WEBVTT - Amelia Bloomer and Elizabeth Smith Miller: Seeking (Re)dress

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:05.920
<v Speaker 1>Uh, clothes well designed pieces of material and functional do

0:00:06.080 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>hickies made to protect our fragile parts in safeguard our

0:00:09.760 --> 0:00:14.000
<v Speaker 1>moral decency? Were clothes shield your body from the many

0:00:14.080 --> 0:00:17.759
<v Speaker 1>threats of our environment and the judgmental eyes of fellow humans?

0:00:18.560 --> 0:00:23.280
<v Speaker 1>Pretty simple concept, right, Yeah? No? The history of clothing

0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:27.920
<v Speaker 1>and fashion is fraught with ideas about gender, status and appropriateness.

0:00:28.680 --> 0:00:31.880
<v Speaker 1>Different cultures around the world have different styles of dress

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>and different rules around the way they dress. That's always

0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:40.240
<v Speaker 1>been the case, based on geography, access to resources, and tradition,

0:00:40.720 --> 0:00:45.120
<v Speaker 1>among other factors. What someone wears and what someone thinks

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:52.760
<v Speaker 1>about what someone wears can have layers of meaning. I'm

0:00:52.800 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 1>Eaves Jeff Coote and This is Unpopular, a podcast about

0:00:58.280 --> 0:01:00.920
<v Speaker 1>the people in history who did not let the threat

0:01:00.920 --> 0:01:09.040
<v Speaker 1>of persecution keep them from speaking truth to power. Quite frankly,

0:01:09.400 --> 0:01:13.640
<v Speaker 1>I've become sick of American conversations around what's right and

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:17.080
<v Speaker 1>what's wrong when it comes to clothing. Not because I

0:01:17.120 --> 0:01:20.959
<v Speaker 1>think we shouldn't be having these conversations. They often question

0:01:21.000 --> 0:01:27.559
<v Speaker 1>our ideas about sexuality, patriarchy, gender identity, body types, cultural appropriation, sexism,

0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>able is um, so on, and so forth. I'm just

0:01:30.920 --> 0:01:34.120
<v Speaker 1>tired of seeing how, after all these years of back

0:01:34.160 --> 0:01:37.200
<v Speaker 1>and forth over clothing, we still have our painties in

0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 1>a bunch and are persecuting and detigrating people over something

0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:46.520
<v Speaker 1>as harmless as fabric. Bickering over clothing choices just seems

0:01:46.560 --> 0:01:50.720
<v Speaker 1>like such a waste of our precious energy. Idealistic me

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:54.400
<v Speaker 1>whish is clothing weren't so politicized so that we didn't

0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 1>have to worry about it affecting our ability to be accepted,

0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:01.400
<v Speaker 1>to avoid attack, or even to live. It would seem

0:02:01.560 --> 0:02:05.400
<v Speaker 1>that one's right to bodily autonomy and safe self expression

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:10.840
<v Speaker 1>would be something we'd have settled on by now. Alas,

0:02:11.320 --> 0:02:14.560
<v Speaker 1>clothing choices and trends can still be the focus of

0:02:14.639 --> 0:02:19.120
<v Speaker 1>controversial discussions, ones around what people should and shouldn't wear,

0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:22.560
<v Speaker 1>based on how flattering it is, whether a woman's clothes

0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:26.200
<v Speaker 1>make her more susceptible to sexual assault, how school dress

0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:28.880
<v Speaker 1>codes are sexist and body shaming. It is at the

0:02:28.919 --> 0:02:31.640
<v Speaker 1>center of a controversy. A straight a high school student

0:02:31.680 --> 0:02:34.640
<v Speaker 1>says this outfit got her suspended for two weeks and

0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:37.280
<v Speaker 1>now she won't be able to graduate despite having multiple

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:41.840
<v Speaker 1>scholarship offers. Which clothes men shouldn't wear in my world.

0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Of course, it don't matter enough. He could be against

0:02:46.080 --> 0:02:48.720
<v Speaker 1>could dress are you could be against the with bag

0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>of pants they don't. I feel like there's no such

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:55.360
<v Speaker 1>things where their leggings should be worn as pants. We

0:02:55.400 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 1>have brought in an esteemed pandal of father's right here

0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:00.840
<v Speaker 1>to see if they would allow their orders to wear

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:04.080
<v Speaker 1>leggings to school. We basically have a rule in the

0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:07.639
<v Speaker 1>Idola household. If it's not worn in the monastery, it's

0:03:07.680 --> 0:03:12.280
<v Speaker 1>not Who can and can't be braw less in public

0:03:12.760 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>should have broad be mandatory for young women in schools.

