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

[fashionista-ta]

^That's part of the problem though. I like the look of the era too but I worry that if for some reason I were to wear a retro type outfit if people would treat me differently. Would they think differently about who I am? They might think I'm sweet and can be taken advantage of. They might think I want to be like an Avon lady or whatnot. You know? What we wear is part of who we are. And every item of clothing, whether or not we like it has meaning.

The way I see it, I'm not responsible for how people judge me. I have definitely had people 'misunderestimate' me based on what I was wearing. Wasn't that too bad for them

 

[fashionista-ta]

^I would not worry so much about what people think, it’s not something you can control. And it’s their problem if they only see the clothes and not the person.


Yes and no. You can wear an aviator jacket and can’t fly, berets or military jackets or camouflage patterns without being at the army, wear a biker jacket and don’t know how to ride, the LV handcuffs without being a slave, wear something from the Hermès FW 2010 without being a British spy, wear a bodysuit with a sheer skirt and ballet shoes from Chloé SS 2011 and can’t dance, wear a cross and not be religious, cowboy boots and never been in US, wear harem pants outside India, wear leggings and riding boots don’t make you a rider, wear a Michael Jordan’s jersey don’t turn you into basketball star, wear moccasins don’t become you in a native American, and similar reasoning with stipper heels or a hoochie mini dress.

Habit does not make the man (neither the women)

Clothes are not going to give you something you don’t have. If you don’t have style with a pair of jeans and a white t-shirt, a haute couture dress is not going to give you that.
If you are not sweet or feminine or whatever, no hyperfeminine collection will transform your personality (unless you want)

Fashion trivializes everything. Removes the meaning and gives other, and then changes it again. Why? To keep selling something new.

Also, maybe certain items of clothing has meaning but if the person who see you wearing that doesn’t know that meaning, you are communicate nothing.
If you insult me in Finnish, I will not feel hurt because I don’t understand it.
And I’m not sure that everyone in the World knows how the 50’s in America were.

You've almost got a poem going here

I'm pretty sure that most people in the world don't know how the 50s in America were, because most weren't there (probably including all of us). What we know is hearsay ... and even people who were there know their own experiences and those of their friends, and might be completely ignorant of how the decade played out in other regions, socioeconomic classes, etc. As in every era, it was a complex reality ... not just one thing was happening.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

It was just the fetishization of the car as potentially "cute" or "sweet" or even getting all nostalgic about "hot rods" that turned me off.

But you're right fashionista-ta insofar as there being better places than Prada to channel our energies in that debate/social issue.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

On the other hand, maybe the car was more relevant to the 50s ideologies than i thought.

 

[thisismyname]

**in a way, it is tantamount to wearing a straight jacket...
which is clearly not liberating in any way, shape or form...

maybe it's just for ladies who don't have to work for a living...?
housewives?...
err...
here we go back to the 50's...and to women who are not independant...

I'm sorry, but I love wearing 50s style dresses and skirts for their comfort. AND I work in a high powered office setting.

To me, there's nothing more physically oppressive and just simply uncomfortable than low-rise skinny pants or skintight miniskirts. Even well tailored pencil shirts are not the most comfortable to sit in for an entire work day since they restrict the placement of your legs...

On the other hand, 50s style skirts and dresses are quite relaxed compared to the more modern options. I can move my legs completely freely, and the only really fitted part of the outfit is at the point in my body which is naturally the narrowest, my waist. Granted, the 50s style clothes I wear don't have any of the corseting and boning and shapewear whatever else they used back in the day on the waist... but that's sort of the point. It's in the style of the 50s but reinvented in a way that women actually would want to wear it.

And that brings me to a point that many have made in this thread, one that I agree with. Women today can choose how they want to dress, for work and for play. No matter what style they chose to wear, that's empowerment.

 

[rosiecheeks]

^That's part of the problem though. I like the look of the era too but I worry that if for some reason I were to wear a retro type outfit if people would treat me differently. Would they think differently about who I am? They might think I'm sweet and can be taken advantage of. They might think I want to be like an Avon lady or whatnot. You know? What we wear is part of who we are. And every item of clothing, whether or not we like it has meaning.

