Hyperfemininity S/S 2012: Do women want to look like that again? - Page 2 - the Fashion Spot
 
How to Join
the Fashion Spot / Front Row / Fashion... In Depth
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
24-09-2011
  16
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,741
^ hmmmm. But the "intended" meaning doesn't matter too much. I recommend Fashion as Communication by Malcolm Barnard. He shows, quite brilliantly, how fashion speaks, it communicates beliefs and ideologies whether we want it to or not. There's a reason women burned their bras. :p


Last edited by Not Plain Jane; 24-09-2011 at 11:13 PM.
  Reply With Quote
24-09-2011
  17
fashion icon
 
nyc_art_style's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErnstLudwig View Post
hmm over-interpretation? For me fashion has no intention to contribute to social sciences or in particular the gender issue, only a means to an end for (some) customers to express themselves (like "take me seriously", "I don't give a XYZ how I look like", "I never age" or "I thought it was 10°C warmer")

On the designer or corporate site the magic dice have spoken: 50ties are in, ta-da.
Of course it does. Fashion is all about embodying messages by creating imagery. Clothing is an integral part of how we represent our personalities. Especially in the field of gender.

Also there's a lot more consideration put into designing a collection than the random selection that is metaphoric to rolling dice. What about inspiration? Or the creative process? I surely believe Raf Simmons, and Miuccia Prada are above designing around possible hot trends.

__________________

  Reply With Quote
24-09-2011
  18
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,799
Hmm ... to me a few full skirts are nothing to wig out about, and I agree with tigerrouge re adult fashion.

The Prada collection is strong and the Jil Sander is not, but there seemed to be plenty of practical clothes for real life at Jil Sander. Strip away the styling (what was that on their heads ... ), and a lot of the looks are perfectly normal tailored clothes that you could wear into any boardroom and no one would bat an eye.

The Prada clothes are quirky ... no shrinking violet will be able to show up in any of that. The Jil Sander I expect will look quite different on the rack at Barney's.

I sometimes enjoy the irony of wearing something a bit retro. Whatever it may look like, the attitude is worlds away from the original. Almost no one believes that Father Knows Best in 2011. And probably none of those who do will be wearing these clothes.

__________________
There's a need for more individuality today, and my job is to cater to women, not dictate to them.
--Alber Elbaz
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  19
fashion elite
 
Les_Sucettes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,818
Well I'm not a fan of the 1950's look, to tell the truth i cannot even look at it objectively because as much as i like fashion, if the idea behind it is repulsive to me, I will not endorse it in any way or for.
As a women I find this demand "ladylike" image of the 50s slightly offensive, what is ladylike if not about constrain, neatness and idleness, about putting woman in a box? Unthreatening, decorous, pretty and pleasant, every single stereotype that women have been trying to destroy for ages. It's simply wrong.

But said that, regardless of what the designers or the media want to woman to do or to look, and i do find this trend worrying, I believe in the end people will retain in their styles the elements they like in this collections and will adapt them to their own lives. Nowdays only caricatures, people like the Von teases's of this world, will adopt a
full look of an era. There will be no return, people will have fun will some elements and then move on to something else next season.

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  20
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,846
This is the 2010s. The 50s were 60 years ago. Ergo, to be anti-50s is no longer rebellious. On the contrary, these days it's more rebellious for an attractive young woman to not show as much skin as possible.

I mean, the people that do like the pre 60s fashions are very rarely 30+. So, again, contrarily to what most people think, this type of fashion is young, not old. Old people wouldn't be caught dead in these clothes.

As I see it, the Jil Sander collection was a beautiful merge between their usual (to my thinking excessively boring) style and the 50s and 60s (you see, some of those prints were nowhere to be found in the 50s).

  Reply With Quote
 
25-09-2011
  21
Looking Up
 
Squizree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Gender: homme
Posts: 18,545
I agree with what Spike said. Dressing "sweet" and "feminine" is a woman's choice, it's not the "acceptable" any longer. If women want to dress sweet today then they do so out of their own will. And so what if they do?

