Corset warriors: organisations promoting dress reform

In our previous post (Stay the Corset! workers in the factories, 1890-1930) Sarah Villiers described conditions for women workers in Charles Bayer's corset factories. In this post, she explains how campaigners for dress reform opposed the wearing of corsets and its impact on their manufacture.  

All was not rosy in the world of corsetry.

As early as 1860, the Dress Reform movement was gathering strength. It vehemently opposed corsets and the fashion to achieve ever-smaller waistlines. Supporters of corsets asserted that they maintained an upright figure as a “necessary physical structure for moral and well-ordered society”. Dress reformists, however, claimed that women’s fashions were not only physically detrimental but “the results of a male conspiracy to make women subservient by cultivating them in slave psychology” (Riberio, 1986). They argued that a change in dress could not only allow better physical movement and comfort but also increase the opportunities to obtain paid work and give greater independence from men and marriage – in fact, fundamentally change the position of women.

The movement further prospered after the Rational Dress Society was founded in 1881. Its Exhibition Catalogue described its purpose thus:

“The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure health. It protests against tight-fitting corsets and heavily-weighted skirts, as rendering healthy exercise almost impossible and being both ugly and deforming...[It] requires all to be dressed healthily, comfortably, and beautifully...as a duty to ourselves and each other.”
 
At its inaugural exhibition, it listed five key attributes of “perfect” dress: giving freedom of movement; absence of pressure over any part of the body; not more weight than is necessary for warmth, with both evenly distributed; grace and beauty combined with comfort and convenience; and not departing too conspicuously from the ordinary dress of the time. (This latter point was to encourage its adoption.)

Under the presidency of Viscountess Harberton, the Rational Dress Society appointed a committee of six ladies with the intention to “release ladies from the tyranny of fashion by permitting them to consult their own tastes”. The Society hoped to attain their objective by means of drawing-room meetings, advertisements, circulating leaflets and by issuing patterns designed and approved by committee. Membership was by annual subscription of 2/6d (Western Daily Press 28 May 1881) – thus excluding most working women.

President Lady Harberton, a dedicated cyclist, created the divided skirt, the wearing of which reportedly led to her being denied entry to the White Horse in Dorking, as not being “suitably clad”. Other prominent members were Mrs Carmichael Stopes (of the Maria Stopes Society); Irish author Constance Wilde, and husband Oscar Wilde (who published an essay stressing the important relationship between clothing and one’s soul).

The Lady Cyclists’ Association was a keen advocate of ‘appropriate dress’, believing the sport to offer women an opportunity to escape overly restrictive societal norms  (see H G Wells, 1896).

 

Florence Wallace Pomeroy, Viscountess Harberton, (1843/4–1911), in rational dress

A plethora of societies emerged in support of the Rational movement, as evidenced by media from Kent to Wales, Scotland, France, Romania, Canada, even China. Arguments were based on criteria such as health, convenience, and women’s right to greater social and physical freedoms. Examples include the following:

A telegram from Kingston, Ontario reported a meeting on vacant land where women built a bonfire and threw their corsets on the blaze shouting “We will die as God made us!” [not as man deforms us] (Brechin Herald, Angus, 22 September 1891).

A circular to the Ministry of Public Instruction in Romania, backed by the Queen, stated: “As it has been proven, practically as well as scientifically, that the corset is an article of anti-hygienic toilet. We suggest that the wearing of corsets by pupils in educational institutions for young ladies to be rigorously prohibited.” (Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser, 27 October 1899).

Similar sentiments resulted in the ladies of the New Zealand Natives’ Association requesting their Prime Minister to impose prohibitive duties on corsets to discourage their use (Bournemouth Daily Echo, 13 July 1904).

A letter in the Bristol Western Daily Press (30 April 1900) supported a rational cycling costume “which avoids hindrance of flapping skirts, the weight of which mercilessly handicaps the rider, forcing her to use a lower gear, thus using extra exertion compared to a male rider. Such a male companion is a cad”.

An item in the London Evening News (15 October 1902) claimed that “for years the Parisienne has realised that corsets spoil her digestion”. It continued by saying that a law against the wearing of any corset by women had been proposed by a Dr Maréchal who suggested that “a one to three months imprisonment and a fine of £4-£40” should be imposed on anyone promoting corsets. Another doctor asserted that “of every 100 women who wear a corset, 25 are bound to die of consumption, 15 lose their life at the birth of their first baby, 15 suffer from disease consequent on maternity, a further 15 will be carried off by other maladies”.  This doctor announced the invention of a lighter belt, or corslet, and that “fashion leaders have imposed it, so the fair Parisienne can at last dine comfortably”.  

In Leeds, The Physical Culture Society, numbering 60 members with a large number of men, claimed in the Manchester Courier (4 February 1904) that they had vowed never to marry a “corset wreck”.  

The Daily Mirror (26 September 1906) reported it as almost incredible that any person can seriously defend tight lacing and quoted a friend, living in China, who questioned the practice of contracting feet. “Yes,” said the lady, “Chinese lady, she squeeze feet. English lady, she squeeze here (pointing to waist).”  Which is the greater barbarian?
 
The debate raged on. It was, perhaps, finally decided by the outbreak of the 1914-18 war. New jobs in challenging surroundings required practical clothing: shorter skirts (6” off the ground), no flowing sleeves nor frills – even trousers and overalls, particularly in the munitions works! As WWI began women’s needs changed. These ideas were actively promoted by the Women’s Institute (founded in 1915) which provided talks on “Health in Relation to Clothing” as a patriotic duty. Shortly after the US entry into WWI, women were asked to stop buying corsets to free up metal for war production. This step reportedly liberated some 28,000 tons of metal, enough to build two battleships!
 

A woman munitions worker in overalls.

Women now wore ‘combinations’ or looser ‘princess line chemises’, with lightly boned ‘bust bodices’. Loose camisoles or lightly padded, buttoned ‘liberty bodices’ were preferred. Invented in 1908 by Fred Cox, at R & W H Symington & Co Ltd (Market Harborough, it was perhaps their most famous product, worn by vast numbers of British children before the 1950s as a ‘supportive vest’, with buttons to attach draws or suspenders.  All these options gave greater freedom of movement and comfort.

As women’s needs changed so the corset factories had to change. An advert of 1916 requested 20 workers to make dressing gowns and jackets; girls to earn 5s per week while learning – with a war bonus.  By 1917 the main product was overalls.

After the war, cheaper foreign imports dealt a blow to British corset-making companies – one of the reasons the Bristol factory closed in 1921. From 1911, alternatives to tight-lacing had come with the development of elastic rubberized materials. This hastened the shift to bras and girdles with attached suspenders. Finally new fashions, particularly after the end of rationing led to the 1950s ‘New Look’ Dior designs with swirling, skirts (still with ‘nipped-in’ waists) followed by the free-flowing ‘hippy’ rejection of all ‘costume constraints’ in the late 1960s. It was the death-knell: the Bath factory also closed, in 1982.

References:

The Exhibition of the Rational Dress Association Catalogue of Exhibits and List of Exhibitors, 1881, available on Google Books
Riberio, Aileen, Dress and Morality, 1986                            
Wells, H G, The Wheels of Chance, 1896

 

Picture Credits:

Florence Wallace Pomeroy, Viscountess Harberton, (1843/4–1911): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Florence_Wallace_Pomeroy.jpg, Public Domain

Youth and Age postcard - editor's own collection