(anticipatory music) - I apologize in advance for the level of purely distilled passive rage that is probably going to be
coursing through this video, but also kind of not really at all, because the SHEER
INJUSTICE of this matter -- (beep) We are by now probably all too familiar with the blasphemous disgrace that is pockets in women's clothing, to the point where,
lacking any actual solution to this matter, we have
done as 21st century society does best when coping
with the mild injustices decided by large, seemingly
impenetrable corporations (carnival music) With #relatablememes, but women's pockets weren't always this way. In fact, women's pockets
were once upon a time so vast that such things as
books, loaves of bread, clothing and accessories,
and even live chickens could be merrily carried about one's day. And I thought before we
let that one viral poem about pockets for some reason
being banned because ?sedition or something?, actually
takes any root of truth, in any of our perceptions of the past, we would take this fine day to explore the development of
pockets in women's clothing, and all of the vast spatial luxury we were once upon a time afforded. (orchestral music ending) (lute(?) music) For centuries, before pockets were sewn into our actual garments, pockets were actually
entirely separate garments worn by both men and women, and were looped into belts to be accessed either from the outside or
to be concealed underneath an overtunic and accessed
through slits in the overwear. Limited survival of medieval
and early modern dress severely limit our ability to
understand the construction and development of the
pocket during this time, as well as any more precise
periods of style shift. But we begin finding
extent pocket evidence around the very beginning
of the 17th century, when we begin seeing pockets integrated into the garments themselves in menswear. The pockets found stitched
into extinct trunk hose are shaped remarkably similarly to the late Victorian
pockets that sewing texts such as that written by
Bertha Banner in 1895 teach, and which you may have seen me
attempt here on this channel. But we will get to Victorian
things in a minute. One of the remarkable things
about pockets in general is that they're so
practical and utilitarian that we don't see a
whole lot of development in construction and style
between the centuries, which pocket scholars Barbara Burman and Ariane
Fennetaux point out in their book on the history of pockets,
signifies a unique resilience in the practicalities of
some older technologies in the face of radically
advancing innovations. "Pockets," they write, "require us to recognize slower currents "of consumer practices below
or even against the mainstream. "Surviving evidence suggests "that women's pockets in
particular remain consistent "in features for even
longer stretches of history, "as women's pockets would
remain predominantly "in the tie-on variety for
another couple of centuries." The term "tie-on pocket"
by the way is not a term that I or professional
pocket scholars are aware of having been used historically, but is merely a modern
invention to distinguish between the independent pocket garment worn tied round the waist from
the actual sewn-in pockets which was an integral
part of another garment. Primary sources tend to
refer to tie-on pockets and sewn in varieties
alike as simply "pockets", since for the most part,
if you are talking about a woman's pocket, you probably by default were referring to one of these, and that specification that it tied on wasn't strictly necessary. (the music of intrigue) It is always worth being wary
of the selection of garments that survived the tests of time, and questioning why those
particular garments have survived. But the sample of surviving pockets that we are able to study
today already capture a vast range of techniques and materials from their construction. All sorts of materials from
linen to cotton, silk, wool, and even leather could be
used as the pocket base. They're often pieced, made
from bits of cabbage left over from other sewing projects
in an effort to utilize every bit of precious, often
handwoven, fabric available. And there are many surviving pockets that are patchworked entirely.
