1960's and risqué clothes?

[Qonundrum]

I agree with a lot of this and frankly I keep trying to distance myself from the miniskirts question. The standard narrative is that they became a key symbol of empowerment and I have no problem with that being in many ways true where they were a statement of choice and not an imposition.

What, however, is more of a concern is the revisionism that TOS was intended as a driving force for that movement in society as a whole rather than a commercial product capitalising on it. Theiss's outfits for the "babe of the week" were about anything but empowerment, they were about creating something that would keep men watching and it was by all accounts frequently the case that Roddenberry's attitudes were pretty regressive even when you take the period into account, he saw the women he cast as being first and foremost flesh he put on display in order to get rich.

That's a long way from the legacy many of us would like to ascribe to a beloved TV show.

100% agreed. Gene was less than perfect and sometimes I wonder if he was stuck in the middle between the suits and selling real ideas, or if he was just doing anything to rake in the rubes. The truth might be in the middle. But even in a cartoon show, Lisa SImpson mentioned the myth of Jebediah Springfield had a part to play along with the underlying reality. Could the same be true to varying extents for the likes of Roddenberry and other entertainers of the day? What impetus starts positive change? Even if there's an irony involved?

And I would wager that the "babe of the week" was to appeal to a certain broad demographic in an attempt to bolster ratings, since sci-fi wasn't popular back then. Now that I'm thinking about it, it might have been part of their definition of "adult sci-fi" as well and I hadn't even thought of it that way. Lost in Space was kid material and Trek dealt with mature themes but the "exploit the women to attract casual/general audiences" never occurred to me. It's still exploitative, and yet there are people who defend - at least the miniskirts, but that's definitely not the same league as "babe of the week". I have to concede that. It's not unlike showing pictures of people doing certain things with the most contentious camera angles and zoom-ins while saying "NC17 shows are wrong, let me show you one to demonstrate why". Will people look for a message or just enjoy the show? Like that song about the walrus, the show's makers could be trolling their audience as well. Was Gene was doing that?

Roddenberry could definitely have been regressive and even admitted in the 70s he liked using people as sex objects and alluding men be that way too ("Inside Star Trek", 1976) --

Spoiler: Youtube video reference, meant to be just the URL but it won't let me change it

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

-- and in the 80s he hadn't changed his mind at all since TNG's intention was to have Troi having cliched anatomy choices that DC Fontana managed to get Gene to NOT use, of which something similar was in Star Trek V (which he called "apocryphal" but not necessarily for THAT reason)... unfortunately episodes like "Justice" only showed Gene's idealism gone amok. And TV censors, aside from "sex always sells" (except for when it doesn't), still had a thing against male parts and all that. Heck, even Burt Ward had to have his parts tucked under and drugged... yet the same censors didn't care about how tight those sweatpants were in Trek. So it's still not all on him. "Those were the days" really were complex in their alleged simplicity. But should everybody be exploitable or nobody? Or everyone depending on context/reason/law/regulation? Entertainment is its own bubble, not always interacting with real life mores, much less being copacetic with them. We show heroes on TV trespassing and breaking in and stealing stuff, exploiting royally the owner of the stuff - that's not right to do in real life. The number of permutations not addressed here is technically considerable.

 

[Nakita Akita]

I just looked at a family portrait from 1970. We are all wearing our Sunday church clothes; My dad and I in a suit and tie. My three sisters are ALL wearing miniskirts. Trust me, my dad did not dress them...

Society and societal pressure dressed them.
If it was purely choice, it's likely your sisters and millions of other women and girls would have chosen to wear pants or longer skirts.
It's like ice cream from the ice cream shoppe. Does everyone always order strawberry? They don't, because there is actual choice and you are not treated differently because you order vanilla or chocolate.
Do you sisters still wear miniskirts?

 

[Falconer]

Help me out here, are you seriously implying because we saw Kirk with his shirt torn that there was no problem with Roddenberry's behaviour?

No? The thread was not about Roddenberry at the time that I posted this. We were talking about futuristic workout clothes.

 

[Maurice]

Heck, even Burt Ward had to have his parts tucked under and drugged...

Methinks Burt is just a braggart.

 

[Mudd]

Society and societal pressure dressed them.
If it was purely choice, it's likely your sisters and millions of other women and girls would have chosen to wear pants or longer skirts.

You have no way of knowing; believing this simply suits your prejudged opinion.

 

[jaime]

100% agreed. Gene was less than perfect and sometimes I wonder if he was stuck in the middle between the suits and selling real ideas, or if he was just doing anything to rake in the rubes. The truth might be in the middle. But even in a cartoon show, Lisa SImpson mentioned the myth of Jebediah Springfield had a part to play along with the underlying reality. Could the same be true to varying extents for the likes of Roddenberry and other entertainers of the day? What impetus starts positive change? Even if there's an irony involved?

And I would wager that the "babe of the week" was to appeal to a certain broad demographic in an attempt to bolster ratings, since sci-fi wasn't popular back then. Now that I'm thinking about it, it might have been part of their definition of "adult sci-fi" as well and I hadn't even thought of it that way. Lost in Space was kid material and Trek dealt with mature themes but the "exploit the women to attract casual/general audiences" never occurred to me. It's still exploitative, and yet there are people who defend - at least the miniskirts, but that's definitely not the same league as "babe of the week". I have to concede that. It's not unlike showing pictures of people doing certain things with the most contentious camera angles and zoom-ins while saying "NC17 shows are wrong, let me show you one to demonstrate why". Will people look for a message or just enjoy the show? Like that song about the walrus, the show's makers could be trolling their audience as well. Was Gene was doing that?

Roddenberry could definitely have been regressive and even admitted in the 70s he liked using people as sex objects and alluding men be that way too ("Inside Star Trek", 1976) --

Spoiler: Youtube video reference, meant to be just the URL but it won't let me change it

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

-- and in the 80s he hadn't changed his mind at all since TNG's intention was to have Troi having cliched anatomy choices that DC Fontana managed to get Gene to NOT use, of which something similar was in Star Trek V (which he called "apocryphal" but not necessarily for THAT reason)... unfortunately episodes like "Justice" only showed Gene's idealism gone amok. And TV censors, aside from "sex always sells" (except for when it doesn't), still had a thing against male parts and all that. Heck, even Burt Ward had to have his parts tucked under and drugged... yet the same censors didn't care about how tight those sweatpants were in Trek. So it's still not all on him. "Those were the days" really were complex in their alleged simplicity. But should everybody be exploitable or nobody? Or everyone depending on context/reason/law/regulation? Entertainment is its own bubble, not always interacting with real life mores, much less being copacetic with them. We show heroes on TV trespassing and breaking in and stealing stuff, exploiting royally the owner of the stuff - that's not right to do in real life. The number of permutations not addressed here is technically considerable.

I agree with everything you say apart from the idea that multiple breasts on SF characters were cliche.
I can count all the ones I have seen on one set of breasts.

 

[Nakita Akita]

You have no way of knowing; believing this simply suits your prejudged opinion.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
Does freedom of choice seem to you to mean that say 80percent or more of the specified group would all choose the same thing? That would be unprecedented given the plethora of clothing choices available.

 

[Poltargyst]

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
Does freedom of choice seem to you to mean that say 80percent or more of the specified group would all choose the same thing? That would be unprecedented given the plethora of clothing choices available.

But surely in the 60's and 70's in the heyday of the miniskirt, it was still acceptable for a woman to wear a long dress. So if a woman chose to wear a miniskirt then, she was still making the choice for herself. She didn't have to wear the miniskirt, there were other acceptable options. Society made the miniskirt an acceptable option, it didn't force anyone to actually wear one. Isn't it possible some women just liked wearing miniskirts?

 

[Nakita Akita]

But surely in the 60's and 70's in the heyday of the miniskirt, it was still acceptable for a woman to wear a long dress. So if a woman chose to wear a miniskirt then, she was still making the choice for herself. She didn't have to wear the miniskirt, there were other acceptable options. Society made the miniskirt an acceptable option, it didn't force anyone to actually wear one. Isn't it possible some women just liked wearing miniskirts?

----
Henoch said: ↑
I just looked at a family portrait from 1970. We are all wearing our Sunday church clothes; My dad and I in a suit and tie. My three sisters are ALL wearing miniskirts. Trust me, my dad did not dress them...


This is the post I was responding to originally.
I don't have any sisters but I do have a lot of cousins, and I just have to imagine that out of some of them, f the two sisters were following societal 'norms' the other would be contrary, if for no other reason than to just be contrary.
I find it difficult to belive that every woman that wore a miniskirt wanted to do so.
I'm sure many hated them.
I'm personall glad that I missed that generation. I know I would not have felt comfortable in a miniskirt.

And this is what I wrote, which was edited
----Society and societal pressure dressed them.
If it was purely choice, it's likely your sisters and millions of other women and girls would have chosen to wear pants or longer skirts.
It's like ice cream from the ice cream shoppe. Does everyone always order strawberry? They don't, because there is actual choice and you are not treated differently because you order vanilla or chocolate.
Do you sisters still wear miniskirts?-------

 

[FormerLurker]

Methinks Burt is just a braggart.

By all accounts, Burt Ward is better endowed than John Holmes. They finally decided to disguise his unit, not with a cup, but with a plate.

 

[Maurice]

By all accounts, Burt Ward is better endowed than John Holmes. They finally decided to disguise his unit, not with a cup, but with a plate.

Whose accounts? Name names.

 

[Nakita Akita]

By all accounts, Burt Ward is better endowed than John Holmes. They finally decided to disguise his unit, not with a cup, but with a plate.

Did he wear a miniskirt?
That's the real question.

 

[FormerLurker]

Whose accounts? Name names.

Joel Eisner. Author of "The Official Batman Batbook". The costume designer for the Batman TV series, Pat Barto. That's all you need, but there are others.

 

[Maurice]

Joel Eisner. Author of "The Official Batman Batbook". The costume designer for the Batman TV series, Pat Barto. That's all you need, but there are others.

Thanks. I don’t consider the former a valid source if he’s just relating what he’s been told but the latter is believable given he’d have to have had to work closely with Burt.

 

[cooleddie74]

By all accounts, Burt Ward is better endowed than John Holmes. They finally decided to disguise his unit, not with a cup, but with a plate.

[*Victor Buono facial grimace and heebie-jeebies shiver*]

 

[Therin of Andor]

unfortunately episodes like "Justice" only showed Gene's idealism gone amok.

His own son, Rod, played one of the near-naked alien extras.

Perhaps it was Nichelle and Grace that in fact did instigate the mini-skirts, maybe not dreaming that they'd be that mini-mini.

Grace most definitely co-created her outfit, referencing Mary Quant, Jean Shrimpton and Twiggy. Nichelle insisted on a uniform skirt for her scenes in ST III.

 

[T'Bonz]

You have no way of knowing; believing this simply suits your prejudged opinion.

Nope.

The other quote with which I agree:

Society and societal pressure dressed them.
If it was purely choice, it's likely your sisters and millions of other women and girls would have chosen to wear pants or longer skirts.

Damn straight.

I would have chosen a longer hemline. Not a granny one, but one that didn't mean always having to be wary of my movements lest I expose my underwear. I'm no prude - I always went for as low cleavage as I could get away with as young, but I didn't like flashing the undies.

And as a child, in the winter, I'd have worn pants to school, *not* dresses. Walking to school in the middle of winter in a short dress was brutal. You froze your heinie off.

We were not allowd to wear slacks to school when I was young. Not until I hit middle school. Not in Pennsylvania and not in California. It could be neg twenty out and you could wear slacks TO school, but you had to change out in the cloakroom or the girls restroom and put on a dress or skirt.

All the stores sold in the kids/young person sections were minis. There was no choice other than that. As a female in the 1960s and the 1970s, you wore a skirt or a dress to school or work and fashion made it damned near impossible to wear anything but a mini from about 1965 to around 1972. That is how it was.

Sometimes your family had it own rules. During 8th grade, we were finally allowed slacks or jeans. My dad though said I could only wear them twice a week. I figured out a way to get an extra day, but some in stricter families had it worse.

So I agree with the quote. I'd have dumped dresses somewhere in elementary school. I'd have dumped pantyhose even sooner. How I envy the ladies of today who aren't stuck with them.

Things are better today than in the 1960s, 1970s or even the 1990s when I was working. Thank God for that. It's OK to look sexy if you want to. It's not OK if you're forced to do so or if that is all that's offered to you.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Whenever a fashion innovation expands freedom of choice, I deem it good. Whenever a fashion innovation restricts freedom of choice, I deem it bad.

 

[Warped9]

Fascinating discussion, here. And so well covered I couldn’t possibly add anything.

As a young male I didn’t have any issue with the TOS skirt uniforms, but as I aged I quickly saw they didn’t make much sense even as an expression of feminine empowerment, and certainly not in a quasi military organization with potential for hazardous duty. And not in terms of decorum either given all the different races and mindsets Starfleet is supposed to represent.

I agree with the idea posted upthread that the skirts should have been somewhat longer akin to that worn by Areel Shaw, and that it be alternative wear for shipboard and starbase duty. Landing party duty would have mandated trousers for practicality and safety, along with field jackets realistically. Of course, in the real world that would have meant increased expense in terms of costuming.

Part of the problem (I see) with the early pilot uniforms is that the uniforms look just okay, but not that great likely due to the materiel used. The pilot uniforms look rather shapeless. The colours were also a bit too muted (for my taste anyway). And, honestly, the female tunics looked really odd with the extra fabric around the collar. Sadly the brief look we get at a series era female tunic and trousers uniform looks weirder with the open neck (like the TOS skirt uniform) and too short tunic.

It’s a pity Theiss didn’t come up with a series era female uniform with a better collar more consistent with the male tunic. I will say that although I don’t care for the execution of the uniforms in JJtrek and DSC the female versions of the uniforms work better overall than the original TOS versions.

 

[Spot261]

No? The thread was not about Roddenberry at the time that I posted this. We were talking about futuristic workout clothes.

Not to sound patronising but no it wasn't. The thread as posted by @Nakita Akita was about the impact of wardrobe choices on the show's performance and how the social pressures of the time impinged on that.

There have been examples of many types of clothes brought up but it has always been in the context of the show, who was making the decisions and what impact those decisions may have had.

Nakita please correct me if I'm wrong?