Comments on: Dressing Ourselves: Gendered Versus Unisex Pants

By: Thing1

Thing1 — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:24:38 +0000

I’m probably alone here when it comes to clothing; I get one hundred percent of my outer-garments tailored for me. Resultantly I don’t often pay much attention to the various clothing advertisements and have only the most vague idea of what is currently in fashion.

The idea of a pair of trousers being specifically for men or women is ridiculous, the fit of the items is far more important than the gender they are prescribed for.

By: Sssourabh

Sssourabh — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:45:43 +0000

What an interesting article! I liked the concept of switching jeans to notice the pros and cons. Funnily enough I was referred to this via my own post, examining the cyclic trends of denim, which can be seen here in 2 parts:

Part 1: http://sssourabh.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-cyclicality-of-denim-jeans-part-1/
Part 2: http://sssourabh.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-cyclicality-of-denim-jeans-part-2/

I definitely think evolution has it where jeans are becoming more unisexual over time, so two thumbs up for pointing it out so well!

By: Framer[m]istika és statisztika | DENIMGLOBE

Framer[m]istika és statisztika | DENIMGLOBE — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:40:43 +0000

[...] cikke szolgált, Sourabh Sharma tollából. Ugyancsak fontos dolgokat olvastunk Lisa Wade “Dressing Ourselves: Gendered Versus Unisex Pants” cikkében a SOCIAL IMAGES oldalon. Képek/eredeti cikkek: Vintage Ads és [...]

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:13:59 +0000

Unisex pants look awful. Wouldn't be caught dead in them. But if you go shopping for men's pants all you find in retail shops are skinny jeans so you might as well be wearing unisex pants if your a man and buy these.

By: William O'Leary

William O'Leary — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:25:06 +0000

Men lose big time in fashion freedom and uniqueness since about 1960; women ‘s fashion is total freedom; what sexism ! Females have more menswear styles to wear than males; imagine that this cross-dressing or transvestism gender-wise were reversed ; females wouldn’t allow it !We men concerning less freedom in menswear, aka , pants , are just ” sheep ” !

By: Fiendish

Fiendish — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:18:19 +0000

I think Rachel makes a good point: young people do seem to bee moving away from rigid gender divides where fashion is concerned.

While androgyny has for some time now been a mark of a certain brand of male music, it’s definitely becoming more mainstream — Kings of Leon being an example of a pretty standard stadium-rock band who wear “girls’ jeans” and tight sweaters and so on.

The point being, I guess, that it’s nice to see change moving in a female direction for once, as women have long had to reclaim “male” clothing as a way of breaking down the gender boundaries.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:46:37 +0000

I think it’s a positive (albeit small) sign that younger generations are embracing traditionally more feminine silhouettes for people who self-identify as male. I’m specifically referring to “skinny jeans” and small t-shirts that many hipsters are now wearing. For years women have been able to wear ‘masculine’ clothing with greater ease than men who wear ‘feminine’ clothing. Think of a woman in a pants suit vs. a man in a skirt.

I realize there are still ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ articles of clothing as a generalization, but I’m just trying to see some positive in all of this.

By: anna

anna — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:52:31 +0000

american apparel has lots of unisex items, like the “slim slacks”… here’s a picture of them… i worked there and yes, both sexes buy the unisex items.

http://www.teaminfra.com/file.php?userid=31&file=brightpurple.jpg

By: Trabb's Boy

Trabb's Boy — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:07:08 +0000

Hi h-jg,

Yes, I am “for real”. While there is obviously a great deal of size and shape variation within each sex, the majority of women have hips and thighs that are larger in proportion to their waists than the majority of men. Companies market their clothes to the majority and ignore the outliers for economic reasons.

This is the same issue that came up with children’s toys. In that situation, it is horrible because it is aimed at the pliable minds of children and strongly perpetuates stereotypes by tacitly criticizing other choices by children. Adults with non-majority body shapes should be able to shop in the department aimed at the opposite sex without internalizing some sort of message that their body shape is “wrong”. That’s part of being an adult.

And no, I’m not speaking from a position of privilege. I am a woman who has always had to buy men’s pants because women’s pants are not made long enough to fit me. It means that I can usually find jeans, but can’t ever find business suit pants or cute casual pants that fit, because most men’s pants are not suited to my hip shape. I figure I can learn to sew or make do with what’s available. I do not see this as a reason to curse the patriarchy.

By: Tadjio

Tadjio — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:03:37 +0000

It’s really amazing how much the cut and shape of clothing items alters and contours the body. As a hobby I do a lot of sewing and clothesmaking as well as altering existing pieces, and along with my partner I do presentations and talks on how clothing is styled differently for each gender — with the end goal being of course to highlight and amplify real or perceived physical differences between the sexes. I show people how a women’s white dress shirt and a men’s white dress shirt, which may -look- superficially the same, are in reality very different garments: the men’s will have straight side-seams in the torso and broad angled shoulders, button up with the right side over the left, and be quite a bit longer; the women’s shirt will be shorter, nipped in at the waist, with narrow shouders and likely some pleating/gathering in the front to allow for cleavage, and will button with the left side over the right (wealthy women were historically dressed by servants in some regions of the world and this is a carryover from that, if I’m not mistaken).

I have worn men’s clothes almost exclusively since late adolescence (so about 10 years give or take) and nobody has ever seemed to notice very much, aside from a lot of understandable confusion about whether to call me ma’am or sir. My partner, who is male and wears women’s clothes about 75% of the time, seems to get a lot more attention, but this could also be attributed to the perception that we are a gay male or lesbian couple.