Pockets could be plain and utilitarian, or embroidered, whether by the wearer herself with personal motifs or initials, or with sumptuous silk embroidery. Pockets could be bound or French-seamed, could open horizontally or vertically, all these features and decorations according to the wearer's
personal preferences, which makes the pocket a
particularly intriguing item of fashion, as they weren't always seen, there wasn't in most cases,
pressure for them to adhere to very specific designs,
according to fashion, and to change them out
according to the season, which is perhaps another
reason why we don't see much of a shift in their functional design throughout much of history. A pocket is a personal
item worn next to the body and often out of sight, and perhaps most importantly,
is representative of a material autonomy that
many women for much of history were not able to partake in. The items kept in a pocket, however, were personal, concealed, and uncontrolled by anyone but the wearer. (calm music) There is a certain
democraticness about a pocket. Requiring very little fabric and only a needle and thread, and minimal amount of
time and effort to create, pockets were accessible
and worn by members of all social classes and professions to accompany all sorts of people in all manners of day-to-day activities. And being such personal garments,
containing personal items, worn close to the body
and handled frequently, unlike a lot of the pretty
high-fashion occasion garments that survive in profusion to us today, pockets provide excellent
deductive glimpses into the personal lives of
the real people who wore them, where any staining on the
pocket can give us an idea of where the pocket has
been worn, how it was used, and roughly what was kept in them. This particular pocket for example, shows significant wear to the embroidery on the upper right half, as
well as wear to the right side of the slit binding and
distortion to the left, suggesting that this
pocket was likely worn on the left-hand side of the body to be accessed by the left hand. We can also sometimes deduce something of a person's employment
through depictions of pockets in surviving imagery. Evidence shows pockets having been worn both underneath and on
the outside of clothing, but those who wear their pockets exposed, either are Very Bold or more
practically are merchants, sellers, or people needing
regular access to their pockets, such as to regularly
collect and dispense money. This isn't practically the
most desirable wearing position for pockets, considering how easy it was for the more nefariously-minded passerby to sneak a thieving hand in, or to cut the pocket loose altogether. The Old Bailey Proceedings, which archive London's
criminal court records between 1674 and 1913, have
over 4,000 pages of records concerning pocket-related
criminal activity just in London alone, making pockets quite the evident target. So the size and visibility of the pocket substantially increases the wearer's susceptibility to theft. There is so much delicious
pocket theory to be explored, but we are getting slightly carried away, because we must take a moment to discuss the mid-18th century, or the brief sort of golden
age for women's pockets. Given that the fashionable silhouette now conveniently involved very wide hips. That is right friends, this opportunity did not go unnoticed, for if you are thinking what the fashionable 18th century woman was thinking, yes, the pocket potential
in these gowns is Endless. Fashionable women of this
period took full advantage. Skirts and petticoats of this time period were most commonly constructed
in the apron front manner, where the front panels
are slightly detached, to be tied round the back of the waist, over the rest of the skirt, which means there were
conveniently left slits on either side of the skirt, perfect for accessing
pockets worn underneath the sometimes vast hoops that were worn to structure the skirts. There was even a specific style of hoop known as the pocket hoop, which were two separate
structures shaped often with whalebone and connected
with tape ties around the waist and which were, yes,
basically giant pockets. These I don't think were as commonly worn amongst fashionable women
as the hoop petticoats, at least not as many of them
survive in actual material, as well as in contemporary
imagery. Just practically, I imagine these would actually be a bit too big and cumbersome. Imagine the weird balance
forces that would happen if you had like an apple in your pocket, and you had to bend over to do something. Mid-18th century stays also
often feature small pockets, right at the center top
edge of the stomacher, perfect for storing
small personal effects. Hoop petticoats and pocket hoops though are merely one relatively
brief style of fashion, which did not persist past the century, and which were worn largely
by the fashionable upper-class due to their rather obvious
spatial impracticality. For the most part, women during the 18th
century continued the usual tie-on pocket tradition, which
could still be quite roomy due to the general trend of fuller skirts constructed with lots
of pleats and gathers, meaning that the bulk of a
pocket would not interfere with the fashionable ideal
