“Dress to impress” has a nice ring to it, but underlying this term for one of the many reasons we wear clothes is a deeper motive. Since time immemorial, people have dressed to demonstrate their dominance over others, and dress codes have been established to perpetuate the status and authority of those in power. People who transgress fashion norms are often viewed with suspicion, distrust, or even disgust. Yet, going against the grain can also empower, by getting us and our causes noticed, as evidenced in the way men and women have subverted their clothing choices for centuries. 

History

Whilst the history of trousers may appear to be a testament to male supremacy through clothing, it has not always been thus. One of the most memorable examples of the appropriation of male clothing is by Joan d’Arc, who wore protective armour to battle against men at a time when it was heretical to for women to dress in men’s clothing – an act that she believed to be the will of God. 

Historically, women have been defined by their appearance rather than their actions. Berger stated that “men act and women appear” (1972).  Kaiser (1997) refers to men’s active power (focused upon earning a living) as ‘agonic’, versus women’s passive, or ‘hedonic’ power (focused upon appearing attractive).  These powers are embodied through dress. They are also reflected through the gaze, in particular the male gaze - a hegemonic, gendered system of looking at the passive female object, as outlined by film theorist Laura Mulvey (1975).

The bifurcated garment has been part of male dress in Europe since medieval times, when hose were worn beneath armour breastplates for chivalric and military pursuits. Women mirrored a male ‘look’ in order to appear more powerful. Queen Elizabeth I adopted the same wide-shouldered clothing as her father, Henry VIII, and is depicted in portraits standing with her legs apart, drawing as much attention to her virginity as an oversized codpiece did to the King’s supposed virility. In the Restoration period, women in the theatre wore male breeches, and later in the 17th century favoured men’s riding doublets. Meantime, men wore high-heeled shoes and tights.

From Tudor times until the mid 20th century, suggests Entwistle (2000), men who dressed as peacocks, or showed too much interest in fashion, were seen to be effeminate. By the nineteenth century, says Mackie (1997, pp.190-1), “the very absence of personal display announces the presence of power and status… the no-nonsense business suit with its… sober, physically reserved code of behaviour.” This dramatic style shift was Flügel’s ‘Great Masculine Renunciation’ (1930) whereby men relinquished their elaborate display. By the 1890s, the dark suit of commerce had become the norm for men.

Lurie (2000) points out that, during most of European history, female costume was “designed to suggest successful maternity,” by emphasizing rounded contours, rich, soft materials and focusing on the breasts and the stomach. Broad shoulders and narrow hips are usually associated with men, and more sloping shoulders, small waists and rounded hips, with women. The introduction of the bicycle in the 1890s saw the advent of the divided skirt for female cyclist, although knickerbockers, also called riding bloomers or “rationals” were deemed to be unacceptable for respectable women. During the Edwardian era, women played more sport and the look of the Gibson Girl became popular. Nevertheless, Paul Poiret’s Turkish inspired harem pant designs were rarely seen other than as stage costume, and prior to the late 1950s, trouser-suited role models, like Coco Chanel and Marlene Dietrich, remained rare and exotic creatures.

The organdie ruffles boosting the width of Joan Crawford’s shoulders in the film Letty Lynton (1932), helped to popularize the wide-shouldered look for women. The trend continued with wartime uniforms for women, followed in 1947 by Dior’s New Look – and later, Le Smoking from Yves St Laurent’s 1966 Rive Gauche collection.

Power Dressing

Originating in the United States, ‘power dressing’ was associated with the first wave of professional career women. In order to command respect and authority in the male workplace, women were encouraged to ‘dress for success.’ This involved downplaying their sexuality by adopting elements of male clothing, like structured suiting with padded shoulders, in order to be taken seriously by their male counterparts.  The appearance of a man’s suit is associated with respectability, professionalism and businesslike behaviour.

By the mid-1970s, significant numbers of women entered the US workplace in a professional capacity, yet from the context of a more feminist twenty-first century viewpoint, media discourse focused predominantly on women’s sexuality. In 1976, John T. Molloy’s book, Dress for Success, became a best seller, giving rise to its follow-up The Woman’s Dress for Success Book in 1977. Based on a ‘scientific’ survey, it was here that the self-styled “wardrobe engineer” advised women how to appear “more successful and better educated,” whilst being “more attractive to various types of men,” without being viewed as sex objects. According to Molloy, the executive woman’s primary aim was to move from the typing pool - where her only chance of advancement was via the bedroom - to the boardroom. In order to do this, it was suggested that women adopt elements of men’s clothing, for instance the briefcase, and the “business uniform” of a skirted suit and blouse, but these should be toned down and feminized.