0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:18.800
<v Speaker 1>That's an issue that's exploding at this all girl private

0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.800
<v Speaker 1>school in Montreal after one of them was told to

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:25.040
<v Speaker 1>cover up when she wasn't wearing a bra. One study

0:03:25.120 --> 0:03:28.880
<v Speaker 1>even suggested that nonconformity and clothing can signal a person's

0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:32.320
<v Speaker 1>high status, a phenomenon to study author is called the

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:37.160
<v Speaker 1>red Sneakers effect. It's disheartening to see how self limiting

0:03:37.200 --> 0:03:39.920
<v Speaker 1>we can be with something that can be so much

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:44.960
<v Speaker 1>fun because of arbitrary standards. How have we not loosened

0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:49.200
<v Speaker 1>our collective collars on this issue yet? Of course, part

0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 1>of the reason I feel this way is because I,

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:55.880
<v Speaker 1>like many others, have had my personal battles with clothes

0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:59.800
<v Speaker 1>and culture. I regret to remember the times I was

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>worse to wear pantyhose or panty loafers to my Black

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:07.320
<v Speaker 1>Southern Baptist church. We're being the weird dressing kid just

0:04:07.480 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 1>wasn't going to work. I get that there are accepted

0:04:11.320 --> 0:04:14.800
<v Speaker 1>conventions of dress we are expected to adhere to when

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:19.480
<v Speaker 1>we're in certain spaces. Those are deep rooted and there's

0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:22.279
<v Speaker 1>no way we're ripping those out of the ground anytime soon.

0:04:23.279 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>And there are plenty of other people who face clothing

0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:30.240
<v Speaker 1>related challenges that are specific to their cultural group or practice.

0:04:31.400 --> 0:04:35.159
<v Speaker 1>Clothing serves a lot of purposes, not limited to just

0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:39.400
<v Speaker 1>function and adornment. So it really doesn't matter that I'm

0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:43.840
<v Speaker 1>jaded when it comes to cultural conversations about clothing. As

0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 1>long as clothing reflects larger societal norms, expectations, and evolution,

0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 1>then we have no choice but to recognize the issues

0:04:52.279 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 1>that clothing illustrates so tangibly. So we're going to go

0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:06.640
<v Speaker 1>back in American history when stuffy and cumbersome were appropriate

0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:09.559
<v Speaker 1>descriptors for the clothing of middle and upper class white people.

0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:14.160
<v Speaker 1>Women's clothing was highly impractical and in the case of

0:05:14.160 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 1>course sets, even dangerous to one's health, so some women

0:05:18.760 --> 0:05:22.719
<v Speaker 1>decided they would advocate for more rational dress. Two of

0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 1>those women who worked for dress reform were Elizabeth Smith

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:31.800
<v Speaker 1>Miller and A Million Bloomer. Now let me pause here

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:35.960
<v Speaker 1>to emphasize the fact that dress reform mainly affected people

0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:39.720
<v Speaker 1>who had class and monetary privilege. This was the mid

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:42.920
<v Speaker 1>eighteen hundreds, when slavery and its effects were still part

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.600
<v Speaker 1>of American life, so when looking at the issue of

0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:50.440
<v Speaker 1>dress reform, we have to put it into perspective. There

0:05:50.480 --> 0:05:53.760
<v Speaker 1>were absolutely bigger fish to fry than high class women's

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:58.039
<v Speaker 1>corsets being too tight in skirts being too wide. That

0:05:58.200 --> 0:06:01.159
<v Speaker 1>isn't up for debate and fact. Many of the women

0:06:01.200 --> 0:06:04.800
<v Speaker 1>involved in dress reform were also first wave feminists, and

0:06:04.839 --> 0:06:07.840
<v Speaker 1>they realized that even within their social groups, there were

0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:10.240
<v Speaker 1>other issues they found more pressing that they would rather

0:06:10.320 --> 0:06:15.880
<v Speaker 1>focus on and wearing comfortable clothing rather than ostentatious, uncomfortable

0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:20.640
<v Speaker 1>yet fashionable clothing. What's definitely not a fight working class folks,

0:06:20.680 --> 0:06:25.640
<v Speaker 1>impoverished people, and slaves were worried about. For many people,

0:06:26.120 --> 0:06:29.480
<v Speaker 1>worries about clothes until having clothes to wear at all,

0:06:30.560 --> 0:06:33.040
<v Speaker 1>and all of that's not to mention the long history

0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:36.640
<v Speaker 1>of people bucking dress norms on a singular skill to

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:40.479
<v Speaker 1>do things like escape slavery and get jobs or better wages.

0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>If we're being straight up, dress reform was not the

0:06:44.240 --> 0:06:46.960
<v Speaker 1>most pressing issue of the day, and it was not

0:06:47.160 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 1>the most noble movement out of all of them. On

0:06:50.640 --> 0:06:54.040
<v Speaker 1>top of that, progress in dress reform could belie other

0:06:54.120 --> 0:06:58.960
<v Speaker 1>societal problems around gender, and the body that said that

0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:03.279
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean it wasn't important. It is totally possible for

0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:05.360
<v Speaker 1>more than one issue to be addressed at a time

0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:08.960
<v Speaker 1>in a country, and those issues may have varying degrees

0:07:09.000 --> 0:07:13.040
<v Speaker 1>of gravity and urgency. Dress reform was intertwined with the

0:07:13.080 --> 0:07:16.800
<v Speaker 1>movement for women's rights, and as a matter of gender iniquity,

0:07:16.840 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 1>it managed to raise awareness about the relevance of women's

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:24.640
<v Speaker 1>clothing that was more practical and less restrictive socially and physically.

