Can I go back in time further Uncle Al? At the end of the 19th century, in this corner of North West Europe, life for the masses would have been a daily grind to provide food and shelter, indulgences such as cloths were few and far between, save for 'Sunday best'. Children were clothed identically in tunics or dresses to optimize the opportunity of 'hand me downs'.
After the staggering loss of (male) life during WWI there was an unprecedented inequality in gender, for the first time women who wanted a mate had to compete hard with each other to get one. This is the point at which (I believe) western women fell prey to the fashion industry and a generation learned they had to look pretty in order to stand out from the crowd, that same generation went on to teach their daughters to do the same. Skirts and dresses were the base uniform, style, colour and other embellishments are add on. Being fewer in number men had the greater choice of mate and could afford to be selective which only served to throw fuel on the female competition fire.
I'm hardly a voyeur but have carefully watched women interact together in mixed social situations. They appear to invest the greater proportion of time and effort in competing with each other for looks, style and deportment than they do reaffirming old or creating new friendships. Hate to say it but maybe that's where the word bitchiness comes from?
To return to topic.
I am of the opinion that clothing has less to do with gender and more to do with attracting and keeping a mate with the exception of work or leisure pursuits when practicality is the over riding consideration. As Darryl has suggested that statement probably has to carry the added burden of Genotype, Phenotype and the confusing ebb and flow messages our Endocrine systems send out.
I very much like the 'alphabet soup' analogy previously mentioned far better than 'spectrum', after it takes all sorts to make a world.
