This is a first around here: The Selfish Seamstress “shares” her blog with a guest blogger! Though admittedly the guest blogger would (rightfully) disagree that the Selfish Seamstress is doing this out of generosity or any understanding of the concept of sharing.
A few days ago, I noticed an insightful and potentially controversial observation from a reader about the current trend of “precious” clothing for women in commercial and DIY fashion. Curious to hear more, I asked reader Inkstain if she would be interested in elaborating upon her perspective for everyone. Lucky for all of us she was up for it, and her writing is fascinating and articulate. Plus she’s really good at putting the Selfish Seamstress in her place! It turns out (and I didn’t know it at the time I invited her to write the post), Inkstain, a.k.a. Dinah Lee Küng, is an award-winning author and journalist! Lucky us, right?? If you enjoy her essay, wander over to her website to learn more about her writing, and maybe pick up a copy of her Orange Prize 2004 nominated work of fiction, “A Visit from Voltaire: A Comic Novel.”
The standard disclaimer: The essay below reflects the opinions and perspectives of the author, and not necessarily those of the Selfish Seamstress blog.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I welcome your responses to this essay, but please keep the tone of your comments civil and respectful to our wonderful guest blogger regardless of whether you share or disagree with her perspectives. After all, she has spent hours of her time writing something for you!
Little Girl Dressing
By Dinah Lee Küng
Is Selfish lazy as well as too selfish to sew for others? She’s asked me to guest post, which is another way of saying, “Do my job for me while I slack off and shop for wedding garters.” I guess I should ask for something in return, like she herself recommends in a recent post, but in fact, I won’t. She’s too little to pick on. Nyah, nyah, snark, snark.
Despite my superior height, I’m going to bend to her will and expound on something that has been bugging me as I watch certain blogs and store websites. I won’t name names, but you know the brands and styles I was thinking of when I commented to Selfish last week, “What’s with this generation of grown women who want to wear dresses I would have assigned to nobody over eight years old? It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of adult females wearing birthday party frocks. As fashion morphed from one look to another, it’s suddenly landed on a very strange planet for those of us who’ve matured through the power woman of the 80’s, the grunge hippie of the 90’s and the retro of the noughties. I would never have predicted this turn of events. But now there’s no denying it. American fashion has elected Shirley Temple as the icon of the new decade?”

Am I just jealous? I’m too old to wear flouncy, full-skirted dresses that look like they go with pinatas and party favors, but I have to break it to you. Unless you’re still waiting to try on your first training bra, so are you.
Not that darling-little-girl dressing doesn’t have an honorable pedigree in American history. Notice, I didn’t say fashion. Let’s start with that hugely popular silent film actress, “Baby Mary.”
She was the biggest star of her own “noughties,” but hers was an image crafted for a largely rural society with a grade-school education and new to “mass media.” Backstage, Mary was known to her dashing husband, the filmstar Douglas Fairbanks Sr and her colleague in co-founding United Artists Studios, Charlie Chaplain as the savvy businesswoman Mary Pickford. Pickford wore little-girl dresses on-screen professionally, playing virginal prey for lustful villains who meant her ringlet-haired character no good. Watching her virtue threatened was a kind of cheap thrill in those days, but definitely a spectator sport, and pretty much everybody was in on the joke.
So much so, in fact, that the childish hair, the rouged cheeks, the ruffles and flounced dresses as sicko code were rightfully parodied in the hilariously ghoulish horror movie, “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” by a matronly Bette Davis.
But I didn’t think you wanted to look like that…
American fashion toyed with ruffles or “charming touches” on dresses in the thirties and up to WWII, but with great success, because designers kept the silhouette fitted to a womanly form, highlighting the hips with a flattering bias drape to hems below the knees. No overkill, just charm. There’s no inherent problem with ruffles, bibs, puffs or lace, or as Dior dramatically demonstrated in the late 40’s, a cinched waist and full skirt. But one of the above goes a very long way. In the late 40’s and fifties, America wanted to recapture its pre-war innocence and send women back to the kitchen to free up factory jobs for the men, and so dressed up the classic shirtwaist look with homey touches.
Okay, I can go with Shirley Jones as Laurie in Oklahoma, because she’s supposed to be, you guessed it, virginal prey, with the honorable cowhand Curly fighting back the lustful, sweaty farmhand Judd.
Her dresses feature girlish items, but not too much, there’s a long skirt, or dark jacket or something to signal that she’s going to be a woman soon enough. And for her post-wedding trip, yup, Laurie wears a form-fitting dark tailor-waist suit with dashing hat. Message: American women aren’t permanent virgins.
