All men are created equal — but what about women?
That time Kate Hepburn wore pants (and even sneakers)
It’s a hallmark of innovation that what was once outrageous is eventually mundane. After all, what could be more unremarkable than seeing a Western woman wearing a pair of pants?
But when Katharine Hepburn shunned the girdles, petticoats, stockings, garter belts, and high heels considered “normal” for women of her time, she was brazenly defying fashion and social convention.
Hepburn wore pants. She even wore sneakers.
In 1930s Hollywood, such comportment was deemed scandalous.
Elsewhere, it was illegal.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa1c7f913-4fa1-4de5-8706-1c17a9d6415f_582x640.jpeg)
In November 1938, a kindergarten teacher named Helen Hulick arrived at a Los Angeles courtroom to testify against two burglary suspects. Judge Arthur S. Guerin, noting that Hulick was wearing pants, would not allow her testimony. He ordered her to return, but only if she wore a dress. Hulick returned five days later, but she again chose slacks.
Guerin held Hulick in contempt and sent her to jail with a five-day sentence — where she was promptly issued a prison denim dress. Letters by the hundreds flooded the courthouse and the contempt citation was soon overturned by a higher court.
Hulick was told she was free to wear pants to court but instead defiantly wore a dress to testify. Point made.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff20bfb0f-9db0-4e65-a868-8272de92e614_800x450.jpeg)
Just two years earlier, reviews for Hepburn’s 1936 film Sylvia Scarlett — in which Kate spends almost its entirety in short hair and men’s clothing — had been sarcastic and mean-spirited, to say the least.
Time magazine declared “Hepburn is better-looking as a boy than a woman” while the New York Herald-Tribune named her “the handsomest boy of the season.”
As a result, the film flopped.
Kate’s bosses at RKO decided to commandeer her slacks — in the hope of forcing the independent movie star to wear a skirt and become, um… more marketable?
Unmoved by losing her trousers, Hepburn strolled the studio lot in only her underwear. Her pants were returned. Point made.
“If you obey all the rules,” said Kate, “you miss all the fun.”
Addendum: If you obey all the rules, The Powers That Shouldn’t Be™ maintain their parasitic power.
********************************************************************
It would be deeply appreciated if you’d sign up as a paid Post-Woke subscriber. It directly enables this project to keep going and growing. You can find the link at the bottom.
To make a one-time donation to Post-Woke, please click here.
Also, to support my ongoing mission of more than 7 years to help homeless women and other vulnerable souls on the streets of NYC:
Donate at GoFundMe
Make a monthly pledge at Patreon
Order items from my wishlist
Follow me on Instagram
Share all the links!
Thank you in advance!
Very interesting. This is sure to get me back to the keyboard. Something percolating in me about the implications of your story.
In 1973 our school finally allowed pants, but only if worn under a dress. You can imagine the hilarious sight. Mom had me made a short dress like jacket. It only lasted one year, the next we were allowed pants after all.
To think that in old times everyone wore a dress, albeit under another name. Were it the Huns who started with pants? I suppose a dress is hard to ride a horse LOL