"Unisex". Let's just stop it.

[Jim2]

Tootsa Maginty are hypocrites. If you look at their pictures, every garment is accompanied by two modeled images showing it being worn - by both a girl and a boy - EXCEPT the dresses, where it is modeled in two poses by the same girl. Basically, everything is unisex, but they have to keep some special bits for girls only (nothing for boys only, of course). In other words, their claim that everything is unisex is really a sham. They are trying to show themselves as radical and ethical, and "feminist" and are against gender stereotyping etc, when really they are just stereotyping discreetly - favouring girls, of course.

From their website, it looks like they are running out of stock generally, so my guess is they will be having a Spring 2015 range out fairly soon. Let's see if that's the same.

I see what you mean but I think you are being unfair to them. You could try reaching out to them like I did. If you do, please be respectful. Now that you have brought this to my attention, I will write something to them. They do see themselves as doing, as they put it, "a pretty good job of supporting 'the community of parents raising gender non-conforming boys'". They might be amenable to making this change. And even if they don't or can't do it right away, it does not make them simply hypocrites. The things they sell to boys (and they get many parents buying stuff for boys - they know as they get lots of positive comments from such parents) is very far from the normal macho stuff often sold for boys. Sometimes change is slower than we'd like.

[phathack]

Several posts have recently appeared featuring the notion of "unisex" garments, mostly under the context of clothes for children -- which is entirely appropriate -- and which have been "bent" somewhat in an attempt to include adult behavior and style.

First and foremost, "unisex" is an entirely loaded term. On the face of it, it's innocent enough, but in practice it's historically used as a way to turn women into second-class men. I went digging in the recesses of my mind (where it's usually not advised to tread, mind) as to when the term first arose, and I recalled that it was some time in the late 1960s. That said, precisely the only use of the term concerned attempts to get male-styles (be it clothes, hair, or whatnot) accepted on women -- I have never seen the term inverted to get women's style clothes (or hairstyles or anything else) accepted on guys.

If Wikipedia is to believed on the matter, the term was first used in 1968 in an issue of Life magazine. I found this interesting, as it dovetails quite nicely with my own memories (In 1968, I was seven years of age). Hilariously, the Wikipedia entry goes on to state, which I find completely apropro,

Eventually, the 1960s can be considered the decade in which “unisex” and “unisex clothing” became widely spread. The “unisex” trend arose in response to the youth revolution and the hippie movement of the 1960s and the women’s liberation movement of the early 1970s. However, this trend can be considered a more recent form of the aforementioned fashionable clothing, because it confirms a traditional feminine role subservient to the masculine role given the fact that “unisex clothing”, mostly, represents women wearing (altered) men’s clothing.

So, let's just discontinue the use of the term, shall we? It does us no good, and can be ultimately considered demeaning to our sisters.

The real question for me is why do women wear Unisex Clothing which is just (altered) men’s clothing and yet of the designers that have attempted to offer Unisex Clothing which is just (altered) women’s clothing those designs have not been accepted my men?

[Caultron]

...The real question for me is why do women wear Unisex Clothing which is just (altered) men’s clothing and yet of the designers that have attempted to offer Unisex Clothing which is just (altered) women’s clothing those designs have not been accepted my men?

Women are a lot less concerned about looking mannish than men are about lookig womanish.

Maybe that's because women are accustomed to greater variety, maybe because men still see women as the weaker sex.eho knows? It just is.

[Stu]

I see what you mean but I think you are being unfair to them. You could try reaching out to them like I did. If you do, please be respectful. Now that you have brought this to my attention, I will write something to them. They do see themselves as doing, as they put it, "a pretty good job of supporting 'the community of parents raising gender non-conforming boys'". They might be amenable to making this change. And even if they don't or can't do it right away, it does not make them simply hypocrites. The things they sell to boys (and they get many parents buying stuff for boys - they know as they get lots of positive comments from such parents) is very far from the normal macho stuff often sold for boys. Sometimes change is slower than we'd like.

