L’OFFICIEL USA: Men in Dresses: a Fashion History

[Coder]

https://www.lofficielusa.com/fashion/me ... bain-dress

Focuses on dresses, covers some basic history of fashion, short but to the point.

[STEVIE]

Hi Coder,
Gods, I hate to bang on about this but garments like the toga were not dresses in the way which we understand.
Nothing unisex here and it would have cost any non-conformist dearly to cross the line.
The best we can really say is that trousers being ascribed to men is a recent and unfounded construct.
Fashion freedom, such as it is, even more so!
Steve.

[rode_kater]

On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, where do you draw the line between a toga and a wrap-dress?

Wikipedia states they were worn over a tunic, which definitely counts as a dress IMHO.

[STEVIE]

Hi RK
I wouldn't actually draw a line between them, they are too similar.
I have no idea what the Roman term for a female garment would have been but the toga was exclusively male.
In respect of the time, I'd have thought that "cross-dressing" could have been a hobby fraught with danger.
Interesting thought, would you reckon a dress for guys labelled "Toga" would be commercially viable in main stream retail?
My bet would be no.
Steve.

[Ralph]

So I did some googling and found the answer to Stevie's question:

I have no idea what the Roman term for a female garment would have been but the toga was exclusively male.

First, "respectable" women wore the palla, which may at first glance appear to be similar to the toga but more decorative. In this illustration you see that the palla, at least in these examples, was gathered at the waist and hips and more closely fitting to more emphasise those feminine characteristics. In addition, it looks like the palla was a closed garment vs. the toga that was just folded across the front, either held closed with a clasp or even just tucked in to the belt.

Interestingly, it also says that prostitutes were expected to wear the less feminine toga.

It's tempting to validate our clothing choices of today by comparing against "dress codes" of eras past, but even back then there was a distinction between women's clothing and men's. And in the end, what people wore two thousand - or even two hundred - years ago has no bearing on contemporary society's standards for what is "masculine" and what is "feminine". Even if men and women back then wore literally identical garments down to the last seam, the people who need convincing - those who are offended or frightened of the idea of men wearing skirts - will say that wearing such things now is still wrong. You could talk yourself blue in the face with historical evidence, diagrams, written material from that period saying "how wonderful it is that men and women wear identical garments"... and still make no difference in the hearts and minds of those who object.

[STEVIE]

Thanks Ralph

It's tempting to validate our clothing choices of today by comparing against "dress codes" of eras past, but even back then there was a distinction between women's clothing and men's. And in the end, what people wore two thousand - or even two hundred - years ago has no bearing on contemporary society's standards for what is "masculine" and what is "feminine". Even if men and women back then wore literally identical garments down to the last seam, the people who need convincing - those who are offended or frightened of the idea of men wearing skirts - will say that wearing such things now is still wrong. You could talk yourself blue in the face with historical evidence, diagrams, written material from that period saying "how wonderful it is that men and women wear identical garments"... and still make no difference in the hearts and minds of those who object.

I guess a modern equivalent is a simple pair of jeans.
There are people out there who would not be seen dead in a pair outside of those tagged for their assigned gender.
We may see that it makes no damn difference but they most certainly will not.
Besides those evil Romans did turn some God fearing Christian folks into lion fodder so cannot possibly have been "civilised" !
Steve.

[Coder]

It's tempting to validate our clothing choices of today by comparing against "dress codes" of eras past, but even back then there was a distinction between women's clothing and men's.

I recognize this - really for me it comes down to two things:

1) Men have spent more time (historically) wearing unbifuricated garments, so it shouldn't be a shock that men still want to wear such things, be they a different form nowadays.

2) Showing styles have changed drastically over the years can help condition people to the idea that this is fine, men can wear skirts because fashion changes. It's a reason I feel the double standard "allowing" women to wear pants bugs me so much.

[STEVIE]

It's a reason I feel the double standard "allowing" women to wear pants bugs me so much

Coder, all we can do as men is show how absurd it is.
Also bear in mind that for the majority of women, being "allowed" to wear pants was an actual fact which arose from economic and political expediency. When the men were engaged in being Cannon Fodder, the women were graciously allowed to fill their shoes and the rest.
Eventually, the women organised took the whole wardrobe all by, and for, themselves.
Nowadays, men are as guilty of sustaining the double standard and even more vocally, than most women.
I reckon that as men, it is other men that we need to convince that a skirted guy is just "Joe Public". no more and no less.
Nothing evangelical, just a matter of choice. Seems simple really.
It's 06.40 here and I have the supermarket to visit. Warm day, short(ish) red skirt, top undecided but effect noticeable and the flag is flown.
Steve

[rivegauche]

Resenting the reality that women can choose trousers over skirts or dresses and we can't do the reverse is pointless. We should not resent women's choice. It just needs more men to make the move to make it more comfortable for the rest. Don't moan about women - lead by example for men. You do not improve the situation of men by being negative about women.

