What the heck is with the evolution towards ever-more voluminous and short-waisted dresses? Empire and yoke style dresses look good on almost no one. If you're tall and thin, they flap loosely about your frame as if you'd just gotten back from fat camp. If you're short and zaftig, they resemble some sort of ambulatory tent. If you're sort of medium, people are very likely to mistake your summer sheen for the happy glow of mid-pregnancy. I have no objection to the waistless shift. But the shift-less shift must go.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Speaking as a man (which is appropriate, since I am one), those look very nice on young, thin women, though almost anything does, now that I think about it. The problem with Empire waists is that they call attention to any stomach you might have, and can even manufacture the illusion of one if you don't quite. This is regardless of your body type. This is also generally regarded by men as unflattering, BTW.
I've seen a lot of girls around DC wearing those things lately, especially paisley versions made of some kind of silky fabric. Really, really unattractive.
My manly (and doubtless clueless) instinct is to wonder why women care? It seems to me the sensible thing is to find a style that is comfortable and/or flattering, and ignore whatever the catalogs happen to be pushing this year. Stock up when this style happens to be in fashion, if availability is an issue.
I have been assured by actual women that this suggestion is utterly nuts, and proof (if any be needed) that I am hopelessly male. So be it.
I figured out years ago that the vast majority of women's fashion and ancillary stuff like makeup has nothing to do with men, but is some bizarre female group ritual, where the point of participating is to establish one's membership and place in the group. I suppose a male equivalent is a guy talking about football, even though he doesn't particularly care for the game. But there seems to be more willingness to opt out of this sort of thing.
Many women I know have gotten dresses like these recently. Spring came late, now they're over-compensating. I like the retro look. I'm more surprised that they cost so much at J. Crew. Is that normal?
Isn't the construction of those things rather simple?
see it as a different manifestion of Inflation..
Over time, waist lines move from the bust to the knees and back. Hem lines move from hip to ankle and back. As far as I can tell, there is only one reason: if fashions change, more new dresses will get sold.
My mother used to contend that the people who designed most women's fashions basically hated women. As far as I can tell, the evidence does not disprove her theory.
P.S. Men's fashions are just as stupid, of course. (Certainly no sane person would wear a coat in summer anywhere east of the Rockies!) But at least they change much more slowly.
I dunno, it looks comfy.
Not so much that they hate women; they hate women over 25 years of age and/or over a BMI of 14.
There is not one dress on that website I would consider wearing. The fact that I have a bustline is just part of it.
Sometimes, when I'm in a conspiracy-theory mood, I wonder if fashion is just a tool to keep women occupied and distracted, so we don't take over the world. Certainly, in some social circles, there's a very draconian hierarchy of what is "OK" and "Not OK" to wear, and if you're wearing something "Not OK" you will very likely be pecked to death. Or the equivalent.
Actually, I think the empire waist is almost universally flattering, unless you're an extreme apple-shape. It doesn't call attention to the stomach at all; rather, it hides any figure flaws you have in that area. At the same time, the high waist and looser fabric tend to make the legs look longer and leaner. And if you're small-busted like me, it enhances what little you've got. Bring on the empire waist!
J. Crew is totally overpriced, though.
Had to look up empire waist, and yea, those are awful. I've hated those forever without knowing what I was hating.
(Also, not sure I buy into the modern thesis that women dress for other women. But rather, they filter their desirabilty and confidence through other women, to get at the same result: attention of men).
Women will deny that though because nothing they do has to with men of course.
I am with eliza. I love an empire waist on anything. Covers my stomach and makes my chest look fantastic!
I also like the Empire waist. They're good for women with toned shoulders and moderately large breasts, because they highlight those areas without hiding them behind padding and foufy bits. People who want to show off narrow waists or perky backsides will have to wait for another fashion trend, but this one is good for people who want to show what they have from the ribcage on up.
I'm 5'2", and more or less medium built, and I like some high-waisted dresses and hate others. (Waistless shifts just look like a potato sack on me.) High waists with volume seem to be a mistake, but placing the waist of the dress higher does give you some more room to fudge a bit of a tummy, if you don't add a lot of gathers through the middle that just exacerbate the problem.
But empire-waisted dresses will never make you look svelt - witness any Jane Austin adaptation, where rail thin actresses end up looking thick through the middle. Most women are going to do better with something snug in the natural waist and forgiving through the hips. The main exception is women who have absolutely no natural waist, in which case the underbust is probably the smallest point on the torso and you can hope to hell everyone will think the rest is the dress and not you.