Hmm you do realize that most people are as blind as bats and dumb as the next one? I bet half of America wouldn't be able to recognize a New Look skirt if it hit them in the face. That's because of the whole approach to fashion nowadays, and the journalism surrounding it.

That being said, let's say they would recognize an outfit or a garnment to be something hauling from the 50s; I hardly think they would make the connection 'hmmm 50s.. hmmm social repression of women --> ding ding she has to be so and so'

 

[iluvjeisa]

The idea of 50s clothing as unfree is rather bizarre to me. First, obviously nobody will be forced to wear it. Second, when clothes are designed to only fit a teenager's body, that's when you have more of a problem with freedom and control.

The fact is that we've had a trend for the last 10 years where models and celebrities have injected themselves with testosterone in order to acquire "the perfect figure" which then has amounted to a fat free body with no pronounced waist - male characteristics that you easiest acquire by increasing your testosterone to estrogen ratio. I have always found this rather repulsive so I welcome a return to the 50s and that wonderful nipped waist.

 

[thefunkykitten]

Yes I do indeed mean clothing wise!!!

I know softgrey - I keep coming full circle to that too.

thefunkykitten says

Seriously? I hope you mean only with regards to clothing choice. After all, women are still second class citizens the world over. They still make less at the same jobs as men. They are objectified more often and repeatedly. Some foolishly think "flesh is power" . Actresses disprove that since they can't get good roles after a "certain age." As tigerrouge points out, plastic surgery is almost normal, etc.

Women need to fight for a lot more to have "everything we could possibly want," at least imo.

Apologies if you meant only w.r.t. to clothing choice, in which case, we certainly do have a lot of choice as consumers.

 

[softgrey]

i don't know what you guys are on about...
at least 1/2 the looks in the collections we are discussing were very narrow pencil skirts with super tight bodices...or bandeau tops......
(and i don't think that the opposite of this prada collection is low waist jeans and tight miniskirts---it's not exactly the same customer base~)


maybe your actual vintage stuff has a full skirt ---but a lot of the looks from these particular shows do NOT...

and we are- i think- discussing this look as it relates to the pieces being shown and eventually sold for S/S 12...
not exactly how it was done and worn in the actual 50's...

at least- i'm not talking about how it was worn in the 50's-
cause- like i said, i'm not into retro...i'm looking forward...

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Agree softgrey - certain looks seemed anything but comfortable (stiff, constraining for sitting & walking, and not really flattering for many figures given the especially long pencil skirts and teensy bandeaus). We are talking about clothing now, true, while also mentioning the symbolic value of their references: 1950s Hitchcock blondes, Stepford/ suburban housewives, greaser girlfriends, pin ups, and so on.

above copied from Jil Sander S/S 2012 thread; below copied from Prada S/S 2012 thread.

Prada had A LOT more loose and pleated skirts than Jil Sander, so definitely more comfortable to wear; however, there was fair bit of "pin up" looks too (teensy bandeau tops and tight pencil/leather skirts, and the (ridiculous) shoes look like torture to walk in.

 

[Pastry]

This is becoming such an interesting discussion! Many have made this particular point:

The 1950's silhouette no longer signifies social oppression. Women should be free to wear whatever they desire and should not have to worry how they will be perceived in a professional environment.

A healthy, correct statement...except I would say that the essentially "feminine" silhouette of that era was embraced by a post-war generation of women who longed for normalcy, and its dark meaning of social oppression was tacked on many years later.

If I may rest that part of the discussion....I'd like to discuss the trend of retro-isms and wether THAT is socially responsible within the realm of clothing design (and perhaps fashion too, as it speaks to a broader audience)

We saw a lot of quintessentially 1950's/ early 1960's SHAPES in New York, London, Milan.
Why do designers feel that this SILHOUETTE is relevant again?

Some people in this thread have put forth the idea that these silhouettes are being regurgitated, for an audience that is not familiar with social history, simply as a means for providing something NEW; a way to profit on fashion for another season.

