Women in suits: a bad idea?

My mom gets the sleeves shortened on all of her blazers so they are short sleeved and just wears a bra under them. It is so hot. Seriously.

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

Click to expand...

My mom gets the sleeves shortened on all of her blazers so they are short sleeved and just wears a bra under them. It is so hot. Seriously.

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

Click to expand...

My mom gets the sleeves shortened on all of her blazers so they are short sleeved and just wears a bra under them. It is so hot. Seriously.
Kink. Srsly, none of the items pictured in this thread are actually cut well. Women's cutting is very different from men's as I've been told. Unfortunately, none of these models (except the curvy readhead- who's is kinda trampy) are wearing truly "women's cut" jackets or vests-which is why they look like ****. (Sorry) Edward Sexton does a pretty good job with the fit. His stylistic choices are sometimes "unique".

I don't know, I think a frumpy suit on a girl has the most appeal. I don't think a suit should make a woman look "strong".

The woman in the suit above has a body like an 11 year old Chinese boy, of course cutting a suit for her will be easy and look good.

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

Click to expand...

I don't know, I think a frumpy suit on a girl has the most appeal. I don't think a suit should make a woman look "strong". The woman in the suit above has a body like an 11 year old Chinese boy, of course cutting a suit for her will be easy and look good.
Not strong? It's a suit. If a woman wants to look frilly she wears a dress. She's not that flat (as some posted earlier). It's also a pain ********** trying to find pics of well cut womenswear. ( Almost as hard as finding a good women's bespoke tailor in the US) Try looking through Cutter and Tailor. There's some good stuff there (mostly rather dated though).

The problem with everything posted is that it all represents an almost ironic application of a man's suit (fabric, detailing, even cut in some cases) to a ************. I personally don't find that approach appealing and am not surprised that it often doesn't look good.

To me, the ideal woman's suit embraces the fact it is intended to be worn by a woman. The fabric should be different, often in less sober, more feminine colors, or in bolder, more flamboyant patterns. The design and details should be less concerned with implying functionality (no vents, no breast pocket, no flaps, etc.). Details can also be less orthodox, and include things like: bracelet-length sleeves without buttons, shawl lapels, single-button closures, etc.

And it should always be a skirt suit. Showing some leg never hurts. Also, the jacket can be worn over an open-neck blouse or camisole, instead of a dress shirt.

Generally, think more Chanel, and less Armani. I'd never want to dress like a woman, so I have trouble understanding the appeal of a woman dressing like a man.

Interesting thread, Flartchy. I think enough evidence, especially PVRhye's pic of Christina Hendricks, has been presented to show that women's secondary sex characteristics (large bust, relatively defined waist, wide hips: basically, the hourglass figure) can be fairly well accentuated by what looks like a lounge coat. Note that women's coats are often cut with bust darts, which tightens the fabric around the bust and so accentuates it. Also, they're usually short in the back so that the buttocks aren't hidden by fabric.

Your argument-schema is helpful, so I'll steal it. I think the real structure of your argument is:

1) Garments designed to accentuate characteristics x, y, z will not look good on persons who lack x, y, z.
2) Lounge coats were designed to accentuate broad shoulders and narrow hips.
3) Most women lack broad shoulders and narrow hips.
3) Therefore, lounge coats won't look good on most women.

I think all the premises are true. And on its face, the conclusion follows from them. Trouble is, there seems to be an equivocation, which Sanguis's post points out. It's true that the genus of lounge coats were ORIGINALLY designed to accentuate broad shoulders and narrow hips. But that doesn't mean that any lounge coat you see was ACTUALLY designed to accentuate broad shoulders and narrow hips. Many women's lounge coats weren't actually designed to accentuate those. The argument slides from the notion of actual design in premise 1 to the notion of original design in premise 2: but it can't do that if the conclusion is to follow.

