During the 1950s, my family watched “The Ed Sullivan Show.” I remember one particular Sunday when my mother rushed supper because Pearl Bailey would be a guest. Until then, I had never heard of the popular singer and actress, so I was curious. Sullivan announced Pearl, then a figure appeared on the dim stage, silhouetted in a doorway.
What I saw was a person with broad shoulders, wearing perhaps a sombrero or a Stetson, with a pair of holstered pistols on her hips. I thought, how can a person named Pearl be a cowboy? My mother said, “That’s Pearl Bailey?!”
The lights rose, and a different picture appeared. What seemed to be a sombrero was a wide-brimmed picture hat. The broad shoulders were due to a little fur stole or shrug, and what looked like six-shooters were the flaring pockets of the era. The costume was the height of 1950s glamour and perfectly matched her song of lost love. She was appropriately dressed for l’heure bleue cocktails on the Champs-Elysées.
Back then, we expected female celebrities to “dress to the nines.” Even as panelists, women appeared in evening dress to answer the question, “What’s My Line?” The look continued through Dusty Springfield but withered when Joan Baez, Grace Slick and Mama Cass became popular.
What is interesting is that, while women entertainers dressed like patrons of La Scala, the men wore the usual boring men’s attire: a suit with a shirt and tie. What was the message? That men were at work and women, no matter how talented or interesting, were simply mannequins?
Then there were the actresses who played the mothers on programs like “The Donna Reed Show,” “Father Knows Best,” “Leave it to Beaver,” “Make Room for Daddy” and “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet.” These were not working-class families of my Polish-Italian-Irish neighborhood. The men were always dressed in suits, often wore hats and carried briefcases. A few of the neighborhood fathers were professionals who dressed like the television “dads.” However, none of the mothers wore freshly pressed shirtwaists, jewelry and high heels around the house. Our mothers might dress like that for church, but not to cook and clean.
Again, what was the message?
Let’s think about Pearl Bailey. I was probably 8 or 9 when I saw her on Sullivan’s show. That she looked like a cowboy, that my mother had trouble recognizing her, was probably due to an oversight. The costumer and the lighting director may have failed to view the rehearsal. But our confusion pointed to something. Women were expected to look a certain a way, and for a few seconds, this woman did not look as expected. I was still in elementary school, but I was interested in what I would be when I grew up and how I would dress.
I struggled with the idea of women as mannequins. It’s not that images of women at work didn’t exist. Mill girls appeared well turned out in shirtwaists with leg o’mutton sleeves and tiny hats. During World War II, Rosie the Riveter wore overalls and wrapped her hair in a bandana. However, the end of the war shoved women out of the workplace and introduced Dior’s New Look, which harkened back to the skirts worn by mill girls.
Then, after the Boomers came of age and Second Wave Feminism brought forth the idea that women can be more than secretaries, came John T. Molloy’s books about “power dressing,” starting with 1975’s “Dress for Success.” The concept was derived from surveys which involved showing people sketches of different outfits and asking them which would be suitable for job interviews and work. The consensus was that women should wear skirted suits, plain blouses, floppy little ties and, surprisingly, high heels.
Women’s magazines found fodder for discussion in his books, with some doubling down on his advice. An article from the time railed against carrying a purse and using just a briefcase. My immediate thought was, what happens when a woman directing a seminar steps up to the podium, opens her briefcase and a tampon rolls out? Other magazines suggested alternatives to the cookie-cutter look. Why not a tailored dress in red silk? To his credit, Molloy admitted that the model for women was based on the white male professional.
The recent resurgence of misogyny raises questions not just about women’s roles, but how women should look and act. The answer comes, properly, from women themselves. Whether a woman is working outside the home, retired or is a full-time mother, there is no set way to look. If anything, clothes have become more comfortable and sensible. Fashion still waxes and wanes. The ridiculously expensive still exists.
Personally, I would love to dress up a little more. To wear a little black dress out to dinner or to see a bit more of the ankle-length skirts of the 1970s, but the best thing is that I can choose. So can you.
A native of Michigan, Susan Wozniak belongs to three alumni associations with at least one other woman named Susan Wozniak in each. She is not related to Steve.