Women's Clothes and Women's Rights

Abstract

YOUR DRESS MOVEMENT INVOLVES THE WHOLE WOMAN S RIGHTS CAUSE. The woman, whose soul is capable of casting from her person the absurd and degrading dress, in which fashion has bound it, can aid that cause. No other woman can. 1 These words of Gerrit Smith expressed the opinion of the dress reformers of the 1850s, and were to be repeated in various forms during the next half century. The feminist objections to current styles were based in part on the socially acceptable ground of feminine health. Long skirts swept the ground, collecting the unspeakable filth that lay ankle-deep on contemporary streets; they were voluminous and difficult to handle, and during the Civil War were draped over hoops, with added danger to their wearers and increased discomfort to bystanders. Tightly corseted waists rearranged the vital organs, encouraging the frequent and well-advertised feminine ill health. Lace, ribbons, spangles and other decorations made the well-dressed woman resemble a combination of variety store and Christmas tree. A multitude of petticoats dragged at the waist. Tight garters interrupted the circulation in the legs. Low necks and flimsy shoes invited pneumonia. Not only feminists, but also doctors and educators, deplored fashionable dress, moaning that women were courting sickness and death, and were becoming unable to perform normal housework and to bear healthy children. A second line of feminist attack was that current feminine clothes incited immorality. A tightly compressed waist emphasized bust and hips. A low-cut bodice and bare arms encouraged male imaginations. Flowing skirts attracted prurient peering as they gave glimpses of whiteclad ankles when a woman boarded an omnibus or swung in the waltz, or as they outlined their owner's legs in a stiff breeze, and women's legs were taboo in the nineteenth century. Women's purity would have a better chance of survival if male passions were not aroused, for while