Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask how Vivienne Westwood revolutionised everyday fashions.

171 replies

WatchoRulo · 30/12/2022 14:08

I will admit I know little about fashion. Hearing all the glowing tributes has made me wonder what effect she had (that I'm not aware of).
My recollection is of that talk show where the audience laughed at her creations and she had a strop - but there must be more to the story than that?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Mirabai · 02/01/2023 23:27

SarahAndQuack · 02/01/2023 21:53

I think this has been mostly debunked by now. There's a nice article here about how we bought that myth because it was a convenient shorthand for oppression: www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-bridgerton-gets-wrong-about-corsets-180976691/

And also one here about what was really going on: www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/everything-you-know-about-corsets-is-false/]]

Male doctors have a fairly long history of claiming women brought all their health problems on themselves.

Do you even read your own links? And why are you quoting fashion historians on medical history?

From your second link:

Of course, they weren’t exactly the healthiest things to wear every day, either. They did force organs to shift around, cause indigestion and constipation, and eventually weakened back muscles. And they didn’t leave a lot room for pregnant women’s fetus-incubating bellies. But deadly they were not…

A corsetier with an M.D., Inès Gaches-Sarraute, came up with the straight-front corset—also known as the “swan-bill,” “S-line,” or “S-bend” corsets—which he believed kept the pressure off a woman’s stomach. But these corsets forced women to tilt awkwardly, hips back, breasts forward, and created an exaggerated S-shape in the back. Of course, these were probably much worse for one’s health, putting all sorts of strain on the spine by forcing such an awkward posture.

It’s true that some diseases attributed to corsets were not caused by them such as TB and cancer - that was medical naivety. But to be fair to the male doctors of the time they could see corsets were not doing women’s health any good.

Here is another article from the Smithsonian site. Scroll down for the para on corsets:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-perils-of-wearing-clothes-3442933/

SarahAndQuack · 02/01/2023 23:37

Yes, I read them; I quoted fashion historians on fashion history. Why, do you think historians can't work on the aspects of history of medicine relevant to their subject?

It is too simplistic simply to say 'corsets were restrictive' and to give all credit for women's health to male doctors, is all.

Mirabai · 03/01/2023 00:04

History of fashion is just that - once you stray onto the impact of corsets on women’s health - that is medical history. There is plenty of historical medical information available on the health problems that corsets caused.

It is not simplistic to say that corsets were restrictive. They were horribly restrictive. And trying to airbrush that out of women’s history does a complete disservice to the reality of women’s lives.

Who gives “all credit for women’s health to male doctors”?? There were no women doctors in the U.K. before Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.

SarahAndQuack · 03/01/2023 00:10

Well, to me that sounds like a remarkably dated and snobby view of specialisations in history.

I've no idea why you are telling me about when women were allowed to qualify as medics? I merely pointed out you were crediting male doctors with insights into corsets and their roles in women's health. The real situation is much more complicated. There were various campaigns and concerns expressed around tight-lacing (which is one, quite niche, aspect of wearing the many different undergarments we now lump together as 'corsets'). But these concerns certainly were not restricted to male doctors. It suited women, too, to equate corsetry with social restrictions and campaign against both.

What I took from the earlier post pointing out that corsets perhaps didn't need 'liberating' was simply that fashion history, and its intersections with social and medical histories, are often not simple and a lot more interesting than a soundbite like that. I thought it was a fair point.

Justdontbejudgy · 03/01/2023 01:02

Highdaysandholidays1 · 30/12/2022 15:08

Some of these remarks are just so silly, I don't know where to start. Even a quick read of her obituaries or the front page of the Mail would tell you she was an extremely successful businesswoman, who made clothes that thousands, or tens of thousands have loved wearing. She doesn't have to have 'changed everyday fashion' to have been highly successful, although you could argue her stunning corset dresses, punk fashion etc have had their influence. She left a company worth £50 million, a property empire worth £18 million and £150 million fortune on top of that- she isn't just some woman who once shagged someone famous, she had her own very successful life of her own. Two sons with successful careers in fashion as well. What is it with people on here.

