I have long suspected that words used to describe my
wardrobe would have to include "matronly," "prudish," "old-fashioned," and "proper," and this image is merely confirmation of that fact.
While "old-fashioned" and "proper" are positive words, in my opinion, I am not sure that anything remotely complimentary is to be found in "prudish" or "matronly." What exactly makes anything that covers the bum considered old and unattractive? I prefer "classic," "tailored," and "classy" - although many would consider them antiquated styles to be avoided at all cost.
 |
| Does this look matronly?! |
In actuality, the older I get, the shorter my skirt lengths
become. My Pre-Raphaelite & Victorian obsessions in
high school meant that anything showing my ankles was verboten. And my current love of 1940s and 50s fashion means that tea
length and knee length are staples in my wardrobe.
I rarely make or purchase anything more than one or two inches above the knee, and if I do, you can be sure that a pair or tights or stockings will be making an appearance.
That being said, I am thankful for having the choice to wear whatever I choose, even if it does mean I am perceived as an old lady!
Actually if you trace that picture back to the source, the person who took it, took it to illustrate just how arbitrary those labels are! It was for a school project, don't take it so seriously.
ReplyDeleteBut I like the image. I too aim for knee or below, otherwise it's thick tights with boots to make up the difference.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I thought this image said everything I've been thinking for ages. Thanks for the confirmation that I'm not the only one who is "proper".
I have always worn skirts just below my knee or longer. When I was young it was because I loved the look of fabric moving around in a skirt - the more fabric, the better! Now that I have cellulite and varicose veins, I'm just glad that long skirts have always been my style preference. I don't feel I'm having to cover things up so much as I'm just being consistent!
ReplyDeleteI think you should just wear whatever length that you prefer. The only lengths that raise an eyebrow are the ones that don't match the weather or the occasion. Wear what makes you feel pretty and comfortable.
ReplyDeleteI like what Nessa said, but it is also a matter of proportion. Certain lengths are better because of our unique body shapes and proportion of leg to body length. I think it is important to keep that in mind when wearing some lengths. However, when it is a style point, such as with the tea dress above, then it is rather moot. Wear what makes you feel pretty and comfortable.
ReplyDeletebased on the "leg chart" my skirts range from flirty (beach wear and lounge wear) to matronly. My opera skirt is actually floor length brocade with an elaborate godet/train piece: very non matronly.
ReplyDeleteI really like this photo. It's funny because in middle school I wore a lot of floor length Victorian/Edwardian style skirts, but when I started high school I was wearing mini skirts in the "provocative" and "cheeky" range. I think it was because with such a big change I really wanted to fit in and that's what all the other girls were wearing, but by Junior year I came into my true style, and the lengths went down to "flirty", "proper", and "old-fashioned." I wear a lot of vintage styles, but I still love modern fashion, and in my experiences, I usually get a positive response from my proper attire.
ReplyDeleteIt's common knowledge in my family that if anyone's grandmother likes it, so will I! I prefer to have my skirts and dresses hit my knee or about 2" below (right between proper and old-fashioned)
ReplyDeleteWhere are the lines for "charming", "demure", and "alluring"? also all words I would use to describe parts of your wonderful wardrobe. Maybe it's the bodice/blouse or style/fabric of the skirt that take it from matronly to something else.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Perhaps the artist didn't mean that first image as offensive, but I admit my gut reaction was to be offended. My skirt lengths most often put me at the bottom three of the tier. I will embrace Old-Fashioned, but I personally think of when I think of longer skirt lengths. It's all about finding what's flattering to your figure and proportions, and where you're comfortable. If wearing skirts those lengths makes others label me as matronly and prudish, so be it.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'm tired and that comment doesn't make much sense... but I think you get it ;)
ReplyDeleteI do get it, Lauren!
DeleteWhat offends me about this photo is the 'asking for it' mark. Asking for what? Does she deserve something horrible to happen to her because she's wearing a short skirt, more specifically, at that length? Things like this make rape culture in this world acceptable, and it isn't. People see this photo and ignore the real offensive mark and pay more attention to whether their skirt is 'slutty' or 'matronly,' and don't pay attention to the fact that there is even a mark in the first place for 'asking for it.' The mark isn't even a description of who the person is as the others are, it's suggestive of something else entirely...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree- although I dislike the whore label as well. In my opinion, the whole concept of viewing someone as 'asking for it' based on their clothing choices is not acceptable. Yes, I appreciate that different clothes have different connotations, and you have to consider that when you get dressed-what you'd wear out you might not to an interview, for instance. But 'asking for it' implies something that I'm really not comfortable with...
