Today, most females dress as males did in the past – wearing pants, flats, minimal or no makeup, shorter hairstyles, shaved heads, etc. Meanwhile, some males today dress like females did in the past – wearing skirts and dresses, heels, handbags, makeup, longer hair, etc.
In the past, these females and males would be considered “crossdressers.” However, for a long time, females have been getting away with dressing like males without being called out as crossdressers. The old saw says that when a female dresses like a male, she is attempting to emulate the superior sex and is applauded, rather than derided for her efforts. So when a females dress as males did in the past, it is just considered “dressing” not crossdressing.
On the other hand, femininely-dressed males are still called crossdressers even though feminine male styles have been gaining popularity for awhile. The antithesis of the old saw says that when a male dresses like a female, he is demeaning himself because he is trying to emulate the inferior sex and as a result, he is mocked.
But times are changing. Females are gaining on males. They are catching up and often surpassing males in many endeavors.
When I started working in the 1980s, my managers were all males and they reported to males. There were very few females in managerial positions. But now my managers were all females and they reported to females. Females filled many managerial positions company-wide.
The days of male superiority/female inferiority are numbered. As a result, slowly, but surely, males dressing in a “feminine” manner will be just that, dressing not crossdressing and thus, turning that old saw on its head.
Will males dressing like males dressed in the past, that is, like empowered females dress, be considered crossdressing? Maybe not because a new version of that old saw says that when a male dresses like a modern empowered female, he is attempting to emulate the superior sex and is applauded, rather than derided for his efforts.
And so it goes.
Most Helpful Opinions