Switcheroo: A Confrontational Gender-Bending Experiment

Hana Pesut’s Switcheroo photos expose how gender and identity are defined by the clothing we choose to wear. 

—-

Hana Pesut’s Switcheroo photos are simple, but fascinating. A couple stands together, looking straight ahead. in the next photo, the couple is in the exact same pose, but have switched spots—and clothing.

Aside from beautiful exposures (Hana uses a Hasselblad medium-format film camera), there’s something captivating about seeing how people change when wearing another person’s clothing. Most of the groupings are a man and a woman, and it’s funny to notice how deviant both the man and woman instantly become when wearing the other’s clothes.

After we profiled Switcheroo on The Good Feed Blog in February, Hana offered us our own Switcheroo photo session. When my husband and I showed up on Ocean Avenue overlooking the Santa Monica Pier to meet Hana for the first time, I realized that part of the whole experiment is the process of taking the photo. Standing in front of everyone in the crowded park having photos taken, even in our normal clothes, was sort of embarrassing.

Standing in front of everyone wearing each other’s clothes was… well… sort of insane. I was really self-conscious, but my 6’2″ Eastern European husband was amazingly confident and proud in my v-neck crop-top and flouncy skirt. I was surprised at us, and proud of him.

Here we are in the first series, followed by 8 more awesome pairings. For more of Hana Pesut’s photos, head over to her Tumblr. For more art from Hana, visit her blog, Sincerely Hana.

♦◊♦

 

♦◊♦


♦◊♦

♦◊♦

♦◊♦

♦◊♦

♦◊♦

For more of Hana Pesut’s photos visit her Tumblr and her blog, Sincerely Hana.

Sponsored Content

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Joanna Schroeder

Joanna Schroeder is the type of working mom who opens her car door and junk spills out all over the ground. She serves as Executive Editor of The Good Men Project and is a freelance writer whose work has appeared on sites like xoJane, hlntv.com, and The Huffington Post. Joanna loves playing with her sons, skateboarding with her husband, and hanging out with friends. Her dream is to someday finish her almost-done novel and get some sleep. Follow her shenanigans on Twitter.

Comments

  1. And right there, that’s good stuff. Culture at work.

  2. Random_Stranger says:

    Got to say, other than the clothing being way to large, the women look far more natural (within socially acceptable bounds) than the men.

    In my mind (and I know I’m out of it), its a visual reminder that while we’ve largely broken down gender norms for women, men still have a ways to go. She can wear the pants, but he’d better not put on a dress.

    • Yeah, it’s like dressing “up” to be more masculine is ok, but dressing “down” to be more feminine is well, not ok.

      • Random_Stranger says:

        Curious…why would you say masculine is “dressing up” whereas feminine is “dressing down”? If its a status thing you’re referring to, I’d say that in at least three of those photos the women appear to be dressed up relative to their dressed down male partners.

        • I’m not talking in terms of look or formality, I’m saying that if women dress like men it doesn’t cause social reactions. It’s ok (currently, though it used not to be) to dress up to the default, men. And if men dress like women, it’s as if they are losing status. To be feminine as a man is not ok, but to dress masculinely doesn’t seem to cause problems.

          To dress “straight” wouldn’t cause problems, but to dress “gay” would.

          • Random_Stranger says:

            I see….and maybe this is a matter of the grass being greener on the other side, but I would tend to perceive the default (masculine) is dressing down while the exception (feminine) is dressing up, at least the language would appear internally consistent to me any how.

            Although not particularly evident in this photo series, masculine clothing tends to signify what you do whereas feminine clothing tends to enhance what you are. I don’t think either purpose is particularly desirable when gendered, but I do think women today have greater liberty to use clothing with a larger vocabulary of social signals than men -which you stated. That may explain the appeal to x-dressing men (to my knowledge you don’t get x-dressing women)

            • You do get cross dressing women, but it I’m not sure it’s a sexual fetish. More like, drag for shows or a desire to change genders.
              My up and down is not indicative of fanciness or utiltarianess, but of status is all. Up is default and expected and such. Down would be lower status.

            • If you look at the historical stereotype of what men and women “should” wear, it’s men in pants and women in dresses/skirts. Now it’s considered normal for women to wear pants or dresses/skirts, but it’s not considered normal for men to wear dresses/skirts. My perception of this is the same as Julie’s, it’s considered normal to dress masculinely (pants), but still considered ‘other/feminine’ to wear dresses/skirts. When women started wearing pants as a norm, the first few may have been considered cross-dressers, but now nobody gives it a second thought. Western women started wearing pants regularly just before the social changes in the 60s, and I see it as being linked to women wanting to up their status to be equal with men. The men wear pants/women wear pants or skirts split reflects our current thinking about what men and women should be. Men are still not supposed to want to be ‘feminine,’ unless they like being called ‘pussy.’ Dressing ‘femininely’ lowers a man’s status so that other men feel they have a right to make fun of him at least. But it’s ok for women to be ‘masculine,’ nobody will say anything about a woman in pants.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “and I see it as being linked to women wanting to up their status to be equal with men.”

              And I see it as women entering the realm of utilitarian workers. Women would wear pants, even before the 60’s, when they needed to get down and dirty. When doing manual labour, riding hard, were children or in the gutter. Do you see many homeless wearing dresses?

              “Dressing ‘femininely’ lowers a man’s status”

              But why is this the case? You are suggesting it is because masculine is good and feminine is bad, but this is clearly not the case, as even the most feminist of men still won’t wear dresses, despite putting the feminine above masculinity with their masculinity denigrating shroedinger’s rapist type campaigns.

              It has been argued in this thread already that masculine is seen as utilitarian and the feminine is seen as style. Women can be ether, but men must remain utilitarian. This hasn’t always been the case, and back in Victorian days, men did very much dress feminine…if they were among the upper class. I’d hardly call that looking down on feminine. Seems more that feminine is above ordinary working men.

            • Those ‘dirty’ jobs are part of what women saw as part of men’s power in a way, because men had the ‘option’ to work outside the home in many different fields. The value of any job has to do with whether you actually want the job, or just need the job, but when you don’t think you have any option, the job you can’t have can seem better. Not only that, but by relegating women to ‘style’ clothing, we (both sexes) reenforce the expectation that women are useless unless you want something nice to look at. A woman wearing a skirt isn’t expected to know how to change a car tire.

              “You are suggesting it is because masculine is good and feminine is bad.”
              I’m actually saying that we (westerners) -perceive- masculine as good and feminine as bad. That has been my experience. You can’t deny that men who chose to wear powder pink or wear a skirt are at greater risk of harassment from other men/boys (and probably women/girls too). It challenges the accepted view of what behaviours fit the narrow ‘masculine’ definition. Women are expected to be pretty and incapable (feminine), and men are expected to be emotionless and capable (masculine).

              I think in the broader picture, we should move away from using ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ to describe anyone. Men who are labelled as effeminate are not feminine like women. They still think like men, and do not communicate like women. Likewise for rough women, they are still women even if their traits are not ‘feminine.’ When a person does not adhere to the narrow set of behaviours expected of them based on sex, it does not mean that they are like the other sex. But that is how ‘different’ behaviour is labelled.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “Those ‘dirty’ jobs are part of what women saw as part of men’s power in a way, because men had the ‘option’ to work outside the home in many different fields. ”

              What time period are you talking about?Because prior to the 60’s, the jobs weren’t generally glamorous, except for the very privileged few, which were limited to those of the right social class, not gender. Moreover, an obligation, dictated with a legal responsibility, to provide for others means men didn’t have a choice. This is the problem with feminism, they think men choose to go out and work because it’s fun. Men have always been obligated to the workforce in as much the same way feminists perceive women were obligated to the house. There was no option, it had to be done. Women are the ones who had options. They could still work outside the home, though, admittedly, in the past those options were more limited than they are today (teacher, nurse, secretary, etc) or they could stay home and raise a family. THAT was choice men never had, and still don’t to this day. Feminists make it sound like working is the be all and end all of life, and I pity the women who bought into it and are miserable as they endure the same drudgery men have always suffered.

