What is amazing to me is the number of people (I'll say feminists, though I'm just assuming) who are really into the 50's/60's aesthetic! I'm just super curious why it seems so many young feminist women are interested in dressing in the clothes of this era.
Also, as a side note, I remember I went shopping recently with my mother and tried on some 50's dresses. She hated them ("You look like you're waiting for your husband to come home and you baked him cookies!") and I realized that for her, she saw the 50's dresses her mother wore & that she rebelled against with her hippie clothes, where I saw a pretty dress. So I think perhaps because young women are so removed from the oppression of that time period, we can appreciate its clothes more.
I wear bell-bottoms religiously (usually vintage), especially while dancing since I like the way the look when in motion. I blame old episodes of Soul Train.
This whole discussion implies a singularity of fashion and meaning in a given era. Yes, the 50s gave us the poodle skirt, but also the continental capri pants and flats, denim jeans, Dior's New Look, the Chanel suit, etc. The 30s were more restrictive than the 20s flappers, but also added bad-ass pantsuits like the ones Marlene Dietrich wore.
Women of the 50s used excessive flouncy skirts in part as a movement away from a wartime era, a period where women had limited access to fun fabrics. With women working in more industrial jobs during WWII, fun clothes were also just impractical. Who wouldn't want to mix it up with girly stuff?
I think it's too easy to remember a period with one symbol and meaning, when the truth is so much more complicated.
'This is what you are going to wear this year. We have decided it for you ahead of time. You will like it, and you will say you like it. Resistance is futile (or, maybe you're just the next hot thing).'
I'm thrilled that Threadbared got its own post on Jezebel! However, I want to clarify that the post linked here is all excerpts --authored by OTHER PEOPLE-- that offer some ways that we (a collective we) might begin to approach the politics of vintage.
Now I really have to finish grading so I can get to posting.
Isn't it feminist to be able to wear what you want, when you want to, and not have to worry about what others are going to think of you?
I don't think just because I prefer to wear vintagey dresses screams that I want to be locked in a kitchen making meatloaf, and martinis while I wait for my husband to come home, so I can kiss him on the cheek when he gets home.
I love vintage clothes because I learned to be grown-up in vintage.
When I came out of college all sloppy and slouchy, my mom bought me all these horrible shoulderpad, baggy, unflattering 80s-style workwear. Watching film noir (Laura,The Big Sleep, anything Hitchcock, etc) and screwball comedy (The Thin Man, Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday, etc), taught me how to dress both well and office-appropriately.
These films portrayed culturally disenfranchised women who were completely empowered (except for Hitchcock).
Plus, IT FITS ME. I've got a 23" waist and 38" hips, and they just don't cut fabric for that in our sad modern times.
I'm with Gertie Lang; I feel much more oppressed trying to squeeze my hourglass body into jeans cut for narrow hips and skinny thighs or trying to fasten menswear-inspired button-down over my G-cups. My natural silhouette is closest to Dior's "New Look" and I enjoy wearing dresses cinched at the waist and full over the hips. I feel more comfortable and attractive, I get more compliments, and I don't think I am any more oppressed. I find a lot of contemporary clothing to be slightly androgynous, and hence unsuited to my undeniably female figure. But then, the hourglass figure is considered inferior by some academics. I'm thinking of the theory promulgated by Elizabeth Cashden that women with hourglass figures are economically dependent, weaker, and less competitive.
@murasaki: One could make the argument that "androgynous clothes = good, traditionally feminine clothes = bad" is just another iteration of the "it's bad to be, or appear, female because female = weak/bad/etc." attitude.
I wear vintage because I like the way it looks (I grew up on old movies, so that influenced my aesthetic personally and as an artist), and because some vintage styles are more accommodating of my body type and, you know, my being able to move than a lot of current offerings. In addition, I used to swing dance and it's fun to dress in period-appropriate clothes for that. But even though it's not a reason why I wear vintage, I have to say I sometimes enjoy the irony of my swanning around in a giant skirt when I'm really a foulmouthed nonconformist feminist bonerkiller.
