Hello, In Our Time listeners.
What an honour it is to be dropping into your feed while Misha Glennie takes a well-earned summer break.
I'm Alice Loxton.
And I'm Ben Henderson.
And we're delighted to be able to tell you about our new history podcast, which we hope you'll like.
It's called Here for the History, and each episode we find out how stories from the past have shaped our lives in the present.
I want to start our chat today with a famous quote, which has been slightly altered.
You might recognise parts of it.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of a good dress is in want of a pocket.
Well, that does sound vaguely reminiscent of Jane Austen, does it?
That's right.
This is loosely based on the opening lines of Pride and Prejudice, her most famous novel.
And this week we're looking at pockets, which is a big topic at the moment.
You see a lot of people discussing it on social media.
There's all sorts of memes, viral songs, articles.
And the big question is...
Why do women's clothes these days not tend to have pockets, whereas men's clothes are full of pockets?
I mean, if you think about a suit, there's pockets in the trousers, there's loads of pockets on the inner lining of the jacket.
I think a lot of men might come to this from the experience of having to carry your girlfriend's stuff, their keys.
If they don't have a handbag on them, they're pretty stuffed, aren't they?
Well, there we go.
And I think it's kind of inconceivable for me to leave the house without a bag, even just to carry a phone or keys.
Most of my coats, I wouldn't say, have a proper pocket.
And if they do, it's tiny.
I mean, this jacket I'm wearing now has these tiny pockets in the side, but there's absolutely nowhere you'd want to keep valuables in there.
And there's no...
Pocket on the inside at all.
Girls come up with ingenious ways of looking after their belongings.
I've heard some people do use their bra, but that's just a rumour.
Now, even when there are pockets put into women's clothes, they're always much smaller.
So they did a survey in 2018 which showed that women's pockets were 48% smaller than men's.
And 90% of women's pockets you can't even fit a hand in.
The case of the jacket I'm currently wearing.
Oh, you can't fit your hand in there?
No.
I mean, that seems totally pointless.
So you can just wiggle your finger in there.
That's bananas.
Well, maybe.
It's just for show, I suppose.
Now, though this might all seem quite trivial, a trivial aspect of today's world, it's actually steeped in history.
And we will be diving into that history today.
We will be unpicking the seam of the pocket, if you like, and really asking why do men and women
Have such a different pocket experience over the centuries.
How is it that men have loads of pockets today and women just really don't have any?
We'll be looking at some quite surprising links to ancient Greece, to the ideals of the French Revolution, to fabulous regency dresses and the super-pocketed suffragettes.
So it's a complicated, wide-ranging topic.
There's lots of ways you could look at this, but this is just my take on a few of the stories from that history that I hope shine a light on the struggle that women have faced to get pocket parity.
Gosh, well, I'm looking forward to it, Alice.
Sounds fascinating.
Welcome to Here for the History from BBC Sounds.
We're the new show who sheds light on the origins of the stereotypes, traditions and customs all around us.
Today, Alice, as you've heard, is taking us through a potted history of pockets.
I'm Ben Henderson.
I'm Alice Loxton.
And we're here for the history.
Tatooine, duck-sized pockets.
So Ben, the first point to make is that at points in the past, men and women have both had pockets.
Okay.
And even for women, these could be pretty big pockets, they could be pretty roomy, so you might be able to fit a book in, you could put your lunch in there, sewing kits, writing tools.
And I'd like to start with a little story which illustrates this quite well, I think.
So we're in the year 1777.
It's the time of King George III.
So in terms of TV dramas, people might know about the spin-off from Bridgerton, Queen Charlotte, Poldark.
Oh, I'm a big fan.
Are you?
There we go.
Poldark fan here.
Outlander is another one.
And we're in the beautiful county of Worcestershire.
Oh, yeah.
OK, so this is a rural county, southwest of Birmingham kind of area.
So think about orchards and arable fields.
But also, this is a real time of change and growth.
They're building the canal network.
They're linking up the factories, that sort of thing.
And there is a woman who lives in Worcestershire in this period who I'd like to introduce you to.
