Embedded Files
How Society Went From Tea Gowns To Spandex Jeggings
Introduction
Whoops! The line turned pink, which means that you are pregnant. You are expecting, anticipating, or a woman with child. You have a bun in the oven. It is time to go to Babies R Us for a reliable crib. You will also need to invest in some good maternity clothing. The evolution of fashion has caused the amount of general clothing that people own to rise dramatically. This means that you will have a lot of maternity clothing options when you go shopping! It was not always this way, in fact maternity wear has actually been an afterthought throughout historical research, and it is hard to find examples of maternity clothing prior to the twentieth century. The lack of evidence creates a skewed perception of the female experience due to the spread of misinformation. The media’s shifting portrayal of pregnancy has led to the evolution of maternity clothing designs and purchasing trends. This directly impacts the way women feel about their pregnant selves as a result of societal views and expectations of them that stem from maternity portrayals in the media. Prior to the twentieth century, representation and production of maternity wear was limited. The opening of the Lane Bryant stores created a false perception that maternity wear was beginning to accept pregnant bodies. In reality, Lane Bryant stores perpetuated beauty ideals for pregnant women from before the twentieth century, and these ideals have continued into the twenty-first century. This reflects how regardless of improved outlooks on pregnancy and availability of maternity wear, traditional maternity wear culture persists that was rooted in skinny culture and continues to heavily influence types of offered maternity wear and therefore how pregnant women feel about themselves.
Counterargument
It is true that the introduction of Lane Bryant stores into the market was a revolutionary change at the turn of the twentieth century. Prior to the twentieth century there was minimal talk about pregnancy or representation of maternity wear in society. With the introduction of Lane Bryant stores, it became impossible to deny the presence of maternity wear in society. The introduction of these stores created permanent historical artifacts and empowered women, therefore it is important to recognize these positive impacts. As a student in the twenty-first century, the perspective of this paper stems from a modern time period and as a consequence it can be difficult to refrain from placing modern pressure on a less progressive time period. However it is also vital to recognize the perpetuation of fatphobic ideology and negative impacts of the Lane Bryant stores if we are going to truly demolish the ideologies. These stores had flawed messaging within their advertisements that perpetuated unrealistic beauty expectations for women, and it is therefore incorrect to say that these stores solved the entirety of maternity wear related injustice. Lane Bryant stores merely laid the groundwork with the potential of sparking real change, however in the end societal maternity beauty standards from before the twentieth century persisted well after the introduction of these stores and into the twenty-first century. In order to spark real change today, we must reexamine these time periods and recognize that by today’s standards the Lane Bryant stores took bare minimum strides.
18th-19th Centuries
Rather than purchase exclusively maternal garments, women throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries oftentimes altered their clothing as their pregnant figures developed. This was due to a variety of factors, one being that prior to the Industrial Revolution fabric was expensive and had a designated life cycle (1). Did maternity garments truly not exist at this time, or was there something greater underlying this phenomenon? This idea is often explained away with the Myth of Seclusion, which states that Victorian women never left their homes once they became visibly pregnant, therefore they would not need specialized clothing (2). Another possible explanation for the lack of maternity clothing representation is that painful memories associated with pregnancy kept women from preserving their maternity clothes. Emily Martin explained the “Shadow of Maternity,” which essentially meant that the creation of new life brought with it the possibility of death and that women were aware of the lifelong health consequences and risk of death (3). Finally, as a result of pious ideals, Victorian prudery engulfed American culture at this time and influenced the idea that maternity clothing’s overt connection to sexual and physical activities made them disgraceful and embarrassing (4). Many Victorian women actually led active lives and desperately clung onto pre-pregnancy life for as long as possible by hiding their pregnant bellies in order to avoid eventual isolation. This suggests that there must have been a few clothing options for them (5).
Figure 1) Nineteenth Century Maternity Dress from the Delineator magazine.
Figure 2) An accidentally discovered maternity dress from the nineteenth century with an invisible slit in the left side for nursing infants.
One explanation for lack of maternity wear is that Victorian women often wore non-maternal clothing that was harmful to themselves and their unborn children. Heavy skirts, tight corsets, and abdominal support belts were all fashion norms during this time period, leading to impairment of women’s digestive, circulatory, and reproductive systems. Corsets exerted up to 21 pounds of pressure on women’s internal organs, and put them at risk for medical conditions such as uterine prolapse, displacement of liver, and fractured ribs (6). Why, you might ask, would these women withstand medical advice and continue using these clothing items? The answer is that fashion and beauty ideals were the definition of social status in the nineteenth century. As Lori Duin Kelly explained in, “Crossing the ‘Bearing’ Straits,” having a narrow waist and proper dress was the “auxiliary of beauty” during the nineteenth century (7). Another explanation for the lack of maternity clothing from prior to the twentieth century is that maternity clothing was hard to distinguish from regular clothing. Author Catriona Fisk wrote, “Looking for Maternity,” in which she exposed examples of nineteenth-century maternity garments that were initially recovered for other research and then accidentally discovered later on that they had maternal association, as shown in figure two (8). Another explanation for the lack of maternity clothing was the use of the invalid gown by pregnant women. This gown was initially used for sick people, therefore as women began wearing them when pregnant people simply assumed they were sick. Use of these gowns created an association between pregnancy and illness, thus perpetuating the feeling of alienation that pregnant women felt. Invalid gowns had unstructured waists and were therefore not to be seen by the public eye (9). Use of these gowns perpetuated the idea that pregnancy was something too shameful for a public setting. Finally, the princess-style dress from the 1860s was also not intended for maternal use, however it ended up becoming a viable and fashionable option for pregnant women because its flowy nature allowed them to expand (10). This dress is a prominent example of lowkey maternity wear from the nineteenth century.
20th Century
By the end of the nineteenth century, dress reformers began to argue that fashionable dress had created an unnatural expectation of a woman’s body, especially with the introduction and popularity of the maternity corset that twisted a woman’s body into the configuration of the letter “s”(11). Those that did not support the unrealistic beauty standards of the early nineteenth century created a new idea that the modern pregnant woman did not show off her body at all, in the hopes that women would treat their bodies better when pregnant. As a result of this shift, the first official maternity wear called the tea gown was created in 1887, and became popular throughout the twentieth century. Tea gowns were loose fitting and had empire waists, meaning they were cinched beneath the bust and remained baggy in the stomach area (12). These new maternal gowns were associated with marital love, which helped to excuse the overt connection between pregnancy and sex. Women often wore these gowns in attempts to remain attractive in their husbands eyes while pregnant. Tea gowns were a modern way of repurifying pregnancy in order to make it acceptable for women to be a part of society when visibly pregnant.
Figure 3) The nineteenth and twentieth century tea gown.
Prior to the twentieth century, women’s health was often poor due to deficient diets and restrictive clothing. However, following the medical developments of the twentieth century people were starting to view sterility, proper diet, vitamins, and overall welfare of both the child and mother to be extremely important (13). By the mid 1910s, maternity clothing became a middle ground for medical and fashion advice, as well as a way for women to exercise the little control that they had over their pregnancies. Prophylaxis became a common form of delivery used by doctors that involved heavy sedative drugs, causing women to have minimal control over their bodies (14). Clothing served a scientific function as well as a political statement. Pregnancy was no longer considered an embarrassment, however the physiological changes during those nine months were hardly considered glamorous. Women were instructed to wear clothing that kept the body suitably warm in order to maintain circulation of blood and keep the sweat glands active. It was suggested that dresses hang from the shoulders and remain loose, as well as to avoid skirts and tight clothing that inferred with breathing or placed pressure on the woman’s protruding stomach (15).
In 1904, Lena Bryant created the first Lane Bryant store, which sold maternity streetwear and made it possible for women to be free from confinement during their second and third trimesters. The invention of these stores made it possible for women to branch out and discover their own identities that were separate from pregnancy by allowing them to excel socially during pregnancy and without shame. However Lane Bryant stores remained riddled with stigma. For starters, these stores were initially located on side streets in order to protect “bashful customers” and clients would often hide their faces with veils to remain unseen when entering the stores (16). The rise of Lane Bryant stores made maternity wear finally purchasable, however the indignity that clients experienced when taking advantage of this opportunity made it impossible for Lane Bryant stores to become a true safe haven. Additionally, maternity clothing was not permitted in advertisements until 1911, and as a result many women initially did not find out about these stores (17). Finally, it should be noted that Lane Bryant stores sold maternity clothing along with other kinds of clothing for other seemingly undesirable figures such as being extra tall, stout, and chubby. During the early twentieth century nobody was making clothing for women that fit into these categories, because twentieth-century fashion was only concerned with thin figures (18). As a result of fatphobia, an association between pregnancy and unattractiveness was created by the Lane Bryant stores, which perpetuated the idea that pregnancy needed to be hidden. Lane Bryant’s maternity fashion offered pregnant women the same dresses and popular styles that every other woman wore, therefore providing them the opportunity to present as fashionable while pregnant. That being said, Lane Bryant dresses aimed to camouflage pregnancy, which perpetuated the emphasis of thinness and beauty standards at the time. These stores were a mere step in the right direction and were well masked by the allure of being the first store to offer this kind of clothing.
Figure 4) Lane Bryant advertisement for figure-concealing clothing
Figure 5) Lane Bryant store advertisements from the twentieth century
In reality, the introduction of Lane Bryant stores did not drastically improve societal outlooks on maternity. Following the medicalization of pregnancy in the mid twentieth century, society began to hyperfixate on a woman’s ability to maintain her physical and emotional health. As a result of the baby boom that followed World War II, more women were becoming mothers and the demand for separate maternity wardrobes skyrocketed. Simultaneously, the rise of the American housewife enhanced the expectation that pregnant women were to appear as ethereal and flawless (19). This ideal was achieved by choosing the proper dress that could hide the imperfections of pregnancy (20). The perfect pregnant woman had an “inconspicuous abdomen, small breasts, slim legs and arms, narrow hips, and a flawless complexion”(21). These women were expected to maintain proper hair and makeup around the clock with a smile on her face, and always present positively about her future role as a mother (22). Pregnant women were required to preserve their pure physiological state, which reverts back to pre twentieth century thinness and anti-pregnancy ideals. This recurrence was disguised by new rhetoric that the pregnant woman was beautiful and accepted, when in reality the pregnant woman was accepted when beautiful.
Figure 6) Lane Bryant store advertisements from the twentieth century
Modern Day Maternity
Historical thinness ideals continued to influence twenty-first century attitudes towards weight, diet, and exercise, during pregnancy and postpartum. Today, pregnancy continues to be extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, by deteriorating her access to social relationships, and by causing physical and emotional stress (24). Modern day women are experiencing a falsely perceived period of maternity wear reform even though unrealistic beauty ideals for pregnant women persist. At the start of the twenty-first century, Demi Moore drastically altered the perception of pregnant women in the media by posing naked on the cover of a magazine when pregnant (figure eight)(25). Moore introduced the idea of pregnancy chic, and this helped to improve the way women’s pregnant bodies were perceived (26). This moment shaped the future of maternity wear and deemphasized pressure on women to present themselves in a specific way in order to feel beautiful and sexy. Many women continue to recreate the famous photo now, whether by posing for the actual cover of Vanity Fair or other magazines.
Figure 8) Demi Moore Vanity Fair Cover Photo 1991
Conclusion
Modern day maternity views allow women to be sexy and embrace their bodies in a semi natural way as a result of figures such as Demi Moore and Lane Bryant. This Youtube clip of a modern day Lane Bryant advertisement uses plus-sized models in the advertisement which demonstrates the growth the company has undergone. They narrate the advertisement by making remarks such as, “This body was made for living,” and, “This body is for love,” in order to accentuate the natural beauty and functioning of a larger female figure (31). While these women are not specifically pregnant, they allude to motherly, womanly, functions that the female body is capable of, shown through the clip of one of the models holding what looks to be her newborn baby. At first glance, this advertisement demonstrates major strides since the mid-twentieth century Lane Bryant advertisements, however, we must dig deeper. This Lane Bryant advertisement is not the full length original advertisement, because upon backlash from external sources the creators cut out a scene with one of the models breast feeding her baby while naked (32). The societal rejection of the original advertisement reveals how little our societal views have truly improved as well as how much pressure is still put on women to maintain a composed, perfect, thin, presentation when pregnant and as mothers. Furthermore, in response to the backlash received about the original advertisement, the creators decided to cut down the advertisement and ultimately submit to these ideals in order to make money, rather than push past the backlash and continue to release the advertisement and demonstrate true growth.
Once the advertisement of maternity clothing was finally allowed, Lane Bryant advertisers initially did not use pregnant women to model their clothing. Additionally, once they finally began to use pregnant models in the 1940s, the chosen pregnant models were only a few months pregnant at most and probably could have passed for unpregnant (23). As shown in figure seven, the models were thin and presented as extremely active individuals. Without context it would have been hard to distinguish if the woman in the advertisement was even pregnant. This display of pregnancy in the media simultaneously perpetuated thin beauty standards for pregnant women while also creating an association between fatness, or enlargement, with an abundance of leisure and laziness. Rather than promoting bodily changes as natural and fulfilling occurrences, pregnant women were continuously fed messages in the media that they needed to look quintessentially flawless, which only worsened with the introduction of Lane Bryant stores.
Figure 7) Lane Bryant maternity wear advertisement
Pregnant women today often wear tight fitting clothing that exposes their bellies and are similar to styles that they wore prepregnancy. However comfort is also an important factor in maternity clothing now, which contributes to societal desire to celebrate their pregnant bodies and help them feel more confident (27). Nonetheless, since the 1990s the rise of social media has emphasized critical attention on pregnant celebrities and working mothers. Similarly to 1950s ideology, this has led to the expectation that maternity is only suitable for public space when presented stylishly. Although some modern day ideals allow women to embrace their natural pregnant bodies, contradictory media messages perpetuate today’s weight-obsessed culture and criticism of pregnant women (28). In figure nine, the 2004 Cosmopolitan magazine writers offer fashion advice and critiques of pregnant celebrities. The writers used language such as, “Flowy clothing makes you look even larger,” in reference to Debra Messing, as well as, “A snug tee shirt under a dark suit is an especially slimming and elegant look when you’re pregnant,” in reference to Jennifer Connolley (29). This segment rated pregnant celebrities with regards to their ability to sufficiently mask the inherent unattractiveness of their pregnancies. Pregnant women that were considered“best dressed” had also succeeded in making themselves look slim. Additionally, the magazine’s “best dressed bumps” were clearly photographed with more flattering angles and lighting. In contrast, the writers chose unflattering angles and lighting for the pregnant celebrities that they thought were badly dressed. This magazine economically benefited off of the perpetuation of unrealistic beauty ideals and the degradement of pregnant women. This demonstrates the slow learning curve of improving the way maternity and proper maternity dress is looked at. While modern day pregnant women continue to have lingering uncomfortable feelings about their bodies, they tend to have a more positive outlook because with access to fun maternity clothing they can focus on improving their appearance, which represents the perpetuation of the ideal that pregnant women need to change themselves in order to be perceived as beautiful (30).
Pregnancy was a passive experience from the eighteenth through nineteenth centuries. Today pregnancy is an integral part of who a woman is, so much so that women are continuously pressured to fulfill the beauty standards of non pregnant people while still being noticeably pregnant. This shift caused people to evaluate modern maternity outlooks as progressive and misattribute the source to be the opening of Lane Bryant stores. In reality, the goal to have a slim pregnant body endures through the language used by modern day media companies. This proves that the Lane Bryant stores did not spark true reform within maternity acceptance, regardless of the improved access to maternity wear that came as a result of the opening of these stores. Lane Bryant stores set the scene for women to access maternity wear as a specialized and purchasable clothing, however clothing overall became increasingly important during this time period, and Lane Bryant was not necessarily the root cause for the reduction of maternity wear stigma. Lane Bryant stores set the scene, but did not perform the whole play. It seems as though our society is stuck at intermission and it is questioning how to proceed into the second act with regards to true acceptance of maternity. Pregnancy continues to be looked at as a barrier between women and true liberation. It is clear that the shift in clothing styles from tea gowns to spandex, did not improve the way that pregnant women are perceived and has only contributed to unhealthy expectations of pregnant women's bodies. This is not an issue that clothing alterations alone can solve, and further analysis of underlying messages will be needed in order to change the future of maternity clothing.
Footnotes
1 Fisk, Catriona. "Looking for Maternity: Dress Collections and Embodied Knowledge." Fashion Theory 23, no. 3 (2019): 408.2 Martin, Emily. “New Light on the Shadow of Maternity: The Clothing of the Expectant Woman in the Nineteenth Century.” State University of Proquest Dissertations Publishing, (1999): 4-5.
3 Martin, “New Light on the Shadow of Maternity.” 1-2.
4 Kelly, Lori Duin. "Crossing the "Bearing" Straits: Women's Maternity Dress in the 19th Century." Studies in Popular Culture 21, no. 1 (1998): 1-2.
5 Martin, “New Light on the Shadow of Maternity,” 4-5.6 Kelly, “Crossing the ‘Bearing’ Straits,” 2.
7 Kelly, “Crossing the ‘Bearing’ Straits,” 7.
8 Fisk, "Looking for Maternity,” 409-415.
9 Kelly, “Crossing the ‘Bearing’ Straits,” 8.
10 Rieger, K. Irene. "Garment No. 5: The New Woman Novel and the First Maternity Clothes." CEA Critic 76, no. 3 (2014): 259.
11 Lemus, Cheryl K. “The Maternity Racket: Medicine, Consumerism, and the Modern American Pregnancy, (1876–1960)”, n.p. 2011: 169.
12 Rieger, "Garment No. 5,” 259-260.
13 Lemus, “The Maternity Racket,” 34-37.
14 De Lee, Dr. Joseph. “The Prophylactic Operations Reading.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, (1920): 66-67
15 Lemus, “The Maternity Racket,” 56-60.
16 Changing times, "They Sell to Bashful Customers: Some Lessons From Lane Bryant, Successful Outfitters To Pregnant Women, Stout Women, Extra-Tall Women, Too-Matronly Young Women and Chubby Little Girls." Washington, no. 5 (05, 1951): 1-2.
17 Changing times, "They Sell to Bashful Customers,” 1-2.
18 Spellen, Suzanne. “Walkabout: Lane Bryant and The Riches of Expectation.”
19 Brooke, Blower, “Being Mom,” lecture, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, April 6, 2023.
20 Lemus, “The Maternity Racket,” 203-204.
21 Lemus, “The Maternity Racket,” 232.
22 Lemus, “The Maternity Racket,” 231-233.
23 Spellen, Suzanne. “Walkabout: Lane Bryant and The Riches of Expectation, part 2.” Brownstoner Magazine (2014): https://www.brownstoner.com/history/walkabout-lane-bryant-the-riches-of-expectation-part-2/
24 K. Jordan and R. Capdevila. "Baby or Beauty: A Q Study into Post Pregnancy Body Image." Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 23, no. 1 (2005): 19-31.
25 Collins, Nancy. “Demi’s Big Moment.” Vanity Fair Archive Collection, (2018). https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/04/demi-moore-cover-story-august-1991
26 Brooke, Blower, “Baby Time,” lecture, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, January 31, 2023.
27 Sohn, MyungHee, and Elizabeth Bye. "Pregnancy and Body Image." Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 33, no. 1 (2015): 64-78.
28 Sohn, and Bye, "Pregnancy and Body Image," 64-78.
29 "Best-Dressed Bumps." Cosmopolitan 236, no. 3 (March, 2004): 63. https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fmagazines%2Fbest-dressed-bumps%2Fdocview%2F2032383737%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D9676.
30 Sohn, and Bye, "Pregnancy and Body Image," 64-78.
31 Entertainment Tonight. “WATCH: Lane Bryant’s New Commercial Features a Topless Ashley Graham.” Youtube, March 10, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgMfpC7J7lc
32 Kulp, Patrick. “Many people don't understand why this Lane Bryant body-positive commercial was rejected by NBC and ABC.” March 13, 2016. https://mashable.com/article/plus-sized-model-commercial-banned
Stella grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but was originally born in Los Angeles, California. She has one seven year-old brother, pictured on the left, and a French Bulldog named Louie. She is a second year Psychology major with a minor in sociology. She is involved in the Boston University Dance Theater Group Club on campus. Beyond visual performing arts, she also enjoys a good cup of coffee and spending time with her friends.
Page updated
Report abuse