You know Una, this is something I've thought about a lot the past year while I was away from YLF. A comment my husband made got me thinking about it: he (boy) can wear the same thing to a wide variety of events and look perfectly appropriate, whereas I'd (girl) have to wear a wide range of dressiness levels to look appropriate. To be honest, that really bugs me but it seems to be right! It's an issue that's been percolating in the back of my mind. I am the same as you: I often stick to one way of dressing an item, either up or down, though there are some items that I can and will do both. In fact, there are certain items in my closet I would only wear either dressed up or dressed down, because the other direction they no longer feel like me. Unless you are feeling like there is a lot of overlap in your dress-up and dress-down items, I don't know that this is necessarily a lacking skill as much as a style decision. Perhaps being an eclectic dresser (as we both are) influences this a bit?

Love Aida's point women needing more styles of clothing. I am an eclectic too but I've been consciously narrowing down my silhouettes which means I need fewer tops/shoes/jackets etc. to work with them. Rather than feeling bored I feel relieved - most of my clothes actually work together. Like Janet though I don't have to worry about work/not work so maybe that's a big difference.

I am trying to make the shift to having all my clothes be machine washable, including blazer type thingies. And am kicking myself now for getting a DCO blazer dirty yesterday while I was just hanging out. It is several years old, so I may experiment. . . .

I don't go to cocktail parties, fancy NYE parties, or expensive soirees, so I don't really have a dressy capsule beyond dressy sandals, dressy mules, my mom's taffeta skirt from the '40s, and a shiny top that I picked up at a thrift store.

Oh, and I am never in court (other than for jury duty in two weeks) or even in front of an ALJ so work wear isn't Big Law formal. My range of clothing formality/informality is pretty narrow. Even at church, the only *rules* are some type of footwear and top for all gender identities and no wearing of scent in the first three rows. It's all uber casual, and I am among the most dressed up -- if you can call it that!

Funny, just today I saw this on the jcrew web site (scroll down to see several examples of clothing items dressed up and dressed down.

https://www.jcrew.com/womens_f.....e2Ways.jsp

I saw that too! Thanks for posting. It's interesting to ponder and I may do a challenge to myself when I get back from my trip next week!

I do this all the time, and I would agree that the trick is often in the footwear, although I suppose the direction (up/down) depends on the point of reference. For example, to lecture I often wear a blouse and jacket (blazer or moto) over wide leg trousers with refined footwear (I don't wear heels). I might wear that same blouse, jacket, and pair of shoes to a small graduate seminar, but swapping out the trousers for slightly RATE jeans. I would say that in that context I am dressing the blouse and shoes down with the jeans, although looking at the outfit you might read it the other way around (dressing up the jeans with the other elements). Or, I might wear a graphic tee and silky tapered pants to teach, again with refined shoes, and then wear the same tee with jeans and sneakers on the weekend--a moto jacket also often does double duty in this scenario. There I would say I'm dressing up the tee. So I think my point of reference is usually internal and situational, but the general pattern is one element that reads in a different register than the rest of the ensemble.