Not that I don't think clothing can have meaning in context -- where and when I grew up, simple black/charcoal/navy/chocolate was the style and color spectrum that signified "career woman", and I think that's part of why I was drawn to that style for most of my teen years and young adulthood. I wasn't a traditional old-fashioned small-town girl, and I disliked anything that signified such. But the older I get and the more confident in myself I become, the less I care about what an outfit might "mean" to others and the more I focus on whether I actually like it aesthetically... which means my wardrobe has gradually done an almost total 180 from that [think Chuck from Pushing Daisies and Emma from Glee... heightened-reality vintage-girly]. And so far as I know, no one has ever assumed anything about me or my politics based on my clothes, because my actions and words speak a LOT louder than that. In fact, the idea of there being any particular way one can dress that signifies "Feminist" (aside from wearing a NOW t-shirt?) presupposes that there is one "right" way to be a feminist, or to present oneself as female, which I find offensively reductive.
I'm a historian/history teacher. Even though I strongly loathe the treatment of women in past eras, I still enjoy the study of such history. This makes people less likely to forget ill treatment and to (hopefully) progress past it.
As far as vintage goes, I like wearing old stuff because there's a history. As a person obsessed by history, finding it in everyday items (such as clothing) adds an entirely new dimension to that context.
Sure, I've thought about the implications of wearing vintage and the potential feminist or anti-feminist statement (depending on who you talk to), but for me personally, it's all about me being a massive dork about history.
I think this discussion could benefit from a working definition of "material culture," to nip in the bud all of the "a dress is a dress is a dress" comments. Because when you talk about vintage dresses, you do have to acknowledge what the Threadbared bloggers are pointing us to, which is the world of meanings assigned to the clothes and their wearers during the period in question.
We like to think that skinny jeans and high heels aren't contemporary analogues to some of the symbolically-heavy vintage fashions everyone likes so much, but I'm sure '50s housewives saw a similar distance between the daily costumes they were slingshotting themselves into and the corsets worn by their Victorian counterparts. They too probably rolled their eyes at the notion that anyone would think their hoop skirts said anything about their culture's ideas/ideals of womanhood.
But we know it's more complicated than that. And I think we could have a more interesting conversation if we took that as given, instead of finding ways to dismiss those points in defense of individual behavior.
@ronniedobbs: Agreed. I think it's really useful to think about clothes being imbricated in all sorts of social meanings. And I think it's important, to register that women of the past were not unthinking dupes of The Man, but rather, that they had a sense of themselves often as doing something with fashion in a particular way (eg. imitating film stars through their dress).
I think the vintage clothing craze is a lot like the current "return to domesticity" fad among certain middle-class groups. Things that used to be mandatory drudgery - like making elaborate meals from scratch, wearing a dress every day, sewing your own clothes, knitting your own socks - are now optional for most middle-class western women. Therefore, they have become more of a fun, optional thing - luxuries even. It doesn't carry the same baggage as when it was mandatory for women to slave over hot stoves in uncomfortable clothes.
Witness the glut of blogs devoted to cooking, knitting, sewing and such, wherein gals in their 20s and 30s document their adventures in rediscovering the things their great-grandmothers did out of sheer necessity. Recreational cooking, wearing funky vintage clothes and engaging in crafty hobbies (which produce garments and home items that would surely be cheaper if made in a factory in China) are all fun, indulgent things.
(Says the middle-class girl who cooks only when she feels like it, spends her disposable income on random vintage objects, and spends $10 and five days on one pair of hand-knitted socks because she has the luxury of time and a [very] few extra bucks).
OK, I see what the Threadbared's authors are getting at, but they neglected to mention some positive aspects of the vintage "question." I have a few vintage pieces -- a gorgeous coat that I got for about $8 and a $25 eyelet dress -- both of which have labels indicating they were made by the International Ladies Garment Worker's Union. I also have a degree in Women's History. I bought both pieces before I got that degree, but when I learned the awesome strides that organization has made over the past 100 years, I was proud to be wearing those pieces. Not only are they unique, stylish, etc. but also they now represent progress to me. In fact, last year I went to the Tenement Museum in NYC wearing said coat, and the guide at the museum spent a good portion of the tour explaining the significant things that that union has done over the years. Wearing vintage can be liberating! [en.wikipedia.org]
As a guy, it seems we get to avoid many of these questions. I think.