Don't we already have a Fashion and Feminism thread? I think the 2 are very related.

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  22
don't look down
 
tigerrouge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Béal Feirste
Gender: femme
Posts: 14,106
For me, the 1950s were a time when people wanted to pretend that everything was fine, in order to give their children - rather than themselves - a happy family life, because adults during that decade were still dealing with the reality of having lived through a world war, and media representations selling the idea of saucepans and lipstick weren't going to wipe away that experience for them.

Maybe it was different in America, because the homeland wasn't so ravaged by what went on, but the dream of having a pristine kitchen and a husband that came home - for women in England who'd lived through the Blitz, seen houses blown apart around them, had her kids sent out to the country, and didn't know if she'd receive a telegram about her man being lost in action... that 'backwards' idea of life would have been a golden future. When you can't control whether you live or die tomorrow in a random bomb blast, the 'bored housewife' lifestyle of being able to stay at home and make cakes is social progress.

So I can't say I have a vision of women being weak during that time, only of a desire to rationalise the trauma and chaos of the previous decade through this idea of a scenario where men and women knew their place and life would unfold as expected. That's how they gathered themselves and moved on with life. But people knew better. They wanted to get away from the war, but it was always inside. In a way, when we look back, we are the ones who fall for the life on sale in the 1950s catalogues, and mistake it for reality, because we didn't live through the hard times, and cannot truly factor in the impetus for social escape on that scale, nor the inability to do so.

When I think back to my own female relatives, during that era, they demonstrated more strength in negotiating the path of their lives than I do in anything I face today. I don't see a photo of them, with their 1950's hairstyles, and pity them for their circumstances - they put me to shame.

And if I were to view the decades through yet another country - Ireland - a different definition of life would show itself. What seems like social restraint in an American context would have represented unimaginable freedom in others.

So where some see weakness, I see strength, and people coming to terms with life, trying to tidy the chaos away and piece together a future they could only dare to hope for in a simple form, because two world wars during the past fifty years had taught them they had no control over anything, other than what they did in their own homes, and even then, they weren't safe. So oven gloves really did represent a utopia of a sort.

__________________
You're perfect, yes, it's true. But without me, you're only you.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  23
tfs star
 
Melisande's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paris
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,815
What I would like to address is the whole premise that this look is more "feminine" than any other. More conservative, retro, modest, commercial, boring perhaps. But more "feminine?" I personally do not agree nor frankly, with all due respect, do I like the title of this thread...I also take much offense at the idea, as some seem to imply, that it is weak or un-feminist to be gentle, sweet and modest...Are we still talking about that, thirty years on? I can afford to be sweet and gentle and dress in florals and long skirts because I'm confident and strong and even threatening when I need to be.

A miniskirt could be the epitome of dressing-for-men for one woman, while it may symbolize independence for another. In this day and age, generalizing that a certain style characterizes a certain type of woman or her sexuality is in itself rather backward...

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  24
tfs star
 
ChloeFrancoise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,527
Other people already said it, but there's something sexist in the idea that a female being (stereotypically) feminine is bad or makes a female "weak". There's an idea that a female has no power if she has any femininity. The same goes for when a male isn't completely stereotypically masculine. Also the fact that pink used to be considered a boys color because it was considered stronger kind of makes me glad it started being associated with girls.


Last edited by ChloeFrancoise; 25-09-2011 at 10:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  25
Looking Up
 
Squizree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Gender: homme
Posts: 18,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerrouge View Post
For me, the 1950s were a time when people wanted to pretend that everything was fine, in order to give their children - rather than themselves - a happy family life, because adults during that decade were still dealing with the reality of having lived through a world war, and media representations selling the idea of saucepans and lipstick weren't going to wipe away that experience for them.

Maybe it was different in America, because the homeland wasn't so ravaged by what went on, but the dream of having a pristine kitchen and a husband that came home - for women in England who'd lived through the Blitz, seen houses blown apart around them, had her kids sent out to the country, and didn't know if she'd receive a telegram about her man being lost in action... that 'backwards' idea of life would have been a golden future. When you can't control whether you live or die tomorrow in a random bomb blast, the 'bored housewife' lifestyle of being able to stay at home and make cakes is social progress.

