Researching Patriarchical structures's effect on female appearance and the emancipation of female dress
Bloomers and other pants
In the mid 19th century American women started to wear bloomers. They were introduced as utility clothes as they were more practical and hygienic. At that time women were wearing heavy, impractical and uncomfortable clothing. Their long skirts were sweeping over the streets and they could barely breathe in the tight corset.
As women were very uncomfortable in the dress of that time, the wide pantaloons were very welcome. The bloomers’ origin were the Turkish pantaloons. Amelia Bloomer, editor of the first women’s newspaper, The Lily, wrote about the bloomers being worn with a knee-length skirt. Especially after she had printed a photo of herself in the dress in April 1851, she got an enormous amount of responses with people asking her for the pattern. (Lee & Farrell-Beck, 2010)
The pants got a lot of criticism for both exposing the ankles of women and for being adopted men’s clothing which was said to be against God’s will. Although the dress was criticised, many American women were wearing the bloomers as casual dress and as sportswear until the early 20th century. (Boissoneault, 2018b)
Skirt length
Before the Americans entered the war, they already supported the Allies and having to save material, it was proposed to shorten the skirts of women. This was opposed by people believing shortening skirts was inappropriate. When the US entered the war, the skirts had to become shorter and narrower anyways. Restrictions on fabric usage were imposed by the government. (Lee & Farrell-Beck, 2010)
Traditional femininity in military dress
As a response to the change in women's dress during war time, people were advocating maintaining traditional femininity in female dress. Some women protested against wearing slacks as they would not look good. Skirts were related by some people to beauty and to getting considered and seen by men. People of all genders, had opinions about women in pants. Even the American government responded to these ideas about the appearance of women. They advised that women’s workwear should be both pretty and practical.
During the Second World War many women were serving in the military. These military branches had to deal with a lot of prejudice regarding the femininity of women. Many people thought women serving in the military must be lesbian. The designers of military female uniforms had to convince people that women in the army could adhere to traditional feminine norms. The designer Mainbocher who was known for his chic and feminine designs, created the uniform designs for the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) and SPARS (women’s Coast Guard).
Besides these expectations of the work uniforms, women were expected to wear feminine garments as evening wear to keep the morale of service men or business men high. The women were supposed to entertain the service men with their feminine appearance. They had to distract the men from their serious duties, even though most of these women were working their jobs all-day. (Lee & Farrell-Beck, 2010)
America during WW2
The change of work circumstances of women in the US that WW2 brought about, made it necessary for women to wear pants as workwear. They had to work at farms and in the defence industries, which were areas of work that were exclusive for men before. Pants were better suited to protect them from materials like oil and they kept the women warm during the winter.
The adoption of pants by women got criticised, as femininity was important in women’s fashion. The change even resulted in regulations being imposed against women wearing pants.
The war had caused the need for practicality in women's dress. Women had experienced the comfortability and practicality of pants. This played its part in normalising pants being worn by women and in changing what femininity meant. A quick change in gender roles was the effect of the war and the shifted conditions and the expansion of women’s labour during that time. The existing and conservative definition of femininity was being discussed and changing.
In the decade after the war, trousers were worn by women from all social classes as casual wear and for sports.
(Lee & Farrell-Beck, 2010)
Research proposal
My chosen costume for fashion design is a the costume of a female pierensteker from Friesland. These pierenstekers were fishwives that were helping in the process of fishing. These women would make pants out of their aprons to be able to work in them. The specific costume is the one of female pierenstekers around 1883 in Friesland. These women wore wide pants, but under their pants they wore a skirt and a underskirt. It seems like they had to start wearing more functional clothing in order to do their work. But at the same time they still had to adhere to the social physical expectations for women. This duality interests me. Women had gotten more freedom in their way of living and working but at the same time long existing patriarchal structures still have power over this change. In Susan Sontag’s book On women, I have been reading about women’s liberation. She made me think about male domination and how this domination is an advantage to men and how a liberation of women will be at the expense of men’s privileges. The structures in which men and women still live are ‘imperialist’. In more economically developed countries, the relationship between men and women is neocolonialist. Women have to deal with this system of inferiority/superiority, powerlessness/power, cultural underdevelopment/ cultural privilege. I am wondering, what does it tell us that these pierensteeksters are wearing a skirt under their pants?
Female welders at the Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation of Pascagoula, Mississippi, during World War II. Working a job that was usually reserved for men before the war.
