![]() ![]() ![]() In its popularity the suit makes an egalitarian statement, reflecting its origins as a rejection of the explicit status symbols of aristocratic dress. But for over a century it was also exclusively masculine.įor hundreds of years women still wore more opulent, adorned and highly class-differentiated clothing: In a sense, elite men continued to enjoy the older, opulent trappings of high status vicariously, through their wives, daughters, and mistresses. As women entered the professional workforce in greater numbers, they adapted elements of the suit to create a feminine professional wardrobe that, in recent years, has become almost as standardized and as accepted as the masculine suit-furthering its egalitarian potential. Of course, the suit still allows for status distinctions, but they are in subtler details of fabric, cut, and internal construction. ![]() ![]() The suit became the epitome of bourgeois masculine attire: Bank tellers and CEOs, file clerks and heads of state all wore some version of the suit. In my book, Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, I look at laws, workplace rules, and social customs that concern what we wear and what our clothing signifies. The suit and the dress codes surrounding it are a perfect contemporary example of how and why we control and ascribe meaning to our clothing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |