"Marked" dressing - YouLookFab Forum

Category

Dressing

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

"Marked" dressing

Jacky

Veteran

A friend of mine the other day tweeted this article http://www9.georgetown.edu/fac.....062093.htm about women being always marked by what we wear, in contrast to men.

From the article: "The term 'marked' is a staple of linguistic theory. It refers to the way language alters the base meaning of a word by adding a linguistic particle that has no meaning on its own. The unmarked form of a word carries the meaning that goes without saying -- what you think of when you're not thinking anything special."

In her experiences, this is still true 20 years after this article was written, and I'd say that's been true in my own life as well. What do you all think? Do you ever find yourself carefully thinking about how your clothing marks you before you put something on and changing your mind because of it?

Dressing

47 replies

Latest reply was from rachylou

Jaime

(website)

Veteran

Yes. I think I am more concerned with this than flattery actually. So if I know I will be going to a certain thrift store I will not wear things that mark me as too spendy, if I am going to certain social functions I don't want to marked as a member of a socio-religious group to which I don't belong, if I am going to the city I don't want to look too suburban and so on. Within those constraints I still find a lot of freedom. And I although I do agree women are always marked, I am not sure I agree that men are not (watch, shoes, glasses, check).

K. Period.

Veteran

I agree women and women's clothing are still very heavily marked. But I think men's clothing is marked too, although probably not as strongly and not for exactly the same reasons. Tannen (and many of us) just aren't as fluent in the marking of men's clothing as with women's. For example, a well dressed friend of mine was sharing with me one mark for a men's jackets: men wear their last few wrist buttons unbuttoned to show that their jacket has working buttonholes. It marks a jacket as expensive and the man who wears it as knowledgable about his clothing (as well as able to afford a more expensive jacket). What I think Tannen had absolutely right was how strongly marking and sexual availability go together for women, but not men. So men's marking is more tied to wealth and women's to sex. Huh. Not a huge shift. How depressing! (Sorry this is rambling. I'm wrangling kids and short on sleep. Great post, though. Thank you!)

E

Veteran

Yes! I love this article, thanks so much for the link. I definitely hate not having a mark-free option; not that I might wear it everyday, but it would be nice to have. And I am conscious of the impressions my choices make for me: light makeup, bobbed hair, supportive shoes...these decisions are made for health and comfort reasons but they add up to a certain amount of primness and nonconformity, especially in Texas (the same choices would read very differently in Colorado, where I used to live). Luckily, I don't need to conform to a work environment, and I am an intelligent, happily single feminist, lol, so at least I'm not stuck having to falsely advertise.

I have changed outfits before when I decided it was marking me in a way I didn't like, although I can't think of an example at this precise moment. I dress differently depending on if I'm going to be in public, though, and what kind of public, due to male gaze issues. If I'm going to spend awhile in a cafe, I try to look extra prim, for example, to discourage strange men from striking up conversations/staring at me (I don't want to sound as I think I'm a man magnet, just that in the past for some reason creepy men tend to notice me in cafes, which can ruin my plans for a relaxing time). I suppose that's a marker of sorts.

In the run up to my sister's wedding, I was trying to explain this difference to my dad and a good guy friend (one off, expensive, polyster bridesmaid dresses vs nice, reusable groomsmen suits, and how even as a wedding guest, I wouldn't have the nice suit option a man would have). And don't get me started on everyday, walkable shoes that work in a variety of situations, and how much easier it is for men to find them.

Obviously, things like race and class and sexuality and able-bodied-ness (pretty sure that's not a word but oh well) will also affect clothing and its markers. But gender is a big one, and I do find that holding all other variables steady, I must make a lot of marked choices that the men in my life don't have to.

Anonymous

Like Shevia, I definitely dress for where I'm going. When I used to visit my parents in a small town, I never wore or took anything fashionable or new. It would be considered showing off.
I think men are often marked by what they wear. At a bar and grill one sees men in jeans worn low without a belt and oversized graphic tee; khaki pants and polo shirt, long baggy cargo shorts, sports jersey and ball cap worn backwards, skinny jeans and buttondown, island shirt worn untucked with drawstring cotton pants, etc.