That would be fine, if the designers that looked to those shapes would be of that caliber. But they're not. Raf Simons, for example, is a mover and shaker, and Miuccia Prada, though highly controversial as a designer, does seem to have her finger on a cultural pulse. Both, and others, claim they design for a street smart individual. Or at least, Raf Simons clearly said he wanted to see these clothes on the street. That is to say, his creativity is for more than just satisfying the Jil Sander customer.Simons has referenced the past very sparingly and very well. Which makes the latest collection that much more of a puzzle...

I embrace the diversity of styles and designs, and that is something that we've come to expect within the design community. And perhaps 2012 has no definite SHAPE or SILHOUETTE...But as far as trends go, the 80's Japanese avant-garde influence has been particularly strong on the street..

If we could choose words to describe 2012 what would they be?
For me they would be, "nature, optimism, freedom, dignity, activity", perhaps a bit too utopian, but that how I feel about the future.

Whether we like it or not, the silhouette in question is HEAVY with social meaning, and quite difficult to subvert. And in a contemporary context, does it stand for the past, does it stand for the present, or the future? I'm just not sure, and I wonder what others think of this development in clothing?

I am also very excited to watch the collections in Paris, to find out if the design field there is drawing on similar themes.

 

[ultramarine]

Hum .. I think people are reading too much into this ...

hyperfemininity is a TREND ... and where do trends come from? The street? People?

This permeates the entire pop culture ... which show is one of the most popular out there worldwide? Man Men! After a couple of successful seasons now other networks are emulating the 50s era with their very own version of what was to be on those times: That Playboys TV show is an example as well as the one from PanAm (when people used to dress to fly).

Honestly, I think this is a revolution from people: Im personally tired of seeing people flying in Juicy Couture suits, shopping in that or pajamas and even taking casual fridays to the max and bending the rules to make it a wee bit too casual.

"Regular" men now hardly own a suit, and have you seen girls wearing dresses? I mean, I dunno over there, but its a SEA of DENIM EVERYWHERE.

I think people want to look good. And they want to dress up. I personally love the idea of the 50s and their f*cked up vision of when men were men (and wore hats) and women were women (hanging to their pearls and mink coats) and esp whenever you´d go to a party o someplace where everyone was dressed properly.

Can you honestly would tell em you wouldnt like that?

On top of it, there is the fact that its been 50-60 years since women dressed that way. To the shoppers nowadays IT IS NEW. They've never seen people wearing that on the streets nor their mums wearing something like it.

I know Ill take heat for this and maybe called a mysogynist pr*ck, but even though I do not endorse the values and awful -invisible- crisis from that era, Damn those were some nice clothes!

(I wanna live inside a Hitchcock movie)

 

[tigerrouge]

Earlier today, I happened upon an article that showed actual fashion imagery from particular decades, and the 1950s seemed to be full of capri pants and cocoon coats, and some rather defiant fashion at odds with that 'feminine' shape which is all we seem to remember - and reproduce - today, thanks to the selective nature of nostalgia.

 

[fashionista-ta]

NotPlainJane, those looks you posted from Jil Sander just don't look that uncomfortable to me. I could show you way more uncomfortable things from just about any designer out there. The green dress looks like it fits like a nightgown. The skirt may be slightly tight, but that's a pencil silhouette, produced by the tens of thousands at least for seasons past. The most uncomfortable would probably be the first one ... looks tight through the sleeves and across the chest. But this is so mild compared to a lot of what's out there, and I mean in past seasons ...

The Prada shoes are going to be no more torturous than any other stiletto of the same type (mule or slingback). Perhaps ironically, there will be no driving done in these shoes ...

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I think it is the midcalf length of the J.S. pencil skirts that look, to me, to be confining. Were they knee length instead, then I don't think I would get that stuffed sausage feel, where the walk can sometimes turn into waddling - as you would see with some 50s American starlets in similar skirts (for some reason my memory conjures Marilyn Monroe in "How to Marry a Millionaire").

Maybe comfort is subjective?

