Women dressing as men trope - what do we all think about it?

[Finchbearer]

Um...define what you mean by 'dressing as men? ' What men? You mean dressing to deceive, to impersonate? Surely that depends wholly on what era you are writing in or imagining. Bradamante in 'Orlando Furioso' dressed as an armoured knight because she was a warrior and petticoats would have been silly. In spite of that she is usually in western art portrayed in a dress. Y'all don't remember the 50's, but I was there, and during the war women worked in factories and construction -ever hear of the iconic 'Rosie the Riveter'? Then the men came home and like magic they turned into permed and perfumed creatures in midi skirts and tight sweaters. Or dressing as a man in 18th century France or England, with the long curly hair, make-up and tights ? Would wearing a skirt in 19th century Scotland be classed as impersonating a man?
In our culture, let's face it, it is men who define what is masculine and feminine attire and 'dressing as a man' is and has always been a wholly flexible standard. Women tend to be more practical, given half a chance. Joan of Arc in the Shaw play is asked why she dresses as a man. The answer goes something like 'I am imprisoned night and day with five of the King's guards. Do you want me to live among them in petticoats?

Too…much…to…unpick here

 

[Azul-din]

Well...I mean...Joan was burned alive after being convicted as dressing as a man....not sure that is the best example.

Joan was burned alive (well, the 'alive' part was because the English had built the bonfire too high for the executioner to strangle her first which was usual practice except for cases of witchcraft or treason) after being convicted of leading the French Army to victory against the English. Let's stop twisting history to suit our prejudices, people.

 

[Azul-din]

Too…much…to…unpick here

Apologies: in the course of a long life and no one has ever been able to shut me up.

 

[Azul-din]

It will mainly depend on how you write it. If you jump up and down (figuratively speaking...) when a woman put on men's clothes and shout "Look, Look! Because she's wearing men's clothes she's now treated differently! Bad society!", then people will take that away as a message from your writing. If on the other hand, you make it a non-event, then readers will not care about it one way or the other.

You can even go for some middle ground. Where you have character A put on men's clothes, and character B remarks on it. If character A simply shrugs and responds that "this was the most practical outfit for activity X". Or you could have a character remark that it's not done in their society. Or any of another dozen remarks. Each of them will shape how your reader perceives it.

Of course, some people are simply serial complainers and will project their believes and messages onto whatever you write. There's simply no pleasing everyone.

Everything one writes is a statement of one's own belief's and prejudices. Unless one is so wedded to the attitudes of society as a whole that one finds oneself unable to hold an individual belief or prejudice.

 

[pmmg]

Joan was burned alive (well, the 'alive' part was because the English had built the bonfire too high for the executioner to strangle her first which was usual practice except for cases of witchcraft or treason) after being convicted of leading the French Army to victory against the English. Let's stop twisting history to suit our prejudices, people.

What? Joan was convicted and executed, and the crime they convicted her on was wearing men's clothes. Nothing twisted in that. It don't matter to her conviction if she was burned or strangled. The clothes she was wearing did. That was the technicality that let them find her guilty and execute her.

 

[Fyri]

They convicted her as a heretic because she was denouncing the church. It just so happened that wearing men's clothing was what got her caught. It was less about her clothing and more about her reasons, from what I've learned.

Ah, tangents.

 

[pmmg]

Sure, it was about other reasons, but the only crime they convicted her on was cross-dressing. She didn't 'just so happen' to be wearing men's clothing. She put in a position where that was her only option so as to catch her at it. Then they convicted.

In her trial, they wanted to convict her of heresy, but she gave them no evidence to pronounce such. They went after her on the cross-dressing. She signed a decree of her submission to the church, and included in it a promise she would not wear men's clothing ever again. Then they used the dressing in men's clothes to convict her three days later. Locked in a cell, she 'somehow' obtained men's clothing and put them on. You can speculate as to how that happened.

This is not something you cant go look up.

That's the fact.

Why was she really killed? Cause the English did not like that she was a symbol for the French. What was the crime they convicted on, cross-dressing.

 

[skip.knox]

ad fontes!
Here's one of our major sources about Joan's trial. It is by Daniel Hobbins. The whole is worth a read but can be tough sledding. The directly relevant bits--namely, after Joan's relapse--can be found on pp. 197-203 of the text, or pp. 44-50 with the left-hand navigation (it's a pdf). Nothing about Joan's trial is incontestable. For myself, I'll say that looking exclusively at the bit about wearing male clothing does an injustice to the events and to the people involved.

Also, I think "cross-dressing" has modern implications not to be found in the actual events. I don't see anything in the accounts that imply she was trying to pretend to be a man or to challenge gender roles.

 

[skip.knox]

As to the original post, here again we have a case of everything depending on the author and the story. If a story has women dressing as men, this can be handled in a myriad of ways. I'll raise this bit of caution. I would pay as much attention to how men dress (in my story) as to how women dress.

