As an exercise I sometimes ask the students in my gender class to try on the pants of their friends of the opposite sex. That is, I ask women to try on men’s pants and men to try on women’s pants. They often react with surprise at how effectively the jeans make their bodies look like the bodies of their opposite sex friends. (Women often complain that their guy friends look “better” in their jeans than they do!) This starts a discussion of the many ways that our choices about what to wear make it appear as if our bodies are in fact “opposite” when, in fact, they’re not quite as different as we often believe.
We dress ourselves to emphasize certain beliefs about what men’s and women’s bodies should look like by choice, because not doing so carries some negative consequences, and because doing so is institutionalized. It’s institutionalized insofar as department stores have separate men’s and women’s sections (and no unisex section) and jeans are made for and marketed as men’s and women’s.
It doesn’t have to be this way, and wasn’t always. Check out these ads from the 1960s and ’70s:
Found at Vintage Ads and the Torontoist.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 39
Vettekaas — June 9, 2009
NOBODY should be wearing those white lace see-though pants, no matter what your gender identity ;-P
Rosemary — June 9, 2009
I wish there was more unisex clothing, since I prefer that sort rather than just male/female or nothing at all. Generally I seem to like more gender neutral clothing, and most men's clothing tends to be better made and more comfortable, at least in my experience.
Sara — June 9, 2009
I was watching an episode of What Not to Wear, in which the woman they were making over was very tall and a bit stocky (probs about a woman's size 14/16). When she went shopping without the hosts, she picked up a pair of men's jeans for herself because they fit her really really well (obviously her frame isn't really catered to by women's designers), and the hosts were snarking "we don't allow cross-dressing". It's interesting that they would rather she have to go to great lengths to find women's jeans which fit her, because they're "women's," than just to wear the pants she likes and feels comfortable in. Gendered clothing FTW!
mordicai — June 9, 2009
Yeah, because swingers from the 70s are totally a representative sample. In 30 years will you talk about Hot Topic with universals?
I mean, I ain't saying clothes ain't gendered, but pointing to counter culture from the 70s as a magical time when all clothing was equal...is naive.
Megan — June 9, 2009
Wasn't the issue of unisex clothing discussed at length a few posts back? Some of us (and by that I mean "me", though I wasn't the only one) felt that while the idea of unisex clothing is all well and good, clothing designed for another body type doesn't work for us. I happen to love the style of clothing called "men's", but learned a long time ago that it doesn't suit my body type, so got used to wearing dresses and skirts and -gasp- women's jeans. So no, we can't all wear uni-sexy pants.
Maggie — June 9, 2009
"I happen to love the style of clothing called “men’s”, but learned a long time ago that it doesn’t suit my body type, so got used to wearing dresses and skirts and -gasp- women’s jeans. So no, we can’t all wear uni-sexy pants."
I think this makes a very good case for uni-sex pants that come in all shapes an sizes. The notion that women's bodies are so radically different from men's has perpetuated the standard that women and men must absolutely need to wear separate clothing. The reality is that *people* come in all shapes and sizes, which isn't necessarily dictated by gender.
Nerfmobile — June 9, 2009
The man in the white lace pants looks an awful lot like one of my junior high teachers - and the vision of him in white lace pants is NOT what I need!
Vidya — June 9, 2009
Yikes, the 'class exercise' of being asked to try on someone else's pants (even if, as I assume it was, as 'homework') would have probably caused me to have an emotional meltdown as an undergrad -- just another cultural message that *no one else is as gigantic as you -- you can't even wear pants made for large men, you fat fatty fat.*
But these old ads at least make me think that I'm actually not going crazy when I think I recall students' clothing being much less gender-differentiated when I was in school (15-20 years ago) than I see around me on campus today. As much as I love the comfort enabled by the invention of stretch denim, I blame it in part for the skankification of even 'respectable' women's clothing. (Old all-cotton skin-tight jeans were so uncomfortable that I only recall them being worn by the most...um, 'dedicated' of girls.)
Unisex pants for everyone! « Dating Jesus — June 9, 2009
[...] June 9, 2009 · No Comments Get this: We dress ourselves to emphasize certain beliefs about what men’s and women’s bodies shou... [...]
Lisa Wade, PhD — June 9, 2009
Vidya,
I agree that it could be traumatizing. The exercise is always voluntary, which I hope helps.
Trabb's Boy — June 9, 2009
Okay, once I stopped convulsing with laughter over those pants -- sheer nerve! -- it occured to me that the experiment you mention doesn't really show that the clothes make the shape. Women's pants are roomier in the hips, so they will be looser on a man and make his butt look bigger. Men's pants are narrower in the hips, squeeze women's bodies in that area more and make their butts look smaller. I suspect we aren't so much choosing pants that define our preconceptions as choosing pants that fit.
cindy — June 9, 2009
clothing company American Apparel sells many unisex clothing items. Most of their jeans are unisex, as are many of their shirts. Ironically, though, American Apparel is run by a flagrant sexist/misogynist, and their advertisements reflect that.
