Who Wears the Heels?

The high heel was originally a type of riding footwear worn for centuries by the Persian military, but in 1599, when Shah Abbas I sent a diplomatic envoy to the courts of Spain, Russia, and Germany, the heel caught on with nobility throughout Western Europe. Echoing the message conveyed in the past by the poulaine, the impractical (for anything other than gripping stirrups) design of the heel was an indication of the wearer’s leisurely lifestyle. In 1670, French King Louis XIV codified the status of the heel in an official capacity, declaring in edict that high heels were to be worn by noblemen only. Yes, men.

It was during the Enlightenment of the 18th century that the gendering of the high heel shifted. Individualism and ideas of merit and hard work rendered the idle aristocrat unfashionable. Productivity became intertwined with masculinity, and the symbol of leisure that was the high heel was then considered unmanly. As men adopted lower heels, heel heights for women increased, and the function shifted. For women, high heels were intended to conceal the wearer’s feet beneath her dress, to make the feet appear smaller and dainty. 

A Shoe for Every Use

The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century changed the course of design and function for shoes (like it did for nearly every material thing). Factories sped up manufacturing, sewing machines allowed for more embroidery and canvas work, and new processes (such as vulcanization) and dyes allowed for a greater variety of materials to be used in shoemaking. The North British Rubber Company (now Hunter) formed in 1856 and began making rubberized versions of Wellington boots that were eminently waterproof. Pumps emerged as fashionable women’s shoes in the 1870s. 

The 20th century saw the creation of shoe brands and styles that are staples today, many originally intended for specific sports. Canvas and rubber-soled Keds were created by U.S. Rubber in 1916 and soon marketed toward tennis players. The Converse All Star emerged the following year for basketball. The B.F. Goodrich company tapped Jack Purcell to design his namesake shoe for badminton, a design that was acquired by Converse in 1972. Paul Sperry created the Sperry Top-Sider in 1935. Adidas grew as a soccer shoe company in the ’50s, while Nike famously began as a running-shoe company in 1964. 

The 21st century is still young, but dare we say the controversial Crocs (perhaps the shoe world’s version of pineapple on pizza) have earned a place in history since their inception in 2002? Or perhaps the equally polarizing “minimalist shoe”? Both designs are unconventional, arguably ostentatious, and seem to communicate something about the priorities of the wearer — a tale as old as a poulaine.

The Extreme Practicality of Tie-On Pockets

In the mid-17th century, women had their own pocket revolution. Rather than wearing sewn-in pockets that would have to be emptied when changing into new clothes, many women started using tie-on pockets, which were detachable pouches that tied around the waist underneath skirts. Dresses would come with slits in them designed for reaching these modular pockets.

Tie-on pockets were typically very large — often more than 15 inches long and 10 inches wide — but they disappeared easily under the full skirts and petticoats of the era. They could be highly personalized, handmade, adorned with embroidery, made with extra interior pockets, and were often given as gifts.

These pockets offered a space that women had complete control over. They could carry cash and valuables nested inside, and sleep with them under their pillows. While women from all walks of life wore tie-on pockets, they were especially useful for working women who needed to carry keys and supplies, as well as people living in cramped conditions. Upper-class women carried large quantities of precious items such as snuff boxes, telescopes, almanacs, and purses. Sentimental items such as small portraits frequently found their way into tie-on pockets, too. With the extra storage space also came a large capacity for crime; in one case, a woman made off with two live ducks stashed inside her pockets.

Tie-on pockets stayed in use until the late 19th century — with a little break in the early 1800s when dresses briefly got less voluminous — even after handbags came into fashion. By the mid-19th century, some dresses even had small sewn-in pockets, although they were often impractical.

The Pocket Regression of the Victorian Era

Menswear, both formal and informal, continued to have plentiful pockets into the 19th century (after all, the pocket watches!), but England’s Victorian era ushered in slimmer silhouettes for women, ushering out the massive tie-on pocket. The loss was felt acutely; as one woman wrote in the magazine The Decorator and Furnisher in 1890, “There is a touch of pathos as well as absurdity in the answer of a patient, enduring, long-suffering woman, who, in reply to her dressmaker’s question as to how she would have her gown made, said tragically, ‘all pockets.’”

In the early 19th century, tie-on pockets were temporarily eschewed in favor of reticules, also known as “indispensables,” a type of small handbag meant as a pocket replacement. These came back with a vengeance in the Victorian era, and were meant to be dainty.

Women Take Back the Pocket

The early 20th century brought many social upheavals for women, including the right to vote in the United States, increased representation in the workforce, and, yes, the return of the pocket. As women started doing jobs that had been traditionally held by men, women’s fashion started to draw inspiration from menswear, including ample pockets. By the late 1920s, tomboyish looks gained popularity, and soon trousers, pockets and all, started hitting the racks in earnest. Women’s jeans rose to prominence, albeit not quite in the mainstream, in the 1930s. By the 1940s, trousers and suits were staple wardrobe items for all genders. The pockets in these pants weren’t always particularly deep and functional, especially compared with the cavernous tie-on pockets of yesteryear, but they were there.

The Pocket Gender Gap

Pockets are no longer unusual in women’s fashion, but there are still significant differences in size between men’s and women’s pockets; women’s jeans, for example, are still 48% shorter on average than men’s. When women’s jeans became mainstream in the 1950s and ’60s, fashion started ruling over form, and designers favored slimmer silhouettes over practical pockets. This even led to the fake pocket, which gives the illusion of a pocket where none exists.

One relatively recent social change has started encouraging more practical pockets: the ubiquity of smartphones. It’s hard to cart around a tiny computer all day without ample pocket space, especially as phones get larger in size. It’s made some fashion designers rethink the necessity of pockets in women’s clothing, and while nothing has changed overnight, a new chapter in the history of pockets may be on the horizon.