In 1880, William Rideing described the sewing needle as “the natural weapon of every woman who has to battle for herself in the world.” For centuries, sewing has been an integral part of women’s lives and education. Any examination of women’s roles, whether in the home or as wage-earners must include both household sewing and work in the needle trades.
Women were the primary producers and/or purchasers of their own and their family’s clothing throughout the 19th and into the early decades of the 20th century. After World War I, their role shifted to that of consumer, with increasingly fewer items of clothing created in the home. In addition, sewing – including factory, dressmaking, and repair and alteration – was a primary source of income for women. The focus of this exhibit is women and sewing, centered on clothing rather than fancy needlework such as embroidery. Three themes are examined: sewing education, sewing for home and family, and sewing as wage-work. The themes are addressed through the objects women produced, the technologies they used to produce them, and the records they left behind in the form of sample books, invoices, ledgers, photographs, and instructional materials.
By the end of the Civil War, women were no longer responsible for making men’s clothing, as most, if not all, was purchased ready made. However, throughout the nineteenth century, women relied on seamstress, dressmakers, or their own sewing skills to clothe themselves and their children. This custom production ranged from simple garments made at home, either by a family member, seamstress or dressmaker, to elaborate fashionable gowns made in an exclusive dressmaker’s shop. The manner in which women clothed the family depended on financial resources, sewing skills and individual interpretations of fashion and class. They used the resources available, and balanced budget needs with other factors, including time and desire. By the 1890s ready-made clothing had significantly entered the wardrobe decision-making process for women in the form of shirtwaists and skirts.
While ready-made clothing lessened the need for expert sewing skills, as Martha Bruere pointed out, “even the moderate use of the needle that all housekeepers need to know is no instinctive or inherited feminine function.”[1] Young girls were offered sewing classes in both public and trade schools to provide them sewing skills not learned at home.[2] Although women’s sewing skills are difficult to assess, it required more than just a mastery of basic stitches to produce an acceptable garment. Cutting and fitting were certainly a challenge for all but the most accomplished. The advent of commercial patterns and pattern drafting systems did not completely solve the problem. Even with these new systems, to achieve a properly fitted garment remained a challenge.[3]
From 1870 to 1920, advances in technology, including the ascent of the American ready-to-wear apparel industry changed sewing, especially for construction of the family wardrobe, from a necessity of home-making to an option for all but those in the poorest circumstances. Yet, the techniques and art of sewing remained integral to women’s lives, and an important creative outlet for many. As stated in 1906 by Laura Davis, supervisor of sewing in Baltimore schools, “Skill in the use of the needle is important, even essential to every women, whatever her position in society, but in the humbler walks of life it is doubly valuable, both as an aid to domestic neatness and economy, and as a means of profitable occupation.”[4]
Exhibit curated by Jean L. Parsons and Sara B. Marcketti. Thanks to collection assistants Tekara Stewart, Erica White, Ashley Ratute, and Carmen Keist and collections manager Jan Fitzpatrick for their assistance.
This exhibit was partially supported by the College of Human Sciences, Dean Helen LeBaron Hilton Grant, 2008-2009 and the Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management.
[1]Martha Bensley Bruere and Robert W. Bruere, Increasing Home Efficiency (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1914),162.
[2]See For example, “To Teach Cooking: An Outgrowth of the Work of the Sewing Schools,” The Baltimore Sun, 8 September 1899, 10.
[3] Claudia Kidwell, Cutting A Fashionable Fit: Dressmaker's Drafting Systems in the United States (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974), and Wendy Gamber “The Female Economy: The Millinery and Dressmaking Trades, 1860-1930.” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1990.
[4] Laura V. Davis, “Sewing in Baltimore Public Schools,” The Maryland Educational Journal 1(March 15, 1906): 23-24.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Dressmaking Technology
Dressmaking technology included everything from the basic sewing needle to the complex sewing machines of the factory. In the 19th century a steady stream of new technology for sewing and pattern cutting became available to both home and professional seamstresses and dressmakers. By the 1860s, the sewing machine was a standard and acceptable piece of industrial machinery in the household. Aided by installment buying plans, many middle-income homes were able to afford a machine – placed into an elaborate cabinet that could be properly displayed in the parlor.