But “charming details,” all piled on, all together? You end up with, gulp, Margy Frakes, the innocent farm girl at a country agricultural jamboree in the cloying musical “State Fair.” Rent this DVD, but I warn you, the viewing is not for those suffering from sugar intolerance. Margy parades the most god-awful succession of little-girl fashions I’ve ever seen on film, complete with piping, ruffles, petticoats, pin-tucks, lace and puffed sleeves, full skirts and bows, bows, bows. It’s to gag for.
Margy is played by Jeanne Crain and wooed by the “worldly” and ambitious newsman played by Dana Andrews, Very sweet, but the message of Margy’s Wardrobe is not, I hope, your message: I’m a tasteless rube wearing clothes sewn on my mother’s treadle machine back at the farm, while I wait to be rescued by a guy headed for Chicago. It’s almost unbearable to watch Margy twist her curls around and around and around. She even sucks on straws.
My condemnation of birthday-cake dressing has nothing in common with my admiration for the venerable lure of the “innocent” white collar and cuffs on a dark dress that lends a clerical authority to the “teacher look”–quite the contrary. There we’re not dealing with a schoolgirl, but rather the smoldering librarian you could kiss in the stacks. That’s a look Chanel got from the nuns of her upbringing and only current scandals about my faith prevent me from going on here about the now-discredited “I’ll spank you” allure. But if you don’t believe me that strict “innocent and puritanical” can be sexy, watch Ginger Rogers teach Fred Astaire to dance in Swing Time, wearing the look in white collar over flowing black georgette.

No, I’m objecting to the perverse effect of trying to shove a woman’s bosom and hips underneath a party-skirt, ruffles, puffed sleeves, Liberty Cotton farm dresses, and all manner of fussy stuff at the same time—that looks cute on 5-year olds only. In the fifties, Elia Kazan and Tennessee Williams co-produced a movie that was condemned as the most offensive and sexually corrupt movie of its day, “Baby Doll,” where two very grown men compete for the attentions of Carroll Baker playing an over-ripe virgin with less than her full quota upstairs.

Yes, thank heavens for little girls! as Maurice Chevalier sings in Gigi. There’s a valid American showbiz tradition behind that too-childish dress you’re eyeing in the shop window that’s been used by costume designers for a century. For all its cutesy disingenuousness, that dress may be sending a time-honored signal and here it is, in all its unflattering, unsavoury and mutton-dressed-as-lamb fetishism. “I’m inexperienced (or worse, sexually retarded), and prey for lonely, older men who are scared of grown-up females.”
Anybody for a lollipop?
Dinah
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
52 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 17, 2010 at 9:52 am
Cassiopeia
Excellent post. I totally agree. I’m 22 and so barely out of girlish ruffles territory (;D) but I can’t stand the sight of trussed up, beruffled adult women, coyly blinking out from behind their curled (with hot tongs) tresses. But then I am a massive feminist with a capital F, so I’m probably just bitter… ;) Now don’t get me wrong, I can girly-it up, but it’s the over the top “save me” look that turns me off. Saying that, I do pout a lot, and my wardrobe has its share of childish prints and flowers, but flounces? No thank you… I left those party dresses far behind. Particularly as ruffles and bows do not exactly become the curvier figure!!! I do love that Shirley Jones dress and Ginger Rogers is basically my idol. Great post anyway… Xxxc
May 17, 2010 at 9:56 am
Karen
I think that it would be helpful to post pictures of modern day examples of the fashions to which you are referring.
May 17, 2010 at 10:08 am
Darci
What a timely post! I’ve been wondering what was up with all the foofy, little girl party dresses. Dressing like a child is neither empowering nor attractive.
@Karen: you wanted to see examples. These def. qualify:
http://tomandlorenzo2.blogspot.com/2010/05/christian-dior-resort-2011-collection.html
May 17, 2010 at 10:17 am
Colleen P.
Great article! I too am loathe to wear ruffles and flounces, simply because they go so poorly with laugh lines, sun damage, age spots, and grandchildren, which have all become a permanant part of my life.
Besides, I am one of those scary grown-up females, and I don’t think a little girl dress would disguise it!
May 17, 2010 at 10:36 am
The Cupcake Goddess
Really great article! I think there is a fine art in balancing the two worlds. You talk of little girl dressing and going too far in that department, but I’ve also seen the blatant outpour of too much sexiness and going to far in this other direction. I think its a fine balance of both. I love ruffles and gathers and bows and piping, not all on the same frock I’ll grant you, but when tastefully added to a garment can bring a touch of that flirty sweet femine girl to a sophisticated look. I’ll tell you right now, I’m a sucker for little girl details. But I agree, too much is way too much. A little goes a very long way.