She's called Jane Griffith.
And she is recorded in the history books as a woman of bad character.
Scandalous.
Yeah, whatever that means, which I actually think sounds daring, sounds quite fun, perhaps.
Yeah.
And one day she's walking through the countryside and she sees some ducks.
Jane, perhaps this is a show of her bad character, thinks, I will take some of those ducks with me home.
Fair play.
And in what I think is quite an impressive manoeuvre, she actually manages to pick two ducks up.
Maybe ducks in the past were just a bit more tame than they are today.
But where do you think she puts these stolen ducks?
Can you hazard a guess?
Don't tell me it's in her pocket.
It is in her pocket.
Gosh, well, that is absolutely quackers.
Thank you.
So there we go.
But Jane Griffith has her ducks in each pocket and she scarpers.
Unfortunately, she doesn't get away with it.
She's caught and she's brought to trial over this.
But it is a fascinating insight into the women's pockets in the past because, of course, they must have had to be pretty roomy to fit a duck in each of them.
Hmm.
And I actually came across this story and all sorts of other great facts in a book published recently called The Pocket, A Hidden History of Women's Lives, written by historians Barbara Berman and Ariane Fenoteau.
Interesting.
So are Jane's pockets the same kind of pockets we have today?
Because, you know, I kind of doubt that I'd be able to get a couple of ducks in my little back pocket.
Even in your jeans pocket there.
OK, that's a good question.
So Jane Griffith...
Hid the ducks in something called a tie-on pocket.
And to us, this is essentially a little pouch, usually a teardrop shape.
It would be tied around your waist and worn under the skirt.
So you might have a pouch on each hip
Two of them, and there would be a slit in the skirt so you could reach through the skirt and put your hand into the pouch, which is known as a tie-on pocket.
Oh, I see, yeah.
OK, so that's the kind of pocket that Jane was hiding her ducks in.
And these were often beautifully made, perhaps embroidered.
But the key point here is that because they're under the skirt, they are seen as something that's quite intimate, something that's hidden, only known to the wearer.
Maybe it's the kind of thing that you would only see if you were a lover.
And actually historians have even likened them to lingerie.
Ooh.
Well, that sounds very scandalous.
Yeah, so pockets were quite saucy at this point.
Not the kind of thing you want to drop out or, you know, your ducks will fall out everywhere.
Exactly.
Disastrous stuff.
Exactly, yeah.
You wouldn't want your granny to see.
Okay, so in the 1770s then, women have these kind of duck-sized pouches.
So what are men wearing then?
Do they have the same thing?
Okay, well, let's rewind a little bit here.
So in the medieval period, both men and women had these long pouches.
They would be tied around the waist, outside your clothing, maybe kind of swinging about by your knees.
Okay.
And as we move into the 1500s, the Tudor period, that's the time of Henry VIII.
Yeah.
Things begin to change.
For men and women, the pocket goes from outside the clothing to within the clothing, but the way that that happens is very different for men and for women.
And we talked to a pocket historian, Hannah Carlson, who wrote this wonderfully expansive book, Pockets, an intimate history of how we keep things close.
Rather wonderful title.
And she looks at Henry VIII as a kind of snapshot.
Where we see in the wardrobe accounts in the 1540s, we first see the term pocket, evidence of the sewn-in pocket.
So that's quite a key marker in time.
So Henry VIII could be a kind of pioneer, I suppose, of the pocket.
Really?
Oh, I mean, who knew?
I'm trying to think.
So you've got, I'm picturing Henry, you know, his big ginger beard.
He's put on a lot of weight probably by this time.
He's got those massive breeches, you know, like the big ballooning shorts.
Is that where his pocket's being kept?
That's it.
That's exactly it, Ben.
So the Tudor breeches that you mentioned are incredibly baggy.
They're just these like enormous baggy shorts.
And what this means is that there's a huge amount of space within them for a pocket and for a sewn in pocket as well.
And they reckon that some of these are up to 20 inches in size.
Huge.
