• Black Cable V-neck – J Crew
• Houndstooth Trousers – Urban Outfitters
• Scarf – H & M
• Belt – Gift from Sal
• Boots – J Crew

It looks like my student’s visual analysis papers have led to a great discussion. Now if I could only get this discussion going in the class room!  I have found all of your comments about the marketing of clothing, particularly the use of essentalizing gendered language and the heteronormativity of such marketing, so interesting!

It seems the limitations of language is always an issue when trying to avoid generalizations.  My students always struggle with this.  What pronoun should they use when writing about the viewer of a work of art?  Their default is always “he.”  Understandably, they don’t want to use the awkward “he/she” (problematic for its  conformance to a binary anyway).  I  encourage them to be specific whenever possible.  Was the work of art created for a monastery?  Then, the viewer was probably male.  Is it a contemporary art work you saw at the museum?  Then, use YOUR preferred pronoun.

Similarly, I try to demonstrate to them that claiming a figure looks feminine says very little about the figure.  Be specific. Tell me he has an elongated neck and red cheeks if that is what you observe. If you avoid associating these characteristics with the figure’s gender (or sexuality, as some students did) you leave yourself open to other possibilities — its cold outside, its a mannerist work, etc.

I started this discussion yesterday because I wanted to talk about the combining of different aesthetics often labeled “feminine” and “masculine” and was finding myself frustrated not to have better terms to use.  I was reminded by reader AC to be specific!  I loved her suggestion of using the terms “geometric” and “organic” to describe yesterday’s combination of stripes and flowers.

The last time I wore the striped cardigan, I noted the combination of  slouchy and polished and  when I wore A2’s jeans (which fit me like “boyfriend jeans” b/c they are a size bigger than my own) I called them girlfriend jeans — specific!

I think once again today’s outfit is the perfect combination of geometric (houndstooth) and organic (floral vine pattern) and of loose (scarf) and structured (belt).  I like that none of these terms – geometric, organic, slouchy, polished, loose, structured, carry any gendered connotations.  It’s actually quite difficult to find descriptive terms that are not gendered in connotation.

What terms do you like?

A

14 Responses to “18 November 2009”

1. Serena :: Style on a String
   November 18th, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

   That is stunning. I’d steal the entire look

   That belted scarf gives a great shape and new life to otherwise ordinary outfits

   Style on a String :: Because style has nothing to do with money.

2. Kaylyn
   November 18th, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

   It is hard! I really love your scarf. The patterns is so pretty.

3. Kathleen
   November 18th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

   Great post! Elegant style and thought provoking commentary: what more could we ask for? Thanks! Inspired by your looks on academichic, I tried the loose scarf and structured belt combo this week, and now another example of how well the contrast works!

4. chat noir
   November 18th, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

   First, let me tell you how much I am enjoying your blog. I am an engineer, soon to be a PhD student (robotics to be more specific) and while our areas of study are quite different, the quest for a personal look is the same. The pattern on the scarf is beautiful!

   This discussion on gender and clothing is very interesting. I find myself amused and sometimes annoyed by the various terms, whether it is “boyfriend blazer” or “diva jeans”. I find them rather constricting and patronizing, as if I am a toddler. I guess they are handy for conjuring a certain visual but I am not fond of them. I want a nice, slouchy blazer, there is no need to put a specific tag to that. My own boyfriend was very perplexed when I explained to him why it is called thus! However, it is the tags themselves that I find a bit ridiculous, not so much the fact that that they are gender specific – though the diva like adjectives annoy me. Also, the clip from “Dangerous Liaisons” was a good reminder that what we consider appropriate for men and women changes.

   I study and work in a very male domineered profession (I am the only woman in a laboratory of 20 people) and I am aware that I have veered outside the professions that women usually choose. And so, I sometimes ponder on what exactly we consider masculine and feminine. However, we are creatures of our times and I believe that to an extent we adopt our society’s beliefs. It is then up to the individual to decided what to keep and what to choose. Especially for clothing, I think that women can adopt men’s trends, the reverse I think is more difficult – I would also have some trouble accepting it.

