Dress your Self
It’s not that there are no possibilities for older women, you can be old and sexy, but what if you don't want to look sexy?
Einav Rabinovitch-Fox, lecturer of modern American History and Women’s and Gender History in the College of Arts and Sciences of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and author of Dressed for Freedom: The Fashionable Politics of American Feminism
Every city in Europe has sprouted from the “agora” of the Ancient Greeks. From the southernmost point of the continent to its northernmost tip, it’s easy to navigate one’s way around the city square. In other parts of the world, instead, I had to recreate my own city center. In New York, probably because of the delightful contrast between the red bricks of the building and the green signage of Barnes and Noble, I adopted Union Square, with its joyful crown of trees. In Tokyo, my center of gravity was the ancient temple of Sensō-ji, with its red buildings, golden decorations, and the smell of incense that filled the air. I particularly liked to walk through its gates in the silence of the night.
In the chaos of Bangkok, I picked a silk shop. It was my oasis in the mesmerizing intrusiveness of the city. The traffic is like a raging river, the sputtering noise of the tuk-tuks’ engines, the smell of rotten garbage on a corner, the mouthwatering smoke of Thai sausages, a long necklace of beads, grilled at a street food stall. And again, the rat house of electric wires, the milky color of the sky, the humid air, and the irregular surface of the sidewalks inhabited by the roots of trees. The air-conditioned shop, with its polished teak wood floors, the shop assistants in ivory traditional dresses, and the gentle smell of lemongrass, was a corner of paradise.
On the shelves, rolls and rolls of silk fabric gave me the feeling of shopping in the rainbow. I could pick any hue of lilac. I adored the greens, and got excited for the coral reds. With my bag of crispy silks, I used to take a cab to the tailor’s shop where I ordered copies of the same sleeveless day dress. The tailor, a thin and humble man who resembled a dried leaf, took measurements and nodded. After every trip, I returned to Italy with my luggage full of new day dresses that, paired with high heels and cropped-sleeved coats, were my everyday signature attire. Depending on my mood, I could pick a different color: sometimes I needed a dusty blue and on another day I felt like wearing orange, or even grass green. My dress was the litmus paper of my soul.
Twenty years later, these silk dresses, each one as thin as a sheet of paper, sit neatly folded in a transparent plastic box in my wardrobe. Not because I couldn’t fit into their XS-size anymore, but because we do not belong to each other anymore. My life has changed so much that a pair of shorts and a shirt suits my barefoot persona better. Without knowing about its existence, Einav Rabinovitch-Fox, lecturer of modern American History and Women’s and Gender History in the College of Arts and Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, brings that box of silk dresses under the spotlight again. As the author of the fresh-from-the-press book Dressed for Freedom: The Fashionable Politics of American Feminism, she helps me to frame the equation of aging and fashion. It turns out that when we ask the what-do-I-wear question, we’re looking at clothing from a self-defeating perspective. When we change frames and start from ‘Who am I?’ ‘How am I growing?’ ‘Who am I becoming?’ some pieces of the fashion puzzle begin to fall into place. To revise the Delphic Maxim, know yourself, and you’ll know what to wear.
Where does your interest in fashion come from?
This project was my dissertation. I was curious to understand why feminism had such a bad reputation. Why there are so many of I’m-not-a-feminist,-but type of people who like to wear high heels, like to use lipstick and wonder how can this be settled with being a feminist. I was really curious about where this came from? Why are feminists known to be bad-dressers and very anti-fashionable? When I started my research it was focused on the early 20th century and I was really surprised because I found a lot of reports, both in newspapers and other ways, of how beautiful the suffragists were, how well-dressed they were. And I thought, if everybody talks about that, why did feminists get that bad reputation, where did it come from? Then I realized that there's a more complex story to tell here because feminists wrote about fashion a lot, they talked about it a lot. So, if they were not anti-fashion, where did this come from? The more I did research and the more I read, the more I realized that it really is a myth. There is a more complex story here to tell and to reflect on how fashion works within feminism, and not against it. There's a lot to be gained if we think about fashion as a tool of feminism, and not as a tool to oppress women necessarily.
