Another thought: You don't have to wear your markers, of course. The question is, what happens when you don't?

Also re. academics: Spectacle frames. The vogue changes, but it changes in waves. In the '90s there was an abundance of little round wire John Lennon's. I think now they're doing "heavier" frames. Those with children might be wearing architect's frames.

Ugh, I hate that I have to dress for protection on occasion, whether it's an option or not. :/ But that is a different discussion!

I understand than men have markers too, but they don't have gender markers, so that's one less category for them to worry about than women imho. For instance, no one will assume a man is a prude based on his outfit. They might assume he's poor, or not intelligent, but they can assume that about a woman too. I do find the idea that men's clothing is more about displaying wealth & status interesting. I wonder if this has to do with career fields, because I imagine high flying women executives and lawyers would need to show the same attention to quality and ability to pay for it. No? But those are fields traditionally associated with men. None of my good guy friends are in such professions, so they definitely don't have the closet dilemmas some of you have described. Society is so fascinating! I just finished reading Luella's Guide to British Style, which had a long chapter on class and dressing, which was essentially an exploration of such markers (on both men and women). It made for an interesting, thought-provoking read, although of course the book was written with a light touch.

Suz also makes an excellent point about women becoming less 'marked' as time moves on, and they become more visible in certain fields. I love that there is now a female academic uniform where she lives! Having read Academichic, and being a bit of a bookworm myself, I'm always curious about where style and academia/intellectual pursuits collide.

Also, it is a shame that men can't experiment as much! We should all overturn patriarchy together, so that men don't have to be in their tiny 'man box' anymore (I got this concept from a male feminist who's written a couple good books, but his name isn't springing to mind right now).

And I loved Diana's science stuff! I read a really neat book about the X chromosome once (with the unfortunate title of The X in Sex) that made me appreciate calico cats in a whole new light.

Jacky, that's a good question. I know Caro refers to this at times. She has felt constrained by her environment and role to dress in a way that felt inauthentic and was working to find a way that would allow her to blend in without feeling unhappy.

I'm not sure I ever have been in a situation where I couldn't wear some version of "me" -- but that's probably because I do like a lot of classics, which can veer in various directions. Pure luck maybe. Or maybe the variety of the situations I've found myself in helped to influence that love of modern classics. Hmmm.

E - Your reflections made me think of something: wealth and status go hand-in-hand with sexual attractiveness for men. Lots of studies on this. Also, undershirts are a signal of how prudish a man is, as well as spray starch.

LOL re: undershirts and spray starch! Clearly I'm not analysing the men I see closely enough.

I'm not big on evolutionary psychology, so I tend to read those studies with skepticism: I suspect if you stripped away the systemic differences between men and women, men's attractiveness would suddenly have a lot more to do with their physical appearance than their wealth and status. (I think you're already starting to see that in the younger crop of Hollywood actors and how much more pressure they're under to have sculpted, muscular bodies than their predecessors had.) But in our current society, you're right! And the traditional markers of masculine wealth, such as a suit in beautiful wool that drapes just so and is perfectly tailored, also happen to flatter the male form immensely. A man doesn't need to wear spanx under his formal wear! No unforgiving satin for him. hehe

To be fair, they are at a disadvantage in sweaters though: I know several men who won't wear sweaters despite their warmth and cosiness because they feel it's too clingy to their less than six-pack midsections. But none of them have bad bodies, and I'm sure they'd all look wonderful in sweaters. And just think of how cardigans in men have strong markers, while cardigans on women are more neutral. And cardigans are so helpful! I'd cry if they were taken away from me.

(I'm really enjoying reading everyone's differing opinions on this thread, so I hope I'm not coming off as too argumentative. Just throwing my own views into the pot, but that doesn't mean I'm dismissing everyone else's!)

Hehe. Well, I'm a creationist myself. Hehe. So, but I don't know about the evolution of it all, but same profile pic with $30K salary v. $100K salary posted - and women definitely rate "the richer man" as better looking. Health and vitality is definitely a factor in mate selection, so to speak, and I think it's an interesting question as to what's given more weight depending on the state of society. What a thought! I'm hungry. Is the guy with the sheep or the guy who can hunt down a buffalo more attractive?

But oh! The cardigan! Men fight the cardigan like women fight the bra.

Great article you posted, Jacky, and I agree with Diana that inherently we have this desire to mark ourselves and there is this range or continuum when we want to turn it up or down. I do find that if I am unmarked, I feel somewhat less visible. But, it's a matter of choice.

Just noting that the discussion here strikes me as rather hetero-centric. (Note that I live in the SF Bay Area where closets are small if nonexistent.) In my world, I see definite clothing markers for sexual orientation and gender identification -- or not, for those who are gender queer.

Rachy, that doesn't surprise me, but I'd also want to see what the parameters of the study were, if that makes sense. lol re: cardigans and sheep vs buffalo.

Vicki, I'm curious: what would an unmarked outfit look like to you? I haven't figured out yet what an unmarked outfit would look like on me, or if I could even dress in an unmarked way. Perhaps jeans & a tee shirt?