              “Not only that, but by relegating women to ‘style’ clothing, we (both sexes) reenforce the expectation that women are useless unless you want something nice to look at.”

              I’m curious, are feminists able to look at anything feminine without seeing it as inferior or useless or a victim of something or someone? And then projecting that sense onto everyone else? Last I checked, Hi society was the epitome of power. Fame and fortune come with a social aspect, the daily drudgery of the working class does not. So you can see being social as inferior to being a wage slave. You can herald the tool that is used till it breaks, then gets discarded, as a better choice than the object to be admired and enjoyed, pretending only one is objectified and crying victim for taking that perceptiononto yourself. But don’t ask others to accept it on faith or to pity and console you for the role you’ve created and “CHOSEN” to play. I and many other men do not see the feminine as inferior to the masculine, we see them as different, as utlity and social, nether of which being better, each having their own strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons. Perhaps you should stop trying to pit the sexes against eah other, hmm?

              “You can’t deny that men who chose to wear powder pink or wear a skirt are at greater risk of harassment from other men/boys (and probably women/girls too).”

              Yes, they do, but you presume it is because those feminine traits are seen as inferior… But I will likewise ask you, why does a private get court marshaled if he dresses up and pretends to be a captain? Is it because Captains are inferior to privates? Or is it because the private is attempting to gain access to privileges not due to him? Likewise, when the unpopular girl tries to dress like the popular girls, does she get accepted, or does she get derided in much the same way as the man wearing pink? It seems like you have made a descision and are attempting to ram situations into it. Have you read the rest of these comments? I think this has already been discussed.

          • David Byron says:

            It’s the opposite. It’s OK for a powerful person to dress down (the woman) but it’s an offense for the lower status man to dress up. Similarly there are laws against impersonating powerful groups like the military or the police. Again it’s OK for women to have only-female groups where men are excluded because they have power so men are excluded naturally. Men are weaker and have no rights to be exclusive. A woman can enter a male typical job but a man can’t enter a woman typical job. A transgendered woman will get hassle going to a women’s bathroom but not a transgendered woman. Society seeks to prevent men “invading women’s spaces” as of course does the feminist movement.

            • Mark Neil says:

              While I’m not saying your outright wrong, I do think you’re taking it a little far with the “men have no right to be exclusive”. That is a relatively modern prospect, and male only spaces were very prevalent prior to second wave feminism. As such, the modern tendency can’t be used to explain the past, if the modern is a direct reversal of the past.

            • David Byron says:

              I’m not explaining the past but the present. In the past as you say women couldn’t invade men’s places either and neither could they dress freely in men’s clothes.

              It’s Julie’s / the feminist position that fails to address the facts of the past. If women can dress as men because men are more dominant then it ought to have been even easier for women to dress as men in the past, but the reverse is true.

            • It’s a position, David. But thanks for trying to totalize me. I’m actually curious. That’s a position and one I’ve strongly considered. I’m also exceptionally interested in everything that Schala is saying. And what people have been saying about lines of bodies and fashion and utility vs…what’s the opposite of utility?

              If men are dressed for use, and women are dressed for art/entertainment or to be seen for pleasure…and each gender is thinking the other gender has more power…it’s like a house of mirrors. I would think each gender is seeing something better on the other’s side, saying that female/female clothed people have more power…what kind of power? Social power? Political power?

              What’s the power that counts?

              That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I hear a lot of men talking about how women have so much more power and privilege (sorry to use the dreaded P word) and I see women claiming it’s men. And I think getting to what that power is might help.