So I can't say I have a vision of women being weak during that time, only of a desire to rationalise the trauma and chaos of the previous decade through this idea of a scenario where men and women knew their place and life would unfold as expected. That's how they gathered themselves and moved on with life. But people knew better. They wanted to get away from the war, but it was always inside. In a way, when we look back, we are the ones who fall for the life on sale in the 1950s catalogues, and mistake it for reality, because we didn't live through the hard times, and cannot truly factor in the impetus for social escape on that scale, nor the inability to do so.

When I think back to my own female relatives, during that era, they demonstrated more strength in negotiating the path of their lives than I do in anything I face today. I don't see a photo of them, with their 1950's hairstyles, and pity them for their circumstances - they put me to shame.

And if I were to view the decades through yet another country - Ireland - a different definition of life would show itself. What seems like social restraint in an American context would have represented unimaginable freedom in others.

So where some see weakness, I see strength, and people coming to terms with life, trying to tidy the chaos away and piece together a future they could only dare to hope for in a simple form, because two world wars during the past fifty years had taught them they had no control over anything, other than what they did in their own homes, and even then, they weren't safe. So oven gloves really did represent a utopia of a sort.

So well said.
It's interesting that you mention the war, because if there's one thing that reshuffled gender roles it was WWII. It's one of those events that Europe has and the UK have tried to hurdle through one way or another. Where some people try to forget about it and move forward, others try to go back and reimagine life before the war. And I think this is what's happening here. The desire for women to dress in a 1950s dress is a celebration of the generation that survived the war, and a celebration of the generation that reached huge milestones like the establishment of the Human Bill of Rights etc.
You'll notice that a very similar thing happens with mens fashion. One of the most prominent trends I see in menswear is the Victorian gentleman. Large overcoats, tailored vests and brightly polished shoes are extremely popular these days. Even fake British accents! And I think, just like womenswear, this is more than just fashion but a social movement where men seek to reunite with the pre-war male that was untarnished and unpunished by the horrors of WWI and WWII.

Perhaps where women are seeking to return to their 'hyperfeminine' roots of the 1950s, when women were strong and brave (and Lord knows how strong those women must have been!), men seek to return to their "hypermasculine" roots, when men were still romantic heroes and invincible to the effects of technology. A S/S 2012 fashion Renaissance so to speak.


Last edited by Squizree; 25-09-2011 at 10:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  26
fashion elite
 
Les_Sucettes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerrouge View Post
For me, the 1950s were a time when people wanted to pretend that everything was fine, in order to give their children - rather than themselves - a happy family life, because adults during that decade were still dealing with the reality of having lived through a world war, and media representations selling the idea of saucepans and lipstick weren't going to wipe away that experience for them.

Maybe it was different in America, because the homeland wasn't so ravaged by what went on, but the dream of having a pristine kitchen and a husband that came home - for women in England who'd lived through the Blitz, seen houses blown apart around them, had her kids sent out to the country, and didn't know if she'd receive a telegram about her man being lost in action... that 'backwards' idea of life would have been a golden future. When you can't control whether you live or die tomorrow in a random bomb blast, the 'bored housewife' lifestyle of being able to stay at home and make cakes is social progress.

It does not make the fact that women where again "put in their place" after the war something positive. Woman came out of their shell during the war, their worked, they were active, they were brave, to to be quick quickly boxed out to their kitchens when the men returned. Regardless of the many for reasons for this, it was a massive step back.


Last edited by Les_Sucettes; 25-09-2011 at 10:50 AM.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  27
don't look down
 
tigerrouge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Béal Feirste
Gender: femme
Posts: 14,106
But a lot of those men didn't return - for the second time that century - so a lot of women had to continue to work in some form, because that was the only way to raise their children. Their family structure was in tatters and they couldn't afford to be a housewife. The clock could never be reset, they could never go back.