Suggestions for suitable clothing included the “man-tailored blazer,” the “attention getting scarf” to draw attention away from the breasts - and the “gray pinstriped dress.” Low necklines and brightly coloured garments provided the wrong sort of distraction. Florals, frills and abstract prints were sartorial anathema. And, “In most business offices the pantsuit is a failure outfit”- a rule firmly debunked by Hilary Clinton, who in 2013 described herself in a social media biography as a, “pantsuit aficionado.” Entwistle (2015) points out that if a woman is “wearing the trousers,” she is in charge. However, the same phrase is frequently used in an insulting way to indicate that a woman is bossy and controlling. On the other hand, the man’s tie – perhaps symbolic of holding in one’s emotions, and translated into the sort of bow-tie collar favoured by Margaret Thatcher, could be seen to be less threatening. Lady Gaga’s later (Marc Jacobs) version of the male power suit did not seek to tone down its overt masculinity, signalling her concomitant power within the male dominated music industry in the era of #metoo.

In film and television, power dressing has invariably also appeared through the male gaze, for instance the 1989 film Working Girl, and soap operas like Dynasty and Dallas – where, despite structured suiting, enormous shoulder pads and ties, the main female characters were glamorous creatures of sexual interest with more powerful male partners. Laver (1969) proposed that women’s fashion was intended to make the wearer as attractive as possible, “women’s clothes are governed by what might be called the Seduction Principle… they are sex-conscious clothes. Men’s clothes, on the other hand, are governed by the Hierarchical Principle… they are class-conscious clothes.” Cornut-Genille (Evans and Deleyto 1998) outlines how in Working Girl women are expected to comply with traditional female stereotypes: “If they conform to these pre-ordained male assumptions, they tend not be taken seriously, if they don’t, they are seen as a threat to organizational stability.” The only way for the female executive to succeed is by using Riviere’s (1929) ‘mask’ of femininity to perform a role that, whilst semiotically powerful, flatters the male ego and maintains the traditional social order in a “barely disguised form of fairy tale” - the ‘happy ever after’ being a stable heterosexual relationship, seen as essential to the success of a career woman  (Evans and Deleyto). However, as pointed out by Church-Gibson (2007), women often dress ‘for each other’ – the gaze can be female on female, which could have helped women to be taken seriously by other women at work.

Initially, power dressing in the workplace was more about fitting into a man’s world than actually having genuine power, as I discovered when embarking upon my City career the early 1980s (currently being documented as part of a dress code related memoir). Towards the latter part of the 1980s, I purchased my first Armani ensemble – a pale peachy-hued power shouldered jacket, with greige and cream checked mock-tortoiseshell belted skirt and a matching silk crossover blouse. The skirts of these and other items were later shortened to keep up with current trends in hem-lengths.  Arnold (2001), said of the eighties career woman, “the phallic power of the streamlined, tailored silhouette and the perfectly groomed hair and make-up were at once alluring and threatening; the skirts may have been short, but the message was far from submissive.”

The advent of grunge styles in the early and mid-1990s gave rise to a new, less structured and tailored, form. Donna Karan’s capsule wardrobe contained fabrics with ‘more stretch and less attitude’.  A 1992 Donna Karan advertisement even envisaged a woman as the first female president of the USA. Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened yet: there still isn’t equality in terms of pay, or the numbers of women in key roles in business and politics. Nor is there equality in dress. Although women – and men – are now free to wear whatever they choose, clothing still tends to reflect preferences informed by historically and culturally ingrained sexual associations.

According to my research, women from the Baby Boomer generation have continued to favour time-honoured tailoring to command respect, and appear respectable in their male dominated workplace. Polly McMaster, founder of The Fold website, specializing in contemporary workwear for professional women, says that, “when most of the men in the room are wearing bespoke suits, you need to be on a par sartorially to hold your own.” The Fold’s 2018 report, based on a survey of 1,300 businesswomen across the UK, found that 98% of businesswomen believe their style of dress helps them achieve certain objectives at work, moreover, 74% of businesswomen admitted to assessing an individual’s ‘executive presence’ based on their outfit. 

Freedom and Fluidity

Although there has recently been a renewed interest in inspiration and styles from the 1980s by younger generations, today’s version of power dressing incorporates more colour, increased comfort and a greatly enhanced choice of designs, encompassing trousers and jumpsuits – unconscionable even in the 1990s. The distinction between formal wear and comfortable clothing is becoming noticeably more fluid. Even CEOs of investment firms, like Helena Morrissey, have replaced formal suits with flowing dresses. Power dressing portals like The Fold offer a wide range of garments and styles, including bright colours and outfits that, due to increased demands on time, will transition from day to night.

Globalisation - through both travel and the Internet – has caused norms and codes of dress from all over the world to be gradually assimilated and adapted. The introduction  - and, in many cases, subsequent revocation of - ‘dress down Friday’, has also had a role to play in the relaxation of dress codes. The casual style of technology industry dress, in particular, has had an effect on office wear worldwide, as has the rise in numbers of people working from home. However, even Mark Zuckerberg - who claimed he only had ten or twelve grey t-shirts - soon found a jacket, a shirt and a tie when he wanted to be taken seriously in court.