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:30.040
<v Speaker 1>Elizabeth Smith Miller and Amelia Bloomer were both activists outside

0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:33.880
<v Speaker 1>of dress reform, but their willingness to adopt unaccepted clothing

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:36.720
<v Speaker 1>at the risk of being rejected, and the hopes of

0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:41.480
<v Speaker 1>introducing more sensible dress was admirable. If a problem exists,

0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:45.400
<v Speaker 1>no matter how small, there's potential that it can be solved.

0:07:46.200 --> 0:07:48.720
<v Speaker 1>Amelia and Elizabeth chose to work on the issue of

0:07:48.800 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 1>dress reform for several years of their lives, and they

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:55.680
<v Speaker 1>were often ridiculed for it. Though dress reform didn't fully

0:07:55.720 --> 0:07:58.960
<v Speaker 1>take off due to their efforts and fashion didn't meaningfully

0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 1>changed until decade later, they recognized the need for progress

0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:06.720
<v Speaker 1>and we're kind of ahead of their time. After this break,

0:08:06.880 --> 0:08:10.240
<v Speaker 1>we'll dig into exactly what Elizabeth and Amelia were up against.

0:08:21.080 --> 0:08:23.880
<v Speaker 1>Reserved with something many upper and middle class women in

0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:27.640
<v Speaker 1>mid nineteenth century America were not when it came to clothing.

0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 1>Contemporary custom called for dramatic floor length dresses. Women sauntered

0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:37.120
<v Speaker 1>around and literally breathtaking corsettes and heavy skirts filled out

0:08:37.160 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 1>with several petticoats so their top half looked like a

0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:43.640
<v Speaker 1>coke bottle and their bottom half looked like a lampshade.

0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 1>The stiff petticoats could weigh up to fifteen pounds. As

0:08:48.800 --> 0:08:52.000
<v Speaker 1>someone who couldn't step foot in a stiletto and generally

0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:55.880
<v Speaker 1>finds tight clothing a hassle, if not insufferable, I couldn't

0:08:55.920 --> 0:09:00.280
<v Speaker 1>imagine being so burdened by such excess, but they ord

0:09:00.480 --> 0:09:04.160
<v Speaker 1>for the sake of modesty, decorum, and keeping up with

0:09:04.160 --> 0:09:07.240
<v Speaker 1>the sensibilities of the time. And when I say endured,

0:09:07.760 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm not just talking about the discomfort these women experienced.

0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:14.880
<v Speaker 1>These dresses affected the way they interacted with their environments

0:09:14.880 --> 0:09:20.280
<v Speaker 1>and caused actual health complications. Women overheated had trouble breathing,

0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:24.559
<v Speaker 1>tripped over stairs, had their organs crushed, swept up the

0:09:24.640 --> 0:09:27.920
<v Speaker 1>garbage on city streets with their skirts, and got caught

0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:31.720
<v Speaker 1>in carriage wheels and factory machines, and even caught fire

0:09:31.920 --> 0:09:36.520
<v Speaker 1>due to their huge Crinolines. Krinolines were stiff skirts or

0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:40.560
<v Speaker 1>under skirts, also known as hoop skirts. It would be

0:09:40.679 --> 0:09:44.480
<v Speaker 1>slapstick comedy if it weren't actually hurting real women, but

0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:47.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people, including people who didn't wear the

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 1>unweldy outfits, realized just how absurd dealing with all of

0:09:51.440 --> 0:09:57.000
<v Speaker 1>this was. Cartoons, often made by men, mind You, poked

0:09:57.000 --> 0:10:00.240
<v Speaker 1>fun at the size of women's skirts and a double

0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:03.440
<v Speaker 1>hit to the anti garretting phenomenon and the krinoline praise.

0:10:04.080 --> 0:10:07.120
<v Speaker 1>One illustration from an eighteen fifty six issue of Punch,

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:11.560
<v Speaker 1>for instance, shows a seedy looking guy narrowly missing his

0:10:11.600 --> 0:10:14.680
<v Speaker 1>opportunity to strangle a guy in the top at The

0:10:14.760 --> 0:10:18.520
<v Speaker 1>caption reads Mr Trumbull borrows a hint from his wife's

0:10:18.559 --> 0:10:22.280
<v Speaker 1>krenoline and invince what he calls his patent anti Garrett overcoat,

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:24.880
<v Speaker 1>which places him completely out of harm with reach and

0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 1>his walk phone from the city. In this way, the

0:10:29.760 --> 0:10:32.920
<v Speaker 1>constraints these outfits set on women's movement and the detriment

0:10:33.000 --> 0:10:36.240
<v Speaker 1>they had on women's health were symbolic of women's confinement

0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 1>to ideals of vanity and domesticity. Not all women had

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:44.520
<v Speaker 1>it out for corsets and ever growing petticoats. Some upheld

0:10:44.520 --> 0:10:48.880
<v Speaker 1>the exaggerated shapes as models of femininity and sophistication and

0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:53.000
<v Speaker 1>crucial parts of their beauty and health regimen. Regardless, a

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:57.120
<v Speaker 1>vocal group of women involved in the temperance, suffrage, health reform,

0:10:57.160 --> 0:11:00.719
<v Speaker 1>and women's rights movements took up the cause of transforming

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:04.920
<v Speaker 1>women's clothing that involved less calculated risk and more comfort.

0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:15.920
<v Speaker 1>Elizabeth Smith Miller was the daughter of abolitionists and Carol

0:11:16.000 --> 0:11:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Fitzhugh and Garrett Smith. They were a wealthy family, and

0:11:20.800 --> 0:11:23.560
<v Speaker 1>Elizabeth spent a lot of time in huge houses and

0:11:23.640 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 1>engaged in what she called rousing arguments at Peterborough that

0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:31.400
<v Speaker 1>made social life seemed tame and profitless elsewhere. The Smith's

0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:33.480
<v Speaker 1>home in Peterborough, New York was a station on the

0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:37.880
<v Speaker 1>underground railroad, so Elizabeth sometimes conversed with people who were

0:11:37.920 --> 0:11:42.560
<v Speaker 1>attempting to escape slavery. Being in this environment influence Elizabeth's

0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:46.520
<v Speaker 1>perspective and in part inspired her social advocacy, and she

0:11:46.640 --> 0:11:49.280
<v Speaker 1>donated time and money to the movements for suffrage in

0:11:49.280 --> 0:11:54.280
<v Speaker 1>women's rights. At the same time, Amelia Bloomer was taking

0:11:54.280 --> 0:11:58.720
<v Speaker 1>on social issues important to her. She wrote articles about temperance,

0:11:59.160 --> 0:12:04.640
<v Speaker 1>or abstaining and drinking alcohol, and joined temperance organizations. She

0:12:04.720 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>went to the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls

0:12:07.559 --> 0:12:10.960
<v Speaker 1>in eighteen forty eight, though she was still pretty conservative

0:12:11.000 --> 0:12:13.600
<v Speaker 1>at the time and her views didn't completely align with

0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:16.840
<v Speaker 1>the sentiments of the meeting, and in eighteen forty nine

0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:21.240
<v Speaker 1>she started the newspaper The Lily. When the newspaper started out,

0:12:21.280 --> 0:12:25.080
<v Speaker 1>it was focused on temperance and created for distribution among

0:12:25.120 --> 0:12:29.280
<v Speaker 1>women in the Seneca Falls Ladies Temperance Society. Amelia thought

0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:31.679
<v Speaker 1>that writing was more appropriate for women to voice their

0:12:31.720 --> 0:12:36.440
<v Speaker 1>ideas as opposed to speeches she said about women in

0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:40.800
<v Speaker 1>temperance in the first issue. Surely she may, without throwing

0:12:40.800 --> 0:12:44.040
<v Speaker 1>aside the modest refinements which so much become her sex,

0:12:44.600 --> 0:12:47.200
<v Speaker 1>use her influence to lead her fellow immortals from the

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:52.679
<v Speaker 1>destroyer's path. But soon the newspaper began including articles on

0:12:52.720 --> 0:12:57.720
<v Speaker 1>other subjects. Elizabeth Katie Stanton, a suffragist and activists who

0:12:57.800 --> 0:13:01.520
<v Speaker 1>was also Elizabeth Smith Miller's cousin, began writing pieces for

0:13:01.520 --> 0:13:06.959
<v Speaker 1>the paper on childbearing, education, and later women's rights. Stanton's

0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:09.560
<v Speaker 1>calls for changes to the way women were treated helped

0:13:09.679 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 1>motivate Amelia to become involved in the movement. Amelia advocated

0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:16.800
<v Speaker 1>for women in other ways, but she's best known for

0:13:16.880 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 1>her role in dress reform. After going back and forth

0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:24.000
<v Speaker 1>with the Seneca County Courier editor, who had proposed that

0:13:24.000 --> 0:13:27.200
<v Speaker 1>women wear pants because their dresses were a nuisance and

0:13:27.280 --> 0:13:30.840
<v Speaker 1>harmful to their health, she grew partial to the idea

0:13:30.880 --> 0:13:34.319
<v Speaker 1>of donning a new suit. Amelia began to support wearing

0:13:34.320 --> 0:13:37.920
<v Speaker 1>more functional attire, which consisted of a dress that came

0:13:38.040 --> 0:13:41.199
<v Speaker 1>just below the knee, a loose bodice or none at all,

0:13:41.640 --> 0:13:44.280
<v Speaker 1>and a pair of trousers that gathered at the ankle.

0:13:45.400 --> 0:13:48.720
<v Speaker 1>In an article in the Chicago Tribune, she recounted her

0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:54.440
<v Speaker 1>journey to adopting the costume. She said, about this time,

0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:59.160
<v Speaker 1>Elizabeth Smith Miller, daughter of Congressman Garrett Smith, appeared on

0:13:59.200 --> 0:14:01.880
<v Speaker 1>the streets of our village dressed in short skirts and

0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:05.400
<v Speaker 1>full Turkish chowders. She came on a visit to her cousin,

0:14:05.640 --> 0:14:09.400
<v Speaker 1>Elizabeth Katie Stanton, who was then a resident of Seneca Falls.

