Comments on: Clothing

By: heather

heather — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:03:06 +0000

Mollydollybigmonkeybird…
This reminds me of our conversation in the car on Saturday…and your proclamation on the streets of D.C. that you were always going to wear flats even when they go out of style. On our 39489834 mile hike from the Mall to the Kennedy Center, I was acutely conscious of the shoes I was wearing. While I would never consider wearing heels on a D.C. day, I definitely could have been wearing more comfortable shoes. But more comfortable shoes would not have been as “cute.” And why do we care about dressing cutely?

Let me just admit that the reason I was so aware of my shoes was NOT because they were cute, but because my feet HURT (and I have the blisters to prove it). I agree with Molly about it being interesting that people are sometimes shocked when it comes to older fashion trends/traditions like corsets and foot binding. In some respects I feel that the clothing restrictions placed on women in early modern Italy mirror the societal expectations that make women dress the way they do today. Black is slimming…heels make your legs look longer and slimmer…blue is the best color to wear when you have a job interview…you can’t wear white shoes and/or pants after Labor Day…even the style and cut of a stranger’s shirt seems to say a lot about their personality even before you have had a conversation with them.

ok…maybe I’ll figure out where I was going with this tomorrow.

By: mollybigmonkeybird

mollybigmonkeybird — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:11:02 +0000

Has anyone looked at the posts from Dr. Scanlon’s class about foot binding? They parallel the moment in our discussion when Professor Och asked us all to mimic the rigid posture of the woman in the painting. Both are fashions that cause women to suffer in order to produce some unnatural ideal of beauty.

I find it interesting that we’re appalled by these traditions when the current standards of feminine beauty aren’t any more comfortable or natural. A few students from Dr. Scanlon’s class compared food binding to wearing high heels. I would like to draw another comparison to contemporary fashion, between corsets and anorexia. It is no longer particularly common for women to wear corsets, yet emaciation is romanticized. Just as a corset prevents movement, anorexia prevents a body from being strong and capable. I feel that in this way the fashion industry encourages weakness in women.

I hope that our studies of women’s clothing in history will open our eyes to the oppressive nature of contemporary fashion.

By: cogni7og

cogni7og — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:31:13 +0000

I agree that showing your individuality might have depended on where you were and who you were. If you look to the past or even today, in the end the idea of individuality is still somewhat restrained to what society thinks. The wealthy dressed for specific purposes or were portrayed a certain way in art, and the same goes for those with less wealth. (as seen from some of the examples in the other comments)

If we look at clothing today, stereotypes still exist, whether some one dresses “preppy,” “artsy,” “jock” etc….. Also, the concept of wealth with the amount of clothing, brand names or not buying brand names exists. I feel as though people still seem to hold onto their individulaity but might still conform to a group type, and that the ideas might go hand in hand.

By: Emily McAlpine

Emily McAlpine — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:14:14 +0000

I think on individuality and women’s fashion, it was entirely intended as a social construct, and agreeing with Nicole, it was not so much for personal gain. Women may not have been concerned with individuality as far as expressing themselves or their personal preferences, but rather expressing how they felt they should be seen in society, with regards to class and family roles. I like what Robert said about these “self-replicating” gender roles, as it shows what was defined as the standard from which individuality rose at the time (versus today’s concept or definition of individuality).

By: ahova2ma

ahova2ma — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:09:49 +0000

in regards to the whole individuality issue…. in the article about the middle ages the author was really keen on talking about how important clothing acted as a way to show ones individuality. Its hard to say exactly HOW or to what degree women could do this, but I think they pulled it off somehow, probably through use of bright colors/fabrics/styles or what not. It is hard to say really because there are so few (if any) actual dresses from differeing social classes and locations. I am starting to think showing your individuality really just depended on where you were and who you were.

By: ltene5ny

ltene5ny — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:20:06 +0000

In response to Nicole, I do think that your speculations have some truth to them, although there is perhaps no tangible evidence. It makes sense to me that a woman who is restricted in so many ways, whether by law or by their husband’s word, would try in any way possible to express herself without breaking any codes of conduct. A trend has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is quite commonly an individual who is, a you stated, “trying to make [her] uniqueness known.” I don’t know if my support helps you at all but I just thought I would make it known

By: thecolester

thecolester — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:33:00 +0000

while i do agree that individuality at the time was less pronounced, i believe that it was still an important issue, at least when it came to clothing. it seems to me that unique clothing was valued highly. the more rare the cut or fabric was, the more desirable it was, the more expensive it was, the more men wanted to buy it and “display” it on their wife or daugthers. i feel like individuality was valued so far as fashion is concerned, but prehaps not so much with developing the individual. in that case, you all are right. women were all taught to act a certain way by mothers and husbands, it was part of their socialization. but dont you think (or at least hope) that they found little ways to make their uniqueness known? and dont you think that, if done correctly, these little things could make them or their husbands well-known in a positive light? for example, a woman fixes her hair in a slightly new way that is striking on her. her husband’s friends all notice how beautiful she is, they envy him and tada! the husband gains status in the eyes of his contemporaries. these men then go back to their wives and order them to replicate the hairstyle and thus we have the beginning of a new trend. and prehaps this one extraordinary woman continues to develop ways to separate herself from the others; subtle, non-threatening ways to express herself, beautify herself, and make her husband proud. it is highly likely i am making this all up because i consider myself somewhat of a romantic. prehaps this didnt happen at all. maybe someone else with a few more facts and a little less imagination can let me know if anything i just said is actually plausible.

By: reverend

reverend — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:24:42 +0000

This is fascinating because it starts to tie in with some issues Professor Scanlon's class is dealing with in regards to feet binding. Check out these three posts on feet binding and gender in the Asian American Literature class blog here, here, and here. The intellectual, cross-disciplinary connections abound on UMW Blogs!!!

By: SF

SF — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:07:57 +0000

A v. interesting discussion! For a comparative study that speaks to q. similar issues, particularly definitions of femininity and inter-generational relationships as articulated through material culture and fashion, see Dorothy Ko’s _Every Step a Lotus: Shoes for Bound Feet_ (UC Press, 2001). It’s also another wonderful reminder of the riches of the Bata Shoe Musuem…

Cheers,
Dr. Fernsebner
Dept. of History and Am. Studies / UMW

By: roblog

roblog — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:02:11 +0000

I tend to agree with Kerry. Its likely that women of this period were largely unconcerned with individuality. It wasn’t just men that “dressed” women like this: mothers taught this behavior to their daughters, who in turn passed it on. This ideal feminine behavior was celebrated in the writing and paintings which we have examined so far. (Gender roles are usually self-replicating, and much of the same is true in our own attitudes towards clothing today. Again with the prom analogy: we expect girls buy expensive, uncomfortable shoes, and then have to dance barefoot–and yet, its usually the girls who choose their shoes.)

Then again, as we’ve seen so far, several women undoubtably found means to express themselves as painters or patrons…granted, the major commonality between Sofanisba, Lavinia, Vittoria Colonna, and Isabella d’Este is that they tended to present themselves as model women rather than individuals. (Lucky for us, that changes with Artemesia!)