Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Is Paris Hilton the modern day flapper?

Mojito

One Too Many
Messages
1,371
Location
Sydney
As one 1925 critic of flappers put it, "Girls aren't so modest nowadays, they dress differently."

There's wonderful literature of the time that illustrates just how strong criticism of these young women was, such as a picture circulated by the YWCA as early as 1921 in an "education campaign against certain modern tendencies" which illustrated the "proper and improper way to dress." In it, one girl is shown in a longer gown, no obvious make up, standing straight. Her flapper counterpart "improperly" dressed, is wearing a shorter dress, makeup, and has the classic and much caricatured flapper poise - shoulders slouched, hips thrust forward with her hands on them.

Feminists of the time had their own things to say about what they saw as the flapper mentality. As Lillian Symes said, her generation of feminists had as little in common with the 19th century unpowdered, flat-heeled pioneer sufragette as it had with "the post-war, spike-heeled, over-rouged flapper of to-day. We grew up before the post-war disillusionment engulfed the youth of the land and created futilitarian literature, gin parties, and jazz babies" and was among those critical of the supposed disengagement of the flappers with political discourse. Some feminists, such as Carrie Chapman Catt, suggested that those who defended flapper dress as reflective of a trend allowing more freedom of movement, and those who criticised it as immodest, were both missing the point - "pro and con supporters have overlooked the fundamental fact that women do not wear short skirts or bobbed hair by their own election...but in obedience to the dictum of fashion."

As an aside, I tend to disagree that disengagement with political discourse typifies the behaviour of all flappers - issues of 1922's "The Flapper" magazine, for example, do discuss political issues of the day and even profile youth representatives engaged in political discussion.

The flapper trend is interesting in many respects - it was both rebellious but also conformist. Some parents at the time related how their daughters pressured them to buy flapper-wear because all their school friends were wearing those clothes. Suddenly the supposedly nice, sensible clothes their mothers provided for them weren't good enough. This is hardly unique to the 1920s or to today.

Some of the trends - hair bobbing, dress styles and smoking in particular - were certainly startling and different. But the popularity of certain elements of flapper culture was also in part created and/or promoted by clever marketing. In the late 1920s, public relations consultant Edward Bernays was hired by American Tobacco to combat the negative image of women smoking and to popularise it among women. He commisioned a psychoanalyst to prepare a report on why women smoked, concluding "Cigarettes, which are equated with men, become torches of freedom." The result? Bernays had ten young women with cigarettes at the 1929 Easter parade on Fifth Avenue. It was hailed in some sections of the media as a "bold protest against women's inequality." In fact, it was a marketing ploy.

Coco Chanel popularised mass produced fashion - her little black dress was the Ford of fashion. Even those who could not afford to buy an original could buy a very good knockoff, all the way through to mail order catalogues, which Chanel - unlike other couturiers who fought copyright infringement on their designs - did little to discourage.

Paris isn't typical of every flapper of the 1920s, but she is certainly a recognisable flapper type. And the very things she is criticised for - a lack of style (or rather a lack of taste in style), vulgarity, vacuousness, concern only with having a good time - were all levelled at flappers in their day. Zelda Fitzgerald wrote an interesting article for Metropolitan Magazine entitled "Eulogy on the Flapper" in which she celebrates some of the very characteristics that enraged critics, including supposed moral debauchery. She even suggested that "fully airing the desire for unadulterated gaiety, for romances that she knows will not last" meant that a liberated young woman might even find herself eventually "more inclined to favor the 'back to the fireside' movement" than if she repressed these impulses."

The wonderful Clara Bow bucked the popular trend of the ideal 1920s figure - which was indeed very slim and a la garconne. Obviously not all women conformed to this ideal - my own grandmother (first in her small country town to get her hair bobbed) was never going to be anything else other than curvey. But most Hollywood stars had strict weight restrictions in their contracts - they could be fired if they gained so much as five pounds. Clara suffered terribly from criticism over her weight. Even Colleen Moore, who we tend to think of a slim and boyish, had the weight clause in her contract.

Women in the 1920s often went on very low calorie diets, and it was suggested that the result was a lack of lustre to their hair and complexion. And as for celebrity (and other) behaviour...well, take Lois Long. She said that "If you could make it to the ladies' room before throwing up, you were thought to be 'good at holding your liquor.'" Two dollars was the customary rate to give the cab driver if you threw up in his cab. (Again, this is not the whole picture - as most of us here would know, liquor consumption actually went down during the 20s among the general population as a result of prohibition...I wouldn't suggest that every flapper was being sick in the back of a cab, but it certainly was happening, particularly in certain social sets).
 

