|
|||||||
| Accommodations |
 |
 |
| Friday, 28 May 2010 08:43 | |||
 Originally, uniforms were meant to be worn by a single class of people: Healthy, youthful-to-middle-aged men. They were homogenous, built pretty much the same, and lived about 46 years. 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; an employee wore a different outfit than the boss. 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 and task. 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, 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 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 a 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 point to bigger bodies. The first step was oversize for men. The 2xl, and gradual increase to 5xl, 6xl, 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, tall and short, fat and thin, and unisex if possible. Some uniform companies 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; new corporations have sprung up to fill the gaps where others fall short. When one contemplates all that the history of uniforms tells us, how we as a species and societies are evolving, it's amazing! The paradox is that the more we realize how different we are, the more accommodations we make to remain the same.
|
|
|
| Uniform eCommerce Expert |
|
| Uniform Style Watch |
|
 |
Anthony's Scrubs |
 |
Working Force Outfitters |
 |
On Trend Uniforms |
 |
Lonestar Uniforms |
The UNIVATOR Awards recognize innovation within the uniform industry and serve as a reminder that, even in times of economic upheaval, companies both large and small can still improve.
This current round acknowledges eight winners – some household names and some newcomers – who bucked tradition and q...
Read more...
