Post by Ayla on Mar 10, 2016 14:43:19 GMT 8
www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/fashion/77757533/does-zaras-new-ungendered-clothing-line-live-up-to-binaryblurring-expectation
When the high-street fashion retailer Zara first announced its affordable gender-neutral range dubbed 'Ungendered', many waited with their credit cards in anticipation.
In theory, 'Ungendered' gives customers a chance to shop and dress without limitations or stereotypes, presenting clothes that are unique in a non-gender-specific way.
Yet in reality, it's a rather uninspiring collection of everyday basics, including T-shirts, tank tops, shorts, tracksuits, jeans, sweatshirts and sneakers that could've easily been purchased from Gap.
Sure, it's a step in the right direction. The high-street staple is tapping into a mindset and acknowledging a cultural conversation that the world is already having, with transgender and gender-fluid voices such as Laverne Cox, Hari Nef and Ruby Rose to facilitate.
The move is progressive for a mainstream store – one with over 2,000 stores in 88 countries – yet consider the context and what some of their competitors are doing. The retailer follows in the footsteps of Selfridges, who launched a completely gender-neutral pop-up store last year. Target has gone a step beyond, acknowledging that gender is not binary, but a spectrum, by phasing out gender-specific signage altogether.
As Dazed Digital points out, by releasing a collection of fairly non-descript garments for men and women, the Spanish retailer is merely doing what American Apparel has been doing for decades. What makes this collection 'ungendered' as opposed to just plain, basic and bland? Are they simply rebranding 'unisex' and cashing in on the hype?
'Ungendered' spotlights another issue: That 'gender-free' seems to just be about dressing women in clothes that could be men's, rather than actually questioning society's gendered standards. A lot of the pieces in the collection are typical 'menswear' items that are often worn by women as well. (We've long dipped into the boys' department for trousers and six-packs of white T-shirts for better fit and value for money. Having these same basics wind up in a 'gender-neutral' collection means nothing to us.)
Clothing usually dubbed 'womenswear' such as dresses and skirts, on the other hand, is not included.
And for a collection that's meant to be 'ungendered', it's rather disappointing (yet sadly predictable) that the retailer has used two, skinny, binary models to showcase the wares. The company isn't making a principled stand here.
Fashion has always played with cultural rules that require men and women to dress differently. We've seen female models walk the runway at Men's Fashion Week (and vice versa) and designers have long used their shows to make statements about gender, from Yves Saint Laurent sending out Le Smoking suit, to Jean Paul Gaultier's kilts in the '80s, to Alessandro Michele dressing boys in pussy bow blouses at Gucci.
Going even deeper into human history, one-shouldered dresses were a unisex phenomenon, men and boys embraced togas and tunics and Louis XIV would sashay around the courts in elaborate high heels.
These days, at a time when Jaden Smith is making men in skirts the new mainstream, when Justin Bieber is donning red suits, and Kanye's leather Givenchy kilts are taking centre stage, Zara's 'Ungendered' is a bland effort.
When the high-street fashion retailer Zara first announced its affordable gender-neutral range dubbed 'Ungendered', many waited with their credit cards in anticipation.
In theory, 'Ungendered' gives customers a chance to shop and dress without limitations or stereotypes, presenting clothes that are unique in a non-gender-specific way.
Yet in reality, it's a rather uninspiring collection of everyday basics, including T-shirts, tank tops, shorts, tracksuits, jeans, sweatshirts and sneakers that could've easily been purchased from Gap.
Sure, it's a step in the right direction. The high-street staple is tapping into a mindset and acknowledging a cultural conversation that the world is already having, with transgender and gender-fluid voices such as Laverne Cox, Hari Nef and Ruby Rose to facilitate.
The move is progressive for a mainstream store – one with over 2,000 stores in 88 countries – yet consider the context and what some of their competitors are doing. The retailer follows in the footsteps of Selfridges, who launched a completely gender-neutral pop-up store last year. Target has gone a step beyond, acknowledging that gender is not binary, but a spectrum, by phasing out gender-specific signage altogether.
As Dazed Digital points out, by releasing a collection of fairly non-descript garments for men and women, the Spanish retailer is merely doing what American Apparel has been doing for decades. What makes this collection 'ungendered' as opposed to just plain, basic and bland? Are they simply rebranding 'unisex' and cashing in on the hype?
'Ungendered' spotlights another issue: That 'gender-free' seems to just be about dressing women in clothes that could be men's, rather than actually questioning society's gendered standards. A lot of the pieces in the collection are typical 'menswear' items that are often worn by women as well. (We've long dipped into the boys' department for trousers and six-packs of white T-shirts for better fit and value for money. Having these same basics wind up in a 'gender-neutral' collection means nothing to us.)
Clothing usually dubbed 'womenswear' such as dresses and skirts, on the other hand, is not included.
And for a collection that's meant to be 'ungendered', it's rather disappointing (yet sadly predictable) that the retailer has used two, skinny, binary models to showcase the wares. The company isn't making a principled stand here.
Fashion has always played with cultural rules that require men and women to dress differently. We've seen female models walk the runway at Men's Fashion Week (and vice versa) and designers have long used their shows to make statements about gender, from Yves Saint Laurent sending out Le Smoking suit, to Jean Paul Gaultier's kilts in the '80s, to Alessandro Michele dressing boys in pussy bow blouses at Gucci.
Going even deeper into human history, one-shouldered dresses were a unisex phenomenon, men and boys embraced togas and tunics and Louis XIV would sashay around the courts in elaborate high heels.
These days, at a time when Jaden Smith is making men in skirts the new mainstream, when Justin Bieber is donning red suits, and Kanye's leather Givenchy kilts are taking centre stage, Zara's 'Ungendered' is a bland effort.