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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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'

Makescakes - what, even Eddie Izzard?

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)

I really need to read this 'resisting femininity' thread!

Does anybody have any comments on the more 'extreme' male aesthetic styles, usually sported by men in their late teens or early twenties? Men at an age where they have the freedom and imagination to choose their own style (or at least which 'tribe' they choose to conform to), but haven't been bogged down by years of suit and tie wearing! Some of these styles have the more 'decorative' and 'revealing' aspects missing from more traditional male attire. For example the fashion for young men to wear the waistband of their trousers so low that the entire backside of their underpants is exposed, or the eyeliner and flambouyant hairstyles sported by goths/emos, or skintight jeans that the indie boys wear. Do these indicate little flashes of an alternative masculinity, a nod to the days where men wore cloaks and jewels and codpieces and tights, but still identified themselves as men?

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).

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!

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

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

I dont thinkt he pressurewill ever be equal

but its slowly creeping in tho more men are anorexic now than ever

Evangelical religion was part of it apparently, but I don't see why that would make gender difference increase. You are right that it wasn't all Queen V, it started before her anyway.

Reaction to the dissoluteness of George IV then? He nearly bankrupted the country with his overspending, didn't he? Maybe that was it...

Take it from Margaret Mead:

Is the Victorian era when people started to be able to attempt to go up the class system as the industrial revolution kicked off and people were able to make money instead of being born into it.

feel free to add grammar as required

but it was presumably international, not just in Britain?

Regardless of which gender is more or less stereotyped by clothing, it is astonishing that women would rather view a masculine fake padded shoulder than the tone of a real male shoulder under clothes, or that men would rather view a feminine padded and shaped bra than the real shape of a woman's breast under clothes. It must involve an extraordinary amount of fetishising of gender stereotyped clothing to get people to find it more appealing than the actual contours of the real human body.

I have a bit of a failure of imagination when it comes to understanding how this:

brian-kinney.net/fanart/jennifer_brian8.jpg

is perceived as more attractive than this:
brian-kinney.net/blends/blendcontest3_pic2.jpg

Judging by the occasional thread on MN (one running at the moment), there are quite a lot of men (or quite a lot of partners of MNers) who outsource their sartorial choices entirely to their wives. Now THAT is a topic ripe for feminist analysis. Or maybe it just comes under the topic of Wifework.

MillyR - there's a long history of illusion when it comes to clothing, hasn't there?

Perhaps if you examples weren't male models the advantages of having well cut clothing to help a less than Adonis like physique would be a little more obvious!

Or is it that rather than "outsourcing their sartorial choices to their wives" the men are in the situation where the women hate what they choose to wear (or don't even bother with choosing) and insist on selecting the clothes themselves? Perhaps it's "He'd dress in rags if I didn't choose his clothes for him."

Another way to see it is that the men are refusing to play the fashion game that women are slaves to, and the women add to their own burdens by being slaves on their husbands' behalf.

So who's right?

All of those options

I can't get my head around it.

Nesbo, I suppose that is a personal decision people have to make. I like the human body in many shapes and sizes, and would far rather see a real body than a suit.

Thats what I meant by dp not being bothered. He won't go clothes shopping unless he absolutely has to, so I tend to pick up stuff on the way past for him, as he'd be down to one shirt and a pair of trousers before it would even cross his mind. He simply doesn't buy into it. He did the clothes thing as a younger man (for a short while) and then found other things! Thats not to say I don't know men who spend money on clothes, haircuts etc, but its to such a lesser degree when compared to most women I know.

As for the comment about if clothes dont matter try getting a teenager into tesco trainers - thats called marketing......try reading No Logo.