Why Corsets are not Sexist

 Dear Blog,

It’s a beautiful evening to bash idiots that think they know everything (and I do know everything so I’m very qualified, FYI)! Today I came across yet ANOTHER Tik Tok video that had been added to Pinterest that had the usual suspects of a woman who obviously didn’t know much about historical fashion (and probably just history in general, just sayin’) who was ranting about how the patriarchy made every woman wear a corset and all the sickness and death that corsets caused. Good heavens! If history had actually played out according to every poorly-informed-video-creating-person out there there’s no way we (the human population) would still be around! But then, if no humans existed, the tree-huggers would finally get thier way, but then, would tree huggers even exist? Anyhoooooooo…….

An example of extreme tight-lacing of a corset.

How tight-lacing effects the body.

So back to the point, here’s why corsets (and similar undergarments) are not sexist (or some evil patriarchal plot). And just FYI, I’m pulling’ on every ounce of historical fashion knowledge in me right now! XD

So I thought I’d start with this:

Sometime in 2017, an actress named, Emma Watson starred  in the live action, Beauty and the Beast. Instead of keeping with historical accuracy and wearing the proper undergarments, she decided to not wear a corset in order to be more empowering. Why? Because, she claimed, that corsets are just too restrictive and it would put (or I guess keep) Belle in a light that focuses on restricted-ness and wanting to look attractive, rather than having free will. Because, ya know women back in the day just sat around all day doing nothing because they couldn’t move, and they DEFINITELY couldn’t ride a horse and wear a corset at the same time! Here’s a Link for reference. I get the motive for ditching the corset, and I quite agree with it, but leaving actual parts of history in the dirt is just wrong to me, and most certainly not the way to empower young viewers. To say that women were in no way capable of doing (or being) anything whilst wearing a supportive garment is terrible and ridiculous!  What kind of light does that put on the many women of history? And for my own humor I might add the question, what was Watson wearing? Some sort of supportive (sorry, “restrictive”) garment was visibly worn. So was it a bra then? Are bras not just as sexist as well? After all, poking wires, tight straps, poor fits, additional heat and layers, all for the approval of men? Yeesh! How terrible! 

So, how did wearing or not wearing a corset affect the “feel” of the character? It didn’t really. When watching the actual movie, the choice of clothing in the first place is so lacking in the history department, that the historical-ness of the clothing isn’t really the focal point anyways. The thing I’m trying to get at here, is the mindset that corsets kept women down. I love, love, love, love using this example. If a woman (lets say a feminist) wears a bra, is she automatically transformed into a suppressed creature who is trying to change her body to look good for men? Of course not! It’s just what we wear as women because of the needs our bodies have! Well then, how are corsets any different? Sure there are the obvious differences, but essentially it’s the same idea: shape and support the bust and waist, or shape and support the bust. Even if corsets and similar garments were so terrible, one of the things you need to understand when dealing with historical clothing, is that what they had was what they had. A woman (say from the 1800’s) didn’t have this vast knowledge of a time way after her where people (females) didn’t wear body-shaping garments. Plus, they used what they had. Some guy didn’t just wake up one day and say, “you know what? These women have gotten to be to free! You know what we need? A piece of clothing that will entirely immobilize the entire female population!”. I personally don’t know how stays/corsets came about, and I’m pretty sure it started (don’t believe me here,) with boned bodices sometime in ye olde medieval world, but the point is, your average female “historical person” didn’t just give up and not do any physical activity because society says to wear stays. It’s ridiculous to assume that! And what does that say about what you think of women in the past? That they would put up with not being able to even ride a horse (as mentioned in the Allure article given for reference)? That’s sorta like not being able to drive just because of your clothing. 

I would like to give one more example just for the sake of my own thinking process to help get one of my points across. 

Imagine you learned a different language (or maybe you actually have…?). Even if we put our heart and soul into learning that language, and even if you spoke that language perfectly like a native speaker, you’re never going to just forget your original language. You now know BOTH languages by heart. It’s the same thing with wearing undergarments that are different (and more substantial) than ours today. No matter how much research you do on say the Victorians, you’ll have never actually lived it, AND have known nothing else. It’s easy to start thinking, “women made thier waists smaller and changed thier silhouette, and so, therefore, this was caused by all men oppressing all women by making them wear something that was restrictive AND sexualized thier bodies!”. The thing is, it isn’t that simple. Think about today’s stiletto heals. They are not comfy, they’re hard to walk in, BUT they look good (I’m sure someone thinks they look good…and no I’m not referring to males). So to relate to corsets and similar, there has been a phrase that has lasted throughout all time that will probably continue to stay true… “suffer to be beautiful”. 

Now, What I’m trying to say here, is that women have always made sacrifices to be “beautiful”, and the term, “beautiful” has changed through the ages, just the same as the sacrifices we are willing to make has changed. Is it inspired by a want to appear appealing to the opposite sex? It usually seems to be, but regardless, it’s still history.  Even if you believe for whatever reason that corsets (and similar) are “killer restrictors”, it’s still apart of history and you can’t just cut it out for creative reasons. 

To close this out, I would like to say 3 things:

1. Corsets/stays are not the enemy. Women have been (essentially) wearing supportive garments for forever. Somehow we function just fine in them. When you wear something you just adapt to it, not immediately accept surrender. 

2. History is history. You can’t leave out parts because “you don’t like them”, or they, “don’t fit with the character”. Look at Sybil Luddington! She has such an amazing story (if you don’t know her story that’s really too bad. I will at some point in the Autumnal season be posting about lesser-known historical characters) and yet her clothing didn’t effect her effectiveness. She rode that horse through the wind and rain, at night, probably wearing stays and at least one evil petticoat, all while fighting off strangers on the roadside with a stick, oh yeah, and she was a teenager. What kind of amazing, empowering, inspiring story is that? Even if you do think stays/corsets are such a big deal and so terrible, then why not talk about how amazing it was that women overcame them? 

3. Supportive garments are actually useful. They are called supportive garments for a reason. They give support. Not only that, but stays/corsets could smooth out your waistline. Love handles? No problem! Just throw those stays on and go! Now you could make the argument that why should a woman be made to feel bad because her body is not to male standards. But I’m not talking so much about the shape of your body, but the fit of a garment. As an experiment, try on a gown of some sorts (like a once-beautiful robe a l’anglaise that you didn’t just wreck by trying to add trim on to it…) without the needed undergarments. Your silhouette is going to look way wonky and lumpy and all over the place! See what I mean? Clothing is based on other clothing of its time. At the time, it was fashionable to have a straight (and conical might I add) silhouette, which cannot be achieved by only the natural body shape (even if you’re the most naturally beautiful and skinny woman in the world). Additionally, if your going to hold yourself up to certain beauty standards, you might as well have a garment that pretty easily helps you achieve that.

Now, to close out for real… I will say this: I am not always 100% right so bear with me. I try to avoid my own personal grey areas and look at history through the eyes of the historical person. I’m always looking for ways to learn more about history. And lots of times, in the process I come across some pretty wacky things and end up writing long glorified rants like this;)! I really hoped you learned something from this and came out with a wider perspective and a more open mind when it comes to historical fashion :) As always, I wish you the best of luck with your ventures into the past, and I hope you find my writings from my own ventures helpful! I do not pretend to know a lot, or better, but what I do know, I like to share ;) make sure to check out Venturing in the Prior on Pinterest because it’s the best way to get notified of new posts since Blogger won’t do notifications any more :( 

Good night!