Even though our fashion sense differs, one thing we agree about is that women’s clothes are mainly intended to show much more of the body (either by fitting more closely or by baring extra skin) while a lot of mainstream men’s clothes are exceedingly plain, with style obviously taking a backseat to functionality and durability. Mainstream men’s clothes also seem to come in about four colors and two different patterns, at maximum, in certain larger chain retail stores. Not to mention that men’s clothes in America are expected to cover a lot more than women’s — when was the last time you saw any man wearing anything that exposed his midriff, unless he was at the beach? A guy with shorts that came up higher than midway on his thighs? Tight-tight non-denim pants? It’s virtually nonexistent (excluding those who are dressed for swimming or certain sports like cycling, where the cut and fit of the clothes are strictly utilitarian), and if it is spotted, people leap to the conclusion that the “scantily”-clad fellow is gay (because we all know WOMEN never visually appreciate the sight of a man’s body.) Again, unless you’re on the beach, these regions of a guy’s body are not seen in public largely because we seem to think that having one’s body “looked at” in a sexual way is inherently (and exclusively) reserved for women’s bodies only, and therefore somehow shameful.

Also, all issues of identity and sexuality aside, jeans designed for little boys (US sizes 14-16) are the ONLY pants that have ever fit me perfectly in the waist, hips and butt without needing to be rolled or hemmed up around the ankles. The straight cut is also far more flattering IMHO than any pair of women’s jeans I’ve ever tried, including those that are allegedly straight-leg jeans. I also find men’s clothes far more comfortable, but ironically my partner will make the exact same argument for -women’s- clothes, claiming the thinner material and more “fitted” tailoring is actually less restrictive than the blocky cuts and heavier material in men’s clothes.

By: h-jg

h-jg — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:14:31 +0000

Are you for real Trabb’s Boy? Perhaps you need to re-read what Lisa said. The primary point she made was, ‘[gendered clothing] makes it appear as if our bodies are in fact “opposite” when, in fact, they’re not quite as different as we often believe’. In your comment you seemed to make the assumption that women’s hips are bigger, whilst men’s hips are smaller. For one, what a generalization! Secondly, if it was the case that this was true for everyone, the point of this post (in my opinion) is that this is not just an innate biological difference, but rather one that is (re)created through gendered clothing. This clothing (re)molds bodies into certain shapes, and makes people feel comfortable in clothes which supports the shapes into which they have been (re)molded. Hypothetically, if all women’s clothing did have larger hips, and men’s clothing didn’t, the fact that the woman may feel comfier in female clothing is not something that *just is*. She may have grown up to think that she needs clothing with wider hips, and be *taught* to feel uncomfortable in any clothing that does not have wider hips. For example, *if* she did have wider hips, why not pull up men’s shorts ( presuming, under your theory that all men’s shorts are made for smaller hips), so that they sit up around the stomach? This would be just as comfortable, no? Why don’t the majority of women do this? Why is it more acceptable for women to wear men’s clothing, than it is for men to wear women’s? I personally find it quite misogynistic.
There is clothing advertised for *men* and *women*, but generally never anything for people who do not want to identify with either of these categories. A lot of mainstream clothing advertising is incredibly cis-centric ( not to mention a lot of other things).

Oh and btw, it really pisses me off when I go into the women’s section of Target/Big W in search of comfortable track pants to wear around the house, and find that they are all hipsters, or *I* find, tight around the butt. So I go to the men’s section. What makes me feel comfortable in certain clothes is not just some apolitical physical response to the clothing, I understand that. But I get annoyed when a lot of men’s/boy’s clothing is designed to be “comfortable” and utilitarian, whereas a lot of women’s clothing (butt-crack jeans, low-cut blouses,high heels) are, in some cases, more focussed on making women self-conscious, than allowing her to do certain things. Note that I am certainly not saying this sort of clothing is unambiguously oppressive to women (I get that it is *much* more complex than that).

By: Mint

Mint — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:35:47 +0000

Though I understand everyone’s opinions on both sides of the issue, both for or against gendered clothing, may I humbly and somewhat jokingly suggest everyone of any gender, shape, size, or type learn how to sew… that’s the only way I can get pants that fit comfortably… (I’m a girl if it matters.)

By: Brazen

Brazen — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:56:44 +0000

I want the white lace 70′s pants…and I want a guy confident enough to wear matching ones!

Some subcultures are starting to swing back in that direction; witness hipster and emo boys wearing what older, less svelte men mockingly refer to as “girl jeans.” When I was in high school, monster pants with crotches at knee level were the order of the day, and my girl friends and I lamented not being able to see guys’ butts better!

Of course, the most socially significant fact about this ad is that the LARGEST waist size available was a 34…

By: Cycles

Cycles — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:37:34 +0000

I ran into a similar issue when buying a bike. Trek and Specialized both have road bikes specifically marketed to women, but you can’t tell the difference by just looking at them. Mainly, the so-called women’s models have a shorter top tube (which works for people whose arms are proportionally shorter than those for whom the unisex bikes are designed), and little adjustments like brake levers that have a shorter reach (for people with small hands).

Which is a roundabout way of saying: the bikes don’t need to be marketed as women’s bikes. I’m sure lots of men have arms that are proportionally shorter, and hands that are smaller, than the bodies the “unisex” bikes are made for. And I’m sure men may wind up buying the “women’s” bikes because that’s what fits them.

By: waxghost

waxghost — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:55:27 +0000

al oof, exactly. I have an average-sized butt and hips but wide thighs and it can be hell for me trying to find pants that actually fit since neither men’s nor women’s pants widen at the thigh like I do. (In fact, the best pairs of pants that I’ve found for me are old cotton men’s pants (like grandpas wear when they want to look stylish).) But I don’t currently own a single pair of pants that fits me like they should.