Like, you know, an enormous space inside, basically.
Very practical.
So I've always thought those breaches look ridiculous.
But yeah, there we go.
Functional purpose.
Functional.
Unfortunately, we don't know which tailor actually first implemented that.
But what a hero.
Yeah, what a legacy.
There we go.
Yeah.
What a hero from history.
An unknown legend, I suppose.
I always find it interesting because they must have been, you know, the first person to do it.
And that kind of that person has changed the history of men's clothes.
And we're still you know, I'm still in debt to him today.
Well, I do think it's funny thinking about Henry VIII that, you know, we often think about him as the man who oversaw the Reformation and the Six Wives and founding of the Royal Navy.
But maybe Henry's real legacy was introducing the pocket.
Yeah, Fashionista.
There we go.
Henry the Pocketful.
He could be.
Henry the Organised.
Too right.
I mean, maybe that's why he got married so many times.
To carry all the stuff of his wife.
Yeah, his wife just loved it.
They're like, oh God, he's the only man who can carry our stuff.
That's how you charm a Tudor lady.
Well, actually, yeah.
So the first mention of pocket that we have a record of is in the 1540s in Henry VIII's wardrobe accounts.
And that's the first evidence of a sewn in pocket.
So we've got this sewn in pockets emerging for men's clothing at the time.
But are women getting the same treatment?
Presumably not.
Yes, well, this is a good question.
So while men are wearing breeches, women are wearing dresses and they've got these corseted dresses.
OK, so that means it's really, really tight at the bust and the waist.
Yeah.
And down to the hips, but at the hips, it kind of flows out into this enormous skirt.
So if you can think about Judi Dench playing Elizabeth I in the film Shakespeare in Love, it's really big and heavy materials.
They didn't have a sewn-in pocket, which I think they could have done.
Elizabeth I could have implemented that.
That would have been a good legacy.
Our story would be quite different if she had done that.
But instead, they have these pouches on the inside of the skirt, which is known as the tie on pocket.
And it is that style that stays in place until the late 1700s.
Fascinating.
And that's presumably the kuiper pocket that Jane Griffith was wearing at the beginning of the story in the late 1700s, right?
Exactly.
But things do change and they change quickly.
Chapter Two, Regency Revolution.
So in the 1790s and then into the 1800s and the 1810s, we have the Regency period, which is the era of Bridgerton, of pride and prejudice, that sort of thing.
Which one's your favourite?
Oh, well, I mean, I am a Keira Knightley fan.
But I do think the BBC 1995 is the absolute classic.
And Elizabeth Bennet walking in the mud is, I think, how I see myself in history.
But that's a very distinctive image.
Alice, could you just describe these dresses to me really simply?
So we mentioned that until this point, people would have these enormous, heavy, quite structured dresses.
So kind of tight, corseted bit here and then, you know, by the bust and the waist.
But then enormous skirt.
It's like what suddenly poofs out at the waistline.
I'm trying to describe it in layman's terms for someone who doesn't understand.
Yeah.
And then something really radical happens in the late 18th century, which is we have this thing called the Empire Silhouette.
We'll get to why it's called that later.
Where it completely changes.
It's tight beneath the bust.
Mm-hmm.
And then below that point, it's not tight at all.
Okay.
So the material just freely flows.
Okay.
Straight to the ground.
Interesting.
And that's what Elizabeth Bennet wears in Pride and Prejudice.
If you can visualize that.
And they often have like little puffy sleeves and they're often made of white kind of cotton material.
It's true, though, because there is a massive change in all the dramas I'm thinking of now or poetry between women of decades earlier and that kind of end of the 1700s, early 1800s period.
Keira Knightley in Pirates of the Caribbean, which is late 18th century.
And then she changes when she's in Pride and Prejudice.
Yes.
And I was going to say, because when you said corset, I was thinking of, you know, they're always like tightening a corset in parts of the Caribbean.
So that's what, that was my image of it.
And then, yeah, it changes totally for Pride and Prejudice, much more free flowing.
She has an outfit change.
It's amazing what they can do in films these days.