              Running in high heels and a tight skirt doesn’t feel like power to me if I need to save my kids from a burning building or some such. I might look good and please people but I’d rather be able to function.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “what’s the opposite of utility?”

              Not sure. I would guess style. I think of the term “form over function” or “function over form” here

              “what kind of power? Social power? Political power?”

              Social sounds right. The ability to influence others. It does not need be in the form of manipulation, though can be. A co-worker the other week, upon coming back from lunch, turned to me and said “I should wear a dress more often. people were so nice to me”. She was the same person, but a dress, a more feminine attire, opened doors for her (literally and figuratively). Now, this may seen trivial in most cases, but how deep does it really go (consider the titanic).

              “What’s the power that counts?”

              Singular? why?

              “I hear a lot of men talking about how women have so much more power and privilege”

              While I won’t doubt you have heard this, do ask yourself, are they saying women have more power and privilege than men, or that women have more power and privilege than they (or the feminists in the discussion) are willing to acknowledge? while accounting men more than they actually have?

              “Running in high heels and a tight skirt doesn’t feel like power to me if I need to save my kids from a burning building or some such. I might look good and please people but I’d rather be able to function.”

              Does that mean you have no power? Would not being able to get others to run into that building to save your kids, and never needing risk yourself, would this not also count as power? Which power is idea would, of course, depend on the scenario (alone in a cottage in the middle of nowhere, the power to influence others does little good. in a city, the opposite is very much true.

            • “what’s the opposite of utility?”

              Not sure. I would guess style. I think of the term “form over function” or “function over form” here

              Social sounds right. The ability to influence others. It does not need be in the form of manipulation, though can be. A co-worker the other week, upon coming back from lunch, turned to me and said “I should wear a dress more often. people were so nice to me”. She was the same person, but a dress, a more feminine attire, opened doors for her (literally and figuratively). Now, this may seen trivial in most cases, but how deep does it really go (consider the titanic).

              Why, I wonder, were people being more nice to her. Because she played a culturally approved role? Because any beauty is compelling?

              “What’s the power that counts?”

              Singular? why?

              Because I see men wanting power that women seem to have and women not seeing it as a power. And I see women wanting power men seem to have and men not seeing it as a power.

              “I hear a lot of men talking about how women have so much more power and privilege”

              While I won’t doubt you have heard this, do ask yourself, are they saying women have more power and privilege than men, or that women have more power and privilege than they (or the feminists in the discussion) are willing to acknowledge? while accounting men more than they actually have?

              I think most of the women that I’ve talked to about this don’t believe that this power/privilege (which seems to come from an idea of social power based in a culturally approved role and only that role) is real power. ie not political power, but power women have had to use (like manipulation) to get by in historical circumstances where women didn’t have political power.

              “Running in high heels and a tight skirt doesn’t feel like power to me if I need to save my kids from a burning building or some such. I might look good and please people but I’d rather be able to function.”

              Does that mean you have no power? Would not being able to get others to run into that building to save your kids, and never needing risk yourself, would this not also count as power? Which power is idea would, of course, depend on the scenario (alone in a cottage in the middle of nowhere, the power to influence others does little good. in a city, the opposite is very much true.

              I mean, I’d rather be able to be useful to help in an emergency than to bat eyelashes and hope someone indulges me. What if I lose the ability to bat my eyelashes or lose my eyelashes? Then I’ve got nothing! And I see men who are able to charm and work people without having to act as well. I’d say ultimately humans that are successful find, hone and use both types of power but to say women have more power because they don’t have to act means that they themselves are creating a helpless state. The power to charm and not act seems fleeting to me and relys on fitting into social customs (being controlled by them). If I’m not a pretty woman, with pretty clothes, and pretty eyelash batting…will I get the power? Why should I have to dress and code femme (which is a lot of work) when I could just learn how to do what needs to be done (also a lot of work, but work that will last longer).

