What if ? Fashion (Pub Thoughts Vol. 4)

[Marla S]

This time I haven't really been to the pub, but on the way to the pub there is a crossing. On the left hand sight there is a department store celebrating it's 125th anniversary, on the right hand side there is a big fashion store with new decoration. Both stores are about 150 meters apart.

Yesterday I walked by the fashion store and had a quick view into the shop-window. :eek: Is it true they finally have frock coats again ? - something I am looking for since several years to complete my drab clothes. - A closer look :Angry3: DISAPOINTMENT .... laydies fashion. (Pic right, Fashion 2006)

Walking by the department store, their decoration made me kind of thunderstruck (see Pic left, Fashion 1881). (Never realised it that clear before)

I had to ask myself:
Would I have to consider myself a CD if fashion would have developed the other way round during the last 125 years ? Meaning if men's fashion would have reached the same level of feminity as women's fashion reached a high level of masculinity today.

Not all to easy to answer, but I finally came to the conclusion that I very likely wouldn't have lived in the closet with all it's consequences most of my life. Maybe I would have qualifyed as TS but certainly not as CD.

What about you: ?

Would you consider yourself a CD if fashion wold have developed the other way round ?
(Please take into account, that you still would play the male part and try to take into account your hypotetical developement from childhood on)

And please, NO double standard discussions. This thread is only about your hypothetical developement.

(sorry for the bad quality of the pics, but you get the point)

[JoAnnDallas]

I bet the store that is 125 yrs old, started out selling what we consider as fem clothing and shoes to men. 125 yrs ago, it was common for a man to wear a wig, makeup, lace, what we tody call pantyhose, and 2-3" high heel shoes. Were they consisdered a CD, NO, that was normal men's fashions. Somewhere along the line, men fashion changed to what it is today. If it had stayed the same or continued to the point that men and women fashions were almost the same, then I would not consider myself a CD, since there were be almost no difference in clothings.

[Calliope]

Can't say any of those clothes do much for me ... but it's hard to imagine fashion could have developed the 'other way around' ... Considering the necessity for leg freedom in regard to horseback riding then automobiling (traditional men privilege). I've always bought the postmodern feminist line that clothes followed the social (biological?) division of labor. That is, men needed freedom of movement to war and build whereas domestic labor kept the 'laborer' in the home thus less freedom of movement. Taken further, heels were invented to prevent women from escaping (literally, on foot) the home and family (considered subordinate by the theorists). Therefore slacks for women only appeared when capitalist (and socialist) enterprise needed the extra labor and women were brought into the working world (the birth of women's lib). If we are to buy any of this thinking, then it is unconceivable fashions could have developed in any way other than how they did. So it's hard for me to make the leap in my imagination. Cursed historical materialism warped my brain.


125 yrs ago, it was common for a man to wear a wig, makeup, lace, what we tody call pantyhose, and 2-3" high heel shoes.


Sorry, no, not common. Only the super elite 'thinking' ruling classes wore that stuff. Most of America and Europe was populated by agricultural laborers and this work was split sharply in regard to gender - with corresponding manifestations in attire.

[Marla S]

Can't say any of those clothes do much for me ... but it's hard to imagine fashion could have developed the 'other way around' ... Considering the necessity for leg freedom in regard to horseback riding then automobiling (traditional men privilege). I've always bought the postmodern feminist line that clothes followed the social (biological?) division of labor. That is, men needed freedom of movement to war and build whereas domestic labor kept the 'laborer' in the home thus less freedom of movement. Taken further, heels were invented to prevent women from escaping (literally, on foot) the home and family (considered subordinate by the theorists). Therefore slacks for women only appeared when capitalist (and socialist) enterprise needed the extra labor and women were brought into the working world (the birth of women's lib). If we are to buy any of this thinking, then it is unconceivable fashions could have developed in any way other than how they did. So it's hard for me to make the leap in my imagination. Cursed historical materialism warped my brain.
We are talking about fashion and not workwear, though first pants for women actually have been workwear. If only practical considerstions would have been important, the Chinese unisex clothes for all would have done. Additionally we live in a time a lot of us sit behind as desk for work. That you can do in skirt and heels too.;)
Heels for women were invented as skirts became shorter. This stretches the legs optically which is usually seen as a key stimulus for men. Restriction of movement might have been an additional secondary factor.
Same for corsetts. They pronounce the hour glass figure. Restriction of movement is a secondary factor, otherwise handkuffs and shakles would have been more effective. Can't imagine that a housewife ever did her job in 5 inchers (ok, some CD do;))
Fashion could have developed very different IMO. I. e. are thights more adequate for men then for women. Women usually have a finer skin which looks good by itself. Man have hairy legs (in a strange way; real fur would be better) they have to cover with socks (and long johns). Nobody can tell me that this has any aesthetic value. Men's shoe fashion could have been very different. Boots and 2 inchers could look good for a lot of men and are not too restricting (see cowboy boots). etc.

