Except 1600’s woman has a footstool, and 1900’s women doesn’t, so that doesn’t fit on it’s own either.
The male dude who drew this apparently took issue with women’s fashion magazines, probably for some sort of vanity-related reason, but that was a period where clothes got less complex and manufactured, so it’s still ironic. That multilayered 1600’s outfit is a great example. Maybe the footstool is to highlight the high heels, which might still have been in the period where it was a butch trend in imitation of cattlemen. The hair covering might also be significant.
The alcohol is pretty much the only other straightforward thing to interpret (although the glass might be a new style?), what with US and Canadian prohibition starting a few years later. Also, in my head cannon 1600’s girl is reading from Song of Solomon.
Except 1600’s woman has a footstool, and 1900’s women doesn’t, so that doesn’t fit on it’s own either.
The male dude who drew this apparently took issue with women’s fashion magazines, probably for some sort of vanity-related reason, but that was a period where clothes got less complex and manufactured, so it’s still ironic. That multilayered 1600’s outfit is a great example. Maybe the footstool is to highlight the high heels, which might still have been in the period where it was a butch trend in imitation of cattlemen. The hair covering might also be significant.
The alcohol is pretty much the only other straightforward thing to interpret (although the glass might be a new style?), what with US and Canadian prohibition starting a few years later. Also, in my head cannon 1600’s girl is reading from Song of Solomon.