May 17, 2010 at 10:41 am
purplesews
Honestly, I don’t sincerely believe that much of the fashions you’re talking about are meant to be worn by women over the age of 30 – not that women over 30 shouldn’t wear them – I hold off sartorial judgment as much as possible – but that they’re marketed at women who are 17-27ish and are comfortable presenting themselves as ingenues (the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, is after all, always an ingenue).
I wonder if part of this isn’t demographic change. A lot of the vintage clothes meant for “grown-ups” signal that one is a) a married woman with children and domestic duties or b) an old maid. If you’re looking for vintage clothes designed for people who are young, have their whole life ahead of them, and haven’t had to make postpartum adjustments to their waistlines, they are often clothes that were originally designed for sixteen-year-olds. There is also the question of how many of these styles have been reinterpreted by other cultures (for instance, the marked Japanese street style influence in US fashion in the last couple of years) and have gained different contexts during their sojourn abroad.
Now, we can’t really judge what you’re talking about if you don’t link to examples – and I don’t think you’re going to hurt Modcloth or Anthropologie’s feelings – but I work in a job where I see a lot of hip young things with money to burn on clothes, and I rarely see extremely flouncy, ornate vintage-influenced getups on women who are older than 25 or taller than 5’5″.
Finally, it’s always going to be hard to convince the young and hip that what they crave in their nonwork hours is sedate lines in charcoal wool. Honestly, from the pictures I have of my female ancestors in the 1940s, it was hard to convince them too, rationing or no.
May 17, 2010 at 10:49 am
Sarah
Oh my goodness, thank you!
I can recall 8 years ago, walking in to Anthropologie and thinking… “The great ruffle war of aught two just won’t stop!”
I love a lovely detail, but it seems that things are getting out of hand when I go shopping and there are few options that don’t feature some bit of ruffle, embroidery, tiered skirts or all of the above.
I liked it at first, as I was just leaving the portion of my career where I climbed scaffolding, used power tools and thought it was funny to have a baby pink hardhat (On one job, I traded my white one to the box that had 2 pink ones, ostensibly there to incentive the largely male architect staff to show up on time or get stuck with pink.)
I felt that being hyper girlie on my off-hours was fun, a great way to bait and switch. Like “Oh, you think I’m all soft and sweet, but I can use a panel saw, too). I was in my upper 20s and I loved the dichotomy.
I can’t help but wonder if this ongoing self-chosen infantilizing isn’t a similar thing. Sort of a warning to others to not make assumptions about dress. “Just watch me defend my dissertation/raise 3 kids/launch a successful business in ruffles and bows!”
The other side of this is that perhaps the uniform of what you really are creates its own negative assumptions, and one is seeking to shatter those too.
I struggle alot with what my outer says about my inner – and how to balance dressing for myself with dressing for others.
This is all terribly interesting. Thanks for the post!
May 17, 2010 at 11:23 am
Tasia
What a great article! I think there’s a fine line though, between embracing your femininity and looking like a child. I’m petite and for some reason look way younger than my age no matter what I do, so if I wore a girly party dress I’d look about fourteen.
However, I love feminine girly details and try to work them into my wardrobe in sophisticated ways. I like a good flounce or ruffle and if done right, can look classy and not like I’m trying to re-live my party dress days. It’s all about balance, or moderation, and often colour schemes can play a big part. Baby-pink or Barbie-pink ruffles are for a little girl’s dream dress, while rich teals or sophisticated creams and taupes done in ruffles can be really classy.
But that’s just my two cents! I’m definitely a girly girl, judging by the amount of floral fabric in my stash and the dresses on my to-do list… and hope as I get older, I can still express my playful feminine side in ways that work.
May 17, 2010 at 11:40 am
Hatty
Part of this story is the confusion about what women and children are wearing. First women’s fashion became “girlish” (so short skirts, bare legs, slenderness, etc) when youth were numerous and economically powerful in the sixties and then the sexiness became more overt and now that has turned a back flip and when young girls wear girlish clothes (short skirts with ruffles, bare legs, pink, pink, pink) , there is an edge of sexiness whether we like it or not (and sometimes it is deliberately accentuated) and “Mommys” on “style blogs” stand in infantile knock-kneed poses to indicate how very sexy and desirable they are. But we don’t want men to think that’s sexy in our pre-teen daughters, right?
We women are helping to create a culture of confusion about the boundary between a woman and a child.
Maybe that’s where the “retro vibe” is coming from – our aversion to that. But then the retro harps back to an era when black women in the US had almost no rights at all.
And the there’s the “hooker chic” look and the bondage shoes for all.
Most of what I see in the shops is despicable. So I sew so I can choose my message. I am an adult woman worthy of respect and I deserve to dress like one. It’s getting difficult to dress these days!
