Hailing itself as the inventor of women's jeans, Levi's celebrates the 75th anniversary of women in denim.
First introduced to male laborers in California in the 1850's, jeans became a symbol of empowerment for women as an alternative to more feminine clothing. Levi's says, "People could tell a lot about a person just by looking at their Levi's® jeans - in the 1930s and 1940s, the waist, hip and length information was included on the waistband patch of every pair of women's jeans." Never before had a woman's value been so publicly reduced to the measurements of their body!
Obviously popularized by teenagers (See: Rebel Without A Cause), they are ubiquitous in America today. From loose-fitting, high-waisted jeans in the early years to the skin-tight, low-rise, objectifying period, to even the fake embrace of masculinity through the marketing of the "boyfriend" jean, denim and American women are now inseparable.
Still, the annual production of denim jeans requires 20 million kg of indigo dye, for which the treatment process exposes workers to such toxic levels of chemicals that their life span while working in such conditions is 5-7 years. Additionally, Levi's continues to exploit its workers in the production process, especially women working in un-unionized textile factories.
Thanks, Levi's, for the reminder that jeans have shaped women's lives in different ways: for the global North, they can be a symbol of empowerment or of objectification, while in the global South, they continue to be an oppressive means of employment.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 75th Anniversary of Women's Jeans.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16354
'"People could tell a lot about a person just by looking at their Levi's® jeans - in the 1930s and 1940s, the waist, hip and length information was included on the waistband patch of every pair of women's jeans." Never before had a woman's value been so publicly reduced to the measurements of their body!'
It's funny how the same sentence can provoke such different reactions: my initial reaction was "Why the HELL did they stop going by 3 measurements and now go by an arbitrary size system that doesn't fit anyone?!" You're right, of course.
I agree, though!\ The death of tailored jeans is another depressing aspect of this.
The measurements on the waist band could be interpreted in different ways. The fact that it is written there would have told people that these jeans were made to fit you. In a world where denim had traditionally been used for the garments of laborourers, I think it really says something that jeans were being made specifically for women.
I imagine at the time, there would have been some reactions to the affect that 'what is she doing trying to wear a man's pants.' But no, these jeans were made for real women, and the measurements on the waist band proved it.
I think that's what Levi's was trying to emphasise.
Those in the world community never forget how much American fashion has profited off the backs of third world labor and how our consumer goods and even food products have been unfairly tilted towards our advantage at the expense of government stability in the third world.
Those in the world community never forget how much American fashion has profited off the backs of third world labor and how our consumer goods and even food products have been unfairly tilted towards our advantage at the expense of government stability in the third world.
I was under the impression that having the waist size and inseam length printed on the waistband patch was standard procedure for Levi's jeans (for men's and women's jeans both).
It still is printed on men's jeans.
Wow. I would love to be able to shop for jeans on which waist, hip, and length information were prominently displayed, and, indeed, offered in a range (like for the men! I've been shopping in their department lately for that alone). Interesting that Levi's used to do that, and has now stopped.
The article you linked to that mentions the 5-7 year lifespan seems to me that it's talking about the type of die that people used to use, when it was plant-based. Since the end of the 18oos, though, according to the article, synthesized indigo is used. It just seems like they mention the 5-7 year lifespan in connection with the old forms of indigo die that were used during legal slavery, but those types of die aren't used anymore. Maybe I'm missing something? Or maybe you've read further information somewhere else that says the current form of die is just as harmful? I'm just curious, because if it is, I think a jeans boycott would be appropriate!
And I do know how to spell dye! :O)
I see red whenever that "FIT INTO YOUR SKINNY JEANS TODAY, EAT THIS CEREAL/YOGURT/GRANOLA BAR"
All the women on there are already skinny enough to fit into a size 1, so what the hell? Why do they need to lose ANY weight? I guess anorexic really is the new beautiful.
Skinny jeans make women feel insecure about themselves and their body weight, and I don't own a single pair.
Skinny jeans make women feel insecure about themselves and their body weight, and I don't own a single pair.
Actually, my skinny jeans make me feel great. I like the way the leg line looks on me, even though I supposedly don't have the "right" body shape to wear them (because I have thighs). And they're comfy because they have a lot of stretch. Thanks, Avenue!
Those kinds of ads make women feel insecure, but I don't think blame can be placed on a single style of jeans.
I'm in a similar boat; against all odds, I found a pair that fits me. And while comfort is subjective, I also think the marketing of the jean as "skinny," not "tapered," reinforces the ideas that 1. skinny is good and 2. a woman is not skinny enough if she cannot find a flattering pair of skinny jeans.
Skinny jeans aren't actually reserved for "skinny" people. I'm a size 8 and I can find them (at least in Europe).
Actually, "skinny" refers to the cut of the jeans' legs: tight-fitting on the leg and tapered in at the ankle. The proportions of your body are a better determinant of whether or not they will fit on you, not your size. They emphasize the top half of the body, so a top-heavy woman would look disproportionate in them (even if she's a size 0), but a size 20 who is flat-chested will look just fine in them.
/former "denim expert" at a very patriotic clothing store :)
Yesterday was the first time I have bought a pair of jeans in 5 years. Kind of fitting that they were bought on the anniversary. And while I won't go into the sexism surrounding the boyfriend jeans, I must say that they are the best thing invented since the woman's jeans themselves.
Women in jeans 'cannot be raped'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm
Denim: I wear them a lot. There's lots of feelings surrounding women in denim, especially jeans.
I am now trying to figure out why the hell women wear jeans. I wore jeans for the first time in 6 months or so a couple days ago because it was cold. Least comfortable thing EVER! Especially with a pad in there. At least skirts don't try to shove my pad into a vag-wedgie!
Also, I greatly wish jeans were still sized in waist, hip, and length, not just waist and length. Then maybe I could find jeans that don't show off my panties in the back. Seriously, do jeans manufacturers not realize many women have curves? I mean, butts do tend to stick out a bit. Should be obvious that if you don't taper above the butt, the waistband will stick out too far from the body in the back.
I agree completely! After wearing jeans pretty much my entire life, I discovered skirts and comfort. My body, at least, just isn't shaped to wear pants, let alone jeans. I do have a couple of pairs of men's jeans for when I have to work outside int he extreme cold, but 99% of the time skirts and leggings are much more comfortable and practical.
Plus... I can pee behind trees without my butt hanging out.
I dunno, I think jeans are just as comfortable as pajama pants, I don't tend to feel them when I wear them. I also haven't had a difficult time finding jeans that cover my butt in recent years - when I was in college, the super low rise was in, but all stores now seem to have a nice medium between jeans that barely hit the pubic bone and high waisted jeans. All of mine come about a half inch to an inch under my belly button and keep my butt covered when I sit/bend over.
its the ying and yang of clothing
As to jeans being comfy: for me the problem is the trend toward jeans that, to use the ad language, "fall just below the natural waist." Like this is a plus? Means the dang things fall down all the time, or if I try to get them to cling to my waist with a belt, I get a wedgie.
The jeans of about 5 years ago (called Mom jeans by some) rode at natural waist, and were very comfy. Now I have to get them in consignment shops.
Also I am high waisted (in ad language, need a long "rise,"); the popular body right now is short rise, long legs.
Yes, it's true. I have an unpopular body.