Jacky

Veteran

shevia - Huh, I'd been thinking about "marking" in a mostly professional context, probably because that's mostly what the article is talking about, but you're totally right about it in other contexts too. I definitely do what you mentioned, and in opposite situations (going into expensive department stores), I try to dress more fashionably/wealthy-looking so that salespeople don't look at me strangely.

K. - That's a really interesting point you make about men's markers being more about wealth, while women's are more tied to sex/sexuality. I hadn't really thought about that, but you're totally right.

E - I used to run into the issue of non-conformity in the workplace all the time! I remember at some point I was painting my nails and a friend of mine asked if I'd ever had trouble being taken seriously because I'm so "femme." Her question is what got me started in being interested in the topic of markers when dressing to begin with.

Joy - It's interesting that it's so location based, rather than strictly circumstances. I spend most of my time in big cities, so I hadn't realized how the dynamic shifts in other areas.

Regarding male markers, I'm curious if there are specific circumstances where men could actually be unmarked (it sounds like suits aren't actually as unmarked as I - and Tennan - had believed). In particular, in my field (software engineering in SF), there's a pretty standard "uniform" for a lot of men of startup t-shirts, jeans and hoodies. I guess what startup shirt you're wearing certainly marks you in a way (oh, startup culture, how silly you are), but male programmers wearing Google or Dropbox t-shirts are pretty unremarkable inside of programming culture. But I think as a woman, if I dressed like that, it would be a notable marker because of the gender disparity in tech. If I dress like that, it's because I'm trying to fit in with the programmer culture, but if I dress fashionably, that will be commented on as well.

Caro in Oz

Veteran

We all have markers some are more talked about & therefore obvious. I agree with K.Period about men & wealth/power/status.
I think our ability as a species to make quick evaluations of others (& situations) is what kept our ancestors alive - as in safe or not safe, stay or run, friend or enemy, fight or flight. It's this same ability that allows us to judge a person's (fill in the blank) really quickly from scanning all the visual information - the problem is what follows from these unconscious judgements. It's when this information is used either in an unconscious way to condemn or exclude others that it becomes a problem.

fuzzylogic

Veteran

To me, the article speaks less of marking and feminism and more of personality disorders.

bnjluka

Very interesting point...

Liz

Veteran

I think there was something striking about the men in that room that she was perhaps so used to she failed to notice: it sounds like they were all dressed to a "t" as "male academic." Not one of them had stepped outside the mold. I feel like men have far less leeway to dress differently from their "tribe" without being called out for it in some way. I assume, even among those Silicon Valley t-shirt wearers, there are "right" t-shirts and "doesn't get it" t-shirts.
So men perhaps have a way to dress that is unmarked among their tribe, but would be MARKED if they were to step outside that subculture.
For what it's worth, I've also seen this among women in different groups. The whole subculture looks pretty much the same, but would look out of place in a different social, culture, economic, or regional setting.

Janet

(website)

Veteran

This is interesting to ponder -- thanks for sharing, Jacky.

I'm getting ready for a photo trip, during which I will wear gear for two solid weeks, and since it's on my mind a lot right now, I'll use it as an example. I was just thinking last night about how participants dress for these trips (I've been on only a couple of other expeditions like this), and what my clothes say about me, even though it's gear and its primary purpose is to keep me warm and dry.

I admire this one guy, Paul, who manages to fit everything he needs for two weeks in the smallest carry-on bag you can imagine. I don't remember thinking once, "Oh, he's wearing the same shirt he wore yesterday," but I sure noticed it if one of my fellow female participants did. And I'm sure they noticed it of me too.

There is some marking among men, but I agree it's more of a given with women. Leaving aside the whole hierarchy of gear brands that people wear on such a trip (is that jacket Lululemon or Target? North Face or EMS?), it was really easy to "typecast" the women participants -- from the one who wore no makeup at all and showed up at breakfast each morning with uncombed hair, to the woman who had a variety of coordinated tracksuit outfits and perfectly groomed hair, and who we never saw without full makeup. And yeah, I fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, and I know that I do that on purpose.

