A slightly different gender-based clothing topic that I’d like to point out is the lack of true diversity of styles made for women (and men too). My girlfriend wears strictly men’s (and boy’s) clothing because that is the style she prefers and feels like herself in. Unfortunately finding clothes that fit a woman well, but are designed strictly for men’s bodies is a frustrating process as men’s clothes do not account for breasts, hips and thighs or shorter stature!

It seems like some options for menswear is becoming (dare I use the word?) more “metrosexual” (therefore more feminine?), but I don’t see the same shift in female clothing. Almost all of it is designed exclusively for “feminine” identifying women.

It would be interesting to dig up the genealogy of the term ‘boyfriend’ as a descriptor of cardigans and jeans of a certain style. In the 1980s and 1990s generous proportions were, if memory serves me, described as ‘slouchy,’ ‘baggy’ and/or ‘oversized.’ These terms, however, do not connote the sophistication that is supposed to attach to high-end retail establishments like BR, Anthro. and JCrew (all of which are guilty of using the voguish term). Given the heteronormativity that permeates these companies, it’s no surprise ‘boyfriend’ is preferred to the alternatives.

I think another interesting, related consideration is the continued desire to feel ‘small’ in one’s clothes.

S.

I don’t know if humans would be able to function without generalities. I always read that people need generalities to be able to predict outcomes of situations for survival. Marketing uses those basic generalities to sell things. I think that most of the people that most people know are heterosexual. As I understand it the majority of people are more towards the heterosexual end of the scale than the homosexual. So in general people would be less likely to offend someone by assuming there was a person of the opposite sex than assuming they are the same in the relationship.

I personally think that people are best served not to make assumptions like that and go with “they are wearing that because they like it”. I used to get upset when I had short hair and people assumed I was a lesbian and asked me about my girlfriend and were surprised to see me with my hubby. Hair length is a weird thing.

Second, I agree (mostly) about the socially constructed limits of certain clothing garments. The names that are given to jeans for girls are usually ridiculous, I know my husband would never buy a pair of pants that were called “the flirt,” or whatever else. In terms of sweaters like “The Boyfriend Cardigan,” I get where they’re going with that. It’s called that because of the size/cut/shape. Men don’t (usually) have curves, so their clothes are cut very straight. Usually larger too, because most men do have longer arms/broader shoulders, etc.

It’s not to say manufacturers think all women are straight, and necessarily want to wear their mans clothing. I think it’s named that solely on fit alone, so perhaps by “boyfriend” they mean male friend? Doubt it, but who knows. However, you cant make assumptions on size or clothing preferences based on sex.

I don’t know where I was going with all that, just that the fashion world is crazy sometimes. With that said, what the heck is up with women’s sizing? Men’s goes by waist size, while women’s goes by some ridiculous chart that different designers apparently just made up at random. I don’t like it one bit!