Remove the straitjacket

From garters, corsets and underwire bras to thongs and shapewear—the sole purpose of these ‘clothes’ is to fasten, secure and bolt up a woman's body.

WrittenBy:Shalaka Patil
Date:
Article image
  • Share this article on whatsapp

I have been thinking a lot about gender normativity lately. While a non-binary approach to gender would be ideal, it is certainly going to be difficult to achieve in a society that has been built precisely on such binaries. There are, however, some areas where a change in approach could help dissolve these divisions.

subscription-appeal-image

Support Independent Media

The media must be free and fair, uninfluenced by corporate or state interests. That's why you, the public, need to pay to keep news free.

Contribute

 Popular culture is speaking for the need of a non-binary approach to gender, at least when it comes to clothes. Thanks to fashion, Jonathan Van Ness of Queer Eye can don a jumpsuit and strut around in heels. The world is gradually giving up on specific personal pronouns like she or her for they or them. I am personally an advocate for approaching gender and sexuality as a spectrum. Such an approach is so much easier to peg yourself to, instead of resorting to archaic terms like “tom-boy” or “girlie”. We are tired of being castigated for being too much of the “other gender”. As if a love for short hair and sneakers at once robs you of the characteristics of a woman. And what is femininity or masculinity anyway? Are they the contours of a personality? Hard or soft, firm or tender? What if your son is in a Bharatnatyam class and your daughter in a football field? Is it that important to identify as one or the other exclusively? Maybe it is for some people and maybe it isn’t for others. Both these preferences are equally important.

One day, I was at a dance fitness class and mid-way, through a vigorous routine, the underwire in my bra came off. I was left shame-faced, extremely embarrassed and completely frozen. I did not know if I should run, adjust my clothes when no one was looking, or just carry on like nothing happened. I didn’t run. Instead, tried a bit of the other two. I could see men around me moving their bodies freely, with abandon. But women around me, including myself, we were constantly worried. Will my breasts look vulgar if I move a certain way? Is this a bit too suggestive? This incident that had nothing to do with other people at the class and everything to do with how I felt, left me upset. It took me a while to decide what exactly it was that was bothering me so much. Outside of basic decency that we are all so mindful of maintaining, women are incessantly worried about their bodies. Oh, the ingenious ways we’ve have developed to hide them—dupattas, baggy shirts, saris, a veil even! Everything is designed to hide our form. All of this, so men are not inconvenienced in any way by the space we occupy? This is why I think breaking the stereotypes of gender normativity is easier for men than it is for women (and I use these words in generic manner). I cannot imagine a woman turning up at the gym without a bra although I wish she could, even if it meant reviving a movement from the 1960s.

It is true—a woman’s body is political. Why do we as a society fear the female form so much? As if it being out in the open would wreak havoc in our carefully designed lives, meant only for specific rules and certain types of people. True gender fluidity both in terms of identity and how we present ourselves to the outside world will be achieved only when we start thinking about the ways in which women’s clothes have oppressed them over the years. Whether it is heels or a garter, a corset or an underwire bra, a thong or a shaper, or high waist jeans—all these clothes have the sole purpose of fastening, securing and bolting up a woman’s body.

Many of these clothes aim to make the female form more desirable to men. I cannot think of a single piece of clothing for men (other than perhaps belts which everyone uses) that is as oppressive. One shudders to even think of the day when a woman decides to wear a fitted skirt without a shaper, only to be asked mockingly when she is due to deliver a child. But those have always been the rules of the game. Women’s clothes have been designed to keep them in check. Whereas men’s clothes have been designed exactly for the purpose clothes are meant to serve—to cover them. This is perhaps why no one thought it necessary to have pockets in pants for women (and there was a global movement around this). Women were expected to carry bags and purses everywhere. Why would she want to make her thighs look fat with overloaded pockets!

When the world speaks of breaking gender normativity, I wish we begin with clothes, so no one has to wear uncomfortable clothes. The fashion industry has historically, cleverly designed clothes that defy custom and tradition. Look at harem pants for example that have transcended the binary. Even a cisgender man will wear it unapologetically, once in a while. If we collectively got rid of the dupatta, the bra and the shaper, eventually, no one would feel the need for them. A girl sure wants to have fun. But you don’t expect her to have any real fun if she’s busy balancing herself in six-inch heels while making sure the underwire in her bra doesn’t poke through her chest, do you?

subscription-appeal-image

Power NL-TNM Election Fund

General elections are around the corner, and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans together to focus on the issues that really matter to the voter. From political funding to battleground states, media coverage to 10 years of Modi, choose a project you would like to support and power our journalism.

Ground reportage is central to public interest journalism. Only readers like you can make it possible. Will you?

Support now

You may also like