I had a baby not long ago, and I was thanking the Gods I lived in one of about 4 historical periods when it was deemed "fashionable" for a 35 year old woman to wear a baby doll dress, because it meant I could avoid (vastly improved I'm told but still revolting) maternity clothing. Bought a bunch of empire dresses last spring, wore them straight through pregnancy and kept right on wearing them while waiting for my figure to come back. So Megan's pregnancy point is well taken. They are comfy, though.
I second the opinion that most women's clothing is designed by mysogynists, though my main evidence is the lack of useful pockets ....
I totally disagree with Megan. How good these dresses look depends on your body type. If you have a very long waist, then it makes sense that you would want to show it.
I have a small but short waist and a bigger bust. Fitted dresses, a lot of the time don't fit me because I can't zip them up past my bust line. So my option is to get a bigger size and take it in at the waist or just avoid those dresses. I am lazy, so I do the second. I then generally bu empire waist and wrap around dresses, which are very flattering. The whole trick is to find the right empire waist that doesn't poof out under the bust line. You need a smooth fabric like silk that lays flat and creates a nice a-line down to the knee.
I don't know if this is part II in a series about Trojan Women? Women's fashion may be meant to both clothe and, suggestively, unlcothe. One can imagine short statured Napoleon quickly being able to unclothe youmayremember her name in an Empire dress. The recent emphasis has been on midriff. Now that nakedness there has gotten a bit old being, suggestively, naked below the ribs is more provocative.
Sometimes, when I'm in a conspiracy-theory mood, I wonder if fashion is just a tool to keep women occupied and distracted, so we don't take over the world.
Hrm, gosh, if only we had a word for your revolutionary theory that there exists an implicit, unstated conspiracy to separate women from meaningful influence and power.
"Father-rule"? No, that's not it. Maybe if we Latin'd it up, or something. I don't know.
Empire waist + A-line is generally flattering. Any of those dresses is still better than the tulip and trapeze shapes that were common until recently.
Megan would probably look better in something like the rosette dress, although it would be a mini on her.
My wife likes those too which is attested to by the fact that I even know what an empire waist is.
Empire waists are horrible...IMHO. Even women who I would generally regard as "hot" look ridiculous and unattractive in an empire waist. The only reason I can talk today about the empire waist is because while watching a recent Hollywood Awards Show, I was so offended by the empire waist I had to specifically find out what this abomination was.
It used to be called "maternity wear" Megan and I don't get it either. No women looks good in them.
I think they may be attractive on petite women. Otherwise, they just make you look fat.
The thing that fascinates me about them is that they are (necessarily, perhaps) little-girlish. Yet for some reason I don't think this is (this time around, at least) at style inspired by the pretence that we remain forever 16. I also don't buy that the patriarchy is imposing these baby dresses on women in at attempt to undermine us in the workplace. I'm all for a resurgence of dresses (hey, day dresses are almost always appropriate, require less thought to get dressed, and they are easier to fit than trousers), but why THESE dresses? Obviously the things are selling a lot or they wouldn't have stuck around for the last 2-3 years. But why?
Regardless of whether they are flattering or not, their popularity, particularly among the working women who presumably spend the most dosh on them, marks a definite shift to the girly in everyday dress. (And not in the more obviously work appropriate way the "sexy secretary" frilly blouse and narrow skirt combo brought back several years ago.) Is this some feminine "take back the workplace" trend, part of the ongoing banishment of the man-styled suit as the primary type of "appropriate" business wear? Global warming making us all want to dress like we're on vacation? Or what?
Women's fashion is meant to be unflattering. Actually to be more specific it's meant to be challenging.
Being in fashion is about asserting high status. A huge part of a woman's status is her appearance (since it reflects how attractive she is to men (men have different status markers, but women like all men who display markers of high status)). You can bet that the highest status women who end up setting fashion through their choices will choose styles that are hard for less attractive women to emulate. It maximizes the difference between them and women who are below them, so it serves their interests.
The logical response would be to bypass the woman-woman status competition and pick styles that are flattering and appealing to men but women make sure that that isn't an option by ostracizing women who do that ("look at her, she's dressed like a hooker"); women can't stand social isolation (much more so than men) so very few take that route.
While I agree that clothing is all about signaling status (either generally or through in-group identification), I disagree that women's status is (or was) a function of attractiveness to men. Or really about attractiveness at all, frankly. (Even 50-100 years ago, when the female status system you seem to allude to was still properly functional, women's status wasn't achieved by attractiveness to men generally but by permanent attachment to the highest status male possible, hence your status marker as a woman was mainly to reflect wealth, which, arguably, it still is. Attractiveness to men could help achieve status, but didn't itself convey it and, as your hooker comment illustrates, could actively hinder it by making permanent attachment socially untenable.)