Though developement of fashion has a logic, this thread is meant as an thought experiment. Would there be the need to dress in clothes of the opposite sex if the clothes of for the own sex would be similar ?

[Calliope]

We are talking about fashion and not workwear, though first pants for women actually have been workwear.


Cool, I was trying to say that. I think it's significant.

But sure, let's skip the working classes from the 1800s and just consider the upper crusts...



Would there be the need to dress in clothes of the opposite sex if the clothes of for the own sex would be similar ?


I would guess, for those who consider themselves female, clothes would take a secondary role to amplifying any other conspicuous gender divisions in order to express their identification with the other gender. For those who CD for the sexual release, submerging into the erotic other, I would guess there would have to be a search for another gender divider in order to, er, get off. So - similiar in both instances. CDing isn't all about the clothes, is it? It's reaching the fem 'state of mind' (whatever the CD thinks that is). In rock&roll terms, clothes are the Marshall Amp, the feeling remains the chord progression.

[Kate Simmons]

I dunno. Wouldn't make too much difference to myself really. I is who I is. I'm kinda my own person and not a slave to fashion one way or the other. If male fashions had developed more into what is considered feminine these days, me being the person I am would definately go to whatever the female trend was. I would, however, make my own "modifications" like I do now. I don't like being told what current fashion looks are "in" and don't get sucked into that but make my own fashion statements regardless of any "trend". That's just me though. Ericka Kay

[Marla S]

Cool, I was trying to say that. I think it's significant.

But sure, let's skip the working classes from the 1800s and just consider the upper crusts...
Lower and upper class always wore the same overall style (I am not aware of an exception). Fabrics, colors and half time have been different, that's true.
But indeed let's skip it, because it isn't the question.


I would guess, for those who consider themselves female, clothes would take a secondary role to amplifying any other conspicuous gender divisions in order to express their identification with the other gender. For those who CD for the sexual release, submerging into the erotic other, I would guess there would have to be a search for another gender divider in order to, er, get off. So - similiar in both instances. CDing isn't all about the clothes, is it? It's reaching the fem 'state of mind' (whatever the CD thinks that is). In rock&roll terms, clothes are the Marshall Amp, the feeling remains the chord progression.
Absolutely, but a feminine men's wear wouldn't come out of thin air, like "masculinized" women's wear didn't come out of thin air (it's not due to work). They are only and solely flags for a certain state of mind or culture. Meaning a feminine men's wear would require a "feminisation" of men's mind too (that's why skirts for men don't sell; this "feminisation" of mind and culture didn't happen yet). As you said: it's not only the clothes (they are arbitrary in principle, anyway).

[Calliope]

[...] a feminine men's wear wouldn't come out of thin air, like "masculinized" women's wear didn't come out of thin air (it's not due to work). They are only and solely flags for a certain state of mind or culture. Meaning a feminine men's wear would require a "feminisation" of men's mind too (that's why skirts for men don't sell; this "feminisation" of mind and culture didn't happen yet). As you said: it's not only the clothes (they are arbitrary in principle, anyway).

Dig it, Marla. A femininized mean's wear (weird phrase, innit?), in my opinion, would come out of a whole different culture - a much nicer culture!

Stop the war(s)!