Maybe the issue is when fashion sexualizes women too much?
But fashion can also be fun and empowering. Everybody wants to look good; it's part of the pleasures in life, to dress up and to feel good about yourself. We shouldn’t give it up so quickly. I’m not denying that fashion might have oppressive sides to it, but it can also be a very empowering tool. Feminists really understood the power of fashion, and how they can manipulate it to make claims over their bodies and over their rights and claims for freedom. It’s enough of an issue that we should address it, and think about it seriously.
What if we think of fashion as a language? What role does it play in our image-based economy? Why are we so focused on the way we look, on the image we project of ourselves?
Fashion is a language and it is oftentimes the first thing we know about a person, before they open their mouth, before they talk to us, before they tell us what they believe in. We see what they wear, and we make a lot of assumptions about their gender, about their class, about their political positions. You can do a lot with fashion. I think it is a language, a form of communication, although it's not oftentimes a very direct form of communication. It’s a complex one, especially in our world when most of us are not making our own clothes, so the message doesn’t totally belong to us. This said, I think there is a lot of power in fashion, especially for people who don't have loud microphones, because they are banned or barred from positions of power. Going with a t-shirt and slogan on it - or a face mask for that matter - which literally really shouts what you want to say, sometimes has a bigger, more powerful message than if you write a speech. Everybody talked about AOC’s [Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes] dress at the Met Gala, right? And she didn't have to come and explain her entire economic policies. She just came with a dress that said “Tax the rich” and it was covered everywhere.
In your research, did women influence fashion and fashion in turn gave a contribution to women's liberation or do things work the opposite way around?
I think it's kind of a bit of both. The fashion industry also changed. The world we're living in now is a very different world from the early 20th century when things were less corporatized. The fashion industry was always a big industry in terms of money, but it never happened before that we had so many seasons. We used to have four, now we have 52 seasons, one for every week of the year - from the retailing industry’s point of view. We're living in a world of fast fashion. It’s a very different world from the early 20th century when the industry just picked up. Most of the brands nowadays are not controlled by the designers themselves but by corporations and they, at the end of the day, are just interested in the bottom line. In the late 19th century and early 20th century things were a bit different. The designers had more control, especially couture designers, and it was in a sense a more feminine-led industry than it is now. It really made a difference, in a way it was really women who designed for women, the 1920s to the 1940s were really a kind of a heyday of women in the industry. And there is also a difference between the couture industry and the retail industry. Most of us don’t wear Chanel or Lanvin, or not every day, but we all read Vogue. Even if we can’t or don’t want to afford couture, we buy H&M or Zara and they are doing the cheap versions of whatever couture is doing. That relationship has always happened, but the retail industry is more dependent on supply and demand. If women don’t like it, they are not going to buy it. And again, women are not all powerful. Of course they have power as consumers, but there were times - I make examples in my book - when women pushed back and the industry had to accept that. Okay, we let you have it.
Can you give an example of this?
In the 1920s, the fashion was short skirts, the flapper fashion and the knee-height skirts and women really liked it because it gave them a lot of freedom. It was comfortable and they could go anywhere. By the late 1920s, the industry really pushed hard to lengthen the skirts again because of economic considerations. They needed women to buy new clothes. So they needed to change the fashion in a way that would make women buy clothes, and women said no, why should we give up something that works for us? We don't want to go back to long skirts, that’s not going to work. They really started to organize against that, against the industry. They boycotted the long skirts; there was a lot of politics around it. They compared their skirts to the vote and said we’re not going to give up the vote. Why should we give up the short skirts? These are things that we earned. We're not going to go back. In the end the industry said okay. The Depression was also a reason, because people buy less during economic downturns anyway, renewing your wardrobe was not a pressing concern for women. At that point, the industry said okay, but skirts do get longer, mostly for evening wear. Daywear remained fairly short, fairly easy, just because women, you know, vote with their purses.
