Depending on the service
required, a uniform was designed for a particular duty and rank. A sailor wore a different outfit than an infantry
man; a seaman wore a different outfit than the captain. Basically however, things were pretty much
the same. The old joke is that uniforms used
to be made in two sizes: Too big and too small.
There were stock sizes, little custom tailoring or adjustability, and no
stretch fabrics as everything was made from natural fibers, and standard
designs.
The word uniform meant
"one shape," as it does today.
Uniform apparel was about identity of task and duty. It also served as a protection. Nothing more.
It was not a fashion statement; nor was it meant for comfort. It was utilitarian, and it was worn with
great pride. It was one of the aspects
of the profession that a man valued most--the apparel that went with the job.
It didn't matter whether a
uniform was meant for land or sea, town or country. Many of the uniforms were made by kinfolk,
the local seamstresses, tailors, undertakers, or the leather tanner. For the military, there were groups of people
who labored for this purpose.
It wasn't until later that
women had uniforms, and they were different.
First of all, women were built differently; also, they did different things. Usually classified as domestics, working
women generally wore uniforms to indicate a kitchen, hospital, restaurant, or chores
done in the inside of a home.
Because women didn't go off
to war, didn't march in parades or drive plows on a regular basis, their
uniforms were primarily self-made to suit their individual needs; either that,
or there would be a local seamstress that would fashion an upstairs maid's
outfit, or cook's apron.
The twentieth century brought
more and more women into the forefront. Accommodations
and compromises had to be made. Wars, transportation
and communication brought countries, societies, cultures and classes, closer
and closer together. Uniforms
changed.
Yesterday's cook's aprons are
today's unisex chefs' coats. They even
come in pink, with button-reversal for girls.
What a woman wore to serve is no longer the dress with an apron and
little cap, but a golf shirt and slacks.
Today, those who work inside the home are in T-shirts or cobbler aprons;
the black dress with lace collar and cuffs is no more.
The biggest change is that
women work right beside the men--in the military, in agriculture, within
industry, in hospitality, or corporate.
You name it, and women are there.
They are estheticians, welders, and everything in between. Not infrequently, they are pregnant and that
necessitates maternity uniforms.
Women require similar designs, fabrics,
attractiveness, and the same protection as men.
How much femininity is added and how much remains masculine. How close do women's price points compare with
men's? If men's industrial pants sell five or six times more pairs
than women's, does the price point remain the same for the lower volume of women's
pants? Does it go up? They are not any more difficult to make, but
what about cost, per size and per pattern?
Is this discrimination even if styles for them sell one-fifth the
quantity?
If it weren't enough to have
women outfitted, the next accommodation was the larger and taller sizes. Better nutrition, a more affluent economy,
improved technology, all seem pointed to bigger bodies. The first step was oversize for men--fuller
sizes. The 2x, and gradual increase to 5
or 6x, and more... When it became clear
that men grew up as well as out, long body garments and arm lengths evolved:
Plus two inches, plus four inches plus six inches... No more high-water- pants, or skimpy
sleeves. Just big and tall.
Women? There are women's plus sizes, and of course petites on the other
end of the spectrum. Societies all over
the world have become so diverse, that every uniform has to be made for him and
her, for tall and short, for fat and thin, and unisex if possible.
Some uniform manufacturers choose
to add multiple stylings and sizes in order to accommodate this huge variety of
demographic diversification. Some have
slashed their lines tremendously, salvaging only their most popular colors and
best-selling styles. Then, they offer
multiple choices but within fewer items, overall. Some have decided not to buy into
diversification and just continue doing what they do best with the size
patterns they have, in styles that work.
Catalogues have become thinner as
manufacturers draw their lines in the sand, defining what their specialties are;
others have sprung up to fill the gaps where some fall short. When one contemplates all that the history of
uniforms tells us, how we as a species are evolving, it's amazing! The paradox is that the more we realize how
different we are, the more accommodations we make remain the same.
