Today’s Paper

1970s, 1980s, alice pollock, Inspirational Images, interior design, interiors, Over 21, post modernism, roger stowell
She wears: Vivien Knowland’s paper ‘coolie’ hat, a fan necklace to make as well, and a stripey strapless knitted top by Alice Pollock and Catherine Blair, £20 at 16 Russell Street, London WC2. Paper fan, comes with wooden stand, £5.94 from Ehrman, 123 Fulham Road, London SW3.

Light, bright, plain or pleated, it’s the new way to put colour back into your home and fun into furnishing.

Photographed by Roger Stowell.

Scanned from Over 21 Magazine, April 1979.

Out of this World

1970s, Hair and make-up, Honey Magazine, Make-up, mary quant, roger stowell

OUT OF THIS WORLD. Mary Quant put her soft pinks and blues together as they’ve never been seen before and created this brand-new Face in the Clouds look. She then offered this paintbox exclusively to Honey. In it is everything you need to get the look. If you went out and bought each individual item separately, you’d get a bit more make-up, but it would cost you over £4. Our paintbox is yours for only £1.70. So write off for it now. Once it’s yours you can do what you like. We tell you above how to get the look Maria has in the picture and, if you feel daring, colour the blue right over the bridge of your nose. Or juggle around with the colours as much as you like for a totally different effect—blue out your eyebrows and put lots of pink round your eye. Or just wear each colour separately. They’re beautifully angelic colours that reflect the summer sky. You can wear them anytime—sunrise to sunset. With this look, it’s back to the deliciously dreamy, hazy days of time past when colours were vivid, days were long and nights were romantic. Don’t miss out or you’ll regret it. You’ll never see this paintbox at this price again.

Photographed by Roger Stowell.

Scanned from Honey, May 1971.

Do or Dye

1970s, bus stop, Fifth Avenue, Herbert Johnson, Honey Magazine, Inspirational Images, kensington market, lee bender, Nike Williams, roger stowell, Sacha, Second Skin, Syndica, Vintage Editorials

Originality being one of the spices of life, isn’t it about time you did a bit of gentle artwork on some of your plainer clothes? We appliquéd satin designs on unadorned cotton T-shirts, but if you haven’t the patience to appliqué clouds with silver linings, how about tie dye instead?

Hoping this gives some inspiration to keep yourself occupied and looking groovy over the next weeks and months of isolation! In all seriousness, I hope all my dear readers are safe and well. Since my Vintage business is on ice for a little while, I have brought magazines home to scan and hope to keep you entertained and offer some escapism (plus there are years of archives to get through!). There will probably be extra stuff over on my Instagram as well so do go and follow me there.

(Instructions on how to copy these designs are at the bottom of the post.)

Set and designs by Nike Williams.

Photographs by Roger Stowell.

Drawings by H. Abbo.

Scanned from Honey, August 1970.

Rising sunset appliquéd onto a plain white jersey vest by Syndica. Shiny satin trousers by Second Skin. Red wet-look boots by Sacha.
Riot of hearts appliquéd on to a long plain black vest dress, Syndica. Beaded leather thonged armband from Bus Stop
White cotton jersey long vest dress by Syndica, tie-dyed yellow with large white circles. Patchwork belt by Fifth Avenue. Beaded thonged rope by Bus Stop. Silk scarf from Kensington Market.
Satin appliquéd steamboat on a plain scarlet cotton jersey tunic, Syndica. Patchwork leather belt from Fifth Avenue. Canvas sunhat by Herbert Johnson. Satin trousers by Second Skin.
Pink cotton jersey tunic, Syndica, tie-dyed plum with a pink border print. Stretchy webbing belt from Fenwicks. Green perspex sunshade from Lillywhites.
Pink button-up vest, Chester Martin, tie-dyed red with pink leaf pattern. Red cotton scarf from Littlewoods. White plastic sunshade from Lillywhites.

Where It’s At

1970s, anji, autumn, Bermona, biba, Browns, Etam, harold ingram, hats, Honey Magazine, Hope and Eleanor, Inspirational Images, John Craig, kadix, Make-up, mr freedom, ravel, roger stowell, Russell & Bromley, Saxone, shoes, stirling cooper, Sujon, Tommy Roberts, Vintage Editorials, Wild Mustang Co.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 h

Plum spotted baker boy hat by Mr Freedom.