[Marla S]

Dig it, Marla. A femininized mean's wear (weird phrase, innit?), in my opinion, would come out of a whole different culture - a much nicer culture!

Stop the war(s)!
Doesn't sound weird to me. Just let the boys cry and be pretty and don't tell them they have to be strong and it probably just will happen (During the first critical years boys are raised by women, predominately. They would have a lot of influence.).
So far we only observed a masculinization of the fem world. Didn't change much.
Women are as competive as men, maybe in a bit different way. They are as narrow minded as men, maybe in a different way. Wouldn't mind if culture would change but, sorry to say, so far I have no evidence that a women's lead culture would be much different concerning justice and peace. Do you ?
It would be different, but not necessarily better.

[Calliope]

So far we only observed a masculinization of the fem world.


I am not sure about that premise. Maybe I just don't get it. If you mean to say, women control culture because they raise the male children initially, I counter: they are raising children inside a male culture.



Women are as competive as men, maybe in a bit different way. They are as narrow minded as men, maybe in a different way.


Certainly that competition, social and labor situations alike, is there. (My missus is a warrior at her job.) But do they push behind the scenes for physical battles? Do they 'pull the strings' or simply go along because, like all the privileged people in the world, there's a good bribe in quashing their moral inclinations?



Wouldn't mind if culture would change but, sorry to say, so far I have no evidence that a women's lead culture would be much different concerning justice and peace. Do you ?


Call me a utopian, honey. I really do.

[Charleen]

Time out girls! whether women can do job is another thread. If I understand the original premise, than yes, I would be considered a CD as I would still need to dress like a woman. i have worked for a few women over the years, including now, and with the exception of one nut , they have been the best bosses I have had. Love and xxxx, Lily

[Marla S]

Time out girls!

You are right. It is off topic. But there is no wrong place for a cultivated debate. I appreciate DayTripper's opinion too much, and don't have the intention to offend anyone.


Call me a utopian, honey. I really do.
Utopians are great people and without them it doesn't work (though even Thomas More needed slaves), but so far the statement "Women's world would be a better one" is just that, a statement.
One would need some evidence to underline it. So far I can't see this evidence.

From the very first powerfull woman in history we know of (Hatschepsut*) to today they didn't act much different than men when they had power. Of course you can always say they had to act within a men's culture, but that would underline my thesis of a masculinization of the fem world. If one want to change something, the way isn't to marginalize masculinity, but open and offer fem culture to men. But this doesn't happen, instead masculinity is made the enemy, which again is very masculine (? is it ?) (Create an enemy to fight. Most, if not all, conflicts and wars, were started exactly this way).
A bit different: The Greens, a German party founded by people of the peace and women's movement, have been part of the first administration that sent German soldiers to war after WWII (Yugoslawia). In the meaning of the word, they started as a peace dove (one of their symbols, besides purple for the women's lib movement) and landed as a bomber. Has been quite a shock for them when they finally were faced to reality (power). It has been a man (quite a macho BTW) who said "No German troops to Iraq", his female counterpart Ms. Merkel (now chancellor) attacked him for this. Real life is real life.


But do they push behind the scenes for physical battles?
Catherine the Great (Russia) comes to mind (also called a enlightened despote). She intrigued to kill her husband in order to legitimate her being Empress. She had almost absolute power, has been sexual liberated (about 20 known lovers), started wars, and almost everything you would ascribe to a "typical male" ruler. She hasn't been a FtM though ;).
Catherine de Medici (Queen of France) is accused to be the initiator of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Up to 10.000 people were slaughtered (women, children, men).
What has been the part of Ms. Rice in the war against terror ? I am not aware that she tried to calm things down (but this is hard to judge from here, you know better).
etc.
It's true that women in history seldom killed with their own hands (not lady-like), but quite a few "pushed behind the scenes" to make others kill their opposers (Don't know if this is any better).

If you have an evidence that a women ruled world would be a better place to be, please tell me.
I'd really like to believe it.



*Hatschepsut could also be called the first FtM in history. The interesting question if she was because she had to adapt to stereotypes of her culture, leads a bit back to the topic.

[Kate Simmons]

The premise has been done with the character Wonder Woman. On Paradise Island, women were raised with competitive values but also fairness. In a "pure culture" ruled by women, everyone would be treated equally including the men and they would not attempt to dominate the men. Everyone would be much better off I think. Since we don't have that in reality, we have to work around it(Which believe it or not is one reason we CD I suspect). Men are like big kids. If you let them control things, you are looking for trouble. Better to give them a big "sand box" to play in so they can be watched and the women can intercede when they have disputes about who owns which part of the "sandbox". The problem nowadays is that the "leaders" of the countries of the world don't ask for the input of women when they make decisions that affect everyone. The wise husband will ask for his wife's input and see the value of it even if he makes the final decision for the family. We are attempting to get that aspect within ourselves when we become our femme selves. Getting back to the original issue, I would still crossdress as a woman whether the clothing styles were considered less feminine than men's or not. Women are women and that's the ideal I'm striving for, regardless of what I'm wearing. Ericka Kay

[Marla S]

The premise has been done with the character Wonder Woman. On Paradise Island, women were raised with competitive values but also fairness. In a "pure culture" ruled by women, everyone would be treated equally including the men and they would not attempt to dominate the men. Everyone would be much better off I think.
I am not sure about your statement, because it is hard for me to believe that fairness and equal treatment of everybody is an inborn female trait (we already would have realized it). In the first instance we are all humans and Paradise Island would work only, if it is the land of milk and honey too. Furthermore it has to be taken into account that a non ruling group can't rule wrong, a quite comfortable situation from a certain point of view, which easily might lead to an over-idealization of womenhood.
Again I beg for hints or evidences. I'd really like to believe that women are better humans.

Nevertheless your post made me think, and rethink my reply to DayTripper.
It sounds a bit like I would defend the male world (weird feeling), I don't.
I just don't think replacing the one by the other does make it better. You can't get rid of one pole of a binary sytem. The harder you try the stronger the resistance or you produce a new pole (try it with a magnet).

What we have to achieve, and now let me talk in terms of Paridise Island and Utopia, is kind of a Chymical Wedding. Not a physical union of men and women, but a union of masculine and feminine traits and skills (Except for those that are directyl linked to biology, of course. That won't work). Meaning equal respect for every trait and skill, be it masculine or feminine and equal freedom to adopt them for women and men. This won't lead to equality (unisex) or nivilation. A given binary System needs it's poles and will try to preserve them, but there is a lot space inbetween. This place is partly occupied due to women's movement and partly maybe by us CDs. So far the first seems to tend to demonize masculine traits/skills while adopting them, whereas the latter tend to overidealize womenhood by applying a male view.
If we could cut the edges of both, we would porbably get a bit closer together.

That would be my utopia.

[Marlena Dahlstrom]

Heels for women were invented as skirts became shorter. This stretches the legs optically which is usually seen as a key stimulus for men.

Actually heels were invented for Louis XIV, who wanted to show off his legs. That's what breeches (which were skin-tight) and knee stockings were all about. If you ever read the Hornblower novels, in one of the books poor Hornblower frets about his skinny calves (and ends up padding them with plaster) before an apparance at a society event.

As far as corsets, they were actually more akin to girdles in the way they fit. Somewhat restrictive by today's standards, but women still did plenty of physical labor in them for centuries. (Men's clothing was also often restrictive in different ways -- think of the uniforms of Napoleonic soldiers. These weren't dress uniforms, that's what they actually fought in.) What we think of today as "corsetting" was really "tight corsetting," which was just as much as fetish activity in the Victorian era as it is today.

You'd probably enjoy Anne Hollander's excellent book, "Sex and Suits," which traces the evolution of Western clothing from the 1200s. Hollander makes a compelling argument that men's fashions were actually the more innovative -- at least from the standpoint of form (vs. ornamentation, which remained the domain of women's fashion, and which reflected a traditional approach to clothing).

You see this older attitude in, for example, a portrait of Henry VIII (http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/henry%20-%20holbein.jpg), for whom "more was more" when it came to bling. Today's rap stars are really just reviving an old tradition of showing off one's wealth and power. That attitude only really changed with the invention of the "modern" suit, around 1800, which coincided with both a sharpening of gender differences as well as the Industrial Revolution in which men were expected to take a more “serious” role in order to literally take care of business.