              I reject that as much as I can because I figure I should be able to take care of myself as much as possible, others too, while forming bonds that allow for each helping the other (group support). Neither solo individualist nor leech using others, but someone who can adapt to various circumstances, while owning her own shit, and if I needed to save someone, I’d do my best to do that rather than just sitting back and waiting.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “Because I see men wanting power that women seem to have and women not seeing it as a power. And I see women wanting power men seem to have and men not seeing it as a power.”

              But why must there be only a singular form of power that counts? I’ve recently begun sailing. On a keelboat, you have the engine to motor you around, and the wind to power your sails. The engine is a consistent form of power that remains so long as you have fuel… fuel that costs money. Fuel that runs out. Alternatively, you have wind power, which ca provide much more speed, but is unpredicatble and requires far more action/effort to maintain control in tight spaces (IE, it’s hard to steer and trim two sails at the same time). But so long as you have sails and a keel, you can keep on going, and going, and going. Which source of power counts? Can only one source count?

              “which seems to come from an idea of social power based in a culturally approved role and only that role”

              How is that different from economic power garnered by a man performing his approved role (utility) and only that role (a stay at home father has neither the social or economic power)? Ecomonic power can be handed over, taken away, lost, etc. Is power that is so fragile really a greater power that what women have had? Remember, political power is a class issue, not gender, unless your willing to argue Michelle Obama has no political power, no influence in the white house, just because Barak is the mouthpiece?

              “I’d say ultimately humans that are successful find, hone and use both types of power but to say women have more power because they don’t have to act means that they themselves are creating a helpless state.”

              I think you are confusing not “HAVING” to do something with not being “allowed” to do it. And I don’t believe I’ve said women have “more” power. I’ve said women have their own power. I haven’t quantified it.

              “The power to charm and not act seems fleeting to me and relys on fitting into social customs (being controlled by them).”

              Any more fleeting than the economic power men had. Power that is reliant on a job that can be given and taken at a leasure, is no longer male specific, often reflects our social standing and whose outcome (the power itself. AKA money) can be handed away, conned, stolen, burned, lost, etc.

              “If I’m not a pretty woman, with pretty clothes, and pretty eyelash batting…will I get the power?”

              About as much as if I’m from a poor home, without the education, natural talents or intelect or physical strnegth to elevate myself.

              “Why should I have to dress and code femme (which is a lot of work) when I could just learn how to do what needs to be done (also a lot of work, but work that will last longer).”

              Never said you should have to, only that you can. Doing it yourself comes with both risk and reward. You are not dependent upon someone else being available and willing, but likewise, you do not need to take the risk, put in the energy. Ultimately, you have a CHOICE… and that, too, is power, is it not?

              As things stand now, I believe both powers are dwindling. Men’s economic power is dwindling with the rise of female workers, while women’s social power dwindles as men (and women) become less willing to risk themselves to support strangers. You may deem this a good thing, but I’m certain many women do not, given the whining of the death of chivalry (chivalry is not simply good manners). Myself… I don’t know.

            • David Byron says:

              “Running in high heels and a tight skirt doesn’t feel like power to me”

              So don’t do it. The point is women have a CHOICE and men do not. And it goes beyond women can wear men’s clothes. Women’s choice is vastly greater than men’s even without the addition of the possibility of wearing “male” clothes. Power is about having choices so it is a certainty that women have more power in this situation.

              Also just because men’s dress is utilitarian doesn’t mean women’s is decorative. Women can chose to be either or something in between. Nor does a woman dressing decoratively suggest it is ‘for men”. If that was the case you’d all be either naked or wearing lingerie. I do think that if a woman choses to dress similar to a man’s utilitarian stuff it is dressing “down” though.

              So anyway…. you sound a bit mad at me already :) That took less time than normal. Let me assure you that I hold you in the highest regard and all that stuff! I wouldn’t say that about many people.

            • David Byron says:

              Oh btw Julie, can you remind me how to get italics and bold on these forums?