One thing this thread usefully reveals is that we badly need some terms to describe women's tailored clothing, since the silhouettes of women's lounge coats and men's lounge coats in fact differ. They deserve different labels. I don't know what those should be. I just looked at my copy of A. Mansfield & P. Cunnington, History of English Costume in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950 (1973). It's considered an authority on women's costumes, and does a great job of distinguishing different silhouettes and cuts of coats for men. There are plenty of undercoats for women described, but not many labels for them, apart from what you'd expect: "bolero" and similar. But the bolero is to a lounge coat what a lounge coat is to a morning coat. What we really need are labels closer in specificity to those for the different silhouettes for men's lounge coats: sack cut, drape cut, Savile Row cut, 1960s European cut, updated American cut, etc.

You're right that this deserves more discussion than it's received.

There was an interesting thread on some of these questions a few years back. A woman member whose handle is "Rada" got some suits made up in men's style: no bust darts, covering the buttocks, as I recall. There was some good discussion by knowledgeable tailors of the difference between men's and women's suits.

Originally Posted by Flartchy

Click to expand...

1) Suits have historically been designed to accentuate male characteristics*
2) Women, by and large, don't have these characteristics
3) Therefore, suits that accentuate these characteristics won't look good on average-shaped women.

* "For example, in men's dress, the male suit does not just accentuate male bodily features, but adds 'masculinity' to the body." From Joanne Entwistle's The fashioned body: fashion, dress, and modern social theory

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

The problem with everything posted is that it all represents an almost ironic application of a man's suit (fabric, detailing, even cut in some cases) to a ************. I personally don't find that approach appealing and am not surprised that it often doesn't look good. To me, the ideal woman's suit embraces the fact it is intended to be worn by a woman. The fabric should be different, often in less sober, more feminine colors, or in bolder, more flamboyant patterns. The design and details should be less concerned with implying functionality (no vents, no breast pocket, no flaps, etc.). Details can also be less orthodox, and include things like: bracelet-length sleeves without buttons, shawl lapels, single-button closures, etc. And it should always be a skirt suit. Showing some leg never hurts. Also, the jacket can be worn over an open-neck blouse or camisole, instead of a dress shirt. Generally, think more Chanel, and less Armani. I'd never want to dress like a woman, so I have trouble understanding the appeal of a woman dressing like a man.
Agreed. How's this? (sans dated beret) or this

^ The natural shoulder coat combined with the hobble skirt certainly accentuates the hips. The hobble skirts so characteristic of the New Look are hard to walk in. That's probably why women today don't wear those suits that much. No reason you couldn't pair that coat with tightly-tapered rousers or a pencil skirt, though.

As for the DB and over-the-knee A-line, I see no reason why a self-respecting woman couldn't wear that to work tomorrow and look good, sans scarf, cap, and vapid expression, of course.

Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii

Click to expand...

^ The coat combined with the hobble skirt certainly accentuates the hips. The hobble skirts so characteristic of the New Look are hard to walk in. That's probably why women today don't wear those suits that much. No reason you couldn't pair that coat with trousers or a pencil skirt, though.
Yeah, I hate hobble skirts too . Would work with slacks. Note that the shoulder is natural and the bodice is heavily darted to follow the curves. Good luck getting that today (unless made)

It's always going to depend on how the suit is cut, if you take a 'normal woman' (size 10-12 really I usually never see larger than maybe an 8 here) and put them in a custom suit or one thats been tailored then I guarantee they'll look great. With the obvious caveat that slimmer women might look better more often in suits.

I like it. As with everything, well properly cult, I think it looks really great... And I always picture women in suit as women of strong will (which I like), probably because of this very person:

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

Click to expand...

The woman in the suit above has a body like an 11 year old Chinese boy, of course cutting a suit for her will be easy and look good.

Are you kidding? She has a great figure with nice hips (besides being good looking). She is probably a size 8 (maybe a 6) which is more like the world average for non-US women.

Originally Posted by Xenon

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? She has a great figure with nice hips (besides being good looking). She is probably a size 8 (maybe a 6) which is more like the world average for non-US women.

It wasn't a dis, just a simalie. She is definitely not a size 8 or 6 though. My girlfriend now is about a size 4 and similar to that woman.

But in all honesty I think the "hips" that you are referring to is actually a flared skirt with hacking pockets which accentuates it.

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

Click to expand...

But in all honesty I think the "hips" that you are referring to is actually a flared skirt with hacking pockets which accentuates it.
One of the things making it a women's jacket.