Other sewing and clothing construction aids that evolved mid-19th century included commercial sewing patterns and pattern drafting systems based on proportional body measurement calculations. Many fashion magazines showed women the latest styles, but offered little assistance on how to cut an appropriate pattern. Pattern drafting systems appeared as early as the 1830s, simultaneous with the introduction of more complex and more fitted fashions. These systems were developed to provide both amateur and professional dressmakers a tool to cut a bodice to fit any size. The systems varied in ease of use and in accuracy, but certainly aided in development of the paper pattern industry.
The first full-scale paper patterns appeared as foldouts in Frank Leslie’s Gazette of Fashion, designed by Mme. Demorest. Initially, the patterns were only one size, and had to be adapted for individual measurements. It was Ebenezer Butterick who created the first paper patterns in graded sizes. The success of these patterns brought competition, beginning with James McCall and the McCall’s Pattern Company in 1870, followed quickly by numerous others. Fashion publications such as Harper’s Bazar also offered pullout pages with numerous patterns overlaid on the same sheet and coded by type of lines used. All this technology provided a woman with the tools to become her own dressmaker, if she had the time and inclination.
Other sewing and clothing construction aids that evolved mid-19th century included commercial sewing patterns and pattern drafting systems based on proportional body measurement calculations. Many fashion magazines showed women the latest styles, but offered little assistance on how to cut an appropriate pattern. Pattern drafting systems appeared as early as the 1830s, simultaneous with the introduction of more complex and more fitted fashions. These systems were developed to provide both amateur and professional dressmakers a tool to cut a bodice to fit any size. The systems varied in ease of use and in accuracy, but certainly aided in development of the paper pattern industry.
The first full-scale paper patterns appeared as foldouts in Frank Leslie’s Gazette of Fashion, designed by Mme. Demorest. Initially, the patterns were only one size, and had to be adapted for individual measurements. It was Ebenezer Butterick who created the first paper patterns in graded sizes. The success of these patterns brought competition, beginning with James McCall and the McCall’s Pattern Company in 1870, followed quickly by numerous others. Fashion publications such as Harper’s Bazar also offered pullout pages with numerous patterns overlaid on the same sheet and coded by type of lines used. All this technology provided a woman with the tools to become her own dressmaker, if she had the time and inclination.
Home Sewing
For most of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, clothing consumption meant custom production for American women. Factory-made men’s clothing was available for purchase starting in the mid-nineteenth century, along with a few articles of women’s apparel. However, the majority of women’s and children’s clothing needed to be sewn at home, either by the woman of the household, by servants, or by dressmakers and tailors. Homemade clothing, produced from patterns or copied from existing garments, often did not fit as well or look as high-quality as professional, dressmaker-created goods. This was due in part to the great complexity of the fashionable styles and the lack of training and skill of the maker. Further, while custom made clothes were often the most fashionable and had the best appearance, workmanship, and fit, they were often prohibitively expensive.[i]
Most women, particularly in rural areas of the United States, created garments for the entire family that were “adapted to the environment, and determined by frugality.”[ii] Garments sewn at home included simple shirts, smocks, caps, baby clothes, and household textile products, as well as the more difficult to sew fashionable dresses. The tasks of sewing, dressmaking, repairing and mending were shared by working- and middle-class women, native-born and immigrant alike. The purposes for home sewing were multi-fold, from personal necessity to acts of charity, and were defined by social and economic needs, motivations, and circumstances. In addition to providing goods for household use and for wear, sewing represented the home, women’s conventional role of caring for her family, and were variously associated with concepts of thrift, leisure, and even sexual morality.[iii]
Despite the transformational shift from clothing “made for somebody” to mass-produced ready-to-wear clothing “made for everybody,” women continued to sew.[iv] A 1926 study by the Bureau of Home Economics (then part of the Department of Agriculture) reported that at least 80 percent of women surveyed made at least some clothing for themselves and their children and three-quarters of the “business class” women spent up to six hours a week sewing and mending.[v]
Motivations for home sewing continued to be many, including necessity and individual expressions of creativity, and originality.
[i] Claudia Kidwell and Margaret Christman, Suiting Everyone: The Democratization of Clothing in America (Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974).
[ii] Lee Hall, Common Threads: A Parade of American Clothing (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1992), 42.
