sartorialadventure:

landofrabbitsandteapots:

sartorialadventure:

wordswithkittywitch:

Maybe I’m biased because I make my own clothes, but skirts are better than trousers because you can put bigger pockets in skirts. With trousers, you’re limited to the size of your leg but with skirts you can just fill it up and people will just assume you’re wearing a petticoat until they hear the crunch of the Dorito bags.

Just once I’d like the see an historical heroine be asked if it bothers her that she has to wear skirts and have say, “Not really. I couldn’t fit this in a waistcoat.” and just pull out a loaf of bread or something and start eating it right in front of the baffled male lead.

It would work great in the 1700s with those removable pockets, you could fit a couple of Italian loaves in there.

POCKETS ALL

Why were these taken from us

Short answer: sexist politics. 

Long answer:

One way to look at the transfiguration of women’s tied-on, capacious pockets of the mid-eighteenth century into the early nineteenth century’s tiny, hand-held reticule is to consider that this transformation occurred as the French Revolution, a time that violently challenged established notions of property, privacy, and propriety. Women’s pockets were private spaces they carried into the public with increasing freedom, and during a revolutionary time, this freedom was very, very frightening. The less women could carry, the less freedom they had. Take away pockets happily hidden under garments, and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied.

The whole article is FASCINATING–and it points out that pockets have been an aspect of feminism from the beginning.