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?

Yes, his hair. The first thing on the news last night was Trump's new haircut.

More choices so you can get it wrong in more ways.

Is that his real hair? >

Trump's hair kinda proves how unusual a man's look has to be to get commented on at all.
Besides, the toupee's Twitter account is the only good thing about this whole campaign!

I remember when Margaret Beckett was the first female Foreign Secretary and got a lot of stick in the media for essentially being 60 and not being arsed to put on makeup and make herself pretty, and one interviewer asked her how she felt about being critcised for her looks. She replied that she took it as a compliment as they obviously couldn't find anything in her policies to argue with! Good on her, though I suspect in private it must have got to her sometimes.

My 3yo had her only tantrums when I tried to put her in a pair of trousers without pockets. I had much sympathy and have felt the same way when trying to buy trousers! Goodness knows how she will react to school shoes and her 4yo classmates asking why she's wearing boy clothes if we get the no-longer-labelled but still intended as boy shoes...

I just found this:
"It doesn’t matter your age: If you’re a female, your clothes cost more than similar male clothing. The NYC study found that adult women, on average, pay 8% more for their clothes than men do. The largest price discrepancies were in shirts (15%), dress shirts (13%) and jeans (10%).

What’s more, girl’s clothing costs 4% more than boy’s clothing. Children’s shirts have the largest discrepancies (13%), followed by baby pants (9%) and children’s jeans (8%). (Incidentally, children’s toys geared for girls are also priced more, by about 7%, the study found.)".

It is referring to (I think), this study from New York City Consumer Affairs:
www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf

A real eye-opener! Especially the blatant difference in some of the babies and kids stuff pictures -- pink dye and sparkles obviously just cost so much more!

Conclusion seemed to be that even allowing for 'excuses' based on complicated curvy cuts for women, or more fabric 'wastage', the bottom line is women have to pay more because they are willing to expect to pay more (apart from knickers! Even kids underwear, where for the same price girls get a 7-pack of panties, and boys get a 5-pack of briefs.............does masculinity training mean it is impossible to get boys into clean pants at the weekend????).

So, we get paid less, and we pay more. Whoopee-Do!

Trump's hair kinda proves how unusual a man's look has to be to get commented on at all.

Ed Milliband? He was torn to shreds over his appearance.

Even kids underwear, where for the same price girls get a 7-pack of panties, and boys get a 5-pack of briefs. then girls pants are cheaper ? If they get 7 for the price boys pay for 5?

I know it should not matter but Trump really is such an ugly man. It's almost as if internal nastiness is being made manifest.

"then girls pants are cheaper ? If they get 7 for the price boys pay for 5?"

Yes, girls underwear is cheaper than boys, and womens cheaper than mens, but that is about the only thing. But apparently if you allow for the more expensive fabrics used in male underwear (spandex, which I assume is equivalent to lycra?), male underwear is still cheaper than it would be based on fabrics alone.

But overall, women are paying more than we should be, based on what men pay. It can't all be explained away by different fabrics and increased manufacturing costs.

Plus whilst trying to compare mens and womens disposable razors (I always buy bulk packs of mens disposable razors), I came across some weird new beardy products, so apparently you can now get beard wash, beard conditioner, and beard oil! Well, sell it to the chaps before the fad fades..............

Yes, girls underwear is cheaper than boys, and womens cheaper than mens, but that is about the only thing.

Knickers maybe, but a decent bra isn't cheap and men don't have to buy those at all.

Ed Milliband? He was torn to shreds over his appearance.

I'm old enough to remember Michael Foot being ridiculed over his appearance, although no doubt women are judged more than men, just look at the hideous Daily Mail "political" features on what the lovely lady MPs wear.
Usually all a man has to do is wear a suit to not look too unusual.

some, that's really interesting about cost. If I see the woman who mentioned it, I'll pass it on and tell her she was right!

EBear - yes, although I think some men think these (like tampons) are a bit of a luxury.

I had no idea women's clothing costs more.
I do agree women have more choice. Ds (almost teen) has noticed this too, and he regularly buys girls tops etc if he likes them. He gives no fucks what anyone thinks about it either!

An earlier posting mentioned "I do honestly think a lot of the negativity is to do with the shock of the contrast - skirt plus hairy legs or beard or whatever."

I hardly think that if a man wore a skirt and shaved his legs, he'd avoid any problems! Likewise if he were clean shaven.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone can dispute the premise here--women do indeed have far more freedom in clothing than men do. The "professional mansplainer" in the initial posting was basically right, even if he was clumsy in expressing himself. It's wasting our time to talk about clothing that can come directly from the women's department and be worn directly by a man, or from the men's and worn directly by a woman. The issue is who can wear (or is forced to wear) "a trouser suit" or "sparkly jeans" or "a halter top evening gown" and we'll take it for granted that they fit the wearer reasonably well.

A couple of years ago there was a boy in a school somewhere in hot weather. The uniform was trousers or a skirt (tights optional) but no shorts allowed. So he wore a skirt to school, and they said that's fine, it met the dress code. But I bet he did it just for the one day! Yet ironically, there are still a few schools around (private schools, I expect) which still require boys to wear shorts year round, no tights allowed. The demands vary, but it seems as if males are likely to be the ones facing the most restrictions, and if that's sometimes uncomfortable for them, tough luck, boys don't cry.

No, tei, I didn't mean a man would avoid comment if he shaved his legs.

But we've talked about how some women 'pass' in men's clothes more than others, and I think the reverse is true too. I see slim, 19 year old men (who are usually gay) who wear tight, feminine-ish t shirts and they get a different reaction from, say, the man near us who wears a skirt but is also balding and hairy-legged. It's not fair, but it's the case.