May 17, 2010 at 11:54 am
selfishseamstress
Oh my goodness! Not that I want to bring down the level of discourse which is happening here (all of the comments are so insightful and intelligent) but your comment about knock-kneed moms on style blogs immediately made me think of this page:
http://hipstershavetopee.tumblr.com/
Yes, I am the most immature person on my own blog. But seriously, it’s time to stand up like a grown up :)
And I applaud you for using sewing as a way of taking control of the message you send, rather than letting it be decided for you. I suppose many of us do that unconsciously, but the way you put it makes me think that I should put more thought into that when designing and picking my projects. Bravo!
May 17, 2010 at 1:50 pm
purplesews
Oh goodness, as someone who (in her twenties) is in physical therapy for the painful joint problems brought on by being naturally knock-kneed, I can’t look at those pictures without cringing. Don’t do that too often, ladies! Exercise your outer legs regularly!
May 17, 2010 at 11:50 am
Gorgeous Things
Whenever I saw images from the Christian Dior Resort 2011, I thought immediately of Shirley Temple crossed with a toilet-paper cover doll:
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/complete/slideshow/2011RST-CDIOR?event=show2082&designer=design_house27&trend=&iphoto=20
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/complete/slideshow/2011RST-CDIOR?event=show2082&designer=design_house27&trend=&iphoto=48
I think I’ll pass on this trend. Ruffles have never been my thing.
May 17, 2010 at 11:55 am
Rachel
Great post. I like this trend: Selfish shops for her wedding and we read excellent guest posts. May it continue!
A related personal story: I sent a very good friend the link to a popular vintage inspired dress pattern and asked her “Should I make it?” “Well,” she wrote me back, “if you make it in a really dark fabric it will look ‘rockabilly’ if that’s the look you’re going for, but in a pastel fabric I think it will look like a kindergarten teacher.”
I don’t think she actually mean any offense to kindergarten teachers. She was just trying to express something similar to this post’s point: that when you copy a 50’s look very faithfully (in pink or pistachio green or roses on Swiss dot) the overall look can be a little juvenile for a 30 year old woman in 2010. It was something I’ve kept in mind ever since.
May 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm
cape owner
Sorry Dinah, but if you’re trying to make a point, then please, have the courage to actually *make a point*.
You won’t name names or give current examples of what ruffles your sensibilities. You make vague complaints about grown women who wear dresses that only an eight-year-old should wear. But please, tell us where you draw the line.
What brands and designers bug you? Is it Erin Featherton’s and Rodarte’s frothy dresses? Anthropolgie’s uber-decorated t-shirts? Is it the profusion of grosgrain bows on Chanel and J.Crew necklaces? Does the 46-year-old First Lady’s penchant for big bows and full skirts bring back memories of grade school birthday parties? (And what about that inaugural ball gown? It was practically a replica of the Shirley Temple dress you posted.)
You conveniently forget that there was plenty of unabashed femininity in 80s fashion. Hello, remember Madonna in Like a Virgin? The Amadeus craze? The miles and miles of ruffles that Jackie Collins and the cast of Dynasty wore? Laura Ashley mother-daughter dresses? Princess Diana? And it wasn’t just women who were openly feminine in their attire, men were too. Guys wore eyeliner, nail polish and emulated their favorite hair bands by wearing feminine shirts (that looked more like blouses), tight pants that emphasized their “hips” and moussing their long locks.
And where were you during the 90s when everyone wore babydoll and “granny” dresses with chunky mary janes? These dresses with their high waists and gathered skirts were identical to those worn by little girls at the time..
You also conveniently omit the last 500 years of American women’s fashion in your analysis. In fact, hyper-feminine clothing is the norm in our history. Even Pioneer women had ruffles on their clothes and cinched their waist. Rosie the Riveter was the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, traditionally there has been no difference between clothes deemed appropriate for children and those for adults. (See Victorian family portraits for an example) Shirley Temple’s party outfits in the 30s were not that different from what the grown actresses were wearing in the movies at the time.
I’m all for women wearing whatever makes them comfortable. So if they want to dress like a matron in mourning, that’s fine. If they want to don stiff Western jeans and a flannel shirt, that’s fine too. Pimped out in a pin-stripe pantsuit? Sounds great!
But please, let’s not criticize women who choose to wear clothing that features ruffles, flounces, embellishments, filmy and gauzy fabrics, bows, cinched waists, full skirts, etc. Historically—even in recent history— there simply is nothing unusual about this style of dress. And other than not being *your* taste, there is nothing inappropriate about it.
May 17, 2010 at 12:22 pm
selfishseamstress
Sorry, I should probably address some of this– when I invited Dinah to write a guest post, *I* asked her to kindly refrain from pointing out the work of any other bloggers or hobby sewers as negative examples. She was totally on board with this request and also opted not to criticize any specific works of designers or retailers. I attribute this to graciousness and kindness on her part, rather than any aversion to taking a stance, which she clearly has in her piece. I apologize to any of you who feel like you are getting less out of her post on account of there not being any modern day examples of the type of dress she is objecting to. If so, this is my fault, not hers. I imagine the links to images that other commenters have provided are along the lines of what she was intending.
