Who Wears The

Trousers?

Jodie Sanghera
N0698830
Peter Wright
BA(Hons) Fashion Design Year One
DCCT10001: Design, Culture and Context 1 201617
Word Count: 1889
Over the past decade there has been a noticeable unrestricted movement, allowing for comfortable
growth in understanding and awareness of and practical living as women’s lives became more
feminism, with a lot more women beginning to active and slightly less dependent on men.
rebel and stand up for themselves in the fight
towards gender equality. In a society where more
and more women understand what it is to be a
feminist and are actively acting upon it, as a
young woman I have become increasingly inspired
and determined to find out why we have been,
and are still viewed differently to men.
Consequently, how are women affected by this
every day and what changes have been and are
still being made?

For as long as I remember I have always known

and heard the expression ‘who wears the trousers
in the relationship?’ whether it be my parents
having a laugh with friends or people joking with
my sister and her new boyfriend. I have only
recently noticed how sexist the deeper meaning of
this light-hearted question is. Having realised
this, it raised a lot of questions for me to find out
the answers to. Why is it that when we hear this
question we acknowledge that ‘wearing the
trousers’ correlates to having the most control
and power? When we hear the expression we
naturally associate men with being the trouser-
wearers rather than women, a clear example of
how clothing can determine gender in a
stereotypical manner, and furthermore ownership
of authority.
Many believe the beginning of feminism within
fashion began in 1851 with the invention of
bloomers by Amelia Bloomer. Previously to this,
women’s clothing was far more about form rather
than function, with tightly laced corsets and
heavy skirts creating dramatic silhouettes.
Women’s first expression of wearing trousers can
be seen through wearing bloomers; showing
independence and freedom for women, with
1 oppressive clothing.
Fig 1. Amelia Bloomer (1851) by T.W. Brown
Coco Chanel also contributed greatly to the
progression of feminism within fashion by
designing clothing she desired to wear herself.
She transformed couture by rebelling against the
modernist nature of women’s clothing and made
masculine-inspired clothing for women- blazers,
sweaters, jersey suits. Modest and well-tailored,
these clothes were highly versatile letting women
live a more active life whilst remaining
fashionable.
Fig. 2 we see Coco Chanel modelling one of her
tailored suits. She appears to be very relaxed with
a casual stance, one hand in her pocket and the
other on her waist. Her smile gives the impression
she is content and at ease. What I find difficult to
understand is why this comfort and happiness
had to be a privilege for women, and why this new
style of clothing had to be viewed as a statement
of post-modernist rebellion rather than merely an
assertion of equality. Men were enjoying this
’luxury’ while women were suffering with such
Fig 2. Tomboy Coco Chanel (1929)

2
 Fig 3. Neat Pleats (2011)

3
Trousers for women eventually became not only
recognised as stylish, but also acceptable attire.
By 1975 not only were there plenty of styles of
trousers, but it was accepted for women to wear
them in many different environments. Girls wore
trousers to school, women wore them to work,
even at formal occasions trousers were deemed as
appropriate.
“Although this change represented
a fundamental shift in public
attitudes and perceptions, it
ultimately did not result in
neutral clothing styles. By the late
1970’s women’s trousers were
acquiring feminine details and fit
more closely to the hips and
thighs, accentuating the sex of the
wearer rather than creating a
neutral effect.” (Paoletti, 2015: 38)
It almost feels as though instead of women
proving their new-found power by wearing
trousers alongside men, the importance of this
change in society has been minimised. How has
an item of clothing that is used for warmth and
practicality lost its functional use by being
oversexualised so greatly? Trousers are now
designed in a way that materialises women and
portrays them as sexual objects, whilst
astonishingly still managing to cover half of their
body.
American Apparel, a company that before
bankruptcy provided the world with clothes they
promoted as ‘made in the USA’, is notorious for
their controversial sexually liberating
advertisements. Both advertisements, Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4, offer different views on feminism within
fashion. The first ad, Fig. 3, displays two models
wearing pleated trousers- which although appear
quite traditionally masculine are pulled in at the
waist to create a sexier silhouette on the female
body.
“While they are topless, the
advertisement does not
necessarily exploit feminine
sexuality. Rather, the nude body
is a blank canvas upon which to
place the pants — adding any
other article of clothing on top
would distract from them.” (Chin,
2017: online)
Many feminists I am sure would be pleased to see
this ad, a brand promoting an item of clothing
that only men wore previously, and using the
naked female body without oversexualising it,
complete equality for men and women. However,
when I spoke to young men about this ad the
response I got was somewhat different to what the
brand desired. “I like the ad because there are tits
on it.” Clearly the use of the female body as a
blank canvas hasn’t worked for some male
viewers, instead of being focused on the trousers
they are distracted elsewhere.
The second, Fig. 4, is an advertisement for a new
style of jeans, however this is not the focus of our
attention. The topless model is lying on a bed with
her jeans unbuttoned, suggesting undressing and
activity. The emphasis of this ad is on the sex of
the wearer, rather than the jeans they are trying
to promote. Female viewers may see this ad as
empowerment for women, that women are entitled
to do and wear exactly what they like, though the
sad reality is that male viewers are likely to
objectify the models body due to the sexual
nature of the image. 4
 Fig 4. The Slim Slack (2008)