I catch the assumption in the OP that men dress in pants. There are countless examples to show that's not always been true. Some sort of shift is eminently practical, as generations of peasants will attest. Male appearance often extends to more than just clothing. It can include hair length and style, fingernails, makeup and tattoos, even teeth, perfuming, even dining or drinking or smoking. The same goes for female appearance. Moreover, these factors change with time and place.

So, I would be very careful in my story to establish what was customary. I would not assume my reader is making the same assumptions I'm making. Especially since this is fantasy, I'm free to construct whatever is necessary. Then, I'd make careful choices about which customs I would violate and how to subvert them. Finally, and again because this is fantasy, I wouldn't assume that what applies in one realm is exactly the same as in another, and what applies to humans applies unchanged to elves or dwarves or dragons.

 

[pmmg]

Well...we are in a thread where the topic is women wearing men's clothes. And the example was given that Joan did it and that worked. Ummm...That did not work. She was killed for it.

Sure, the issue is more complex.

I am reacting to the comment: Let's stop twisting history to suit our prejudices, people.

Like...What prejudice did you imagine I was twisting things to...people? I didn't twist anything. That was the historical record.

I am not sure where the statement of modern implications comes from, but not from our thread....

 

[Devor]

BUT, I have also read here there and everywhere that this ‘trope’ is one that many female readers see as a fallback for a somewhat anti-feminist plot device…the idea that in order for a female character to be strong or independent, she must must take on masculine traits or clothing is somehow poor writing.

So, I'm sure this shocks everyone, but I'm not a woman. I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist. I mostly do not care what women wear in the books I read - I probably won't imagine it right anyways. These are all good reasons for me not to weigh in here.

But I don't feel like anyone has addressed the question. And I went to a very liberal college (even by colleges standards) where people talked about this stuff all the time, so I figure I'll give it a shot.

Feminism over the last hundred-ish years, is often seen has having come in waves. Ideas in the first wave of feminism are very, very different from those in the fourth or fifth wave of feminism. In one wave of feminism, doing all the things the way that men do them was considered a goal. In a later wave, it was seen as restraining femininity. There's even some evidence to believe that women need to shake things up and change some of the ways things are done in order to succeed in a workplace - beyond the obvious discrimination stuff - and to pave the way for other women to succeed as well.

From that perspective, a woman dressing and acting like a man to succeed can give the wrong message. Young girls who embrace that message can find that it holds them back in life. It teaches them to adapt themselves to fit in, instead of adapting their situation to fit them. A better message would be sent if the character can find ways to make these things her own.

What do I think about that? It's probably true enough, in theory, but the impact this tiny sliver of a well-meaning half-message has on the readers of your book is so extremely small.....

 

[Finchbearer]

I'll raise this bit of caution. I would pay as much attention to how men dress (in my story) as to how women dress.

I catch the assumption in the OP that men dress in pants. There are countless examples to show that's not always been true. Some sort of shift is eminently practical, as generations of peasants will attest. Male appearance often extends to more than just clothing. It can include hair length and style, fingernails, makeup and tattoos, even teeth, perfuming, even dining or drinking or smoking. The same goes for female appearance. Moreover, these factors change with time and place.

Of course. Not every male character wears breeches. However, I am working within the historical restrictions of women being generally expected to wear dresses, and not mens clothing, and when my female characters do wear mens or boys clothing, they are specifically going against societal norms. Nothing that would get them burnt at the stake or convicted of a crime, but still pushing up against what is expected of them as women.

I am not writing male characters who wear women’s clothing, that is entirely its own subject I think in many ways.

I write historically inspired fantasy and in some cases historical fantasy, so I’m not changing all the societal rules that we know true to our world to suit my narrative, it’s not high fantasy. I’m working within boundaries that are already familiar and well established to us.

It’s difficult to give a finer context without going into the details of my characters, and I’m assuming no one wants to hear me rattle on about the specifics - so I wanted to open up a general discussion of a trope. The dreaded term ‘trope’ seems to elicit some strong emotions, and I know that it’s a fickle concept, but they exist, and critical book reviews will cherry pick them from books, so I thought it relevant to bring up.

 

[Finchbearer]

So, I'm sure this shocks everyone, but I'm not a woman. I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist. I mostly do not care what women wear in the books I read - I probably won't imagine it right anyways. These are all good reasons for me not to weigh in here.

But I don't feel like anyone has addressed the question. And I went to a very liberal college (even by colleges standards) where people talked about this stuff all the time, so I figure I'll give it a shot.

Feminism over the last hundred-ish years, is often seen has having come in waves. Ideas in the first wave of feminism are very, very different from those in the fourth or fifth wave of feminism. In one wave of feminism, doing all the things the way that men do them was considered a goal. In a later wave, it was seen as restraining femininity. There's even some evidence to believe that women need to shake things up and change some of the ways things are done in order to succeed in a workplace - beyond the obvious discrimination stuff - and to pave the way for other women to succeed as well.

From that perspective, a woman dressing and acting like a man to succeed can give the wrong message. Young girls who embrace that message can find that it holds them back in life. It teaches them to adapt themselves to fit in, instead of adapting their situation to fit them. A better message would be sent if the character can find ways to make these things her own.

