Vanuit geschiedenis heeft dames kleding weinig zaken of geen zakken
Ik koop bv golfbroeken ipv chino's, zodat ik normale zakken heb op mijn broek. Ik wil namelijk gewoon mijn spullen mee kunnen nemen in mijn broekzakken.
Op mijn quest 3 heb ik een hoofdband met clip on batterij aan de achterzijde
Weetje
Reden achter het gebrek aan zakken was deels om vrouwen hun vrijheid te beperken en omdat vrouwen bepaald werk niet deden.
Er is zelfs een boek over
The stealthy power of pockets
'
Were pockets in clothing a symbol of women's liberation in the early 20th century? Did men deny women their pockets as a means of control?
Prompted by a recent book on the subject:
https://www.newyorker.com...stealthy-power-of-pockets
https://www.nytimes.com/2...lson-fashion-history.html
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2294146115834
Men had pockets because they were engaged in important work; women were discouraged not just from working but from coveting pockets, because what would they do with them anyway?
Pockets—and their association with men’s clothing—attended anxieties over women entering public space. “The more women could carry, the more freedom they potentially had to act,”... In the early twentieth century, the suffragette movement tied the politics of voting rights with other forms of mobility. The 1910 introduction of the “suffragette suit”—a precursor to the pants suit—was a turning point in the possibility of women’s dress. “plenty of pockets in suffragette suit,” a New York Times headline proclaimed.
During the Second World War, when thousands of women volunteered for the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, they were given uniforms that lacked the pockets of their male counterparts’. Their skirts lacked them altogether, while, Carlson explains, “working breast pockets in the women’s coats were judged to be unsuitable, an embarrassment that upset the delicate balance between correct military appearance and femininity.”
: