“I designed clothes because I didn’t like the way they were. They were paralyzing; they were stilted.” ~ Mary Quant
Mary Quant revolutionised the world of fashion, she made clothes for women. This might seem like an odd statement, but up to this point women were confined by fashion, Quant changed the game in a major way.
Style in the 30s, 40s and 50s was about creating a classic hourglass silhouette. The world was narrow for the everyday woman. The war had allowed women a semblance of independence through work movements and the Women’s Land Army but following this, they were expected to return to the role of housewife. This left women of the 60s longing for emancipation and paved the way for Mary Quant’s fashion rebellion.
She challenged the conservative notions of femininity and the stifling expectations placed on young women. Quant’s “Bank of England” dress from 1962 epitomised this. In a time when the finances of women were dictated by their closest male relative, she made a dress which accentuated the feminine by reimagining the masculine. It’s striped twill, formal tailoring and enlarged cuffs and collar, emulated the classic male business suit as an allusion to the plights of women.
Critics have argued that Quant was backed by two wealthy and powerful men – her aristocratic husband, Alexander Plunket Greene and the entrepreneur, lawyer and photographer, Archie McNair – but, while this enabled her to develop her business, Quant broke the mould on her own. Dismissing her accomplishments based on male financial backing is just more Female Erasure. Quant showed women that they could retain creative control, power and integrity whilst simultaneously being commercially successful, formidable and fun. Her designs also facilitated dialogues around sexuality, gender representation and class when such conversations were taboo. Through mass marketing and high street collections, Quant made her designs available to all classes and in all parts of the country – allowing a widespread fashion rebellion. Style was no longer just for the upper classes.
As women began to do so in the 60s, we still fight the male gaze by dressing for ourselves. Take “Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey”, a film about female liberation, for example. It made waves among male viewers due to the character’s lack of sex appeal. The costumes were stylish, eclectic, and functional; sexy in a way that appealed to women. When women are portrayed as more than sexual objects of the male gaze, it’s met with aggression and rejection – by embracing our comfort, we threaten their control.
It’s no easy task to reject the system. I struggle to come up with a way to rebel with how I dress. I wear platform shoes, massive earrings and blue hair in a way which says “fuck you”, but when I dissect my style, it’s difficult to avoid the conditioning I’ve experienced – growing up in a world which values how we look over what we have to offer. This same conditioning has taught me to hate myself. So, when I started to dress in clothes that I loved (not clothes that I thought I needed to wear) I allowed myself a small rebellion every time I get dressed. I still struggle, but I no longer dress to be invisible. We need to realise the influence of patriarchy in how we present ourselves. Women’s portrayal in media is a calculated way to control us. When we are told how we should look and then choose to challenge it – we take back the power, forcing the system to reset to our needs. We live in a capitalist society. The market is dictated by what we want if we begin to reject the standards in favour of our comfort, then the market will hopefully follow.
Quant’s style was fun, it doesn’t have to be overtly meaningful; your comfort is personal to you, but that’s what we have to prioritise. We as women are complex, we are people, and we deserve more.