I cannot see how child-like clothing (attractive or not) conveys status - workplace, class, social or economic status. Unless the idea is that sufficient status allows perpetual leisure (e.g.: no need to be taken seriously at work, sufficient time and resources to keep onself in good enough shape that the style doesn't look totally silly).
See? It seems that broadly, men don't like Empire waists and women do.
In keeping with some of the other comments, I predict women will continue to like Empire waists anyway.
The status of females has shifted from one of marriage to wealthy / powerful men to one of attractiveness.
Who has higher status today? Michelle Obama or Lindsay Lohan? Well, if the question is who will have more influence on fashion choices, the answer is Lindsay Lohan (or any other celebrity who wears clothing that is unflattering to average women and is emulated by average women anyway). 400 years ago, the highest status women, from whom fashion choices trickled down were wives of aristocracy. Even 40 years ago, this was different. Jacklyn Kennedy was high status and emulated by women. Hollywood took cues from other parts of society re fashion.
When fashion was built for women who were not picked on the basis of exceptional attractiveness, it was more flattering to more average women (as the drivers of fashion were more average).
You can see exactly who is high status among women (as chosen by women) by looking at who they choose to spend time reading gossip about. It isn't Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi.
If you think that women's status isn't largely based on attractiveness to men, name one high status woman (as accounted by women, specifically, one who is emulated by women to appear higher status) who is unattractive. On the converse, an attractive high status woman who marries a lower status man is still high status (think Britney Spears). If she loses her attractiveness, she becomes a joke (think Britney again).
From experience dating anorexics & borderline anorexics, empire waists and baby doll dresses look horrible on thin petite girls. From some commenters it sounds like they work if you have medium or larger bust.
Nearly all of those dresses look horrible on the models and on girls with modelesque bodies. Thankfully petite girls have many other options so they'll generally stick with those after 1 or 2 tries with an empire waist dress that makes them look 6 sizes larger.
I'm 110 pounds at 5'4", and look lousy in an empire dress because I have wide shoulders, no chest, and small waist with larger hips. It just balloons around my middle, with no definition anywhere. But even looking at the models WEARING those dresses, the dresses looked bad. If they can't find a way to make the dress look attractive on a model for their catalogue, that's a sign the dress is unwearable.
But I was far more disturbed by going to that page. J Crew sells WEDDING DRESSES??!!?!?!?!?
Am I going crazy? This is a waistless shift:
http://www.jcrew.com/catalog/product.jhtml?id=prod93612161&catId=cat303192
and this is an empire waist:
http://www.jcrew.com/catalog/product.jhtml?id=prod91085161&catId=cat303192
Is it even remotely possible that anyone finds the first more attractive? If so, I'm afraid I'm going to have to concur with Steve Johnson, whose theory is that fashion is about demonstrating that you're skinny enough to wear a wrinkled potato sack and still look skinny. In my worst moments, I fear that's true; in my best, I'm pretty sure that tits and ass are still the ne plus ultra of a great dress.
These dresses are great! They're self-selection at it's best--you almost never want to be the friends of people wearing them.
Good lord, those models are terrifying and unattractive.
There actually are a few women who are naturally very thin, and they can look great being thin. But on the other hand, there are women who have naturally more...cuddly...figures, and they look great when they fulfil their natural bodily destiny, even if that results in a more cushioned look than Hollywood favors.
What's ugly is people who force their bodies into unnatural shapes one way or another.
I recently went through pregnancy, and I will say that empire waists work better for that. However, guess what's in the maternity stores right now? Miniskirts.
That's right. The longest skirt I was able to find was laughably called "knee-length"— I'm a leggy 5'9" and that thing was nowhere near my knees. And most pregnant women would want to hide the thighs, I'd think. (I had the problem that I needed to be able to crouch— knee-length is a really bad idea then. I ended up wearing one of my regular skirts for six months, unzipped and held up with a Bella Band.)
Clothes manufacturers hate women, yeah, I'll buy that. But not the clothes they're attempting to foist off on me.
Megan,
May I suggest the following looks? I think they would be so kick ass on you.
If you do not like the patterns and/or you don't sew, hire a seamstress to 'cut' a dress that is tailored to your measurements. I had a friend who is 6' 2" and she cozied up to a local boutique owner who cut all of her outfits for her.