0:14:10.480 --> 0:14:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Mrs Miller had been wearing the costumes some two or

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:16.719
<v Speaker 1>three months at home and abroad. Just how she came

0:14:16.760 --> 0:14:19.000
<v Speaker 1>to adopt it, I have forgotten if I ever knew.

0:14:20.480 --> 0:14:24.120
<v Speaker 1>Amelia saw Elizabeth Katie Stanton wearing the short skirt and

0:14:24.120 --> 0:14:28.040
<v Speaker 1>satin chouders get up too, and Amelia figured she would

0:14:28.040 --> 0:14:30.800
<v Speaker 1>walk the walk and not just talk to talk. So

0:14:30.840 --> 0:14:33.800
<v Speaker 1>she started wearing the Bloomer suit, as it would become known,

0:14:34.360 --> 0:14:37.880
<v Speaker 1>and announced the switch to readers of The Lily. She

0:14:38.040 --> 0:14:40.920
<v Speaker 1>wasn't the first person in the world or even the US,

0:14:40.960 --> 0:14:45.760
<v Speaker 1>to wear that style of clothing. People in water cure santatoriums,

0:14:45.800 --> 0:14:48.720
<v Speaker 1>and in religious and utopian groups in the early nineteenth

0:14:48.760 --> 0:14:52.800
<v Speaker 1>century dressed similarly and up to the European and American

0:14:52.800 --> 0:14:58.240
<v Speaker 1>women were similar panto letts since the seventeen hundreds. Miller's

0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:01.080
<v Speaker 1>chouders resembled those that women war in the Middle East,

0:15:01.440 --> 0:15:05.520
<v Speaker 1>Central Asia, and the Oneida tribe. It's not clear exactly

0:15:05.520 --> 0:15:08.080
<v Speaker 1>how Miller came up with her design, but there's a

0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:12.240
<v Speaker 1>good chance she pulled from examples in utopian communities or sanatoriums.

0:15:13.080 --> 0:15:17.240
<v Speaker 1>But this time, unlike many other instances, women's dinning of

0:15:17.240 --> 0:15:20.280
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomer suit was not innocuous. It was a direct

0:15:20.440 --> 0:15:24.320
<v Speaker 1>challenge to contemporary social conventions, which dictated that wearing trousers

0:15:24.320 --> 0:15:27.840
<v Speaker 1>in public was for the eyes only. Amelia argued that

0:15:27.880 --> 0:15:31.520
<v Speaker 1>women's over the top dresses limited their access to physical

0:15:31.520 --> 0:15:36.320
<v Speaker 1>activities and ensure that women remained subordinate to men. The

0:15:36.360 --> 0:15:39.800
<v Speaker 1>outfit caught on, and Amelia was amazed at the fear

0:15:40.080 --> 0:15:44.840
<v Speaker 1>she had caused. As she put it, Bloomer expounded on

0:15:44.880 --> 0:15:47.520
<v Speaker 1>the benefits of the costume and subsequent issues of the Lily,

0:15:47.960 --> 0:15:51.440
<v Speaker 1>and women's rights advocates began to believe that removing those

0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:54.520
<v Speaker 1>layers of oppressive clothes was an important part of their

0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:57.680
<v Speaker 1>effort to reject the confines of a male dominated society.

0:15:58.680 --> 0:16:01.840
<v Speaker 1>Women began sending letter as to Amelia asking her for

0:16:01.880 --> 0:16:05.920
<v Speaker 1>patterns to make the outfit. The Lily circulation went from

0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:09.880
<v Speaker 1>five hundred a month to four thousand. There were Bloomer

0:16:09.920 --> 0:16:14.720
<v Speaker 1>balls and Bloomer festivals, and Amelia began wearing the outfit everywhere,

0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:18.480
<v Speaker 1>at lectures, at parties, at church, and in the office.

0:16:19.400 --> 0:16:23.000
<v Speaker 1>Amelia said in The Lily, those who think we look

0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:25.520
<v Speaker 1>queer would do well to look back a few years

0:16:25.600 --> 0:16:28.680
<v Speaker 1>at the time they wore ten or fifteen pounds of

0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:32.240
<v Speaker 1>petticoat and bustle around the body and balloons on their arms.

0:16:32.720 --> 0:16:36.080
<v Speaker 1>Then imagine which cut the queerest figure they or we.

