Life, 1909-01-07 · page 18 of 60
Life — January 7, 1909 — page 18: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This satirical article criticizes early-1900s women's fashion as impractical and nonsensical. The main targets are: **Large hats**: So oversized they obstruct vision (the opening anecdote about a doctor's eye injury), described as an "ugly nuisance." **Directoire gowns**: Fashionably scanty skirts that impede walking, criticized as uncomfortable "fancy costume" rather than practical clothing. **The core argument**: Women blindly follow Paris and London fashion dictates without questioning sense or convenience. The author mocks women's acceptance of uncomfortable, illogical designs when men would never tolerate equivalent restrictions on their clothing. **The feminist undercurrent**: The piece questions whether women gaining voting rights will finally demand practical fashion, or continue submitting to frivolous trends. It argues clothes should serve function (warmth, modesty, convenience) not vanity, and shouldn't be "piled on to her in barbarous indifference to her qualities." The cartoons illustrate the absurdity: an improbable hat-laden vehicle design and a time-conscious scene mocking fashion's demands on women's time and attention.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
‘LIFE: The Fashions N elderly gentleman, a doctor, who canie groping month into a patient’s room, explained that ting out of the opera the night before a girl had turned her head suddenly and scraped one of his eyeballs with the rim of her big dl put his eyes out of focus. ys hats! They are passing now, but what an ugly nuisance they have been! And the directoire gowns, so scant in the skirt as to be a nuisance to walk in— not so much raiment as a fancy costume—what an imposition on feminine patience! What an impudent reflection on fe nine good sense! PROPOSED DESIGN FOR MORE COMVORT IN TIOSE VEHICLES ent elaborations of costume that will attract attention is prob- ably good business, but why should more fortunate and more respected ladies do it? Well dressed is when you look nice; less well dressed is when you look stunning; least well dressed is when your clothes look better than you do. How long would men endure to wear coats that hooked up the back? For several years, now, stylish women have put up with that inconvenience. Why? Somebody in Paris or London said that should be the way. Is there any sense in it? Not a scintilla. But it will endure until the fashion changes. Clothes should be something you put on for decency and convenience, to keep you warm and to make you look nice They should not be something that you employ yourself to exhibit. If someone else employs you to exhibit them— theatre-manager, a shopkeeper, a dressmaker—that is a di ferent matter and the employment may be worth while if the pay is good NEW YEAR 3 INTENTIONS ST WANT TO GO CUIFTLY, CHAUFFEUR Experienced Chauffeur: vexy 2 MATAM, VLE TAKE YOU WHERE THE KOAD IS WIDE AND STRAIGHT AND THE PAVEMENT Goon, How will it be when women vote? Will they still con- demn themselves as meekly as now to wear any impertinent fashi t Paris sends over? Will they still go without pockets; still submit to the violent uations in. styl which make (as is their purpose) last year’s frocks look pre: maturely paleozor Good clothes are nice, and gh they are expensive they are worth the money if one has it, But they ought to be suit able and convenient as well as handsome, and they should be related to the wearer and not piled on to her in barbarovs ference to her qualities and occupations. Putting el orate carriage-lady’ costumes on a gitl who has no carria Hikes to walk, and rides, when she rides, in a street-car, is nonsense. For a courtesan to rive her thoughts to resplend- comicbooks.com