st
“If history has taught us anything, it is that Fashion means change. However, the 21 century design landscape changes 24/7, so what arguably might be the way fashion starts trends and forecasts the image of fashion itself in the Future?” My argument: Women’s role in society affects the sexuality of their clothing and the masculinity of their style.
The gender role of women has been something of a focus point amongst fashion designers since fashion itself began. Women for centuries have been seen as petite, lady-like housewives and/or mothers with limited fashion choices other than skirts, dresses and blouses. Women’s figures were known to be curvy and their hourglass figure has been enhanced for years through the use of corsets, which enhanced the breasts and tightened a woman’s waist. Women were to have their hips emphasised as their role in life was to bear and raise children, as men would subconsciously look for big hips in a woman to carry out that role. Equality of the sexes was unthinkable in Victorian times and men were by far superior to women. Women were known to conform to their social standards and the act of rebellion regarding fashion was unheard of. The culture of the Victorian era associated trousers with male authority. Dress reformers attempted to convince upper and middle class women to wear trousers, but on the whole they were unsuccessful, probably because women who wore trousers were seen as attempting to usurp male authority (McCrone 1988:221) - Diana Crane (Page 122) This shows that women needed the courage and the support for a movement to take place. It would take a lot for a movement to take place purely on opinions of women’s argument for rights during this time- it would have to take a lot for them to get their opinions heard and/or valued. During the 1940’s, there were fewer men around to complete manual labour due to the World War and so women were appointed these job roles instead and therefore needed practical clothing to work in- thus the trouser was commonly seen amongst women all over Britain. This fashion movement was a success as the change in clothing was functional, not aesthetical. I think that was the reason the movement was able to happen, it was the physical need of the woman, not the emotional want therefore the movement was not seen as an ‘attempt to usurp male authority’. (IMAGE 1) This image shows how women were wearing denim overalls- most likely men’s, (as opposed to newly fashioned to fit their size) which shows how the clothes are not tight, do not show any leg or breast and generally do not accentuate the female form. This would empower women as they were treated for once as equals and that they were as capable as men to labour in the towns. Although this was a big movement in women’s rights, women would change back into their feminine outfits after labour was complete and still at this time had to take care of the children as well as working – further work was needed to cement this movement. Men’s clothing introduced more so into women’s fashion the nineteenth century, There were in fact two distinct styles of dress for women in the second half of the nineteenth century. Photographs reveal that, coexisting with the fashionable style was another style, which I will call the