I know....I sometimes find fashion a bit superfluous compared to actual proper issues, but you can't fail to be impressed by her achievements. She is a proper British Icon.

This is worth a look.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gallery/2013/nov/30/vivienne-westwood-sexpistols?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

TottersBlankly · 03/01/2023 07:52

I sometimes find fashion a bit superfluous compared to actual proper issues

Good Lord! I happily agree to accompany you on a trip around the world so you can introduce me to all the non-superfluous people walking around stark naked. After that we can maybe visit the single, outlying field growing the single irrelevant acre of cotton that clothes us all. Of course we’ll have to take along some agro-economists and chemists and erm other experts, to search for the one tiny stretch of river being polluted as a result of fabric production - obviously this will be difficult as it will be hard to find. After all that labour perhaps we can go and have a drink with the half dozen silly idiots who insist on working in factories producing all that superfluous clothing that no one wants because we all buy only three items in a lifetime.

If you don’t fancy all that travel I’m delighted to say I have subscriptions to a few galleries so - after we’ve spent ten minutes rushing past the sparse handful of portraits where stupid artists have depicted even more stupid people wearing superfluous clothes that denote their status throughout history - we can relax with a very nice bottle of wine.

Clothing industry? What clothing industry?

Mirabai · 03/01/2023 10:46

SarahAndQuack · 03/01/2023 00:10

Well, to me that sounds like a remarkably dated and snobby view of specialisations in history.

I've no idea why you are telling me about when women were allowed to qualify as medics? I merely pointed out you were crediting male doctors with insights into corsets and their roles in women's health. The real situation is much more complicated. There were various campaigns and concerns expressed around tight-lacing (which is one, quite niche, aspect of wearing the many different undergarments we now lump together as 'corsets'). But these concerns certainly were not restricted to male doctors. It suited women, too, to equate corsetry with social restrictions and campaign against both.

What I took from the earlier post pointing out that corsets perhaps didn't need 'liberating' was simply that fashion history, and its intersections with social and medical histories, are often not simple and a lot more interesting than a soundbite like that. I thought it was a fair point.

😂 There are specialists in all kinds of history and different ages. It’s unclear whether that fashion historian’s minimisation of the biological consequences of corseting is due to a naive agenda or inability to grasp basic biology in the medical sources.

I’ve no idea why you can’t work out that in ages when there were no female doctors, medical feedback on corsetry came from men. There were concerns expressed about tight-lacing in particular - which was fairly common not “niche” - but that was part of a broader concern about the health impact.

Women didn’t campaign against both social and sartorial restrictions because it “suited” them - but because they passionately wanted to get rid of both and rightly saw the two as linked.

Justdontbejudgy · 03/01/2023 11:53

TottersBlankly · 03/01/2023 07:52

I sometimes find fashion a bit superfluous compared to actual proper issues

Good Lord! I happily agree to accompany you on a trip around the world so you can introduce me to all the non-superfluous people walking around stark naked. After that we can maybe visit the single, outlying field growing the single irrelevant acre of cotton that clothes us all. Of course we’ll have to take along some agro-economists and chemists and erm other experts, to search for the one tiny stretch of river being polluted as a result of fabric production - obviously this will be difficult as it will be hard to find. After all that labour perhaps we can go and have a drink with the half dozen silly idiots who insist on working in factories producing all that superfluous clothing that no one wants because we all buy only three items in a lifetime.

If you don’t fancy all that travel I’m delighted to say I have subscriptions to a few galleries so - after we’ve spent ten minutes rushing past the sparse handful of portraits where stupid artists have depicted even more stupid people wearing superfluous clothes that denote their status throughout history - we can relax with a very nice bottle of wine.

Clothing industry? What clothing industry?

Eh, calm down. I meant the hype, the models, the lovey-ness of it all. Not the entire clothing industry. Wow!

SarahAndQuack · 03/01/2023 13:02

Mirabai · 03/01/2023 10:46

😂 There are specialists in all kinds of history and different ages. It’s unclear whether that fashion historian’s minimisation of the biological consequences of corseting is due to a naive agenda or inability to grasp basic biology in the medical sources.