5
Originally trousers were made for men and simply some stylish clothes- or not. It’s
only worn by men. Eventually it was accepted for
women to wear them as freely as they like, and
all up to them.” (Croll, 2014: 104)

equality became less of a vision and more of a

reality. That reality soon fell through when
trousers became yet another way to sexualise
women. The question that arises is why trousers
have been used to sexualise women but not men?
“Women are depicted in a quite
different way from men-not
On a simplistic level women have a certain
amount of freedom to dress how they please.
However, a woman’s physical appearance is
scrutinised on a daily basis whether it be her
clothing, gestures, voice, or expressions. For
example, a woman that wears baggy clothes may
appear to not care about her appearance as a
woman, and seem not interested in male

because the feminine is different communication. On the other hand, a woman

who wears clothes that display her physical
from the masculine- but because features more, may come across as though she

the ‘ideal’ spectator is always takes care of herself and desires male attention.

assumed to be male and the Men create their own dress code for women,
where they decide what clothing can be worn in
image of the woman is designed to moderation. Women cannot be too ‘slutty’ or ‘old-
flatter him.” (Berger, 2008: 64) fashioned’, there must be a happy medium to be
perceived as attractive. Due to this, women turn
Women today are made to believe that they have themselves into objects which are purely for male
the freedom to wear whatever they like, and pleasure, rather than taking advantage of their
therefore they assume they are living in post- freedom for their own benefit, they in fact do the
modern times. Women no longer must dress in a complete opposite.
particular way to impress men, instead they have
enough independence to wear clothes that make
themselves feel good, and empower women as a
whole. Whether these clothes be tight fitting and
revealing, or covered up and baggy, women get to
choose for themselves how they dress. However,
they will still be ultimately analysed by the
clothes they choose.

“A far cry from the idea that

fashion oppresses women, it
celebrates the idea that women
are dressing up for each other,
and themselves...” “But it’s nice
Fig 5. Judgement (2013) by Rosea Lake
to know that as women work it
out, they can choose to put on 6
“She has to survey everything she
is and everything she does
because how she appears to
others, and ultimately how she
appears to men, is of crucial
importance for what is normally
thought of as the success of her
life.” (Croll, 2008: 46)
Kim Kardashian is an example of a woman that’s
appearance is vital. An extremely famous figure in
society, one famous for her curves and often
provocative clothing. As a married woman you
would imagine she doesn’t care too much about
how she appears to other men, yet by dressing in
a way that constantly displays her femininity she
may suggest otherwise to some people. Fig. 6 Kim
is seen wearing next-to-nothing, a sheer dress
over a corset-like bodysuit. Her clothing choices
often cause a lot of controversy, with so many
young girls and women looking up to fashion
icons like Kim Kardashian it is uncertain whether
we should admire her confidence as a woman, or
whether her choices should be deemed as
inappropriate.
Many may see Kim as a good example of a
feminist, a woman that has little boundaries with
her clothes, empowering and encouraging women
to use their freedom and dress for themselves. On
the other hand she can also be seen as a negative
role model, viewed as a woman who moulds
herself to a stereotypical image of an ‘ideal’
women in order to please men. This can cause
women to feel a lot of pressure to replicate a
‘desired’ image that they believe they must have
in order to be appreciated by men.
7
“Living a doll’s life seems to have
become an inspiration for many
young women, as they leave
childhood behind only to embark
on a project of grooming, dieting
and shopping that aims to achieve
the bleached, waxed, tinted look
of a Bratz or Barbie doll.” (Walter,
2010: 2)
Women like Kim Kardashian that are regularly in
the media have such a powerful impact on the
public. Young women in particular are self-
conscious due to expectations created by men
they feel as though they have as women. Seeing
icons in the media from a young age can be
damaging if they view them as women that are
dressed to simply impress men.
It appears to be a vicious circle for women. If they
decide they want to express their femininity
through their clothes and take advantage of their
freedom to wear that they like, men often see this
as women asking for and encouraging male
attention. “Provocative dress is often proffered as
an explanation for street harassment.” It is often
not realised that women in fact want to dress for
themselves, rather than to visually please the
opposite sex.
Fig 6. Kim Kardashian sheer dress (2016) by Steven Gonzalez