Ian Aleksander Adams — June 9, 2009
My girlfriend and I actually wear the same shorts a lot - we get cords from thrift stores and cut em off over the knee, since they make really comfy shorts that are good for biking. I don't think anyone has ever noticed.
al oof — June 9, 2009
i agree with maggie. i can wear men's pants, but they look different than when i wear women's pants because i've got serious hippage. but that's just me. some women don't have defined hips and some men do.
i've always found the idea that women need small stuff irritating as well. smaller ski jackets, smaller necked guitars. but the truth is, small men and then forced to 'cross dress', just because someone decided that they are not the shape that 'men' are supposed to be.
Nataly — June 9, 2009
Vidya--It'd have had me an emotional wreck for that, but also for having no friends, much less male ones, through most of college. Class assignments were always an exercise in me feeling bad about myself.
I find it interesting that it brings out what's "feminine" in women, but what's "sexy and male" in men.
Inky — June 9, 2009
I still second the idea that more clothing should be marketed as unisex. Every man I've dated has owned at least one pair of women's pants. Some wore them for the sake of practicality, because they couldn't find small enough sizes in men's clothing stores, but most chose women's jeans for purely aesthetic reasons, because they prefer the look and fit.
And, to Trabb's Boy: As to pants being designed with an archetypal male or female "fit" in mind, I wear teenage boy's skate shorts over the summer and have found them to have plenty of room for my (barely there) hips and ("girly" i.e. substantial) butt- nothing gets squished. There's no such thing as a specificly gendered fit. Men and women come in a variety of sizes and shapes.
Miriam — June 9, 2009
Cindy - I'd had the same thought about American Apparel. On top of the owners douchebaggery, the unisex pants only go up to a size 34, which *barely* fits me at a size 12. In the pants intended only for women they stop at a size 30, which is more like a 6 or 8.
Cycles — June 9, 2009
Also interesting: although the pants themselves may be unisex, both images make it very obvious which one is the woman and which one is the man, and the copy reinforces that concept: "It's not the clothes that separate the girls from the boys." So we have a product that uses the concept of androgyny to reinforce gender differences. Fascinating!
Caitlan — June 9, 2009
"There’s no such thing as a specificly gendered fit. Men and women come in a variety of sizes and shapes." Well, yes, people come in different sizes, but I don't think most women, except slim ones, can wear fitted (rather than oversized) men's jeans comfortably. When I wore my dad's work jeans for a construction project, they went on fine but were much more restricting than my real jeans. It was partly because they don't have any stretch at all and partly because men's jeans are meant for the waist and hips to be the same measurement and my hips are 12" bigger than my waist. Does it make sense why that was uncomfortable? The hips were fine and the waist would stiffly hold still while I bent and reached and worked, and I am very glad pants are available made specifically for women.
Skirts, though, anyone can wear and would probably love the feel of.
al oof — June 9, 2009
but caitlan, aren't you really glad they make pants specifically for people with hips? it's all well and good that you are a woman and you have hips, but again, some women don't. and some men do. gendering clothes doesn't mean more options. options mean more options.
i fit great in some ladies pants but not all. because women don't have the same proportions all the time. i have wide hips and a big butt, and some pants are made for hips without big butts. those pants are women's pants, but they aren't much more comfortable than a men's pant that is fitted for the hips and waist to be the same narrowness. having a "woman" option is fantastic, if you fit the proportions they decide mean "woman". but what if you don't? and what if you do, but you're a 13 year old boy who'll get the shit kicked out of you for wearing 'ladies' pants?
Original Will — June 10, 2009
Waist size 24" - 34"? Apparently for big guys like me, there ain't no unisex option
waxghost — June 10, 2009
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.
Cycles — June 10, 2009
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.
Brazen — June 10, 2009
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...
Mint — June 10, 2009
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.)
h-jg — June 11, 2009
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).
Tadjio — June 11, 2009
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.
Trabb's Boy — June 12, 2009
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.
anna — June 12, 2009
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
Rachel — June 13, 2009
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.
Fiendish — June 19, 2009
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.
William O'Leary — October 5, 2009
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 " !
Ben — August 30, 2010
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.
Framer[m]istika és statisztika | DENIMGLOBE — December 10, 2010
[...] 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 [...]
Sssourabh — December 22, 2010
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!
Thing1 — February 21, 2011
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.
itsivxx — April 26, 2017
Most women are OBESE to be able to wear mens pants. This talks about the 70's and 80's when Fat/Obese/Nasty women were almost unheard of. Women sure have turned Ugly in the last 30 years and its to bad
Aadila — February 17, 2018
Buy capris online India and get the cheapest short pants for men in entire world.