            • Mark Neil says:

              I’m not julie, but here’s the answer anyways. Use HTML code. The arrow brackets (<) surrounding ether i (italics) or b (bold) at the start of the word/s and /i (close italics) and /b (close bold) at the end.

        • Mark Neil says:

          LOL I was just going to ask the same question. It struck me as odd to see the feminine as beneath the masculine. After all, when women dress up, they often dress more feminine. when they are just longing, or on laundry down, when your as down as you can get, it is often masculine. In the old days, women would dress in men’s clothing largely for the rough and tumble, down and dirty activities (hard travel by horse, for example). When men dress up, that is when the ornamental attire (watch’s, medals, etc) and the fashion accessories (hats, gloves, ties) come out most often.

          • Mark Neil says:

            Ultimately, I should clarify (and I should have finished reading the thread). I don’t see one as defaulting above the other. I see the masculine attire as utilitarian and the feminine attire as the social. Which is above the other is really dependent upon the situation.

          • Again not talking fashion, talking status. Not dress up like for a
            A party but up like reaching up to power

            • Mark Neil says:

              I know. It’s why the next comment acknowledged I should have finished reading the thread. That said, does not dressing up for a party often equate to dressing up to the peak of your social standing? But I’ll forget about that for a moment, and ignore the formal vs casual nature of dressing up and down… Is it not generally easier for the higher stats to bring themselves down to the lower, than vice versa? Women have been dressing in men’s clothing for centuries (not commonly, but still occasionally), but not the reverse (discounting toga’s, robes and kilts). Speaking of robes and toga’s, those were generally worn by people of high status, not lower. Just wondering where the presumption of male fashion = default women’s fashion = lessor status comes from, except of course, the early feminists who tried to emulate men in all things.

            • Would you or men you know be willing to wear dresses in public? If not
              Why not?
              Why is is supposedly funny or demeaning f in a comic way for men to be in ladies clothes?

            • Or another example. At my kid’s middle school. If his female friends come to school in jeans, tshirts, converse and no makeup, there would be little to no social ramifications.
              But if a boy comes to school in a dress or ponytail, there would be. From mocking, to fights, to “you’re gay” to administrators being called in.
              Why?

            • David Byron says:

              Simply because the male is breaking a social taboo and must therefore be punished. The male has no right in our society to dress as a woman.

            • Anthony Deluca says:

              I think this is just the answer. I am very suspicious of arguments that try to frame restrictions purely on men as misogynist.

            • A man could even be running the risk of being physically assaulted if he displays femenine characteristics and breaks the rules. I’ve never heard of a woman risking being bashed for wearing trousers, not in the western world anyway. My friend’s brother walked the entire length of the main street of my town in drag, in my friend’s words a very brave thing to do in this area.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “Would you or men you know be willing to wear dresses in public? ”

              A kilt? yes. A dress no. I’m curious, does a poor man feel he is funny or demeaned when he wears a fancy suit to a rich man’s soiree? I would argue yes. He feels out of place, like he doesn’t belong. Does a rich man feel equally as funny and demeaned dressing in a pair of jeans and tshirt at a soup kitchen? Possibly, but I doubt he feels it so much.

              Remember, my position isn’t actually that one is superior or inferior to the other. Dressing up to one and down to the other, regardless of which, just seems odd to me, and the reason for that is that it could go ether way.

            • “Is it not generally easier for the higher stats to bring themselves down to the lower, than vice versa? Women have been dressing in men’s clothing for centuries (not commonly, but still occasionally), but not the reverse (discounting toga’s, robes and kilts).”
              I don’t think I understand you. If men are (in my example) higher status then why would it be easier for them to give up status. People, as a generality, want to gain it, thus women dressing “up” to be like men. Since this has happened throughout history, I’d think it means that women have been trying to gain status that men have by emulating them (long before feminism). But high status people aren’t taking on the long gowns or frilly headdresses of women so does that mean it would lower their status?

