Why are society's restrictions on men's appearance never mentioned?

OP are you implying that men who don't dress to 'societal norm' are more likely to not identify as men?

it's a good point, seth - why DID the Victorians go so bloody boring uptight? Can't all have been about Queen Victoria, surely?

Ha, whenever I see those low-slung trousers/jeans, that are only being held up by the bloke's bits, I am tempted to just yank them down so they fall. I mean seriously - why on earth do they think women want to see what pants they're wearing? No individuality there either - it is/was just the trendy "uniform" of the time.

OTOH - the 3 punks who live in the place I used to live in in England - they had style. Especially the one with the parroty mohican hair - fantastic!

I don't know, interesting question though.

I read some interesting stuff once about the shift from the more colourful, perfume and make-up and silk stockings style of the 18th c to the dark suits that became established in the Victorian age. The authors (Davidoff and Hall) associated it with a general diverging of other aspects of male and female behaviour - eg in the 18th c women could drink and swear and go for walks by themselves, as they became Victorian they had to behave more primly and started to be considered too delicate to go to funerals (to give one example).

Well I've worked hard to get my doctorate but I still don't see why I should be defined by that or my mother status. It is easy to let the work consume you as what you do is entirely a reflection of your intellect and aptitude, where what you do is (suppose to be anyway) unique. I want to defined by all that I do.

Also to say it's different for doctors or lawyers because they worked hard to get there is surely offensive to other less specialised fields. I don't assume I have worked harder or easier than anyone else.

maybe I'm too used to working in a field where you people don't care how you look (although sometime goes the opposite way and people get judged for dressing to the norm)

Makescakes - what, even Eddie Izzard?

hmm I see this thread has moved on but here is my response to the OP

Most of the men I work with and know outside of work do not have neat haircuts nor wear proper suits to work. Although I do find it amusing that MIL has not accepted BIL style of hair for the last 5 years (despite it being the same). She is one of the only people who care so much as 'appearances'

Carmina where are you getting the idea that people didn't have hobbies 50 years ago? My grandmother was a scout leader in the 20s, my grandfather ran the night school, my other grandad painted - and these were all working class peope, the first two from a mining village where hobbies were very strong indeed (operatic societies, brass band, pigeon fancying etc). And as well as jobs people had politics and religion that defined them. They may not have 'bought' identities in the same way but they certainly lived them.

There is nothing wrong in being defined by your occupation - people have worked damn hard to be doctors/lawyers etc - it's nothing to be ashamed of. What would you rather be defined as? - a mother? An unemployed kitchen fitter? Zumba enthusiast ?

And if clothing isn't important - try getting your average teenager to wear Tesco trainers

MillyR you're talking a lot of bollocks. A man's suit has shoulderpads built in to emphasise the shoulders. In the same way as a padded bra, gathered skirt or any other item of female clothing emphasises a body part whilst revealing nothing whatsoever of its natural shape.

And what about SAH mothers? Is motherhood their job? Does that then define them to the exclusion of all else? I think it is ridiculous to talk of being defined by one's job. Technically I am in PR, but it's not what I am, just what I do.

I am a good cook, a vibrant person, fun to have a party, creative, a fast readers, a little bit lazy, very loving, a good writer and about a hundred other things besides and not one single one of them has anything to do with my job or my clothing or my appearance.

Sometimes I dress to emphasise feminity, sometimes I dress to be comfortable, sometimes I dress to be invisible (who needs to be noticed at Tescos?).

I think it is sad that men can't choose what they want to wear without fearing (at best) ridicule in public. I have to admit that, liberal as I am, I would look askance at my DH if he turned out in a mankini or a party dress (though he definitely has the pins for a kilt, if only I could persuade him).

It's scary to think how deeply ingrained some prejudices are - I don't think women are any less womenly for wearing trousers or flat shoes, but I do look twice at a man wearing a sarong or makeup, if I'm being entirely honest.

The intention is to take the masculine attribute (ie broad shoulders) and accentuate it (although it obviously shouldn't go to extremes). In that sense I think it falls more into you "bigger breasts" example of accentuating the underlying body than your alternative of simply hiding it. A tailor puts a lot of thought into these things to get the right effect!

In fact, if suits make a man look more male, as opposed to masculine, then I assume that naked men actually have the same shoulders as Lady Gaga when she has her prosthetic shoulder implants on.

Nesbo, but it doesn't emphasize a man's shoulders - you cannot see the shape or the tone or the bone structure of a man's shoulders if a man is wearing a suit.

that's fine, CB - you can live in your reductionist world and I'll stay in mine.
Of course everything we do and wear and say etc. says something about us - but that is not the same as defining us.

MillyR, just to (slightly) contradict your earlier point, a well cut man's suit is designed to emphasise broad shoulders, has waist suppression to give a more athletic silhouette, should lengthen shorter legs or counter the length of very long long legs in order to achieve a balanced look. It is not about hiding the body but working to it's strengths whilst glossing over it's weaknesses - definitely not intended to make it an amorphous blob (if itdoes that it has failed spectacularly). You can probably tell I am a great fan of the suit, one of male fashion's greatestever achievements IMO!

Thumbwitch: No one is a complete blank canvas - everything we do ( and wear ) says something about us. And yes, I would argue that people are still defined by their job.

And yet you are the one defining people by their job and their clothing, so I'd say you haven't moved on much then, CB.

I know some people choose to be defined by their jobs still and feel that they "lose their identity" when they're not doing that job - but I am definitely not one of them. And people who choose to attempt to define me by the jobs I have done would struggle.

What of people who change career every few years? Are they having complete persona changes as well? Doubtful.

It's not bollocks - up until fairly recently you were defined 100% by your occupation. you were a Miner, a politician, a teacher, a chimney sweep - what else was there to define you by? - Before we became richer and could buy identities what we did for a living was all we had. Now days ( money permitting ) you can be defined by what your hobbies are. I can be 'into' horse riding, camping, pottery, as well as being a teacher and a feminist ( for example ) so i'm not so easily defined as I would have been 50 years ago.

TeiTetua - but that was written before the advent of lycra all-in-one sport suits, wasn't it?

There are very few circumstances where people do not have any kind of job or attend a workplace - students and school children are in a work place.

Two major exceptions are mental health units, where your clothing and cosmetic choices would be used as part of determining your mental state, or someone signing on, in which case your clothing could very well be commented on and you may be asked to attend a session if they think your clothes are inappropriate for employment.

Speaking of Australasians--if I'm remembering it right I think there's a line in The Female Eunuch that says "Men's clothing is never allowed to be tight, to emphasize the body, or loose, to enhance it."

Bollocks are they defined by their job unless they choose to be. You can be if you like - I am not.

Then you're - ' unclassified '

What if you don't have a "job"?