Foofoogal

Banned
Messages
4,884
Location
Vintage Land
flappers weren't especially involved with religion
lol
Lizzie, you always make me laugh.
I agree with dhermann1.

kadri, please don't leave the OB. It is ok. We can all respectfully agree to disagree or something like that.


I would like to dress like a flapper and hang out with Mojito.

the part about this thread that is attracting me is zsa zsa, Do you all know she is maybe having to move our of her mansion due to Madoff? Pitiful. I love her if just only for her name. Her sister was classier but still. :eek: :eusa_doh: Maybe PH will take her in. :eek:fftopic:

I can understand what the OP was getting at and it is ok to have that opinion.

It was originally scandalous to show ones ankles. We would all be "bad" girls now.

"pro and con supporters have overlooked the fundamental fact that women do not wear short skirts of bobbed hair by their own election...but in obedience to the dictum of fashion."
not much has changed I don't personally think.
 

Mary

Practically Family
Messages
626
Location
Malmo, Sweden
Interesting topic. I don't know much about flappers or Paris Hilton for that matter.

But I guess they were both not in good taste. Craving for attention never is, somehow. Isn't that what always provoke people the most, not the bare lags of long night and scandals, but not being ashamed of one's vanity and shallow interest.

M
 

Foofoogal

Banned
Messages
4,884
Location
Vintage Land
Mojito, that was a fabulous writing.

Looking at it all I had one thought only as the big difference. Birth control. (not to get into that though)

I have in my possession an old letter from about 1918 from my picking up stuff. It is a letter and in it there is a tidbit about "did you hear about so and so?" She has run away to a hotel with so and so. Her mother is beside herself.
 

MissAmelina

A-List Customer
Messages
413
Location
Boise, ID
Paisley said:
A potential pitfall of rejecting traditional thinking (as opposed to whatever happens to be popular) is shallowness. To use one example, many people loudly reject Christianity, yet they're quick to say "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Ask them what Jesus said to the woman after the men left, though, and you get a blank stare. Their criticisms show that they lack a basic knowledge of what they're criticising. This is obviously much different from criticising something based on a great deal of knowledge of it. That, I can respect.

Likewise, there's a difference between serious artists (many of whom get a job to support their art) and "artists" who really just don't want to get up and go to work every morning.


Ahhhh....well THAT depends on what kind of "traditional thinking" we are talking about then, doesn't it? :)
In some cultures, not having a job to report to everyday is a *good* thing....Remember that capitalism is a very western way of thinking, and the West is just one part of this great big world.
This brings the whole question of whether or not capitalism and having great ambition are helpful and compassionate things...which is kind of a political conversation...and we can't do that here. :)

When I say artists and travelers, the word "Bohemian" comes to mind. Which is also a word often directed at flappers in some of my readings. And the websters definition of bohemian is:

a person, esp. an artist or writer, who lives an unconventional life

I see nothing shallow in that. I do understand and respect where you are coming from, but I disagree. I do know plenty of artists who survive just doing their art, HOWEVER, some of them had to leave America to do it. They are in South East Asia where their efforts are more appreciated and in keeping with the culture. (This also makes me think of the bohemian expats in Paris and people like Joseph Campbell---I am in love with his writings, so I had to give him a little plug!) :)

Paris Hilton is neither an artist, nor a writer, nor a thinker, nor a feminist. I guess when I think of flappers there is a whole philosophy and sense of PURPOSE behind it...women who had *plenty* of knowledge of that which they were criticizing....that stood up and said, "You know what? I am not living that kind of repressed life anymore!"
I don't see Paris having much of a philosophy....and i don't hate her at all. :) I wish her well on the path to enlightenment. And you too!
Blessings.
 

Mojito

One Too Many
Messages
1,371
Location
Sydney
Thank you, Foofoogal!

To be honest, in retrospect I should probably have named my blog something other than "Sydneyflapper" - not only am I getting a bit long in the tooth to be a flapper (it was a very youth-centric fad), but there was also a good deal more to the 1920s than just flappers...or sheiks...or prohibition...or even bobbed hair and jazz (although all those things are excellent in their place - except maybe for prohibition).

