Comfortable whenever we want

The lifestyle of American women, and women in general has continued to evolve. In the past, women's activities were very restricted. Laws denied women the right to vote, work, and receive an education. Independent women could not receive credit cards until about 1973. Women were restricted by society and sometimes by each other. \nFashion also restricted women's physical activities, making it hard for them to function outside traditional feminine roles. \nI remember the first time I fell in a pair of three-inch boots. I was trying to run to the train so I would arrive to class on time. I got on and the train jolted as it was about to leave and I fell face-first onto the floor. It was funny for observers, and even I laughed when I saw it happen to other girls. The incident was very common. Every day a girl from my school would fall because of fashionable clothes that didn't function with the lifestyle of a busy college student. \nWe would laugh it off and say, "Small price to pay for looking good." We were fashion students and the expectations of dress were high. People knew us at first glance; we were the girls running and stumbling our way to the train in the most fashionable clothes. We were fully equipped with a full book bag and a purse. We had on full makeup, and we got up at 5 a.m. to primp ourselves only to fall face forward on the train. \nThe daily pressure to look good taught us a great deal about social expectations, and our own limitations as people trying to live in a fast-paced society. Through these hard falls, many of us learned most clothing isn't made for active women. Thorstein Veblen sums it up in his book Theory of The Leisure Class. \n"Elegant dress serves its purpose of elegance not only in that it is expensive, but also because it is the insignia of leisure," Veblen writes. \nContrary to popular belief, the origin of clothing was for adornment. People wanted to look good, even when they were wearing leaves. Clothing was another form of art. Functioning in it wasn't a top priority. Women of higher status wore clothes as a symbol of their wealth. If you wore elegant clothing, it meant leisure was your main activity and your husband was wealthy enough to support this lifestyle. Women were trophies, and dressing them up in the latest fashions was a subtle way for a man to brag about his status. \nNineteenth-century architects had to widen doorways because huge dresses prevented women from walking through the smaller thresholds. The corset didn't allow for much activity either, except catching your breath every four steps. \nThe hobble skirt of the 1910s made it nearly impossible to move around. Short skirts and hot pants of today also restrict the way women move. Veblen also wrote that fashion has served two purposes for women: to show exemption from labor and as a device to keep us frail and unfit for labor i.e. the corset and high heels. \nThe high heel and the corset make manual and necessary work extremely difficult.\n"The corset is, in economic theory, substantially a mutilation undergone for the purpose of lowering the subject's vitality and rendering her permanently and obviously unfit for work," Veblen wrote in Theory of The Leisure Class.\nNow that women have the freedom of making their own money and receiving educations they can dress for themselves. \nLooking around campus, you notice women wearing velour suits, yoga pants, and sneakers. Womens' motivation to pursue their dreams has inspired a more relaxed form of dress. Women don't have to hobble up and down stairs anymore. Designers have seen a change in society and have risen to the occasion, and we should also thank employers for casual Fridays.Yesterday, I was talking to a guy on the bus about why he wears Converse and I wear Puma, and how I can't wait to get a pair of shell-toe Adidas once I earn my stripes. \nTimes are changing. I will never dress up everyday. I thank modern society I don't have to. The modern woman's lifestyle makes it nearly impossible to live up to standards set more than 100 years ago.\nAmy Spindler, former fashion editor of The New York Times, observes the conflict between traditional standards and the modern woman. \n"Women's engrossment in appearance, along with attending to men and children, could easily distract them from pursuing a full time career," Spindler writes.\nWe should embrace our freedom and be fashionable, but comfortable whenever we want.