The question of the mind/body relationship has always intrigued me, As has the place of "things" in our lives. India's fascinating piece addresses these and other issues behind the eye-candy of fashion. Maybe Coco Chanel was onto something when she said,
“Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street. Fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.”
This very day we are marching globally in defense of our earthly home, and our enhanced concern for sustainability may include a return to passing on our possessions rather than of replacing them... we can hope, and we can act.
India modelling her paper dress at school in St. Vincent
The traditional suit was birthed from practicality. Whether it’s a
hunting suit or worn on Wall Street; there are trousers for movement, a shirt
for comfort and a jacket for warmth. However the psychology behind building the
perfect suit is a fascinating insight into the tribal mentality we as homo
sapiens cannot seem to shake. Throughout history we have relied on clothing to
be the universal language. As any costume designer will tell you, you know all you need to know about a
character within the first few seconds of seeing them based on the clothing
they're wearing. Their class, age, gender, profession, personal hygiene,
reliability and character can be revealed entirely based on the way they're
dressed. Whether in world wars or defending tribal territory, being able to
communicate who you are and where you belong at a moments glance has saved
thousands of lives. In primitive tribes
there is a solid foundation of fulfilment and contentment that the entire
fabric of their being is based upon, humbly accepting roles gifted to them
in the group and honouring them throughout all that they do. Unlike in Western
societies progression is not the aim and it certainly isn't expected, but
gifted and encouragingly accepted by all. What we wear everyday is the uniform
of our modern day tribes, we forget that we as humans seek to belong and live
in communities. Unfortunately with the advancement of our society we have become more classist and less
tribal. Progression in technology and science results in us thinking less
about safety, health and togetherness and more about moving up in our social
circles or getting ourselves invited to the right parties to connect with the
“right people”. This disengagement and insecurity we have unknowingly created
amongst ourselves, from the comfort of our homes has led to a severe feeling of
disconnect; seeping into our minds and leaving us power hungry and grossly
ambitious. We use the language of dressing
more for convincing ourselves and others of our role in society, or as the
saying goes: ‘dress for the job you want to have’.
So what is it that we’re really missing? Since the beginning of time, we have developed deeply rooted connections to things we collect and surround ourselves with. Tribes all over the world incorporate the clothing they wear into the very fabric of their culture; every colour and embroidered patch has some sort of symbolism or sentimentality attached to it. You see extraordinary headdresses and full body jewellery, each with countless hours of craftsmanship behind them. They value the importance and significance each item has, appreciating that the more time and love you put into it, the more you eventually get out of it. Surrounding ourselves with visually pleasing things is actually massively beneficial to our mental well being. As Plato stated: ‘beautiful objects are whispering truths to us about the good life. We find things beautiful when we see in them qualities we need but are lacking in our own lives.’, or Schopenhauer’s slightly darker take on the subject: ‘We surround ourselves in beautiful things so as to project our insecurities onto a separate vessel.’ Plato continued by observing the severity of choosing to surround ourselves with visually unappealing objects. Something we consider ugly is essentially flaunting troubling and flawed characteristics in front of us, displaying less that acceptable role models, something vital in self growth. Therefor it is the responsibility of artists, painters, poets, designers and sculptors, to help us live our best lives. In the West we seem to have completely disregarded this discovery by almost entirely disconnecting with our clothing, developing a toxic relationship with the clothes we wear. Only a generation before people considered the curation of their wardrobes a deeply meaningful and very personal affair. They would have their colour charts done, consult tailors, buy quality to last and then once they finally fell apart they would take the time to have them mended. Gone are the days that fathers hand down their favourite pair of leather boots, resoled countless times yet still going as strong as the day they were purchased; only riddled with character and as comfortable as being in your own skin. Mothers no longer pass down their favourite cashmere jumpers that they had treasured so dearly, and worn until it had patches on the sleeves, only for it to be as warm and as treasured by the next in line.