of a slimmer silhouette. (classical music ending) (upbeat music) Speaking of slimmer silhouettes, the 18th century precedes
the Regency period, which decides to have an
affinity for slim silhouettes, which in theory makes the bulk created by a pocket undesirable, if not potentially impossible to wear, with the rising waistline,
necessitating the adoption of the reticule, or a small decorative handbag
carried by the wearer, right? Not necessarily! "The reticule is not or never can be "a fair representation of the substantial "and capacious pockets
which our ancestors wore. "They were proper pockets, "such as reticules never can be," recalls an Edwardian source. As we know, there is no such thing as a definitive "always" in history, and thus, despite the best
efforts of once again, a small selection of
fashionable upper-class women to make the reticule a
thing, it wasn't ubiquitous. So no, foreshadowing a myth
that will repeat itself later in history, the handbag is not responsible for the displacement of pockets. And in this case, no such total
displacement even occurred. Most women proceeded to
utilize the tie-on pocket, especially since many working
women of the Regency period did not adopt the fashionable
high-waisted silhouettes and thus, wearing and accessing pockets worn at the natural waist wouldn't really have been an issue. But this also doesn't mean that those who did wear high-waisted gowns but also were not keen on the reticule didn't still manage to
wear pockets nonetheless. You can definitely tell a
high-waisted Regency pocket when you see one, since they are Adorably Long Bois, such that they can be tied
under the bust with the gown, but still accessed at a
respectable hand height. (calm music) There is, as most of us probably know from personal experience, no such thing as a hard
boundary in fashion from which every clothes wearer
on the face of the planet, or even within a specific
geographical region collectively decides to change
from one fashion to the next, but the shift from women's tie-on pockets to pockets sewn into clothing in the "masculine style" occurs sometime around the middle of the 19th century, likely sometime between 1840, when texts such as the Work Woman's Guide still depict tie-on pockets
in diagrams, and the 1870s, when we begin seeing greater prevalence of written references-- and complaints!-- about the state of women's pockets. But even so, the tie-on pocket
doesn't entirely go away, with examples still cropping up throughout the remainder
of the 19th century. There are many reasons and theories as to why sewn-in pockets
became the prevalent method of pocket construction, as well as pros and cons of each variety. Sewn-in pockets are
undoubtedly more secure, since they are literally
sewn into a garment and can't be cut or untied either accidentally or purposefully. The latter part of the 19th century also sees a relative slimming
of skirt silhouettes, and primarily during the last
decade of the 19th century, the area across the hips
in particular becomes so tightly fitted as to
complicate the practical wearing of a tie-on pocket at the natural waist, and while we today imagine sewn-in pockets living in the side seams of skirts, as indeed many late 19th century women's sewn-in pockets did as well, it was also quite common to hide pockets in hilariously illogical places, such as in the center back
seam in late nineties, early Edwardian skirts with
the dense pleating at the back, pockets could live under ruffles or drapes or even near the hem, just to ensure that one did
always have at least one pocket despite complex fitting restrictions. Sewing in pockets does come
with limitations, however. One must take into consideration
the balance of a garment, meaning that pockets over a certain size couldn't simply sit in the side
seam without putting strain on a seam in a physically awkward way. So those would need additional
anchoring into the waistband. And this is also not to mention the fact that rather than tying on
the same pair of pockets with any change of clothing, garments with sewn-in
pockets require pockets to be laboriously added into every new garment, a task which industrialization and the commercialization
of clothing manufacture was more and more likely
to perceive as superfluous, and unnecessarily costly,
warrantying fewer pockets added into women's clothing. Seemingly this is only a problem for women's clothing, still :/. Despite the astonishing
number of passionate treatises on the degeneration of women's
pockets that can be found in contemporary magazines from the latter half of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the concern seems to be most prominently on the amount of pockets
available to women in comparison to men, but not so much on the debate of size. "The feminine system of pockets "is wretchedly meager and deficient, "and stands greatly in need of reform," quotes one 1897 article,
literally entitled "A Plea for Pockets". But as we can see, in
extant garments surviving from these periods, as well
as the instruction guides that tell us how these clothes were made, pockets of this period were
still mind-bendingly large to our modern sensibilities. Definitely large enough
