The last time I saw a woman wearing this kind of thing, I blew them away with extreme prejudice. A scoped silent hunting rifle puts a nice big, flowery hole in the back. For closer engagements, a flaming-gasoline-covered lawnmower-blade-sword tears and carbonises for that must-have distresses look.
The Fallout universe (post-apocalyptic retro-sci-fi with 1950/60s design principles) is the only place for a dress like that.
I understand the article’s issue with the advertisement, but I don’t understand Lily BF’s comment: surely you’re putting down women’s ability by presuming that a woman cannot divorce the 60-years-old societal identity signified in the dress from the actual cut of material? Why can’t a woman appropriate the cut of the dress for a new generation and subvert the stereotyped cultural signification of the dress? Your comment seems to demonstrate that you think that either women are, or this particular woman you mention is, incapable of such wit; either of these cases demonstrates your keen, and evidently poor, superficial judgement of women based solely upon their looks, and, militantly further, that a woman’s worth to society can be simply measured by a glance of her aesthetic.
Woh, where did that come from, Matthew? I am the LAST person to denigrate a gender’s capabilities.
The woman I was referring to was a computer game character. The character was a stereotypical 50′s-style American housewife of the kind from a detergent powder advert.
You are clearly aware that the clothes a person wears is an outwards statement of their inwards personality and the archetypes they wish to display. The statement and the truth are not necessarily equivalent, of course.
I admit I was exaggeration when I said the ‘only’ place for that dress is the described example, or any media-created ideal of a 50s kitchen. I could imagine a similar dress being quite attractive on a woman, perhaps enjoying a spring picnic in a semi-managed wild-flower field. While it’s not my style, I could appreciate the pointed contrast in taking the cut of the dress – as you suggest – and combining it with an un-expected material or pattern. That having been said, I would be horrified to see a modern woman wearing this dress – seriously – in a domestic setting, extolling the mindset of a housewife.
Why would you be horrified? Surely the whole point of feminism is that women have the right to choose how they live their lives and not that they have to live them the way men used to? If a woman wants to stay at home and look after her children, wear floral dresses, keep her house and bake pies for her family then who are you to judge her? The whole point is that she can do that if she wants to, and if one day she says screw this and goes off to write her dissertation, she can do that too.
I was scrolling down to comment something of a similar sentiment. Couldn’t have put it better.
There’s no way you’d wear a £110 to bake in the kitchen – flour can be an absolute BITCH to sponge out.
Personally it’s refreshing to see something from the high street that doesn’t make me look like a white slave.
I think the point is that in the 1950′s women had little choice but to spend their days endlessly dusting the same carriage clock before forcing themselves into uncomfortable negligee and succumbing to their husbands various sexual needs without voicing any of their own. This is why this comment is so offensive. Also it implies that all women have a secret desire to return to the time when they were subjugated.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>