From Hidden Pockets to Shoulder Bags: Women’s Right to Choose

閱讀中文版 · English

Cover: Suffrage hikers walking from New York to Washington in 1913. The shoulder bag on the left reads “Votes for Women.” Bain News Service / Library of Congress.[5]

Packing a bag often means planning a day: tools for work, a book you want to read, and money for the journey. Each thing you put inside connects to something you need—or hope—to do.

But carrying your belongings and being free to use them as you wish are different things. Money in a pocket is only useful if you have the right to decide how to spend it. A beautiful bag still needs to let you walk and work comfortably. Women’s autonomy includes these everyday choices.

Can she keep her own belongings?

A letter from a friend, tools for work, a little money set aside for herself: these are details of a woman’s life. Who keeps them, and whether she can reach them when she needs them, affects her ability to act on her own plans.

From around 1650, women in Europe commonly wore separate pockets tied around the waist, reached through openings in their skirts. They could hold money, keys, tools and private letters. The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London explains that this portable storage offered practical independence while protecting valuables and privacy.[1]

Embroidered pocket, American, c. 1784. Cotton and wool. The Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met), New York, accession 2009.300.2241. Public Domain / Open Access.

Being hidden beneath a skirt did not make a pocket shameful. It could offer a small private space under its wearer’s control. A letter or a key did not always have to be entrusted to someone else; tools were close at hand when there was work to do.

That connection between convenience and independence was already being made at the time. The V&A quotes a guide to conduct from 1819: carrying scissors, a pencil, a thimble and other supplies meant not having to borrow from others—and having grounds to decline requests to lend one’s own.[1]

This is one way pockets connect to women’s autonomy: the ability to handle certain tasks independently and set boundaries around personal belongings. For someone often expected to look after others, “This is mine, and I would like to keep it for myself” deserves respect.

Floral embroidery and personal designs on pockets suggest another kind of need.[1] Even when no one else could see them, everyday objects could be made to please their owner. Liking something need not begin with proving that it will make someone else happy.

When fashion changed, whose needs came first?

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, some European fashions raised the waistline and allowed skirts to fall more naturally. Neoclassical interest in ancient Greek and Roman forms, together with lightweight cotton fabrics, helped shape the look. The French Revolution also encouraged a simpler style that had already begun to emerge.[7]

Yet this apparently natural silhouette still made demands on the body. The Met notes that structured undergarments lifted the bust to create the fashionable shape.[12] Clothing might have become lighter, but women still faced rules about what a beautiful body should look like. Discussing freedom means looking beyond the amount of fabric in a skirt to ask whether its wearer was still expected to reshape herself to meet an ideal.

These changes also affected storage. Narrower skirts and thinner fabrics made large pockets harder to conceal. Small bags carried in the hand or hung from the wrist—reticules—became fashionable.[2]

Reticule, British, 1800–1825. Silk, cotton and metal. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession 2009.300.2197. Public Domain / Open Access.

The British bag pictured above, dating to around 1800–1825, has a lantern-like netted body and retains its ribbon. The Met notes that some little netted bags could hold only a few coins.[3]

A small bag did not mean women could carry only a few things. The V&A explains that pockets and bags coexisted for a long time, serving different purposes. Roomy, accessible tie-on pockets continued to be used.[1] A small bag could complement an outfit while a larger pocket provided practical storage.

These different uses show that dressing up and getting things done each bring their own needs. From the perspective of women’s autonomy, we believe the wearer should decide how to balance them. She may put capacity first when carrying work supplies, or choose a small bag she loves for an occasion. What matters is her right to choose for her own life. Making that choice possible also depends on whether she controls her income.

She was already earning. Could she decide how to spend it?

Among the things a woman carried, money raised a particularly direct question of rights. A pocket could keep it close, even when the law did not recognize her authority over it.

Women did not begin earning money only in modern times. Records discussed by the UK’s National Archives show medieval women receiving payment for brewing, sewing and embroidery.[8] Industrialization changed workplaces and ways of receiving pay. After the first textile mill opened in Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1823, young women moved there from rural communities to earn cash wages. Some saved money and gained greater economic independence.[9]

Illustration of textile workers, published in Eighty Years Progress of the United States, 1868. National Park Service / Lowell National Historical Park Library. Public Domain.

Yet earning money and controlling it were not the same. In England and Wales, husbands’ legal rights had restricted married women’s control over their earnings. After sustained campaigning by women’s groups, the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870 allowed married women to retain their own earnings; reforms in 1882 extended their property rights.[4]

This was a tangible change: a woman who worked had stronger legal protection for deciding how to use her pay. Saving, studying or buying something she needed became more feasible. Looking after herself required this practical power to decide, too.

What she wants to do deserves to be taken seriously

Women working outside the home needed more than control over their earnings. Their clothes had to let them move and work. The Fashion History Timeline at New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) describes how, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, suits combining a skirt, jacket and blouse offered practical clothing for working women. Keeping the skirt and changing the blouse also reduced the expense of buying an entire new outfit.[10]

That practicality continues the point made by the coexistence of pockets and bags: clothing should support what its wearer needs to do. Women’s work, movement and comfort are all valid reasons for design decisions.

Women also demanded a say in public decisions. The 1913 cover photograph shows women taking part in the suffrage hike from New York to Washington. The shoulder bag on the left reads “Votes for Women.”[5]

Here the bags supported the women’s journey and communicated their position. Demanding the vote meant demanding that their judgment count in public decisions. What they carried became a way to make that claim visible.

