\u201cBodies of all shapes and sizes have always existed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s often fascinating how history is written. Perhaps it\u2019s not for nefarious reasons, but it can lead to misconceptions about the reality of the past. From history to art<\/a> to fashion<\/a>, we see through certain filters often applied without us knowing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fashion historian Dr. Serena Dyer<\/a> has become popular online for sharing what clothing trends looked like decade by decade through the centuries. In a recent clip posted to social media, she shares a video of a 19th century gown with a thirty-nine inch waist. She points out that despite often seeing much smaller garments from this time period, larger ones were actually quite as common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dyer explains why this phenomenon happens. \u201cThis Victorian gown has a thirty-nine inch waist,\u201d she begins. \u201cAnd in the 19th century, this was not uncommon. Survival bias means that garments with enough fabric to be remade were recycled or worn as fancy dress. But tiny garments that were too small to be re-worn were disproportionately preserved in our attics and museum collections.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n We zoom in on the exquisite brown silk garment. \u201cThis chocolate brown silk gown from 1864 in the collection of Bankfield Museum is a rare, glorious exception. Its large skirt, supported by a crinoline, and curvy bust supported the Victorian emphasis on proportion over tininess. So let\u2019s stop pretending that the eighteen-inch waist was the standard and start accepting that bodies of all shapes and sizes have always existed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The clip delighted some of the commenters. One Facebooker wrote, \u201cLove this!! I adore the dresses from the era and have always thought, thank goodness I did not live back then, those dresses would look awful on me. Now I see they are just as beautiful in normal sizes!!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the piece, \u201cUnderstanding Survival Bias in Vintage Plus-Size Clothing\u201d<\/a>, licensed aesthetician, makeup artist, massage therapist, and fashion expert who goes by Christine \u201cThe Glambassador,\u201d explains what survival bias is and gives an example, unrelated to fashion. \u201cSurvival bias occurs when we form conclusions based only on what has lasted over time while overlooking everything that didn\u2019t survive. A classic example of this comes from WWII, when statistician Abraham Wald<\/a> analyzed bullet holes on returning planes. The military initially thought they should reinforce the areas that had been hit, but Wald realized they were only looking at the planes that made it back\u2014meaning the planes that didn\u2019t return were likely hit in the areas without visible damage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She then reiterates what Dyer posted in her clip: \u201cHow does this relate to vintage plus-size fashion? The reality is that plus-size garments were often worn more frequently, handed down to younger family members, or altered over time, meaning they simply didn\u2019t survive as well as their smaller counterparts. Unlike smaller garments, which were often stored away and preserved, larger garments had a higher likelihood of being used until they were unwearable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nThirty-nine inch waist<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Survival bias<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1930s<\/h2>\n\n\n\n