Hollander also documents how women's fashion has been imitating and outright stealing ideas from men's clothing for centuries. She attributes much of that simply to fashion's insatiable need for novelty. More about Hollander's arguments in the book review (http://www.adahlshouse.com/2006/02/01/“sex-and-suits”/) on my blog.

Anyway, back to your original question. As I've said before, if society were a bit more accepting and I were a bit braver, I'd probably do the Eddie Izzard "tough androgynous" look at least part of the time. And so no, I wouldn't really consider that CDing.

[Marla S]

Hollander also documents how women's fashion has been imitating and outright stealing ideas from men's clothing for centuries. She attributes much of that simply to fashion's insatiable need for novelty. More about Hollander's arguments in the book review (http://www.adahlshouse.com/2006/02/01/“sex-and-suits”/) on my blog.
Thanks Marlena,

I'll see if I can find this book, sounds interesting. I used the term "heels for women" well considered though, knowing that heels originate from ancient men's fashion.
Personally I ascribe the "imitating and outright stealing ideas from men's clothing", besides the need for novelty, predominately to a "Cute-Factor".
The natural beauty of women makes almost any kind of clothes look cute if worn by women. Ironically this might highlight our culture too, as addopting male attributes isn't seen as serious threat. How threatening can "weak cuties" (women) be for a male dominated culture ? Adopting female attributes for men seems to be more threatening, because it weakens the "male culture".


Anyway, back to your original question. As I've said before, if society were a bit more accepting and I were a bit braver, I'd probably do the Eddie Izzard "tough androgynous" look at least part of the time. And so no, I wouldn't really consider that CDing.
That's the interesting point, as it partly answers the question where all the FtM-CDs might be.

[Ronda_B]

My +? would be "if the fashion roll had sarted out the other way and the males wore the dresses and the females wore the suits would I still be a crossdresser?" I believe that I would.

If in the dawn of time man had put on a skirt instead of a loyn cloth thing would have been different. If you look at some countries today the men dress in nicer clothing than the women. Both of them wear long robes and scarfs but the men's are colorful and the women's are kind of plain. In these countries a man can crossdress(and have for safety sake) and not be clocked as well as in others.

Just something that I have though about for the 40 or so years that I have been doing this.

[Kate Simmons]

In a roundabout way, Marla, I think you are explaining what I realized a couple of years ago. Simply put, The male/female energies need to be balanced in an individual way and a planetary and universal way. If the energies become off balanced at any level, there are problems. It takes a lot of time and energy to restore that balance. A long time for us maybe, but an instant for the universe. Still, in all of this, we are free agents and what we do as individuals DOES affect the balance in one way or the other and DOES make a difference in balancing the equation. This, in no little way affects social attitudes, clothing styles, etc. While your original question dealt with that, bottom line is it simply comes down to balancing the equation although from a different approach possibly as you suggested. I've realized that part of my function as Ericka/Richard is to keep those energies balanced the best that I can. :happy: Ericka Kay

[Marla S]

In a roundabout way, Marla, I think you are explaining what I realized a couple of years ago. Simply put, The male/female energies need to be balanced in an individual way and a planetary and universal way. If the energies become off balanced at any level, there are problems.
As a natural scientist I have a bit of a problem with this use of the term energy and don't know about the universe, but on a personal level and on the level of the society I think that is it.

[Kate Simmons]

As a natural scientist I have a bit of a problem with this use of the term energy and don't know about the universe, but on a personal level and on the level of the society I think that is it.I agree with you Marla. I was always based in physics and always tried to understand the processes to everything. Had you suggested anything like this to me 10 , even 5 years ago about "energies", I'd have looked at you like you were nuts because I, too, am a natural scientist. I have learned (and seen) since then things that seem to defy the laws of physics as we know them. You have to realize, however, that physics is based on only 3, possibly 4 dimensions and I've realized there are more than that which most of us don't comprehend. That notwithstanding, what we do as our femme and homme selves definately does affect the processes. Ericka Kay