Crowds at the woman suffrage procession in Washington, March 1913. G. V. Buck / Library of Congress, LCCN 2002736824. Public Domain; the library lists no known restrictions on publication.

A bag can signal status. Is there still room for personal choice?

Public expression also happens outside political action. A bag’s materials, decoration and shape can communicate taste and social standing. This role long predates the campaign for women’s suffrage.

The Museum at FIT holds a Cartier evening bag from around 1930 with jade and crystal details on its clasp. The museum presents it as an example of conspicuous luxury.[2] Celebrity culture later added further associations. The V&A discusses the Hermès Kelly, named in tribute to Grace Kelly, and the Fendi Baguette featured in Sex and the City under “Status and Identity.”[11]

Chanel quilted chain-strap bag, photographed in 2009. Photo: Liu Wen Cheng / Wikimedia Commons。CC BY-SA 2.0; no cropping or colour adjustments.

Choosing a bag can therefore also answer the question, “How do I want others to see me?” It can express personal taste or help someone feel part of a social circle she admires. When a brand suggests wealth, taste and status, it can act as a kind of social currency: accessories communicate before their wearer even introduces herself.

A Chanel bag can be considered in relation to both practical and social needs. Introduced in 1955, the Chanel 2.55 combined a shoulder chain with internal compartments, making it easier to keep hands free and belongings organized.[6][2] These features served women’s needs when out and about. As a luxury-brand bag, it may also signal status and spending power in certain social settings. The same bag can be convenient to carry and make its owner feel recognized.

This makes the question of autonomy more nuanced. Greater financial means can let women buy things they enjoy. But feeling “I need a particular brand so people will not look down on me” adds another pressure. Earlier struggles concerned the right to control one’s earnings. With that right secured, there is still reason to ask: am I spending on what I like and need, or on an image I feel obliged to maintain?

Liking designer labels, enjoying fine craftsmanship or caring about social occasions does not mean a woman lacks a mind of her own. Autonomy includes weighing those needs and deciding what is worth paying for and what need not be forced. She can choose Chanel, or a less recognizable bag that suits her better, without feeling that she is worth less.

Let your own needs shape the choice

Today, choosing a bag can begin with the shape of your day. Carrying a book? Check the dimensions. Walking often? Consider weight and how the bag sits. Reaching for small essentials throughout the day? Look at the pockets. A love of woven textures and patterns can be part of the decision, too.

Ink Script brocade shoulder bag. Photo: MOONSART.

With MOONSART’s Ink Script shoulder bag, for example, both the woven pattern outside and the storage inside deserve a closer look. Whether you enjoy its appearance and whether it feels easy to use can be considered together.

Inside the bag: black brocade lining with a geometric meander pattern. Photo: MOONSART.

A bag that works for you should fit your life: room for what you carry, a comfortable way to wear it, and an appearance you enjoy. From pockets to shoulder bags, the person using them deserves to come first.

Further reading and image credits

This article draws on particular examples from European and American dress and women’s history. They do not represent the experiences of all women across regions or social classes. Historical details are drawn from the sources below; connections to contemporary life reflect the editorial perspective of MOONSART Journal.

Topics: handbag history, women’s pockets, reticules, shoulder bags, women’s rights, autonomy, property rights and economic independence.
Handbag history · Women’s pockets · Tie-on pockets · Reticule · Shoulder bag history · Women’s rights · Women’s empowerment · Women’s property rights

[1] Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) | Women’s tie-on pockets: privacy, working uses, embroidery and the coexistence of pockets and bags; includes Theresa Tidy’s 1819 advice.

[2] The Museum at FIT | Pockets to Purses: Fashion + Function: reticules, a Cartier evening bag from around 1930, and the Chanel 2.55.

[3] The Met | Reticule, 1800–1825, accession 2009.300.2197. Image: Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009; Designated Purchase Fund, 1982. Public Domain / Open Access.

Embroidered pocket image: The Met | Pocket, c. 1784, accession 2009.300.2241. Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection; Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009; Bequest of Marie Bernice Bitzer, by exchange, 1996. Public Domain / Open Access.

[4] UK Parliament | Marriage: property and children: married women’s property reforms of 1870 and 1882.

[5] National Park Service | The Nineteenth Amendment: background to the 1913 suffrage action. Cover: Washington hikers（1913）, Bain News Service / Library of Congress, George Grantham Bain Collection, LCCN 2014692437, LC-DIG-ggbain-12419. The public collection copy is marked Public Domain; the library lists no known copyright restrictions. The cover is framed to suit the website layout.

[6] National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), Melbourne | Gabrielle Chanel. Fashion Manifesto: the 2.55 bag introduced in 1955.

[7] FIT Fashion History Timeline | 1800–1809: Neoclassicism, high waists, cotton muslin and changes in dress from the 1780s through the aftermath of the French Revolution.

[8] The National Archives, UK | Working Women in History: paid work by medieval women; transcript, pages 3–7.

[9] National Park Service | The Mill Girls of Lowell: recruitment after 1823, cash wages and economic independence.

[10] FIT Fashion History Timeline | 1900–1909: work outside the home, suits, interchangeable blouses and travel clothing.

[11] V&A | About the Bags: Inside Out exhibition: bags, political expression, celebrity culture, status and identity.

[12] The Met | Dress, French, 1804–1814: accession 07.146.5; undergarment structures and the elevated bustline beneath Neoclassical dresses.

Product photography: MOONSART | Ink Script brocade shoulder bag。