So what is it that we’re really missing? Since the beginning of time, we have developed deeply rooted connections to things we collect and surround ourselves with. Tribes all over the world incorporate the clothing they wear into the very fabric of their culture; every colour and embroidered patch has some sort of symbolism or sentimentality attached to it. You see extraordinary headdresses and full body jewellery, each with countless hours of craftsmanship behind them. They value the importance and significance each item has, appreciating that the more time and love you put into it, the more you eventually get out of it. Surrounding ourselves with visually pleasing things is actually massively beneficial to our mental well being. As Plato stated: ‘beautiful objects are whispering truths to us about the good life. We find things beautiful when we see in them qualities we need but are lacking in our own lives.’, or Schopenhauer’s slightly darker take on the subject: ‘We surround ourselves in beautiful things so as to project our insecurities onto a separate vessel.’ Plato continued by observing the severity of choosing to surround ourselves with visually unappealing objects. Something we consider ugly is essentially flaunting troubling and flawed characteristics in front of us, displaying less that acceptable role models, something vital in self growth. Therefor it is the responsibility of artists, painters, poets, designers and sculptors, to help us live our best lives. In the West we seem to have completely disregarded this discovery by almost entirely disconnecting with our clothing, developing a toxic relationship with the clothes we wear. Only a generation before people considered the curation of their wardrobes a deeply meaningful and very personal affair. They would have their colour charts done, consult tailors, buy quality to last and then once they finally fell apart they would take the time to have them mended. Gone are the days that fathers hand down their favourite pair of leather boots, resoled countless times yet still going as strong as the day they were purchased; only riddled with character and as comfortable as being in your own skin. Mothers no longer pass down their favourite cashmere jumpers that they had treasured so dearly, and worn until it had patches on the sleeves, only for it to be as warm and as treasured by the next in line.
The desire for sentimentality and preservation seems to have been
completely lost on our generation. This has led to a dramatic decrease in
creativity and skill, we rely on huge corporations to provide us with the
instant but short gratification of our latest purchases. We all rush to the
nearest department store to fill our baskets with the latest fad so we fit in
with the tribe we seem to have been placed in, and less so “found”. We see
people in troves stepping out in window displays, every crop top, snakeskin
boot or leather trouser seems to find its way onto each body craving the acceptance
and belonging they're missing in their own lives. We have mindlessly created
this void through years of blissful ignorance and lack of self exploratory
thought, due to an overload of entertainment created as an extravagant smoke
screen. All sense of individuality disappeared the minute fast fashion entered
the scene. Each week another tonne of discarded polyester finding itself in a
landfill, only for the the cycle to start again.
I have always been drawn to boyish clothing, for as long as I can remember. It was initially because I saw them more in the practical sense, it is much more challenging climbing trees in skirts and tights. The laddering would be preposterous. As I grew older and began hearing the commentary, with a sense of bewilderment in their voices, as to why I dressed like a boy. So I began to question myself. Why did I? Why didn't I grow up and follow in the footsteps of my peers, dressed in the latest mini skirts and crop tops? Luckily for me, I was born into a generation that had had that discussion long before I was a twinkle in my parents eyes.
I wanted to question the psychology behind why we all seem to have such a strong pull towards our particular styles. In particular, why do women seem to feel that they need to dress like men to be taken seriously? Why are we more confident in a pair of trousers? Everyone is familiar with being told to put their thinking caps on, it just so happens that there’s more to this statement than we as school children had ever considered. Adam Galinsky and Hajo Adam from the Northwestern University kindly conducted an experiment: they took a group of people from a variety of backgrounds and sat them down to take a test. This test required them to pay close attention for long periods of time but before they took the test, they handed them a white coat. They told them that the coat belonged to a doctor, a figure immediately associated with a sharp mind and a responsible manner. Once they had finished the test, they gave the same white coat to a different group of people. Except this time they told them it was an artists smock, a seemingly less intimidating profession. The results of the test were astounding. Those in the coats claiming to be those belonging to doctors scored marks incomparable to those of the apparent artist smocks. They explained in the Journal of Experimental Social Physiology that ‘The clothes we wear have power not only over others, but also over ourselves,’, this has been named “enclothed cognition”. They suggest that the feelings we associate with certain garments, through preconceived judgements, we seem to adopt for ourselves while wearing them. We become the person we think we should be when we’re so closely connected to an object we relate synonymously to the identity of the profession. The language of dress is such an effective coding system that we can actually change our personality and our approach to situations by changing the way we think, giving meaning and life to the phrase “to walk in someone else's shoes”. The term “enclothed cognition” was derived from “embodied cognition”: a study in how your mind and your body respond to each other, suggestion being the strongest factor. This research into exploring how your movement affects your mental state led to the investigation of body posture. Dana R. Carney from Columbia University assessed how your deportment effects both your physiology and behaviour, and how great an impact it has on making a man appear “masculine”. Their test consisted of lining men and women up against a wall for short period of time, where they were then asked to asses their feelings of power. Through DNA samples researches measured hormones levels before and after the test, noticing that higher levels linked to display of power. The results confirmed that movement is very closely linked to conduct and mood, and as journalist Jessica Hilo says ‘Rather than mind over matter, perhaps we should think mass over mind’. When speaking of pre conceived judgments, menswear in the West has always been about making a figure seem taller and broader. A biological symbol for dominance and strength, the leader of the pack. Historically men have gone to great lengths to obtain this stature by using top hats, high heels and shoulder pads to create a more intimidating physique. The military has also had a large part in reaffirming this stigma, the most masculine profession one can think of. The epitome of mindless, undeniable testosterone. Through this we have continued to identify trousers with strength and power. Katherine Hepburn is probably one of the most famous examples of a rebellious attitude towards feminine clothing. In a 1981 interview with Barbara Walters she proclaimed ‘I put on pants 50 years ago and declared a sort of middle road,’. When she was a child, as all tomboys can surely relate, Hepburn wore her brothers clothes. She shaved her head and had the other kids call her Jimmy. She reasoned that although she never felt like she was a boy, she wanted to dress the part as ‘the boys had all the fun’. Which I relate to, its depressing to admit, but there is no denying that as little girls we were separated into two groups: the “girly girls” or the “tom-boys”. It was a sure thing that if you were in the first group, even as children, you knew that the clothing associated was something entirely impractical and flouncy. Furthering that, your already programmed preconceived judgement would also tell you that you would probably be playing with dolls and brushing hair. A concept that was repulsively boring to most of us, especially those that wanted to do what the boys were doing. So from an early age we completely rejected the idea of a physically harmless outfit choice.
During the journey from dress to suit, women were constrained by the impracticality of a pre- World War II society, where women were still being arrested for wearing trousers in public. All the while the leader in psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud was responding aggressively to the idea of women in “mens clothes”, blurting out claims such as ‘penis envy’ and ‘a sure sign of lesbianism’. Meanwhile Katherine Hepburn was leading the way for her gender; choosing to use the staff entrance after being informed that women were not allowed to wear slacks in the lobby of the Claridge Hotel. Or when the director hid her blue jeans on set in hopes of forcing her into a skirt, where she proceeded to unapologetically walk around in her knickers until they were returned to her. In the same conversation with Barbara Walters she stated ‘I have not lived as a woman. I have lived as a man,’ ‘I’ve just done what I damn well wanted to and I made enough money to support myself, and I ain’t afraid of being alone.’. I find it depressing and concerning how much of a rebellion this is not only in her time, but ours. The mind blowing self confidence so many disregarded as arrogance due to their own insecurity. Why is it that the idea of following a trodden path is carved into our very cores? Hepburn was a legendary force of nature that felt like a well needed slap to our disoriented faces. Scottish born Tilda Swinton was asked how one “Tilda-fy's” themselves in an interview with Harpers Bazaar, a loaded question to the most pompous of characters. Swinton quickly and modestly replied ‘take your mascara off’. It is this careless attitude she constantly carries that makes her the icon she is today; the classic “french girl” phenomenon where the less someone cares about being attractive the stronger the pull towards them seems to be. While she adores fashion and makeup, her approach is refreshingly simple and demure. Cocooning herself in cashmere jumpers, kilts, mens shirts and classic silhouettes; selecting each piece for quality or sentimentality, her style is entirely based on comfort and confidence. With her tall frame and androgynous features, she is the prime example of how masculinity and femininity can coincide so flawlessly. Actress Sarah Bernhardt was another iconic force of nature that shocked Parisians with her custom-made trouser suit, as well as furthering her attempt to blur gender roles in her role of Hamlet in 1899.
The 19th century brought a needed change for woman, bringing a more active and involved lifestyle, it was considered acceptable to wear suits during sporting activities such as riding, walking or archery. As the years went on we saw the birth of the Suffragette suit. Formed as a direct response to the silly hobble skirts women of the day were wearing; a tightly hemmed skirt which made it almost impossible to walk. The new suit consisted of a more convenient skirt that was split at the ankles to allow long strides, along with a blouse and jacket. However it was fourteen years later that Coco Chanel made the first true translation of menswear to womenswear, completely redesigning the “modern woman”. Her iconic tweed suit, a material previously used for mens sportswear, was made up of a boxy jacket and tailored skirt. Its success lay in the subtlety of it, it was the needed push in the right direction without screaming of rebellion and radical change, allowing it to quietly become the only thing to wear. This suit created an entirely new look never seen before, it opened doors for women that were once unimaginable. The confidence and sophistication jump started something that was previously dormant in women: their own self worth, and the determination to live for themselves.
It was Marchel Rochas that made the full jump to trousers. He wanted women to have the best of both worlds, the elegance of the Chanel suit but with the practicality and freedom of trousers. Yet we have Yves Saint Laurent to thank for le smoking in 1966; the first tuxedo suit designed for women. As their once adored satin gowns lay heaped in a sad corner of their dressing room, they buttoned their new heavily lapelled smoking jackets and slipped on their trousers. This was the solidification of using dress as a way of settling the barrier between the sexes. Probably one of the most “masculine” jackets in existence through being so strongly tied to the whole idea of sitting in a room of men, smoking their cigars and drinking their brandy - but now on a woman. Radical. As Marlen Komar so brilliantly explained, with women starting to enter the “mans world” in the workforce ‘they needed a symbol that proved they were just as serious and competent as the guys riding up the elevator with them to the office. Apparently the only way to convince male- dominated boardrooms of that was to copy their look.’. We needed to appeal to their tribal mentality by easing the blow of a gender they had thought would stay in the box they had subconsciously put us in. Erik Satie’s principle states clearly, ‘if you want to subvert the bourgeoise you should look exactly like them.’
It has always been clear that the way we dress reflects the times we’re living in, and this is a clear example of the correlation between an economic rise and the fashion that follows. In Fashion Talks: Undressing the Power of Style, Shira Tarrant discusses how the expectation to wear a pantsuit became so great that people would not take you seriously as a business women if you weren’t wearing one. This amuses me, as it has seemed to transition from restricting women from professional lives because of their skirts, to restricting them from careers if they weren't wearing a suit. During Hilary Clintons run for president she wore nothing but pantsuits. This was hardly to do with the simple fact that she liked them, but because it made her feel professional and lessened the stark difference between herself and her fellow runners. One very important reason is that it eliminated the ridiculous chatter about what she was wearing, a question undoubtedly asked in every female interview. Clinton wanted what she wore to do its job in the simplest of terms, to give her the confidence and the comfort she needed to do the job she needed to do. But alas, even one of the worlds most confident politicians is not void of scrutiny. It all boils down to the fact that these suits were a derivative of menswear, therefor women are continuously disparaged for trying to emulate men. Shouldn’t we have the right to wear whatever we like? I have always admired the women that had the courage to put themselves first. Without the self absorption of youth, or even the arrogance needed for defiance, we would not have had half of the icons we have today. The ones that challenged social norms and disregarded the rules vomited up by the sheep of society.
Fashion is such a powerful force, and we need to educate each other of the importance of its language. As through these principles we will develop the tools needed to patch the gaping hole in society. One thing I have noticed is that the consistent in all the gentlewomen I admire is that you rarely find them talking about their “style”. If anything they’re offended by the question, repulsed by the conversation drifting to anything other than the work they’re so passionate about. We try our hardest to draw out the superficial in hopes of replicating their magic for ourselves, thinking that if we dress in the same way we might also capture those qualities we admire. If only we could all accept that by taking the time to play and think, we might figure out that the psychology behind the way we dress is important, and might help us more than we think.
I have always been drawn to boyish clothing, for as long as I can remember. It was initially because I saw them more in the practical sense, it is much more challenging climbing trees in skirts and tights. The laddering would be preposterous. As I grew older and began hearing the commentary, with a sense of bewilderment in their voices, as to why I dressed like a boy. So I began to question myself. Why did I? Why didn't I grow up and follow in the footsteps of my peers, dressed in the latest mini skirts and crop tops? Luckily for me, I was born into a generation that had had that discussion long before I was a twinkle in my parents eyes.
I wanted to question the psychology behind why we all seem to have such a strong pull towards our particular styles. In particular, why do women seem to feel that they need to dress like men to be taken seriously? Why are we more confident in a pair of trousers? Everyone is familiar with being told to put their thinking caps on, it just so happens that there’s more to this statement than we as school children had ever considered. Adam Galinsky and Hajo Adam from the Northwestern University kindly conducted an experiment: they took a group of people from a variety of backgrounds and sat them down to take a test. This test required them to pay close attention for long periods of time but before they took the test, they handed them a white coat. They told them that the coat belonged to a doctor, a figure immediately associated with a sharp mind and a responsible manner. Once they had finished the test, they gave the same white coat to a different group of people. Except this time they told them it was an artists smock, a seemingly less intimidating profession. The results of the test were astounding. Those in the coats claiming to be those belonging to doctors scored marks incomparable to those of the apparent artist smocks. They explained in the Journal of Experimental Social Physiology that ‘The clothes we wear have power not only over others, but also over ourselves,’, this has been named “enclothed cognition”. They suggest that the feelings we associate with certain garments, through preconceived judgements, we seem to adopt for ourselves while wearing them. We become the person we think we should be when we’re so closely connected to an object we relate synonymously to the identity of the profession. The language of dress is such an effective coding system that we can actually change our personality and our approach to situations by changing the way we think, giving meaning and life to the phrase “to walk in someone else's shoes”. The term “enclothed cognition” was derived from “embodied cognition”: a study in how your mind and your body respond to each other, suggestion being the strongest factor. This research into exploring how your movement affects your mental state led to the investigation of body posture. Dana R. Carney from Columbia University assessed how your deportment effects both your physiology and behaviour, and how great an impact it has on making a man appear “masculine”. Their test consisted of lining men and women up against a wall for short period of time, where they were then asked to asses their feelings of power. Through DNA samples researches measured hormones levels before and after the test, noticing that higher levels linked to display of power. The results confirmed that movement is very closely linked to conduct and mood, and as journalist Jessica Hilo says ‘Rather than mind over matter, perhaps we should think mass over mind’. When speaking of pre conceived judgments, menswear in the West has always been about making a figure seem taller and broader. A biological symbol for dominance and strength, the leader of the pack. Historically men have gone to great lengths to obtain this stature by using top hats, high heels and shoulder pads to create a more intimidating physique. The military has also had a large part in reaffirming this stigma, the most masculine profession one can think of. The epitome of mindless, undeniable testosterone. Through this we have continued to identify trousers with strength and power. Katherine Hepburn is probably one of the most famous examples of a rebellious attitude towards feminine clothing. In a 1981 interview with Barbara Walters she proclaimed ‘I put on pants 50 years ago and declared a sort of middle road,’. When she was a child, as all tomboys can surely relate, Hepburn wore her brothers clothes. She shaved her head and had the other kids call her Jimmy. She reasoned that although she never felt like she was a boy, she wanted to dress the part as ‘the boys had all the fun’. Which I relate to, its depressing to admit, but there is no denying that as little girls we were separated into two groups: the “girly girls” or the “tom-boys”. It was a sure thing that if you were in the first group, even as children, you knew that the clothing associated was something entirely impractical and flouncy. Furthering that, your already programmed preconceived judgement would also tell you that you would probably be playing with dolls and brushing hair. A concept that was repulsively boring to most of us, especially those that wanted to do what the boys were doing. So from an early age we completely rejected the idea of a physically harmless outfit choice.
During the journey from dress to suit, women were constrained by the impracticality of a pre- World War II society, where women were still being arrested for wearing trousers in public. All the while the leader in psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud was responding aggressively to the idea of women in “mens clothes”, blurting out claims such as ‘penis envy’ and ‘a sure sign of lesbianism’. Meanwhile Katherine Hepburn was leading the way for her gender; choosing to use the staff entrance after being informed that women were not allowed to wear slacks in the lobby of the Claridge Hotel. Or when the director hid her blue jeans on set in hopes of forcing her into a skirt, where she proceeded to unapologetically walk around in her knickers until they were returned to her. In the same conversation with Barbara Walters she stated ‘I have not lived as a woman. I have lived as a man,’ ‘I’ve just done what I damn well wanted to and I made enough money to support myself, and I ain’t afraid of being alone.’. I find it depressing and concerning how much of a rebellion this is not only in her time, but ours. The mind blowing self confidence so many disregarded as arrogance due to their own insecurity. Why is it that the idea of following a trodden path is carved into our very cores? Hepburn was a legendary force of nature that felt like a well needed slap to our disoriented faces. Scottish born Tilda Swinton was asked how one “Tilda-fy's” themselves in an interview with Harpers Bazaar, a loaded question to the most pompous of characters. Swinton quickly and modestly replied ‘take your mascara off’. It is this careless attitude she constantly carries that makes her the icon she is today; the classic “french girl” phenomenon where the less someone cares about being attractive the stronger the pull towards them seems to be. While she adores fashion and makeup, her approach is refreshingly simple and demure. Cocooning herself in cashmere jumpers, kilts, mens shirts and classic silhouettes; selecting each piece for quality or sentimentality, her style is entirely based on comfort and confidence. With her tall frame and androgynous features, she is the prime example of how masculinity and femininity can coincide so flawlessly. Actress Sarah Bernhardt was another iconic force of nature that shocked Parisians with her custom-made trouser suit, as well as furthering her attempt to blur gender roles in her role of Hamlet in 1899.
The 19th century brought a needed change for woman, bringing a more active and involved lifestyle, it was considered acceptable to wear suits during sporting activities such as riding, walking or archery. As the years went on we saw the birth of the Suffragette suit. Formed as a direct response to the silly hobble skirts women of the day were wearing; a tightly hemmed skirt which made it almost impossible to walk. The new suit consisted of a more convenient skirt that was split at the ankles to allow long strides, along with a blouse and jacket. However it was fourteen years later that Coco Chanel made the first true translation of menswear to womenswear, completely redesigning the “modern woman”. Her iconic tweed suit, a material previously used for mens sportswear, was made up of a boxy jacket and tailored skirt. Its success lay in the subtlety of it, it was the needed push in the right direction without screaming of rebellion and radical change, allowing it to quietly become the only thing to wear. This suit created an entirely new look never seen before, it opened doors for women that were once unimaginable. The confidence and sophistication jump started something that was previously dormant in women: their own self worth, and the determination to live for themselves.
It was Marchel Rochas that made the full jump to trousers. He wanted women to have the best of both worlds, the elegance of the Chanel suit but with the practicality and freedom of trousers. Yet we have Yves Saint Laurent to thank for le smoking in 1966; the first tuxedo suit designed for women. As their once adored satin gowns lay heaped in a sad corner of their dressing room, they buttoned their new heavily lapelled smoking jackets and slipped on their trousers. This was the solidification of using dress as a way of settling the barrier between the sexes. Probably one of the most “masculine” jackets in existence through being so strongly tied to the whole idea of sitting in a room of men, smoking their cigars and drinking their brandy - but now on a woman. Radical. As Marlen Komar so brilliantly explained, with women starting to enter the “mans world” in the workforce ‘they needed a symbol that proved they were just as serious and competent as the guys riding up the elevator with them to the office. Apparently the only way to convince male- dominated boardrooms of that was to copy their look.’. We needed to appeal to their tribal mentality by easing the blow of a gender they had thought would stay in the box they had subconsciously put us in. Erik Satie’s principle states clearly, ‘if you want to subvert the bourgeoise you should look exactly like them.’
It has always been clear that the way we dress reflects the times we’re living in, and this is a clear example of the correlation between an economic rise and the fashion that follows. In Fashion Talks: Undressing the Power of Style, Shira Tarrant discusses how the expectation to wear a pantsuit became so great that people would not take you seriously as a business women if you weren’t wearing one. This amuses me, as it has seemed to transition from restricting women from professional lives because of their skirts, to restricting them from careers if they weren't wearing a suit. During Hilary Clintons run for president she wore nothing but pantsuits. This was hardly to do with the simple fact that she liked them, but because it made her feel professional and lessened the stark difference between herself and her fellow runners. One very important reason is that it eliminated the ridiculous chatter about what she was wearing, a question undoubtedly asked in every female interview. Clinton wanted what she wore to do its job in the simplest of terms, to give her the confidence and the comfort she needed to do the job she needed to do. But alas, even one of the worlds most confident politicians is not void of scrutiny. It all boils down to the fact that these suits were a derivative of menswear, therefor women are continuously disparaged for trying to emulate men. Shouldn’t we have the right to wear whatever we like? I have always admired the women that had the courage to put themselves first. Without the self absorption of youth, or even the arrogance needed for defiance, we would not have had half of the icons we have today. The ones that challenged social norms and disregarded the rules vomited up by the sheep of society.
Fashion is such a powerful force, and we need to educate each other of the importance of its language. As through these principles we will develop the tools needed to patch the gaping hole in society. One thing I have noticed is that the consistent in all the gentlewomen I admire is that you rarely find them talking about their “style”. If anything they’re offended by the question, repulsed by the conversation drifting to anything other than the work they’re so passionate about. We try our hardest to draw out the superficial in hopes of replicating their magic for ourselves, thinking that if we dress in the same way we might also capture those qualities we admire. If only we could all accept that by taking the time to play and think, we might figure out that the psychology behind the way we dress is important, and might help us more than we think.
* * *
India in Myanmar
When British troops liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp on April 15, 1945, they encountered 40,000 prisoners in 200 huts. They also discovered 10,000 bodies. By April 28 everyone had been buried. Although 500 inmates continued to die every day, at least there were no more corpses lying about. British Lieutenant Colonel Mervin W. Gonin, commander of the 11th Light Field Ambulance, R.A.M.C. was among the first British soldiers to liberate Bergen-Belsen in 1945, and recorded this story…
“It was shortly after the British Red Cross arrived, though it may have no connection, that a very large quantity of lipstick arrived. This was not at all what we men wanted, we were screaming for hundreds and thousands of other things and I don’t know who asked for lipstick. I wish so much that I could discover who did it, it was the action of genius, sheer unadulterated brilliance. I believe nothing did more for these internees than the lipstick. Women lay in bed with no sheets and no nightie but with scarlet red lips, you saw them wandering around about with nothing but a blanket over their shoulders, but with scarlet red lips. I saw a woman dead on the post mortem table and clutched in her hand was a piece of lipstick. At last someone had done something to make them individuals again, they were someone, no longer merely the number tatooed on their arm. At last they could taken an interest in their appearance. That lipstick started to give them back their humanity.”
Thank you, India!
To all the family,,,
Be
Dream
Love
Thrive...
One love,
Lisbie x
Rachael with daughters Freya and India, in Indonesia
siblings ~ India, Hamish and Freya
Rachael and her brood, just a blink of an eye ago
Posts