I’ve no idea why you can’t work out that in ages when there were no female doctors, medical feedback on corsetry came from men. There were concerns expressed about tight-lacing in particular - which was fairly common not “niche” - but that was part of a broader concern about the health impact.

Women didn’t campaign against both social and sartorial restrictions because it “suited” them - but because they passionately wanted to get rid of both and rightly saw the two as linked.

I know there are specialists in all kinds of history; my postdoc was in history of medicine and I also have a working interest in histories of textiles. Why you think those two things couldn't go together, I've no idea. It is perfectly relevant to cite fashion historians when we're talking about corsets and the body, and rather silly to assume that, just because someone is a fashion historian, she or he couldn't possibly understand history of medicine.

I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I am saying about male doctors. I have said that it's not unknown for medical misogyny to take the form of blaming women's illnesses on their lifestyle choices (eg., 'oh, you are ill because you wear this silly corset'). That is not the same thing as saying that there were female doctors at the time, or that they denied this. It is simply pointing out that medical misogyny has a long history.

It is really fascinating untangling all sorts of different intersecting reasons why tight-lacing was a fantasy (and it was a fantasy rather than a common practice) at the same time when women were supposed to aspire to be delicate, weak creatures.

But, the fact remains that, for the vast majority of their use in history, corsets and similar devices have been intended for support, not restriction.

Mirabai · 04/01/2023 15:04

I’ve never said they couldn’t go together. Just not in this case as this woman seems to have better grasp of fashion than she does of women’s medical history or even basic biology. Not saying she couldn’t understand it - just that she doesn’t seem to - or perhaps hasn’t done enough research.

I have never wilfully misunderstood - your posts are rather confused. While that 19c male medical approach to women are rooted in patriarchal ideas - that doesn’t mean they are all misogynist in the sense of dislike or fear of women.

Medical approaches to women can include prejudice, ignorance, misogyny, downright inhumanity and contempt on the one hand and genuine concern, benevolence and desire to understand/help on the other. Indeed the two streams are not even mutually exclusive.

In this case, one thing that is striking about the source texts

  • and they are by no means all of a piece (written by doctors of different nationalities and different dates) - one is struck by the genuine concern about the impact of corsets on women’s health and in some cases the progressive thought that blames (patriarchal) society for imposing a distorted shape and constriction upon women as if their own natural shape was not perfectly fine.

I fundamentally disagree that corsets were intended as “support” or were a “lifestyle choice”. They were an imposition of patriarchal society based on a desire to see women pulled into a fantasy shape while restricting their movement and breathing. Mothers trained their daughters just as they themselves had been trained, brainwashed by the demands of the patriarchy. They are the ultimate symbol and practical implementation of misogyny.

SarahAndQuack · 04/01/2023 16:25

Which woman do you mean by 'this woman'? There are a few historians mentioned across those two articles I linked.

I never suggested all men, all doctors, or all nineteenth-century medicine, was misogynist in every way, only that medical misogyny is not new or surprising, and it is therefore not surprising that women's fashions have often been interpreted as signs of women's foolish inability to take proper care/blamed for women's illnesses.

You can 'disagree' all you like about corsets being supportive, but unless you can explain why every single corset - not just the tight-lacing ones of extreme fashions or fantasy, but every corset - was harmful to women's bodies, I'm afraid I'm going to have to trust people who have done the research on the subject.

Mirabai · 04/01/2023 17:24

Hilary Davidson, although McCann, quoted less, is equally naive.

Regency corsets were more comfortable than Georgian or Victorian because they weren’t boned. The Empire line dress didn’t require a nipped in waist. A short corset was thus developed, like a longer structured bra. While these did sometimes contain wood or bone and those probably weren’t very comfortable - they were at least far more comfortable than prior and subsequent incarnations.

Immediately after the regency the waist is nipped in again and remained so, in different forms, for the next 100 years, until the rise of women’s rights in the early 20th century.

Candidly, I simply don’t care if you choose to believe corsets were merely supportive or who you choose to read on the subject. If you’re satisfied with the quality of insight into female history provided by the fashion historians quoted above that’s up to you.

Mirabai · 04/01/2023 17:24

McGann that should say.