              I think the remark you made about clothing as utilitarian or social is interesting as all heck. Also, if you look at sexual indicators it doesn’t currently match up with how the rest of nature does it! Males of the species are usually the bright attractive ones with females being duller and drabber.

              Though there were time periods where men’s fashion was MUCH more social as you say, filled with frills and fripperies and high heels meant to showcase the calf (considered a very sexy part of the male body).

              I remember a movement class I took and we studied the movements of courtiers in the French court. The men’s calves were exposed, and the women’s breasts and cleavage were exposed. A man would bow and extend his calf, the woman would dip straight down. Each could get a good look at the other’s exposed sexypart.

              Kinda cool how cultures change over time.

            • finally, Mark, I’m gonna be off for the fourth….have a good one!

            • Men are not permitted the same level of freedom of expression as women. Women in men’s clothing are sexy whilst men in women’s clothing are not sexy. Men are generally kept in a very narrow cultural groove in terms of what is considered acceptable behaviour and dress sense. There is much about manhood that remains unexplored and there are assumptions made against the backdrop of feminism that might be convenient for some but that are in fact totally false.

            • So why is the range narrow for men, especially I our culture when in other countries it might not be, or in other historical periods?

            • Research conducted in the eighties revealed that when a boy and a girl
              (aged around 5) started crying simultaneously, 9 times out of 10 an
              adult would comfort the girl, but not the boy. The message that the
              boy gets from this is obvious, that his feelings are not valid and that
              he needs to learn to deal with them himself. He also learns nothing
              about empathy, which needs to be taught to children by example (you
              can join those dots yourself). This behaviour has been played out in
              increments throughout all cultures throughout history. Fast-forward
              to adulthood and you find that 80% of suicide victims are male. Then
              we seek whatever means we can to invalidate the significance of that
              statistic. Emotions are what make us and to ignore, deride or diminish
              them in any way is an abuse of the highest order and yet, where men
              are concerned it continues unabated. In taking the feminist line on
              anything, one must bear in mind that it is an ideology and for that reason,
              it takes a narrow view of the world and one that is determined by its need
              to find outcomes that seek to benefit women only. Furthermore, as is the
              case with ALL ideologies (without exception), it is flawed. For society to
              base its culture largely on that one ideological basis is at best, ignorant
              and at worst, outright dangerous for BOTH genders. Men who experience
              emotional upheaval in their lives receive little or no help from those around
              them and unless you are one of those men and haven’t been indoctrinated
              to “just get on with it”, you won’t know it’s happening, simply because most
              of those men remain silent. For this reason, the few who do speak out are
              regarded as the minority and therefore, seen as weak. Weakness and
              vulnerability in men is seen as a bad thing. Little wonder then that
              transvestites and the like are persecuted. In this article, we are making
              a superficial comparison between men and women and making
              assumptions about status and power based on our very narrow and
              materialistic understanding of the world. Two fathers I’ve known
              personally who lost their sons (one a 4-year-old and the other, a
              17-year-old), both had the same experiences. The whole world it seemed
              turned out to comfort their wives, whilst they were left largely to their own
              devices (with the exception of 1 or 2 people who asked, “How’s your work
              going?”). One of the fathers spoke out and the other remained silent, but
              they were both left with the same outcome. They didn’t exist. The father of
              the 4-year-old spent months sitting in protest across the road from the
              drunkard who ran his son over, until the police finally came and moved him
              on. The other father spent years making solitary evening visits to the tree
              that had claimed his son’s life. Both fathers owned small businesses, but
              that was the extent of their so-called, “power and status”. Their suits and
              ties, which are often regarded as symbols of power and status, also serve
              as strait jackets.

            • Yes. Makes me so sad. I hope that as we raise our own boys we help them escape from those limits placed on them.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “But high status people aren’t taking on the long gowns or frilly headdresses of women so does that mean it would lower their status?”