8
“I was walking down the street the
other day, wearing nothing
revealing. This man was flicking
his tongue at me and asked me if I
tasted as good as I looked. There
is nothing you can do about it.
What if you get someone mad?
You don't know who they are, and
you might end up raped or killed.”
(Anderson [1991] in Thompson 1993: 2)
This demonstrates the unfortunate truth that
men have a power over women that women
cannot do anything about, it is simply down to
whether a man wants to take advantage of this
control or not, in this instance sexual harassment
in the street.
“She is an object of his pleasure,
his contempt and his disposal. . . .
It always made me feel-still makes
me feel-like a helpless and guilty
child.” (Anderson [1991] in Thompson 1993: 8)
It is very rarely seen or heard of a woman sexually
harassing a man in the street. The power a man
holds, the ability to belittle a woman and make
her feel powerless and uncomfortable after even
one comment, shows there is still no equality.
Additionally, women generally can’t stand up for
themselves due to the realisation that most men’s
strength could allow him to take things even
further, and their helplessness could be
maximised. Does this ultimately show that men
have authority over women?
9
Throughout this essay I have developed my own
understanding on feminism within fashion and
how clothing can determine gender and therefore
authority in a stereotypical manner. Women today
have a lot more freedom than ever before in the
sense they have so much more variety in the style
of clothing they wear, and they can decide how
and when they would like to wear this. However, I
am still unsure whether women empower and
dress to please themselves or whether the
majority still sub-consciously make their
decisions based around the idea of looking a
certain way to please men.
“Thus she turns herself into an
object- and most particularly an
object of vision: a sight.” (Berger, 2008:
47)
Whether this vision be for herself, or for another
being, is unsure. But a fact is that feminism has
come a long way, and it will continue to do so.
One day there will be children asking their
parents where the expression ‘who wears the
trousers?’ comes from, and why trousers were
once seen as a masculine item of clothing, and
therefore a symbolisation of ownership and
authority. Women are becoming stronger every
day, and whether men like it or not I am sure
equality is a vision for the future.
List of Illustrations
Fig 1. Amelia Bloomer (1851) by T.W. Brown in Croll, 2014: 100

Fig 2. Tomboy Coco Chanel (1929) in Croll, 2014: 101

Fig 3. Neat Pleats (2011) in Highsnobiety, http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/10/07/american-apparel-

ads/
Fig 4. The Slim Slack (2008) in Highsnobiety, , http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/10/07/american-
apparel-ads/
Fig 5. Judgement (2013) by Rosea Lake in The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/rosea-lake-vancouver-judgments-skirt-length-
photo_n_2504950.html

Fig 6. Kim Kardashian sheer dress (2016) by Steven Gonzalez in AOL,

https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2016/09/18/kim-kardashian-flashes-her-rear-in-lingerie-
dress-that-leaves-li/21474462/

List of Citations
(Paoletti, 2015: 38)

(Chin, 2017: http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/04/chin-sexist-or-sexy)

(Berger, 2008: 64)

(Croll, 2014: 104)

(Croll, 2008: 46)

(Walter, 2010: 2)

(Anderson [1991] in Thompson 1993:2)

(Anderson [1991] in Thompson 1993:8)

(Berger, 2008: 47)

11
Bibliography
Books

Berger, J. 2008. Ways of Seeing, London: Penguin Group.

Croll, J. 2014. Fashion That Changed The World, Munich: Prestel.

Walter, N. 2010. Living Dolls, Great Britain: Virago.

Manandhar, N. What We Wore, Munich: Prestel.

Paoletti, J. 2015. Sex and Unisex, America: Indiana University Press.

Journals

Thompson, D. 1993. ""The Woman in the Street:" Reclaiming the Public Space from Sexual Harassment,"
Yale Journal of Law & Feminism: Vol. 6, Issue 2, Article 4: 2-8

Websites

Chin, C. 2017. ‘Chin: Sexist or Sexy?’, The Dartmouth Newspaper [online]. Available at
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/04/chin-sexist-or-sexy [Accessed 3 April 2017].

Amarca, N. 2015. ’20 Controversial Ads That Defined American Apparel’, Highsnobiety [online]. Available at
http://www.highsnobiety.com/2015/10/07/american-apparel-ads/ [Accessed 3 April 2017].

12