Looks: Eyes, hair, lips, the way they are now.

Clothes: Pink and purple and plum – the length is midi of course

Props: The right accessories make the look come right

Mood: How to wear your feelings on your face

Basically, this editorial is everything I wish for from my autumn wardrobe, colours and textures and shapes, complete with a mouthful of chocolate…

Photographed by Roger Stowell.

Scanned by Miss Peelpants from Honey, October 1970.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 j

Choker from Browns.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 f

Left: Lavender shirt with matching midi skirt by Sujon. Canvas boots by Biba. Centre: Parma violet dress by Stirling Cooper. Leather butterfly choker from Browns. Shoes by Saxone. Right: Rose and lilac sweater by Harold Ingram. Jersey midi skirt by Etam. Crochet cloche by Browns. Shoes by Saxone.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 g

1. Crochet flower cloche by Browns. 2. Plum leather satchel by Wild Mustang. Brooches from Mr Freedom. 3. Conker brown bag by Fenwicks. Leather belt by Wild Mustang. 4. Purple suede shoes by Ravel. 5. Belts from Browns, Wild Mustang and Adrien Mann. 6. Maroon suede boots by Russell and Bromley.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 a

Crushed velvet cloche by Bermona

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 b

Cloche and dress by Anji. Badge by Mr Freedom.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 c

Floor sweeping crepe dress by Kadix. Choker from Hope and Eleanor.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 d

Sweater by John Craig.

Where it's at - Roger Stowell - Honey Oct 70 e

Peasant shirt and midi skirt by Sujon.

Batik with Flair

1970s, Adrian Mann, Anne Tyrrell, flair magazine, Inspirational Images, roger stowell

Flair Jan 71 - Roger Stowell

Cotton dress in a brown, gold and maroon Batik print with patchwork-look wrapover skit by Anne Tyrrell at John Marks. Bangles and beads by Adrien Mann.

Photographed by Roger Stowell.

Scanned by Miss Peelpants from Flair Magazine, January 1971.

Inspirational Editorials: Knockout Knits

1960s, Adrian Mann, alice pollock, biba, Bobby Cousins, british boutique movement, charlotte martin, Clarks, clobber, eric clapton, george harrison, Inspirational Images, Ivor Wahl, Jimmy Page, just looking, McCaul, petticoat magazine, quorum, ravel, Richard Shops, roger stowell, Rosalind Yehuda, Russell & Bromley, Sharcleod, Vanessa Frye, Vintage Editorials, way in
Knockout Knits Roger Stowell Petticoat March 29th 1969 Sweater and skirt by McCaul from Way In, SW1  Ribbed sweater and skirt by Bobby Cousins
Sweater and skirt by McCaul from Way In, SW1. Ribbed sweater with matching skirt by Bobby Cousins.

Featuring iconic model Charlotte Martin (who had romances with Eric Clapton, George Harrison and Jimmy Page). and some of the sweetest knits I’ve ever seen.

Photographed by Roger Stowell.

Scanned by Miss Peelpants from Petticoat, March 29th 1969

Blue-green knobbly suit by Clobber from Girl. Beige sling back shoes by John Smith. Dusty pink knitted dress with patterned from by Rosalind Yehuda from Vanessa Frye.
Blue-green knobbly suit by Clobber from Girl. Beige sling back shoes by John Smith. Dusty pink knitted dress with patterned from by Rosalind Yehuda from Vanessa Frye.
Knockout Knits Roger Stowell Petticoat March 29th 1969 Angora dress from Mary Farrin Boutique 67 South Molton Street Shoes from Russell and Bromley Two tone angora dress by Jandy Lesser Sandals Ravel
Angora dress from Mary Farrin Boutique, 67 South Molton Street. The 69 shoe from Russell and Bromley. Knee socks by Pex. Two-tone angora dress by Jandy Lesser. Sandals by Ravel.
Knockout Knits Roger Stowell Petticoat March 29th 1969 Cardigan by Things at Morley Skirt with matching waistcoat by John Craig
Cardigan by “Things” at Morley. Skirt from Richards Shops. Ravel sandals. Gored skirt with matching waistcoat by John Craig. Cream shirt from Ivor Wahl. Clarks shoes.
Both dresses by Clobber at Just Looking. Bracelet by Adrien Mann.
Both dresses by Clobber at Just Looking. Bracelet by Adrien Mann.
Apple green knitted waistcoat by Sharcleod, from Girl, Kings Road. Cream shirt and skirt by Ivor Wahl.
Apple green knitted waistcoat by Sharcleod, from Girl, Kings Road. Cream shirt and skirt by Ivor Wahl.
Cardigan with belt by Biba. Check wool skirt from Richard Shops.
Cardigan with belt by Biba. Check wool skirt from Richard Shops.
Caridgan by Alice Pollock at Quorum. Richard Shops skirt. Shirt by Sharcleod.
Cardigan by Alice Pollock at Quorum. Richard Shops skirt. Shirt by Sharcleod.

‘Single women must never marry’

caroline faulder, feminism, germaine greer, groupies, nova magazine, roger stowell

Yes, it’s everyone’s favourite feisty Aussie (after the lovely Margaret, of course) Germaine Greer. What better way to mark International Women’s Day than with Nova Magazine, and Greer. From October 1970.

This is Germaine Greer, author of The Female Eunuch, talking. She has a plan for joy, generosity, eroticism and spontaneity that will invalidate dependence on marriage

By Carolyn Faulder. Photographs by Roger Stowell

She is taller than most men and more beautiful than most women. Her mind is a steel flame flicking behind wide grey eyes and verbalising endlessly, eloquently in a plangent voice. She is passionate, outrageous, witty, dogmatic, spontaneous and fearless. She says things other women daren’t think, thinks things men can’t imagine and does things no one else would admit to, even if they could do them which, most of the time, is doubtful. She reeks of sexuality, rejects femininity — the dirtiest word in the language for her — talks obsessively about sex and believes desperately in love, yet is ironically aware that in the sum total of human contacts she probably draws down more of hate than of love upon herself. She is brilliant, original and free, cast in an uncopiable mould and living a life that is a constant affront and confrontation. She is unique and, in the sense of being an abnormally developed specimen, a freak.

Germaine Greer, born Australian and a Roman Catholic, aged 31, is a Sydney Libertarian, an actress, a groupie, a PhD, a senior lecturer in English at Warwick University and thinks she’s ‘probably an anarchist’. The recent student raid on political files disclosed, to her amusement, that one of her referees recommended her as ‘good for informal entertaining’. She once gave an unforgettable performance in a Cambridge Footlights revue as a nun executing a striptease which ended in her swimming off-stage attached to a pair of flippers. She hitchhikes to her lectures and is committed about her teaching but wonders sometimes whether she shouldn’t be back in the high school where `all the trouble starts’. Old friends say she was always outstanding physically and mentally, but `it was like being flamboyant in the British Museum’ until she discovered and joined the underground pop scene about live years ago. Never a quiet dresser, she converted immediately to the Jimmy Hendrix hair frizz and hippy fashions. She’s very serious about the Women’s Liberation Movement and is convinced that the world can`t survive unless there is a female revolution, soon. She’s just written a book called The Female Eunuch (MacGibbon & Kee, 35s).

The title sums up her basic anti-Freudian premise that it’s not penis envy women suffer from but a castration of their essential female personality. How and why this has come about — the psychological and behavioural reaction of women reduced, however connivingly, to passivity and servility  — and the solution, which no other feminist has yet advanced, are the subject of a challenging, deeply researched book.

Her philosophical springboard is a theory that energy, the driving power within us all, call it what you will. libido, élan vital, rhythm, eros (her choice) is inseparable from sexuality and belongs equally to men and women. But, at some unnoticed moment in our social development. men commandeered energy as their sole prerogative and, harnessing it to their superior physical power and un-doubted liking for violence, ‘stream- lined it into an aggressive conquistadorial power, reducing all hetero- sexual contact to a sado-masochistic pattern.’ Ruthlessly, thoroughly, she examines what being a woman means under every aspect and, just as mercilessly, draws the conclusions of capitulation by the way women love and hate. Certainly no man can complain that she is biased in favour of her own sex and neither can any woman, who is honest, fail to recognise something of herself somewhere in Germaine Greer’s analysis. It’s never pleasant to have one’s weaknesses and failures declared, particularly when they are used as a weapon to enforce submission, and one doesn’t have to think hard to recall a few men indulging in this activity in the name of Christianity. Unfortunately, women have been deficient at defending themselves. mainly because men have succeeded in convincing them of their inferiority.

Now a woman does retaliate forcefully by taking a cool, clear look at her own sex; all the way from cells to psyche she searchlights the facts and the faults and yet concern and commitment shine through even her most devastating attacks, such as her brilliant definition of the stereotype woman: the painted, hairless, deodorised, de-sexed doll; the walking, talking phenomenon of men’s fantasies, evolved over centuries and culminating in our own society as a triumphant tribute to sophisticated marketing and advertising techniques. She even adapts her style, for the length of the chapter, to the copywriter’s sickening hyperboles, and she delivers the savage reductio ud absurdum in her interpretation of April Ashley’s dilemma. She maintains that, although biologically a man, Ashley loved the feminine stereotype so well that, more than embrace it, he wanted to be it. Eventually, with the aid of surgical ingenuity and massive doses of female hormone, he became perfectly qualified to do so because he was ‘elegant, voluptuous, beautifully groomed and in love with his own image’. Only when he was brought to actual sexual encounter in marriage did the mask finally slip disastrously.

Her psychological probings are even more painful. Nothing is spared. All the petty vindication, spites and revenges which women wreak on men in return for being reduced to impotence and dependency are minutely detailed. They are not even allowed the virtues of altruism and unselfishness, commonly conveyed in the concept of the madonna wife and mother. ‘They sacrifice what they never had, a self . . . the altruism of women is merely the inauthenticity of feminine person carried over into behaviour.

She enlists weighty modern thinkers (not a woman among them) to support her view that it’s only love and its concomitants of eroticism, joy, generosity and spontaneity which can make the world whole again and stop the headlong rush to self-destruction, now being accelerated by our present life style which exalts egotism, exploitation, deception, obsession and addiction. But genuine love can only be between equals and women can only expect to be valued by men when they value themselves, so the first thing they must do is to rehabilitate themselves by `rehabilitating the flesh and uniting it with spirituality’. The false masculine-feminine polarity must be swept away and ‘all the baggage of paternalist society thrown overboard’ by women who have become self-confident, self-determining, self-respecting, autonomous individuals. By liberating themselves and replacing compulsion and compulsiveness by the pleasure principle, women will also liberate their masculine oppressors.

She is convinced that men are weary of what she terms their `exclusive phallic responsibility`. Emancipation, as far as it has gone today, shows at least a token willingness to invite women into the male-dominated areas of life and, if the invitation has not been fully taken up, it is as much the fault of women for allowing themselves to be tricked into feelings of guilt and inadequacy by their enemies, among whom she lists marriage guidance counsellors, health visitors, psychiatrists, the media etc. It’s at this point that she also parts company with feminists old and new, including the Women’s Liberation Movement, because she thinks the greatest mistake women make is to want to enter the man’s world or adopt a masculine role. Nor does offering alternatives to motherhood help because women have already set up ‘patterns of perversity’ which means that anything else they choose to do is likely to be done in a ‘feminine’ way, that is to say, ‘servilely, dishonestly, inefficiently and inconsistently’. They should not be seeking equality of opportunity within the status quo which is asking for ‘free admission to the world of the ulcer and the coronary’. Instead, they should be setting up new conditions of opportunity and turning themselves into new women who will seize those opportunities gladly rather than shrink from the responsibility of being responsible for themselves. Obviously, freedom to work at the factory bench instead of slaving at a hot stove and minding the kids is no freedom, but since reform is retrogressive and rebellion is bitter, the only solution is revolution.

