Hyperfemininity S/S 2012: Do women want to look like that again? - Page 3 - 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
25-09-2011
  31
front row
 
ErnstLudwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Metropolis
Gender: homme
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Plain Jane View Post
Also, re: Prada in particular. Why fetishize CARS at a time when global warming is at its height?
Basically the car is still the epitome of individual transportation, therefore it symbolizes complete independence (from a husband chauffeur)... and if women wear that item they want to state that they are an autonomous entity. However you have to take into account that "the car" is additionally one of the few typical male status symbols (the other one still alive is the wrist watch). So it's some kind of ambivalent, subliminal critique of the male world... blahhh

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  32
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,740
I don't see the car in those idealized terms. Definitely in the past you could argue that. But not now, when carbon emissions and global warming threaten everyone's futures, not only their independence, and when wars are fought over fuels. So the car is not a good symbol to look to now. Unless it's electric, but then it's a symbol of the future, not the hot rods of yore, and then the fashions to accompany would be modern, not retro. Blahhhh

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  33
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
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).
But it's interesting, isn't it, that during the 1920s and the 1960s, clothing was very freeing for women at the same time that women were allowed more social freedom, whereas during the VIctorian period and the 1950s, when women were "angels in the house" and Betty Crockers, then they also wore corsets, and white gloves, and cinched in bell skirts, and pill box hats. To me there is a correlation that speaks loudly and clearly.


Last edited by Not Plain Jane; 25-09-2011 at 03:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  34
fashion icon
 
YoninahAliza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Avonlea
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Plain Jane View Post
But it's interesting, isn't it, that during the 1920s and the 1960s, clothing was very freeing for women at the same time that women were allowed more social freedom, whereas during the VIctorian period and the 1950s, when women were "angels in the house" and Betty Crockers, then they also wore corsets, and white gloves, and cinched in bell skirts, and pill box hats. To me there is a correlation that speaks loudly and clearly.
Completely agree with you here! It may seem to people that we live in a society now where "anything goes" but maybe we don't. Loads of people don't think that what we wear reflects our society but honestly I think it does. Even if people don't realize it, what they wear says something about themselves, how they view the world, and society as a whole.
Like Not Plain Jane noted, in the 20's/30's clothing was much more freeing for women. And this was right around when women were getting the right to vote. So obviously there is a correlation between the two. Women felt more empowered thus dressed in more "looser" clothing. Yet, by the time the 50's rolled around it seems for many women the reverted back to before the vote. Maybe it has to do with the uncertainty/horrors of WWII and the experiences women had. But at the same time the war did empower many women. With the men gone they went to work in the factories, they protected their families, they took part in the war effort. But after the war many women went back to be housewives. Which to me has always been a bit perplexing.

Thus the changes in clothes I think reflects the changing attitudes. The 50's are often viewed with a sense of nostalgia and "happy days." So with all the unrest that people are experiencing now days with wars, crummy economy, etc people want to go back to those golden age's. And one way to do that is through fashion. So I guess what I'm trying to say is while clothing from the 1950's may be pretty we cannot forget what they symbolize. And to me they symbolize women's stifling lives as housewives. Personally, I'd rather not go back to that era. I wouldn't make a good housewife!

__________________
http://miss-rumphius.tumblr.com/ "It is ever so much easier to be good if your clothes are fashionable." Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  35
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les_Sucettes View Post
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.
And their daughters started the modern women's movement, which was not a coincidence.

There apparently is a societal nesting instinct following a war ... thus the baby boom. This is basic survival, DNA, Mother Nature at work ... and it's a part of the path that brought us to a much better place today. It's possible that without this piece of the path, things wouldn't have unfolded as they have. It was part of the journey ... in my mind nothing to be angry about. If we want to get angry, there are all kinds of ways that women are being harmed as we speak to get up in arms about.

And here is something I don't get. Put masks over women's faces and everyone thinks it's edgy (personally I find it very offensive). But put them in the New Look, and batten down the hatches

__________________
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
  36
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Plain Jane View Post
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.
All irony is lost on most people ... witness Stephen Colbert.

__________________
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
  37
tfs star
 
ChloeFrancoise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,527
I frankly love the clothing so sorry if someone reads something into it that has nothing to do with why I'd wear it. If I'm not free to love that clothing then what's the point of feminism? I'm being told what I should like & therefore a choice is being made for me. Of course 60s looks have always been my favorite anyway but if I got to buy a 50s coat or dress from somewhere, I wouldn't say no.

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  38
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoninahAliza View Post
Completely agree with you here! It may seem to people that we live in a society now where "anything goes" but maybe we don't. Loads of people don't think that what we wear reflects our society but honestly I think it does. Even if people don't realize it, what they wear says something about themselves, how they view the world, and society as a whole.
Like Not Plain Jane noted, in the 20's/30's clothing was much more freeing for women. And this was right around when women were getting the right to vote. So obviously there is a correlation between the two. Women felt more empowered thus dressed in more "looser" clothing. Yet, by the time the 50's rolled around it seems for many women the reverted back to before the vote. Maybe it has to do with the uncertainty/horrors of WWII and the experiences women had. But at the same time the war did empower many women. With the men gone they went to work in the factories, they protected their families, they took part in the war effort. But after the war many women went back to be housewives. Which to me has always been a bit perplexing.