Finland female adaptation of trousers
When women gained broader employment possibilities, more independent consumer spending and female sexual desire was taken more seriously in the 1920s, this was seen as a social change that was worrying for some. These journalists, psychologists, politicians etc. wanted to have control over this change. This resulted in them setting expectations and rules for the behaviour, responsibilities, labour and health of women.
In the 1920s women were showing more skin than before which was discarding the modesty of before. At the same time a more boyish look became fashionable. This physical appearance was blurring the traditional gender division. Dressing in this way was being related to homosexuality and seen as sexually perverse.
Religious and moral resistance
Mostly elderly people took the responsibility to remind trouser-wearing women that the bible states this as a sin. The traditional gender roles were seen as a creation of God and should therefore not change. Women’s trouser-wearing was seen as discarding these gender roles. Besides that, women’s trousers were interpreted as a sign of the apocalypse.
Another reason why people were against women wearing trousers was that it was viewed as showing off fashionable clothing and asking for attention.
Knickerbockers
In the 1920s many American women were wearing knickerbockers (formerly a men’s baggy-kneed breeches) in the streets, not only as casual or sportswear. Marlene Dietrich and other female Hollywood stars were wearing trousers both on screen and offstage and helped to popularize this dress. Women’s trousers were not yet acceptable wear for more formal occasions. (Lee & Farrell-Beck, 2010)
The bloomers were introduced to Amelia Bloomer by Suffragist Elizabeth Smith Miller. The Suffragettes were fighting for women's rights and they were breaking away from traditional expectations, also expressed through their dress. The bloomers were seen and experienced as physical freedom, but the opponents of the dress quickly made wearing it a mental bondage.
The term bloomerism was used to make fun of the women wearing the dress. The term created the association of the bloomers with (for women) unacceptable behaviour like drinking, smoking, serving in the military. Women wearing bloomers were made fun of in the streets. (Chrisman-Campbell, 2019)
Women from Arnemuiden (NL) around 1920 working in the fishing industry. They tied their aprons into a pant for practicality while working.
Historical costume:
Work uniform worn by Pierensteeksters or
‘de wjirmdolster’ (Friesland's fishwomen that collected worms as bait for fishing)
They were wearing pants to work in for practicality but two skirts are worn under the pants, a skirt and a underskirt. Wearing pants was not common dress for women at that time. Women wear still always wearing skirts.
After collecting the worms, the women would go back to string the worms on a line. Before starting this part of the process, they would take the overpants off and visibly wear a skirt again with an apron worn over the skirt.
On Women
In On Women's chaper The Third World of Women part 5, Susan Sontag writes about male dominated professions and that equality in the workplace can only be reached by large numbers of women working all of these jobs. When they become the majority in previously male dominated jobs, there will be less sex-stereotyping. Keeping women away from certain jobs, is actively sabotaging women to be able to perform the tasks of these jobs. They have to start doing the work, to be able to perform the work.
The current economy is sex-divided, men are supposed to be producing and women are defined as consumers. These work structures have to be rethought and changed and women have to be part of deciding how the change will be.
(Sontag, 2023)
As women's liberation is a disadvantage to men, there will be a resistance to this change. Like all the change towards female emancipation that I have shown in this research also was responded to with anger and resistance.
Sources
Chrisman-Campbell, K. (2019, June 12). When American suffragists tried to ‘Wear the pants.’ The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/american-suffragists-bloomers-pants-history/591484/
Lee, Y.-Y., & Farrell-Beck, J. (2010). American women’s adoption of pants and the changing definition of femininity during World War II. International Journal of Human Ecology, 11(1), 23–33. https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201018752857608.pdf
Sontag, S. (2023). On women: A new collection of feminist essays from the influential writer, activist and critic, Susan Sontag. Random House.
Woman suffrage and the 19th Amendment. (2021, June 2). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage
Reflections and future reasearch
While I have talked about binary genders throughout this research, the degendering of dress would be a way to actually work towards less inequality created by dress.
Looking back at for example the klederdracht in the Netherlands that used to be worn by many people and is now only worn by a very small amount of people, dress used to carry a lot of meaning. Financial status, marriage status, mourning could be read through this dress. While we have mostly distanced ourselves from adding this kind of meaning to our dress, our societies and the fashion industry are still creating a very divided fashion system in which there is just men's and women’s clothing and in which skirts are still a clothing item almost exclusively produced for women.
If skirts could be worn without implying that this is a feminine thing, this piece of clothing would become less exclusive. The skirt is not the only piece of clothing that this applies to as there are more clothing items that are still seen as gendered.