[Coder]

Resenting the reality that women can choose trousers over skirts or dresses and we can't do the reverse is pointless. We should not resent women's choice. It just needs more men to make the move to make it more comfortable for the rest. Don't moan about women - lead by example for men. You do not improve the situation of men by being negative about women.

Yes, I resent the double standard - but being upset with a standard does not mean I blame women for it or that I resent their ability to make choices. And I'm not being negative about or towards women - my feelings are more aimed at general society. It takes two to tango, so to speak.

[moonshadow]

Gods, I hate to bang on about this but garments like the toga were not dresses in the way which we understand.
Nothing unisex here and it would have cost any non-conformist dearly to cross the line.

My understanding is that throughout history men and women did indeed crossdress, especially during Roman and biblical times (hence the Hebrew passage against the practice).

I think messing with and mixing gender roles has always been part of the human experience, and will always be so regardless of the nay-sayers.

Googling "crossdressing during Roman times" yields some interesting reads, though many articles seem to skew towards "trans-ness"... still if you can filter out that modern day fluff [0] see the story underneath it can make for good reading.

[0] Not to make light of the modern day transgender movement, but I'm not sure if ancient crossdressers considered "gender" in the same context we do today.... at least I've never heard of an ancient transgender flag being found, or heard of an ancient pride parade. Different times... different context.

And I also doubt everyone was free to crossdress, I imagine it was likely limited to certain classes of people... but I'm not really sure.

[STEVIE]

My understanding is that throughout history men and women did indeed crossdress, especially during Roman and biblical times (hence the Hebrew passage against the practice).

Yeah Moon 0f course it has but that wasn't my point.
The Roman dude in the toga was not by any definition "cross dressing".
Men across history have worn styles and colours that we would consider highly feminine today but the whole context is different.
If the Hebrew text is Deuteronomy there appears to be some doubt about how that is translated.
The thinking seems to be that it refers to specific items and not the sweeping denouncement inferred.
More so that I believe the interpretation stems from the King James Bible 1611 which was the most accessible version to that point.
Unfortunately, it's success has shaped much of the prejudice and judgement which still persists today.
Steve.

[Ralph]

This "double standard" has been the topic of lively discussions in just about every crossdressing / gender non-conforming site I follow for years. It all boils down to an ugly truth:
Most of society looks down on femininity. Not females, mind you, but femininity. The trappings of traditional "feminine" behaviour are considered weak, inferior, subordinate. So a woman who looks and acts more like a man is elevating herself in the social hierarchy, whilst a man who looks and acts more like a woman is seen as degrading himself. Often the object of scorn or ridicule, at best the object of pity.

Yes, yes, there are notable exceptions around the world where the more gentle/passive/nurturing men are admired or at least acknowledged without hostility. But by and large, in most patriarchal societies, that is sadly not the case.

So the underlying answer to "why can women wear trousers but men can't wear dresses" is that trousers = masculine = good, dresses (or skirts) = feminine = weak.

Don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger! If you wish to quarrel with the way things are, argue with society (and good luck with that).

[STEVIE]

Don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger! If you wish to quarrel with the way things are, argue with society (and good luck with that).

Bang Bang Ralph,
Bang on and I really ought to be going out all guns blazing about an hour since but hey, what are vacations for?
Yeah, very well put, indeed, society in general and men especially just need to learn a few basic truths not it's own insidious hype and propaganda.
Yup and I will be the "Blackboard Monitor" for today!
Man on a mission now.
Steve.

[alexthebird]

I guess a modern equivalent is a simple pair of jeans.
There are people out there who would not be seen dead in a pair outside of those tagged for their assigned gender.
We may see that it makes no damn difference but they most certainly will not.

But there is a difference. Women's jeans are usually made with a significant amount of stretch material and area designed to be somewhere from moderate to very body conscious. Mens jeans (except for those from the higher end fashion companies) are somewhat shapeless and are not designed to be hug or shape the body beneath them.

This is the kind of thing we can talk about forever, but one of the major distinctions that is made between men's and women's clothes is that women's clothes present a very broad palette for how the wearer wants what they are wearing to reflect an image of their body. Do you want to wear stretchy, black/camo body hugging lycra or a sleek, sophisticated sweater and pencil skirt, or a big billowy floral skirt over Doc Martens? There's a lot of choice in how to present an image.

Men's clothes mostly cover the naughty bits and provide warmth.

And before we all get on the double standard soapbox, the economist in me asks if this is a supply problem or a demand problem. If producers thought there was a demand for more choices in men's clothes, wouldn't they make more choices available? I heard an interesting podcast recently from Stephen Dubner and Angela Duckworth on whether a problem is really a supply problem or demand problem in a different context, but a lot of it applies here as well. Here's the link: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-poo ... d-problem/