Hitherto, dress reform has always proved a failure. And this is
because dress reform has usually been only the effort of a few
scattered individuals to force their personal taste upon the world.
And while social consciousness is often awakened by the daring
examples of such pioneers, all real social growth comes from a
collective consciousness, which is born in a body of people, by reason
of some economic or moral pressure which affects them all. When such a
body begins to murmur of a reform, that reform is almost certain of
accomplishment. And such a murmur, concerning dress, can be heard
to-day among those women who are banded together by the fight they are
making for freedom.
Dress seems, at first glance, to be one of the least important of the
questions which modern women are taking up: but the smallest
examination into its practical aspects reveals the fact that it
affects all their other interests—not as a mere expression of vanity,
but as a serious economic factor.
When we women first entered factories and workshops in numbers, we met
unfair conditions on every side. This was particularly true of the
garment trades, which were among the first to employ a great many
women. And when we met this unfair treatment, women dreamed of
legislating virtue into manufacturers. But it can’t be done! And now
it is dawning upon the consciousness of a number of women that the way
to reform clothing manufacturers, textile manufacturers, etc., the way
to cut down insane speeding, overwork, underpay, is to change our
insane conception of clothing—to strive to make it a normal, useful
thing, instead of a hampering, exotic, extravagant thing, which works
one group of women to death at a miserable wage, because a far smaller
group of parasitic women wish to be arrayed like peacocks! Knowing
this to be true, one naturally turns to the fundamental question, and
asks—what _is_ dress—what is fashion? And what, indeed, is dress? Is
it simply a means of protection from cold? A concession to so-called
modesty, a means of displaying wealth, and advertising leisure? Of
attracting the opposite sex? It has been all of these in the past, and
many of the same factors are still apparent in our present-day use of
garments: but a new interpretation of the word has come in with our
new industrial conditions. Dress is an enormous economic factor the
world over, and nowhere more so than in America, where it is an
over-exploited industry, whose markets have been stretched abnormally,
not only by the increasing production of inferior articles, but by a
psychological factor, far more potent even than the law of normal
supply and demand; and that factor is Fashion: a purely hypothetical
need of change in order to meet a purely hypothetical standard, which
is entirely ephemeral and continually altered, artificially.
Year after year, we are made to put the money we begrudge, that we can
ill afford, money we would honestly rather put into other things;
money, often, _that we have not got_, into that particular twist to
skirt or coat or hat which will keep us as ridiculous-looking as our
neighbor, while, at the same time, safe from his ridicule; in other
words, to save ourselves the discomforts of being out of style. And
yet, detesting fashion, as I think the majority of us do in our most
secret hearts, we are often hypnotized by it to such an extent that
free action is prevented.
If the number and character could be estimated of those people who
have stayed away from entertainments for lack of a new gown, or dress
suit, or some accessory thereof, almost every human being who has ever
received an invitation would probably be included in the list. That
people stay away from church for the same reason is traditional, and a
favorite method of imprisonment has always been to take away formal
clothing, and substitute loose garments. This trick has been
successful in the instance of white slavery, for it is found that the
girls are unwilling to go out into the street in the brilliant “parlor
clothes” furnished to them.
So deeply rooted is this fear of being wrongly dressed, and so serious
may its consequences become, that it is high time that an examination
into the forces behind the accepted forms of fashions be made, and our
slavish adherence, not only to fashion, but often to discomfort, be
shown for what it is, _a chimera which_ _we ourselves protect_, and
which gives a lot of more or less unscrupulous business men their
opportunity.
Most people believe that fashion is a matter of our own free choice
and approval; but this is not actually the case. For there is in
existence to-day such a thorough understanding between the big combine
of designers, department stores, wholesalers, manufacturers,
textile-mill owners, etc., that our pocket-books are drained by them
as systematically and coöperatively as though they belonged to a
single corporation: and their profits actually and directly depend
upon the extent to which they can play upon our hysterical fear of not
being dressed “correctly.” Of course, the first principle of playing
their game is to get control of fashion itself, to be able to swing
the public taste by forcing constantly changing styles upon it: in
other words, garments must _not be permitted to continue in use until
they wear out_. Before a garment has come to a state of disuse, a
radically new model must be presented which will make the old one look
ridiculous by comparison. In the cheapest grades of manufactured
garments, whose purchasers, it is safe to suppose, would keep a
garment until it was worn out, by reason of poverty, the desired
change is accomplished through the use of shoddy and inferior stuff.