for phones, books, snacks, water bottles, et cetera. The issue of pocket equality becomes particularly entwined with the
equality of women in general and inevitably, women's suffrage. After the third article that I read by Elizabeth Cady Stanton
devoted specifically to the subject of pockets, you cannot convince me that she was not just as passionate about pocket inequality as she was about the vote. (having thoughts music) So how did our pocket
problem somehow get worse, even as time and society progressed, even despite women winning the vote? How did the pocket
dilemma manage to progress from just pocket number
to focus more pressingly on rapidly diminishing pocket size? A very simple and practical
answer is ~Fashion~. As we explored previously
through the 19th century, slimmer silhouettes make large pockets more difficult to conceal, and the slim silhouettes
of the Regency period, or the hip hugging skirts
of the Edwardian period still conceal the actual figure far more than late 20th
and 21st century fashions. Our skirts no longer are constructed in the apron-front fashion
that allows convenient slits to access pockets worn underneath, and we don't wear petticoats to conceal or even out any bulk created
by carrying items in pockets. Many of us don't even wear skirts at all, but tight pants being tight still isn't a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenally
widespread cultural acceptance of insufficient pockets in
21st century feminine clothing. Since the absence of
pockets in skirts, dresses, and coats made for the feminine market is still very real not to mention the fact that men's fashion throughout history has seen similar cycles
into skin tight fashion with no pocket insufficiency. True, the pockets in britches of these skin tight late
18th and early 19th century, if they did have pockets,
were quite small, but pockets were still provided on the upper body, in
the inside and outside of the coat and waistcoat, where one option for pockets disappeared, this loss was compensated
for elsewhere on the body, without the wearer being
expected to purchase and use at greater risk of
loss the personal property, a tangential handbag. And of course, there's
absolutely no explanation for the pinnacle of insulting blasphemy that is the existence of the fake pocket. Instead, people wearing feminine clothing in the 21st century are instructed that in
order to be "fashionable", our natural bodies must
be a particular shape and fashion forbid, we obscure that even just enough to be able to store a mobile phone. So you see, dear viewer, all this time we have been quietly permitting
society to convince us that in discarding the
torturously repressive corset, we in the 21st century
have definitively thwarted the patriarchal hold over female liberty once and for all, while in actuality our material freedom has been gradually snatched
from right under our noses in the form of expensive
jeans with fake pockets requiring additionally expensive handbags. Do with that information what you will. (calm music ending) Thanks so much for watching, as always, links to sources, as
well as recommendations for further reading on
the subject of pockets, are all linked down in the
description box below as usual. Speaking of further reading, this video is in collaboration
with Yale University Press who are the publishers to one book I referenced quite heavily throughout my research for this video, "The Pocket, a Hidden
History of Women's Lives" by Barbara Burman and Ariane Fennetaux. Yale University Press are
very kindly giving away two free copies of this book, if you are interested in giving it a read for yourself and learning
some more about pockets. The link to enter the giveaway will be down in the description box below, along with everything else. Winners will be drawn one
week from today on Saturday the 17th of April, 2021
at 5:00 p.m. London time. Good luck. (classical music)
Https://www.dresseswithpockets.com should help.
There's something about Bernadette, that makes me want to watch her videos. I don't even sew except for the occasional rip or button.
Edit: Wow, I am not alone.
She has the best videos. I knowing nothing about making clothes, but she makes it all really interesting and informative.
Very interesting video! I noticed that Bernadette's cadence sounds similar to CGP Grey's, and they have the same clipped ends to words. Is this an American regional thing (are they from the same state), or is it a learned thing (e.g. from news presenters), or is it just a coincidence?
Great video! If you liked this, you will probably also enjoy this podcast episode from the “Articles of Interest” series on 99% Invisible:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pockets-articles-of-interest-3/
What a lovely and well spoken treatise. She's great. My wife has commented on pockets as well, and does demand I carry certain pocket sized items for her from time to time.
Bernadette Banner is a national treasure, with a name that belongs in marvel
Bernadette is a treasure, I love her so much! She puts so much work into her videos, I appreciate that I always learn something from her!
I listened to this on my phone... in my hoodie pocket, realizing that quite possibly that having pockets is probably why hoodies are popular.