[iii] Sarah A. Gordon, “Make it Yourself: Home Sewing, Gender, and Culture, 1890-1930,” http://www.gutenberg-e.org/gordon/chap1.html; Nancy Page Fernandez, “Creating Consumers: Gender, Class, and the Family Sewing Machine,” In The Culture of Sewing: Gender, Consumption, and Home Dressmaking, ed. Barbara Burman, 157-168, (Oxford: Berg, 1999).
[iv] Kidwell and Christman, Suiting Everyone.
[v] Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1929).
Most women, particularly in rural areas of the United States, created garments for the entire family that were “adapted to the environment, and determined by frugality.”[ii] Garments sewn at home included simple shirts, smocks, caps, baby clothes, and household textile products, as well as the more difficult to sew fashionable dresses. The tasks of sewing, dressmaking, repairing and mending were shared by working- and middle-class women, native-born and immigrant alike. The purposes for home sewing were multi-fold, from personal necessity to acts of charity, and were defined by social and economic needs, motivations, and circumstances. In addition to providing goods for household use and for wear, sewing represented the home, women’s conventional role of caring for her family, and were variously associated with concepts of thrift, leisure, and even sexual morality.[iii]
Despite the transformational shift from clothing “made for somebody” to mass-produced ready-to-wear clothing “made for everybody,” women continued to sew.[iv] A 1926 study by the Bureau of Home Economics (then part of the Department of Agriculture) reported that at least 80 percent of women surveyed made at least some clothing for themselves and their children and three-quarters of the “business class” women spent up to six hours a week sewing and mending.[v]
Motivations for home sewing continued to be many, including necessity and individual expressions of creativity, and originality.
[i] Claudia Kidwell and Margaret Christman, Suiting Everyone: The Democratization of Clothing in America (Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974).
[ii] Lee Hall, Common Threads: A Parade of American Clothing (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1992), 42.
[iii] Sarah A. Gordon, “Make it Yourself: Home Sewing, Gender, and Culture, 1890-1930,” http://www.gutenberg-e.org/gordon/chap1.html; Nancy Page Fernandez, “Creating Consumers: Gender, Class, and the Family Sewing Machine,” In The Culture of Sewing: Gender, Consumption, and Home Dressmaking, ed. Barbara Burman, 157-168, (Oxford: Berg, 1999).
[iv] Kidwell and Christman, Suiting Everyone.
[v] Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1929).
Sewing for Wages
When a woman decided to seek wage work, whether out of financial need or individual choice, how did she choose an occupation? There is little to indicate exactly how young women chose one job over another, but issues of social class, geography, peer associations, and education certainly played a part. They most often identified occupations that would provide more status, if possible, or that fit within definitions of their proper place in the home. While women were reported in small numbers in some traditionally male occupations, for the vast majority, the types of employment available could still be categorized into five general areas: farm work, domestic service, factory labor, the needle trades and teaching.[1] The jobs that involved traditional feminine occupations - food preparation, sewing, and domestic service - were most acceptable and available.
The needle trades employed significant numbers of women well into the twentieth century, with occupations that included dressmaker, mantuamaker, tailoress, milliner, and seamstress (both factory and non-factory). These trades could be widely divergent, and clearly differed in status and class associations. Dressmakers were considered the aristocrats of the needle trades, although that position began to change in the early 20th century, as the work environment in large shops became more like factory production.
As with other occupations, women chose dressmaking for a variety of reasons. Some chose it as a temporary method of earning an income, either when young and single or when older and forced into wage earning through loss of a husband’s or father’s income. Others chose to initiate a life long career as a dressmaker. Work environments included everything from large businesses and department stores to private homes. As a result, dressmakers engaged in work practices and processes that ranged from the most expensive and exclusive hand work to factory style, assembly-line production.
Dressmaking as a trade for women declined dramatically after 1910, as demand for custom clothing was rapidly replaced by ready-to-wear in all apparel categories.
[1]Joseph A. Hill, Women in Gainful Occupations: 1870-1920, Census Monographs IX, (Washington: GPO, 1929): 46.
The needle trades employed significant numbers of women well into the twentieth century, with occupations that included dressmaker, mantuamaker, tailoress, milliner, and seamstress (both factory and non-factory). These trades could be widely divergent, and clearly differed in status and class associations. Dressmakers were considered the aristocrats of the needle trades, although that position began to change in the early 20th century, as the work environment in large shops became more like factory production.