And we see the same thing happens in the 1940s during the “New Look” that came from France to the United States after a decade because of the war. It was proposed as “Whoa, it’s the new look!” But American women said no, this is not what we're used to, like, we were dressed in very comfortable clothing during the war. We're not going back to this kind of very confining, very old idea of femininity, which we're just not abiding to endure that New Look. The New Look ended up not being a success in the United States. Dior changed the style a bit for the American market. By 1951, the industry abandoned the New Look and made some adjustments because the American women didn’t buy it. So women do know how to push back when they want to, but the fashion industry does not work upon supply and demand, because if it did we wouldn't be wearing bras and all of our clothes would have pockets in them right? So, women are part of that conversation but they're not always calling the shots. Also, women are not just one group, there are differences.
If you think about the miniskirt, it was such a big change in women's life and society tried to push back. But it was also the result of a dialogue going on all the time…
Yeah, the mini was really like a bottom-up fashion. The retail industry did not like it at all and it was really pushed by young women who were like it makes us feel great and it was part of the sexual revolution and women really celebrated the mini. The retailers who wanted to court the college market said okay, we'll have to sell the minis because that's what they want. Then again in 1970 the industry tried to push the midi skirt as a way to replace the mini and women said no.
It was such an interesting time, with men and women wearing the same flowered pants.
At the end it was not a unisex fashion, it was more of a feminization of fashion because all the things that women took from men they never gave back: high heels, jewelry, every ornament. If you see paintings of Louis XIV, he’s in leggings and high heels, and wears lots of jewelry. That was the norm for men. Big wigs, makeup, all of these were men’s stuff that slowly transitioned, and women started to incorporate it and to reclaim it, but it didn't turn out to be unisex. It's now women who are wearing high heels. Pants are the only item that men are still clinging to.
If we talk about aging and fashion, women in particular report that they have the feeling they become invisible, fashion-less. What do you think?
To some degree, it's true. What happened in the 1920s and the rise of the flapper, it’s also the rise of this youth and this cult of youth almost. Our obsession with youth became the forefront of fashion, with the industry beginning to focus on the younger generations. So you’re right. We had women who were in their 40s and 50s and 60s - and in the 1920s that would be old - who were saying we're flappers too and by wearing flapper dresses, they were able to participate to some degree, but the ideal is certainly young. And we are continuing this obsession with youth that has not, unfortunately, disappeared. In a sense, old women do become invisible to some degree, but it's a weird dynamic because old women also have more money. They are the ones who can really afford to buy haute couture, the creams, and all the big bags that a 20-year-old cannot. The old women have more economic power to influence the industry because they are their customers. (see comments below)
But they are never represented. Older women feel like they have to cover up their bodies because the only accepted model is that you have to look young and sexy. There are no other reference points. As women age, they are lost.
I think you're right and the industry doesn't take old women into consideration. Your only option is to look young. Maybe you have clothes that will fit you in terms of sizes, but not in terms of style.
Is this a way to control women?
To a certain degree, yes. But again, older women are also the ones who have the economic power, they run the industry. People like Anna Wintour, she's not young, right? So the powerful women in the fashion industry are actually quite old. Top models like Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, who are still working, they’re in their mid 50s. They're not young, I mean, they're not 20-years-old anymore and Kate Moss still works on the runway. I think about women like Carla Bruni, she's not young either.
Going back to the beginning, to make a comparison with the suffragists, do you think that older women are not yet aware of themselves as a group and maybe this contributes to self-doubt when it comes to fashion?
I think you're right. Older women do have more money, so they have power, they just need to organize themselves. It’s not that there are no possibilities for older women, you can be old and sexy, but what if you don't want to look sexy?
