"Most stores in South Korea are "one size fits all," and that one size is small, as in designer sample size small. Finding clothes larger than a U.S. women’s size 6 is challenging, especially since the starting point for "plus-size," or extra-large, is a Korean size 66, the rough equivalent of a U.S. women’s 8."
Jezebel. The Painted Face. She is, as we've defined her, a scheming and shamelessly evil woman. She's Lolita and Eve. A woman of easy virtue. A temptress, a mistress and a courtesan.Anna Vodicka: On Modesty. [more inside]
Call her a hussy, hootchie, hooker, whore. Harlot. Jade. Vamp. Vixen. Tart, tease, trollop, tramp. Siren, seductress, strumpet, skank. Coquette, floozy. Wench, hoe. Loose. Slut. Minx.
Find a male equivalent. Look up "gigolo" in your handy thesaurus. Find "playboy," "socialite," "pleasure-seeker," "ladies' man." A stud, a player. A father, an uncle. A boy toy. A bachelor. A groom.
Through original interviews, conversations, surveys, projects, diagrams and drawings from over six hundred contributors – including Miranda July, Cindy Sherman, Elif Batuman, Mac McClelland, Lena Dunham, Molly Ringwald, Tavi Gevinson, Rachel Kushner, Roxane Gay and Sarah Nicole Prickett – Women in Clothes explores the wide range of motives that inform how women present themselves through clothes, and what style really means.Feeling inspired? Answer the book's inaugural survey here. A selection of completed surveys, sorted by author or by question, can be found at the Women in Clothes website. [more inside]
This mom got fed up. Companies have been down-sizing their clothing for years as fashion trends call for "slimmer" cuts and silhouettes. Clothing sizing is an issue. Maybe there needs to be a mandated standard of clothing sizes? No cutting corners or skimping on measurements. [more inside]
Margaret Perry's review of Women in Pants provides an interesting overview of those women (in the Western world) who chose to wore pants in the 19th and early 20th centuries when the standard gender norm dictated dresses for girls and women. R.S. Fleming has a great collection of Victorian women-in-pants images, particularly in non-American military garb. See also: Welsh pit miners, women fighting in the US Civil War (and support-staff), this cattle thief/gunfighter, some cowgirls, and Dr. Mary Walker - here she is in more traditionally masculine dress (second picture). In France, the artist Rosa Bonheur had to get permission from the police to wear pants (picture) while sketching in public (her license), while adventurer/archaeologist Jane Dieulafoy got a lifetime exemption to wear pants from France. [more inside]
The Bicycle Craze of the 1890s had a significant impact upon women's lives. Leaders of the women's movement saw bike riding as a path to freedom. Many women cyclists enjoyed the freedoms and experiences bikes gave them. Although many health experts recommended biking to women for its health effects, other health experts and some moralists saw dangers in letting women venture off into the wild blue yonder with and without men, danger in potential physical damage to women's bodies, disaster in letting them adopt "unfeminine garb" - and of course, they might enjoy it TOO much. [more inside]
Corset books - recycle your underwear as art? To explore issues related to women's body image, Tamar Stone creates books from "corrective" women's undergarments. (via art for housewives)
U.S. Army Uniforms for Females. While searching for late 50's and early 60's formal wear I came across this gem.
"For the last 8 years, young women at the Shah Makdhum factory in Bangladesh have been forced to work over 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, denied maternity benefits, beaten and paid just 15 cents for every $17.99 Disney shirts they sewed." "Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, pays himself $133 million a year, or about $63,000 and hour. It would take a worker in Bangladesh sewing Disney garments for 12 cents an hour 210 years to earn what Eisner does in an hour."
Women's Bodies or Women's Fashions: What Should Come First? Comfort in Western dress is a relatively modern and liberal concept. In the last few years, though, it seems to have been forgotten by increasingly unforgiving - even sadistic - designers. Or is it just Art? Last Wednesday, the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art opened a new exhibition called Extreme Beauty: The Body Transformed. Judith Thurman, in the current New Yorker, suggests things have gone too far. The question is: should leading designers be free to be absolutely creative - as they seem to be at the moment - or should they adapt their creations to the actual shape of women's bodies? Has "haute couture" finally become an art in itself, with no pretence of actually clothing real women? Is, in fact, a certain hatred of women involved?