ECONOMIST George Taylor once observed that when hemlines went up, the economy was likely to follow in hot pursuit. But what are we to make of the bustline?

Browsing in Myer’s lingerie department with a girlfriend the other day, I was astounded by the bras that filled the racks. Stiffly moulded and outrageously padded, they jutted out from every direction, suggesting not so much the varied undulations of the human body but the cone shapes of warheads.

Is this trend in women’s undergarments the product of our militaristic era — MX missiles for modern misses, I was moved to ponder?

The last time we saw breasts shaped like this was in the late 1950s. These most festished parts of the female body were cantilevered in pointy bras that forced them into shapes like the tail lights of the flashest American cars of the time. They did not respond naturally to movement, sexual activity or the nurturing of babies. (This was an era when women were browbeaten into thinking baby formula was superior to breast milk.) They were bait to snare a husband, status symbols for that husband, strapped in, uncomfortable as hell, but looks and cooking were the best a woman had to offer, so the necessary corsetry had to be endured.

Obviously, women have more to offer these days, (although cooking skills seem to be on the decline, despite Donna Hay’s best efforts). Women can work at different jobs. They can be doctors as well as nurses. They can be politicians (if not political leaders). They can run small businesses (if not big businesses). They can wear trousers, and that’s even though men can’t wear skirts. (Surely there an inequity here — can we start a Tasmanian Times campaign on this one, ed?)

So why has the buttressed bust come back in? That’s only a rhetorical question, of course, because I do have an answer. It’s called Gabfest’s Bustline Theory of Society: When women’s breasts are constricted and augmented, woman’s position in society is heading downward.

The whole woman

The process that starts with breast enlargement ends with the belittlement of the whole woman.

When women in fundamentalist societies are put on the back foot, the make-up comes off, the dresses get longer, the headscarves go on or the whole woman disappears from public view under a hot dark tent. A rather minor casualty of the war in Iraq, by some people’s estimations, is women’s ability to go about bare-headed. The Times newspaper has reported that Shi’ite pressure is now being brought to bear on women to wear the hijab and that the secular rule of Saddam Hussein (an equal opportunity bastard) is about to be replaced by a constitution that could down a 1959 law enshrining women’s equality.

“Article 19 of the new draft states that `the followers of any religion or sect are free to choose their civil status according to their religious or sectarian beliefs’. In other words, domestic issues, including the issues of divorce and women’s inheritance, could fall under Islamic codes that human rights’ advocates say would make women second-class citizens,” The Times reports.

Back in Australia, retrogression is taking what seems to be a directly opposite form: women are opting for the full-blown glamour that only an incredibly time-consuming time-wasting amount of curling and straightening, fake tanning and glitter dusting, waxing and plucking, lifting and separating can achieve.

But Iraqi Amina and Aussie Tina are sisters under the skin. Whether you’re flaunting it in Ralph to titillate the magazine’s male readers or made to hide it in the Middle East for fear of inflaming men’s passions, a woman’s body is a page on which others’ desires are written.

Barbie doll

As noted in the Spinal Tap rockumentary’, there can be confusion between sexy and sexist. Personal adornment is fun and highly recommended for all sexes and all ages. Painful corsetry, killer high heels and undergoing major surgery to have a couple of sacs of silicon inserted in your chest is masochistic.

The Barbie doll, with her unfeasibly large breasts, tiny waist and long legs, was born 50 years ago, in an era when women had been put firmly back in their domestic boxes after their war efforts. The living breathing 21st century version of Barbie pads up, bats her eyelids and calls it girl power. This is the power you have when your power comes to you from men.

Tracing a line from padded bras to the Taliban might seem a little fanciful. But, like Taylor’s hemline theory, we are considering trends. And right now, there’s reason to feel that the structures of power have not changed one iota when the trend from America to Australia is for women to be airily directed back into their boxes. Have one for yourself and one for Australia. Let the blokes in Canberra decide your reproductive options. Let’s laugh at Amanda Vanstone, not because she is bloodless but because she is fat. Let all girls, big and little, dream once again about being princesses. Let’s cut social security for sole parents because single mums are all lazy conniving sluts. Let’s count the cost of marriages breaking up but forget about the cost of them staying together. Let the likes of the archbishops of Sydney tell you women aren’t fit to be priests because St Paul said so 2000 years ago.

Perhaps someone should point out to the archbishops that the “Father knows best” creed is precisely why there have been so many children sexually abused by churchmen. Patriarchy is an authoritarian structure — it demands obedience, whether you are a child or a woman.

So next time you are in the Myer lingerie department, ladies, choose carefully — the down escalator is just across the way.