Gendered clothing - grrr.

[RobinsAreTerritorialFuckers]

Not a new subject, I know, but I've been suffering delayed irritation due to listening to a professional mansplainer on the subject (I was a at a party full of women. He seemed to imagine we would all gather round to hear his views, and it was Very Tedious). However, his basic point was that women have it so much better than men, as men's clothing is so very boring, whereas women can wear whatever they like and no one minds.

A youngish woman pointed out, quite politely, that women's clothing is generally more expensive and poorer quality, and obviously knew what she was talking about as she makes her own clothes. And she pointed out that this also applies to so-called 'gender neutral' clothing that women wear, such as jeans or shirts - so it isn't, in fact, gender neutral at all.

I've just thought about that again as a friend posted about seeing small girls dressed in skirts struggling to enjoy soft play.

Now, I know these things are choices. You can certainly dress girl children in 'boy' clothes. You can also be an adult woman who wears men's clothing, and I know plenty of women who do. There were several women in the room at this party who were patently doing so. But it got me wondering why this bloke just assumed that it was 'easy' for women to wear men's clothes, but totally unthinkable for him to do the same? I know that a man wearing a skirt will probably get funny looks - but actually, so will a woman in a suit and tie.

We seem to have accepted that it is shockingly transgressive for a man to wear anything belonging to the other gender, and I wonder if that actually belittles the amount of flack I think women and girls do still get for doing exactly the same?

Maybe Robin's friends do not look feminine, and some people are provoked (or whatever) by them appearing to take on a masculine aesthetic (a natty cravat and tweed waistcoat in an obviously masculine shape maybe) on purpose?

Certainly the case for me, yes.

The distinction between 'choice' and 'freedom' makes a lot of sense. I take that on board, thanks!

Cross post.

matilda - yes, you're probably right it matters about the 'intention' (or perceived intention).

I've been feeling frustrated this whole thread - as I was by this bloke - that I think I picture one thing when I am thinking of friends wearing this kind of clothing, and they're picturing something more unisex.

I guess it's like the Green Party referring to 'non-male' people!

That's interesting about perceived intention, and about whether the wearer looks "feminine".

I'm quite small and have very short hair but I think I look sufficiently "feminine" (or am I thinking non-threatening?) that I would probably get away with wearing anything.

The choice vs freedom thing I read on an FWR thread in the past. :)

Sorry, never, I'm clearly repeating old conversations! I will look for that, thank you.

For what it is worth, one of my friends is small, with a curvy figure, high voice and quite 'feminine' mannerisms. I think maybe some people do respond as you say. But I have definitely heard others act as if her dressing in a masculine way is almost more of an affront - as if she somehow 'ought' to be feminine. And I would say she is almost invariably read as lesbian, which is fine, but also telling.

Another friend is older (perhaps relevant?), taller, broader, and has a much more forthright manner - she has mentioned workmates offering to 'help' her dress for promotion interviews, which suggests they think she's dressing this way out of ignorance of how she should look.

That's pretty much my experience:

Being read as a lesbian

and

being offered 'helpful' advice on how to dress, because obviously I chose to dress in that way out of ignorance.

It's the affront thing that got to me in the end. Like I was dressing in a way I felt comfortable as a direct challenge to the person who took offence IYSWIM?

palmer - yes, I do see what you mean.

Why is it, then, that this thread shows so much disagreement? Some people recognise what I think happens, where women do get judged, and others think it is rare, or don't really believe it ever happens.

Why such different experiences?

Robins It was a thread a long long time ago. Stayed in my mind.

Possibly it's the different versions of what 'wearing men's clothes' might mean?

Most people have mentioned wearing men's clothes that are actually pretty unisex, hoodies, jeans etc, which might have some bearing on it.

And those who have mentioned wearing clothing that is predominantly gendered male, suits etc, have had positive experiences when they've worn it very very occasionally or once. Maybe it's when it's habitual that it becomes a problem for everyone?