Yes, and there are some important reasons for this.
And I think there are kind of three things that we should think about here.
Why does the fashion suddenly change?
That happens really, really quickly across about four years.
One of the first points is a renewed interest in the ancient world.
Okay, so ancient Greece, ancient Rome.
Part of this is because there are lots of wealthy young men going on a kind of gap year.
They call it the Grand Tour.
They travel around Europe.
They become really interested in the ancient ruins.
Lots of them are being discovered at this point.
Places like Pompeii and Herculaneum.
So we see people dressing in these kind of long flowing white dresses, which are kind of similar to Greek goddesses, the robes that they used to wear.
Now, the second reason for this big change was a big event that changed a lot of things in the late 18th century.
Ben, can you hazard a guess of what that might possibly have been?
Well, you know, you can't really do one of these episodes without the French Revolution.
Exactly.
The French Revolution kicks off in 1789.
Massive political, cultural shifts in France, but also influencing other countries too.
And it's all powered by these ideas of liberal democracy.
And this really had an impact on clothing because there was a bit of a rejection of aristocratic excess.
And there was a bit of a push to dress more simply.
Fascinating.
Yeah.
So it's another interesting example of, you know, the historical events of the age being channeled through fashion.
There we go.
There we go.
And here is another historical event.
This is our third point.
Because of connections around the world and the industrial revolution and huge leaps forward in technology, another change that that all brings to fashion is a new material called muslin.
And this is a lightweight cotton, incredibly beautiful, really delicate, really floaty.
And this is often creating those dresses that you see in films like Pride and Prejudice.
So the waistlines of women's dresses move from the natural waist up to under the bust.
They call it the empire line.
And this is because one of the proponents of this style was Empress Josephine, who was married to Napoleon and he was leader of the first French empire.
And so that gives us the name empire.
And they often call it the empire silhouette.
They call it the goddess dress, the column dress.
And because of that, it really became very popular.
But what is the relevance of this to our story?
Well...
This new style does come with a bit of a problem because it's such a kind of flowing fabric that it's actually quite revealing, quite revealing of any lumps and bumps.
And I'm not just talking about, as they say, toms and bums, you know, the tie-on pockets itself.
Is what I'm trying to get to here, that you would be able to see that under that silhouette.
Interesting.
And also because they don't have the massive skirts anymore.
You can't hide it anywhere.
So, yeah, that's fascinating.
Is this the end of women having those tie-on pouches that they had before?
I mean, it strikes me as odd they couldn't just sew in a little subtle pocket.
You know, if I buy my skinny jeans sometimes, I can get a nice pocket in there and they're figure-hugging.
Yeah, I know.
It's a good question.
You'd have thought they'd been able to do that.
I mean, of course, this whole story and history in general is never that definitive.
I mean, it's worth saying that there's a difference between the high fashion and the high styles of
People like Josephine Bonaparte and ordinary people who had practical jobs that, you know, probably would have continued to use the tie on pocket.
The other thing is that a lot of the dressmakers were women.
So you'd have thought that they might have tried to put them in.
But the truth is that sewn in pockets just weren't the norm and they hadn't been for many centuries.
Okay, fascinating.
But there are some quite funny examples of people trying to put a pocket in an Empire line dress.
For example, there's one that's kind of under your armpit, which I don't know is very elegant.
Imagine trying to pay for something.
You're like at the bar, you've had a long day and you're like, I'll just get my armpit up and get some change out here.
Yeah, I think it really compromises the look.
Yeah.
But it's also worth saying that the tie-on pocket hasn't completely disappeared.
So we spoke to the historian Ariane Feneteau, who's one of the co-authors of the book The Pocket.
And she said that the tie-on pocket had this stubborn resilience.
Throughout history, despite what was fashionable.
So lots of women did continue to use it.
So we can sort of assume that upper-class women would sometimes pick and choose when to wear the pockets based on the occasion, whether it was appropriate or not, how they were expected to dress.
But because these pockets are in the shadows,
They're often ridiculed for being old fashioned or the accessory of a doddery old woman, as it was put.