But isn't it amazing that even on a ship out in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, we can't avoid this?

It is frustrating sometimes that we can't opt out of being marked. All we can do is shift our mark depending on what we are doing and how we want to be perceived, as E notes in her coffeeshop example.

Diana

Veteran

Thank you for the link, Jacky. This is so interesting. I have been thinking about it a lot.

While I do agree that women's clothing/appearance is inherently marked, I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing. I like that I can use my clothing as a non-verbal way to communicate things about myself. Maybe this is because I am an introvert and do not like to rely on verbal communication, and I often worry about accidentally blending in to the woodwork. Anyway, I like that my clothes mark me as someone who is interesting and creative.
In many senses, dressing like the rest of the crowd (plain, impeccably tailored dark suits for businessmen, jeans and a hoodie for programmers, etc) signifies that one wants to be seen as part of the herd. It makes you readily recognizable as a member of that particular group. Even someone like me, who dresses far outside of my environmental norm, is not immune to this effect. I work in an academic department at a medical school. You can generally tell who the academic vs. clinical people are by how they dress. This is a visual marking that is kind of important if you are looking to advance in your particular tribe (academicians vs clinicians). I do feel uncomfortable wearing things that could be seen as too corporate or too slick. I think eccentricity is tolerated in my particular environment to a much higher degree than looking too corporate. Would I like crisp button downs more if I worked in a different field? Maybe.

I also agree with the other ladies that I don't think men's wear is unmarked. Perhaps the cues are more subtle, however. So, for example, my husband (a lawyer, whose daily fashion decisions consist of deciding whether to wear a white shirt, blue shirt, or white and blue shirt) wore a bow tie to work one day. Now he is the "bow tie guy." Similarly, he notices (negatively) when someone wears a suit jacket as a sport coat. I would never have noticed this, but a female friend (another lawyer) has also commented on the inappropriateness of a male acquaintance wearing a suit jacket in this way. So I would argue that male dressing is just as marked, and is in fact far more intolerant of divergence.

Perhaps the only way to avoid being marked is to institute a uniform. But even then if you look at schoolchildren who wear uniforms you can see that they manage to put their own personal spins on them. I think it is our nature to want to mark ourselves. We are individuals after all.

Diana

Veteran

PS - A little science geek note: I also did not buy her idea that the female XX as the "unmarked" state vs the male XY as "marked". So, if you know anything about X inactivation, you know that one of the X chromosomes in females is largely inactive (does not make gene products), and this is accomplished by literally marking the chromosome with a couple of different things (methylation groups and Xist RNA for the scientists).

Granted, I'm not sure the mechanism of X inactivation was known when this article was written... but you can see it under a microscope, where the inactive X chromosome looks different.

MuseumGal

Veteran

YES. Absolutely. I currently play 2 major roles right now. At University 1 I am a PhD candidate, researcher, and stand alone instructor. At University 2, I am a professor's wife. I find it interesting how I will consciously choose different markers (mainly bags and jewelry) in my 2 different roles.

Aquamarine

Veteran

Absolutely I think about how what I am wearing "marks" me (although I do not use that term). I inhabit several different spheres and will try to plan my outfits depending on which environment I will be in. Not that I am trying to necessarily fit in, but I am conscious of the message I send based on my clothes.