That might well be!

I do think the 'appeal' of women wearing a masculine suit is partly the element of fancy dress, right? A woman who wears a suit once to a party gets away with it, rather like rugby lads oh-so-hilariously getting dragged up for rag week.

It's seen as a one-off, so it's not the same issue.

I think that's a fair assessment, yes.

The two friends I mentioned above are lesbians and they wear men's clothes almost exclusively. I work with one of them. It would be very much contrary to our workplace policies for someone to police her dress because of her gender expression.

YY, I do think it is slightly different for women who are lesbian - there is almost a sense that 'this is ok - for you'. I think? Not always, and I know people can be shitty, but I think you are right that that is part of the issue. As someone on here said of short haircuts, if it's 'gender expression', it fits with trendy politics - if it's a woman just wearing clothes, it's 'why doesn't she make the effort!'

Btw, by odd coincidence someone just linked to this on twitter, and I thought it was relevant.

theacknowledgementchronicles.tumblr.com/post/141505973693/its-better-to-be-a-cute-boy-than-an-ugly-butch

I think some of it is because we all have different views on clothes anyway - someone upthread said they'd notice if some man at work wore the same suit every day. I don't think I would. I would notice if someone who normally wears jeans came in in a suit, but not if they wore the same thing every day, if it was the same sort of thing they wore every day. So I'm not sure I'd particularly notice if a woman wore masculine dress, if that's what she always wore - though I suspect I'd notice a man who came in wearing a skirt. I am sure there will be some people in the office who look at what I wear, and notice that I sometimes wear the same trousers as the day before, or a top from a couple of days earlier, but plenty of others won't. But I expect those who do notice will indeed be thinking why doesn't she make the effort, but I don't really care.

There's been some pretty compelling evidence that people don't notice if men wear the same suit every day. Even if they're in the public eye every day. Even if they do it for a year as an experiment. So (and I have no clue who said that, and I can't be arsed to read back and find it) I call bullshit.

That's true - there was that Aussie newsreader. It's all coming back to me...

Yes I remember - the man who was disgusted at the amount of criticism on the attire of his co-presenter who was a woman so he wore the same suit for a whole year.

palmer - it was me, I think, and it was cos I have been consciously trying to! So that doesn't really count to your evidence, because I imagine that's testing whether people notice without prompting.

I had never heard of the Aussie newsreader, though. I like the sound of him.

Google Karl Stefanovic. (I'd put links, but phone doesn't seem to play ball.)

I'd not heard of Karl S. before, but the one suit for a year experiment really does make the point!

Apart from the poorer quality, more expensive, lack of pockets, lack of practicality, and lack of relatedness to the actual part of the body in question (by which I mean the fact that fashionable womens shoes seems to have very little relation to the actual shape of the human foot or the process of walking! ), women and what they wear are subject to the sort of scrutiny that man aren't. It isn't, as far as I can see, about what exactly they are wearing, but whether or not they are doing the 'proper' obsession with their appearance that is expected of women doing femininity. So, think 'Annie Hall', where Diane Keaton was wearing a considerable amount of male clothing, yet it was/became just another fashion.

The supposed plethora of choices available to women (but not men) is just disguising the social stigma for women who make the wrong choice! The fact that womens choices are low on practicality, functionality, and durability, and high on fripperies, appearance and cost. Looks over substance.

It's safe to say you've, shall we say, a slightly skewed idea of what butch might look like, right?

How patronising and wrong actually.

It's safe to say you have absolutely no idea whether or not I know what butch looks like (although given I referred to the St.Harridan site that might have given you an indication) or whether I know or have met women or have friends who fit into that category. Would be kind of difficult not to really.

This is playing out during the US presidential election campaign. No one comments on what Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Sanders are wearing, but comments and jokes from comedians on Hillary Clinton's choices are common.

No one comments on what Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Sanders are wearing

Apart from Trump's hair. There's been plenty about that.