They’d seen how women had begun to fling off repressive roles, a movement reflected in their clothes why not do the same for masculinity? J.C. It seems odd at first that this would be an organized group instead of a looser assemblage, but its goals were political.
Men’s clothing was a health hazard, they claimed, which fell into line with its parent organization, The New Health Society, a group devoted to educating people about nutrition, “intestinal stasis,” and “helio-hygiene.” (I visualize them as a predecessor to Gwyneth’s Goop team.) So they fought back, urging employers to let workers wear freer dress, organizing ersatz holidays in which men were to wear whatever they pleased, and throwing rallies at which members were instructed to “Come as you are and feel your best,” which for some meant togas, for others singlets and jeans, and for H.G. The idea was that the dark, heavy clothes men were expected to wear were unhygienic (it was difficult to wash a suit before widely available dry cleaning-indeed, that’s part of why suits are traditionally dark, to mask dirt), and ugly to boot (we’ll get to that). They paraded about in shorts, open-collared shirts, and color-coordinated socks if a member wore a tie, he might fasten it inches below his Adam’s apple. While researching the history of men and makeup, I ran across a mention of this odd-duck British party in the 1930s whose sole purpose was to agitate for loosened clothing restrictions on men. Here’s a party whose caucus I’d love to watch: The Men’s Dress Reform Party.
0 kommentar(er)
