To elaborate a little more, it is more acceptable for women to adopt men’s clothes because men are most closely identified with power. As such, although it is (possible now, but still) difficult for women to biologically change to men, women can still invoke some of that power by wearing suits, jackets, and jeans either inspired or ripped wholesale from men’s fashion. In this sense, fashion is a means of attaining power by proxy. However, the Des moines home of the big gay unicorn shirt in contrast I will get this same is not true for men wishing to wear women’s clothing simply because women are not only considered the less powerful sex but also because male identity is based upon being the antithesis of anything feminine. Examples: women are emotional, therefore men are not. Women are weak, therefore men are not. I could continue this ad infinitum but you get the point. Therefore, for a man to adopt women’s clothing means not only is he taking on the less powerful role, he is also negating his masculine identity. This is a bit of a tangent but I think this might also explain some of the opprobrium against the more flamboyant male homosexuals (and all male homosexuals by extension) because they are males who willing adopt more feminine characteristics through their clothing (wear pink, for example) and mannerisms (extravagantly displaying their emotions).
Comments