0:16:37.600 --> 0:16:40.240
<v Speaker 1>Amelia Bloomer got a lot of the credit for wearing

0:16:40.240 --> 0:16:43.800
<v Speaker 1>the dress and trousers outfit, hence it being named after her,

0:16:44.560 --> 0:16:48.800
<v Speaker 1>but Amelia has acknowledged Elizabeth Smith Miller as the originator

0:16:48.840 --> 0:16:51.040
<v Speaker 1>of the style when it came to dress reform in

0:16:51.080 --> 0:16:54.040
<v Speaker 1>America in England, and she said that if it weren't

0:16:54.040 --> 0:16:57.600
<v Speaker 1>for Miller, neither she nor Stanton would be trapesing around

0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:04.119
<v Speaker 1>in the controversial garb anyway. So it wasn't because of

0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:06.919
<v Speaker 1>a milius lack of humility that people rallied around the

0:17:07.000 --> 0:17:10.840
<v Speaker 1>name Bloomers for the new costume. Anyway, her last name

0:17:10.920 --> 0:17:15.080
<v Speaker 1>is pretty fitting for those billowy pantaloons. So Bloomers were

0:17:15.240 --> 0:17:20.359
<v Speaker 1>hot stuff for many people, but not most people. The

0:17:20.440 --> 0:17:23.000
<v Speaker 1>women who dared to wear pants in public in lieu

0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:27.360
<v Speaker 1>of dresses that sacrificed health for social decency weren't going

0:17:27.440 --> 0:17:31.320
<v Speaker 1>to get away with their rebellion that easily. Many women

0:17:31.400 --> 0:17:34.520
<v Speaker 1>chose not to wear or support the outfit because they

0:17:34.560 --> 0:17:38.639
<v Speaker 1>found it ridiculous or undignified, because they weren't interested in

0:17:38.720 --> 0:17:42.440
<v Speaker 1>just reform, because their families begged them not to, or

0:17:42.480 --> 0:17:45.840
<v Speaker 1>any other reason. But women who did wear it were

0:17:45.880 --> 0:17:49.680
<v Speaker 1>subjected to lots of ridicule and criticism. Some people said

0:17:49.680 --> 0:17:52.560
<v Speaker 1>that bloomer wearers were only homely women trying to get

0:17:52.600 --> 0:17:56.600
<v Speaker 1>men's attention. Some critics said the bloomer suits erased any

0:17:56.640 --> 0:18:00.200
<v Speaker 1>trace of appeal or mystery in the women who wore them,

0:18:00.240 --> 0:18:03.480
<v Speaker 1>which could be destructive to the prospering of American families.

0:18:04.280 --> 0:18:08.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomer wearers were accused of trying to become men, inspiring

0:18:08.160 --> 0:18:10.480
<v Speaker 1>fear in the hearts of people who couldn't stand the

0:18:10.480 --> 0:18:14.600
<v Speaker 1>thought of any disruption to gender roles. Women were harassed

0:18:14.640 --> 0:18:18.160
<v Speaker 1>and embarrassed in the streets, often afraid to go out

0:18:18.160 --> 0:18:21.480
<v Speaker 1>in bloomers due to fear of being scorned or even

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:26.000
<v Speaker 1>mobbed for being so bold. An article in the October

0:18:26.080 --> 0:18:30.320
<v Speaker 1>sixty one issue of the newly founded New York Times

0:18:30.760 --> 0:18:34.439
<v Speaker 1>described the quote dubious reception to the new style in

0:18:34.480 --> 0:18:37.720
<v Speaker 1>London and may clear the fear of a slippery slope,

0:18:37.840 --> 0:18:43.280
<v Speaker 1>leading to an uprising of liberated women. For if the

0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:47.520
<v Speaker 1>fair sex emancipate themselves from the tyranny of custom and costume,

0:18:48.160 --> 0:18:51.920
<v Speaker 1>what may they not do next? One journal hits very

0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:55.040
<v Speaker 1>ill naturely that the new dress is best adapted for

0:18:55.080 --> 0:18:59.439
<v Speaker 1>a particular class of ladies, who, poor things have a

0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:03.280
<v Speaker 1>deal of street walking, would find the bloomer costume quite

0:19:03.320 --> 0:19:07.600
<v Speaker 1>a blessing, since its adaptation to outdoor exercise is insisted

0:19:07.680 --> 0:19:11.520
<v Speaker 1>on as one of its chief recommendations. If it be

0:19:11.680 --> 0:19:14.879
<v Speaker 1>once patronized by the class in question, I need not

0:19:15.000 --> 0:19:18.320
<v Speaker 1>say it will have no chance with any other. One might,

0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:23.359
<v Speaker 1>in fact, sooner abridge our liberties than curtail the female petticoats,

0:19:23.720 --> 0:19:27.360
<v Speaker 1>and alter the constitution more easily than affect a radical

0:19:27.440 --> 0:19:33.000
<v Speaker 1>change in feminine costume. So yeah, I need not go

0:19:33.119 --> 0:19:36.600
<v Speaker 1>through any more insulting comments filled with archaic thought. For

0:19:36.640 --> 0:19:41.480
<v Speaker 1>you to get the picture, women plus Bloomers equals bad, terrifying,

0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:45.920
<v Speaker 1>and somehow worse than stripping our freedoms. After the break,

0:19:46.240 --> 0:20:00.159
<v Speaker 1>we'll get into the downfall of the Bloomer costume. We

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.159
<v Speaker 1>all felt that the dress was drawing attention from what

0:20:03.240 --> 0:20:06.880
<v Speaker 1>we thought of far greater importance, the question of woman's

0:20:06.960 --> 0:20:10.440
<v Speaker 1>right to better education, to a wider field of employment,

0:20:10.520 --> 0:20:14.000
<v Speaker 1>to better remuneration for her labor, and to the ballot

0:20:14.040 --> 0:20:16.719
<v Speaker 1>for the protection of her rights. In the minds of

0:20:16.760 --> 0:20:20.560
<v Speaker 1>some people, the short dress and woman's rights were inseparably

0:20:20.640 --> 0:20:24.560
<v Speaker 1>connected with us. The dress was but an incident, and

0:20:24.640 --> 0:20:27.679
<v Speaker 1>we were not willing to sacrifice greater questions to it.