All stirring heady stuff, but this is where the whole argument begins to get hypothetical and utopian. She admits herself that she can only offer vague alternatives and, in the present climate, at the most hope to inspire women to throw off their shackles by working out new values on the basis of a sexual confrontation which will take the emphasis off male genitality and restore it to human sexuality. How? Single women must never marry and learn instead to think of spontaneous association as an ideal. As for married women, she recognises the movement would never get off the ground if they were excluded, but these unfortunate creatures must reconsider themselves and stop trying to make an impossible situation work. She is adamant that the modern nuclear family must be scrapped because, “economically wasteful, it encapsulates units which are politically malleable and socially useless and, whenever it does work, you may be sure it’s at tremendous cost to the individual members.”

Children should be brought up in an organic society surrounded by their peers and plenty of loving adults but not one demanding self-extension, in an atmosphere something like a kibbutz but with the additional advantage of sexual freedom. And if a relationship is dead, it’s better to walk out on it than sleep with the corpse, all the while making policy statements that everything is just line. As for the so-called permissive society, where it affects women it is only a new version of the old repression. `Sexual enlightenment happened under government subsidy, so that its discoveries were released in bad prose and clinical jargon upon the world’ and women allow the results to be worked out joylessly upon them. Even in the underground movement she sees sadly that girls can’t resist the old habits of servility. ‘They are the ones who roll the joints and keep the pads clean.’ She preaches a counsel of perfection which she agrees is near impossible to achieve and admits that she, too, can be guilty of thoroughly regressive behaviour. Like getting married and in three weeks allowing herself to be turned from a happy, independent woman into a complete character cripple, cringing and creeping for signs of love. There came a moment in Shepherds Bush when ‘every landscape that did not contain my husband was beautiful’ and she fled, but even now she feels a burden of guilt and anger that she could so hurt and confuse someone else, and be wantonly destructive, degrading everything she believes in. She is aware that she will be accused of preaching a doctrine of irresponsibility but argues that it is more irresponsible to submit, within a false system, to a series of false contingencies and dignify them with the name of destiny.

There is a fallacy here. There never was and never can be a golden age when men and women can stand free, alone and strong, each abiding by their own pleasure principle and expecting no more than a complementary joyous response from their companions. Nor, unless human beings become gods, will it ever be possible for each individual to become master (or should it be mistress?) of his own fate. Quite apart from human interaction and reaction, people are vulnerable at a more primitive level to the circumstances of their environment. No one remains immune from the accidents of nature and, be they good or bad, the basic human instinct towards tribalism is still the surest means of protection and exploitation. And must dependence, the need one person feels for another, always be condemned as parasitical and an indication of emotional weakness? Few would claim that marriage today is a perfect state and Germaine Greer’s chapter on the aetiology of the middle-class myth of love and marriage is one of the most interesting in the book. But she is certainly not alone in condemning the dual morality of our society which enjoins strict monogamy on the woman while recognising and catering for man’s natural polygamy. Once it was the price exacted for being kept and a sure way of safeguarding the patrilinear succession of property: today, supported by the sexologists, women are turning the myth into an anachronism. As the view gains ground, and we might be surprised if we knew the extent to which it already has, marriage will become due for a drastic reappraisal. A recent series of articles in The Guardian debated the possibility of a fundamental alteration in the husband-wife relationship, leading eventually to a new flexibility. A couple in New York have already decided that ‘only a fool would sign a contract for life’ and, after a civil marriage, made an agreement to review the situation every tive years. Maybe the time is not far off when our lawmakers will have to concen- trate their attention upon the condi- tions of marriage rather than upon those of divorce.

A more serious failure in her argument is her evasion of the child-bearing issue. Nowhere does she discuss in depth the implications of motherhood, but all the evidence is against her when she states that ‘children are more disturbed by changes of place than by changes in personnel around them, and more distressed by friction and ill-feeling between the adults in their environment than by unfamiliarity.’ The despised umbilical link may have been exaggerated or distorted, but it exists, and it matters, and it can’t be left out of any realistic reconstruction programme.

Germaine Greer’s book will be fairly reprehensible to people with lace-curtained minds, but for those who enjoy “raiding the unknown’ – her definition of acquiring knowledge — this book is a copiously plundered assault. She writes memorably and she is extraordinarily erudite, able to quote a source for every point and select discriminatingly from the classics and the ephemera of all ages. Anyone who feels even obscurely or intermittently dissatisfied with things as they are should read it.