Christian Dior Haute Couture F/W 2022.23 Paris

[gallianostan]

I believe they were not protesting the bar jacket itself, but primarily the excessive use of fabric used in the corolle skirt and in the evening gowns. It was seen as ostentatious in the aftermath of the war to use so much fabric and so prominently especially after such austerity measures were put in place (like rationing of textiles) in the United Kingdom and in France.

View attachment 1212451
HARPERS BAZAAR

And the Bar Jacket itself was a tribute to women and to the silhouette of what was considered feminine at the time. The construction and shaping of the bar were intended to enhance the once natural curves of the women who had been emaciated through restrictive wartime food rationing. It was an ode to the women in his life that he loved so dearly and who clearly desired clothes like his.

If anything, the Chanel jacket, in its attempt to erase the traditional female figure, could be viewed as far more misogynistic in a way.

precisely. that the sign on the placard is "we abhor dresses to the floor" demonstrates that protesters took umbrage with the excess fabric.

 

[Frederic01]

V&A MUSEUM

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I believe they were not protesting the bar jacket itself, but primarily the excessive use of fabric used in the corolle skirt and in the evening gowns. It was seen as ostentatious in the aftermath of the war to use so much fabric and so prominently especially after such austerity measures were put in place (like rationing of textiles) in the United Kingdom and in France.

View attachment 1212451
HARPERS BAZAAR

And the Bar Jacket itself was a tribute to women and to the silhouette of what was considered feminine at the time. The construction and shaping of the bar were intended to enhance the once natural curves of the women who had been emaciated through restrictive wartime food rationing. It was an ode to the women in his life that he loved so dearly and who clearly desired clothes like his.

If anything, the Chanel jacket, in its attempt to erase the traditional female figure, could be viewed as far more misogynistic in a way.

Yes, longer lengths and excessive yardage was part of it but not only:

"Dior doesn't dress women, he upholsters them!"

"Only a man who never was intimate with a woman could design something that uncomfortable."

-Chanel

When Dior's New Look Was Protested, Not Celebrated, By Women


"The 'New Look' received critique from the emerging movement for women’s liberation in the United States, with women picketing fashion shows with placards brandishing the slogan 'Burn Mr Dior'; for such women, the tight waists and emphasised busts of the 'New Look' were a demonstration of the objectification of women that they deplored."

- Annelise Moses

Feminism, fashion and Christian Dior

Frankly, the suggestion that the Chanel jacket is more misogynist than the bar jacket is so erroneous and laughable. Think what you might but every single costume historian would disagree.

 

[gallianostan]

 

[Frederic01]

Yes, longer lengths and excessive yardage was part of it but not only:

"Dior doesn't dress women, he upholsters them!"

"Only a man who never was intimate with a woman could design something that uncomfortable."

-Chanel

When Dior's New Look Was Protested, Not Celebrated, By Women


"The 'New Look' received critique from the emerging movement for women’s liberation in the United States, with women picketing fashion shows with placards brandishing the slogan 'Burn Mr Dior'; for such women, the tight waists and emphasised busts of the 'New Look' were a demonstration of the objectification of women that they deplored."

- Annelise Moses

Feminism, fashion and Christian Dior

Frankly, the suggestion that the Chanel jacket is more misogynist than the bar jacket is so erroneous and laughable. Think what you might but every single costume historian would disagree.

Both of those pieces (terribly written by the way) just reasserted precisely that it was the length of the skirt and the excessive use of fabric used in the Dior collections that was the source of outrage and the basis for those various protests? What's more is that a lot of the sentiments expressed in the various protests were due to economic and financial reasons?

Regarding Mademoiselle Chanel, well of course by her design standards the corseted Dior dresses were uncomfortable and "upholstered", but according to Haute Couture clients of the time? The corsets were individually made, structured, and fitted to each woman using precise measurements. If those garments were not fitted properly and "uncomfortable", they would be altered by the Haute Couture seamstresses to be so. It's common sense and the way of Haute Couture. You do not leave a fitting with a garment that does not fit properly.

Regarding the rivalry between Chanel and Dior, there is a great article about that illuminates on this further, courtesy of the BBC and V&A curator Oriole Cullen:

But was Chanel right to be contemptuous? Was Dior’s approach demeaning, and his corseted style retro, trussed-up and restrictive to women? He was nicknamed ‘The Tyrant of Hemlines’, and initially, there were protests against him by some women because his designs covered up their legs, which they had been unused to because of the previous limitations on fabric during wartime. Was he that familiar stereotype – the dictatorial couturier, tyrannically forcing women into wasp-like silhouettes in order to create an idealised, male version of womanhood?

In fact, it is striking to discover how close he was to women, and how highly they regarded him. Not only did women love how his clothes made them look and feel, those that came into contact with him seemed to adore him personally too...

This talented team had been working directly with Dior and were highly valued and respected by him – a fact that seems to contradict Chanel’s view of the designer as, in some way, anti-women. As Dior himself explained in one of his two autobiographies, there was in particular an exalted triumvirate of women at the house of Dior.

bbc.com/culture/article/20190129-the-formidable-women-behind-the-legendary-christian-dior/

Further information about the source of protests in this behind the scenes look at the Galerie Dior with Olivier Flaviano:


LOIC PRIGENT

 

[gallianostan]

i'm sorry but anyone who argues that corseted waists = misogyny should not be taken seriously.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Both of those pieces (terribly written by the way) just reasserted precisely that it was the length of the skirt and the excessive use of fabric used in the Dior collections that was the source of outrage and the basis for those various protests? What's more is that a lot of the sentiments expressed in the various protests were due to economic and financial reasons?

Regarding Mademoiselle Chanel, well of course by her design standards the corseted Dior dresses were uncomfortable and "upholstered", but according to Haute Couture clients of the time? The corsets were individually made, structured, and fitted to each woman using precise measurements. If those garments were not fitted properly and "uncomfortable", they would be altered by the Haute Couture seamstresses to be so. It's common sense and the way of Haute Couture. You do not leave a fitting with a garment that does not fit properly.

Regarding the rivalry between Chanel and Dior, there is a great article about that illuminates on this further, courtesy of the BBC and V&A curator Oriole Cullen:


bbc.com/culture/article/20190129-the-formidable-women-behind-the-legendary-christian-dior/

Further information about the source of protests in this behind the scenes look at the Galerie Dior with Olivier Flaviano:


LOIC PRIGENT

The second article is written by a fashion scholar and historian and explicitly says:

(I'll post it again)

"The 'New Look' received critique from the emerging movement for women’s liberation in the United States, with women picketing fashion shows with placards brandishing the slogan 'Burn Mr Dior'; for such women, the tight waists and emphasised busts of the 'New Look' were a demonstration of the objectification of women that they deplored."

But of course, you know better than her.

Believe what you want but that is some serious Fox News level distortion and spin around of the facts.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

i'm sorry but anyone who argues that corseted waists = misogyny should not be taken seriously.

Says a man who has never even worn one.

Anyone who thinks obligatory wearing corsets because it is the latest fashion isn't misogynistic should not be taken seriously.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Both of those pieces (terribly written by the way) just reasserted precisely that it was the length of the skirt and the excessive use of fabric used in the Dior collections that was the source of outrage and the basis for those various protests? What's more is that a lot of the sentiments expressed in the various protests were due to economic and financial reasons?

Regarding Mademoiselle Chanel, well of course by her design standards the corseted Dior dresses were uncomfortable and "upholstered", but according to Haute Couture clients of the time? The corsets were individually made, structured, and fitted to each woman using precise measurements. If those garments were not fitted properly and "uncomfortable", they would be altered by the Haute Couture seamstresses to be so. It's common sense and the way of Haute Couture. You do not leave a fitting with a garment that does not fit properly.

Regarding the rivalry between Chanel and Dior, there is a great article about that illuminates on this further, courtesy of the BBC and V&A curator Oriole Cullen:


bbc.com/culture/article/20190129-the-formidable-women-behind-the-legendary-christian-dior/

Further information about the source of protests in this behind the scenes look at the Galerie Dior with Olivier Flaviano:


LOIC PRIGENT

"In Louisville, 1,265 women believed that the New Look was not only impractical but also anti-feminist"

Dior's scandalous new look: when Christian Dior's extravagantly feminine New Look burst upon the fashion-starved post-World War II scene, it was hailed as a triumph. But not everyone accepted it. A glimpse into the rise of--and shock waves caused by--a fashion icon. - Free Online Library

 

[Frederic01]

The second article is written by a fashion scholar and historian and explicitly says:

(I'll post it again)

"The 'New Look' received critique from the emerging movement for women’s liberation in the United States, with women picketing fashion shows with placards brandishing the slogan 'Burn Mr Dior'; for such women, the tight waists and emphasised busts of the 'New Look' were a demonstration of the objectification of women that they deplored."

But of course, you know better than her.

Believe what you want but that is some serious Fox News level distortion and spin around of the facts.

I think I'll take the collective word of Soizic Pfaff (Head Curator of the Christian Dior Archives), Oriole Cullen (Fashion Curator for the V&A Museum), and Olivier Flaviano (formerly the Director of the Musee Yves Saint Laurent in Paris) over some random person that has only an undergraduate Bachelor of Arts degree and now works in financial services. Some "Fashion Scholar and Historian" LOL.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I think I'll take the collective word of Soizic Pfaff, Oriole Cullen (Fashion Curator for the V&A Museum), and Olivier Flaviano (formerly the Director of the Musee Yves Saint Laurent in Paris) over some random person that has only an undergraduate Bachelor of Arts degree and now works in financial services. Some "Fashion Scholar and Historian" LOL.

"The second reason Dior found pushback from Americans is because of the blatant regression to the restrictive dress of the Victorian era, something that women, by that point, had spent decades fighting against."

Full Skirts, Cinched Waists, and Women’s Rights

 

[Frederic01]

"The second reason Dior found pushback from Americans is because of the blatant regression to the restrictive dress of the Victorian era, something that women, by that point, had spent decades fighting against."

Full Skirts, Cinched Waists, and Women’s Rights

You can't be serious with that opinion piece. Did you even read it? The author ends it with "Cheers!". The lack of fact checking, abundance of general historical inaccuracies, and simple errors of grammar, should be enough to make you question the integrity of it.

For a start, this person is comparing Dior's designs to dressing codes of the Victorian era (quite an expansive period of time filled with nuances of dress from the beginning in 1837 until the end in 1901). Monsieur Dior was not referencing the "Victorian Era", he was paying tribute (and very lightly at that) to the dressing codes and to the social and cultural history of the Belle Époque. It's significantly different historically, culturally, and aesthetically speaking.

Secondly, the writer is somehow linking the social (domestic) roles of women in the 1950's and 1960's to the Dior silhouettes, which makes absolutely no sense.

Finally we have arrived at the conclusion that women wearing Dior clothes are symbols of repression and oppression, and that "fashion that was born out of rationing fabrics and buttons gave women the freedom of movement and independence".

I think she needs to go back to school and read a few more history books on World War II if she believes that "rationing fabrics and buttons gave women the freedom of movement and independence". I don't believe anyone in their right mind could argue that uniforms, Government-regulated employment/social roles, and rationing of food, was a period of freedom and source of independence for women.

What's more is that we are talking about garments that are Haute Couture. Intended to be worn by the richest women of that time. Many of these women had their own source of wealth (in most cases generational and inherited, but still their own) and therefore independence and freedom because of that. They were choosing and wearing these Dior garments by their own admission and not because they were forced to by some invisible social/cultural and/or misogynistic forces.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

To many it can be viewed as misogynistic and that is fine because that’s their opinion, but there are also many that find value in the silhouette and historical underpinnings too. Without the early form of the corset, there would be no innovations in bras and bust support. Plus, a truly well made corset actually should never be painful or super restrictive; it provides support to the bust and assists the back. In many ways a good corset should be like a back/spinal brace with its construction whilst giving lift and redistributing the weight of the chest. Criticism regarding the corset wearing experience often comes from poor lacing technique, shoddy construction, incorrect boning and lack of fitting/toiling which happens when people flock to it en masse so producing them becomes worse and worse. I understand the concerns about corsets, but I also understand that a good degree of the hate comes from bad experiences or a lot hearsay.

I personally like seeing extremes in fashion because it is bit of a car crash moment; I can't help but not look away, and I love that sensation, purely to observe the extremes before my eyes because I want to see how it pans out or what it says. The Bar silhouette is an extreme so many find it polarising (as they should, it was part of the purpose after all) because it is one where pushed to a certain point it can be too much especially when done poorly or disingenuously. But we shouldn't deny people of having the option though as there are many woman and individuals that also find beauty in this, myself included. Plus, I would feel a whole lot more kick-*** wearing a well fitted and made corset than a "we should all be feminists" t-shirt but that's just me.

On talk of this though, Dior as a brand based on it's ethos should be shuttered completely then if we really want it to align with the times. Dior designed women at the time as flowers, an ode to the Belle Epoque that made the women figures of beauty, excess and what is a hyper example of feminine glamour so in this day and age, we should get rid of it or even change it entirely. However, change too much and it's no longer Dior so it all becomes just a slew of clothes. This is kind of happening to a lot of heritage houses at the moment though. Yes change is good and adaptations shift things further, but change too much and it's just another pile of stuff that doesn't differentiate itself from the rest.

The great thing with Dior and Chanel is their huge point of difference as houses. Polar opposites because of the point of view and that's a necessity in fashion whether people like it or not. Plus we all know of Coco's views on a silhouette like this, and I also would prefer to not read the views of an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathiser.

I don’t want to demean or discredit your opinion on the silhouette @Mutterlein, because I do agree that the approach to it should be different for current times especially at a house like Dior that has such a global viewership (re: the skirt debacle), but I don’t want to write off the Bar silhouette entirely. I also don’t expect Maria to deal with the Bar in such an extreme way and have it work for her. It isn’t part of her vernacular to look at fashion in that kind of way and honestly we should make peace with that.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

You can't be serious with that opinion piece. Did you even read it? The author ends it with "Cheers!". The lack of fact checking, abundance of general historical inaccuracies, and simple errors of grammar, should be enough to make you question the integrity of it.

For a start, this person is comparing Dior's designs to dressing codes of the Victorian era (quite an expansive period of time filled with nuances of dress from the beginning in 1837 until the end in 1901). Monsieur Dior was not referencing the "Victorian Era", he was paying tribute (and very lightly at that) to the dressing codes and to the social and cultural history of the Belle Époque. It's significantly different historically, culturally, and aesthetically speaking.

Secondly, the writer is somehow linking the social (domestic) roles of women in the 1950's and 1960's to the Dior silhouettes, which makes absolutely no sense.

Finally we have arrived at the conclusion that women wearing Dior clothes are symbols of repression and oppression, and that "fashion that was born out of rationing fabrics and buttons gave women the freedom of movement and independence".

I think she needs to go back to school and read a few more history books on World War II if she believes that "rationing fabrics and buttons gave women the freedom of movement and independence". I don't believe anyone in their right mind could argue that uniforms, Government-regulated employment/social roles, and rationing of food, was a period of freedom and source of independence for women.

What's more is that we are talking about garments that are Haute Couture. Intended to be worn by the richest women of that time. Many of these women had their own source of wealth (in most cases generational and inherited, but still their own) and therefore independence and freedom because of that. They were choosing and wearing these Dior garments by their own admission and not bec

"In Louisville, 1,265 women believed that the New Look was not only impractical but also anti-feminist"

Dior's scandalous new look: when Christian Dior's extravagantly feminine New Look burst upon the fashion-starved post-World War II scene, it was hailed as a triumph. But not everyone accepted it. A glimpse into the rise of--and shock waves caused by--a fashion icon. - Free Online Library

You can't be serious with that opinion piece. Did you even read it? The author ends it with "Cheers!". The lack of fact checking, abundance of general historical inaccuracies, and simple errors of grammar, should be enough to make you question the integrity of it.

For a start, this person is comparing Dior's designs to dressing codes of the Victorian era (quite an expansive period of time filled with nuances of dress from the beginning in 1837 until the end in 1901). Monsieur Dior was not referencing the "Victorian Era", he was paying tribute (and very lightly at that) to the dressing codes and to the social and cultural history of the Belle Époque. It's significantly different historically, culturally, and aesthetically speaking.

Secondly, the writer is somehow linking the social (domestic) roles of women in the 1950's and 1960's to the Dior silhouettes, which makes absolutely no sense.

Finally we have arrived at the conclusion that women wearing Dior clothes are symbols of repression and oppression, and that "fashion that was born out of rationing fabrics and buttons gave women the freedom of movement and independence".

I think she needs to go back to school and read a few more history books on World War II if she believes that "rationing fabrics and buttons gave women the freedom of movement and independence". I don't believe anyone in their right mind could argue that uniforms, Government-regulated employment/social roles, and rationing of food, was a period of freedom and source of independence for women.

What's more is that we are talking about garments that are Haute Couture. Intended to be worn by the richest women of that time. Many of these women had their own source of wealth (in most cases generational and inherited, but still their own) and therefore independence and freedom because of that. They were choosing and wearing these Dior garments by their own admission and not because they were forced to by some invisible social/cultural and/or misogynistic forces.

ause they were forced to by some invisible social/cultural and/or misogynistic forces.

That writer could have been more precise and clear, I give you that but there are the other articles I posted which corroborate the same claim: women protested the new look, yes because of the yardage, but also because they viewed the nipped waist as regressive and misogynistic. This is fact, you learn about it in any introductory class on historic costume or fashion history. I don't care if you don't believe that it happened. Valerie Steele, Patricia Mears, Andrew Bolton, Pamela Goblin would all confirm this. Do more than 5 minutes of research on Google and you can confirm it for yourself.

Belle Epoque:

You're right, the writer should have said Belle Epoque though in the UK that same era is often referred to as the Victorian era. In the U.S. it is referred to as The Gilded Age. Not the same things. Noted. You can dwell on that or you can take heed of the actual point the writer was making: Dior was referencing an era of fashion that was dominated by the corset and the bustle and that women's clothing at that time mirrored their restricted freedom and rights. Dior's nostalgic pining and reintroduction of the exaggerated bust, nipped waist, and big skirt was seen by some women as a return to more repressive times.

Regarding Wartime Independence:

Yes, while fabric restrictions and other wartime rationing during WWII were not so glamorous, women did enjoy an unprecedented amount of freedom as most of the men were off fighting and left their old jobs needing to be filled. Women had their own income and took on decision-making, management, and leadership roles in their communities and businesses that were not open to them before. They were more active and independent and their fashion reflected this. When Dior emerged with the new look, some were ecstatic. Others, for reasons mentioned in the paragraph above, were not. Again, this is fashion history 101. Literally, it was a whole lecture in my fashion history survey back in college. It's in almost every fashion history textbook.

1950's Oppression:

No one is demomizing Dior. He was no fascist dictator (on the contrary, Chanel was a literal nazi f*cker). The thesis the writer was making was that Dior's new look catalyzed a feminist reaction against his inhibiting and cumbersome designs. Consider it context of the bigger counterculture reaction against 1950s conservatism and it makes a lot of sense .

And Dior's clothes were inhibiting and cumbersome. I've examined the inner construction of some pieces from Dior's early collections and those things were built like tanks and about as heavy. In contrast with the sportswear from American designers like Claire McCardell from the same time, they're outright oppressive.

Your view that the socially elite women who bought haute couture were somehow totally independent is funny. It was more the rule rather than the exception that their bills were sent to be paid by their husbands. In fact, many women were accompanied to the salons by their husbands who would often pick out and veto which models their wives could order. And the idea that those women could wear whatever they wanted with no social repercussions is funny, too. But that's a tangent for another time.

The 1950's was grand and beautiful but it was also culturally conservative and inhibited. No woman was forced into wearing Dior's clothes. In fact, many women loved wearing his clothes. There is a reason the new look defined the decade. But not everyone was happy with it. Not everyone was happy with the 1950s in general. Which is why you had the beatniks and later the hippies, the youthquake, second wave feminism, the American sportswear revolution, etc.

I'm not trying to attack you or accuse you of being anti-woman for liking Dior. I love the corolla line, I can appreciate its elegance within its historical context. I can also see that it was not the best thing for advancing the agency of women. I do believe it was misogynist. But you know what? Most things in that era were.

I invite you to consider contrary points of view without being indignant.

And don't take my word for any of this. There are so many great books on the subject matter. Read them for yourself.

I've said what I had to say. To you and anyone else who might not care for it, feel free to use the ignore function..

 

[Deleted member 7575]

A dense but interesting read.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FBAWegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0VkWFruByQyApNT0ulA7YQ

 

[Deleted member 7575]

To many it can be viewed as misogynistic and that is fine because that’s their opinion, but there are also many that find value in the silhouette and historical underpinnings too. Without the early form of the corset, there would be no innovations in bras and bust support. Plus, a truly well made corset actually should never be painful or super restrictive; it provides support to the bust and assists the back. In many ways a good corset should be like a back/spinal brace with its construction whilst giving lift and redistributing the weight of the chest. Criticism regarding the corset wearing experience often comes from poor lacing technique, shoddy construction, incorrect boning and lack of fitting/toiling which happens when people flock to it en masse so producing them becomes worse and worse. I understand the concerns about corsets, but I also understand that a good degree of the hate comes from bad experiences or a lot hearsay.

I personally like seeing extremes in fashion because it is bit of a car crash moment; I can't help but not look away, and I love that sensation, purely to observe the extremes before my eyes because I want to see how it pans out or what it says. The Bar silhouette is an extreme so many find it polarising (as they should, it was part of the purpose after all) because it is one where pushed to a certain point it can be too much especially when done poorly or disingenuously. But we shouldn't deny people of having the option though as there are many woman and individuals that also find beauty in this, myself included. Plus, I would feel a whole lot more kick-*** wearing a well fitted and made corset than a "we should all be feminists" t-shirt but that's just me.

On talk of this though, Dior as a brand based on it's ethos should be shuttered completely then if we really want it to align with the times. Dior designed women at the time as flowers, an ode to the Belle Epoque that made the women figures of beauty, excess and what is a hyper example of feminine glamour so in this day and age, we should get rid of it or even change it entirely. However, change too much and it's no longer Dior so it all becomes just a slew of clothes. This is kind of happening to a lot of heritage houses at the moment though. Yes change is good and adaptations shift things further, but change too much and it's just another pile of stuff that doesn't differentiate itself from the rest.

The great thing with Dior and Chanel is their huge point of difference as houses. Polar opposites because of the point of view and that's a necessity in fashion whether people like it or not. Plus we all know of Coco's views on a silhouette like this, and I also would prefer to not read the views of an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathiser.

I don’t want to demean or discredit your opinion on the silhouette @Mutterlein, because I do agree that the approach to it should be different for current times especially at a house like Dior that has such a global viewership (re: the skirt debacle), but I don’t want to write off the Bar silhouette entirely. I also don’t expect Maria to deal with the Bar in such an extreme way and have it work for her. It isn’t part of her vernacular to look at fashion in that kind of way and honestly we should make peace with that.

The sentiments against the corset aren't against the corset itself. They are against corset as the default, obligatory undergarment to be worn by all women all day, every day. Today, a woman can wear a corset as she pleases (an overwhelming majority do not). Go back 120 years and she had no choice, not without facing harsh ridicule and being ostracized. That's the objection.

And I am not anti-bar jacket or Christian Dior. But to use the original, which was uncomfortable, restrictive, and exxagerarted beyond reasonable expectations, as the gold standard today is ludicrous. And that's my issue.

 

[LadyJunon]

Most of the Bar Suit's criticism came from the extremely full skirts that required lots of material that appeared tone deaf after the war. The criticism towards the jacket itself mostly came from other designers like Chanel and Schiaparelli, whose work were considered outdated and irrelevant by that time. Chanel shifted business to America, Schiaparelli closed down.

It was only during Bohan's (60s) did French women require Dior to change their aesthetic to suit those of YSL and Courrèges. Changes to the Bar Suit, addition of a ready-to-wear line, etc.

If Dior is so problematic, which it must be from Maria's (quite outdated) second-wave feminist POV, then the house should be closed down. It's straightforward, really.

 

[Caffeine]

Says a man who has never even worn one.

Anyone who thinks obligatory wearing corsets because it is the latest fashion isn't misogynistic should not be taken seriously.

As a woman I don't think this way. Some women lose their waist line after child birth, so a corset makes the silhouette nicer. I think most women dress to please ourselves first and foremost, and if the corset makes them look good, they will wear them. The word misogyny doesn't really enter the thought process.
I don't wear them, but I spend lots of time working on my abs. There is no short cut: either you workout or you use more structure...and men have nothing to do with this.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

As a woman I don't think this way. Some women lose their waist line after child birth, so a corset makes the silhouette nicer. I think most women dress to please ourselves first and foremost, and if the corset makes them look good, they will wear them. The word misogyny doesn't really enter the thought process.
I don't wear them, but I spend lots of time working on my abs. There is no short cut: either you workout or you use more structure...and men have nothing to do with this.

That's not what I'm talking about though.

It's not the corset in and of itself, it's the corset as the default, obligatory undergarment to be worn by all women all day, every day. Today, a woman can wear a corset as she pleases (an overwhelming majority do not). Go back 120 years and she had no choice, not without facing harsh ridicule and being ostracized... because it was the prevailing fashion of time.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

That's not what I'm talking about though.

It's not the corset in and of itself, it's the corset as the default, obligatory undergarment to be worn by all women all day, every day. Today, a woman can wear a corset as she pleases (an overwhelming majority do not). Go back 120 years and she had no choice, not without facing harsh ridicule and being ostracized... because it was the prevailing fashion of time.

*of the time.