“Both in appearance, waif-like and adolescent, and in goals, to be glamorous and adored by men (in the plural) while economically independent, the Single Girl defines femininity outside a traditional patriarchal construction.”
In the early 1960s this concept was a huge change in what was considered to be normal for single women. In the 50s women were supposed to settle down and get married straight out of highschool. Thank god this isn’t the norm today. I’m way happier with the option of being single forever without being treated as an outcast.
Because of the increase in working single ladies in the 60s, ready-to-wear clothing took over the haute couture market. “Snobbery has gone out of fashion, and in our shops you will find duchesses jostling with typists to buy the same dress.” To cement this idea of couture going out of style, in the film “Funny Girl”, Audrey Hepburn is portrayed as a shop girl who becomes a haute couture princess, but the outfit she’s remembered for in the film isn’t any of the Givenchy looks in the film, but the black turtleneck and capri pants she wears before her couture makeover. I feel that this is probably because a turtleneck and capris are easily attainable. People want to be able to emulate celebrities they look up to, and from what this clip of Hepburn shows, its easy to see why women of the 60s or even now would want to emulate her.
I’m going to take the rest of my entry to rant a little bit.
So, in the 60s Cosmopolitan magazine got transformed into a single working ladies handbook. It brought the idea that women could take charge of their sex life and provided a vision for women to live their life on their own terms. I will agree that Cosmo has helped with people accepting the fact that women are sexual beings that should be allowed to exercise their sex drives with whoever, whenever they want to. But damn I really hate this magazine. I hope 60s Cosmo was a different publication. I hope that it’s been severely dumbed down from what it started out as. But I have this strange feeling that it’s always been vapid. 90% of the articles are on how to please men, and the other 10% of articles are on how to make yourself attractive enough to land one. I don’t understand how anyone could read this magazine religiously and not be a complete idiot. There is more to life then sex and the hundreds and thousands of “surprising” erogenous zones on a penis. You would think that after almost 50 years of publication the magazine would contain articles on something more. How much could possibly be written on the same topic? On the rare occasion that I read Cosmo (at a friends house, or at the market), I find myself disgusted. I am definitely not a Cosmo girl.
Here’s like this totally awesome article on like how Cosmo mag has completely changed the world! click
It’s the same magazine over and over!
Kinda Funny. http://wtfcosmo.com/