You can look old and bold, there are so many possibilities, but it's like stars in a galaxy, they are not connected yet…
It's true for other groups too. The industry's kind of ignoring large body size, people of color, all these groups are not getting as much attention as they should. In recent years it does get a little bit better, and the fashion industry is more aware, there are designers who are more aware, who ask who are my customers. We need to design clothes that will look good in size 16 and not just in size six.
There's a difference in the way old men and all women dress. As professor Julia Twigg pointed out, men keep wearing the clothes of their profession, whereas women question the way they look. For the majority of them, it is a loss of identity.
Our world just doesn’t like old people; our society is very much youth-oriented. Iris Apfel has just celebrated her 100 birthday, she’s an Instagram star, she’s dressing up, she’s a fashionista with millions of followers. She’s a good model, but in general even if we do have older role models, people we can imitate and aspire to, we don't allow them to age to a certain degree because of Botox and so on. Andy McDowell was recently photographed in Cannes and, maybe it was the pandemic, maybe it was her decision, but she didn’t dye her hair. I thought it was kind of ironic because she was a presenter for L'Orèal for so long. She got a lot of backlash about her gray hair that, instead, is something that we can celebrate. Women like Isabella Rossellini or Sophia Loren, these are old women who really are celebrated for their beauty and they are beautiful, but they don’t look their age to some degree.
If you could give suggestions to aging women to reclaim their power in the way they dress, what suggestion would you give them on the basis of your experience?
You need to find the style that works for you. It is out there. I mean, maybe it’s not the mainstream. Today we're not making any of our clothes. Women have just lost those skills that made a difference for so many women before, because even if you bought something, you knew how work with it at home and adapt it to your own tastes and needs. A lot of the story of 20th century fashion was about that. The bad news is that sometimes the fashion industry decides on these horrible trends and we need to live with this. But the good news is that trends today are really much shorter, because of the 52 seasons we talked about before. So we need to like it for two, three weeks or a month and then something else will come up. So you can ride those trends, if you don't like them.
But I really do think that at the end of the day, what matters is you. There’s a difference between style and fashion. Fashion is constantly changing, but style is something that is more solid. You have your own style and as you grow, as you get old, your style changes, maybe you like to cover up. I wear pants today but I usually only wear dresses because that's the most comfortable thing for me at a certain age. There was a time when I would have never worn dresses, but now it kind of fits my body better. I think we all find our style and I think within these very limitations of the fashion industry, everybody can find what works for them.
I guess you’ve just said something marvelous here. A fashion trend comes and goes, but if we reflect on style, everything changes. But in order to understand our style, we need to reflect on who we are, who we are becoming. Asking this type of question is much more than just putting something on that feels right. What is your take?
We used to live in a world where there was one thing in fashion, and some people were not in fashion. But today there are so many fashions. So if you don't like the trend, the miniskirt, you can do something else and it's not getting you out of the conversation. Because there're so many options that you can adopt. It is really about finding your style. Just ignore if this season, the fashion industry decides on low cut pants and it doesn't work for you then just write it out. You don't have to wear it.
I really like this idea that you have to work on yourself and on your story, on who you are.
Style is an expression of your identity at the end of the day, right? It's how you communicate yourself to the world.
Aging asks you to try to understand the meaning of your life. We tend to think about fashion in terms of, what do I wear? Whereas, if I ask how I dress the person I am, it’s a different thing. Isn’t this a better perspective?
Part of what I'm trying to do is to reclaim fashion as fun. We need more fun and joy in our lives. We're living in such a depressing time, I feel that we also need to remember, write about the fun things in life and the things that make us feel good about it. And these can lead to very powerful things. When people feel confident about themselves, they can do great things and fashion gives you that. Fashion is very powerful and very empowering. Take the “Pussy Hats.” It was a very powerful fashion statement and it was a very powerful political statement as well. It was a way for women to come together and our fashion world today is just so dispersed. But it's also a good thing. Because you can find yourself more easily.
