Feminism and vintage/retro dress

[ElderberrySyrup]

Been meaning to start this thread for ages.

I've been doing a spot of vintage dressmaking lately and hence looking at quite a few blogs on the subject. 1950s style seems to be the most popular and there were a fair number written by women who dress in 50s clothes because they love the 50s, when men were men and women were ladies and everyone knew their place. Often it goes with being a happy Christian SAHM.

However there are also some who find something subversive in vintage style (eg this one - I don't want to link to the happy Christian ones in case it gets bitchy and they seem like sweet people whom I have no desire to upset.) Tea dresses worn with tattoos are quite common.

It has also struck me that a fair few of my feminist friends are into vintage style crafting and dressing. At all the marches I have been on there have been a few marchers who could have stepped straight out of the 40s or 50s (there was an Edwardian one at Million Women Rise IIRC) and I have seen pics of quite a number at Slutwalk.

So, I'm intrigued and fascinated. What is the connection, if any? Is it about resisting MODERN fashion? It would make more sense if we were all dressing as Suffragettes or 70s women's libbers, but that's quite rare. And the clothes are often no more comfortable, or less sexualised, than contemporary fashion. Is it about acknowledging the constructed nature of femininity? Or is there no connection at all, is it that in any group of women in the UK in 2011 there will be a few retro dressers (is that the case?) and it just happens that a proportion of them are feminists?

Any thoughts?

I am trying to get some new Doc Martens at the moment (I want to try them on, not get them online, so I need a shop and a quick wander round town didn't reveal anywhere). DMs with flowery dresses, very 80s

20s style was not all androgynous. Flapper dresses may not be particularly curve-enhancing, but they are far from masculine. It's just about emphasising different parts of the body. For example, a genuine, or good reproduction, late-20s dress will come to around the knee, either just above or just below. The lower leg is on show, and the shoes. Also, many 20s style were quite high at the neck at the front, but low at the back, with detail to the rear.

I have experimented with 20s looks in the past. Genuine 20s clothes are very hard to find these days, and are usually really tiny. Reproductions are better for actually wearing.

The 60s is my favourite decade for style-copying. On special occasions, I always gravitate towards slightly A-line shift dresses in nice colours, and for interviews, I like a dress and jacket in the Jackie Kennedy style. It is smart, functional, not overly showy, but has some style. Strangely, I always think of feminism and the later 60s together, and fashion being a bit of a reflection of that: simple to wear dresses that gave freedom of movement, and could be run up quite easily by someone with a sewing machine and a little practice.

any good? Actually there does seem to be quite a lot around; perhaps it tended to survive because it didn't get worn for long and women didn't want to throw it out because they felt sentimental about it.

I read a blog comment today arguing passionately that actually 20s clothes can be flattering for a much wider range of figures than is generally supposed, because they involve a lot of flowing drapery which looks good on any shape.

SGB - I work with an amazingly stylish woman who is totally into the glam-rock '70's look - she does that cropped-hair androgynous Annie Lennox/Bowie thing to perfection! Helps that she is about a size 2 .

I couldn't carry off the leather-trousered MILF look. I have HIPS!

Ach, Helvetica! Feel your pain re pregnancy-spreading feet. Spent 9 months in rather unpleasant Ecco flatties. They DO shrink post-partum BTW (honest!) Feet, not Eccos I mean.

Elderberry - I've often seen it argued that bias-cut (think 1930's) draped frocks are v. flattering for the curvier/hourglass figure. The "Ghost" label used to specialise in this sort of stuff (still available in affordable fashion off eBay).

Problem is, current fashion dictates that we DON't accentuate curves, so it just looks "wrong" in our eyes. Unless you are a fashion student, or extremely confident in your personal style and not subject to a professional dress-code , it takes courage to wear clothes so far removed from conventional norms.

15 years PP here Feet have shrunk a bit.

Still buying hideous "Relaxed Fit" type footwear though...

Okay, can't contribute alot to the vintage wear discussion. I'm tend to mix things up like salwar kameez or bright coloured jumpers, but never gone for a defined "look."

But, funky shoes? I like funky shoes, despite suffering my second bout of plantar fasciitis in the past couple years. Eee gads, it's torture. But Heavenly Feet do some amazingly fun shoes, more comfy than Ecco or Hotter, in my experience, like these dolly shoes. Honest, just amazingly comfy. Alegria are a bit pricier, but comfy and fun as well.

We should have a feminist sewing weekend where you come to my or Helvetica's house and make a dress.

Hey Helvetica, there's room for both you and Stewie at my place, right? (And when we buy the big house about which we are always fantasising, everyone can come at once.)

Ohhhhh I used to wear flowery mini dresses with tough lace up boots! In the 80s...long long time ago.

I like 1940s and 1950s dresses a lot. I also am a SAHM (for now, not for ever I hope to go back to work when kids are a bit bigger) and a feminist.

I like wearing feminine clothes, but I hate trying to look as if I try to be sexy IYSWIM. Forties and 50 style dresses suit me in that respect. Also, I have an "old fashioned figure" according to the ladies in my local vintage shop(I go in and out a lot, and have "shapely legs" rather than the straight up and down figure that's in vogue now).

I am NOT in any way submissive, or hankering back to an era when men were men (whatever that means ).

In terms of dress style, I like to look feminine and strong. 40s and 50s style fits into that.

OK, so here's a question.

What do different eras of clothing 'say' that makes so many feminist-minded women feel more comfortable in vintage than contemporary style?

Here's an attempt at the start of a list based on words used on this thread, maybe people could copy and paste and add to it? (I'm assuming no-one does 80s/90s yet; words can be contradictory and not everyone will agree with all of them but this is a sort of brainstorm so it doesn't matter.)

1920s & 30s - androgynous/athletic
1940s & 50s - dignified, grown-up, feminine, strong, serious, formal
1960s - smart, free
1970s - androgynous
2010s - young, sexy, masculine, boyish

That's ok Stewie, we'll put you down to use the Singer that has survived two world wars (but been reconditioned so it's not all precious and intact).

1970s weren't androgynous

Actually, I don't think the semiotics of the clothes are the same as they were in their heyday; they now signify an 'opting out' of current fashion trends.

This is evidenced in the way that vintage shops sell clothing from a range of eras; I will find something polyester with balloon sleeves next to a cotton 1940s tea dress, rather than going to a 70s or 40s themed shop.

The message wearing the clothes gives today is a wholly different one it would have given at the time.

not in general, no, it was from LapsedPacifist's description of a particular woman who does a 70s glam rock androgynous thing.

agree re the semiotics having changed. Absolutely!

Hmm, no - I was TOTALLY girly Laura Ashley/ Hippy in the 70's!

LOVED the androgynous look, but was SO not that style myself! I had long waist-length curly henna'ed locks (ALA Kate Bush) and wore droopy maxi-skirts.