Interesting.
Yeah, because there's massive shifts in this period to do with men's clothing as well.
And this kind of regency period is exactly the time of Bo Brubble, you know, the original dandy.
And he's actually doing a similar thing in that men's clothing is becoming much more fitting to the natural male physique.
Again, it's inspired by Greek and Roman ideas of beauty, things like that.
But men are getting these kind of slimmer fitting suits whilst retaining pockets.
I mean, the suits are full of pockets.
So how come women don't seem to have them put in?
I mean, do the women want pockets?
Do we know?
Yeah, it's really interesting, that development.
So women do develop the use of this little bag.
They call it the reticule.
And this is quite shocking at the time, actually, because the tie-on pocket was actually considered a kind of
Similar to underwear, if you like.
And so lots of people viewed the reticule as almost displaying your underwear in your hands.
So completely inappropriate.
And they were often mocked for this.
Lots of them are very small and very impractical.
And so in England, they came to be known as ridicules.
God, this is pretty harsh stuff.
I mean, you can't win.
I know.
Pockets are taken away.
And if you try and carry a little bag to put your stuff in, then you're taking the mickey out of.
I know.
It's tough.
It's tough out there.
And lots of people lament not having tie-on pockets anymore.
One writer even complained that these could never be a real replacement for the substantial and capacious pockets women had once worn.
So the point is here, there's a real symbolic importance of pockets and a link to personal independence.
So if you can carry your money, your keys, your tools on your own body and safely and securely, then you have this small but meaningful freedom.
And that is a freedom that is lost to women in that period.
Oh, looking forward to hearing more.
Please let us know what you think about the Great Pocket debate by commenting on our social media videos.
And don't forget to share the pod with your friends and follow the show.
Chapter 3.
Political Pockets
So far, we've heard about the loss of the pocket.
But chapter three is about the moment that women begin to fight back.
And it's all wrapped up in politics and about women getting the vote.
Fascinating.
So we're in the 1800s now, Victorian era, the time of the Industrial Revolution, and fashions are changing throughout the century as they do.
The skirts are getting wider, then they're getting narrower, and the systems of storage of pockets change with that.
Right.
One of my favourite examples is in the late 1800s.
You have the flattening of the skirt at the front.
It's tight on the hips, but then at the back, they've got this enormous thing called the bustle.
Do you know what a bustle is, Ben?
No, don't.
I think I can picture what you're getting at, but no, not really.
If you could elaborate.
Don't worry, I wouldn't have expected you necessarily to have known.
It's this massive gathering of fabric at the back of the dress.
Which was so ridiculously enormous that, you know, you could have enormous pockets in the fold of the bustle.
You could even fit a champagne bottle.
That's how big it was.
Would people actually do that?
Yeah, yeah.
That'd be quite good for sneaking them into, like, you know.
Yeah, it's like sneaking drinks into a festival.
Bring your bustle.
More sophisticated way of doing it, yeah.
There's all sorts of stories about people losing things in their bustle.
They're being pickpocketed from the pockets in your bustle.
So it gives you a sense of actually what a ridiculous kind of fashion moment that was.
But the overriding thing throughout this period is that women could also carry little bags.
They often would tie these bags around their waist.
They might have a key on a chain that would go around their waist as well.
And the problem for lots of women was that lots of their belongings were kept on the outside of their clothing.
These were on display.
They were vulnerable to being stolen.
It seems totally impractical.
There we go.
And I mean, it's very hard to kind of trace this history because it's a real mix.
People are doing all sorts of things.
But there is an article from the fashion weekly magazine Harper's Bazaar.
From 1894.
And there's this woman who wrote in to complain about the disparity with the men and boys in her household, which she found infuriating, which I think you can tell.
She says that she was without pockets.
She had no pockets.
But at the same time, her husband had 14 pockets.
14.
And her son had seven.
Yeah.
Which does seem quite excessive.
I'm trying to think how many I have on now.
I feel like you'd lose where you put things.
I've only got four, I think.