Mo

(website)

Veteran

I think I'm lost on the concept of a term that defies using any words? Huh? Do we mean that in our head we are thinking, "hussy" or "uptown girl" or "lady who lunches" but we're not saying it?

gryffin

Veteran

Jacky - that was a fascinating article and a though provoking read. Doesn't it blow your mind that in the animal kingdom, it's the male that gets all the sartorial splendor. Diana - has a very interesting point about x inactivation - but I would say lack of splendor in the females vs males in the animal kingdom would leave this open to a very entertaining and spirited debate!! Then in the middles ages and elizabethian times both males and females dressed to denote rank - color, material, adornment was actually legally regulated. although if you had the money to dress above your rank, most people payed the fine and wore what they wanted. It would have been fascinating to have a second article dedicated to when women's clothing became "marked." Although there was often a change in dress between young girls and married women even in ancient times - so already I forsee lots of complications. But until the 20th C dress seemed much more rigid. I do agree men's dress, in general is less marked in the business world but if we were to view it cross culturally - inner city, kids, professionals vs vocation vs artists, city vs country, I am not sure that we would not find telling defining differences in the dress of both men and women. But fascinating topic. Thanks so much for bringing it up!!

rachylou

Veteran

Have only skimmed the article as of yet, but from the gist, that would be an "oh yes" re. myself. I probably think about this first and last. The style part is sandwiched in between, and something I'm working on because I can "mask my identity" all too well. Makes people resentful in the long run.

However, I think men are heavily marked as well as women. That is, I certainly read marks. Shape of the loafer, lace-ups v. loafer, undershirt/no undershirt, length of hair, style of short hair (buzz cut v. extremely short). Those blue or brown slacks and light non-descript shirts, there are lots of things about them that will be big tells. Fit, brand, starched or not, etc.

If you care, you will see.

ironkurtin

Veteran

I'm with Rachylou in that if you care, you'll see it. I make these judgements - primarily whether people care/don't care/care too much or are comfortable/uncomfortable or appropriate/inappropriate/clueless - fairly quickly, and I do draw conclusions from that. But this is also tied up so much with body language, power dynamics, and context that I'm not sure it can be called out separately for men OR for women.

Carla

Veteran

Oh, men don't get away unmarked! DH has always been teased a bit because he wears a tie to work most days. When he started (science/gov't) he wore thin wool ties in solids with plaid flannel shirts, and corduroys or chinos. As he progressed through the hierarchy he transitioned to Oxford cloth shirts, and started to introduce silk ties. He added a tweed jacket for 'important' meetings. Later he got into light weight wool pants. Then better quality shirts. he has 3 jackets (5 years, 15 years, and 25 years old-- but timeless tweed styles) that mix and match with bottoms and tops and 20 silk ties.

He will soon start a new job in university/research setting vs an office in a government building. At recent meetings with his colleagues he was teased 'this will be you last time to wear a tie' and he has put serious thought to capitulating to a more casual work uniform.

This week he actually started a sartorial challenge of wearing a different tie each day until he has gone through all of his ties. He is also paging through The Land's End catalogue and putting together a chino list!

At least he has the sartorial war chest to 'represent' when he has to, but I believe he will be a very different looking guy in a couple of months. Maybe a lot like those 'unmarked' academics in the article?

I, on the other hand, am transferring to Head Office, and am sharpening my pointy toe shoes and pencil skirts!

Jacky

Veteran

Thanks for sharing all of your stories - you've all brought up some very interesting points.

caro - I think you're right that being able to make quick judgments isn't always a bad thing. One of my concerns though is whether or not we can actually prevent these quick judgments from affecting the way we view and treat other people. But the first step of making sure that they don't is being aware of them, so thank you for reminding me of that!

fuzzylogic - What do you mean?

Liz - That makes a lot of sense! Now I wonder more about the t-shirt wearers who surround me ...

Janet - That's really fascinating! It's really interesting what parts of our culture and interactions follow us into even the most remote locations. Did you find that the "typecasting" mapped to other things that you expected from each of the people you were interacting with?

Jacky

Veteran

Diana - I agree with you that it's necessarily a bad thing. I do wonder, though, if it gives people a feeling of being "always on" as it were. Sometimes I feel like I don't want to communicate with my clothing at all! You make a really good point about uniforms though - my high school had uniforms and rules about what kinds of accessories you could wear, but we still noticed if one girl rolled her skirt so it was shorter when teachers weren't looking, or if that guy always popped his collar etc. Also, thanks for the additional little biology fact! That's so cool

MuseumGal - Do you ever try to mix your roles? I'm very curious about how academic politics work!

