[bigdaddy45]

They are the same women we have now. (Without fake boobs, botox, and the same level of dental care). The women of today are basically no different than the women of the 20’s.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I disagree. I hardly see anyone that looks like that today. You have to hunt high and low to find someone with that period look. I just think so many of them looked very haggard (or very hard), chubby-faced, and old before their time. It wasn’t just the ‘20s. I don’t think “modern females” as we see today looked as such until the mid ‘60s.

[fr_freak]

The women of today are basically no different than the women of the 20’s.

Not sure that is entirely true. Back in the 1920s, people were much more likely to be able to trace their ancestry to one or two main ethnicities. One might say "I'm Irish" or "I'm Italian". Nowadays, people still say that sort of thing, but instead of being 100% Irish, they might be half or a quarter, mixed in with German, Swedish, or whatever. In addition, we had a major change in demographics occur in the mid-20th century which brought a number of ethnic groups into the gene pool that we didn't have much of before. So, while the differences may be subtle, I'd say the appearance of your average woman in the US might be different than the 1920s.

Being from California, I've noticed a distinct difference in the overall appearance of people when I'm on the East coast, especially, New York or New Jersey area. I think that is partly because Californians tend to be mutts more, whereas New Yorkers seem to still have ethnic enclaves. Just an idle theory, though.

[svcw]

Well, fake “boobs”, I guess since women bound themselves to be flat.