Sexuality and flappers is an interesting area to look at - and part of why these young people were so controversial. We hear a lot today about the "petting parties" of the 1920s, and how virginity was often merely technical. Enclosed cars - "petting parlours" - promoted greater privacy and sexual intimacy between couples. But I think this sexual liberation still needs to be seen in perspective. Zelda Fitzgerald, in the article I referred to above, wrote "'Out with inhibitions,' gleefully shouts the Flapper, and elopes with the Arrow-collar boy that she had been thinking, for a week or two, might make a charming breakfast companion. The marriage is annulled by the proverbial irate parent and the Flapper comes home, none the worse for wear, to marry, years later and live happily ever afterwards."

This seems to reflect the general way of thinking among these young women - they might seem a bit wild, but essentially they would settle down into conventional marriages. Joshua Zeitz cited studies from the 20s that suggested that while about half of all college-educated women in this period lost their virginity before their wedding night, most had slept only with their future husbands. While three-quarters of college-age men expressed their willingness to marry women with sexual experience, most of these young people viewed sex as an appropriate and fulfilling act between two people who loved each other and intended to marry.
 

reetpleat

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,681
Location
Seattle
perhaps the real difference is that culture has moved to the flapper too far. We can view the flapper as making some kind of statement with their behavior, but in modern culture, there is nothing unusual about dressing provocatively, partying, drinking, doing your own thing etc. So the modern equivilant, while looked down on by some for their loose morals, maybe looked down on by others for being too common and of this modern culture.
 

Mojito

One Too Many
Messages
1,371
Location
Sydney
MissAmelina said:
Paris Hilton is neither an artist, nor a writer, nor a thinker, nor a feminist. I guess when I think of flappers there is a whole philosophy and sense of PURPOSE behind it...women who had *plenty* of knowledge of that which they were criticizing....that stood up and said, "You know what? I am not living that kind of repressed life anymore!"
An interesting idea, MissAmelina. I'm not sure, however, that there really was a coherant philosophy behind the flapper fad. They were frequently criticised for being completely shallow, self-centred and lacking in the political and moral engagement of previous generations (criticism that I believe is broad and vastly overgeneralised - as I specified above, even the bit of fluff that is "The Flapper" magazine engage with some political issues of the day).

If there was any sort of motivating thought behind most of it, it could probably be summed up by this quote from 1923's Prodigal Daughters outlining the "Seven Deadly Whims":

New lips to kiss; Freedom from Conventions; A new world for women; No more chaperones; Life with a kick in it; A single Moral standard; Our own latch key

All of which would be consistent with Miss Hilton's personal philosophy, I imagine.

Louise Brooks - herself sometimes called the quintessential flapper - claimed that they didn't really exist, and that the notion of the flapper was something F Scott Fitzgerald created and set up his wife to fulfill. I'd disagree - I think they were part zeitgeist and the fulfillment of certain trends that had begun the previous decade (including liberation in women's dress and greater female independence in matters such as work) and part a product of the post-war mood. The fad was influenced by musical developments and technological innovations (such as the car and the phone) and by clever marketing to exploit and refine the trend. Hollywood, too, had its influence - F Scott Fitzgerald famously remarked that he was the spark that lit up flaming youth, and Colleen Moore was the torch.

Some of these girls no doubt had an intellectual approach and personal philosophy that guided their choices. Some would have held that the personal is political, such as those girls who broke up a PTA meeting in Somerset, PA that was discussing a new dress code banning silk stockings, short skirts, bobbed hair and sleeveless dresses by chanting:

I can show my shoulders
I can show my knees
I'm a free-born American
And can show what I please

But many more were simply following what was the fashion of the time, and would go on to happily grow their hair the next decade and adopt longer hemlines. They would have appreciated the personal freedom to choose, but beyond that, I don't that they gave it much more thought than the young people nowadays who relish the idea that they don't have to "wear gloves and hats and all that stuff that they had to wear in the old days".
 

MissAmelina

A-List Customer
Messages
413
Location
Boise, ID
Mojito said:
An interesting idea, MissAmelina. I'm not sure, however, that there really was a coherant philosophy behind the flapper fad. They were frequently criticised for being completely shallow, self-centred and lacking in the political and moral engagement of previous generations (criticism that I believe is broad and vastly overgeneralised - as I specified above, even the bit of fluff that is "The Flapper" magazine engage with some political issues of the day).
.


I guess I am considering the motivation for those who started it, instead of those that turned it into a huge fad....which is probably my bad.....because the fad is what folks are talking about mostly, I reckon. :) Thank you for your response...and thank you for all your historic postings....super interesting stuff!
 

Foofoogal

Banned
Messages
4,884
Location
Vintage Land
So the modern equivilant, while looked down on by some for their loose morals, maybe looked down on by others for being too common and of this modern culture.

interesting. I look back over my adulthood and I think overall I have been very rebellious in most stages. As a teen quite rebellious and then starting in 1970s when all the women were going to work outside the home in droves as it was the popular thing to do I was and am still a stay at home worker.
I am not kidding when I say this. I took lots and lots of flak about not being a sheeple back then.
I think I may be getting my "being" mentally ready in case I have to become a bohemian traveler and truly hope not. I have had a taste of it these last few months and am finding it painful and am out of my comfort zone. I hope out of necessity we don't all get to experience this lack of capitalism. (western or not)
If Oprah keeps yacking about simplifying our lives we may just all get to be bohemians. :rolleyes:
I figure if I go down at least I will get to look at pretty things I have accumulated. As no.9 of 11 children I have been there, done that.
 

Laura Chase

One Too Many
Messages
1,354
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Mojito, have you read Joshua Zeitz's book "Flapper"? I have read good things about it and thought that maybe you could give it a thumbs up? Or recommend another book about the subject? I'm particularly fascinated by Lois "Lipstick" Long, and want to read more about the subject in general, but don't want to end up ordering a coffee table book.
 

MrNewportCustom

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,265
Location
Outer Los Angeles
Lillemor said:
I don't deeply dislike any celebrities. They just don't matter enough for deeper thoughts on most days.


My sentiments exactly, Lilimor. It's a rare day when something said, done, worn or thought by any celebrity gives me reason to contemplate anything they represent.


Lee
 

Mojito

One Too Many
Messages
1,371
Location
Sydney
Thanks for those kind words, folks! I should add that I don't fancy myself an expert on the period - I'm fascinated by it and read whatever primary material I can get my hands on, but I'm open to and very much appreciate new information that adds depth to my understanding of the era and the possibility of different interpretations to the ones I've put forward.

Laura, I have a copy of Zeitz's The Flapper and it's not a bad book at all - it touches on many of the issues that have been raised in this thread, including fashion, marketing and celebrity. It's fairly lightweight from an academic perspective (as it is intended to be - its popular, readable history). For those familiar with the period, the individual figures he uses to frame his arguments and the narrative - the Fitzgeralds, Colleen Moore, Louise Brooks, Clara Bow, Coco Chanel etc - are perhaps a bit too familiar. It would be almost impossible to write a history of the flapper fad without reference to the Fitzgeralds -I'm reminded of the following lines from Dorothy Parker's poem, The Flapper:

All spotlights focus on her pranks.
All tongues her prowess herald.
For which she well may render thanks
To God and Scott Fitzgerald.

And Lillian Gish may have been right when she said that they didn't make the twenties - they were the twenties, but their very ubiquitousness in every book and discussion of the age makes me wish we could get away from them for a bit (and those who have read recent biographies of Zelda might feel he has done her a bit of a disservice - he's printing the legend, and one which is disputed in some circles). There's plenty of Lois Long as Lipstick, though, and as I wasn't as familiar with her bio I enjoyed those sections.

Zeitz reaches this conclusion:

Millions of flappers embraced a controversial lifestyle in a spirited attempt at self-definition. But they did so in concert, buying the same brands of clothing, makeup, and cigarettes, emulating Clara Bow and Colleen Moore, and adopting the same jargon ripped from the pages of Scott Fitzgerald's latest story.

Which is essentially what several of the participants in this thread have stated. I think he also draws the Paris Hilton analogy (and specifically mentions her), but I'd have to reread the book to find the reference.

A more academically inclined (and in some ways more polemical, written as it is from a clearly defined feminist perspective) book is Posing a Thread: Flappers, Chorus Girls, and Other Brazen performers of the American 1920s by Angela Latham. I don't always agree with her interpretations, but it is an interesting, sometimes provocative, often very perceptive look at the age and a challenge to some of the broad and simplistic interpretations of these years. She places great emphasis on primary sources, drawing from a quite a range. The book has a narrower focus than Zeitz and looks at the flapper phenomena as social performance, examining it specifically in areas such as conflicts over fashion, swimwear and overtly theatrical performances on the stage in the sociocultural context of the 1920s. One thing Latham makes explicit is that she does not presume to speak for every woman of this era "I must necessarily admit that no particular viewpoint or event fairly represents the opinion of all American women in the 1920s."
 

Laura Chase

One Too Many
Messages
1,354
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
reetpleat said:
As far as her beign the moden equivilent, I think the case can be made. But the whole reason we are here is that we don't like the way things are done now as much as how they were done then. Saying she is the modern equivilent does not mean much to me.

Well, it might seem like an uninteresting thought if what you admire by the past is simply the fashions - that's fine and that's another issue. But I sense a lot of people here on the lounge are in it for much more than just the fashion. It's a whole lifestyle, including morals and views on how things should be.

So what I wanted was to point out that the "we don't like the way things are done now as much as how they were done then" is a very reactionary parole, seen from the point of view I lay out in my initial thread-starting post. It can be viewed as opposed to all the things we admire by the "then", that is, how the 20's came to stand for the liberation of women, how the flappers were modern and always looking forward, forsaking the shackles of the past.

From this point of view, our "vintage lifestyle" is a bit of a paradox. Not in a negative way at all, it's just an observation, and something that I thought of while looking at a lot of contemporary design and saying how awful it was. So I'm trying to open myself more to the "now", because although the media picture today is a bit horrific and there are a lot of bad things about the "now", there sure are a lot things that make me happy I live "now" and not "then". As Lady Day once pointed out, it sure is good to have civil rights.


It seems a lot of people just read the start of my post, just the question "Is Paris Hilton the modern day flapper?" and just comment that. If you read on, it's not really what my post is about, but oh well. :) It's fine to just discuss Paris Hilton, if that's the most fun for everyone. lol


Mojito, thank you for the recommendations. I shall also have to see if I can find some sort of online archive of The New Yorker, because I really want to read Lipstick's column!
 

Emer

One of the Regulars
Messages
257
Location
San Diego, CA
Laura Chase said:
Paris Hilton:
paris_hilton_4_wenn2304602.jpg

:eek:fftopic: Has anyone ever noticed that she has the ugliest hands and feet?
 

reetpleat

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,681
Location
Seattle
Laura Chase said:
Well, it might seem like an uninteresting thought if what you admire by the past is simply the fashions - that's fine and that's another issue. But I sense a lot of people here on the lounge are in it for much more than just the fashion. It's a whole lifestyle, including morals and views on how things should be.

So what I wanted was to point out that the "we don't like the way things are done now as much as how they were done then" is a very reactionary parole, seen from the point of view I lay out in my initial thread-starting post. It can be viewed as opposed to all the things we admire by the "then", that is, how the 20's came to stand for the liberation of women, how the flappers were modern and always looking forward, forsaking the shackles of the past.

From this point of view, our "vintage lifestyle" is a bit of a paradox. Not in a negative way at all, it's just an observation, and something that I thought of while looking at a lot of contemporary design and saying how awful it was. So I'm trying to open myself more to the "now", because although the media picture today is a bit horrific and there are a lot of bad things about the "now", there sure are a lot things that make me happy I live "now" and not "then". As Lady Day once pointed out, it sure is good to have civil rights.


It seems a lot of people just read the start of my post, just the question "Is Paris Hilton the modern day flapper?" and just comment that. If you read on, it's not really what my post is about, but oh well. :) It's fine to just discuss Paris Hilton, if that's the most fun for everyone. lol


Mojito, thank you for the recommendations. I shall also have to see if I can find some sort of online archive of The New Yorker, because I really want to read Lipstick's column!

I agree with you. As for me, i am only in it for the style, music, and clothes. My standards, morals, and ideas about how the world should be are often more modern than vintage, except when it comes to clothes, music, and style.

Ultimatlely, it is a matter of how you define flapper, and how you define paris Hilton.

My point was that in some ways she is the equivilant, for most of the members of this forum, that isn't saying much, because most of us, by definition, like the old equivilent of anything modern.

On the other hand, it is interesting to discuss weather she is or not, but ultimately, it comes down to a matter of how you define it, so thee is no right or wrong answer to that question.

As I have commented before, the modern equivilent of a hot rodder may well be a chinese kid in a hopped up honda. But as a vintage lover, i would gravitate towards the guy with the pompadour and the hot rodded model a. He is decidedly not the modern equivilent of his olden day counterpart, who would have had no interest in dressing like his grandfather and driving a fifty year old car.

it is an interesting discussion.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
109,256
Messages
3,077,439
Members
54,183
Latest member
UrbanGraveDave
Top