Lorna
04-09-2014, 09:19 AM
Two weeks ago I heard an interview with the author Bel Mooney. It was about a decision by Waterstones to abandon their policy of labelling children's books as for "Boys" or "Girls". Mooney put forward very sound reasons why she supported the move, suggesting that many boys enjoyed the stories categorised as for girls and vice-versa. It was pointed out that in earlier times (1950s) Enid Blyton's "Famous Five" books carried no such label and appealed equally to both sexes.
I immediately began to fantasise about how different things would have been if Waterstones' thinking had been applied to clothing. Ideally, for me, this would have happened way back in the 1920s or 30s so that by the time I came on the scene there would have been full acceptance that clothes were clothes and everyone could choose to wear whatever they wanted.
I pictured an end to separate men's and women's clothes shops; an end to separate departments in department stores aimed at men or women; underwear being underwear, regardless of gender, etc, etc. I imagined going into a shop and finding racks of skirts, trousers, dresses, blouses, coats, without any clear expectation that these items were aimed at one gender rather than the other. My imagination went further: how would the differing shapes of men and women be allowed for? Of course, there would be a common sizing system using real measurements (imperial or metric) but those garments where shape differences were significant would be labelled as "Male fit" or "Female fit". Dresses, for example, would be hung on racks with graded sizes and the customer would find his or her size and then, if male, find one with a "Male fit" tag. His female friend could buy the same dress in her size with the "Female fit" tag. I expect this would soon be simplified to a letter F or M following the size.
I then began to think how different life would have been for me and everyone else as children growing up. On some days I would have worn trousers but on other days I might have chosen a skirt and blouse or a dress. The school uniform would still have been there but we boys could without a second thought choose the skirt/dress option or go for the trousers. Of course, it wouldn't end there. We could have a complete choice of hairstyles. We could have shoes with heels - or not. When we wore a dress we could decide whether it needed a slip. If we didn't want the bother of suspenders we could go for knee socks or we could choose to wear nylons under our trousers. My point is that such a transformation in attitudes might have allowed boys/men to be as uninhibited in their choice of apparel as girls and women were becoming - and now are.
I turned my mind to whether there would be any garments that would remain specifically for one gender or the other. Sadly for many here, I conclude that probably only the bra would be in that category on the grounds that it was worn to support and shape female breasts and so men would simply have no need of one - though those men who for whatever reason felt they did need one would not have any concerns about buying one. They would be in the same department as panties, underpants, girdles, suspender belts, slips, pyjamas, nightdresses, etc. Colours and decorations would not be seen as gender related. Men could choose fancy knickers, petticoats with lace, flared or straight skirts, long or short dresses....and the women could choose single- or double-breasted suits, trousers with fly zips, donkey jackets....anything at all. Nobody would think it at all odd if some men turned up at a meeting in a skirt suit while others and some women came in trousers and jacket.
Of course, I began then to think about the many places and situations I've been in over my lifetime and what I would have chosen to wear. I imagined conversations at school or the workplace about clothes. "Too warm for trousers today, Lorna?" "That skirt looks nice and cool for a sunny day." "Are those stockings or tights you're wearing?" "I love those shoes: where did you get them?" My point is that those questions could have passed between boy and girl, man or woman, in either direction. They would all be gender-neutral questions.
Even if the retailing world changes tomorrow to bring about the clothing revolution, it would take many years for attitudes and behaviour to change. Surely, though, if parents can be weaned off the idea of buying girls' books or boys' books they could also be persuaded to see clothes buying in a similar way. To a large extent it has happened for women in my lifetime but sadly I don't think I can live long enough to enjoy the same revolution applying to men.
I immediately began to fantasise about how different things would have been if Waterstones' thinking had been applied to clothing. Ideally, for me, this would have happened way back in the 1920s or 30s so that by the time I came on the scene there would have been full acceptance that clothes were clothes and everyone could choose to wear whatever they wanted.
I pictured an end to separate men's and women's clothes shops; an end to separate departments in department stores aimed at men or women; underwear being underwear, regardless of gender, etc, etc. I imagined going into a shop and finding racks of skirts, trousers, dresses, blouses, coats, without any clear expectation that these items were aimed at one gender rather than the other. My imagination went further: how would the differing shapes of men and women be allowed for? Of course, there would be a common sizing system using real measurements (imperial or metric) but those garments where shape differences were significant would be labelled as "Male fit" or "Female fit". Dresses, for example, would be hung on racks with graded sizes and the customer would find his or her size and then, if male, find one with a "Male fit" tag. His female friend could buy the same dress in her size with the "Female fit" tag. I expect this would soon be simplified to a letter F or M following the size.
I then began to think how different life would have been for me and everyone else as children growing up. On some days I would have worn trousers but on other days I might have chosen a skirt and blouse or a dress. The school uniform would still have been there but we boys could without a second thought choose the skirt/dress option or go for the trousers. Of course, it wouldn't end there. We could have a complete choice of hairstyles. We could have shoes with heels - or not. When we wore a dress we could decide whether it needed a slip. If we didn't want the bother of suspenders we could go for knee socks or we could choose to wear nylons under our trousers. My point is that such a transformation in attitudes might have allowed boys/men to be as uninhibited in their choice of apparel as girls and women were becoming - and now are.
I turned my mind to whether there would be any garments that would remain specifically for one gender or the other. Sadly for many here, I conclude that probably only the bra would be in that category on the grounds that it was worn to support and shape female breasts and so men would simply have no need of one - though those men who for whatever reason felt they did need one would not have any concerns about buying one. They would be in the same department as panties, underpants, girdles, suspender belts, slips, pyjamas, nightdresses, etc. Colours and decorations would not be seen as gender related. Men could choose fancy knickers, petticoats with lace, flared or straight skirts, long or short dresses....and the women could choose single- or double-breasted suits, trousers with fly zips, donkey jackets....anything at all. Nobody would think it at all odd if some men turned up at a meeting in a skirt suit while others and some women came in trousers and jacket.
Of course, I began then to think about the many places and situations I've been in over my lifetime and what I would have chosen to wear. I imagined conversations at school or the workplace about clothes. "Too warm for trousers today, Lorna?" "That skirt looks nice and cool for a sunny day." "Are those stockings or tights you're wearing?" "I love those shoes: where did you get them?" My point is that those questions could have passed between boy and girl, man or woman, in either direction. They would all be gender-neutral questions.
Even if the retailing world changes tomorrow to bring about the clothing revolution, it would take many years for attitudes and behaviour to change. Surely, though, if parents can be weaned off the idea of buying girls' books or boys' books they could also be persuaded to see clothes buying in a similar way. To a large extent it has happened for women in my lifetime but sadly I don't think I can live long enough to enjoy the same revolution applying to men.