But then if I put my jacket on, that grows to about ten.
There we go.
But the key point here that I find really interesting about this article is she described her son's pockets as his certificate of empire.
And she writes, all through life he will carry the sceptre of dominion by right of his pockets.
Gosh, that's quite a powerful phrase.
So just the idea there that, you know, his certificate of empire means that he has the world kind of at his fingertips.
Is that what she's trying to say?
Because he has these pockets which allow him to, you know, do things and give him a bit of freedom, I imagine.
That's it.
So he can do what he wants because, as she puts it, it's by right off his pockets.
And so it's really a metaphor for the potential power that the boy holds, which this woman, because she doesn't have pockets, doesn't have access to, which I think is fair.
It makes sense.
I mean, if you can't carry your...
Money or your keys safely, then you are quite limited in your behaviour.
Yeah, it is interesting.
And clearly, you know, in this period, we can identify, it seems, that there is actual frustration boiling up.
I mean, she sounds pretty upset.
So you mentioned earlier, there's a fight back.
So I'm intrigued to hear how that manifests.
Yes, well, around the time of this article there are more and more women who are openly challenging the idea that fashion should come before function.
And in 1881 there was a rather wonderful development with the Rational Dress Society established
And it pushed back against any women's styles which limited movement.
So things like corsets or really heavy skirts.
And it basically argued that any clothing should be healthy and practical and not actively damaging to the body, which I think is fair enough.
For example...
It's funny how that's radical.
Yeah, I know.
Radical ideas in the Victorian age.
For example, corsets would really, really restrict breathing and so much so that women might pass out by wearing them.
Well, doesn't Elizabeth from Pirates of the Caribbean?
She falls off into the harbour.
There we go.
Knowledge.
You didn't know I was going with that.
That's Ben's corset knowledge.
Yeah, there we go.
Keira Knightley.
Well, that's the point.
It was a big problem, corsets.
And throughout history, it's amazing.
I mean, it's actually amazing that any woman ever put up with wearing them.
But there we go.
The Victorians wouldn't stand for it, especially not the Rational Dress Society.
They also brought in these long...
Skirts which had trousers underneath these were known as the divided skirt essentially what we would know as klots today a kind of very long skort if you like ben do you know what a skort is
Yeah, it's like leggings you wear for sport with a bit of a skirt attached, isn't it?
Yeah, but really just like little shorts.
It's shorts with a skirt, and that's why it's called a skort.
You've seen what they've done there.
Very impressive.
I get it.
It all makes sense now.
Learning a lot.
Now, of course, these divided skirts were mocked.
One periodical said the skirt was a delusion.
So, you know, not welcomed by all.
But the point about rational dress was it wasn't just about comfort.
It was about women being taken seriously.
And having the right to participate fully in society.
And so this all connects us to the suffrage movement.
Okay, so you've got the suffragettes, who are relevant to this story, aren't they?
And they're campaigning for women's political rights, occasionally using militant tactics.
But the suffragette campaign is really getting going in the early 1900s.
They're fighting not only for the vote, but also, which ties us to this story, they're fighting for a claim to public life or a wider involvement in public life for women.
Absolutely.
And a big part in this campaign was clothing itself.
So they developed this outfit called the suffragette suit.
And a key part of this, which is quite fun, is that it has loads of pockets.
This was a big, big moment in fashion history.
And actually, a New York Times article from 1910, it was literally titled, Plenty of Pockets in a Suffragette Suit.
So it was newsworthy that this had a lot of pockets.
And what it was made up of was this short coat that had pockets on the side.
They had the divided skirts, which had two pockets in the front and two behind.
And all together, there would have been about seven or eight pockets.
And the point was that all of them were in sight.
They were easy to find.
So...
You know, not like the under the armpit pockets that are really awkward.
Hidden in the bustle.
Yeah, none of the bustle pockets.
These are really practical for daily use.
Okay.
And when you look at images of suffragettes
Being arrested by policemen.
You see them in these suffragette suits.
So it's quite a powerful part of their campaign.