--------------

Fashion is definitely influenced by pop culture; I mentioned "MAd Men" already, either here or the Prada thread. Definitely there is a desire to turn towards the 1950s post-WWII in the USA, especially, and since that country is the biggest producer & exporter of film/tv worldwide, their point of view - via pop culture and now the internet/globalization - often spreads far and wide.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ That's the skirt length I usually wear ... with a proper kick pleat there's no problem. Just a matter of whether the design is a good one or not ... and yes, comfort is definitely subjective

In one sense the 50s was a golden age ... in the US we had a massive expansion of the middle class thanks to the GI Bill, and with Germany and Japan having just been walloped, the US auto industry had a golden opportunity to take off with very little competition. Lots of good union jobs. Hey, I'm starting to feel nostalgic myself ... and anyone who could kick off a re-expansion (vs the current contraction) of the middle class would have me as his/her biggest fan.

 

[YoninahAliza]

^You know, it's also embodying the idea of the "American Dream" too. I think people look towards American pop culture and film/tv because so many people want to experience the dream. The dresses are more then a garment it's embodying the idea of stability, conformity, and whatnot. Ideas which were all present in the 50's. And so few people have a sense of stability in their life. Right now the world is rather unstable I think... so maybe harking back to clothes of yesteryear is one way to reassure people? Although, it's interesting to note that the two designers that people keep going back to in this thread aren't even American- Prada's Italian and Jil Sander started out as a German brand. So I guess it appears knowledge of life in America during the 50's is the same world over. Anyways... just something to think about.

 

[Squizree]

^You know, it's also embodying the idea of the "American Dream" too. I think people look towards American pop culture and film/tv because so many people want to experience the dream. The dresses are more then a garment it's embodying the idea of stability, conformity, and whatnot. Ideas which were all present in the 50's. And so few people have a sense of stability in their life. Right now the world is rather unstable I think... so maybe harking back to clothes of yesteryear is one way to reassure people? Although, it's interesting to note that the two designers that people keep going back to in this thread aren't even American- Prada's Italian and Jil Sander started out as a German brand. So I guess it appears knowledge of life in America during the 50's is the same world over. Anyways... just something to think about.

It's just like what happened during the Renaissance (which happened in Italy before it did anywhere else). I feel like that the creative spirit of that time is very much present in what Miuccia did for S/S 2012. Back then it was the expansion of trade and the introduction of new worlds (Americas and Pacific) that lead to the creative reinvention. Now we have the expansion of technology and the introduction of new science that allows us to become just as nostalgic about technology and machines as the Europeans did in the 15th - 17th Century about art and literature. And of course this re-inventive movement is constantly happening throughout history, because nostalgia and the power of the human memory is one of our greatest tools.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Stills from the new "Pan Am" film - stewardesses... sigh:

All of these came from Italian Vogue's site, interestingly.

Worth remembering that while the post-WWII economic boom/mass production led to a growing middle class, with many women staying home to shop, raise children, and grow the suburban economy, due to increasing price competition, it led eventually to offshore production, loss of jobs, continuing Cold War threat (can't threaten capitalism in any way shape or form!! or blacklisted ack!!), the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the 1970s oil crisis (all those new cars from the 50s you know...).

LOL, all history is interconnected.

 

[YoninahAliza]

It's just like what happened during the Renaissance (which happened in Italy before it did anywhere else). I feel like that the creative spirit of that time is very much present in what Miuccia did for S/S 2012. Back then it was the expansion of trade and the introduction of new worlds (Americas and Pacific) that lead to the creative reinvention. Now we have the expansion of technology and the introduction of new science that allows us to become just as nostalgic about technology and machines as the Europeans did in the 15th - 17th Century about art and literature. And of course this re-inventive movement is constantly happening throughout history, because nostalgia and the power of the human memory is one of our greatest tools.

Thats really insightful. I really loved the last sentence too. Because maybe when it all comes down to it nostalgia/memory is what makes people react the way they do towards a designer collection or even to other events in history. It's all a matter of perspective. And the way one person remembers something may be vastly different then how others see it. Which is why I love threads like this- while we might not all agree we are all able to state our opinion. And to me the 50's was a bit oppressive whereas to other people they don't see it that way. It's quite interesting really.