SarahAndQuack · 04/01/2023 19:11

Confused Of course it's up to me.

Why on earth do you think I need your reassurance? You are the person who seems keen everyone should agree with you rather than with experts. If you're happy to leave it at this, that's absolutely fine by me!

MorganKitten · 04/01/2023 20:02

fancyacuppatea · 30/12/2022 14:10

^See what Jane wrote.

I know she shagged Johnny Rotten for a while, but that's about it.

Nope, They were friends, she was with Malcolm McLaren.

Mirabai · 05/01/2023 10:21

At what point have I asked anyone to agree with me? I simply gave my opinion. Take it or leave it.

vera99 · 15/01/2023 06:07

Bovver girl and rent-a-gob Julie Burchill weighs in true "tear down the idols" punk fashion.....

The ghastliness of Vivienne Westwood

14 January 2023, 7:00am

Seeing the swathe of superlatives wheeled out about Vivienne Westwood after her death last year at the age of 81, it felt for a moment like Elizabeth the Great had died all over again. Acolytes from Victoria Beckham to Sadiq Khan delivered their fawning tributes – my favourite was from Bella Hadid, who lamented the loss of ‘the most epic human being that has walked this earth.’ But the two women, Queen Elizabeth and Westwood, were as different as chalk and cheesecloth. The designer was a graceless, grasping woman, with an opinion – always wrong – about everything. No matter how much she complained and explained, she never convinced me that she was anything more than a hyped-up hustler.

Being greedy and being stingy often go together; stinginess is the halitosis of the soul

Westwood was a hypocrite. At her 2013-14 runway show the audience found her Climate Revolution manifesto printed on the back of the show’s production notes. ‘Capitalism is as corrupt as a rotten apple… U accept because u think there’s no alternative. But we have hope (war is fought 4 land + cheap labour). Change the economy – NO MAN’S LAND. Start by renting use of land, ocean + air – target: sustainability + peace.’

What a shame, then, that for a long time Westwood received the dubious honour of having the lowest rating possible for environmental sustainability on Rank A Brand, the non-profit foundation which compared the carbon footprint of leading fashion, food and homeware manufacturers, noting that her favouring of PVC, plastics, and petrol-based polymers was especially damaging – as well as the fact that many of her clothes were made in China, which is known for its sweat-shop labour. By the time Rank a Brand was incorporated into the similarly-intentioned Good On You – ‘Creating a world where it’s easy for anyone, anywhere to buy better’ – the Dame had been promoted to the status of ‘It’s a start’. But not much of one: ‘There is no evidence it ensures payment of a living wage in its supply chain.’ To be fair, Westwood seemed to partially comprehend her own duplicity: questioned by Carole Cadwalladr in the Guardian about what Suzy Menkes of the International Herald Tribune had written about her (‘How dare she send out a show laced with anarchist messages, announce that the spirit of her show is “the more you consume, the less you think” and then take the opportunity to launch her collection of punk safety pins in diamonds?’) she could only come up with ‘I don’t feel very comfortable defending my fashion except to say that people don’t have to buy it. You do have to consume. You have to live. If you’ve got the money to be able to afford it, then it’s really good to buy something from me’.

Being greedy and being stingy often go together; stinginess is the halitosis of the soul. A fashion insider told me ‘She was once offered corn-made packaging garments bags which dissolve naturally – and she declined as it was slightly more expensive than plastic packaging.’
(Mind you, Westwood didn’t love allplastics; an item on Popbitch recalls her overheard in a theatre chiding her husband as he returned from the bar ‘Really darling, do they not have glassware here? Or am I expected to drink wine from a plastic cup?’) I’ve heard so many clowns say ‘She was never interested in money’ which is like saying that I’m not interested in vodkatinis. Publication of company accounts in 2015 revealed that she was sending £2 million a year to an off-shore account in Luxembourg; a friend says ‘I remember a mate of mine years ago making her corsets in her bedsit that were sold at the time for several hundred pounds. She got £15 per corset.’ No wonder she left an estimated £150 million fortune.