And those images presumably are very good at projecting this image of normalising, I guess, the idea of women having pockets.
I mean, it's interesting thinking about people buying the newspapers and seeing these photos and they might have looked at them and say...
Gosh look at those women wearing clothes with pockets and not not hiding it that's that's pretty radical
Yeah i wonder if they found would that have been seen as inspirational or like really subversive
I don't know well lots of lots of it did become quite popular this style so um other people did start to wear it
Maybe they realize the benefits of pockets yeah
But the point of it, I suppose, is that, you know, this clothing is practical.
It's tailored, equipped with pockets.
And it's the exact opposite to the idea that women should be decorative first and functional second.
And that's the same with the fashion.
You know, it shouldn't be just decorative.
It should be functional.
Well, I love this way you can see, you know, as we did earlier with the French Revolution and the obsession with the Greco-Roman world, we see how that is channeled and expressed in fashion with that shift to the empire line and so on.
And then here we can see, you know, the fights for democracy, the fights for women's rights are being channeled through fashion again.
And I love how, you know, fashion is a great way of visualizing these big shifts in society.
But then I guess that raises the question.
You know, women do now have the vote, but they still don't really have pockets.
So what happened then?
Yeah, what went wrong?
Yes, well, I mean, tracing this throughout the 20th century is quite tricky and women's pockets do come and go.
So...
For example, when women were contributing to the war effort in the Second World War, pockets were allowed.
They were essential even as women took on roles in the armed forces, for example, or in industry or on land.
There's a very famous woman.
I don't know if she was a real woman, but in the poster, she's known as Rosie the Riveter, I think.
And she's doing like a bicep curl.
She's got a handkerchief or something around her head, spotted red one.
And she's got a big blue kind of boiler suit, doesn't she?
And I imagine that is, you know, full of pockets.
It looks perfectly functional.
Basically, that's the point, isn't it?
That's the point.
And I suppose to wrap up this chapter, even then, even after the suffragette suits with their divided skirts and their plentiful pockets, and even after the boiler suits of wartime that you just mentioned with Rosie the Riveter, all of this was still a false dawn on pocket paradise.
Chapter four, La Poche.
Now, this chapter is called La Poche because I'm going to take you back to France briefly.
Ben, can you guess, maybe you already know, can you guess what La Poche might possibly mean?
Well, I'm suspecting it means pocket in French.
There we go.
But what's interesting about the pockets in the post Second World War period is that there are still really strong ideas about whether women should or shouldn't have pockets.
The battle for pockets is not over.
Let's take two designers from the luxury fashion world from the middle of the 20th century as a bit of an example.
First up, the French fashion designer Coco Chanel.
Of course.
Have you heard of her?
I have.
She's very important in the history of fake tan, but that's for a future episode.
Whatever your reference is, that's cool.
And she can be seen in a number of iconic photos standing with her hands in her pockets.
She's very relaxed.
It's a kind of powerful stance, what would have been seen as quite manly for that day.
Okay.
And because of the use of hands in pockets, it's seen as manly.
Oh, interesting.
Yeah, she's got these real usable pockets.
I mean, that's something that traditionally is only for men's clothing.
And her big thing is that elegance should not come at the cost of comfort.
And her strapline was, luxury must be comfortable, otherwise it is not luxury.
Yeah.
Oh, there we go.
Rallying the troops.
But then on the other side of the room, we have another French designer called Christian Dior.
Yeah.
And in 1954, he said quite plainly, men have pockets to carry things and women's pockets are for decoration.
Okay, interesting.
So he's basically saying, according to him, they don't need them.
Is that what he's trying to claim?
Yeah, maybe they don't want them and maybe they also don't need them.
It's just decoration.
Whatever the reason, for the last 70 years or so, Christian Dior's approach has generally prevailed that it's not essential for women to have pockets.
I see.
And it seems like there are two main reasons for not putting pockets in women's clothing.
The first is one that we can see throughout history.
So lots of women's styles over the years are quite figure-hugging
Quite, you know, revealing of the body.
And that just simply can't accommodate a bulky pocket.
