If you saw a man walking down the street in a skirt you may be a little surprised, but you wouldn't think twice about a woman in a suit. It seems a little odd, a man with exposed legs perhaps carrying a clutch or wearing floral patterns. But genders are equal, so this should be normal, right? You'll still likely do a double take. Men in feminine clothing is not a social norm that society is as accustomed to as women in masculine clothing. A woman in a coordinating blazer and slacks with a dress shirt and minimal accessories is much more common. This is probably because men wearing heels, tights, dresses, jewelry, and lace pretty much died out in the 1800's along with French feudality and smallpox. However, women spent the following years fighting for rights and equality and still are. Part of this fight for equality requires sensible clothing that does not crack ribs with corset boning or entangle layers of petticoats with machinery, and that makes men take them seriously. So, women wearing men's clothing has been adapted into modern society as being totally normal, but we still label men in women's clothing as crossdressers with the connotations of homosexuality, transgender, and drag; and for the politically incorrect, just weird. 

The critical gender barriers between men and women are slowly but surely being broken down in today's society. Civilization has greatly evolved in the past fifty years, and now names like Caitlyn Jenner are household terms connoted with a general acceptance of it being OK to identify with a gender other than the biological one assigned with birth. Apart from gender identification, society has begun to realize that you can wear whatever the hell you want without people being offended by you dressing outside of traditional, rigid gender roles. Culture changes, politics change, societal structure changes, and gone are the days of hoop skirts and casual tuxedos. Culture evolves and becomes more progressive over time as older generations rooted in rejection and tradition begin to fade away, thus allowing room for younger generations of forward thinking to emerge. Fashion is a critical visual representation of this evolution as it reflects its respective socio-political contexts. Fashion is a vehicle for socio-political expression most recently noticeable in the trend of womenswear for men which is a visual reflection of the current evolution and progression of gender identification.

One of the main socio-political topics in global culture that has sparked changes and controversy over recent years has been the development of fluid gender identifications and the dissolving of gendered, traditional social behaviors. In the early eighteenth century men and women were expected to adhere to strict policies of behavior and dress based on their gender. Over recent years these strict policies have begun to loosen up. Modern society has seen discrimination based on a multitude of physical and mental characteristics, and we have started to steer away from that and into a more equalized and accepting society. Although some may stand against it, rigid gender roles are dissolving. Research has shown that,

 "The last 20 years have witnessed incredible strides with respect to conceptualizations of sexual identity and orientation. Multiplicity and fluidity in patterns of sexual attraction --  which were long considered "impossible", "invalid", or "transitional" --  are now widely acknowledged and even celebrated by both activists and social scientists, and have become one of the most exciting and productive areas of social scientific inquiry into sexuality ... " (Diamond).

Society has begun accepting, or at least acknowledging, emerging differences not only in regards to sexual orientation, but in identification, as explained by Diamond. It is only natural that these evolutions manifest themselves in fashion as it is a large section of culture across the globe which individuals use to express themselves. As these changes are "acknowledged and even celebrated" the fashion industry churns out trends and clothing for consumers of an evolutionary acceptance, as consumers increasingly select androgynous or opposite-gender clothing. Menswear is increasingly feminine, as womenswear has been a bit masculine for a while now, and I will further explore in this paper this societal transition as manifested in fashion.

Fashion changes (frustratingly, dizzyingly fast) over time. Fashion is a part of culture, much like music, language, literature, and art which all change over time in response to a changing society. It is rooted in time and builds off its past to create a constantly developing present as it is defined by Webster Dictionary as "the prevailing style (as in dress) during a particular time" ("Fashion"). Obviously, people do not dress the way they did a hundred years ago and the changes society goes through are traceable in their clothing. Aurelie Van de Peer, in an analysis of fashion within its temporal architecture, notes that "Fashion is thus commonly perceived as a passing phenomenon that is tightly linked to the present. Karl Lagerfeld [Creative Director at Chanel and Fendi] captured the temporal definition of fashion in just two words, 'Why now?'..." (Van de Peer 319). Usually, the answer to that question lies in the socio-political context of the fashion. There is always a reason for fashion; whether it is shallow and materialistic or more profound in meaning. Presently, the reason for one of the biggest, most noticeable trends of feminine menswear is because of the dissolution of gender roles. Fashion's  blending of masculinity and femininity is slowly becoming more acceptable and more prominent.

Fashion is a vehicle for socio-political debate. Clothing is a visual manifestation of politicized ideas and opinions, serving as a visual medium for public, ethical commentary. Fashion provides a moral, social way to make statements about social topics. In an academic analysis of this fashionable identity, Vincent B. Leitch points out, "Dress is, in part, frequently in large part, about cultural capital; it often serves political designs; it consorts with hegemonic norms and domination; its regulating force incites mainly conformity but sometimes resistance. To adopt a style (or uniform) is to choose a socioeconomic milieu and a future" (Leitch). Remembering that fashion represents a large section of culture is critical. It is not just a material industry of clothing and possessions, but rather a visual track record and visual argument about who we are as a society, as an individual, and as a member of humanity. Individuals can use clothing to situate themselves in social and economic environments via the brands, styles, and trends they select. It displays ethical social commentary in the way that it reflects where individuals stand on certain political and social topics without having to even open their mouths. By selecting fashions, consciously or unconsciously, individuals are buying into a lifestyle for themselves by visually identifying to the public who they are individually and within the contexts of their environments.