Aquamarine - I often think I could stand to do that a bit more. It's definitely something YLF has helped me with!

Mo - I'm not sure what your question is directed at? Is there a line of the article that you're referring to?

Jacky

Veteran

gryffin - Oh, that's a good point about males in the animal kingdom usually having all of the visual glory. Like peacocks! Also, I didn't know that people used to get fined for dressing above their rank - historical class structures are always both really interesting and really depressing. I definitely agree that it would be interesting to talk about the history of how our perceptions of clothing and style have changed.

rachylou - You're definitely right about being able to see things if you care about it. Sometimes I worry about how good we humans seem to be at finding things that separate us from each other ...

ik - That's a really good point about how it's all mixed up in body language and everything else. I'd like to read some articles on how society teaches us to interpret these various things, and how we develop these often unconscious tells.

Runcarla - Wow, your husband's style evolution sounds really interesting! It sounds like it would be sort of sad if he stopped wearing his ties, since he seems to enjoy them so much. Congrats on your transfer!

Mo

(website)

Veteran

The paraphrased definition in your post. I didn't get it. " . . .The unmarked form of a word . . " All of that quoted part. It sounds like everyone is just discussing visual cues from styles. That I get. The rest is so over my head.

EDIT: so if the question is simply do I think some ways of dressing might make people assume certain things about me, and do I change if so, then for myself, no I don't think so. I'm not too concerned with how I'm viewed out in the world doing my errands or going out to eat or whatever. I have changed for personal comfort (feeling too revealed, or frumpy, etc) but not that I can remember because I'm afraid of an impression someone might (or might not) get. At work I wear a uniform, so the point is pretty moot there. I might feel differently if I wore "my" clothes to work, where an impression could affect my bottom line!

Suz

(website)

Veteran

Jacky, such an interesting read - thank you for posting. I agree with others that men's clothing is not as unmarked as she suggests -- but also agree with her, that marking is more ubiquitous for women (yes, even 20 years on) and has more potentially damaging effects.

I'm definitely aware of this in different contexts and dress -- to a degree -- in response to it. I say to a degree because there's some subtle (perhaps inarticulable) line that I'm not willing to cross -- I can dress like a different version of me, but not like "not me." If that makes sense. So....what I'd wear to visit my friend who lives on a dairy farm is different than what I'd wear on a trip to New York -- and it's not only for practical reasons, although they also factor in. It's also to do with how my clothes would mark me.

Or how I imagine they might mark me. Because one thing I've noticed is that as soon as we switch contexts we can be terribly mistaken about markers! Geographical differences aren't the only ones we need to factor in, either.

On the other hand, while I'll dress differently, it's a matter of degree more than kind.

The thing that strikes me about her article is that, written when it was, the men may have seemed "unmarked" because they were all academics. And there was a common uniform for academic males to which they all subscribed. The problem for the women was not so much that they were inevitably marked as that they could not choose the "female academic" marker -- because it just didn't exist. They could choose the "sexy" marker or the "sensible" marker or the "no-nonsense" marker (or whatever) -- but there wasn't an equivalent fade-into-the-background "I'm an academic" uniform for women.

Where I live, there actually is a "female academic" marker (or set of markers...there are a few variations) and it is possible (should one want to) to fit into that category pretty easily. As easily as the males, these days.

K. Period.

Veteran

Suz, that reminds me of a point that I meant to make. Thanks!

The men in Tannen's article are marked. They are marked as academics. Among a crowd of non-academic men--a group of lawyers, for example--they would be very obviously marked. She acknowledges that when she says that beards aren't a marker among men in academics.

And spinning off on that, men face pretty significant criticism when they depart from their uniforms. An attorney in my office has a wife who is involved in the fashion industry. She often selects clothes for him that are very fashionable. At times too fashionable for the comfort of the other men in the office. Their comments sometimes carry subtle subtexts of "you are departing from the norm." They're all good friends, but the message is there.

Similarly, my partners know my husband is an academic. He has a uniform that is very different than theirs. There are jokes about tweedy jackets and turtlenecks. So his markers are obvious too.