0:20:29.680 --> 0:20:33.240
<v Speaker 1>Amelia wrote that in the Chicago Tribune article I mentioned earlier.

0:20:33.960 --> 0:20:37.840
<v Speaker 1>By eighteen fifty nine she had ditched the costume, and

0:20:37.920 --> 0:20:40.919
<v Speaker 1>Elizabeth Katie Stanton only wore the Bloomer suit for about

0:20:41.000 --> 0:20:44.400
<v Speaker 1>two or three years after her father and friends convinced

0:20:44.400 --> 0:20:48.440
<v Speaker 1>her to retire the ensemble. The trend didn't last for

0:20:48.480 --> 0:20:52.920
<v Speaker 1>even a decade. Bloomer's unpopularity in the derision that brought

0:20:52.960 --> 0:20:56.280
<v Speaker 1>on the women who wore them discouraged women from wearing

0:20:56.280 --> 0:21:00.360
<v Speaker 1>the outfit and ultimately led to its faith into relative obscurity,

0:21:00.560 --> 0:21:04.120
<v Speaker 1>though advocates of health reform did continue to embrace similar

0:21:04.160 --> 0:21:09.760
<v Speaker 1>costume throughout the eighteen fifties and sixties. So Bloomers had

0:21:09.880 --> 0:21:14.640
<v Speaker 1>fallen by the wayside, but cage cunolines were growing in popularity.

0:21:15.480 --> 0:21:18.439
<v Speaker 1>Those were lighter and more flexible, and gave women a

0:21:18.480 --> 0:21:21.560
<v Speaker 1>better range of mobility as compared to the hot and

0:21:21.840 --> 0:21:26.600
<v Speaker 1>unhygienic layered petticoats of previous years. According to the Ladies

0:21:26.640 --> 0:21:32.440
<v Speaker 1>newspaper of eighteen sixty three, so perfect are the wave

0:21:32.560 --> 0:21:35.439
<v Speaker 1>like fans that a lady may ascend a steep stare,

0:21:36.000 --> 0:21:40.280
<v Speaker 1>lean against the table, throw herself into an armchair passed

0:21:40.280 --> 0:21:43.600
<v Speaker 1>to her stall at the opera, and occupy a further

0:21:43.760 --> 0:21:48.040
<v Speaker 1>feet in the carriage, without inconveniencing herself or others, and

0:21:48.119 --> 0:21:51.959
<v Speaker 1>provoking the rude remarks of observers, thus modifying in an

0:21:52.000 --> 0:21:56.480
<v Speaker 1>important degree all those peculiarities tending to destroy the modesty

0:21:56.560 --> 0:22:00.240
<v Speaker 1>of English women. And lastly, it allows the US to

0:22:00.280 --> 0:22:06.480
<v Speaker 1>fall in graceful fold. Many women, including Bloomer herself, were

0:22:06.680 --> 0:22:11.560
<v Speaker 1>content with wearing these and cage crinolines were inexpensive, worn

0:22:11.680 --> 0:22:15.040
<v Speaker 1>by working class and black women. That meant that they

0:22:15.080 --> 0:22:18.840
<v Speaker 1>also came to signify women's shifting position in society, and

0:22:18.880 --> 0:22:23.760
<v Speaker 1>they challenged racial and class hierarchies. A Bloomer light costume

0:22:23.880 --> 0:22:27.959
<v Speaker 1>did come back decades later as athletic wear. Dress reform

0:22:28.040 --> 0:22:32.000
<v Speaker 1>continued after the Civil War and fashion standards eased up

0:22:32.040 --> 0:22:36.199
<v Speaker 1>in the early nineteen hundreds. Miller and Bloomer continued to

0:22:36.240 --> 0:22:40.080
<v Speaker 1>be active in social movements, but the fervor for Bloomers

0:22:40.080 --> 0:22:53.400
<v Speaker 1>have been relatively short lived. Clearly, Bloomerism and dress reform

0:22:53.560 --> 0:22:56.880
<v Speaker 1>really scared some people who saw it as a gateway

0:22:56.920 --> 0:23:00.359
<v Speaker 1>drug to more rights for women. Someone and at the

0:23:00.400 --> 0:23:03.840
<v Speaker 1>time did view dress reform as inextricably linked with the

0:23:03.840 --> 0:23:08.120
<v Speaker 1>women's rights movement. To them, choosing new dress that anticipated

0:23:08.160 --> 0:23:11.080
<v Speaker 1>a shift in women's roles, rights, and power was a

0:23:11.160 --> 0:23:16.040
<v Speaker 1>significant action. But others just saw Bloomerism as a byproduct

0:23:16.080 --> 0:23:18.159
<v Speaker 1>of the real work that needed to be done for women.