As with other occupations, women chose dressmaking for a variety of reasons. Some chose it as a temporary method of earning an income, either when young and single or when older and forced into wage earning through loss of a husband’s or father’s income. Others chose to initiate a life long career as a dressmaker. Work environments included everything from large businesses and department stores to private homes. As a result, dressmakers engaged in work practices and processes that ranged from the most expensive and exclusive hand work to factory style, assembly-line production.
Dressmaking as a trade for women declined dramatically after 1910, as demand for custom clothing was rapidly replaced by ready-to-wear in all apparel categories.
[1]Joseph A. Hill, Women in Gainful Occupations: 1870-1920, Census Monographs IX, (Washington: GPO, 1929): 46.
Sewing Education
The mastery of sewing skills and of basic garment construction represented one component of the traditional feminine role in the home, and, at the same time, one of the few acceptable ways to earn a living. While it was often assumed that young girls learned basic sewing skills from their mothers or other female relatives, the level of skill varied widely. Formal education in sewing began in the late eighteenth century, primarily in young ladies academies. Here, young women who could afford it learned basic stitching, then moved on to decorative embroidery and needlework, the type of art stitchery that, according to Parker connoted “not only home but a socially advantaged home.”[i] Although this sewing education could be applied to either clothing or decorative art work, the primary focus was not on construction of apparel.
Other types of sewing education began to appear in both public and private schools in the mid-19th century, and in trade and vocational schools by the end of the century. The emerging garment industry, increasing industrialization, and a rapidly growing immigrant population meant there were more women who relied on mastery of the needle not only for family attire, but also for wages. Multiple factors contributed to the growth of formal sewing education. One was the perception that women not only were not learning how to “yield a needle,” many were choosing not to sew at all, the antithesis of expected feminine accomplishments.
It was charity organizations in the mid-19th century that undertook the beginnings of formal sewing instruction intended to teach “plain” sewing and clothing construction. Many of the women these programs aimed to assist were part of a growing class of urban poor with little means of self-support in a world with few employment opportunities.
The counterpoint to teaching sewing for wage-earning was teaching sewing skills to young women for use in their roles of wife and mother. The addition of sewing to public school programs was the result of support from the new home economics movement. Through domestic art and home economics programs, sewing classes were offered at all levels, from elementary or grammar school through college. Eventually, sewing through home economics classes was required in a majority of public schools across the country.
By the 1890s, both public and private schools and organizations began to offer a wider variety of sewing, dressmaking and millinery classes. However, sewing education frequently suffered from a confusion of purpose, and a dual focus in a period when educators continued to identify homemaking as the “eventual vocation” of most girls. While a concern for the unskilled young working girl stimulated the growth of trade education, the argument persisted that women should be trained for homemaking, not manufacturing. Schools therefore frequently offered courses “for homemaking and for a trade,”[ii] to train women for their “greatest industry” - homemaking.[iii]
[i] Rosika Parker, The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine (London: The Women’s Press, 1984).
[ii]Mary H. Scott. “A Girls’ Trade School Course in Dressmaking”, The Journal of Home Economics 7 (April 1915) 188.
[iii]Albert H. Leake, The Vocational Education of Girls and Women (N.Y.: The MacMillan Co., 1920), 7. See also Mary H. Scott, “A Girls’ Trade School Course in Dressmaking,” The Journal of Home Economics (April 1915): 188.
Other types of sewing education began to appear in both public and private schools in the mid-19th century, and in trade and vocational schools by the end of the century. The emerging garment industry, increasing industrialization, and a rapidly growing immigrant population meant there were more women who relied on mastery of the needle not only for family attire, but also for wages. Multiple factors contributed to the growth of formal sewing education. One was the perception that women not only were not learning how to “yield a needle,” many were choosing not to sew at all, the antithesis of expected feminine accomplishments.
It was charity organizations in the mid-19th century that undertook the beginnings of formal sewing instruction intended to teach “plain” sewing and clothing construction. Many of the women these programs aimed to assist were part of a growing class of urban poor with little means of self-support in a world with few employment opportunities.
The counterpoint to teaching sewing for wage-earning was teaching sewing skills to young women for use in their roles of wife and mother. The addition of sewing to public school programs was the result of support from the new home economics movement. Through domestic art and home economics programs, sewing classes were offered at all levels, from elementary or grammar school through college. Eventually, sewing through home economics classes was required in a majority of public schools across the country.
By the 1890s, both public and private schools and organizations began to offer a wider variety of sewing, dressmaking and millinery classes. However, sewing education frequently suffered from a confusion of purpose, and a dual focus in a period when educators continued to identify homemaking as the “eventual vocation” of most girls. While a concern for the unskilled young working girl stimulated the growth of trade education, the argument persisted that women should be trained for homemaking, not manufacturing. Schools therefore frequently offered courses “for homemaking and for a trade,”[ii] to train women for their “greatest industry” - homemaking.[iii]
[i] Rosika Parker, The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine (London: The Women’s Press, 1984).
[ii]Mary H. Scott. “A Girls’ Trade School Course in Dressmaking”, The Journal of Home Economics 7 (April 1915) 188.
[iii]Albert H. Leake, The Vocational Education of Girls and Women (N.Y.: The MacMillan Co., 1920), 7. See also Mary H. Scott, “A Girls’ Trade School Course in Dressmaking,” The Journal of Home Economics (April 1915): 188.
Sewing Education at Iowa State University
Iowa State was the first land grant institution to give courses in domestic economy (home
economics) for college credit (1872). These first “ladies’ courses” were taught by the Iowa State
(then) Agricultural College’s President’s wife, Mrs. Mary B. Welch. They were dedicated to
preparing women for homemaking and “discipline of the mind.” By 1875, the Department of
Domestic Economy was established and included courses in housekeeping, cooking, laundry
work, domestic chemistry, and care of the sick and of children. Sewing education, particularly
the art of cutting and fitting of dresses was accomplished on Wheeler, Wilson, and Singer sewing
machines. The revolutionary ideas of Mary Welch that science could and should be applied to
homemaking laid the foundation for home economics departments around the nation.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, courses in Domestic Economy specific to the
textiles and clothing discipline included plain sewing, dressmaking, drafting patterns, and
costume design. These courses involved making sample book of various stitches, plackets,
darning, lace, and embroidery. By 1916, courses in history of costume, handicraft, budget studies in clothing, planning the wardrobe, and designing garments were introduced.
The Department went through a number of name changes, the Domestic Art Department
in 1916-1917, the Household Art Department in 1919, and finally, the Textiles and Clothing
Department in 1924. An expanded offering of courses included clothing design, textiles, millinery, children’s clothing, and seminars and research in textiles and clothing. The objectives
of the Department became twofold; to prepare young women for the duties of the homemaker
and for the various occupations now open to scientifically trained women. Newfound occupations
for women that necessitated an education included designers, advertising, retail sales, and
education.
See: Ercel Sherman Eppright and Elizabeth Storm Ferguson, A Century of Home Economics at Iowa State University: A Proud Past, A Lively Present, a Future Promise. (Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press, 1971).
economics) for college credit (1872). These first “ladies’ courses” were taught by the Iowa State
(then) Agricultural College’s President’s wife, Mrs. Mary B. Welch. They were dedicated to
preparing women for homemaking and “discipline of the mind.” By 1875, the Department of
Domestic Economy was established and included courses in housekeeping, cooking, laundry
work, domestic chemistry, and care of the sick and of children. Sewing education, particularly
the art of cutting and fitting of dresses was accomplished on Wheeler, Wilson, and Singer sewing
machines. The revolutionary ideas of Mary Welch that science could and should be applied to
homemaking laid the foundation for home economics departments around the nation.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, courses in Domestic Economy specific to the
textiles and clothing discipline included plain sewing, dressmaking, drafting patterns, and
costume design. These courses involved making sample book of various stitches, plackets,
darning, lace, and embroidery. By 1916, courses in history of costume, handicraft, budget studies in clothing, planning the wardrobe, and designing garments were introduced.
The Department went through a number of name changes, the Domestic Art Department
in 1916-1917, the Household Art Department in 1919, and finally, the Textiles and Clothing
Department in 1924. An expanded offering of courses included clothing design, textiles, millinery, children’s clothing, and seminars and research in textiles and clothing. The objectives
of the Department became twofold; to prepare young women for the duties of the homemaker
and for the various occupations now open to scientifically trained women. Newfound occupations
for women that necessitated an education included designers, advertising, retail sales, and
education.
See: Ercel Sherman Eppright and Elizabeth Storm Ferguson, A Century of Home Economics at Iowa State University: A Proud Past, A Lively Present, a Future Promise. (Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press, 1971).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