I think that loops back into the idea of men as marking status and wealth, but, ehh. That's it for me.

Gigi

Veteran

This is a very interesting thread. I had a couple of reactions to the article. My first reaction was like Diana's--marking is not necessarily a bad thing. Compared to a man, I can much more easily express different facets of myself through my clothing choices. And I enjoy that. And like E said, I can use my "marked" clothing choices even as protection on occasion. If I'm going somewhere where I don't want to be bothered by males, I make sure I'm dressed in a very boring, no-nonsense, even frumpy way.

I don't know much about men's clothing and so can't speak to how much it is marked, but I think that men have an abysmally small amount of clothing style choices. As gryffin pointed out, men used to be extremely fashionable! They even used to wear heels. So I think the current state of affairs is not so much that women developed to be marked while men didn't but that men ceased to be marked while women continued to be marked. And I wonder why that happened. It's really too bad. I think the world would be a lot richer of a place if men had the style options they used to have. We need a male clothing revolution!

rachylou

Veteran

"They could not choose the "female academic" marker -- because it just didn't exist."

Suz, I'm not sure I understand - in that female academics existed and had markers to go with in my mind. And by Deborah Tannen's time, Women's Studies departments had certainly and firmly been ensconced all across the U.S. at least. Also, well, in the world of preppies, "slightly rumpled" is probably the big marker for both men and women re. being an academic.

ETA: I suppose I should note in addition to being preppy, I grew up in a university town, and am a Catholic (with my fave doctor of the Church being St. Catherine of Sienna). So perhaps my experience skews things away from the overriding reality.

Jacky

Veteran

Mo - Oh, that's spot on. I wish I had your confidence in ignoring what other people might think!

Suz - That's a good point about always staying true to yourself. Do you ever run into situations (or worry about them, I guess) where you don't feel like a version of yourself works? That's something I've worried a lot about as I end up at more formal occasions that involve my family.

K. - I've definitely had commentary from men in my industry about departing from the standard industry markers before. It can be very frustrating!

Gigi - I definitely agree that it's not always a bad thing, although I do think it's sad that we all understand what it's like to need to dress for "protection" sometimes. But the societal attitude that women are somehow public property is definitely a different discussion. I have a number of male friends who complain that men's fashion is too boring and how they wish they could wear all the pretty things that women wear - you're absolutely right that we need male clothing revolution!

rachylou - I'm curious, what is the female academic marker? Not being an academic myself, that world seems very interesting and mysterious to me

rachylou

Veteran

I wish I could post some pictures of people I know, but they'd kill me and be resentful. Lol.

The female academic is much like the male academic, which I don't suppose is interesting. A reliance on browns, tweeds, oxford cloth, lace-up shoes. Hair *just* this side of unruly and too long. Always something a little askew (from rushing to and from classes). An imperfect understanding of how to tuck one's shirt in and refusal to use spray starch. And despite all this, still a certain formality and neatness, if not polish or precision.

I suppose the difference is, a woman may also wear a brown straight skirt (women always have more options, n'est-ce pas?). And maybe a female academic (even those in the sciences) will also get to don a scarf or piece of jewelry that shows something of her knowledge and familiarity with far-off cultures. Male academics I don't suppose have to rely more on decor: A Navajo rug, a pre-Columbian statue. That sort of thing.

Haha. Basically, a female academic is a mussed version of the Liberal Protestant Female Minister in brown, and her cultural artifacts (earrings) are a bit bolder (no need to be calming really).

Oh hahaha. One of my neighbors is moving away to my neighborhood of origin. A doctoral candidate. This brings me to the homes of academics. If only I could be there to witness the transformation of her home decor. The leather couch will disappear one day. An upright piano will appear in the dining room. A Henry Evans print in the front hall. Old pedal Singer in the living room. And she too will subsist on Cheese and Ice Cream for the whole of Decembers from henceforth (the Germanic influence).

She could get another leather couch, but it will have to come from Scandinavian Designs.

12