Donna, I mentioned that sexuality has its own markers in my original post, but I probably should have expanded on them. I think we were talking about hetero-centric ideas, because that's what the article seemed to reference. But thanks for pointing that out, and how gender binaries are quite exclusionary too!

rachylou - Thanks for sharing! Now to see if I can spot academics based on your descriptions ...

E - Ooh, the books you mentioned sound really interesting! I'll have to check them out. And it is such a shame about men and cardigans - around here, the cardigan marks men pretty strongly as "hipsters," which many people I know seek to avoid being viewed as. So sad though, since hipsters have such good style!

Vicki - Can you describe some of the outfits you've worn that you think are unmarked? I'm curious what they're like.

DonnaF - You're right that the conversation has been very hetero-centric. I know a number of people who are genderqueer though who use different clothing markers to indicate which gender they present as and wish to be referred to as (or the fact that it's not so simple as being binary!). I've personally never struggled much with my gender classification, but since my friend asked me whether or not I face trouble for being femme, I've started thinking a lot more about my gender presentation. I feel sometimes like I'm unmarked when I'm misgendered (since I look like an unremarkable college male) but the same outfit becomes a real marker when someone realizes that I'm female.

Oops, crossposted with E while I was composing my long response.

Jackie, that's so interesting re: your experiences with being misgendered. I do think it's a shame about the cardigans, but I can see why they'd be associated with hipster men.

The author is on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite track him or the book title down right now. It's going to drive me nuts: when I remember it I'll pm you. I googled it, though, and discovered there's a TED talk too about the man box that I watched by a different guy, so maybe that's where I first heard about it. Whoops! Here's that link: http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_.....o_men.html That concept has made it much easier to talk about patriarchy with the men in my life!

Another book you might be interested is Covering by Kenji Yoshino, which takes a look at the intersection of race and sexuality (and a bit about gender towards the end) as it relates to how minorities need to act/appear in the professional US. Not essentially focused on dress though!

ETA: Found the author I was thinking of! It's Michael Kimmel.

Ok. Now I have to tell y'all about markers, my first visit to the Midwest, and coming from CA. I got off the plane and said "Wow! So many out gay people! And here they always say..."

Yes, well. What I'd taken for a "gay marker" was actually just "Midwestern" - but the only people I'd been meeting from the Midwest happened to be gay.

In my defense, I was 14...

I have so many thoughts on this thread that I haven't organized enough to post yet. But for now, a few things:

1. Rachylou, as always your comments are hilariously insightful. My guy is a science professor, and indeed, in the late 90s (college) he bought little round wire glasses. At the time they evoked Lennon; since then the cultural reference point has shifted to Harry Potter, much to his frustration. We just went to the optometrist today to look for replacements, since the old ones are near dead. I love the look on him, so I hope he finds something similar.

2. "Gender performativity" is another phrase that pops into mind in this context. Many of my friends are transgender women; many others are women in science or software who grew up uncomfortable with traditional femininity. And so clothing choices and gender presentation and "girl skills" are all very actively on our minds, sometimes quite uncomfortably, rather than being part of the comfortable unexamined background as they are for many women.

3. My moniker in various places is a variant of Monochrome Chameleon because I spent much of my life overly concerned about how to dress to fit in with whichever of my many social crowds I was running with at the time. I'm glad I have a more central sense of my own style now but I still think a lot about this. I guess since I over-analyze everything under the sun, that shouldn't surprise me.

E - Thanks so much for the recommendations! The TED talk was fascinating, and I'm glad that I can now add the "man box" to my arsenal of words to use in these sorts of discussions.

rachylou - Wow, that's too funny!

Greyscale - Oof, that's really frustrating about the glasses. I hadn't realized that that shape now evokes Harry Potter, but I guess that's not too surprising. Your point about "gender performativity" is spot on. I feel like this is a constant struggle in a lot of my social group.

Thanks for the link Jacky and the great conversation it has sparked!

I think women are aware of being marked from an early age. (Although we don't express it that way -- the author's description of this phenomenon comes from the perspective of being a linguist.) That's why we put a lot of effort into "appropriate" dressing for different occasions, locales, and age.

In her description of the three academic women, she describes one woman's style as telecasting more sexual availability. I wonder how other women, not just men, view the judgement of such a woman. More than being fashion forward or even fashion wacky, I think the harshest judgment comes to a woman whose style is sexy. And at no time is it harsher than when she is outside of the age appropriate time or occasion for sexy dress. For example, a young teen would be judged harshly, just as a woman over 50. A woman aged 18-34 at a club, not judged as harshly.

Denise, I agree with that assessment. And another place the woman will be judged particularly harshly is in academia!! I somehow have a feeling it's even more of a faux pas to dress in an overtly "sexy" way there than it might be in a business setting. (I could be wrong about that, though).

Hate to say it, but I feel I know why people hate sexy dress. You don't have to wave a flag that you're gonna be messy, but people often do. And those kinds of messes are big and tortuous for everyone else. It's cringe-worthy.

ETA: also, I believe if John Lennon and Paul McCartney had a son, it would be Daniel Radcliffe.