Talk:Bloomers

Fashion High‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No Vandalism please

That is all. (Psychro 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

De-stubbed

This article appears to be of an appropriate length for the subject matter under discussion. It is also appropriately categorized and wikified.

By nature, stubbing and tagging articles devalues them, giving them an aura of unreliability and making them seem less credible. As part of my personal campaign to free up articles that have been stubbed and tagged without cause, this article has been disenstubbified.

If any editor disagrees, and would rather re-stub it than improve it by adding actual content, please discuss here. The Editrix 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese bloomers in pop-culture

Does this article really need that section? Even if it does, is the example cited really the most important, and shouldn't it cite more context? Shinobu 15:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it ain't necessary then I'll get rid of it.Sofar 2 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese pronounciation

Most Japanese people call bloomer as buruma. And some people use the word burumā deliberately because they hate sexual image of it. Most don't understand what is burūmā but something like [VROOOM] (Japanese sound burūmu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.211.131.65 (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petti Pants

Perhaps a subsection on Petti Pants would be a good idea? --Sailor Titan (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese bloomers

The part about Japanese bloomers shouldn't really be under the Undergarments heading since burumā are not actually underpants, even if they resemble them somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.71.242 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomers (clothing) → Bloomers
Bloomers → Bloomers (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by importance and longerm significance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support kind of shocking that it wasn't already primary. Colin M (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support by long-term significance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The mention of bringing back corsets under "Women's rights"

I have a question about it. It says "After three years, however, fearing that the new dress was drawing attention away from the suffragist cause, many of these women returned to corsets" but I wasn't aware they gave up corsets in the first place. Are there sources to that they ever gave them up or was this put in because of the myth of corsets being uncomfortable and restrictive? And why were the corsets mentioned before the long skirts, when the entire article is about the replacement of skirts with bloomers and mentioning the skirts would follow the already established focus of the article? Felicity The Bean (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Women's rights subsection is part of the Bloomers#Fashion bloomers (skirted) section. Corsets are mentioned at the beginning of the section, which mentions that bloomers become popular as a reaction against fashion which was perceived as restricting movement.

I've found and added this source which clarifies this a bit. The "freedom dress" did not include corsets:

Today the term bloomer is usually applied to baggy, bifurcated undergarments. But the original bloomer costume was a two-piece ensemble resembling the shalwar kameez of Central and South Asia. ... Though this “masquerade frippery” was a dangerous harbinger of “female radicalisms,” in Punch’s words, the magazine acknowledged that it had some merits: Namely, it freed women from disfiguring corsets and crinolines. But while health concerns were a socially acceptable reason for reforming fashion, for many, political ideology was not.[1]

Per the article and cited sources, they gave up corsets for the bloomer-based 'freedom dresses' but this trend did not persist. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/ pettipants?

Thoughts on merging this page with pettipants? This page focuses mostly on the historical usage of the term "bloomers," but modern-day usage usually refers to something closer to what's described in the article for pettipants. remainsuncertain (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]