1.
http://www.dvf.com/dvf/browse/productDetailWithPicker.jsp?productId=D6948279M8&categoryId=DRESSES
2.
http://www.dvf.com/dvf/browse/productDetailWithPicker.jsp?productId=D1773007E7&categoryId=DRESSES
3.
http://www.dvf.com/dvf/browse/productDetailWithPicker.jsp?productId=D6896318M8&categoryId=DRESSES
Steve J:
I'd say Michelle Obama is of higher status in a heartbeat, but I'm a bit baffled why you'd equate influencing the fashion of teenagers and recent college grads with status. (Belive me, no sane woman over the age of 30 wants to dress like Lindsay Lohan.) I may be somewhat old-fashioned about status, but I don't conflate it with entertainment celebrity culture. Celebrities of various stripes are more visible and therefore may be easier to emulate in an hunt for status, but their celebrity gives them availability, not really status itself. I'm not sure why gossip would convey status, either. People talk about the trashy neighbors, not the ones they respect.
I'd argue that women with the highest status, as determined by other women, fall roughly into 3 categories: political actors (Hillary, Condi, Nancy Pelosi, but also QEII or Julie Gerberding, head of the CDC), the conventionally successful (possibly in entertainment, though again that really just makes their success more visible) (Oprah, Sandra Day O'Connor, Meg Whittman) and those who married well (Hillary - whoops, try Michelle or Jackie O). I think it is telling that those categories overlap rather a lot.
So I'm not sure you'll find many women who agree that Lindsay Lohan and her ilk are to be emulated to bolster one's own status. (Then again, presuming you are male in the real world and not just the internet, I don't think men have any clue how women actually think, so it is hardly your fault for making what would seem to be reasonable assumptions based on fairly common behavior.) Women (well, girls, really) may dress like Lindsay, but not because they think they think it makes them look like they have status. In fact, I think many of them do it to intentionally undermine their status - i.e.: to tick off their parents, who complain that they are dressing like sluts. It's called rebellion.
Those empire waists are only good for women with large busts and who are preggers or want to appear so. Really thin women with large busts (those lucky few) look fairly good in them, but then they'll look good in anything - and usually better than they do in empire waists.
Do you have any evidence for believing that Sandra Day O'Connor is higher status (among women) than Lindsey Lohan? Any evidence at all? Let's try looking at measures of status:
1) Emulation by lower status members of the same sex. Ya hear about the new fashion, Sandra O'Connor collars. All the women are wearing it. Oh wait, no they aren't. If some celebrity is seen in public with a particular purse or shoes, women notice and think more highly of the purse or shoes. The item might even catch on and end up in scarce supply.
2) Ability to secure high status mates. Don't really think that there's much of a question that Lindsey could get a better husband than Sandra if they were both single.
3) Women in particular like gossip and when they gossip they gossip about people who are interesting to them. (You can use the Althouse rule and phrase this as "women are more interested in people and their interconnections and men are less aware of these things" if your sensibilities require you to hear all sex differences expressed in terms of female superiority.) As a result, there is a huge industry that supplies women with real and imagined doings of high status women (and the men that flit in and out of their lives). You claim that gossip looks down on the object but there wouldn't be a clamoring for looking down on people unless they were acknowledged to be above the gossip consumer (makes people feel good to hear about the foibles of their betters).
Almost all of the people who consume the products of this industry are women. This industry is highly competitive and the people who run it are forced to match the product fairly closely to the desires of the clients. Not surprisingly for my theory, all the women featured in the products of this industry are attractive. Note that you do not need to be an actress / singer to be reported upon by the industry but you do need to be attractive (Lizzy Grubman for example). The only attempt to cover the women you think are high status was George magazine, which went under in 2001 (obviously there were extenuating circumstances, but if the idea were any good the magazine would have succeeded under someone else's editorship).
Getting back to the original post, I think we can all agree that fashion of the type that Megan was talking about is basically set because average women try to emulate the fashions worn by the women whose every doing is followed obsessively by other women. No woman dresses to imitate Meg Whitman (outside the office) and when they do imitate her in dress it's not called "fashion". Since a high level of physical attractiveness is a requirement for being one of these obsessed over women, these women will all pick fashions that only highly attractive women look good wearing. Note that this explains both why women's fashions shift so often (high status women shift what they wear to stay ahead of imitators) and why the particular styles picked are unflattering.
In contrast, your "rebellion" theory of (young) female dress fails to explain why women don't simply wear whatever is most flattering to their individual figures: miniskirts for those with nice legs, shirts that show cleavage for thin women with large breasts, not wearing "skinny" jeans (which make every woman look like she has no hips), etc. Actual fashions tend to be both unflattering and not as slutty as simple revealing clothing would be.
The very fact that you had to point out who Julie Gerberding was shows that she isn't high status (among women). It's not like a tree falling in the forest; you can't be high status if no one knows it (wait, maybe it's just like a tree falling in the forest).
Re: Men's fashions are just as stupid, of course. (Certainly no sane person would wear a coat in summer anywhere east of the Rockies!)
And the necktie is the most utterly useless piece of clothing since the bustle.