ReplyDeleteI agree, as far as longer hems go, there is nothing matronly about a long narrow black skirt paired with a leather jacket and cowboy or motorcycle boots :)
ReplyDeleteWasn't the whole point of that original picture to show how arbitarily we judge and demean women based on their clothing? It's not unintentional that the distance between 'sexually alluring' and 'deserves to get raped' is extremely short. And the height of those lines has moved up and down with the changing fashions, so maybe wearing an obviously vintage outfit gives you a bit of a pass r.e. skirt length. Of course that doesn't begin to address outfits for different social occasions, or the back-handed treatment you get for being 'lady-like' or not sexual enough or whatever. Fashion is a bit of landmine for ladies no matter what!
ReplyDeleteThis was a high school art project, the piece is called 'Judgments.' It is not the artist's PERSONAL judgement about your PERSONAL style. It's about how casually and constantly women are scrutinized and judged over things like skirt length, and MOST of those judgements are negative. These are the things that so many people think, even though they don't say them out loud. The artist wants people to talk about those judgements and how they colour the way women are treated.
ReplyDeletePlease step back, take a breath, and listen to the artist talk about the work: http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/01/24/judgments-artist-rosea-lake-on-q/
@Anonymous- you're right, the point of the photo seems to be making us think about and discuss how we all make judgements based on things like skirt length. I don't find the photo offensive on a personal level, but instead because of what it represents. An awful lot of people do put other people into categories like this in their heads, and then judge people negatively if they don't fit into the 'correct' category- and that mentality just doesn't sit right with me.
Delete@Rhi: exactly. I also notice that you were one of the very few who responded to the idea in the photo that women can be judged by skirt length to be asking to be sexually assaulted or not rating respect, vs the defensiveness about being labelled matronly or old fashioned. I'm actually shocked at how few comments touched on that side of the issue.
DeleteI believe that the point of such a provocative image is to start a discussion, and one way to do that is to make people angry.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has never worn short skirts, I would feel uncomfortable commenting on something with which I have absolutely no experience.
But the labels are certainly arbitrary – the first example I thought of was a lovely young actress wearing a pink gown that, according to those labels, should look matronly. Which, of course, it does not! So clearly the stereotypes are bogus!
Although I have no proof, my guess is that the artist is someone who wears skirt lengths that correspond to the "cheeky" and "flirty" labels since they are the only two words that do not have a negative connotation - everyone has their own prejudices!
A quick google search shows the artist to be more of a jeans and sneakers girl.
DeleteWhile someone might not have personal experience wearing short skirts, I don't think it's a leap to say that wearing a short skirt does not mean a woman is asking to be assaulted.
"But the labels are certainly arbitrary [snip] So clearly the stereotypes are bogus!"
DeleteExactly. I think that's the artist's point.
ALL of the labels are offensive (including cheeky and flirty, which are not uniformly positive anyway) because they all suggest that a woman's personality, morals and quality can be judged from her hem length on a given day.
I've understood this image as pointing out how silly (and horrifying) such labels are, and it's disappointing to see that over-simplified. The artist isn't providing a helpful guide; imho, she's stating how ridiculous and hurtful these labels are. We've seen even in the comments here how some don't even question the labels (except for the term for the length they prefer). It's disconcerting...
Just as I love being able to wear whatever I want, I believe that we each deserve that right and (that society) should stop placing judgement on other people for what they wear. It's absurd to think that hem length can define a person any more than what they eat or the the colour of their car can. Yes, some skirt lengths may conjure up certain stereotypes of eras more than others, but general assumptions simply do not apply to such a trivial point. I personally prefer my skirts and dresses to almost always hit below the knee, but I'm a million miles away from being a prude or at an age where I could be viewed as matronly (I don't even have children yet!). I'm an extremely liberal woman in her late 20s who just feels more comfortable in longer length garments.
ReplyDelete♥ Jessica
That picture is so funny! In fact, in my house it is already becoming the new standard by which we discuss unusual skirt lengths we see around us ;)
ReplyDeleteI think I have worn pretty much every length from mid-way between "cheeky" and "flirty" (but only with very thick tights) down to well beyond "matronly" (I was once a romantic goth, who loved her floor length satin and lace skirts).
I'd say most of the skirts I make now would hit the "old-fashioned" mark.
Of course labels are silly and the look of any skirt or dress on any person is defined by so much more than length alone!
I wouldn't take a picture that says "asking for it" as a skirt length seriously. I mean, really?
ReplyDeleteIf she thinks a girl wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped then I really don't care for anything else she thinks.
I hope I'm not being to harsh here but these things drive me crazy!