So back to that man walking down the street in a skirt, carrying a clutch; it may not be such a shocking sight today as it was twenty years ago. However, as gender barriers and traditional roles have begun to dissolve, the gendered structure of fashions have gone with it. This is not just seen in the normalcy of wearing clothing atypical to one's biological gender, but on the runways of the high fashion innovators which determine the trends that then trickle down into ready-to-wear clothing at middle to lower price points. Men in feminine clothing, as I have discussed, is a newer trend that has been picking up speed in recent years. This change has been slowly and quietly growing for a few decades, making a grand entrance to the general fashion market in 2014 at London Fashion Week. Several of the collections, "pushed the boundaries of what we consider to be 'menswear.' Boundaries that are, of course, completely social constructs" (Stewart). It is true that not all men are going to sink $800 into a couture, one-shoulder blouse, but this is exactly how major social changes in fashion begin. Designers like Coco Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent turned the fashion world onto its head when they put women in pants on the runway; now women in pants is quite normal. Of course, the transition may not be smooth but we are starting to see a shift in male ready-to-wear as a result of feminine male couture. Menswear's boundaries are being pushed, and because they are "completely social constructs" the boundaries are giving way in fashion just as they are in society. 

These political changes include, but are not limited to, gender evolution. Fashion provides a very public and visual platform for designers to create clothing that reflects socio-political contexts as well as for consumers to purchase and join in on the visual conversation. Recently, on the 2016 Autumn menswear runways, the androgynous trend was present alongside several collections of varying political statements. 

Rei Kawakubo, the founder of the notable fashion house Comme des Garcons, used her collection to make a commentary on peace, or lack thereof. The underlying political theme of this collection was "Flower Power" inspired by a famous image of an anti-war protestor placing flowers into the gun of law enforcement (Blanks). She re-worked men's tailoring to reflect armor, calling it, "'the armour of peace ... '"(Kawakubo qtd. in Blanks). As a designer, she chose to send looks down a runway that would be photographed and bombarded with fashion media that meant something larger than material goods for a consumerist market. A reporter for one of these major press sources, Tim Blanks, pointed out that, "It is surely a measure of the global geo-political descent into ghastliness that Kawakubo feels compelled  --  and comfortable enough  --  to make a comment." (Blanks). This is a critical observation in the manner that designers choose to participate in such "geo-political" events. Because they are big-name couturiers and couturieres that have the readily available publicity, they can send powerful, visual messages that will reach millions in one way or another. This is trend in the fashion industry that has been developing, and although not every single garment on the market means anything more than something to serve as clothing, there is a criticality of deeper meaning in high fashion. After all, if you're going to drop four thousand dollars on a jacket, you might want it to have some significance other than a ridiculously expensive piece of fabric.

This Comme des Garcons collection not only creates political commentary on the "ghastliness" of war and its associated consequences, but does so by using peaceful, feminine imagery. The male models are shown wearing ornate flower headpieces above tailored suits with traces of floral patterns. Floral print specifically is a visual that is traditionally associated with femininity, but it has found its way into menswear. This cross-trend is gaining ground fast in the fashion world, and has been doing so in correlation with the growing acceptance of gender fluidity and the breakdown of rigid gender roles and traditions.

This breakdown is politically noticeable in the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, the LGBT community has more and more resources and support for recognition and rights. Although it still exists, society is taking steps away from discrimination. This societal change of gender dynamics, as illustrated thus far, is clearly noticeable in fashion. Kimberly Wesson of 1.61, a gender-free clothing brand, told Ruth La Ferla of the New York Times that, "'What we're seeing now is a seismic shift in fashion, a widening acceptance of a style with no boundaries'" (qtd. in La Ferla). This shift that she refers to is the gender-neutrality of clothing the goes outside of the typical, gendered boundaries of what is fashionable and appropriate. This is a radical change in fashion in regards to the recent and rapid acceptance of atypical gender roles and portrayals by society. Humberto Leon, founder of Opening Ceremony in New York explains that, "'five years ago we were weren't ready for this,'" but now we are because of how our culture and society has evolved to be more accepting of gender and sexuality behaviors outside of historical norms (quoted by La Ferla). 

Gender neutrality is the next big fashion revolution. Described as, "...fashion's gender blur, that narrowing of the sexual divide that earlier this year emerged on the runways of top-tier designers ...  each bent on eroding the once rigid demarcation between conventionally feminine and masculine clothes" this blur is inevitable, widespread, and bleeding both into and out of our developing and progressive society (La Ferla). Clearly explained in this article for the New York Times, the gender-blurring fashions that have been recently popping up and developing are trickling down from runways and up from streetwear, and are the next fashion revolution. The "rigid demarcation" is a political and social divide that has caused countless struggles and response efforts for equality. If total political and legal equality cannot be achieved quickly enough, members of society will take, and have taken, this responsibility into their own hands and start at the social level, using fashion to do so.

