Gender and Clothes, or Buy Me a Dress!
I had this thought the other day, and then decided that it's probably a thought lots of people have had before, so I figured I'd just open it to a floor discussion.
I've always been struck by the fact that men's fashion is just less exciting than women's fashion (that is, men's fashion is limited to a few things, just variations on the three piece suit in most cases). I came to the conclusion that this is probably because of the former division of labor by gender in society; women did wear whatever they want (within the limits of other social guidelines) because they do not have the constrictions upon dress of a physical labor environment as men did. Now, men and women have similar labor constraints, but the clothing constraints have not changed for women. This is because the labor environment has also changed to that of a post-industrial economy. So, as the restrictions of women's lifestyles have been eased, so should have the restrictions of men's fashion. So it should be socially acceptable for me to wear a dress.
It's rought, but there's the theory
I've always been struck by the fact that men's fashion is just less exciting than women's fashion (that is, men's fashion is limited to a few things, just variations on the three piece suit in most cases). I came to the conclusion that this is probably because of the former division of labor by gender in society; women did wear whatever they want (within the limits of other social guidelines) because they do not have the constrictions upon dress of a physical labor environment as men did. Now, men and women have similar labor constraints, but the clothing constraints have not changed for women. This is because the labor environment has also changed to that of a post-industrial economy. So, as the restrictions of women's lifestyles have been eased, so should have the restrictions of men's fashion. So it should be socially acceptable for me to wear a dress.
It's rought, but there's the theory
Labels: culture, sociology/demography
posted by Mephisto at 3:48 PM
2 Comments:
Now, I was just thinking about this this afternoon. Guys don't get to vary it up with the patterns and empire waists and the shoes and all and sundry. And for a moment I was a little let down. But then I realized our game is in the subtlety. It's in the cut of the lapel and the matching your socks with your shoes/belt/pilgrim hat. While we don't get to be birds of paradise, to be a well dressed fella involves a fascinatingly subtle language of fabric. Mind you, I haven't had enough sleep in days and I may well be just babbling late at night.
Wow, that is a very positive interpretation of the "why do gals get to dress with greater variety and snazz?" question. Mine is much angrier.
The disparity in men and women's fashion to me comes from what is valued about each gender. Men are valued for their intellect, their achievements, and their money. Only the last is reflected in what they wear, and I think that comes across in what Mack was saying (fine fabrics and the ability to coordinate belts with shoes cost $$$ and show a dude's class). Women are there to look pretty, so naturally more accoutrements are available to them to reach that end.
That said, I agree you have the right to look pretty, too, so enough yackin' and get to shoppin'.
Post a Comment
<< Home