"It is needless to say that a bicycling costume was a prerequisite. This consisted of a skirt and a blouse of tweed, with belt, rolling collar, and loose cravat, the skirt three inches from the ground; a round straw hat, and walking shoes with gaiters. It was a simple, modest suit to which no person of common sense could take exception." Willard 16
In my reading of Frances E. Willard’s excerpt How I Learned to Ride a Bicycle I was intrigued by the nature of the passage italicized above.
Was Willard wearing the bicycling costume for ease or acceptance?
I realize that I must keep in mind the lens through which this piece was written. Her bicycling days occurred roughly 100 years ago. She didn’t have the ease I did as a young child of pedaling about in cotton shorts and denim overalls. Instead, she was laboring over the pedals wrapped in her “skirt three inches from the ground.” Therefore, based upon the current fashion conventions Willard didn’t have much choice when it came to her cycling get-up. Yet I continue to wonder when she writes: “It is needless to say that a bicycling costume was a prerequisite” if the stated prerequisite was personal or societal? Is it needless to detail her reasoning because everyone (with good taste? in high society? who bicycles?) assumes that such costumes must be worn? Or did she simply want to wear such clothing because that was all that was available to her at the time?
I’m going to assume that she wasn’t wearing the costume for ease—unless ease concerns avoiding rifling societal feathers. Such clothing does not seem particularly conducive for either individual movement or the rotation of the wheels. The fact that she didn’t enjoy walking due to the restrictive “long skirts that impeded every footstep” would lend support to the conclusion that biking in a long skirt would be just as tedious.
If her reasoning avoids ease then is she simply following the status quo and aiming for acceptance? I wonder. Noting that “it was a simple, modest suit to which no person of common sense could take exception” seems indicative of a desire to exude respectability. It is almost as if she is ensuring the reader knows that what she is doing is not out of line.
At this point you could be thinking to yourself: why does it matter what the woman wore, the important thing is the empowering message in her experience! Yet, I do think the importance of her clothing must be acknowledged. She took the time to carefully detail what she wore. Why? I would say she did so in order to include historical context and structure her learning environment. Also, perhaps to provide a little social commentary: hmm, this sure requires a lot of restrictive clothing in order for a woman to ride a bike. She could even be going for a little pat on the back; I learned to ride a bike wearing all of this!
Whatever her reasons for providing such a detailed outfit summation, the summation itself is telling of both Willard’s readership and a bicycle’s ridership. Willard is not writing an inspirational piece that is able to reach a vast audience outside of white, middle-class women. You need money to purchase a bicycle, and you need leisure time to pursue riding one. Willard’s statement, “The bicycle…will ere long come within the reach of all” highlights her acknowledgement of the fact that at the time owning a bike was not affordable for all. That being said, how many today remain unable to own or ride a bike? Further, Willard’s costume reveals that bicycling is not complete without the addition of the proper outer wear. All the elements start to add up and out of reach of the working classes. Even once the bicycle is “within the reach of all” middle-class conventions of proper dress still must be adhered to, adding a further exclusionary level.
Knowing that she pointedly adheres to the standards, what would Willard perhaps think of a woman who attempted to stray outside of the conventional costume (either as a political statement or for economic reasons?)
I feel that her attention to convention gives her action validity. Safely within the bubble of proper attire her independent behavior is muted and accepted. Middle class acceptance allows her to encourage women to ride bicycles without fear of reproof.
First off, congrats on such a well thought out blog! You covered pretty much everything and I agree with all you said, so I'll just attempt to add a few more thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI found many contemporary parallels to Willard s piece. The first of them being the book Fat Shame that we also read for this class. One theme that continued to come up throughout Fat Shame was the connection of personal fitness and healthy eating lifestyles to the upper and middle classes. Poor people cannot not afford gym memberships, cannot buy pricey organic foods, and don't have any spare time from the multiple jobs they might be holding to work out. Nevertheless, these individuals are judged harshly for their "unhealthy" lifestyles, lack of exercise and excess fat tissue. At the turn of the 19th century, bicycles, as you said, were expensive and could be afforded only by the elite upper classes. Leisure time, that could be spent biking, was only available to certain classes of women. I assume that those that could not partake in bicycling, for example poor immigrants or factory workers, were looked down upon in this era of health reforms just as the poor, overweight individuals in the 2000's era where value is awarded to people with fit bodies are.
My second comment is about the gym/work out clothes worn now. In clothing stores there are sections for "fitness gear" along with the "juniors," "misses," "petites," and "intimates." I will acknowledge that certain clothing articles are preferable when working out (i.e. stretchy pants, airy tops, sports bras, tennis shoes) yet there still seems to be a big business out for the proper athletic wear. This might be due to the fact that there is a high need for these types of clothes, but certainly clothing companies have monopolized on the idea of the correct "outfit" for certain sports. Companies like Nike, Adidas, Puma, and others sell high priced clothes that people use to merely sweat into. A reason I believe that people are willing to spend so much money on "gym wear" is because they are self-conscious when they are working out. Being sweaty, red faced, and smelly is not the condition one wants others to view them in. But if you wear stylish and expensive clothes, no matter where you go, there is a psychological confidence boost I think many people experience.
People, especially girls, wear uncomfortable articles of clothing (i.e. heels, corsets,short skirts) for the aesthetic appeal alone. I presume that woman like Willard wanted to look good doing whatever it was they were doing -like when out for a bike ride. Presumably, biking at this time was something women did in groups together (as your picture suggests) and a woman on a bike was sure to garner attention in the streets.