Writing in the ‘60s, feminist scholar, Carolyn Heilbrun, proposed an escape from the “prison of gender,” to a “world in which individual roles and the modes of personal behaviour can be freely chosen.”  A book published to coincide with the 2017 exhibition Rei Kawakubo Comme des Garcons: Art of the In-Between at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bolton (2017) explains how the designer “challenges the boundedness of race and gender identities by combining Eastern and Western masculine and feminine clothing traditions,” and “fusing types of clothing typically associated with either men or women, such as trousers and skirts.” Kawakubo’s spring/summer 1995 show was called Transcending Gender. In 1994 she said: “Spiritually, there are no more differences between men and women. What is important is being human.”

By 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights declared dress codes based on sex or gender unlawful, according to Ford (2021). Entwistle (2015) draws attention to public lavatories that almost always show women in a skirt and men in a bifurcated garment. Yet women wearing trousers do not attempt to enter the male lavatory, presumably because they identify with the clothing they are predominately associated with? Just as women’s trouser suits were rarely seen in the office during the ‘power dressing’ years, neither were Jean-Paul Gaultier’s man-skirts, nor Rei Kawakubo’s androgynous designs of the time. Unisex clothing designer Rudi Gernreich’s 1970 prediction in Life magazine that, by 1980, men’s and women’s skirts and trousers would be interchangeable was wrong.

There has been speculation that, following the COVID-19 pandemic, gender-free, comfortable, loose, sportswear-inspired clothing may become the norm. Yet, despite the introduction of gender neutral lavatories with their skirt-meets-trouser symbol, how likely are we to see clothes from The Phluid Project, the US’s first gender free clothes shop, being worn by executives in an office environment? Whilst professional women of all ages are increasingly re-adopting 1990s style masculine suiting, we rarely, if ever, see men wearing skirts in business situations.

The controversy surrounding men breaking traditional gender norms has been widely debated. The appearance of men in skirts on runways and red carpets has a genuine power to shock. Whilst new forms of masculine identity, such as the metrosexual, the hipster and the hypebeast have emerged in recent years, avant-garde styles remain largely indebted to youth and subcultural fashions of the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s, according to Jay McCauley Bowstead (Cole and Lambert, 2021). The serious fashion statements made by Billy Porter’s Oscar gowns and Harry Styles’s Vogue featured dresses have more impact than retro throwbacks, or the camp artistic dress popularized by Grayson Perry.

The popular reaction to men transgressing gender-normative dress codes is that they look ridiculous. This gives the act of men wearing skirts agency, making it a powerful way to convey a message, and above all to garner valuable publicity. Dressing to subvert gender stereotypes could easily become the new dressing to impress, but how will female dress evolve when women already wear the trousers?

REFERENCES

Arnold, R. (2001) Fashion, Desire and Anxiety: Image and Morality in the 20th Century.  London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.

Bolton, A. (2017) Rei Kawakubo Comme des Garcons: Art of the In-Between. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Church Gibson, P. (2007 [2005]) ‘Redressing the Balance: Patriarchy, Postmodernism and Feminism’ in Bruzzi, S. and Church Gibson, P. (eds.) Fashion Cultures: Theories, Explorations and Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.349-362.

Cole, S. and Lambert, M. (2021) Dandy Style: 250 Years of British Men’s Fashion. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Entwistle, J. (2015) The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress & Modern Social Theory. 2nd Edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Entwistle, J. (2000) ‘Fashioning the Career Woman: Power Dressing as a Strategy of Consumption’ in Andrews, M. and Talbot, M.M. (eds.) All the World and Her Husband: Women in Twentieth-Century Consumer Culture. London and New York: Cassell, pp.224-238.

Evans, P.W. and Deleyto, C. (eds.) (1998) Terms of Endearment: Hollywood Romantic Comedy of the 1980s and 1990s. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Flügel, J.C. (1930) The Psychology of Clothes. London: Institute of Psycho-Analysis and Hogarth Press.

Ford, R.T. (2021) Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Heilbrun, C. G. (1993 [1964]) Toward a Recognition of Androgyny. New York: Norton.

Kaiser, S.B. (2015 [2012]) Fashion and Cultural Studies. London: Bloomsbury.

Laver, J. (1969) Modesty in Dress. London: William Heinemann Limited.

Lurie, A. (2000 [1981]) The Language of Clothes. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Mackie, E. (1997) Market à la Mode: Fashion, Commodity and Gender in The Tatler and The Spectator. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Molloy, J.T. (1976) Dress for Success. New York: Warner Books Inc.

Molloy, J.T. (1978) The Woman’s Dress for Success Book. New York: Warner Books Inc.

Mulvey, L. (1975) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ in Erens, P. (1991) Issues in Feminist Film Criticism. Bloomington Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Riviere, J. (1929). Womanliness as a masquerade. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 10, pp.303-313.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/lady-gaga-suit.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephdeacetis/2020/08/22/the-importance-of-power-dressing-for-women-in-2020/?sh=7d54d7606461

https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/modern-men-are-breaking-traditional-gender-norms