Hoop Petticoat Analysis

In the Eighteenth Century, the women fashion could be summarized in two words: stays and hoop-petticoats. Since the first element happened to be largely accepted in the British society despite its lack of comfort, one might conclude that the same thing applied to the second one. In other words, despite being two disagreeable items, the stays and the hoop-petticoats were praised in the Eighteen Century. However, the later gradually turned out to be a source of loathing. Indeed, in the beginning of the century, the size of the hoop remained sensible but as the years passed; its width widened so much that the outlet of the woman appeared to be ridiculously out of shape and raised much mockery from the men ─before to finally become a target of satirical essays. Nevertheless, the

Futhermore, the following statement by A. W. Esq highlights this idea of a bulkly items. In other words, A. W. Esq suggests that the hoop-petticoat is not only is a nuisance for the women themselves but the society in general. However, the term “publick” implies that the women belonged to the society at the times. Yet, women were rather excluded to the society in the Eighteenth Century Britain.

Indeed, the British society was split in two sections: the public sphere and the private sphere. The public sphere concerned men. Since they were expected to incarnate the figure of the bread-winner within a family, men oughted to work and thus, be outside of the house most of the time. This led them to have a consequent social life. On the other side, women belonged to the private sphere. This position meant that they were not predicted to have social life outside of their house. Being a woman outside of the house was considered as inappropriate. Namely, the life of a woman was mainly reduced to the family she raised and took care of through her