1920's fashion - femme vs. not-femme?

[zaika]

Hi ladies! It's uh, been awhile since I've been here on the FL, but I remembered what a powerful hivemind is here and thought I'd pick your collective brain. Hopefully I've chosen the correct room...

I'm just curious about what you know about late 1920's fashion/trends when it comes to women who chose to not dress in...well, dresses. You know, the women who didn't really like the trappings of being a woman and chose to dress like it. I've found some information out there and photos, but I want to know more and I can't seem to find the right key words or phrases to find more. What was commonly worn by women who didn't really like the fuss of being a woman? What was the stigma of not dressing "like a lady?" Was it common for women to wear slacks as much as dresses? What kind of woman (economic status, social standing, sexual orientation, education, etc) commonly chose this style of dress?

Are my questions fairly clear? :noidea:

I've been doing my own research into this topic, but I'm curious what YOUR thoughts are on the subject and where you've found this kind of information. Websites, books, search words....anything.

Thanks ladies!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Pants, as everyday Sears-and-Roebuck-type fashion wear, didn't become common until the thirties, and even then they caused comment. Mannish jackets, often worn with a collar and tie and a simple straight skirt were not uncommon for women of more severe proclivities, and these fell right into line with the general hard-boiled attitude many "sophisticated" women affected during the mid-to-late twenties.

Women on farms did wear overalls or work pants, but this wasn't something that would be worn into town, nor were these garments cut specifically for women. It was also not uncommon for "tomboyish" girls to wear boys' clothing, at least until puberty kicked in. Farm girls and women usually dressed in clothing not dissimilar from that of the 1910s or earlier -- long, homemade calico dresses with heavy aprons and cotton petticoats underneath, and long, dark cotton stockings. Such women would no more be seen wearing sheer hose and high heels as they would be seen running naked thru the streets at high noon.

There were, of course, women who went full-out and wore men's clothing, either because they were literary provocateurs, artists, or just "butch" lesbians -- even adopting such accessories as cigars, pipes, monocles, and other traditionally-masculine accessories -- but you wouldn't find such women in a small town. If you took a walk thru Greenwich Village, however, especially after dark, you might encounter a few.

 

[Mme Dariaux]

Perhaps the "Tailor-made" girl or woman has some connection to what you are looking for? The tailor-made look, basically a skirted version of man's suit, was the choice of women who did not have ornamental ambitions and wanted to focus on other, work-related things. When it appeared in the 1880's or so (I'm not exactly sure on the decade), it was considered to be a sign of the "New woman", an unfeminine creature who was not gentle, soft or motherly. By 1920's it was of course a rather normal choice of clothing for city women and not a signal of any particular character.

 

[BettyMaraschino]

Im not sure it relates fully to what you are looking for, and admittedly it is mainly from around 1917, but Witness2fashion posted something that could be of interest to you.

http://witness2fashion.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/original-and-becoming-work-clothes-1917/

 

[Tuesday_Next]

I've been watching (and re-watching and re-watching) the Phryne Fisher Murder Mystery Series and she often dons trousers but its definitely in a provocative/bohemian look. They tend to be silky, almost pajama-like trousers. Beautiful but not at all the hard-working, hard-wearing gear of a country girl.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've been watching (and re-watching and re-watching) the Phryne Fisher Murder Mystery Series and she often dons trousers but its definitely in a provocative/bohemian look. They tend to be silky, almost pajama-like trousers. Beautiful but not at all the hard-working, hard-wearing gear of a country girl.

Those types of pants had a vogue in the late twenties as resort/beach wear among the class of people who went to resorts or exclusive beaches. Sometimes they were wide and billowy like pajamas, and sometimes they were tailored like sailor pants, complete with a button-flap front.

 

[DecoDame]

I'm no expert, but my impression over the years was yes, women in pants in the 20s existed mainly on the extreme ends of the social spectrum, for the most part. Men's work clothes worn for necessity during the work itself by working class women and then "shocking" pants for women of the upper class who could escape (most) censure or at least serious repercussions because of their class privilege. And arty/gay people who carefully lived in their own bubbles. "Lounge Wear", wide legged palazzo type pants, could be seen in the latter two cases. Cigarette holder optional (See Louise)


But your average Jane was not walking around Main street in pants in the 20s, no. Short dresses were "scandalous" enough for most already.

There are lovely candid pictures spanning decades, including the 20s, in the picture book "Elegance" by Sylvie Aubenas and Xavier Demange that show the kind of resort and beach wear that Lizzie mentions, and are very inspirational to boot.

You should also look up the ladies "Suzy Solidor", "Una Troubridge", "Romaine Brooks" and "Elizabeth de Gramont" for a start, for the brazen cross-dressers (as it would have been regarded) who full out wore menswear in their daily lives. But again, arty/gay and/or privileged. (EDIT: Actually I'll amend that to say Suzy was very avant garde, and while that included said pajamas, she didn't wear menswear exclusively or anything)

While I enjoy Phryne Fisher, that's always one thing that draws me out of the story - how she goes about solving crimes in the 20s in pants, no where near a beach or resort or bedroom, and no one says anything to her about it, no reactions, not even from newly met people. *shrug* They even double down with her friend the Doctor, but then (SPOILER) she's at least shown later to be gay/bi, so it's more realistic that she might have pushed that envelope at the time. But still, no real reaction to her either. It's unlikely, but then, so are some of the mysteries overall! Suspension of disbelief, you are my TV friend...

 

[Mojito]

Agreed on that costuming element in the Miss Fisher Mysteries series - I get the statement that the costumer is making (look at how very modern and bohemian this woman is! She wears trousers!), but I think it is rather exagerated from a fashion history point of view, for the very reasons given above: I can't imagine a woman walking down the streets of 1928-29 Melbourne in that attire, and the impact of her doing so would not be conducive to a successful outcome to Phryne's investigations. The Phryne of the novels dresses very specifically to achieve certain effects - sometimes deliberately choosing a conservative outfit so as to convey and leverage her social position, sometimes dressing more provocatively so as to disarm witnesses or fit in with a certain crowd etc etc. She is acutely aware at all times of the effect her attire has, and unless for some reason she wanted to deliberately stand out in a way that might would attract for the most part bemusement and even hostility from those around her, I can't see her wearing trousers in that context. However, for your average TV audience, it's a sort of visual shorthand. Phryne wearing trousers when the women around her clearly do not is going to play into the idea of her being independent etc. In the novel, Phryne is more likely to achieve her "daring" effects by skirting close to - but not crossing - the sartorial line by wearing a cleverly constructed outfit, like the Isis costume she wears to the Artist's Ball in Sydney.

I think the comments above highlight an important angle to your question, that of variations in social acceptance according to class, occupation and place - what was acceptable on the Riviera among the rich (like the beach pajamas that appeared in the second half of the decade and the palazzo type pants that had just started to make their way off the beaches and into some more casual daytime venues as resort wear by decade's end) would not become acceptable wear at beaches frequented by working and middle class families in places like America, Australia and the UK until the beginning of the 30s. And while dressing up in masculine evening attire seems to have been something of a right of passage for performers (I have a whole folder of photos of everyone from Colleen Moore to Josephine Baker in topper and tails, sometimes complete with monacle), unless you belonged to one of the sub-cultures referred to above it was not something you were likely to wear for an evening out. On the other hand, masculine influenced cuts in tailoring - sometimes referred to (positively) as "mannish" in the fashion literature of the time, did have a significant impact on women's fashion.