At the same time as women have emulated male dress in the workplace, it is precisely in this arena where the masculinity of male dress is most strictly guarded. While it is permissible for men to flirt with aspects of feminine adornment in their leisurewear, through the adoption of more brightly colored shirts or trousers or the wearing of neck chains, for instance, the inclusion of such elements in their professional dress is still very much taboo. For a man to countenance the incorporation of feminine elements into his work wear would most likely be detrimental to his career prospects, since it is seen to undermine his professional status and diminish the respect that he would otherwise command. The privileging of the male principle applies not just to dress in the workplace, but also to leisurewear. As Hollander points out, one of the most significant occurrences of "androgynous" clothing in recent times can be seen in the adaptation of sportswear to casual dress.
Tracksuits, shorts, T-shirts, zipped jackets, and joggers have become de rigueur for women and men alike. But while the male and female versions of these garments are often indistinguishable, nevertheless, they are modeled on what were once exclusively male items of dress. This also applies to jeans, which have become standard casual wear for women as well as men. On the occasions where men do incorporate feminine elements into their leisure clothes, such as brightly colored or patterned fabrics, and the wearing of jewelry such as neck chains or earrings, these serve more as embellishments of male garb rather than as the masculinization of feminine garments. Although women have taken on men's trousers and made them their own, there is no male version of the female skirt. The closest one comes to a "skirt" in male attire today is the sarong or kilt, but in both cases, they derive from cultural sources where such items were traditionally worn by men, rather than being based on an imitation of female dress. Even in the case of the more adventurous gender transgressions engaged in by male celebrities such as Stephen Linard and Leigh Bowery during the late 1970s and early '80s, the dominance of the male principle is still evident. As Evans and Thornton point out, although the "peacock" style, made popular in the London clubs by these celebrities, involved the adoption of the most extravagant elements of feminine dress, such as the use of sensuous fabrics and brightly colored and elaborately decorated garments, ultimately, it was male sexual power that was reasserted within this subculture. While men played freely with the signifiers of femininity, there was very little room left for women to experiment with these insignia. The play with gender was seen primarily as a male prerogative. As Evans and Thornton write: "Generally, men's ‘use' of femininity was exclusively theirs in that . . . it was addressed to other men. It was unfashionable to be a woman, fashionable to be a man and most fashionable to be a man dressed as a woman".
Thus, at the same time as Blitz culture and the peacock male in the early '80s put femininity on the map, men kept it in their own hands. As the examples attest, then, the postmodern vision of contemporary fashion as a realm characterized by the infinite commutability of the signifiers of gender obscures the continued existence of gender inequalities that significantly influence the nature of this play with gender identity. Gender border crossings are not completely reciprocal or interchangeable. Nor are gender signifiers of equal valence, even though they may be presented as such by the postmodern carnival of signs. In its treatment of gender markers as "free-floating" signifiers, postmodern fashion converts them into aesthetic categories where they are regarded as different "looks" without any connection to particular social and political realities, thereby occluding the persistence of gender inequalities.
This is made quite explicit in Schwichtenberg's article on Madonna, where she writes that: "Gender play is the mix and match of styles that flirt with the signifiers of sexual difference, cut loose from their moorings. Such inconstancy underscores the fragility of gender itself as pure artifice". While it is all very well to behave, in the realm of the imagination, as if gender differences no longer matter, it is another to overcome them in actual social life. Although, in theory, it is possible to entertain the notion of a world no longer structured by the binary division between men and women, the fact remains that in practice, significant structural inequalities between the sexes remain. Blurring gender boundaries in the realm of appearances does not displace them in actuality. Notwithstanding Butler's argument that "sex" and "gender" are discursive constructs, the hierarchical organization of society on the basis of gender differentiation has a reality that transcends that of discourse. It is not simply a product of discourse that can be willed away simply by redefining the object of discourse. While, in theory, we may stop talking in terms of binary oppositions of male versus female, social reality continues to be organized along these lines. In this light, the semiotic play with gender advocated by postmodern theorists, such as Schwichtenberg and Polhemus, can be seen to perpetuate such inequalities by falsely presenting the transcendence of gender distinctions as something that has already been achieved. Postmodern fashion, then, plays with the signs of sex, while leaving intact real gender inequalities. Bordo makes a similar point when she argues that the rhetoric of "incalculable choreographies" of gender employed by much recent postmodern theory treats the subject as being ungrounded in history and without social location. It is as if individuals are capable of embodying any combination of gender signifiers they choose, irrespective of their social position, and that all gender border crossings are commensurate with each other. Critical of those who uphold Madonna's chameleon-like transformations of identity as a model for a postmodern subjectivity, Bordo writes, "This abstract, unsituated, disembodied freedom . . . glorifies itself only through the effacement of the material praxis of people's lives, the normalizing power of cultural images, and the continuing social realities of dominance and subordination".
In contrast to the postmodern gender playground where all are engaged in a dance of elusive, ever-changing subjectivity, Bordo argues for the necessity to recognize the subject's locatedness in history, which constrains and shapes the nature of their play with identity. Once this is recognized, it becomes clear that the plea by postmodern theorists such as Schwichtenberg for male/female gender identifications to be abandoned in favor of a pluralistic play with gender boundaries is counterproductive. To behave as if gender distinctions no longer matter in a situation where gender inequalities still prevail only serves to perpetuate them. As Bordo notes, the postmodern celebration of a nomadic, fragmented, post-gendered subjectivity ultimately results in an effacement of the specificity of women's concerns.
Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article. Articleinput.com is a free articles resource thus practically any visitor can submit an article. However if you notice any copyrighted material, please contact us and we will remove the article(s) in discussion right away.
Note: This article was sent to us by: Geoffrey F. at 12252009
1. Reconnection with tribal cultures
All articles are property of their respective authors. Please read our Privacy Policy!
© 2009 ArticleInput.com.