I would like to remind everyone to PLEASE KEEP THE TONE OF YOUR COMMENTS RESPECTFUL. It is fine and welcome to express a disagreeing opinion or offer counterexamples, but I WILL REMOVE POSTS IF I FEEL THAT THEY ARE OF A TONE THAT IS INTENDED TO INSULT OUR GUEST BLOGGER.
May 21, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Adrienne
cape owner, I totally agree. Fashion is about individual taste. And when you assess current trends in light of historical women’s fashions, there is nothing bizarre or inappropriate about them.
May 17, 2010 at 12:20 pm
D
Now, I like a ruffle here and there, every now and then – something in a a navy georgette, peeking out from underneath a trim suit or the like – sophisticated, not childish….I’ve been known to rock a tailored-for-a-woman shirt in a kinda cute flowery print, paired with something suitable adult.
But, like many, I’m loathe to get dolled up in, well, doll’s clothing! I’m a woman dammit, and although I may look 10 years younger than I actually am, it’s no excuse for me to be prancing about in clothing styled for someone thirty years younger.
Plus, not only would I feel utterly RIDICULOUS in some beribboned frothy candy cane confection, I just don’t do ingenue very well. The cynicism, world-weariness and snark are just too thick for even knife pleats to cut through…
May 17, 2010 at 12:41 pm
earthanddust
“What’s with this generation of grown women who want to wear dresses I would have assigned to nobody over eight years old?”
I personally think women are tired of not looking feminine and are responding to that. Perhaps they’re taking it too far – perhaps they’ve stumbled over some age-appropriate line. As far as fashion goes, if you don’t like it, just wait, it will eventually morph again into an expression of some other frustration.
It would be nice if everyone could assign the same messages to our clothing that we intend to portray, but that isn’t the reality. So you choose what you feel most represents you.
In the end, I’m confident that I wore my clothing, sewn or bought, bows and ruffles, because I liked how it made me feel. And because I liked the way I felt, to wear it was to be true to myself.
May 17, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Sophie
“I think there’s a fine line though, between embracing your femininity and looking like a child.”
I agree. I wish I had more to add, but without knowing what sorts of things are considered suitable only for children under eight, I have nothing else to say. Except I like ruffles and bows. :P
Sophie
filasewphie.blogspot.com
May 17, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Dei
Women’s fashion has always been fertile ground for working out any variety of societal issues, take your pick. Some designers come to the table bent on making a political statement, some simply enjoy the sheer beauty of women and want to celebrate it; think of any Cavalli collection. There is a trend to infantilize women’s clothing, but list it among many others; Chanel’s spring show sporting the farmgirl look or McQueen’s spring collection with a nod to the primordial pool, an organic-Amphibean sort of thing. I have no desire to look like either, but I appreciate the creative process, even if it entails belching up the contents of your subconscious.
I view the current “Lolita” look to toying with the sex appeal of the pre-pubescent which is in-step with its sister trend, an ache for an age when a woman’s purse still matched her shoes and her hair was coiffed. John Galliano’s (Dior) show did in fact look like a collection for Barbie, stiff hair, orange tans and all, but there were beautiful pieces as well. I take away from that collection the freedom to wear “sherbert” colors and hair spray, and a ruffle won’t kill me…and no more than that.
Collectively, its a nod to the varying definitions femininity. Swallow the look whole, and you look girlish and or dated. But some things, when styled right have a fresh appeal.
May 18, 2010 at 4:18 am
sue
Totally agree. I think some hard core feminists are very afraid of even a hint of femininity.
May 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Sigrid
Great post. Like anyone, I like a ruffle now and again, but when a women looks like tottering, frilly lampshade that belongs in a fussy, pink boudoir then the ratio of ruffle to dress is too high–me thinks. Isn’t fashion supposed to be about balancing the trim with an overall flattering look?
It’s just one more reason that i love the idea of people making their own clothes; they can follow a trend, but make it work for their personal style.
May 17, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Alissa
Fashion, like everything else, is cyclical. If you don’t like it, wait a season and it’ll change. There will always be trends I don’t like, but that doesn’t make them wrong or in bad taste, it just means they’re not for me.
However, given only two choices, personally I’d rather dress like Shirley Temple than Madonna’s Like a Virgin.
May 17, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Lisa
Wow, this post just finally adequately summed up everything I feel about those types of dresses that I’ve never been able to really articulate. As a tallish (5’7″) 25-year-old woman with an hourglass shape, little girl style clothing looks quite wrong on me in a very bad way. I have to be very careful with anything ruffly or flouncy. Loved this!