Thus the changes in clothes I think reflects the changing attitudes. The 50's are often viewed with a sense of nostalgia and "happy days." So with all the unrest that people are experiencing now days with wars, crummy economy, etc people want to go back to those golden age's. And one way to do that is through fashion. So I guess what I'm trying to say is while clothing from the 1950's may be pretty we cannot forget what they symbolize. And to me they symbolize women's stifling lives as housewives. Personally, I'd rather not go back to that era. I wouldn't make a good housewife!
In many cases it wasn't voluntary. Many women were forced to give up their wartime jobs. Think that didn't piss them off? Like I said, why do you think their daughters started the modern women's movement? They were the embodiment of their mothers' anger and resentment and frustration.

I agree with what Melisande and Ernst have said about the intention of the individual woman being key. Attitude and body language are every bit as important--if not more--than the clothes themselves in creating the message and meaning. You can assign a meaning to this look--but it's not the only one.

__________________
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
  39
windowshopping
 
24hourteaparty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: MN
Gender: femme
Posts: 30
I have lots of thoughts about this but I am having trouble organizing them so I may come back and add more later. I'm just going to leave these two thoughts there.

1.) I don't think it is so much femininity is coming back in style, I think it is a certain kind of femininity is coming back in style. We still live in a sexist society and there is still a pressure for women to be feminine, but the definition is a little different than it was in the 50s. But in a lot of ways it is the same. Like, there is still a huge pressure on women to be mothers, and not just mother, but super moms who put there children in front of them and never to anything for themselves. While still looking sexy for their husband. Arg.

In the 50s women wore girdles, today women wear spanx.

2.) for some dressing feminine can be an act of rebellion. If we are going by magazine guidelines my body is one big problem area. I'm curvy, but not in the Joan Holloway way. I have a big bust and hips, but I also have big arms, big stomach, big legs, big everything. Pretty much every magazine I have read has said to pretty much wear a loose dress with a belt. And heels. So dresses hyper retro feminine is my own little personal rebellion.

It has a lot to do with intent. Like many things.

Also, I hate pants. There not even comfortable on me. I am more comfortable in a cocktail dress than jeans and a t shirt.

Anyway, I think I have a point someway in that ramble.

Loving this thread it is very interesting.

Zoe

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  40
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,740
Yeah, the thread is interesting!

I agree what people say about "intent" - within reason. Still, a black leather biker jacket carries with it certain connotations. Regardless of intent. Same with cord blazers with suede patches on the elbows, right? We imagine a certain "type" a certain "personality" and with that certain "beliefs". There is a reason film and theatre have Costume Departments because a character's IDENTITY can be conveyed in part - sometimes in large part - via his/her costume or clothing.

Well, that sort of "performance" of identity is evident in our daily lives as well (cf. Judith Butler). Kate Lanphear and Anna del Russo say VERY DIFFERENT things about themselves via their outfits, for e.g.

Never underestimate the power of clothing to say something about us. Why we want to look sweet or retro or anything else is worthy of thoughtful consideration.

There is a reason Hester Prynne in "The Scarlet Letter" is shamed via her clothing; there is a reason Nazis dressed the way they did... Clothing is not fun and games only.


Last edited by Not Plain Jane; 25-09-2011 at 10:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  41
windowshopping
 
24hourteaparty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: MN
Gender: femme
Posts: 30
Yeah, I totally agree. Intent matters, but so does thinking deeply about why your doing and such and all the implications of what you are doing. And there are some things when I do not believe intent matters, its just wrong. (like fashions use of black face. I don't care about their intent, its still horrible.)

Intent is important, but its not everything.

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  42
backstage pass
 
IsabelMarantBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United States
Gender: homme
Posts: 903
I'm sorry but I don't see how Prada using cars is relevant to global warming Do the dresses tell us to go out and drive and destroy the planet? No, they tell us to look back to a time when cars weren't though of as such evil things like they are now

I thought Prada was beautiful and if I ever saw a woman walking down the street wearing any of those looks (or the looks from Jil Sander since his collection seems to be recieving a lot of hate due to the same reasons as prada) I would think that she was gorgeous and wasn't trying to demean herself

__________________
‎"For something to be beautiful it doesn't have to be pretty." - Rei Kawakubo
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  43
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
No, they tell us to look back to a time when cars weren't though of as such evil
Why tell us to look back to when cars weren't recognized for the polluters they are now?! Why fetishize cars? Because it is "retro" and "sweet" ; they were mass produced in the 1950s and the entire Prada collection is a nod back to that era. Tongue and cheek or not.

  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  44
backstage pass
 
IsabelMarantBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United States
Gender: homme
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Plain Jane View Post
Why tell us to look back to when cars weren't recognized for the polluters they are now?! Why fetishize cars? Because it is "retro" and "sweet" ; they were mass produced in the 1950s and the entire Prada collection is a nod back to that era. Tongue and cheek or not.
I get where you're coming from, because cars aren't really seen that way anymore, I guess I'm just tired of the trends that we see a lot of people wearing nowadays

I like the looks of that era, which is why I liked Prada and Jil Sander so much, but I don't like the idea of woman going back to the notion that they have to act like they did.

__________________
‎"For something to be beautiful it doesn't have to be pretty." - Rei Kawakubo
  Reply With Quote
25-09-2011
  45
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,740
Fair enough. I get where you're coming from too, IsabelMarantBoy. Sometimes I just like to rant on my soapbox. :p Forgive me if it sounds too sanctimonious. Of course, I totally get the FUN side of fashion too. I must just have a pet peeve with that era, although I can see all that lady-like appeal in the clothing, for some.

(Marant is SOOO not 50s though)

  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 02:28 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.