Levi's were invented and sold to California miners, but I don't think about the harsh economic and social realities those miners faced when I'm putting on my favorite pair of jeans.
Similarly, the classic men's suit has basically stayed the same since 1880 or so, from what I can tell. Minor variations here and there, of course, but essentially identical. When I got married a couple of years ago I bought a vintage tux from the sixties, and the biggest difference I could tell was in the quality of construction.
@AndPreciousLittleofThat: I don't know because when I see this guyit makes me a bit uncomfortable on the mens' behalf. He looks so starched and repressed!
@AndPreciousLittleofThat: Maybe a bit of history that you're unaware of -- which I don't mean dismissively at all, but you cited two very specific looks. Jeans, which do have a very interesting socio-economic history, and the classic three piece suit, which is really.. a white guy's symbol of power.
Men's fashions are more static than women's are, but there is a lot of interesting things that go on there, perhaps in not ways you're thinking about them. Think of the code of dress of white wife beaters and baggy jeans and tattoos and what that might symbolize to you, the leather motorcycle jacket, the Zoot Suit... All these looks have specific socioal meanings.
@SlayBelle: Interesting. You definitely make good points, and I agree completely with your analysis of codes of dress.
Sorta OT, but you seem to know a ton about the subject. Are there any good books you can recommend for me to read so I can learn more about the subject? Thanks!
"On Fashion" by Shari Benstock was the first book that introduced me to looking at fashion in a broader context and I still have a copy of it on my shelves. I would also recommend "Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism" by Linda Scott, the Beauty Myth, and "Dress Codes" by Ruth Rubenstein.
If you're looking for male-specific works, I think you might be SoL on that matter, and many of the academic works on fashion tend to brush males by the wayside. Most of the really interesting things I've read about male fashion trends tend to be in other books -- try topics on youth culture in particular, or film analysis, especially in genre films.
12/16/09
Also, as a side note, I remember I went shopping recently with my mother and tried on some 50's dresses. She hated them ("You look like you're waiting for your husband to come home and you baked him cookies!") and I realized that for her, she saw the 50's dresses her mother wore & that she rebelled against with her hippie clothes, where I saw a pretty dress. So I think perhaps because young women are so removed from the oppression of that time period, we can appreciate its clothes more.
12/15/09
12/15/09
Women of the 50s used excessive flouncy skirts in part as a movement away from a wartime era, a period where women had limited access to fun fabrics. With women working in more industrial jobs during WWII, fun clothes were also just impractical. Who wouldn't want to mix it up with girly stuff?
I think it's too easy to remember a period with one symbol and meaning, when the truth is so much more complicated.
12/15/09
'This is what you are going to wear this year. We have decided it for you ahead of time. You will like it, and you will say you like it. Resistance is futile (or, maybe you're just the next hot thing).'
That said, I am so sick of foil and studs.
12/15/09
Now I really have to finish grading so I can get to posting.
12/15/09
I don't think just because I prefer to wear vintagey dresses screams that I want to be locked in a kitchen making meatloaf, and martinis while I wait for my husband to come home, so I can kiss him on the cheek when he gets home.
Sometimes I just like to wear a cute dress...
12/15/09
When I came out of college all sloppy and slouchy, my mom bought me all these horrible shoulderpad, baggy, unflattering 80s-style workwear. Watching film noir (Laura,The Big Sleep, anything Hitchcock, etc) and screwball comedy (The Thin Man, Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday, etc), taught me how to dress both well and office-appropriately.
These films portrayed culturally disenfranchised women who were completely empowered (except for Hitchcock).
