What We Missed

Undocumented students who “came out” during the activism for the DREAM act are worried about being deported.

I have a piece up at Colorlines today about the sweeping anti-abortion attacks being led by the GOP around the country. Also, over at Radical Doula I write about my work as an abortion doula and the myths that about women’s abortion experiences.

Remember the Boyfriend Jean for women (and girls)? Well now, thanks to Levis, we’ve got the “Ex-Girlfriend” Jean for guys. Tell me this: Why does gender non-conformity in clothing have to be couched in heteronormative terminology? Cause you’d never want someone to think you were gay for wearing the other gender’s clothing styles! (Now accepting theories as to why it’s an “ex” girlfriend jean).

and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. Posted February 10, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Regarding Levis, I think the reason why it’s marketed as an “ex”-girlfriend jean is because lower-body-hugging (and in particular, butt-enhancing) garments are usually seen as a feminine thing, and a (presumably) straight woman would be expected to grow cold toward a boyfriend who wanted to wear jeans which displayed his lovely lower body to the general public. (??)

    My late boyfriend was a huge advocate for pegged jeans on men in the early 2000s, when they were extremely unpopular — and he learned to tailor his own. I think he would be quite amused to see how popular the skinny-jean look is nowadays.

  2. Posted February 10, 2011 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Why “ex-girlfriend” jeans? Because, in the straightjacket which is popular discourse about heterosexual men, it can’t be a “girlfriend” jean because het men don’t wear clothes to display their relationship (except that I wear ties and cufflinks that my spouse buys for me all the time), and because the wearer must be positioned as single. The wearer must be positioned as single because the media can’t discuss polyamory, so anyone with a girlfriend is presumed not looking; and looking to get laid is the only reason acknowledged for het men to dress nicely. Wanting to look nice for one’s partner would be read as pussywhipped; wanting to look nice for one’s self would be read as gay.

  3. Posted February 10, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure it’s similar to why they’re called “boyfriend” jeans for women. The whole concept is that your boyfriend forgot his jeans and you threw them on, right? Well, as others have stated, that’s not “manly” to throw on your girlfriend’s jeans. However, if it’s an “ex” that implies resentment towards her, and that said male would want to get back at her. What better way than to steal her jeans and flaunt them around? Because, you know, misogyny is cool and acceptable.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

170 queries. 0.248 seconds