jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/27/85)
There is some interesting history (and herstory!) involved with the wearing of high heels and other fashion items. In Western culture, the notion of a man using his family as a means of displaying his wealth first became strong in the Middle Ages (prior to that, the Romans hid their wives away, as befit virtuous women), especially with the rise of the bourgeois. It was not considered proper for a man to be ostentatious, so he dressed up the wife and kids to show his wealth. The more restrictive a woman's clothing (corsets, trains, etc), the less work she was able to do for herself, thus showing that the man could afford a useless wife with servants to wait on her. Poor women wore much less restrictive clothing, and even pants when field work was being done. This attitude later changed to the extent that men became popinjays themselves. Louis Quatorze wore high heels the likes of which you couldn't pay me to wear ! In time, the pendulum swung back again with the Victorians - somber men's clothing, very restrictive women's clothing, and very opulent displays of possessions. The Jazz Age finally freed women in this country from wearing several pounds of foundation garments and even saw the invention of the brassiere. In Western, Judeo-Christian culture, painting the face has often been frowned upon as a means of inciting 'innocent' men to lust, of loose morals, and whathaveyou. But in other cultures, many parts of Africa for example, face and body paint, hair styles and even scarification are viewed are perfectly acceptable ways of making 'art' with ones own person. There are religious and social reasons as well as for the basic "because it looks neat". Foot-binding in China, for those of you who haven't heard the legend, reported was begun by an Emperor whose favorite dancer had very tiny feet. He found these to be so erotic that he had her bind them with wet rags (which shrunk as they dried) to make her feet even smaller. As it later developed, foot-binding was a grotesque form of mutilation which involved cutting a a deep crease in the foot of a 6 yr old girl, so as to push the toes and heel even closer together. The feet would be bound, and eventually all the toes but the big one would dry up and fall off. Women with bound feet had to keep them bound forever, or endure terrible pain if the bindings were removed. Here again, useless feet were a sign of aristocracy, as it was obvious the woman had never done field work or anything useful. And, lest we forget, high heels are sexy. They bring out the muscles in a woman's calves and emphasize her rear end. And all those freudian things, too. Now, I personally wear high heels almost every day and have for years. I never wobble or totter in them. I have a very long stride (I'm 5'9") and I walk quite fast. I often find good leather pumps to be more comfortable than running shoes because they breathe better and slide on and off more easily (I *really* like to be barefoot), but I do wear running shoes to walk to the bus in, not because they are more comfortable, but because it reduces wear on my expensive leather shoes. I wear skirts and dresses often (they are much cooler in summer) but I also wear alot of men's clothes stolen from my father and my spouse, and bought in thrift shops. Men's clothing (oh dear, now you've got me started) is generally of *much* higher quality for the price than women's clothing. Women's clothing in this country is made for some poor unfortunate who is about 5' 3" with narrow shoulders, flat chest, thick waist, broad hips, flat ass and short legs. There's all this homage paid to the so-called hour-glass figure, but there are NO clothes made for women built that way. I have to buy jackets in a size 12 or 14 and skirts in a size 6 or an 8 just to get them to fit, yet my hips and bust are the smae size (the problem is that my waist is 'too small' for the standard size). And why, when women have *more* sizing variables than men, are there fewer sizes available ? Women's clothes are often shoddily made, and of lower quality materials than men's clothing, and are often much more costly. I buy most of my clothes from catalogues which carry women's clothing made with tailoring techniques (flat-felled seams, etc) rather than patronise department stores which carry high-priced trash. Even John Malloy, of "Dress for Success" fame, urges women to complain loudy as consumers about the poor quality and high price of women's clothes. (flame off) I also wear makeup, and perfume. Makeup is fun to play with, actually, and I am not dependent upon it for my self-image. But for some women, epsecially those with birthmarks or scars, makeup can be very important because, skillfully applied, it can really boost a woman's self-image and confidence. Basically, it's no different from wearing different clothes depending on your mood. You can assert individuality, express a mood, or whatever, And take it off or change it, just like clothing. Call it body art, of a sort. Perfume is a wonderful thing too. I love for other people to wear perfume, as well as to wear it myself, because it makes personal interaction that much more pleasant. I appreciate a man or woman who smells really nice. Oh dear, I've gone on far too verbosely (you'd think this was net.religion !). Sorry. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (04/28/85)
