Writing Sample: The Origins of the Trophy Wife (Politics of Fashion)

The Origins of The Trophy Wife

GOVT 241: Politics of Fashion

Theoretical Question: Throughout history, women seem to develop and express their self-identity through Veblen’s concept of adornment and Simmel’s concept of vicarious leisure by means of fashion. In combination, these processes can create the well-behaved and good-looking “trophy wife” who tends to domestic affairs and portrays the family’s wealth and/or status to the rest of society. Through the constant pressure of adornment, the “trophy wife” attaches her identity to her husband’s status and is forever searching for affirmation of her fashion taste, and in essence, herself. I wonder: do cultural and social norms change before fashion or are these norms changed by fashion? By examining theories of fashion and social norms, where and how did the image of woman as a “trophy wife” originate and is there a way to end its use?

Relying on a dialectical model, Georg Simmel in Fashion explains that dress operates simultaneously to affirm individuality even as it establishes group identities, and to women throughout history, fashion was one of their only modes of expressing a political voice whilst being a part of a more exclusive social group. In the past, women were called various names to reaffirm their “lesser than” place in society, and often women would resort to the accepted domestic title of being a “trophy wife” in their family. In Thorstein Veblen’s Conspicuous Consumption he expresses the role of women in society as displaying their spouse’s professional success through “vicarious leisure” of their husband’s earnings. Young women were taught that their purpose was to use her beauty as a political tool to secure a comfortable, luxurious lifestyle. Woman serves as an “ornament” to signify her family’s wealth and social status through material items such as expensive jewelry or name brand clothing while simultaneously appealing to the male gaze by adorning herself, according to Simmel. Women have an unstable social position on their own, thus they have to confirm their position by attracting men, specifically through dress. Veblen argues women’s fashion serves as a symbol of a husband’s status meanwhile Simone de Beauvoir believes women dress to “inspire jealousy from others”, aka other women. This raises the question: do women dress for other women or for men? I believe the latter is true. Through the constant pressure of adornment, the “trophy wife” attaches her identity to her husband’s status and is forever searching for affirmation of her fashion taste, and in essence, herself.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a trophy wife as “an attractive young woman who is married to an older successful man.”[1] The trophy wife is the safe role of portraying the wealth of one’s family through looks and fashion rather than being an outspoken feminist. To me, fashion can be defined as the clothing one uses to express themselves and their view of themself and/or their place in society, and in turn, tieing into societal gender roles or gender stereotypes through fashion trends. How did this term “trophy wife” originate and when did this image of a woman as a “trophy” to be won and shown off begin? Today, “trophy wife” is still viewed with the negative connotation of female inferiority rather than used as a symbol of reclaiming power.

As a “trophy wife”, women feel daily pressure to appeal to the male gaze which demonstrates how her identity is tied to her husband’s stature or position. In society, the vulnerable woman can satisfy and compliment her spouse through “vicariously consuming” material items that her husband provides by working: “It is by no means an uncommon spectacle to find a man applying himself to work with the utmost assiduity, in order that his wife may in due form render for him that degree of vicarious leisure which the common sense of the time demands.” [2] Veblen theorizes “the utility of consumption to be classed as derivative growth” meaning the more wealthy or higher in class one is, the more they must consume in goods, and in turn, the more the “trophy wife” wastes by buying useless goods to maintain their social image. Throughout history, the social norm for wives is to conspicuously waste time and substance whether through fashion, drink, home decor or other objects during the leisure time they are afforded by their working husbands. Wealthy families then fall into this habit of “conspicuous consumption” in which they compete for status through expensive and impractical clothing while constantly consuming more items for leisure such as vacationing, sailing, golfing, etc. These leisure activities then require specialized forms of dress that only the wealthiest families can “conspicuously consume” and remain up-to-date with. For example, name brands such as Jack Rogers and Lilly Pulitzer are associated with glitzy destination vacations while Sperry shoes are associated with sailing, whereas brands like Barbour are associated with boarding schools, New England fashion, and hunting. These “preppy” brands have become associated with high society in today’s age and allow the owner to convey an automatic sign of wealth to the observer. Fashion was never solely meant to be about self expression, but rather about claiming your spot in society through proving your knowledge on trends, norms, and exclusive leisure activities, which the “trophy wife” is expected to do on a daily basis. After all, “unproductive consumption of goods is honorable” and to women it is merely “incidental to [their] work” as a means to their continued labor as her husband’s “ornament.” [3] The woman is expected to look presentable at all times of day while simultaneously looking effortless, natural, and on-trend.

Georg Simmel’s Fashion discusses the power of adornment in fashion as a means of creating identity and allowing female expression at a time when the woman’s place was only classified as the home. His definition of “adornment” is the way in which “trophy wives” can utilize dress to put on a display for others when outside of the domestic environment. He explains that not only does it create a relationship between two people as one acknowledges the other’s fashion, but it also expands the ego and shapes how fashion can be used as a form of art to make others envious and/or please one’s social group. Two social tendencies are essential to fashion, he claims: “the need of union on the one hand and the need of isolation on the other.” [4] The balance of exclusiveness, as well as inclusiveness, is essential to the formation and maintenance of the “trophy wife” identity. This balance of individualism as well as group identity as a “trophy wife” relates to Simmel’s view of fashion as a “paradoxical collusion of [both] conformity and individualism [occurring] at many levels of society.” [5] In the novel The House of Mirth, Lily Bart is a character who is raised to use her beauty as a political strategy in order to secure her husband and ultimately become his “trophy wife” to gain acceptance into the high society. Although she has lost her family’s fortune, she still clings to the social groups of fellow “trophy wives” or to-be “trophy wives.” Lily’s whole life revolves around portraying this image and putting on an act in order to attract a wealthy suitor and live a comfortable lifestyle one day.[6] Lily is consumed by the thought of adornment and social exclusiveness that come along with an upper-class spouse and forgets the value of genuine relationships.

At the beginning of Simone de Beauvoir’s infamous The Second Sex feminist novel, she inserts a Poulain de la Barre quote about the power of the male gaze on women’s fashion: “Everything that has been written by men about women should be viewed with suspicion because they are both judge and party.”[7] The couple or family unit is classified as “a social person, defined by the family, class, milieu, and race to which it belongs, attached by ties of mechanical solidarity to groups socially similar to themselves”, and the wife, in particular, is the one who is “most likely to embody this most purely” in Beauvoir’s perspective.[8] The wife therefore doesn’t have an identity outside of the homemaker role or her husband. Her dress plays two key roles, first to show the woman's social standing (her social class or standard of living), but also it is her sole outlet of expression through uniform and attire or a way to “recreate her own self.” Little girls grow up playing games of dress-up with their friends and try to woo the others through inconvenient forms of dress like skirts or high heeled shoes, but nothing practical for potential future careers like sneakers or trousers. Simone de Beauvoir comments on how from a young age we have been raising our daughters to care about their dress and appearance as a means of proving their worth or social appeal to the world by “adorning herself” and becoming a jewel for man and herself, not by being human. Yet a woman has to find this balance between being too flashy or too dull because if she is too loud or too modest, it can be a social red flag. Through this constant adorning of herself, the housewife or “trophy wife” submits herself to constant dependence on her husband’s status and is always searching for affirmation of her beauty, taste, fashion, and her own identity.

In today’s world, the “trophy wife” can be seen adorning herself as the busy stay-at-home mom who lives in suburbia and consumes herself with the culture of expensive Soul Cycle classes and PTA meetings, bringing cookies to her children’s soccer games, and constantly carpooling. Similar to back then, a tendency still exists for stay-at-home moms to “one-up” each other in how busy and involved they are in their children’s life yet also maintaining a fit physique and managing to make time for book clubs, etc. Just as women in the past paraded their new outfits from place to place and “invited other women to see her reign over her ‘interior’”, suburban “trophy” moms and reality TV wives do the same today. “Trophy wives” are celebrated on reality television shows like The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills by filming wealthy wives gathering together and discussing materialism and useless gossip while practicing vicarious leisure. In addition, not just fashion but bodies themselves are signs of wealth and high social status nowadays. Workout classes have become more than sources of maintaining a fitness routine but rather a daily errand for stay-at-home “trophy wives” and have developed into a full-blown social experience for these women to gather together and look down upon other women who aren’t a part of this exclusive leisure group. Women are expected to “do it all” whether or not they are a stay-at-home mom or working mother.

Some may counter the argument of gender division and inequality demonstrated through adornment and vicarious leisure of the “trophy wife” by claiming that women aren’t as passive toward their fashion and gender roles. In fact, they actively claim “trophy wife” as a respectable title that makes them associated with an exclusive group of women. The previous claims have assumed that women can’t and don’t use fashion for their own agency and mobility, however, looking at the flip side, being a trophy wife can also create a form of agency. It can provide autonomy through a title other than just “his wife”, and being described as a trophy can give a woman a sense of influence in and outside of the home. Instead, the “trophy wife” can use their title and dress as a power for themselves to assert their position in society without their identity always being in accordance with their husband’s wealth or status in social settings.

A trophy is an award or honor given for some sort of victory from a battle, so is that all that women are classified as through history? A mere arm piece or prize to be won from a more successful man? Simmel’s concept of adornment and Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption have both helped explain this view of a woman’s beauty as a prize to be won. In Simmel’s “Fashion,” he believes dress equalizes women and men because it creates group identity. After analysis of different theorists, I believe fashion creates greater divisions due to the expected norms and trends differentiated by gender. Fashion is associated with one’s perceived gender, class, and role in society rather than being simply a piece of cloth or art form. Fashion is, to me, what Simmel expresses as “the dividing line between the past and the future, and consequently conveys a stronger feeling of the present.” We cannot have fashion without culture or history, just as we can’t have history and culture without fashion: the two go hand and hand and work at the same time. Without political rights, fashion used to be the only form of expression for women, and this is how the “trophy wife” came to be and still exists today.

Works Cited

Purdy, Daniel L. The Rise of Fashion: A Reader. Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota

Press, 2004.

Wharton, Edith, and Jennifer Egan. The House of Mirth. New York: Scribner, 2020.

“Trophy Wife.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Accessed February 25, 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trophy wife.

Simone De Beauvoir, The Second Sex (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2012).