Jim - I am always respectful - I wouldn't dream of being rude.

When I say they are hypocritical, I don't believe I am being unfair to them. This is a firm who have, of late, being proclaiming that absolutely everything they sell is unisex. They used to say that everything is unisex "apart from a few dresses" - but they have now supposedly amended that and declared there are now no exceptions. Hmm.

I have been following this "unisex" trend and it is a bandwagon which some trendy childrenswear firms are jumping on. The industry even has an award for this which, I have no doubt, they have their eyes on. Remember that any childrenswear supplier can claim that all their stock is unisex and it costs them nothing to do that. It is a marketing strategy only and they can then make the excuse that it's up to parents to decide who wears what (as Polarn o. Pyret have done). What is hypocritical is claiming that everything you sell is strictly unisex and, as they told the Daily Telegraph recently, that every garment is modeled by both a girl and a boy - and then show the dresses being modeled only by girls.

They know they are not being entirely honest about this but business is business. By all means write to them and let us know what they say. I can almost guarantee you will be fobbed off.

[pleated]

This company in Sweden did publish a photo with a boy in a dress, but it was in 2012-
https://www.facebook.com/villervallabar ... 78/?type=1

They do use plenty of bright colours for their clothing, but currently there are no pictures on their shop site of any boys in dresses.
http://www.villervalla.se/en/
http://www.villervalla.se/en/gallery

[pleated]

Though I'm not sure if the tallish child with long hair on the left of this photo wearing a skirt is a boy or a girl (?)
http://www.villervalla.se/shop/8517/851 ... 919d52.jpg

Edit: Correction, just looked again, it is a girl so my previous comment was correct.

[oldnick2]

It's not unisex - it's 'agender'!

This is an article from Saturday's Times (copied as it's a subscription site). Call me cynical but I can't see any change happening soon. Maybe I'll try to buy a skirt in Selfridges next time I'm in London and see how serious they are! Seems the comments are more about women wearing traditional men's clothing than the other way round.

Selfridges has an agenda for change in the way we shop, based on the idea that men and women are really not that different any more. And this agenda, the marketing wizards have decided, will be called “agender”.

No more will there be separate departments for women’s clothes and men’s clothes, usually on separate floors. Instead, unisex shopping is in. The Oxford Street department store has announced that it is making spaces on three of its floors “gender neutral”.

Selfridges has launched no fewer than five unisex fashion collections, as well as “agender” pieces chosen from 40 of its regular brands. It is unclear how the store will display them, since it is also doing away with mannequins.

“We want to take our customers on a journey where they can shop and dress without limitations or stereotypes,” the store said in a statement. “A space where clothing is no longer imbued with directive gender values, enabling fashion to exist as a purer expression of ‘self’.”

Nor does the gender neutrality stop at clothes. Selfridges is also presenting mixed-gender beauty products and accessories, displaying perfumes alongside shaving products to promote the idea that men and women do not want gender-segregation.

It is a view that is catching on. Miuccia Prada, the Italian fashion designer, announced at a recent show, while wearing a baggy men’s jumper: “I think to people, not to gender.”

Jane Shepherdson, the chief executive of Whistles, which has launched a collaboration to create unisex raincoats with Stutterheim, a Swedish company, said: “The line between menswear and womenswear has been blending for a while now. A lot of our men’s collection influences our women’s collection and vice versa.

“There’s also something rather comforting about wearing androgynous clothing, especially in this cold transitional period before the trends of the season have really established themselves.”

Gap, Matchesfashion.com and Cos have all noticed significant increases in the number of women buying men’s clothes to wear themselves. Conversely, men seem not averse to buying women’s knitwear.

Some fashion insiders think that women are wearing men’s clothes because they are more comfortable and it is a logical extension of the trend for looser clothing.

Lou Stoppard, editor of Showstudio.com, said that our thoughts about what is sexy are changing. “The idea that a woman only looks sexy in a short skirt or a cocktail dress is so dated,” she said.

