Sometimes history hands you two pieces of evidence so ridiculous that you begin to question everything you've ever been taught. This week, I stumbled across two old newspaper clippings. The first was a page of help wanted ads from the mid-1800s. Nearly every listing contained the same requirement: Protestant only.

Need a cook? Protestant.

Need a chambermaid? Protestant.

Need someone to wrangle three children and spend the summer in the country? Better be Protestant.

Apparently, if you were Catholic, Jewish, or happened to worship squirrels, you were out of luck.

It wasn't just one ad, either. It was almost every ad on the page. Employers seemed less interested in whether you could cook a roast or keep children alive than whether you attended the right church on Sunday. References, experience, honesty, and hard work all came second to your denomination. It made me wonder if employers ever turned away the world's greatest cook simply because she crossed herself the wrong way. Imagine trying that today.

"Wanted: Barista. Must enjoy oat milk, possess latte art skills, and be a Capricorn." The Human Resources department would spontaneously combust.

The second clipping was even better. It was from 1914 and was titled, "Why We Oppose Pockets for Women." I assumed it was satire. It wasn't.

The arguments were magnificent.

"Because pockets are not a natural right."

I had no idea pockets were listed somewhere between freedom of speech and indoor plumbing.

Then came this masterpiece: "Because the great majority of women do not want pockets. If they did, they would have them."

That's some Olympic-level circular reasoning. By that logic, if I wanted a Ferrari, I'd already own one.

Another reason warned that pockets would create marital conflict because husbands and wives would argue over whose pockets should be filled. I'm fascinated by this concern. Apparently, the collapse of civilization hinged on someone saying, "Honey, can you hold my spectacles?"

There was also the fear that women would carry things.

Well... yes.

That's literally the purpose of pockets.

Then came my favorite argument: "Because men carry tobacco, pipes, whiskey flasks, chewing gum, and compromising letters in their pockets. We see no reason to suppose women would use them more wisely."

That one deserves an award.

Notice the logic here. Men carry whiskey and incriminating love letters. Therefore, women can't be trusted with chapstick. I'm no historian, but I suspect someone had just been caught with one of those compromising letters. The final argument simply declared, "Men are men and women are women." Case closed. No further explanation required. That's the debating equivalent of saying, "Because I said so."

Reading these clippings made me wonder what future generations will laugh at when they examine us. Will they find advertisements that say, "Must have five years of experience for an entry-level position"? Will they discover instruction manuals explaining why every electronic gadget now requires seventeen passwords, facial recognition, a text message, an authenticator app, and a blood sample before it will turn on?

Will they marvel that we willingly carried tiny computers in our pockets, assuming our clothes actually had pockets? Maybe they'll wonder why refrigerators can send emails while toasters still burn one side of the bread.

History has a funny way of revealing that intelligent people can sincerely believe utterly ridiculous things. After all, the people who opposed women's pockets undoubtedly considered themselves perfectly sensible. They probably went home every evening convinced they had protected civilization from the terrible danger of women carrying their own handkerchiefs.

The good news is that we've made progress. Women now have pockets. Well... sort of. Have you ever noticed that men's jeans can hold a wallet, phone, keys, sunglasses, snacks, jumper cables, and possibly a small badger? Women's jeans can barely accommodate a stick of gum before everything starts poking out like a jack-in-the-box. Maybe that's the real conspiracy. Maybe the anti-pocket committee never disappeared. Maybe they simply infiltrated the fashion industry.

After all, a pocket that won't hold a phone isn't a pocket. It's emotional support stitching.