May 17, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Marie-Christine
I totally agree there, grown women dressing as little girls is somewhere between demeaning and ridiculous. But I’m a bit confused, as Selfish is the first person who’s actually made me feel like a bit of a flounce wouldn’t necessarily be a horrible thing :-). Love that green JJ blouse.
Isn’t it weird that grown women dress like Shirley Temple, while the primary-school crowd is often dressing as whores these days? We’re supposed to have ruffles while they have thongs, what’s wrong with this picture?
Finally, let me point out that I personally never wore anything like that, 5 year old or not. Even for parties my mother tended to make me Junior-Jackie O sort of stuff, and for real life I wore pants and beatnick turtleneck sort of outfits. So I truly don’t feel any pangs of nostalgia for ruffles.. Which is good I guess, since I’d hate being caught dead in them. Except for Selfish sort of flounces, maybe.
May 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm
purplesews
Is it ever really appropriate to use the word “whore” when referring to a small child? There are plenty of times and places in history where children that age would have been running around naked or wearing loincloths; if there’s anything you can put on a child that makes people think of whores when they look at her, the problem is substantially larger than the garment or the child.
May 17, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Nikole
purplesews: i agree whore is a strong word to use but i understand what she saying. The children in my country, when they are out of their uniforms, you wonder if they are actually children when you see how they’re dressed. You cannot blame this on the industry; that is a parental issue. I remember wearing a pair of mid thigh length shorts out to classes one saturday when i was 14 and when my mom saw me when i got home she plainly told me that is not appropriate to be worn out on the road like that especially when taking public transportation.
May 18, 2010 at 5:40 am
Sophie
My grandmother tells a horrifying story–she’s a public school nurse, and a six year old girl once came into the nurse’s office. When she was asked to take off her jeans and T-shirt, she did so, revealing a matching leopard print thong and bra. She struck a pose and said, “Look at my new underwear. Isn’t it sexy?”
May 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
Miss Celie
@Nikole, similar to me. My mom was lethal when it came to my attire. Now, I see young women and I’m floored that they are in short shorts, spaghetti strap tops and the like.
@Sophie, that is horrifying.
May 17, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Chrisrx
As far as I’m concerned it comes down to this-
Try to find a pair or pants that really fits. You can’t
Try to find a bathing suit that fits AND flatters you. Good luck.
Try to find a dress that doesn’t make you look like a hooker or a child. Nope.
This is why we sew– because the fashion industry hates women.
May 17, 2010 at 6:59 pm
CGCouture
Amen. I couldn’t say it any better than you did Chrisrx. :-)
May 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Nikole
“This is why we sew– because the fashion industry hates women.” – *thinks to self: what an asinine statement this is?*
With that said lets screw the fashion houses and teach everyone to sew for themselves and the fashion world would be a better place!
Every time I hear someone make a statement like this i cringe. Do you really think that they could cater to every single body type? Especially since the women of the different races have different shapes and with the mixing of races this is also ever changing.
May 17, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Nikole
Elaine, Where was this post when I had my final year research to do?
Looking at how women dress in my country and taking into consideration that all our fashion comes from the U.S. I realise that this is quite true. i really don’t care much for the ruffles and frills and I never have. As soon as I had a say in what I had to wear i would choose the plain-jane stuff.
I do have friends who love the girly ruffles but i think there is a line when it becomes too much.
I fall into that age group (17 – 27), I am a small (short) person, not only am I short but I am wide/broad/curvy/voluptuous/a bit on the heavy side (whatever floats your boat) and as far as I am concerned these frilly fashions are made for persons 5’5′ and taller with legs for days and absolutely no curves (the waif look)… when you think, about it children do not have womanly curves. How many of you bigger women have put on one of those frilly frocks and said (whether out lour or in you mind) OMG I look ridiculous or I look like ruffle experiment gone wrong!
But at the same time this look works one some women and you can’t help but look at them sometimes and go WOW i wish i could wear that. For some of us reality settles in and we leave it alone. Then you have those who indulge and end up being a fashion horror story.
With that said, what’s wrong with wanting to look sophisticated without being overly girly? Last time I checked Victorian fashion had elaborate swags and ruffles that accentuated the curves of a woman and were gorgeously done; they were very FAR FROM the child-like interpretations we see today.
At the end of it all this matter is really a ‘whatever-floats-your-boat’ matter.
May 17, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Mz. Whitney
I went to see a comedy show a couple of years ago with some girlfriends and we were all horrified at the infantile presentation of all of the female comics. Baby-doll dresses, baby-girl voices, big wide-eyed looks. It was as if they were saying “don’t be scared, I might be funny, but I’m still JUST A GIRL”. Not being a fashion maven myself (I’d just as soon wear the same pair of jeans and tunic top every day if I could), I can’t say if we’re talking about the same thing, but I can’t help feeling like there’s a bit of feminist apologism going on here.
