tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618740322102773225.post3695138152219424815..comments2023-05-14T06:29:59.625-04:00Comments on Stephanie Marie: SCC and Feet RetreatUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618740322102773225.post-50417963263110916812009-10-02T02:58:33.656-04:002009-10-02T02:58:33.656-04:00Hello. I was interested in your comments regarding...Hello. I was interested in your comments regarding how the clothing of 19th century women mirrored the restrictions on their lives. This is a common misconception. Clothing has little or nothing to do with the social roles of men and women. This can be very easily proven by looking at the clothing of past and present tribal cultures, particularly those in tropical climates where neither men nor women wear any clothes at all, yet the women are excluded from leadership and are limited to gender based roles just like in 19th century western cultures, despite not wearing any clothing at all. <br /><br />Because the organized feminist movement began in the western nations in the 19th century at a time when womens clothing was "restrictive" this has led to a belief that there was a relation between restricted clothing and restricted social status. However if you look at the clothing of women in other parts of the world at the same time period, Africa, Asia, Middle East, the South Pacific, they wore no such restrictive clothing as western women, yet their lives were even more restricted.<br /><br />Also the lives of many men in 19th century America were severely restricted. Black men, Jewish men, Irish men, Hispanic, Italian, immigrants, Catholics, etc. Poor men, uneducated men, etc. All these men wore the exact same identical clothes as the dominant white men, yet they did not have the same freedom. Restrictions are not the result of, or a reflection of clothing. However if you believe they are, isn't it contradictory to enjoy wearing the clothing that you claim is reflective of a negative social arrangement? ThankyouAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com