On 18th C Clothing and womens Lib.
http://repository.library.ualberta.ca/dspace/bitstream/10048/1343/1/Dowdell+Thesis.pdf
I haven’t figured out just who this little lady is, but I'm quite pleased to have stumbled upon her when doing an image search of all things. I think she's the mind behind Rockin' the Rococo. But that's just wild speculation and not what is interesting me about reading this thesis.
The introduction was tedious as I am a layman, and makes multiple references to other researcher’s papers. I will therefore rely on her summary to get to my rather round about point. Each of those referenced papers seem to have the idea that labor division between men’s and women’s clothing was very uniform across the apparel manufacture. Those papers seem to also indicate that the concept of ‘women’s work’ in general and as it applies to apparel manufacture was formed in this time.
Our little darling however, seems to think that the division of labor and disparities with income between the genders, and the subtext of low perceived value of the resultant female made apparel was only formalized at this time. Gender and quality differences were much older working social concepts.
Men work skills were viewed as more specialized, higher quality and demanded higher pay.
Women’s sewing was regarded as unskilled and demanded pay that was below subsistence levels by a high percentage of the needle trade population.
This is where it gets interesting to me. She makes the correlation, but I think misses the source of the concept between these divisions of labor.
In a population where reproductive control wasn't possible, the long breaks between apparel making chores would force innovations in speed. Not just as a matter of convenience, but necessity. The work of tending children and by extension all of their material support was time consuming and constant. Any sewing techniques employed would require accommodating the constant bodily changes of growing bellies and growing children. The time dictated sewing operations being swift to apply, and as swift to teach.
A further consideration with the sewing techniques she covers and marks some differences between the genders is the lifetime performance of the garments themselves. Men’s figures in general change slowly. Over time they gain weight and girth, but over a period of years. In a period of a few months women and children can experience huge shifts in weight, height and distribution. The servicing of these varied markets would lead to much different garment performance expectations.
The way I’m thinking of it derives from learning much of my understanding of needle trade processes in a modern sense. Kathlene Fassenella has been very influential to my way of thinking about my sewing hobby. What she’s offered me is a way to put into perspective my needs for clothing, and the requirements to fill it. In her case and in modern apparel manufacture, the primary concern is uniformity. Ready to wear is the only way to wear. Alterations are unheard of but for the most formal of occasions. This is starkly contrasted to women’s garment manufacture in the 18th c. They are sometimes quite mis- matched on the inside. They are pieced within an inch of their life, and not uniformly unit to unit.
So when the general feeling of garment construction is that women did the easy stuff, or did stuff in a rushed and hurried way, I just sort of bought it in general. When Cathy Hay looked inside the Oak Leaf gown for her reproduction, universally it was seen as strange that the interior of the gown should be to our eyes messy. I mean, aesthetically the interior was messy. But when you start comparing assumptions of serving that market, it wasn’t messy. It was serving exactly the purpose it was intended for.
As she indicates women had a hard time making ends meet on the whole while working in the needle trades. I think that this leads to the forwarding of male styles of clothing manufacture, because of economic pressure forcing women out of advancing their trade. Men had the time and money to invest in forwarding ideas of their business model and customer base’ needs; uniform across units, one size expectation over the life of the garment, and making machines to emulate what were seen as those best practices. Oddly enough they had only ever been served by this type of practice. I mean, they aren’t going to make a machine that does a slip stitch, since they never really saw one on men’s suits. They’re going to make one that looks like a backstitch, since obviously that’s best method. They never surveyed other clothing manufacturing options because of the social pressure that men were de facto more awesome that women at everything. It was really only because they had the time to spend on it in the first place.
Thanks for all the help with da babies, lads! No wonder sex was seen as not really in service to women for so long. Thank you very much, the Pill. You broke really necessary ground for women.
I will admit it makes me less concerned about patterns, at least for myself. Each fabric pattern must be designed with turn- of- cloth for each weight and weave anyway, so a pattern would have to be prototyped multiple times to get it uniform unit to unit using a pattern. I have only one piece of each color and weight and thickness of cloth, and prototyping expenses would be much higher than the initial materials cost, since I’d need enough to make 3 of them anyway. That is to meet the standard of uniformity as it’s been passed down to us in it’s current modern form. First of all, I don’t need three of any one garment, identically right down to the color way, and second of all, I don’t want to spend my time making 3 of everything to feel like they are coming out right. If I need to slap in a patch, I can do that as a one off, making it look good and professional and whatnot without violating the practices I’ve been trying to emulate.
Basically trying to emulate practices descending from a privileged upper class male concept, while completely ignoring the needs of the market I’m actually serving: Da Ladies.
I don’t intend to cheap out on my practices, but it changes my idea that historical practices were somehow cheaper than the modern ideas of apparel. They were just made with wildly different assumptions, and one’s I’m not really need to serve right now.
I haven’t figured out just who this little lady is, but I'm quite pleased to have stumbled upon her when doing an image search of all things. I think she's the mind behind Rockin' the Rococo. But that's just wild speculation and not what is interesting me about reading this thesis.
The introduction was tedious as I am a layman, and makes multiple references to other researcher’s papers. I will therefore rely on her summary to get to my rather round about point. Each of those referenced papers seem to have the idea that labor division between men’s and women’s clothing was very uniform across the apparel manufacture. Those papers seem to also indicate that the concept of ‘women’s work’ in general and as it applies to apparel manufacture was formed in this time.
Our little darling however, seems to think that the division of labor and disparities with income between the genders, and the subtext of low perceived value of the resultant female made apparel was only formalized at this time. Gender and quality differences were much older working social concepts.
Men work skills were viewed as more specialized, higher quality and demanded higher pay.
Women’s sewing was regarded as unskilled and demanded pay that was below subsistence levels by a high percentage of the needle trade population.
This is where it gets interesting to me. She makes the correlation, but I think misses the source of the concept between these divisions of labor.
In a population where reproductive control wasn't possible, the long breaks between apparel making chores would force innovations in speed. Not just as a matter of convenience, but necessity. The work of tending children and by extension all of their material support was time consuming and constant. Any sewing techniques employed would require accommodating the constant bodily changes of growing bellies and growing children. The time dictated sewing operations being swift to apply, and as swift to teach.
A further consideration with the sewing techniques she covers and marks some differences between the genders is the lifetime performance of the garments themselves. Men’s figures in general change slowly. Over time they gain weight and girth, but over a period of years. In a period of a few months women and children can experience huge shifts in weight, height and distribution. The servicing of these varied markets would lead to much different garment performance expectations.
The way I’m thinking of it derives from learning much of my understanding of needle trade processes in a modern sense. Kathlene Fassenella has been very influential to my way of thinking about my sewing hobby. What she’s offered me is a way to put into perspective my needs for clothing, and the requirements to fill it. In her case and in modern apparel manufacture, the primary concern is uniformity. Ready to wear is the only way to wear. Alterations are unheard of but for the most formal of occasions. This is starkly contrasted to women’s garment manufacture in the 18th c. They are sometimes quite mis- matched on the inside. They are pieced within an inch of their life, and not uniformly unit to unit.
So when the general feeling of garment construction is that women did the easy stuff, or did stuff in a rushed and hurried way, I just sort of bought it in general. When Cathy Hay looked inside the Oak Leaf gown for her reproduction, universally it was seen as strange that the interior of the gown should be to our eyes messy. I mean, aesthetically the interior was messy. But when you start comparing assumptions of serving that market, it wasn’t messy. It was serving exactly the purpose it was intended for.
As she indicates women had a hard time making ends meet on the whole while working in the needle trades. I think that this leads to the forwarding of male styles of clothing manufacture, because of economic pressure forcing women out of advancing their trade. Men had the time and money to invest in forwarding ideas of their business model and customer base’ needs; uniform across units, one size expectation over the life of the garment, and making machines to emulate what were seen as those best practices. Oddly enough they had only ever been served by this type of practice. I mean, they aren’t going to make a machine that does a slip stitch, since they never really saw one on men’s suits. They’re going to make one that looks like a backstitch, since obviously that’s best method. They never surveyed other clothing manufacturing options because of the social pressure that men were de facto more awesome that women at everything. It was really only because they had the time to spend on it in the first place.
Thanks for all the help with da babies, lads! No wonder sex was seen as not really in service to women for so long. Thank you very much, the Pill. You broke really necessary ground for women.
I will admit it makes me less concerned about patterns, at least for myself. Each fabric pattern must be designed with turn- of- cloth for each weight and weave anyway, so a pattern would have to be prototyped multiple times to get it uniform unit to unit using a pattern. I have only one piece of each color and weight and thickness of cloth, and prototyping expenses would be much higher than the initial materials cost, since I’d need enough to make 3 of them anyway. That is to meet the standard of uniformity as it’s been passed down to us in it’s current modern form. First of all, I don’t need three of any one garment, identically right down to the color way, and second of all, I don’t want to spend my time making 3 of everything to feel like they are coming out right. If I need to slap in a patch, I can do that as a one off, making it look good and professional and whatnot without violating the practices I’ve been trying to emulate.
Basically trying to emulate practices descending from a privileged upper class male concept, while completely ignoring the needs of the market I’m actually serving: Da Ladies.
I don’t intend to cheap out on my practices, but it changes my idea that historical practices were somehow cheaper than the modern ideas of apparel. They were just made with wildly different assumptions, and one’s I’m not really need to serve right now.