I’ve been reading this thread with interest, but I find some of the responses genuinely troubling, particularly those suggesting that a husband wearing a dress would be grounds for divorce.
Why?
We’re talking about a man who simply enjoys wearing a particular item of clothing and he isn’t necessarily questioning his gender identity, changing who he is or asking anyone else to dress differently. He just likes the dress! Women fought long and hard for the freedom to wear trousers and other traditionally masculine clothing and one of the central arguments was that wearing trousers did not make a woman any less of a woman. Her clothing did not determine her identity, femininity or worth, and rightly so. So why isn’t the same principle extended to men? Why should a man wearing a dress make him any less of a man?
I wonder whether some of the reactions here reveal a form of internalised misogyny that people may not even recognise in themselves. If a man embracing something traditionally feminine is seen as degrading, embarrassing or diminishing himself, what does that say about how femininity is valued?
Are we unconsciously treating masculinity as something superior that a man must protect, and femininity as something inferior that he must avoid? Because that isn’t equality whatsoever. It’s actually a damaging hierarchy dressed up as so called tradition. Of course, everyone is entitled to their personal preferences, including what they find attractive in a partner but there’s a significant difference between saying “I don’t particularly like my husband in that outfit” and saying “I would divorce him for wearing it.”
I find it extraordinary that we can celebrate a woman wearing a beautifully tailored man’s suit as confident and stylish, yet regard a man wearing a beautiful dress as somehow unacceptable. And there’s another troubling aspect to some of the responses here, that is, the assumption that a man wearing a dress must have some hidden motive. It's utter nonsense and incredibly judgemental. Why should enjoying a beautiful dress automatically be interpreted as a sexual fetish, a statement about gender identity or evidence of something more complicated? We generally accept that women can enjoy the beauty, feel, fit and elegance of their clothes without requiring some deeper explanation. Why can’t a man experience exactly the same pleasure? Surely we should take people at their word rather than invent motives for them.
And what about the argument I came across during this thread that dresses simply don’t suit men’s bodies? I'd point out that women’s bodies come in an enormous variety of shapes and proportions and some women have broad shoulders, narrow hips, muscular legs or little waist definition. Nobody should suggest that those women must avoid dresses because their bodies don’t conform to a particular ideal of femininity. So why apply that reasoning to men? It's a double standard and a garment either fits a particular person or it doesn’t. Whether someone finds it flattering is a matter of individual taste but neither question justifies deciding that an entire sex shouldn’t wear it.
I’ve also noticed the suggestion that men are already free to wear dresses, so there’s no problem to address. But being legally free to wear something is NOT the same as being free from ridicule, suspicion or social punishment for doing so. If a man can wear a dress but risks being treated as less masculine, less respectable or even unworthy of his marriage, surely we haven’t achieved genuine equality of personal expression.
It’s encouraging that some contributors here recognise this and have described men wearing dresses, skirts or heels as an ordinary part of life. Those experiences show that acceptance is entirely possible without turning someone’s clothing into a debate about their identity. And I think it’s important to separate this question from wider arguments about gender identity. A man can be entirely comfortable being a man and still love wearing beautiful, traditionally feminine clothes. Those two things are not contradictory. Surely the freedom women gained to dress as they choose should be a freedom we extend to everyone, rather than a privilege that works in only one direction. A dress doesn’t diminish a man’s masculinity any more than trousers diminish a woman’s femininity.
Fabric has no gender and enjoying the beauty, feel or elegance of a garment is a human preference, not a female privilege. And there’s one final point that I think goes to the very heart of this discussion. If femininity is something to value and celebrate in women, why should it be something to reject or ridicule in men? For generations, boys and men have been insulted by being compared to girls or women. They’re told to “man up”, mocked for being feminine, or made to feel that anything associated with womanhood somehow diminishes them. But why should femininity be humiliating? It's not humiliating to be a woman, is it?
If being feminine is not inferior to being masculine, why should a man wearing a dress be regarded as embarrassing, degrading or emasculating? And isn’t there a profound contradiction when women who rightly demand respect for their own femininity then treat femininity as something shameful when expressed by a man? This is where I believe some of these attitudes may reflect internalised misogyny, even when the people expressing them would strongly reject that description. If femininity is used to diminish a man, we are implicitly saying that femininity itself is something lesser and that should trouble anyone who believes in equality because a man doesn’t become less worthy of respect by embracing something feminine. Nor does he become less of a man. Quite the opposite in fact as he is not afraid to be who he is.