But for me, the worst thing about her was her intern programme which meant – for all her blather about revolution – that only the children of the wealthy could work for her as she paid them nothing. Fashion to some extent runs on an ‘economy of hope’ with interns thinking ‘if I do this job for nothing and I do really well, maybe I’ll get noticed and actually put on the payroll at some point’. How cruel to exploit the dreams of the young – and to make it possible only for rich kids to get a start.

Westwood passed as clever only because fashion folk are so thick. I spent some time around them in my twenties when my new husband’s two best friends were the boyfriends of Katharine Hamnett and Isabella Blow and it was quite the eye-opener – or rather, eye-closer. I grew up in the less than intellectual world of rock music as a teenage reporter, but fashion people make pop stars seem like rocket scientists; hearing the Ramones attempt to converse was like being at the Algonquin Round Table in comparison. All my life I’ve loved the company of my fellow hacks, more than drink and drugs even, but I was amazed how the addition of the word ‘fashion’ in front of ‘journalist’ instantly transformed a potential fun new friend into an ocean-going ninny entirely capable of using words like ‘genius’ about a blouse. The way rag trade types talk about clothes ‘expressing your personality’ is a giveaway: most of us express our personalities through speech and action and a thing called wit. This sojourn led me to the conclusion that those who care about clothes really are the dullest people in the world, and this is why their elaborate window-dressing is so important to them.

Oscar Wilde wrote that ‘Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months’. Westwood couldbe a good designer when she put aside any idea of being an artist, but like a lot of people who spent too long at art school she thought it shameful to be just a dressmaker. Her dresses weren’t made for the usual stick insects gay male designers tend to favour, which made women pathetically grateful to her. But all the ‘strong woman’ tributes ring somewhat hollow for a woman who at the start of her career made CAMBRIDGE RAPIST T-shirts and towards the end was Julian Assange’s chief groupie. John Lydon put it well, with characteristic insight, calling Westwood and Malcolm McLaren ‘a pair of shysters – they would sell anything to any trend that they could grab onto.’

Westwood was fashion’s sacred cow, but such gushing adulation as we witnessed on her death is just so un-punk,for want of a more elegant phrase. She wasn’t a rebel; rebels don’t accept OBEs, rebels don’t avoid tax, rebels don’t have interns work for free. Rather, she was a dull person’s idea of an interesting person. A message posted on her official Twitter page read ‘The world needs people like Vivienne to make a change for the better.’ No, we don’t. Because it wasn’t only when she went knicker-less to Buckingham Palace to accept her honour that this empress had no clothes.
Julie Burchill

IClaudine · 15/01/2023 08:09

Well, there are some good points bobbing around in that sea of bile, I suppose. But a fair and balanced article from a person who knew Westwood personally, this is not.

Burchill really is a sad case. There is no wit or nuance in this piece, just a dull and pointless take down of another human being. That swallowed-a-thesaurus toad Will Self wrote something similar (I used to like him, but he has turned into a bitter man).

What is wrong with these people? There are so many important issues they could write about.

Betterthing · 15/01/2023 09:20

What a narrow minded, ignorant, stupid article. Westwood was not “wrong about everything”. She made hugely important points about the state of our planet. She donated £1M to environmental issues, and raised awareness of exploitation issues. She made important speeches about how to tackle poverty - both in this country & worldwide. She didn’t call herself a rebel, but whether she was or not is irrelevant. What a spiteful, uneducated, and moronic article.

Changechangychange · 16/01/2023 15:03

Who is still publishing Julie Burchill’s thoughts in this day and age? Didn’t Katie Hopkins take her Queen of Clearly Bitter Clickbait crown?

vera99 · 18/01/2023 09:20

Changechangychange · 16/01/2023 15:03

Who is still publishing Julie Burchill’s thoughts in this day and age? Didn’t Katie Hopkins take her Queen of Clearly Bitter Clickbait crown?

Spectator and Telegraph she is a darling of the uncancelled, anti-woke , contrarian right as epitomised by the mob from Spiked all ex ultra left cultists that en-masse became right wingers and rabid Brexit supporters. Thought to be trendy to those types because once she was supposedly street back in the day. I'm sure she must have taken an axe to mumsnet - I'll have a look.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread