The matchy-matchy look flourishes in “time periods when there is more cultural emphasis on the family and the mother-daughter relationship,” said the fashion historian Jennifer Farley Gordon, who researches children’s clothing. In practice, the matching style can also signal affluence: a mother with leisure time to sew—or money to shop for—mirror-image outfits, and who is more likely to be a stay-at-home mom. Part of the idea, also, is that there’s not much point in being one half of a matching set if you’re not spending significant amounts of time together in public.
Life nailed the appeal of mother-daughter dressing when it declared: “‘Look Alike’ means ‘Look Young.’” The mommy-and-me looks of the 1940s and ’50s were decidedly girlish, emphasizing the mother’s youthfulness rather than the daughter’s maturity. In her memoir Mommie Dearest, Christina Crawford remembered posing for publicity photos with her adoptive mother, Joan, in the late 1940s, at the age of 8. “I had to get dressed in one of the many ‘mother-and-daughter’ outfits we were always photographed in … Mother and I would go through the whole day doing things for the camera and changing from one matching outfit to another.” Often, these outfits consisted of ruffled pinafores or skirts with suspenders worn over frilly blouses with puffed sleeves, with matching ribbons in their hair—clothes more appropriate for an 8-year-old than a grown woman. Tellingly, if a woman had more than one daughter, she was advised to twin with the youngest, according to Life.
Ladies’ Home Journal—one of the leading women’s magazines in America—had strong ideas about how the country could spend its wealth. From 1939 into the early 1950s, the magazine published a series of covers illustrated by Al Parker, a contemporary of Norman Rockwell, depicting mothers and daughters in matching outfits engaging in household chores and leisure activities such as baking cookies, riding bicycles, raking leaves, knitting, skiing, and wrapping Christmas gifts. One memorable image portrayed a rosy-cheeked mother and daughter pair, ice skating hand-in-hand above the headline: “Is Society Committing Suicide Today?”
These days, however, the mommy-and-me looks are usually store-bought. The likes of Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana, and Lanvin getting into the luxury children’s wear market and they come with decidedly grown-up price tags. There are plenty of budget-friendly version, like Target’s collaboration with Victoria Beckham, or Drew Barrymore’s line for Crocs.
Though a few halfhearted attempts to launch father-son fashions in the 1950s never really took off, family fashions have surged in recent years as many dads have become more hands-on. Often focused on holiday dressing, vacation clothes, or sleepwear, these collections—which are diversified enough to accommodate a broad range of ages and genders—offer a less literal interpretation of twinning, one intended for special occasions. Which is to say that “daddy, mommy, all my siblings, and me” might be the new mommy-and-me.
What brought this delve into Mommy and Me Fashion? dievca had a flashback of 1976-1977 where her Mom and her had matching outfits and hair which consisted of a rust-colored Corduroy Oshkosh B’gosh Overalls Dress, off-white turtleneck, rust cable knit tights, brown leather Bass platform wedge shoes with rubber sole and Toni Tennille hair:
It was the first time and the last time dievca and her Mom matched. They shared a lot of clothing throughout the years (still do), but the matching thing? One great go – then that was it.
HAPPY MOTHER’s DAY!
A Thank You to KIMBERLY CHRISMAN-CAMPBELL is a fashion historian based in Los Angeles and the author of the forthcoming book Worn on This Day: The Clothes That Made History. Most of the information was gleaned from and article she did for The Atlantic Magazine in 2018.
Shoes have, through history, revealed much about the wearer – from their social status to their sexual appetite…
Shoes have long been great indicators of your social standing and wealth. From the 13th century a new pair of shoes was only available to the wealthiest or highest ranking members of society: shoes were handmade by skilled craftsmen, using prohibitively expensive materials. As such it was inevitable that shoes were seen as a status symbol.
The medieval poulaine, for example – a long, pointed shoe worn by both men and women was a style taken to the extreme by gentlemen of wealth: a poulaine that posed a hindrance to walking, and made climbing stairs almost impossible, immediately indicated that the wearer was a man of independent means who didn’t need to work and therefore concern himself with sensible footwear.
The longer versions were also expensive and difficult to make, but many thought the style ridiculous and lewd, so sumptuary laws were passed capping toes to a mere 5cm (2 inches).
By 1500 the poulaine had all but disappeared, and was later replaced by the Tudor footbag. Characterized by its very wide toes, the shoe derived its name – and the alternative ‘cow’s mouth’ – due to its breadth. The girth of the shoe was again an indicator of status: note, for instance, the impressively wide shoes worn by Henry VIII.
Some shoes sported soles that reached a width of 17cm (6.5 inches), and again sumptuary laws were passed to curb this ‘excessive’ style.
The long pointed toe of the medieval poulaine was not only an indicator of status, but also of the wearer’s masculinity – and, by inference, his sexual proclivities.
The pointed toe has resurfaced numerous times through history. It’s apparent in the form of the winklepicker in the 1950 and 1960s – a pointed toe found on men’s shoes and often on women’s stiletto heeled court shoes, whose name was derived from the sharp pin used for prying winkles from their shells – and in designer Vivienne Westwood’s ‘penis shoe’ Spring/Summer 1995.
In the 18th century, French fashion dominated. One particularly popular style of shoe was the high, French, ‘Pompadour’ heel. Named after Madame Pompadour, mistress to King Louis XV, this heel was incredibly narrow-waisted, and curved inwards under the foot. They were notoriously difficult to walk in, but made the most fantastic boudoir shoe. An 18th-century satirical poem said of them: “Mount on French heels, when you go to the ball – Tis the fashion to totter, and show you can fall.”
By the 1890s, heels on women’s shoes reached heady heights with the very fashionable style known as the Cromwell. This was a high-heeled shoe with a tabbed front and buckle, called the Cromwell in the mistaken belief that buckles were worn on the shoes of Oliver Cromwell and his followers in the first half of the 17th century. In reality, at that time his followers were wearing practical low-heeled leather shoes fastened with a latchet tie.
The extremely decadent Cromwell shoes could have heels up to 16 cm (6¼ inches). Such a high-heeled shoe caused consternation at the time. Wearers were ridiculed, and apparently cartoons of the day carried images of women needing sticks to walk, or helping hands either side of them.
Towards the end of the 1890s these exaggerated heeled shoes became very popular with women who entertained in the boudoir, thereby solving the problem of walking in them, but making them unwearable by ‘ordinary’ women.
White wedding slippers symbolize purity, and black is often worn for work or attendance at a funeral, but what about red?
Red has long been a significant and powerful color in part due to the expense involved in obtaining red dye. Red shoes were the prerogative of Roman senators and later, the emperor, and popes have worn red since the 13th century. Red-heeled shoes were also popular in the 17th century.
Red shoes also symbolize danger and passion, the very start of life, and the end.
Recently, across the world red shoes have been used to symbolize and protest violence against women.
Shoes can express identity, and indicate the cultural group to which the wearer belongs. As far back as Ancient Rome, all people were duty bound to wear the correct footwear – whether non-citizen, citizen, senator, priest or soldier. This meant you could see where individuals were positioned in society simply by the footwear they wore.
The Roman soldier wore a style with an open toe and an open lattice upper, known as the caliga. It was a practical style, strong and well-ventilated for endless marching.
The emperor and high-ranking officials, on the other hand, wore the campagus – an open-toed boot, laced at the front.
Red soles and heels equal power and identity – from the red heels of King Louis XIV, to the red soles of expensive Louboutin’s today. From the 1660s the flamboyant King Louis XIV of France became one of the most influential men in Europe, and was responsible for several fashion trends including the high red heel, either covered with red Morocco leather, or painted.
Red was a symbol of wealth, only worn by the King and his court. The high heel not only elevated the short Monarch above the masses, but also alerted onlookers to his high status. Gradually the red heel filtered down through the classes and became a sign of fashionable sophistication.
A “Thank You” to BBC History Extra and Rebecca Shawcross. She is the author of Shoes: An Illustrated History (Bloomsbury, 2014)
Teddy, an undergarment that resembles the shape of a one-piece bathing suit because it is typically sleeveless, and sometimes even strapless.
When wearing a teddy you step into the leg holes and pull the teddy up to cover the torso. They may open at the crotch with snaps or velcro for using the bathroom. As an undergarment, a teddy combines the functions of a camisole and panties, and may help avoid a visible panty line.
A teddy can also be called a camiknicker, the garment covers the torso and crotch in the one piece. Though it is a similar to a one-piece swimsuit or bodysuit, a teddy is typically looser and more sheer.
The one-piece undergarment which joined a camisole and knickers appeared in the 1910s under the name envelope chemise or camiknickers. It was considered an appropriate garment to wear under the shorter dresses which came into fashion in the 1920s. The garment was also worn without an overgarment in the boudoir.
The style gained popularity during the World War II when women who served in military-related duties wore trousers instead of skirts. By the late 1940s, the garment had lost its popularity.
A version reappeared as a lingerie garment in the late 1960s, featuring a bra top and attached slip, to wear under short, shift dresses, and replace halfslips. Often the bra top was a underwire style, and the entire garment was sized by the bra. It was called both a “teddy” or “braslip,” usually in traditional lingerie colors.
Another revival began in the 1980s and 1990s, under the name “teddy” or “bodysuit”, when the garment was made of spandex, featuring brief construction combining features of a bra and panties, or leotard, and brighter colors.
A body briefer is a form-fitting garment which smooths and shapes the wearer’s figure. They typically come in a variety of control levels, achieved by using different materials or thicknesses things of materials in the body areas they are designed to control. Like sleep teddies, body briefers tend to use simpler materials and styles than teddies designed for visual appeal. Body briefers are also commonly called “body shapers” or “women’s shapers”.
A fashion top teddy combines a thong panty, bra and fashion top. Fashion top teddies come in a variety of styles, from simple styles with plain materials to very fancy styles with beads, crystals or sequins. Fashion top teddies can be worn as fancy undergarments or as an outer garment without a top over them.
A sleep teddy is a loose-fitting teddy designed as sleepwear. A sleep teddy is a practical garment which tends to use simpler materials and styles.
A teddiette is a teddy with garters.
As traditional lingerie, the teddy is loose-fitting designed for visual or sex appeal and to show off the wearer’s figure. Using a sheer/partially sheer material or silk/silk-like material and embellished with lace the garment is elegant and sexy.
Ok, that is just wrong…this is better:
The first known underwear dates back almost 7000 years, when prehistoric man used leather to cover and protect his loins while running prehistoric errands. For several millennia, not much changed. Ancient Egyptian art shows everyone from the pharaohs on down the line decked out in loincloths of their own. The pharaohs even wore a sort of specialized kilt/loincloth called a shendoh, and took extra supplies of the garment into their pyramids for use in the afterlife.
Variations on the loincloth seem to have persisted into the Middle Ages, when loose-fitting trousers called braies came into fashion. These linen “underpants” extended from the waist to around mid-calf, staying-in via the laces around the waist and shins. Braies had the advantage of offering a lot of coverage, so if a laborer got too hot he could strip down to his bottoms while still maintaining a sense of decorum.
All of the lacing made answering nature’s call a bit of a hassle.
Enter the codpiece.
A codpiece opens at the front using buttons, snaps, or laces to enable men to urinate without removing their braies.
Early codpieces were practical, but as hemlines rose, they started to take on a decorative function, too. When Henry VIII began to pad his codpiece in the 16th century, all of his loyal subjects followed suit. Codpiece padding and growth continued throughout the mid-sixteenth century before tailing off around 1590.
“Boxers or briefs?”
Before the 1920’s, this question would have gotten you a blank look. Neither boxers nor briefs had been invented’ yet. From Victorian times until the 1930’s, men mostly wore tight-fitting knee-length flannel “drawers” beneath their pants and donned similarly snug flannel tops as undershirts.
In 1925. Jacob Golomb, the founder of the venerable boxing equipment company Everlast, started to tweak designs for the trunks worn by pugilists. Golomb realized that the leather-belted trunks fighters had worn weren’t totally ideal for movement, so he replaced the leather with more flexible elastic waistbands.
Boxer shorts weren’t an immediate success as underwear, though. They lacked the support that drawers and union suits had offered, so men weren’t crazy about them. It really wasn’t until after World War II that boxer shorts took off to challenge their younger siblings, the briefs.
Underwear drawers changed forever in 1934 when Arthur Kneibler, an executive and designer at the Wisconsin hosiery company Coopers, Inc., received a postcard from a friend who was visiting the French Riviera. The postcard depicted a man in a bikini-style bathing suit and “apparel engineer” Kneibler had an epiphany: why couldn’t this type of swimsuit be converted into underwear?
It was Jan. 19, 1935, that the first briefs were sold, in Chicago. According to Shaun Cole’s The Story of Men’s Underwear, they were a new kind of supportive, elastic underwear that Kneibler and his colleagues dubbed the “Jockey” to conjure images of a jock strap, an athletic undergarment that would have been known to their customers.
Coopers took its first batch of Jockey briefs to Chicago’s landmark department store, Marshall Field and Company, the briefs were displayed along with that season’s new undershirt. And although Chicago was in the grip of a blizzard, the entire load of 600 pairs of Jockey briefs sold out on the first day. The item was an immediate success, as within three months the company sold 30,000 pairs and Cooper’s added the “y-front” fly opening a few months later.
Coopers kept making and marketing its wildly successful underwear and in 1971 the company changed its name to Jockey.
The Secret Service and Joe Boxer…..
Designer underwear became all the rage in the 1970’s and 80’s as labels like Calvin Klein began to transform our drawers from something we hid under our pants into the sort of fashion and lifestyle choice one could flaunt in a bad music video. Cuts became tighter and sexier, and underwear designs became flashy, loud, and often humorous.
One of the main beneficiaries of this new obsession with snappy underwear was Joe Boxer, which started making skivvies in 1984 when it filled an order for Macy’s that included a design with a Velcro-attached removable raccoon tail.
Joe Boxer really jumped into the spotlight in 1985, though, when it made boxers printed with the image of hundred-dollar bills. The Secret Service decided that these duds violated forgery laws and confiscated 1,000 pairs of the offending underwear. Instead of simply hiring lawyers, Joe Boxer turned the seizure into a lighthearted news event and the image of boxers as a playful alternative to stolid briefs grew.
How underwear takes the Nation’s Economic Pulse
Although there haven’t been many huge underwear breakthroughs since the introduction of boxer briefs in the early 1990’s (and even those are sort of a throwback to the union suits favored by pre-1930’s men), boxers and briefs found their way onto the financial pages in early 2008. That’s when former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan revealed that the state of the men’s underwear industry is an important indicator of the economy’s health.
The logic Greenspan outlined regarding underwear was simple and elegant:
Many Men have a drawer full of underwear that they will wear until the elastic is dead and the boxers are riddled with holes. Since coworkers and friends generally don’t see a guy’s underwear, replacing these frayed undergarments often seems like a discretionary purchase for men. As such, when men start fearing the economy is in a downturn and need a place to save a little cash, they simply stop replenishing their underwear drawer with fresh Jockeys.
Sure enough, when the economy started to tail-off in 2008, annual men’s underwear sales dropped by 12%.
If that’s not enough proof that the history of men’s underwear is fascinating, take a look at these 13 vintage photos of skivvies from the pre and post-briefs eras. (click the photos to see the caption)
Thank you to Ethan Trex of Mental Floss and Time Magazine
are a garment for sleeping or lounging worn by men, women, and children. Pajamas may be one-piece or two-piece garments, but always consist of loosely fitting pants of various widths and lengths. Pajamas are traditionally viewed as utilitarian garments.
The word pajama comes from the Hindi “pae jama” or “pai jama,” meaning leg clothing, and its usage dates back to the Ottoman Empire. Alternate spellings include: paejamas, paijamas, pyjamas, and the abbreviated PJ’s. Pajamas were traditionally loose drawers or trousers tied at the waist with a drawstring or cord, and they were worn by both sexes in India, Iran, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Pajamas could be either tight-fitting throughout the entire leg, or full at waist and knees with tightness at calves and ankles. They were usually worn with a belted tunic extending to the knees. Although the word is Hindi, similar garments are found in traditional costume throughout the Middle and Far East.
Pajamas were adopted by Europeans while in these countries, and brought back as exotic lounge wear. Although the wearing of pajamas was not widespread until the twentieth century, they were appropriated as early as the seventeenth century as a signifier of status and worldly knowledge.
Pajamas as Sleepwear
Pajamas are generally thought to have been introduced to the Western world around 1870, when British colonials, who had adopted them as an alternative to the traditional nightshirt, continued the practice upon their return. By the end of the nineteenth century, the term pajama was being used to describe a two-piece garment: both the pajamas (trousers) and the jacket-styled top worn with them.
By 1902, men’s pajamas were widely available alongside more traditional nightshirts and were available in fabrics like flannel and madras and had lost most of their exotic connotations. Pajamas were considered modern and suitable for an active lifestyle. The advertising copy in the 1902 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue suggested that they were: “Just the thing for traveling, as their appearance admits a greater freedom than the usual kind of nightshirts”.
The streamlined, often androgynous fashions during the 1920’s helped to popularize the wearing of pajamas by women. While men’s pajamas were invariably made of cotton, silk, or flannel, women’s examples were often made of brightly printed silk or rayon and trimmed with ribbons and lace. Early examples featured a raised or natural waist with voluminous legs gathered at the ankle in a “Turkish trouser” style, while later examples featured straight legs and dropped waists, a reflection of the 1920’s silhouette. Throughout the century, pajamas would continue to reflect the fashionable ideal. The 1934 film It Happened One Night, featured a scene where Claudette Colbert wears a pair of men’s pajamas. That helped to popularize the menswear-styled pajama for women. (photo above)
With the popularity of unisex styling during the 1970’s, pajamas were often menswear inspired. Tailored satin pajamas had been popular since the 1920’s but were rediscovered during this period by both men and women. In this decade, ethnic styles based on the traditional dress of Vietnam and China were worn as anti-fashion and a statement about the wearer’s political views. This trend toward unisex and ethnic remains to this day and is particularly clear in women’s fashions, where the division between dress and undress has become blurred.
Let’s not forget the children. Young girls and boys are the largest group of Pajama wearers, especially in cold weather climates. History-wise, who had the footed “onsie” in fleece with a zipper? Cosy until you sweated profusely~ And remember this; Bananas In Pajamas
Pajamas as Fashion
This blurring of these boundaries began long ago. Women had begun experimenting with the adaptation of pajama-style trousers since the eighteenth century, but this was associated with masquerade costume, actresses, and prostitution, not with respectable women.
Pajamas began to be adapted into fashionable dress in the early years of the twentieth century when avantgarde designers promoted them as an elegant alternative to the tea gown. French couturier Paul Poiret launched pajama styles for both day and evening as early as 1911, and his influence played a large role in their eventual acceptance.
Beach pajamas, which were worn by the seaside and for walking on the boardwalk, were popularized by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel in the early 1920s. The first beach pajamas were worn by the adventuresome few, but by the end of the decade had become acceptable dress for the average woman. Evening pajamas, intended to be worn as a new type of costume for informal dining at home, also became widely accepted during this decade. Evening pajamas would remain popular throughout the 1930s and would reemerge in the 1960s in the form of “palazzo pajamas.”
Palazzo pajamas were introduced by the Roman designer Irene Galitzine in 1960 for elegant but informal evening dress. They greatly influenced fashion during the 1960’s and continued into the casual 1970’s. Palazzo pajamas featured extremely wide legs and were often made of soft silk and decorated with beading and fringe. During the 1970’s, evening wear and lounge wear merged, as evening styles became increasingly simple and unstructured. Halston was particularly known for his bias-cut pantsuits of satin and crepe, which he called “pajama dressing.” In light of this, popular magazines suggested readers shop in the lingerie departments for their evening wear.
This increased informality of dress has made the evening pajama a staple in modern fashion, and the Asian influence on designers like Ralph Lauren and Giorgio Armani has blurred the boundaries between dress and undress even further. It is and trend that has come around a number of times and its likely the trend will continue well into the twenty-first century.
A HUGE “Thank You” to http://www.angelasancartier.net , August 23rd, 2009
It’s becoming sexier, the Sports Bra. But its history is not so elegant, as innovative:
By 1977, Lisa Lindahl had taken up jogging and was fed up with running in her regular underwire bra. The University of Vermont employee was frustrated that her male jogging partner could take off his shirt to cool down, while she was stuck in a bra that slipped off her shoulders and dug into her back as she ran.
Lindahl vented to friend and costume designer Polly Smith that why there something that women could wear to support their breasts without chafing or overheating?
The two along with another costume designer, Hinda Miller, set out to create a solution, but didn’t make much progress until Lindahl’s then-husband grabbed his jockstrap and held it over his chest. He joked that he’d found the solution.
Turns out, he was onto something.
“I put it over my chest and it went right over my breast,” Lindahl, now in her late 60s and living in Charleston, SC, told The New York Post. “I looked at Polly and said, ‘Oh my word!’”
The women sewed two jockstraps together, creating what they called the Jockbra, which was rebranded as the Jogbra. The $16 bra was a revelation: It held breasts in place without metal fixtures or stuffy padding, and the cross-back straps never fell off shoulders.
Lindahl and her partners sold the company to what would become Champion in 1990.
The summer of 2017 marked the 40th anniversary of the invention — and while the sports bra has undoubtedly made technical leaps in the intervening years, its history is a fraught one.
Before the jockbra came into existence, female athletes had been forced to exercise in their regular bras, going so far as to tape the shoulder straps back so they didn’t slip as they ran. Others ran without a bra, leading to uncomfortable catcalls.
Not surprisingly, women embraced the Jogbra, which was sold in sporting goods stores and later advertised in women’s magazines. At the time, the nation had been in the midst of a jogging obsession, and the passing of Title IX in 1972 had given more female students access to participating in sports.
(Lisa Lindahl was smiling with Brandy Chastain’s Soccer celebration antics.)
“It’s amazing how fast sales grew, because there was a pent-up desire for it,” says sports bra science and marketing consultant to Champion LaJean Lawson, Ph.D., who has spent more than 30 years studying and developing sports bras.
‘There is no piece of apparel more difficult to design well than a sports bra.”
Every Woman’s ribcage size is different, breast shapes are different, the breast placement is different, size of shoulders is different, etc. The sports bra originally focused on vertical bounce, but it turns out that breasts bounce horizontally and actually in a figure eight pattern while jogging. Breasts, on the average, weigh 3 pounds and gravity takes its toll, especially while exercising.
Hurrah for the Jogbra! But the newer sports bras need to be doing more.
Thank you to Smithsonian.com, The NY Post and The Daily Mail
“And now I’m dressed like a little girl, in a dress both loose and short,
Oh with what freedom I can sing, and walk all ‘round about!
And when I get a little strength, some work I think I can do,
‘Twill give me health and comfort, and make me useful too.”
— The Sibyl magazine, April 15, 1859
Originally, Bloomers, also called the bloomer, the Turkish dress, the American dress, or simply reform dress, are divided women’s garments for the lower body. They were developed in the 19th century as a healthful and comfortable alternative to the heavy, constricting dresses worn by women.
Amelia Jenks Bloomer (May 27, 1818 – December 30, 1894) was an American women’s rights and temperance advocate. Even though she did not create the women’s clothing reform style known as bloomers, her name became associated with it because of her early and strong advocacy.
Bloomers, as lingerie, are baggy underwear that extends to just below or above the knee and fastened. (Can be known as “knickers” or “directoire knickers”). Bloomers were worn for several decades during the first part of the 20th century, but are not widely worn today.
Often the term “bloomers” has been used interchangeably with the pantalettes worn by women and girls in the mid 19th century and the open leg knee-length drawers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Something for CosPlay or DD/bg?
PS: Also a nickname for cheerleading briefs. 😀
Everything old is new again… the underlying theme to the Museum of Modern Art’s first fashion exhibition since 1944.
“Items” focused mostly on types of clothes, not dream clothes. Paying attention to everyday women’s concerns and how women actually get dressed are placed front and center. This is a clinical look at clothing (new and old), not the fantasy of Fashion.
There weren’t many designers shown unless their items were rifts upon historical pieces (Rei Kawakubo) or practicality for all shapes and sizes (Donna Karan’s 1985 collection for professional women.)
Overall, wandering around the exhibition showed a lack of connection between research and the object shown unless you took the time to read the descriptions fully. Still it was fun to try to determine the timeline of an item and decide if the 111 initial items listed were what you considered “classics” or if you would choose something different.
As for answering the question, “Is Fashion Modern?” dievca stays with her first statement of -“Everything Old is New Again”….the exhibition solidified her thoughts.
But more importantly, for dievca, spending time with her Master looking at clothing wasn’t a bad bargain on a grey day. 🙂
Photos: dievca MoMa 2017