May 17, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Jane
Mz Whitney, you’ve hit the spot for me there. Ditto goes to how I feel about the rash of girly-voiced singers who’ve been plaguing the airwaves for 10 years of so now, a-la Katy Perry. Ooh I sounds so cutesy so isn’t it funny when I’m actually saying some, gosh, kinda unladylike things? Uh, no. Do they speak like that too? Where do those stupid voices come from? They irritate me no end.
I’m not averse to the odd little ruffle and so forth myself but at almost 40 am thinking I ought to give up wearing pigtails. Hmmm… thing is I think the pigtails are actually me, and for a lot of my life I’ve had to curtail my natural girliness to make headway in the business world. I don’t think I’m apologising for being tough/feminist by wanting to dress girly. Ooh man, this is doing my blonde little head in and I really should be working. BTW am wearing a pink plaid skirt with a pleat and big cute buttons.
May 17, 2010 at 8:45 pm
bookishbella
Excellent guest post! I like to look feminine, but I hate the (many) trends that sexualize childhood whether through dressing children in clothes that are too racy or through putting adults in sexy versions of children’s clothes that play on virgin/whore or jailbait stereotypes.
May 17, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Lb
Interesting. I always thought fashion was about pushing boundaries. i.e. when men’s style suits became vogue for women – outfits that had always been deemed inappropriate for women were redefined and claimed by women. Isn’t this similar? Is fashion reclaiming extreme ruffles and girly outfits back from the connotations that the movie industry saddled them with?
It’s not my style, but if women are wearing it and being strong, independent women, then good for them – actually, bonus points for them for teaching people not to judge based on appearances.
May 17, 2010 at 9:41 pm
paisleyapron
Very interesting and thought-provoking discussion. This may explain why it has been so hard to find nice little girl clothes for my daughter. I personally haven’t seen any evidence of women dressing in the way that you describe. Perhaps I keep my eyes elsewhere in the big city. Or maybe I live near the wrong big city for such looks. The fact is, if this is a true trend in the the fashion world, it won’t be the first time nor the last time that designers and clothing companies have tried to sell a certain look or silhouette that is odd and demeaning. Hey, just look at the history of western fashion and you can find plenty of examples of more barbaric and torturous styles (s-curve corsets, anyone?) The real question for me is whether or not we, as thinking women, are liberated enough to choose our clothing without being so influenced by whatever designer deems “in” for the moment. We should dress as we please, in whatever is becoming to us!
May 18, 2010 at 12:46 am
nommh
While I quite agree that grown women may not dress to advantage in a pink textile version of a wedding cake there are so many issues to think about. In most professional contexts there is no room for feminity, let alone ruffles. The career woman is firmly encased in her business suit. Me, I work in an environment with an extremely relaxed dress code. What do I see? muted colours, trousers, jeans, t-shirts and shapeless jumpers for anyone with a dress size beyond 14 (Vogue sizing). More often than not I have to look in the mirror to find a dress or a skirt.
In short, most of the women I see at work or on the streets hide behind non-descript conformity because RTW seems to give them no viable options. This is a sad and utterly boring state of affairs. There is a world of colours, textures and shapes out there almost entirely beyond the reach of women with non-model figures. So let us relieve the monotony, if need be with pink flounces
May 18, 2010 at 2:04 am
Marie-Christine
Sorry, I fail to see how colorful ruffles at work would improve my life. If you don’t see short skirts on larger women at work, it’s probably more a matter of age and experience than a matter of size. Dress like a bimbo and be treated like one, most of us have figured that one out before we hit 30, mercifully. The point is not “hiding behind non-descript conformity”, but dressing so your professional traits are noticed before say your thighs..
May 18, 2010 at 1:50 am
inkstain
Thanks for all the comments! And thanks to Selfish for the soapbox!
As anyone reading patternreview.com knows, I just sewed myself a Burda ruffled blouse. As I said above, there’s nothing wrong with ruffles, flounces, lace, tucks, bows or other feminine details. Yes, they’re eternal staples in our fashion tool chest. But when many of these elements are paired with pouffy skirts, puffed sleeves or other combinations that add up to a “birthday party” dress, I think women over 16 should think twice. I didn’t know that women between 17-30 sought a “manic pixie look,” but thanks to PurpleSews, I’m now the “wiser,” albeit wondering what kind of date “manic pixie” attracts, or what kind of job she holds down.
Charming details are exactly what are needed sometimes to offset a strict suit or casual trouser, and we all want to signal our femininity, but what I’m seeing is a trend toward a total look that spells “childish-woman.”