We're used to seeing a certain level of 'feminine' grooming with certain clothes (and we're also more tolerant of gay men looking 'effeminate' than straight men, I think).

The premise of my OP was, do women also get flack for wearing men's clothes, and do we belittle that? It wasn't 'do women get more flack than men?' or even 'do women get as much flack as men?'

I do not understand why it has to be simplified to a competition?

But then, there is the idea of "spoiled for choice". Suppose one were in the army: out of bed, what shall I wear, well it's the same uniform today as it was yesterday, so that's an easy decision. There was that Australian TV presenter who wore the same blue suit for a year, and nobody said a thing. No woman could get away with that! It's funny how in a way having no freedom at all can be liberating.

I think 'female choice', and 'aren't men poor little sausages 'cos they don't have so many pretty clothes as women' are both red herrings! Historically, there have been periods when men (okay usually the idle rich, which was kind of the point!) were peacocks and wore the most elaborate and colourful garb.

Frankly, I think if men were really that bothered about not having as much choice, they'd demand some! Think the sixties, or think teddy boys. So, this 'I've no choice' is just designed to shut-up women who are complaining about the fact that they have to pay more, earn less, yet are still overwhelmingly judged on their personal appearance -- how they look, not what they do. After all, we all know men who look like the back-end of a bus, but as long as they wear a reasonable suit and have a reasonable standard of personal grooming, they get the job.........compared, of course, to women who don't. See the usual 'men get offered the job/more money etc etc despite having an identical CV to women candidates' experiments. Or what happened to women musicians when they introduced unseen auditions..........

As a datapoint, I looked at prices of pants just now in the supermarket and boys and girls' cost the same (each size is 50p different), both have 10 in a pack, but from experience the boys ones which are visibly more robust will last years, so friends make use of ds's old ones, but the girls ones have thin elastic and no proper hem and fall to bits before dd grows out of them. Similar differences for many women's clothes.

More choice that you are obliged to make use of or face criticism isn't really a choice, even if superficially it looks like it.

Or to make my point better, men have an important choice women don't have: the "unmarked" option. There's always a default for men's clothing that won't draw attention, but the female equivalents all have interpretations - tryingg to get attention, trying to hide cleavage, mumsy, trendy, whatever. Google marked vs unmarked behaviours and it's a fascinating field.

YY SomeDyke and NotCitrus.

Everyone seems to agree or many that women are targets for more comment and criticism in their clothing, is this a self made problem by women in general? By being more critical of women's clothes and many often going online or buying newspapers/ magazines to see what celebrities are wearing and commenting as such, or even when generally out mentioning it to friends or just generally noticing clothes more? And then feeling under similar pressure.

It seems to me the that the "mansplainer" doesn't take into account the criticism aspect as to him whilst in general he can see women have more choices that's as far as it registers, I feel like men in general probably don't comment on clothes except at certain times like on a date/ a special occasion or when it's expected "oh you/ it look(s) beautiful "

I just feel women in general are going to be more critical of other women's dress sense more often to a point generally that men perhaps see options but not the downfalls.

Everyone seems to agree or many that women are targets for more comment and criticism in their clothing, is this a self made problem by women in general? By being more critical of women's clothes and many often going online or buying newspapers/ magazines to see what celebrities are wearing and commenting as such, or even when generally out mentioning it to friends or just generally noticing clothes more? And then feeling under similar pressure.

It seems to me the that the "mansplainer" doesn't take into account the criticism aspect as to him whilst in general he can see women have more choices that's as far as it registers, I feel like men in general probably don't comment on clothes except at certain times like on a date/ a special occasion or when it's expected "oh you/ it look(s) beautiful "

I just feel women in general are going to be more critical of other women's dress sense more often to a point generally that men perhaps see options but not the downfalls.

"Google marked vs unmarked behaviours and it's a fascinating field."

Fascinating! A quick skim, and the best example I can think of is shoes. So, can anyone here imagine shoes that a man might wear to indicate that he is, well, anything? The male equivalent of kinky boots? Other than things you would wear to a fetish club, I'm talking about clothing that someone would wear to a normal social occasion........

For men, shoes can be, just shoes. Things to walk in. For women? Well, are you gay or straight for starters given the over-whelming 'women in sensible shoes' trope. Steel toe-caps or Docs, trainers or stillies, sandals or kitten-heels, and on and on and on! Whereas chaps, black or brown, shoes or boots, smart or casual, work, walking, sport, raining or not, hot or cold? All very simple basic questions, with very little, as far as I can see, related to some message your shoes are sending out. But for women, frankly, all message and very little to do with actual functionality!

SomeDyke, a male friend of mine often gets comment about his shoes. He tends to wear fancy and expensive ones, which either gets compiments or ridicule in about equal measure.
Other friends wear big stompy boots like New Rocks which also get comments.
I think these do send out a signal - either smart dresser/bit of a dandy (depending on your point of view, or alternative.
Some men are very keen on various brands of trainers which also send a message, good or bad, depending.
Of course, it's way more prevalent for women, but not totally absent for men.

I do not think there is any such thing as "gendered clothing" - there is just clothing and anyone should be free to choose to wear whichever garment they fancy. Most of the time I look like a bloke - jeans/polo neck/jacket. If a man fancies wearing a skirt then good on him! I know one who does.

I don't think there should be "gendered-clothing" but unfortunately I think there are.

Do we not find it odd that "unisex" clothes are really traditionally men's clothes? The day I find dresses in the "unisex" clothes section (if there's such a thing) I'll stop thinking there's gendered-clothing.

Perhaps some of our male posters can comment on this: anatomically speaking won't it be more comfy for men to wear skirts and dresses?