lululemon is a status symbol. Their high prices and high quality products once attracted certain “elite” customers, and while they still do, Lulu needs to be careful because their products don’t seem to be so high quality anymore. The fact that customers have cried out for Lulu to improve their product instead of just walking away from stores highlights how well loved the company is. Lululemon needs to listen to their customers’ plea.

My final words: The fact that Lululemon has not maintained the quality of their clothing is a bad reflection of the company, but the fact that customers keep going back despite their disappointment is a bad reflection of the customers. Lulu seems to be unwilling to adjust their clothing to fit a more diverse group of women, but women shouldn’t try to change their bodies to fit a certain type of clothing. Women need to find clothes that fit them and make them feel good. Lululemon Athletica was great before. They can be great again. But women shouldn’t have to wait around for them to change. Move on, shop around, and try something new.