I do sew for myself to achieve the balance I want. For the ruffled blouse, I chose a classic polka-dot instead of a dotted swiss or lace, and for a ruffly dress, I’d bring it down a notch in black or the new flesh pink/beige tones instead of baby pink, etc. The lovely “girly” tops, in my opinion, go well with neutral grown-up skirts or pants, and the frilly skirts can take a tank or T.
So of course, I’m not declaring war on details, but like “D” above, I’m objecting to doll’s clothing on real people, or as Sigrid summed it up so well, “Frilly lampshade.”
May 18, 2010 at 3:04 am
Uta
Hm. I think it’s always a question of who wears it when and how. I’m not one for fussy fashion, and I think playful doesn’t go with my personality, but a sophisticated, dark-haired woman might wear a flouncy pink bustier dress (with a wink in her eye) successfully, while on a very fake blond person even a hot pink t-shirt can be too much. Also, there are artists who I think play with this successfully while being taken quite seriously (Cindy Lauper comes to mind).
May 18, 2010 at 3:06 am
Uta
Oh, and if it IS too much, I usually don’t think (don’t know if men do), little girl. I just think, not attractive.
May 18, 2010 at 3:25 am
Nancy K
I couldn’t agree more. However, there are exceptions to the rule. There is a picture of the always beautiful 62 y.o. Jaclyn Smith in which she is wearing ruffles. I think they look pretty, but not childish. Of course she would probably look beautiful wearing a potato sack!
I think the one sleeve look adds enough edgyness to keep it from going into the land of precious.
Here is a link to the photo:
http://www.fanpix.net/picture-gallery/410/1250410-jaclyn-smith-picture.htm
May 18, 2010 at 7:23 am
Joana
Well… I think the key is balance. I don’t know what is worse: a grown up woman dressing as a toddler, or a woman who is too afraid to wear what she likes because she thinks others will think she is less capable or less emancipated.
Sometimes, it is sad to see so many women who are afraid to just relax and be feminine.
May 18, 2010 at 8:55 am
:)
like this?
http://megannielsen.com/store/
May 18, 2010 at 9:25 am
And speaking of ruffles… « The Selfish Seamstress
[…] able to anyway. But following up on yesterday’s guest post from Inkstain (Dinah Lee Küng) on Little Girl Dressing, I thought I’d show you a glimpse of the very far extreme end of the scale (undoubtedly well […]
May 18, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Urbanjill
Wow, great debate. I too,love a bow or a ruffle (singular). I think Jaclyn Smith looks great because her blouse is paired with a plain trouser. There is a difference between feminine details and a full-blown baby doll look.
May 18, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Maura
Thank you for an interesting post. I think while you were experiencing the Power Suit Eighties, I was up to my eyeballs in Gunne Sax! :)
Confession time: I LOVE the girly stuff! I don’t wear it in great abundance, because I don’t want to look like a silly middle-aged woman who is trying desperately to recapture her childhood, and I’m not made of money. I have happily incorporated a few girly touches into my existing wardrobe, as I’m sure anyone who likes these looks has done. I do think that this look, or any look, for that matter, can be taken to an uncomfortable extreme. I have not, however, personally seen anyone in real life who approached that extreme.
I’m not sure how much I buy into sexual attraction as the primary motivator for the way a woman dresses, especially for women over 25 (though the industry and advertising certainly wants to cram that down our throats), but in that regard, I’m frankly relieved by the return of the ruffle. Some may see an ugly pedophillic appeal, but I see something else. I think women just want to feel pretty without having to be “sexy”. We have emerged from 15 years of low-rise, thong-exposed, “Juicy”-butt foolishness; years that birthed the insulting terms “MILF” and “tramp-stamp”, and popularized the labels “pimp” and “ho”. Yuck! To me, the fashions you refer to say, “I like flowers, I am feminine, I like being a woman, and I am not dressing for your sexual gratification.” And if you want to take it further (though as I said, I don’t fully accept that everything I wear is intended to be a pheromone signal): “I am a lady, a precious flower, and if you want me, you are going to have to work very hard to woo me.” I’m much happier and more comfortable in the current climate.
May 20, 2010 at 6:19 am
Thursday Links « Interrobangs Anonymous
[…] Little Girl Dressing : Guest post at The Selfish Seamstress. This probably warrants a bigger discussion than a link post has room for, sadly. […]
May 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Stitching Spotlights
[…] you read this article over at the Selfish Seamstress? I thought it was rather thought provoking and intriguing. […]
December 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Stitching Spotlights 5.21.2010 » A Fashionable Stitch
[…] you read this article over at the Selfish Seamstress? I thought it was rather thought provoking and intriguing. […]