It ruins the silhouette.
So tight clothing is the big barrier in pockets.
The other reason, especially in more recent years, is fast fashion.
And fashion companies.
So clothes producers know they can get away without having pockets in women's clothes.
And so it's cheaper to make garments without those pockets.
And sometimes they'll even put fake pockets in.
Okay, so here's the point here that, you know, obviously for men and women's clothes, fast fashion will try and cut costs wherever possible.
But because they know they can get away with it with women's clothes, they do, you know, you give them an inch and they'll take a yard kind of thing.
Yeah.
I mean, if a man's suit didn't have pockets in, I think people would find that really, really strange.
Yeah.
Although you do get, if you're getting really cheap suit jackets, sometimes they often have the side pocket sewn up.
But that's like the only example I can really think of.
So clothes producers know they can get away with not putting pockets in women's clothes.
And so they don't because it's cheaper.
It uses less material.
It's generally more profitable for the fashion industry at all levels for women not to have pockets anymore.
And I think, I mean, this is kind of debated by lots of people, but I do think handbags are a big product of no pockets.
You know, the reason that women have handbags, even sometimes the tiniest little handbag, and men don't, is because they don't have those spaces to...
And it's obviously in the interest of the handbag industry, which is quite a big industry for women not to have pockets.
And actually, if you think about the Georgian reticules, these tiny little bags that are really ornate, really decorative, that seems very similar to what handbags are today.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, it's made me think differently about handbags and how it all ties together.
You either get a boyfriend to carry your stuff or a handbag.
Just as useful.
Yeah, just as useful.
Now we're at the end of our story.
And often when you're going through these developments in history, you want to reach the modern day and say, oh, look, it's been resolved and we're not.
There's some kind of resolution, but actually it's a bit of an anti-climax because things haven't really changed.
I mean, most women's clothes still don't have pockets.
And I suppose this is a good reminder that we often see history as this separate point to the modern world and where this kind of full stop moment happens.
Yeah, exactly.
As if it's like separate to our lives, not relevant to us.
Yeah, but we're just one stepping stone.
We're just one step living through history, which is changing all the time.
So who knows what will happen next with the pocket story.
Absolutely.
And actually, you know, just last year there was this eight-year-old schoolgirl and she was shopping for her school uniform with her mother.
And she found that the boys' trousers had pockets and the girls' trousers did not have pockets.
Really?
For a school uniform?
That's totally bananas.
Surely a schoolgirl will need pockets.
Yeah, I know.
It's quite amazing, really.
And she bought the boys' trousers.
But she was so furious about this that she kind of started this petition with her peers.
And the tagline was, girls need to carry things too.
And I find that interesting because that sounds exactly the same as what the suffragettes would have been saying.
A hundred years before.
So, you know, she is the kind of suffragette equivalent of the modern world, which goes back to the point that history, you know, we are still living through history.
Yeah.
And I guess it shows that, you know, perceptions of men and women having different roles in society are very hard to shift or, you know, they do stick over long periods of time.
Absolutely.
And women and men's experiences throughout history in so many different ways, even in the smallest details, are so different.
And even those tiny details have a massive impact.
And in the case of this story with pockets for women, it's very limiting for women.
Thank you so much.
In all seriousness, that was brilliant.
It was really eye-opening.
I particularly enjoyed just the way that, again, we said earlier, but the way these big historical shifts in philosophy, ideas are all kind of transmitted through fashion.
It's a lovely window into popular culture at whatever time period.
So, yeah, thank you so much.
And I hope you guys listening feel exactly the same.
Please let us know your thoughts on the Great Pocket Debate by commenting on our YouTube channel.
We'd love to hear your opinions and questions.
And don't forget to subscribe to Hear for the History on BBC Sounds or check out our YouTube channel.
Until next time, goodbye.
Goodbye.
Hi there, it's Ben here again.
I just wanted to say to all of you in our time listeners, if you enjoyed that episode, head over to Here for the History podcast, where you'll find more episodes on food, language and many more.
Me and Alice will see you there.