Looking at that decade, it's easy to mistake the cosy lifestyle that was actively being marketed to people as being the reality of their lives, but for so many, it wasn't. For some women, life at that time must have involved gently sighing to themselves in a warm kitchen about their unfulfilled ambition to work in an office, but a greater number were in a position where they had to fight tooth and nail to secure a decent existence for themselves.

But the history of that decade doesn't belong to those people, because bad things had to be denied and left behind, so instead we get the story of the bored housewife and a media-engineered dream of social order, something which still has the power to entertain audiences today. But it's not the reality of our existence and it wasn't necessarily the truth about theirs.

Life doesn't stand still - not in the 1950s, not now - but in the face of economic failure and social change, there's always a part of us that wishes it would, and we will continue to paint a picture of that moment in time, a moment that never really happened for most, except in hopes and dreams and delusions.

__________________
You're perfect, yes, it's true. But without me, you're only you.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  28
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,741
Totally agree Les_Sucettes. To romanticise post-WWII is to ignore how horrible it was for women at that time. Many of them couldn't work or leave the house and they were defined by consumption. Have people not seen films like "Far from Heaven" or even "Revolutionary Road"? I realize they are ficition but they depict the realities behind the pretending sweetness and the facade people lived behind. Post-WWII has generally been seen as "reactionary", i.e., exemplary of a longing to go back to the past, a (supposedly) more innocent time. Sure, it is a way of coping. But it is not a healthy way; it is known as denial. When a person works through trauma s/he has to face the past in order to move into the future. Otherwise it is like sweeping things under a carpet. It makes perfect sense that finally the younger generation of the late 50s and 60s said "NO". And they fought out of the constraining boxes of the 1950s, they fought for gay rights, civil rights, women's rights. But those rights are compromised to this day whenever we stop moving forward. And unfortunately, we have never seen a strong youth movement like that again - now we have too much apathy worldwide, imo.

ANYhow, I do understand the points some have made, that wearing those clothes now is not the same as wearing them then, back in the conservative 1950s, when women were not really free to even get a post-secondary education OR jobs outside the home. However, whether we like it or not, **clothes express ideologies,** (they say something about belief systems, they classify, they rebel, the fit in, etc etc) and when the clothes deliberately refer to a specific historical past, the facts about that past are, at the least, latent in the clothes. Otherwise, people wouldn't even comment on the references! They'd just say "nice pillbox hat" or "nice pin up bathing suit". But instead, people are saying "1950s" or "Stepford Wife" or "Avon Lady" and so forth. We READ clothes. To me, the large majority fashions coming out of Milan expressed a weird dichotomy of virgin/whore: retro-sweetness and/or slutty harshness. Personally, these clothes do not send a message I want to deliver.


Last edited by Not Plain Jane; 25-09-2011 at 12:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  29
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,741
Also, re: Prada in particular. Why fetishize CARS at a time when global warming is at its height? The 1950s were the height of mass production of commodities, fashioned quite permanently by Henry Ford in his assembly-line car factories. It can be seen as partly to blame for where we are now. This is what we harken back to? The "hot rod"?? Trust me, if there is irony in this collection and its nostalgia, it will be lost (by and large) on the public. We need to get out of our cars and/or find another resource for fuel. I guess, for all its quirkiness, the collection just seems backwards to me in many ways.

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  30
front row
 
ErnstLudwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Metropolis
Gender: homme
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyc_art_style View Post
Of course it does. Fashion is all about embodying messages by creating imagery. Clothing is an integral part of how we represent our personalities. Especially in the field of gender.
I agree, it can be like that (but like I tried pointed out it's a personal thing), not generally fashion. There are a lot of people who differ on the intention behind wearing a certain item and of cause there is a variation on the interpretation as well (cultural background, upbringing, personal experience). And as always the overall amount of people don't care or want to adapt to the average (= keep a low profile), depends on the psychological point of view.

The miniskirt wasn't invented to free females from the domination of males, but as a piece of clothing and not all readymades are art, it depends if there is an artist (Duchamp, Warhol).

  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
2012, hyperfemininity, s or s, women
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2017 All rights reserved.