   I would like to to ask you a question. It seems to me, be reading this post, that you seem to prefer using non-gendered adjectives etc. to describe attributes in art or in your clothing style. Is it because you feel that they conjure a certain, perhaps inaccurate image and that they limit the perception of a work of art? I certainly find the use of he/she irritating. Many things cannot be seen in a binary male/female logic, however each and everyone of us has a certain gender, male or female; transgendered people choose their own according to what they perceive to be appropriate for them. And so, we attribute certain behaviors etc. to gender. Perhaps it is awareness of the fact that we do so that allows us to realize that it can be limiting. Besides, what is considered masculine or feminine is different from person to person.

   And I must stop here because this comment will turn into an essay!

5. La Historiadora de Moda
   November 18th, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

   I’m really happy that you all have brought up this discussion in these recent posts. It was interesting to read Cosmo’s comments about marketing, etc. even though calling jeans “boyfriend” jeans or “the diva” is more apt to make me less likely rather than more likely to buy the jeans in question. I too prefer more specific terms, such as floral, whimsical, romantic, fluttery, natural, geometric, bold, etc.

6. Julia
   November 18th, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

   I am so pleased that this is your outfit today because I’d been hoping to tell you ladies what I’ve been doing this week.

   Monday and Tuesday I inadvertently wore shades of black and white. After those two days I decided to do that the rest of the week and it is much more difficult than I would have expected!

   Your all black and white outfit looks amazing, but I challenge you to try and do it for a full week. It really has put me in a sort of down/calm mood the whole week.

   Looking good, as always!

7. Anna
   November 18th, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

   Pretty outfit!

   I also hate the ridiculous names given to clothing, not just because of the gendered notions, but because of the manipulative marketing. A “boyfriend jean” is big and slouchy. If I wanted a bigger and slouchier jean than what I’d normally wear, I’d buy a size up. Or I’d go DIY and actually wear my boyfriend’s jeans! But these jeans are most likely priced higher than the “normal,” non-trendy jean one would normally purchase.

   As far as pronouns go, I try to be specific whenever possible. If I don’t know, I tend to use her/she. As a side note to this discussion, I’m an English student, and I’ve read in a few articles/books on writing that “they” is becoming acceptable for use as a singular pronoun in order to avoid gender distinctions. I have mixed feelings about this personally, but it’s an interesting solution.

   Also, if I may make a suggestion, another great way to show your students how what we consider masculine/feminine changes would be with some old rock concert clips. The male rock star (Mick Jagger, Robert Plant, etc.)is often used as an example of ultimate masculinity, but in the sixties and seventies men often wore ruffles and flowers.

8. missrobin
   November 19th, 2009 @ 4:32 am

   Elegant, classy, sophisticated, timeless.
   You wear it well!

9. Sally
   November 19th, 2009 @ 5:55 am

   I’d somehow missed that you referred to your jeans as “girlfriend jeans”! Ahhh, A, you rock. And I love seeing that belt in action!

10. Doctoressa
    November 19th, 2009 @ 9:16 am

    Gorgeous combination – you have such a knack for the visually interesting monochrome look.

    And such marvelous moderation on the thorny issue of gender and clothes by both you and S! I’ve found the discussion to be very interesting. I love the portrait of Louis XIV in full regalia to make the same point to my students: long curly hair, exposed calves, high-heeled red shoes, yards of lace = masculine?

11. Nadine
    November 19th, 2009 @ 10:03 am

    This is an interesting discussion! I just love what you’re wearing – the long vertical lines and black-and-white palette are fantastic.

12. Diana
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 8:27 am

    I love that scarf! This is a great look on you.

13. Megan
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 8:31 am

    Very sophisticated. =) fyi- I linked to this post on my blog. Just wanted to let you know.

14. Silver Bells… or Circles « from Sneakers to Stilettos
    December 1st, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

    [...] it looked on others and have been very unsure about it. Here are some examples of others doing this here and here. So this morning after I put the skirt and top together, I felt like I needed more color. [...]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website

Comments