Plus, IT FITS ME. I've got a 23" waist and 38" hips, and they just don't cut fabric for that in our sad modern times.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Not that I don't think clothing can have meaning in context -- where and when I grew up, simple black/charcoal/navy/chocolate was the style and color spectrum that signified "career woman", and I think that's part of why I was drawn to that style for most of my teen years and young adulthood. I wasn't a traditional old-fashioned small-town girl, and I disliked anything that signified such. But the older I get and the more confident in myself I become, the less I care about what an outfit might "mean" to others and the more I focus on whether I actually like it aesthetically... which means my wardrobe has gradually done an almost total 180 from that [think Chuck from Pushing Daisies and Emma from Glee... heightened-reality vintage-girly]. And so far as I know, no one has ever assumed anything about me or my politics based on my clothes, because my actions and words speak a LOT louder than that. In fact, the idea of there being any particular way one can dress that signifies "Feminist" (aside from wearing a NOW t-shirt?) presupposes that there is one "right" way to be a feminist, or to present oneself as female, which I find offensively reductive.
12/15/09
I'm a historian/history teacher. Even though I strongly loathe the treatment of women in past eras, I still enjoy the study of such history. This makes people less likely to forget ill treatment and to (hopefully) progress past it.
As far as vintage goes, I like wearing old stuff because there's a history. As a person obsessed by history, finding it in everyday items (such as clothing) adds an entirely new dimension to that context.
Sure, I've thought about the implications of wearing vintage and the potential feminist or anti-feminist statement (depending on who you talk to), but for me personally, it's all about me being a massive dork about history.
12/15/09
We like to think that skinny jeans and high heels aren't contemporary analogues to some of the symbolically-heavy vintage fashions everyone likes so much, but I'm sure '50s housewives saw a similar distance between the daily costumes they were slingshotting themselves into and the corsets worn by their Victorian counterparts. They too probably rolled their eyes at the notion that anyone would think their hoop skirts said anything about their culture's ideas/ideals of womanhood.
But we know it's more complicated than that. And I think we could have a more interesting conversation if we took that as given, instead of finding ways to dismiss those points in defense of individual behavior.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Witness the glut of blogs devoted to cooking, knitting, sewing and such, wherein gals in their 20s and 30s document their adventures in rediscovering the things their great-grandmothers did out of sheer necessity. Recreational cooking, wearing funky vintage clothes and engaging in crafty hobbies (which produce garments and home items that would surely be cheaper if made in a factory in China) are all fun, indulgent things.
(Says the middle-class girl who cooks only when she feels like it, spends her disposable income on random vintage objects, and spends $10 and five days on one pair of hand-knitted socks because she has the luxury of time and a [very] few extra bucks).
12/15/09
12/15/09
Levi's were invented and sold to California miners, but I don't think about the harsh economic and social realities those miners faced when I'm putting on my favorite pair of jeans.
Similarly, the classic men's suit has basically stayed the same since 1880 or so, from what I can tell. Minor variations here and there, of course, but essentially identical. When I got married a couple of years ago I bought a vintage tux from the sixties, and the biggest difference I could tell was in the quality of construction.
Do men's fashions exude an aura I'm not seeing?
12/15/09
12/15/09
Men's fashions are more static than women's are, but there is a lot of interesting things that go on there, perhaps in not ways you're thinking about them. Think of the code of dress of white wife beaters and baggy jeans and tattoos and what that might symbolize to you, the leather motorcycle jacket, the Zoot Suit... All these looks have specific socioal meanings.
12/15/09
Sorta OT, but you seem to know a ton about the subject. Are there any good books you can recommend for me to read so I can learn more about the subject? Thanks!
12/15/09
"On Fashion" by Shari Benstock was the first book that introduced me to looking at fashion in a broader context and I still have a copy of it on my shelves. I would also recommend "Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism" by Linda Scott, the Beauty Myth, and "Dress Codes" by Ruth Rubenstein.
If you're looking for male-specific works, I think you might be SoL on that matter, and many of the academic works on fashion tend to brush males by the wayside. Most of the really interesting things I've read about male fashion trends tend to be in other books -- try topics on youth culture in particular, or film analysis, especially in genre films.