Today, even in the outdoor industry, where apparel tends to trend more toward function than fashion, I have a difficult time finding decent pants pockets. But again, as fashion evolved and designs slimmed, pockets messed with the silhouettes and started to shrink and disappear. Pants pockets ultimately suffered the same fate: when women started wearing pants more regularly, around World War II, the focus was initially on their function, so pockets were large and practical. Pockets became almost politicized, as some women fought for “pocket equality” while fashion trends pushed reticules and purses. But while integrated pockets on men’s apparel were perfected, according to Vox, dressmakers put them in weird, impractical places, like near the hem of the skirt. The Workman’s Guide, published in 1838, contained sewing patterns for on-seam pockets. By the 19th century, women’s clothing had started to integrate pockets that were built into their garments, much like today. This is because pockets would ruin the silhouette of the dress, according to the Victoria and Albert Museum, an art and design museum in London. Toward the end of the 1700s, women’s storage options shifted from pockets to reticules or small purses. As dresses became more formfitting, it became harder to conceal bulky pockets underneath them. Over time women’s pockets changed with evolving fashion. Not only did women’s pockets start out much bigger than they are now, they also started out more spacious than what men’s clothing had to offer. They contained the following items: a silver purse, a pair of gloves, a ring, a toothpick case, a handkerchief, a key, and a thimble. In the beginning of the book, the authors share a 1725 classified ad from a London newspaper that offers a reward for the return of a pair of lost or stolen pockets. And each woman had her own system for organizing small items inside her pockets. Women would make their own pockets or make them as gifts to give to friends. They were also beautiful and personalized with embroidery and embellishments, much like purses are today. These pockets were huge they were often large enough to carry snacks like oranges and apples. “There are lots of complaints today about women’s pockets being inferior, but there were no complaints when women had those pockets,” Fennetaux says. They would access these pockets (which were often made in pairs, much like we have two hip pockets today) through slits in the outer layer of their dress. ![]() I called Ariane Fennetaux, who coauthored The Pocket: A Hidden History of Women’s Lives, 1660–1900with Barbara Burman. As it turns out, storage previously wasn’t sewn into clothing women would wear pockets on a belt around their waist, usually beneath their skirts-sort of like a stealth fanny pack. So where did things go wrong? How did our hiking, climbing, and biking apparel end up with such subpar storage? It seemed like pockets were trending toward bigger-or at least toward existing.īut then I dug into the history of how we got to where we are today. When I started writing about outdoor gear as a trade-news editor in 2015, I was introduced to hiking pants, and casual, stretchy slacks with (somewhat) fashionable cargo pockets, and hiking skirts and dresses that could store a Kindle. Even the most functional pants-those that advertise hip and thigh cargo pockets and hidden zippered compartments-typically fail to comfortably provide the kind of pocket space that comes standard on men’s clothing.įor a while, I thought things were getting better. If you’ve ever tried to stash your phone while hiking or running, chances are you’ve been more than slightly annoyed with the lack of real estate that our pants, shorts, and dresses generally afford. Everyone who wears women’s clothing knows: our pockets suck.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |