Hyperfemininity S/S 2012: Do women want to look like that again?

[Squizree]

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.

 

[tigerrouge]

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.

 

[Melisande]

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...

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

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.

 

[Squizree]

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.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

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.

 

[tigerrouge]

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.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

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/wh*re: retro-sweetness and/or sl*tty harshness. Personally, these clothes do not send a message I want to deliver.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

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.

 

[ErnstLudwig]

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).

 

[ErnstLudwig]

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

 

[Not Plain Jane]

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

 

[Not Plain Jane]

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.

 

[YoninahAliza]

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!

 

[fashionista-ta]

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

 

[fashionista-ta]

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.

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

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.

 

[fashionista-ta]

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.

 

[24hourteaparty]

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

 

[Not Plain Jane]

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.