Androgynousness in fashion is the blurring of the boundaries between what is considered typically masculine and what is typically feminine. We can observe this trend not only on the world’s catwalks or red carpets, but also on the streets. Will this trend continue? Will the division between men’s and women’s clothing go away?
Nowadays we are increasingly overturning gender stereotypes. We get annoyed when someone describes women as the weaker ones and men as those who don’t show their feelings. This can also be seen in the professions of choice. There are no rules and regulations that specify that a kindergarten teacher must be a woman and a backhoe operator a man.
The world invites us to break cultural boundaries and gender stereotypes, and we increasingly choose to do so. After all, our self-worth is not dependent on whether we are a man or a woman. We want to define ourselves by our own achievements, interests and views, not by particular pieces of clothing.
Whether a piece of clothing is considered female or male is determined by us humans. We have agreed among ourselves that stilettos and dresses will be worn by women, and suits by men. We also give sexual overtones to some clothes.
That these boundaries are not fixed is evidenced, for example, by the fashion past. In the 1920s, women then considered Hollywood stars wore bow ties, tailored suits and cylinders with great boldness. In them they presented themselves as glamorous and seductive as in a fitted long dress. At the time, a woman dressed in “masculine” clothes was supposed to show her strength and independence. Subsequent years have shown that what a woman wears can affect how she is perceived, especially when she wants to emphasize her independence. It used to be that a woman wearing pants was someone unheard of and pointed fingers.
History makes us realize that the boundaries between what is masculine and feminine are fluid. It all depends on our habit and cultural background.
Especially in the earliest years of our lives, we are presented with a simple division according to which the world is arranged: pink for girls, blue for boys. History, however, shows how this division makes no sense and was once again created on the basis of a social contract.
Once upon a time, color neutrality was in effect. It was simply more practical. Due to market shortages, no importance was attached to who wore what color clothes. Only in the 1920s, the flagship blue and pink arrived in children’s closets, but… in a completely opposite configuration. The color pink was attributed to boys, as it was associated with a softer version of red, which was supposed to arouse leadership tendencies in boys. Blue, on the other hand, was worn by girls, as it was a Marian color.
History proves to us that the division of fashion into men’s and women’s makes little sense. After all, everything is a matter of agreement. Modern designers realize this, offering us unisex and oversize clothing. There is still a long way to go to strip all clothing of gender, but we can see the increasingly bold intermingling of men’s and women’s fashion right before our eyes. Fashion is open to everyone, so we have no right to comment on other people’s choices, much less their looks.
main photo: unsplash.com/Toa Heftiba