0:23:18.840 --> 0:23:23.000
<v Speaker 1>So dress reform took a back seat, and that's valid.

0:23:23.640 --> 0:23:27.000
<v Speaker 1>While fashion can be a great visual signifier of social progress,

0:23:27.280 --> 0:23:32.520
<v Speaker 1>cultural autonomy, and identity, that symbolism can't belie real gender

0:23:32.680 --> 0:23:36.200
<v Speaker 1>class and race issues still at play based on who

0:23:36.240 --> 0:23:39.359
<v Speaker 1>gets to wear the fashion, how and where they wear it,

0:23:39.520 --> 0:23:42.720
<v Speaker 1>and how they're treated when they do wear it. Even

0:23:42.800 --> 0:23:46.119
<v Speaker 1>Bloomer was conservative, as she didn't take to the liberal,

0:23:46.160 --> 0:23:50.880
<v Speaker 1>religious and abolitionist views many of her peers did. Let

0:23:50.920 --> 0:23:54.040
<v Speaker 1>me remind you again that this period of dress reform

0:23:54.080 --> 0:23:57.399
<v Speaker 1>and women's rights activism took place while women who were

0:23:57.400 --> 0:24:00.600
<v Speaker 1>still enslaved were not concerned about having the freedom to

0:24:00.720 --> 0:24:04.840
<v Speaker 1>ditch corsets and wear pantaloons in public, and that Native

0:24:04.840 --> 0:24:07.680
<v Speaker 1>Americans were often being forced to give up their traditional

0:24:07.760 --> 0:24:12.480
<v Speaker 1>dress in favor of European clothes. To this day, conversations

0:24:12.480 --> 0:24:16.560
<v Speaker 1>around what people wear and what it signifies about their background, ideas,

0:24:16.560 --> 0:24:20.800
<v Speaker 1>and identity are often contentious, and they can devolve into

0:24:20.840 --> 0:24:24.879
<v Speaker 1>cultural shaming and public mockery. And he said, why are

0:24:24.880 --> 0:24:27.600
<v Speaker 1>you wearing that? You know, really my favor? Why are

0:24:27.600 --> 0:24:29.800
<v Speaker 1>you wearing that? Take it off? And then the next

0:24:29.800 --> 0:24:32.800
<v Speaker 1>thing I realized is we're both of my scuff from hand.

0:24:32.960 --> 0:24:38.199
<v Speaker 1>Just try to remove it. There have been strides in

0:24:38.240 --> 0:24:43.000
<v Speaker 1>American fashion, like clothes created with religious practices in mind,

0:24:43.600 --> 0:24:47.760
<v Speaker 1>gender neutral clothing, clothes that cater to people with disabilities,

0:24:48.240 --> 0:24:51.400
<v Speaker 1>and clothes created for a wider range of body sizes

0:24:51.480 --> 0:24:56.520
<v Speaker 1>and tights. But clothing choices still invite stigma and judgment,

0:24:56.920 --> 0:24:59.880
<v Speaker 1>and people are still confined by social norms and strea.

0:25:01.240 --> 0:25:03.680
<v Speaker 1>Some people are ridiculed for what they wear when they're

0:25:03.720 --> 0:25:08.720
<v Speaker 1>not even trying to be subversive. So yes, Bloomerism did

0:25:08.800 --> 0:25:12.119
<v Speaker 1>not have an immediate impact in terms of it meaningfully

0:25:12.200 --> 0:25:17.280
<v Speaker 1>changing women's lives, and it operated and privileged spaces. But

0:25:17.400 --> 0:25:21.440
<v Speaker 1>a million Bloomer and Elizabeth Smith Miller both used clothing

0:25:21.520 --> 0:25:24.360
<v Speaker 1>as a vehicle to defy the constraints that were part

0:25:24.440 --> 0:25:27.879
<v Speaker 1>of their lived experiences, and they stepped out on the

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:31.159
<v Speaker 1>limb and endured backlash in service of a goal that

0:25:31.280 --> 0:25:35.919
<v Speaker 1>was bigger than just them. In the end, they showed

0:25:35.920 --> 0:25:40.320
<v Speaker 1>how a few people's personal descent can galvanize many, and

0:25:40.560 --> 0:25:44.360
<v Speaker 1>that has the potential to change minds and societies around

0:25:44.359 --> 0:25:54.480
<v Speaker 1>the world. Andrew Howard is our producer. Holly Fry and

0:25:54.560 --> 0:25:59.439
<v Speaker 1>Christopher hasiotis our our executive producers. If you're not already subscribed,

0:25:59.760 --> 0:26:02.240
<v Speaker 1>you can make sure you never miss an episode by

0:26:02.280 --> 0:26:05.440
<v Speaker 1>subscribing to the show on Apple Podcasts, to I Heart

0:26:05.520 --> 0:26:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Radio app or wherever you get your Podcasts. We'll be

0:26:09.400 --> 0:26:14.800
<v Speaker 1>back next week with another episode of Unpopular m