What do I think about that? It's probably true enough, in theory, but the impact this tiny sliver of a well-meaning half-message has on the readers of your book is so extremely small.....

From my perspective, women and modes of dress has historically been and continues to be a complex and strongly emotive subject. Fashion is linked to identity, and not all, but many women throughout history have used their own personal style as a means of finding an identity in their place in the world, as a means of communication. Sometimes that has meant a reactive approach and other times a conformist. Neither is wrong or right, just personal.

 

[Finchbearer]

Kilts! They are actually far less restrictive than breeches. You just have a waistband, and then rest can move freely…

Skip - you mentioned assuming I think men have historically always worn trousers. No, I have more knowledge than that. I mentioned kilts earlier on in the thread

 

[Finchbearer]

There's two wolves inside you. One says, "Fuck the idea of society saying girls needing to wear a skirt. I'm going to wear pants." The other says, "Fuck the idea of society saying girls needing to wear a skirt. I'm going to wear a skirt because I want to instead."

I’m just going to leave these wonderful photographs of Annemarie Schwarzenbach by Marianne Breslauer.

 

[Rexenm]

Also, I think "cross-dressing" has modern implications not to be found in the actual events. I don't see anything in the accounts that imply she was trying to pretend to be a man or to challenge gender roles.

I still don’t know why men wearing women’s clothing can be considered cross-dressing. I also don’t think a similar blanket statement, like Joan of Arc burning, can reasonably erase the alternative past. However I think that with the mention of it, you have found your answer.

Imagine a treatise about cross-dressing from a feminist perspective.

 

[Azul-din]

All fair points. It is highly context dependent. But I also think many readers will blindly read the female character who wears men’s clothing, for any reason, as an over-relied upon trope. Should I even be worried about potential critics? It turns out I am, and it’s annoying.

I can see what you say about women wearing dresses and doing all manner of physical things, and that is true, in that dresses also had many practical uses, but more for working class women who wore working clothes. Noblewomen would wear highly restrictive garments that were essentially made for them not to do any physical work - showing their status, and would need to be dressed by a servant, unlike a working woman who would dress herself.

But there are things situations where a dress is less practical then pants, in general.

Kilts! They are actually far less restrictive than breeches. You just have a waistband, and then rest can move freely…

Right! As Diana Gabaldin pointed out in the 'Outlander' series, 'women's work' in the eighteenth century was really HARD work, and the wearing of corsets, for example, was intended to support the lower back, not to restrict the breathing to the point of apoplexy.

 

[Finchbearer]

Right! As Diana Gabaldin pointed out in the 'Outlander' series, 'women's work' in the eighteenth century was really HARD work, and the wearing of corsets, for example, was intended to support the lower back, not to restrict the breathing to the point of apoplexy.

Women crofters carrying ‘kishies’ of peat.

I tried reading Outlander but found it slightly boring to my dismay!

 

[Azul-din]

Women crofters carrying ‘kishies’ of peat.

I tried reading Outlander but found it slightly boring to my dismay!

Chacun a' son gout. Great photo, tho'

 

[Connor364]

So there are some common themes that run throughout my storytelling - I love historical settings, so naturally I also enjoy working with the restrictions that this places on the narrative, such as horses as the main mode of transport, a strict patriarchy, modes of dress, ie. women in dresses, men in breeches.

I write many female main and minor characters and they’re all different, though sometimes for practicality, comfort or for personal preference they wear mens clothing.

The reasons vary, but mainly fall into the categories of; it gives them the opportunity to do what they want to do that wearing a dress would otherwise prevent them from doing. The other main reasons are for travel and comfort, rebellion and personal preference for what they like to wear every single day as part of their identity.

My reasoning is not to be making a feminist statement per se, but is more to show a realistic interpretation of how impractical wearing a long heavy and restrictive dress would be for certain activities, and also to speak to the personal characters of the women I write. It is also not a comment on gender identity, as in the female characters I write that might wear mens clothing at one point or another are not transgender. Historically speaking, women have worn men’s clothing many times over.

BUT, I have also read here there and everywhere that this ‘trope’ is one that many female readers see as a fallback for a somewhat anti-feminist plot device…the idea that in order for a female character to be strong or independent, she must must take on masculine traits or clothing is somehow poor writing.

So, that puts me in a quandary. Do I pander to the potential pushback from this sort of criticism, or do I just write my female characters who like to / have to wear men’s clothes?

Honestly I think if you like it, and if you aren't writing it with intentions to forward negative stereotypes (which you clearly aren't) go for it! Some people might try to turn it into something it's not, but it is pretty hard to avoid to avoid that sort of thing completely in today's culture.

If, in your world, the men wear pants and the women wear dresses, it makes perfect sense that women who are doing more active things that can't be done in dresses would wear pants. That's accurate to what happened in modern culture, women starting wearing "men's" clothes as both a matter of practicality and sometimes a little bit of social rebellion.

So in short, some people might interpret it in a negative way, but that's their choice. You just write what you enjoy!