There are certain rules that should be set to dictate the manner in which women choose to dress. I'd like to mention now the particular way in which they wear dresses and skirts.
The problem at hand is the lack of structural integrity in a dress or skirt. In previous centuries, a woman was never fully dressed without proper undergarments, petticoats being counted among these. Before petticoats was the crinoline, and before that was the farthingale. These earlier structures allowed for ventilation under heavy fabrics (Skirts increased in volume and layers at the end of the Middle Ages, hence the reason we have underthings in the first place.) as well as gave what was then considered a flattering shape. Personally, aside from the eighteenth century fashions (The extra area created by the pannier seems to only exist as more space for 'frou frou rubbish.'), I am a devotee of this mode in regards to long skirts. It's clean, it's finished, and it gives the wearer complete control of how their skirts drape around their bodies. You don't get them bunched between your legs walking into the wind, nor can the wind sneak up from behind and blow them up a la Marilyn Monroe (Which is never attractive unless you ARE Marilyn Monroe and the moment is completely scripted.). Why in heaven's name would anyone want to abandon such ownership of potentially unruly garments?
A woman came in to work today with a 1970s style broom skirt. The broom has since been revisited in the early to mid 2000s, but I'd never considered just how unfinished and unrefined these skirts look on women until this specimen revealed itself. I remember wanting to own a broom skirt in high school because they were the height of fashion and looked great in the ads. Today I find them on a dusty old rack at my local Deseret Industries. Why? Because noone save models should ever wear one. They quite literally look like petticoats and are made much in the same way, which makes me question what came first: the feminist rebellion against 'restrictive' undergarments, or the childish game of dressing like it were Backwards Day (Underclothes on top!)?
The petticoat, being the last structural form used in shaping women into something more genteel and attractive left, was a staple of the 1950s before taking flight at the threat of the Women's Lib Movement. Where petticoats were seen as a God-send in the 19th century (I can sit down in this!), they were a symbol of the man's control over the woman and promptly stuffed away into costume history in favor of no structure and complete 'freedom'.
(This is the part where I rag on feminism. My friends will roll their eyes and chortle under their breath. They know me for a conspiracy theorist standing solo against the Feminist Agenda like some paranoid commentator on Fox News. Perhaps I am, but in any case you've been warned.) Feminists have long had it in for underclothes (Bra burnings come to mind, but are only part of feminist myth.) and clothes alike. Having since taken control of the fashion industry, the idea that corsets and underskirts are uncomfortable has infiltrated the consumer market and now we cringe at the very thought. Then they blame it on the men. I don't think men care so much, or ever really have cared, though everyone should care about the shapes they keep their bodies in.
Like most everything else about Women's Lib that makes sense (Sarcasm sign), this has been the popular opinion ever since, but I insist that this belief that undergarments of bygone eras are uncomfortable is a complete fabrication. I've worn petticoats, and I'd rather take them than a crinoline (For the record, corsets are not uncomfortable, but we'll save that for another day?). They accentuate the shapes that women should want men to pay attention to (It is generally acknowledged by anthropologists that men like wider hipped women.), they allow for that princess twirl that every girl (Diva and uber feminist alike.) wants to be able to enjoy, and women of ANY shape will benefit. Like I stated, everyone should care about the shapes their silhouettes should take, and given that we have more body shapes today than ever, these 'uncomfortable' underthings should be welcome and regarded as 'slightly annoying but TOTALLY worth it'!
In any case, I actually want to emphasize that since we don't wear underskirts in contemporary fashion, we should do away with long skirts altogether. That's exactly what ran through my head today as my nose wrinkled in disgust at the broom skirt. Shorter skirts don't require petticoats as they have pleating and gathers enough to give shape. Trousers are more common in recent decades, negating the need for long skirts anyway. If you're going to send underclothes to the great fashion beyond, send on the very garments that called for them in the first place and end the disrespect!
As an end note: There are exceptions, of course. The Marveilleuses at the turn of the 19th century wore long dresses without any underwear at all. However these dresses had an empire waistline; any underskirts would have looked ridiculous. In more recent decades, Hollywood glamour has introduced the tight fitting gown, leaving no room for underthings anyway. Then there were the 1910s-20s, which may not have favoured underskirts, but only in the name of war rationing and post traumatic nonsense. The 1920s as a matter of fact were still susceptible to structured garments, if not also underskirts.
No comments:
Post a Comment