Cathal McAteer, of the fashion label Folk, has been dressing “tomboy” women for more than a decade, ever since the women who visited his menswear shop started demanding men’s shirts and knitwear. He believes that his clients, who include the actresses Laura Bailey and Rebecca Hall, “look better when they are dressed in something that is more androgynous than when they do the red carpet”.

That is easily said when you look like Laura Bailey or Rebecca Hall, but perhaps not so simplistic for the rest of us.

[crfriend]

Maybe I'll try to buy a skirt in Selfridges next time I'm in London and see how serious they are!

If you do so, please let us know about the experience.

Seems the comments are more about women wearing traditional men's clothing than the other way round.

I've got a fiver that the only noticeable result will be a further "dumbing down" of style into the realm of drab.

Putting together a skirted ensemble takes a fair bit of work -- and force of mind if one hasn't been doing it for years. That's a downside right there.

Guys are expected to blend into the woodwork and essentially disappear; this is why most wear the personality-disposal costume that is jeans and a t-shirt. We may as well be forced to wear bhurkas. Too, the gals are tiring of the extra effort involved. Sapphire routinely produces one or two entire loads of laundry every week; how this is possible is an unknown at this time as she looks the same, day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out. If it wasn't for my skirts and like of colour, this place'd be as drab as drab can be.

[Grok]

"Unisex" and "androgynous" are code words. They really mean that women will raid the male side of the aisle, while men are really supposed to stay locked in a tiny, stultifying box.

I wonder how the advocates of "unisex" would react to this scenario: A significant number of men decide to raid the women's side of the aisle for a particular style of skirt. These men adopt this skirt, and declare it to be "unisex."

[Grok]

One conceivable exception-such as the Japanese "Rakuten" denim skirt, and the "madras kilt"-would be for a supplier to try to sell its skirts to men. (Oddly enough, X Marks has a thread for the madras kilt, in which Riverkilt suggested wearing it in the desert heat). This would simply be a ploy to increase sales, but at least it would be an honest ploy.

[Stu]

"Unisex" and "androgynous" are code words. They really mean that women will raid the male side of the aisle, while men are really supposed to stay locked in a tiny, stultifying box.

I wonder how the advocates of "unisex" would react to this scenario: A significant number of men decide to raid the women's side of the aisle for a particular style of skirt. These men adopt this skirt, and declare it to be "unisex."

This is quite true. Unisex invariably means females appropriating male garments. The extent to which ther reverse occurs is minimal and tokenistic.

A really simple experiment would demonstrate this. Jeans have long been unisex in character, but let's see them use the same fabric to create a simple denim skirt and market that as unisex.When I say "market" it, I mean properly - modeled by both a female and a male model. I am not aware of that ever happening by any mainstream manufacturer or retailer. If, and when, it ever does, then we can take the unisex concept seriously. Until then, the term will just mean women and girls borrowing from the already pitifully limited range of clothing options open to men - but not the reverse.

[Grok]

I have been ranting, because I am annoyed by the hypocrisy.

[crfriend]

I have been ranting, because I am annoyed by the hypocrisy.

Getting annoyed by the hypocrisy is a waste of time and effort; it's better to spend one's energy trying to influence minds outside the scope of the observed problems, and that's done -- at least in my case -- by actively challenging minds by my mere presence as a clearly identifiable man who happens to be wearing a skirt.

Women seem to be allowed hypocrisy; in men, it's considered deeply dishonourable. To my mind, it's dishonourable for either, and I tend to be pretty quick to call it out.

[Grok]

Agreed. This is my last rant about this topic. In the future I may point out to others what "unisex" and "androgynous" really means, but only for the sake of realism.

[Grok]

Seems the comments are more about women wearing traditional men's clothing than the other way round.

I've got a fiver that the only noticeable result will be a further "dumbing down" of style into the realm of drab.

Well, as was mentioned on another thread, little girls may now wear dinosaur prints. But as for adults, I'm afraid that you are right-further dumbing down.