In 1873, attempting to save the kiwi from extinction, naturalist Thomas Potts publicly called out what he saw as most dangerous, “that deformed thief fashion.” He posited that fashion was a destructive force for native New Zealand/Aotearoa species specifically due to “female vanity” and decried using kiwi feathers as “material for muffs for frivolous women.” This chapter considers Potts’ condemnation of one fashion piece, the muff, as a fashion fixation in the nineteenth century at the height of Victorian colonialism. The muff, crafted of fur or feathers, became a staple of female clothing in the late eighteenth century and an everyday item across class spectrums in the nineteenth century. Women, expected to cover themselves following Victorian cultural standards, performed femininity or sexuality with accessories and the muff is an overt example. I consider multiple muffs as a case study for cultural commodification of female bodies. The object served to display feminine ideals, vital to the cultural and economic status for women, who are performing desirability as I detail in actress Connie Gilchrist’s public image. The muff, its materials, and the women who carry them are anything by frivolous, but rather symbols of the excesses of display culture that was so pervasive in the nineteenth century.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Victorian Vanities and “Frivolous Women:” Fashionable Desires and the Muff

  • Victoria Pettersen Lantz

摘要

In 1873, attempting to save the kiwi from extinction, naturalist Thomas Potts publicly called out what he saw as most dangerous, “that deformed thief fashion.” He posited that fashion was a destructive force for native New Zealand/Aotearoa species specifically due to “female vanity” and decried using kiwi feathers as “material for muffs for frivolous women.” This chapter considers Potts’ condemnation of one fashion piece, the muff, as a fashion fixation in the nineteenth century at the height of Victorian colonialism. The muff, crafted of fur or feathers, became a staple of female clothing in the late eighteenth century and an everyday item across class spectrums in the nineteenth century. Women, expected to cover themselves following Victorian cultural standards, performed femininity or sexuality with accessories and the muff is an overt example. I consider multiple muffs as a case study for cultural commodification of female bodies. The object served to display feminine ideals, vital to the cultural and economic status for women, who are performing desirability as I detail in actress Connie Gilchrist’s public image. The muff, its materials, and the women who carry them are anything by frivolous, but rather symbols of the excesses of display culture that was so pervasive in the nineteenth century.