The dress of the rich woman will be discarded at the slightest hint of
a change in style, while its cheaper imitations, worn by the poor,
_are made of stuff deliberately calculated to last only for a season
of three months_! Needless to say, the fact is not advertised to the
working-woman who spends her savings on a suit at a price varying from
five to eighteen dollars!
But, to a certain extent, this scheme of constant changing has reacted
against the manufacturers, especially those engaged in articles
pertaining to dress, rather than the garment makers. These former are
completely at the mercy of the most apparently insignificant change in
fashion. As a natural result, there is a tremendous lot of bribery
coming the way of the designer and the retailer. “Swing the fashion my
way!” is the constant cry of those who make trimmings, such as
buttons, braids, fringes, laces, etc., and it makes all the difference
between success, and, sometimes, bankruptcy, to the manufacturer,
whether or not dozens of little silk buttons are being used on women’s
tailored suits, or if there are two bone buttons less on men’s coat
sleeves. And the same thing is true of the fringe maker or lace
factory. For instance, since the introduction of the narrow skirts
which women have been wearing for the past three years, the lace
business has been nearly ruined. The close-fitting dress permits of no
lace-trimmed lingerie: the ruffled petticoat is a thing of the past,
and it was to the white goods manufacturers that the imitation lace
man sold his wares. On the other hand, the introduction of pleated
chiffon, as a substitute, has raised the occupation of side-pleating
from a scattered, ill-paid basis, comparable to that of a cobbler, to
the status of a real business.
But while change of fashion leaves one or another trade high and dry
in turn, lack of change is still more deadly, especially to the
textile mills. For two years, 1911-12, women varied the making of
their garments only very slightly. The textile mills lost thousands of
dollars in consequence, and, at last, in the summer of 1912 began a
campaign to alter conditions. Their methods were so flagrant that they
would have been funny if they had not been so disgraceful. Everywhere
they offered bribes to designers. “Draw full skirts,” they said; “draw
pleated skirts, and draped gowns and draped waists; we want to sell
our overstock!” The current fashion was taking only six or eight yards
of material to a gown, and the obvious way of improving the matter was
to establish a demand for gowns which would require fourteen to
eighteen yards instead, or gowns which would require the more
profitable full-width materials; above all, gowns which the old,
straight styles _could not be remodelled to imitate_! The bribery was
as well handled as political “favors,” and as to the result, behold
the manner in which our women are swathed in mummy fashion to-day!
That people should wear any clothing which is not exactly suited to
their need and honest desires seems too ridiculous to be true, and yet
that is exactly what most people do, usually without thinking of the
matter. How many men really like to wear a stiff collar, or a dress
suit? Or how many like to wear dark, thick suits in summer instead of
a kind of glorified pajama? And women! How long will they continue to
wear corsets? Not one really wants to. But it is not so much these
blatant ills of dress which harass one. It is the useless accessories,
the keeping up of irrelevant trimmings and embellishments, the
elaborate fastenings, which are the real annoyance.
Not for an instant is it suggested that people should cease to make
themselves attractive in appearance, or that uniformity of dress ought
to be adopted. On the contrary, a greater individuality is to be
desired, but, above all, comfort and convenience. One should be able
to wear what one pleases without coercion of any kind or the
impertinence of criticism from some one whose tastes happen to differ.
To one man a collar may be a comfort; to another it is an abomination.
And there should be no rule, written or unwritten, which compels
either to sacrifice his comfort and tastes to the other.
The true feminist recognizes that one woman may like to swathe herself
in draperies, and the next may prefer the plainest, freest form of
garment; and that one should be made to feel uncomfortable and
ill-at-ease because big financial interests have approved one rather
than the other, is an outrage upon the right to mental and physical
liberty!