A Reverse in Perceptions

Few days ago a friend of mine, Ina Kremer, recommended me a BBC article entitled The fall and rise of mannequins that look like real women. It intrigued me because it was mentioned that mannequins have very slim bodies, which are not representative for the real woman today, nor were in the past. Tanya Reynolds, creative director at a mannequin manufacturer says that if you had a fuller body in the Victorian era you would have been perceived as someone who could afford to eat well. Today, it is actually the other way around, as in countries like the US, women (and men) who have fuller bodies are perceived as not being able to afford to eat well (with fast food being the cheapest and most unhealthy).

In an interview I took with history expert and professor at Hult International Business School, Alan Hertz, I found some staggering facts about women in the Victorian era compared to women today, which are absolutely in reverse: the habits of the rich in the Victorian era have become the habits of the poorer today and the other way around! Let me explain how.

First comes fashion! We know Coco Chanel believed that less is more and she made simplicity the ultimate elegance. Well, before her, women were extravagant, dressed in the most expensive fabrics, jewellery, hats, scarves, shoes and just a lot of everything. This was a way to show their status and their wealth. Poorer women were the working class, who dressed simply with plain fabrics, no accessories and regular shoes.

Let's talk about beauty! Rich women in the Victorian era wanted to be very white, pure, delicate and even helpless sometimes in order to convey femininity. Working women were tanned, as work implied walking or staying in the sun (and as mentioned above, they did not have elaborate outfits to keep the sun from burning their skin).

Let's finish with fitness! In the Victorian era, the fittest women were the working women, who had to walk, run, work the fields and deliver foods to the richer class for money. They were incredibly strong and fit. The richer women in the Victorian era did not have to work, some were not even allowed, and thus were not supposed to look fit; it wasn't a sign of wealth.

NOW, well we all know that simplicity is elegance, both in fashion and make-up. Women who care for themselves are no longer staying indoors with the fear of getting tanned or fit, but they are actively working out and tanning, both now signs of health. Everything is in reverse, as the unfit and untanned are believed to not have the wealth to care for their bodies as the other women do.

I thought that was fascinating because of the change in roles between women then and now, and how society has adopted these views, even though some time ago it was absolutely unconceivable. It makes me hopeful for the future because I believe there are still things that need to change in regards to women's bodies and perception and now I think there will be a time for it.

Until next time, I will leave you with some photos that depicts what I have been saying above!

Love,
Sonia

Jen Selter - fitness guru

Jillian Michaels - workout guru

Left side images credits to Arthur J. Munby, who was passionate about photographing the working women in the Victorian era.