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

[Cattleprod]

I've seen and participated in a number of discussions over the past year or so, on mumsnet and real life, which have focussed on stereotypical expectations of womens and girls appearance based on gender. The overwhelming sea of pink in girls clothes shops, shaving/waxing various body parts, 'princess' type slogans, cosmetic surgery, length of skirts, high heels, styles of underwear, that sort of thing.

The point always comes up that it is unfair that so much value and judgement is placed on a woman's physical appearance, and of course it is terrible that anybody should be judged on physical or aesthetic aspects that they haven't chosen themselves, or have had forced on them by situation or society.

But it got me thinking, that although a lot of the unwritten expectations related to appearance, and the perhaps more sinister ones (eg. she was wearing a short skirt so was asking to be molested) relate to women, far more of the overt expectations, those that invite comment and even punishment, that I have come across have been applied to men and boys.

From the rule at my school that a boy's hair must not reach his collar, to the expectation in many offices that a man must wear a suit and tie, have short hair and be clean shaven, to my little boy being laughed at when I put a plain clip in his hair to keep it out of his eyes. Men just aren't as free to look different from 'the norm'. Any man that ventures out in a skirt, or lipstick, high heels, a pashmina etc. is likely to be met with incredulous stares and unpleasant comments, and in extreme cases, violence. Yet these are things that we as women can wear freely, safe in the knowledge that we can also choose to wear traditional mens clothing largely without derogotary comments (as Sandi Toksvig and many other women often do).

So, aside from obviously wanting to stamp out appearance-based prejudice that still exists as mentioned above, does there not seem to be the space or inclination for us as women to celebrate the fact that we do generally have more freedom than men to dress as we wish? I know there are boundaries set by religion, occupation, local society etc., but it is always the negative aspects of the spectrum of female appearance choices that are discussed, never the positive.

Where I come from it's not uncommon to see men at work wearing a lavalava It's perfectly acceptable formal wear.

nothing worse than being invisible? good heavens.
for you maybe, if you need constant external validation, not everyone does though

BD - I'm not saying all women with grey hair/no make up/ boring clothes are all leading really dull lives - ( how many flamboyant comedians are manic depressives? Loads ) I just think our appearance says a lot about us - if it didn't we would never have punk/goth/new romantic/hippy and 100's of other 'identities' - you are what you wear in most cases

What I want to know is, when men start wearing skirts, will they be under social pressure to shave their legs? It's interesting that there's this devil's bargain, that women have much more freedom to wear clothes that reveal the body, but it comes at the price of "no body hair must ever show". Whereas at least if a bloke goes down to the supermarket on a warm day, he can wear shorts with his natural fur visible. But for most occasions, he's forced to wear long trousers regardless of the season.

And it's very interesting that in the last 30 years or so, men, especially young ones, have been feeling obliged to wear longer and longer shorts and swimsuits. It's as if manly thighs have been getting increasingly obscene.

Images of American basketball players from the early 80s and now:

lakers.topbuzz.com/gallery/d/4353-2/magic-vs-bird-AADQ010_Larry-Bird-and-Magic-Johnson-Photofile-Posters.jpg

cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/02/11/16__1297431476_9171.jpg

In the picture of the Fijian men in lava-lavas, they're all wearing ties and only one has given himself the liberty of wearing a short sleeved shirt. And even then, the sleeves are elbow length.

I tell you, back in Tei Tetua's cannibal days, men weren't afraid to show a little skin.

CB - "you are what you wear in most cases" - that is such a restrictive and diminishing view to have of people! And so so wrong... most people wear clothes appropriate to their setting, not to "show who they are" 100% of the time.
Suggesting that someone is defined by their clothing is as reductionist as defining them by their job.

I wouldn't be too bothered about going out in a skirt, or make-up. I like dressing flamboyantly (goth-trained) although I don't do it anymore.

I would expect the chances of aggro from other men would go up.

However, dressing like that while with out both kids would be a bridge too far for me.

I have never understood 'you are what you wear' - my clothes are not that easy to read, no-one's are. It's shallow to imagine people are that simple (or that they care that much about what you wear - I know some people like to present an image but I'm always wary of choosing to judge them by that, it's usually false).

Ahh Teitetua, but the sight of a group of Samoan men, with white formal lavalavas, short white sleeved shirts and sandals is a sight to behold.

Masculinity seems to involve hiding as much of your body shape as you can, and detracting from what you actually look like by wearing clothes, and sometimes actually developing a bogy shape that is amorphous.

Femininity seems to be the opposite, where women are under pressure to accentuate everything about their bodies, so that clothes are tighter, breasts are bigger, legs are longer, cheekbones are higher, lips are brighter and so on.

So I think the best way of resisting masculinity is not to embrace things like skirts or high heels, but to wear clothes that actually show you have a male (rather than masculine) body. What would be controversial would be for a man beyond his teens to be toned and then wore clothes that accentuated that tone - top that finished above the midriff. So I don't think you reject masculinity by wearing signs of femininity. You reject masculinity by wearing clothes that reveal your body to be that of a male and not a masculine blob.

Women's accentuate the female body into a parody of themselves. Men's clothes disguise the fact that they have a man's body, or for that matter a human body at all.

Why don't we all just wear what we like and not worry about what anyone else wears? That way we are all a being true to ourselves.....just a thought....

thumbwitch - people are defined by their job - I'd say it's the number one defining factor actually.

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

Then you're - ' unclassified '

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.