Historically, the absence of functional pockets in women's clothing, including dress pants, can be traced back to significant shifts in fashion and societal roles.
Here's a breakdown of the key reasons based on historical context:
- Fashion Trends: As documented historically, pockets began to disappear as slimmer dresses came into fashion in the 1790s. Bulky pockets sewn into garments disrupted the desired sleek silhouette.
- The Rise of the Reticule: With internal pockets gone, women needed an alternative for carrying essentials. They started using small decorative bags, called reticules, that hardly fit a hankie and a coin. This external bag became the norm, negating the need for garment pockets.
- Societal Expectations and Access to Resources: Perhaps more significantly, the practicality of pockets was deemed less necessary for women due to their limited societal standing regarding finances and property. Since women had next to no access to money or property, it was deemed that they didn't need functional pockets if their husbands had pockets. This reflected a historical view that men managed the finances and carried necessary items, while women's needs were minimal or handled by their male counterparts.
While modern fashion varies greatly and many women's pants do include pockets, the historical precedent set by these factors in the 18th and 19th centuries significantly influenced the tradition of women's clothing prioritizing form over function when it came to pocket design. Even today, when pockets are included, they are often smaller, less functional, or merely decorative compared to those in men's clothing, a lingering effect of this historical disparity.