In article <osiris.262> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: > > Men's clothing is generally of *much* higher quality for the price > than women's clothing. > > And why, when women have *more* sizing variables than men, > are there fewer sizes available? Women's clothes are often > shoddily made, and of lower quality materials than men's clothing, > and are often much more costly. > > Even John Malloy, of "Dress for Success" fame, urges women > to complain loudy about the poor quality and high price of > women's clothes. During any given season, men have fewer styles from which to choose. Also, men's fashion doesn't change as fast as women's fashion. Because of the smaller diversity in style, manufacturers can set up larger production runs for men's clothing, and thus enjoy economies of scale. Similarly, retailers don't need as much space to display men's clothing. Competition ensures that the savings are passed on to the consumer. Frank Silbermann
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (05/02/85)
> > There is some interesting history (and herstory!) involved > with the wearing of high heels and other fashion items. In Western > culture, the notion of a man using his family as a means of displaying > his wealth first became strong in the Middle Ages (prior to that, > the Romans hid their wives away, as befit virtuous women), especially > with the rise of the bourgeois. It was not considered proper for a > man to be ostentatious, so he dressed up the wife and kids to show > his wealth. The more restrictive a woman's clothing (corsets, trains, > etc), the less work she was able to do for herself, thus showing that > the man could afford a useless wife with servants to wait on her. Poor > women wore much less restrictive clothing, and even pants when field > work was being done. This attitude later changed to the extent that > men became popinjays themselves. Louis Quatorze wore high heels the > likes of which you couldn't pay me to wear ! In time, the pendulum > swung back again with the Victorians - somber men's clothing, very > restrictive women's clothing, and very opulent displays of possessions. > The Jazz Age finally freed women in this country from wearing several > pounds of foundation garments and even saw the invention of the brassiere. As a fanatical costume historian, I'd like to amend the above. Everything the above says about medieval fashions is true of Victorian fashions: they were restrictive, men's clothes tended toward the subdued (with notable exceptions like Disraeli and Oscar Wilde), women toward the costly. However, none of the above consistently describes costuming in the Middle Ages. Take first, the assertion that men wore subdued clothing. In fact, there are several eras in which male clothing was much more peacockish than the female. Look at a portrait of Henry Tudor sometime. Then check out one of his wives. (If you want to call him Renaissance, I can dig up earlier examples when I'm at home with my references.) Secondly, Medieval women's clothing couldn't *afford* to be confining; even the lady of the manor had a full day's work to do. Many of the costumes of the period offered more freedom than some modern clothing I've worn. THere are tricks to managing long sleeves, for instance, but they're no more cumbrous than managing a short skirt to keep it 'decent'. The most confining clothing I can call to mind had inconveniently long skirts, but *no* corset. (As I understand it, there's some debate about *when* boned corsets began, but it's definitely late-Medieval to Renaissance.) Don't blame the Middle Ages for the abominations cooked up by the VIctorians. There's a fair amount of evidence to say that women (especially widows) were considerably freer in the Middle Ages than in any other time until today. If anybody out there is more knowledgeable about these matters than I, I would welcome further instruction. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay "Ooh, ick!" -- Penfold
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/03/85)
What about "Earth Shoes"? When those came out a few years back, I thought they were supposed to solve all footwear problems and triumph over the then-superseded fashion-show industry. Doesn't seem to have happened... Will
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (05/04/85)
> > Don't blame the Middle Ages for the abominations cooked up by the > VIctorians. There's a fair amount of evidence to say that women > (especially widows) were considerably freer in the Middle Ages > than in any other time until today. > If anybody out there is more knowledgeable about these matters than I, > I would welcome further instruction. > -- > Elizabeth Hanes Perry I think what I meant here was actually Renaissance and later fashions, excuse the time warp. In fact, for at least awhile in the early Middle Ages, men and women wore quite similar clothing (long robes for both sexes, etc). Also during the early Middle Ages (prior to say, 1200 or so) the laws of marriage and property were not so well-codified as they later became (in part due to the intervention of the Church). For more on this, see "The Knight, the Lady and the Priest". -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."