Each of these example collections has their own significance or statement determined by the designer; however, the overarching theme here is a progressive drift towards dissolving gender restrictions in fashion. Sending men down a runway in skirts and cutouts and other historically feminine silhouettes is slowly being a more common and a more socially acceptable sight. The same theory as used in Comme des Garcons applies to the man in a skirt walking down the runway for White Mountaineering; it is not a women's skirt manufactured in female sizes and shapes, but rather it is a skirt that has been designed and manufactured for men. The evidence is clear, gender barriers are dissolving in clothing alongside the times of an evolving society embracing gender irregularities.

For comparison sake, these two images from collections of different designers for male and female; note the similarities. A trench-like jacket cinched at the waist with a monochromatic belt paired with tailored, straight leg trousers. The looks are both completed with a scarf or shoulder throw and a bag carried in hand. These looks were each made for their specific gender, but they are almost identical apart from color and fabric type, clearly illustrating the breakdown of gender barrier relevance when designing ready to wear garments. Perhaps the looks are not androgynous, primarily due to the colors and fabrics, but they are drifting into one another's visual gender territories.

 


There is no question that the menswear is drifting in a feminine direction, and is doing so alongside societal progression; androgyny is becoming normal among modern society in behavior, identity, and expression. Gender evolution is not the only socio-political controversy that is up for conversation in fashion, as illustrated by Comme des Garcons. It serves as a common visual platform for individuals to express themselves, their ideas, their identities, and their opinions on an everyday basis, reaching wider than just gender. Many different brands create collections with some kind of message behind their fashion. Below are runway photos from the Pyer Moss Fall 2016 Menswear collection from New York Fashion Week. They feature clothing with words and messages emblazoned on them; some of the looks are accompanied by bold pins with names of commonly abused pills splattered across. 

These photographs illustrate the ways in which designers create collections that create a visual conversation about socio-political conflicts in society. People who view the shows or see the clothing, whether it be in person or in pictures, as well as consumers of the clothes, are then made aware of the topics and can join the conversation and contribute their opinions and take on the commentary. Some argue that fashion is meaningless, which is true when approaching fashion with a narrow-minded approach; yes, not every time you buy a solid v-neck from Old Navy or a pair of khakis from Sears there is some profound meaning behind it. A lot of people just buy clothes because they need to, however this does not discredit fashion at its root of art and expression and the way these basic pieces shape your everyday identity. Just because some guys wouldn't wear a crazy Comme des Garcons flower head-piece to work, does not mean that we do not see reflections of couture in everyday clothing. These wild garments follow a fashion pipeline down from one designer to another, then into fashion magazines and boutique retailers, soon to be picked up by fast fashion retailers and department stores and ultimately to your closet. Along the line millions of dollars and thousands of jobs are affected and countless people pour their hearts and souls into all of the actions it takes to bring clothing from manufacturer to consumer. So, it is not an empty, meaningless industry but rather one of some thought and effort carried tirelessly throughout the history of culture. Men wearing floral button-downs is totally normal; that trend came from a runway. Like I said, as a girl I have bought men's clothing and it has been totally acceptable. The Pyer Moss sweatshirt listing the symptoms of depression is a garment  in a style that could be in any moderately to low priced retailer, and it has some meaning to it. Fashion is not entirely thoughtless, because no matter how much one tries to deny it or mindlessly buys clothing, it says something about them whether it be mundane or profound.

In an article for The Independent titled "Fashion: Absolutely Meaningless" Rebecca Lowthorpe outlines the uselessness of fashion in the way that all of the obscure and mysterious designs and graphics really have no substance behind them. Lowthorpe creates an argument that considers the way people buy clothing just to wear it to seem cool. She argues that fashion is meaningless as the creators as well as consumers succumb wholly to branding for no other reason but to be recognized by others for the names or unique images on their clothes. She gives the example of a clothing brand "Ouef", the French word for egg, that sells huge volumes of T-shirts with meaningless slogans and pointless graphics that people continue to buy because having something that no one else understands makes them seem "mysterious" and "cool". Ouef, in turn, has created a massive underground-urban brand out of literally nothing. Her argument is that there is no actual value in fashion and printed messages on clothing are obscure and pointless, and people only buy into fashion to make themselves appear more stylish and trendy than others (Lowthorpe). But not everyone wants to be cool and trendy, this sweeping generalization is not true to all fashion consumers. Speaking from personal experience at least, some consumers do put some thought into the brands they are supporting and what they stand for, They dress for themselves, their own lives, and their own expression of self and ideas, not just to be perceived as stylish and cool. This is a stereotype of fashion that seems so hard to defend, but looking at fashion with an open mind can reveal a deeper layer to the materialistic, consumer-obsessed industry of plastic beauty and need for possessions. After all, we get dressed in it every single day, it has to be more than just fabric.