              Reverse for a moment your presumption that it is the masculine fashion that is the high status. Throughout history, it was disallowed, sometimes even criminal, to impersonate those above your station(read status). it continues to remain so in some places (IE military. Impersonating an officer is a BIG offence). The reverse is not the case. Those of high status may dress bellow their stations as they deem fit. When a woman dressed as a man, it was “unbecoming of a lady”. why? Is it that it was beneath a woman to dress as a man? Or was it because she was dressing above her station (is that what unbecoming means?)?

              “But high status people aren’t taking on the long gowns or frilly headdresses of women so does that mean it would lower their status?”

              Not anymore, but they DID, as you even acknowledge:

              “Though there were time periods where men’s fashion was MUCH more social as you say, filled with frills and fripperies and high heels meant to showcase the calf (considered a very sexy part of the male body).”

              Does the fashion you describe here not sound like what we define as feminine? Frills, heels, showing off the calves? These were the styles of HIGH society, not generally attainable to the lower status’. Would this not suggest, at the very least, the possibility that the feminine fashion was the higher status?

              Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying women’s fashion IS deemed higher status than men’s, but I think there is plenty to argue against the reverse. I simply see them as different. Neither being superior to the other. Utilitarian and social. But that still doesn’t explain why dresses (or even robes) are not acceptable in current day social settings.

              I don’t know. Regadless, hope you enjoy your day off.

            • David Byron says:

              I don’t think your view (which I guess is the standard feminist explanation for this “issue” and is pretty much the go to explanation for everything) makes any sense.

              > If men are (in my example) higher status then why would it be easier for them to give up status

              Powerful people can do things that the powerless cannot. That’s what it means to have power.

            • Nice scare quotes there David.

              I’ve seen this scenario play out on my campus.
              Girls in jeans and tees and converse and little makeup. No commentary from men
              A trans woman, a male in a dress, etc. “Fag,” “queer” and laughter from men.

              Why? Why can women dress like men and it’s not a big deal but if men dress like women it is?

              Cultural construction? Gender norms? Status and power? Social and Utilitarian roles? Cause women are smaller and just less physical threatening? Cause fashion is fashion? I’m interested in all answers.

              Thanks for assuming so much about me, David.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              I must say there’s a difference here in degree. I wear “boyish” clothes most days (not in this photo, but that’s because I tried to be a bit more feminine here).

              I wear Vans or Cons, Levis and tee shirts, I don’t color my hair, I do wear some make up, etc, but mostly not. My husband and I have the exact same RayBan Wayfarers sunglasses…

              But I don’t look like I’m cross-dressing, because that’s still not manly dressing. I have biggish boobs, wear the tees moderately fitted, v-necks so you see cleavage, and I wear tight enough jeans to see my ass… It’s tom-boy, not “boy”.

              The distinction is huge. My cousin Ann is a lesbian and literally wears men’s clothes. button-up shirts, blazers, the occasional tie, very butch haircut, men’s jeans that fit very loose, and Converse. So while we both dress “boyish”, she actually dresses like a man and I dress like a tomboy. She has taken a LOT of hell for that, for being a butch lesbian. She’s also in an amazing community and has a beautiful, wonderful life. But it isn’t simple.

              I also have a friend who is a rock star (on a small scale), I’ve written about him here, his band is Outernational. Miles wears women’s “Jeggings” – you know, skinny jeans so tight they’re basically leggings, very small, tight tee shirts, etc. He looks very feminine in many ways, but has the markings of a man, he wears a big leather jacket and big hip-hop style caps. Some of his shoes are very feminine, some are masculine, others are Cons. (Everyone wears Cons! They’re the people’s shoe!)

              So Miles and I both “play at” gender neutrality, but we’re both very identifiably our own gender. But a man in a full dress or skirt? Or a woman dressed in men’s clothes that looks butch? Both are deviant. The man in the dress may be *more* deviant, but comparing a tomboy like me to a man in a dress may be a bit of an inequality.

            • The man in a dress or trans woman in your scenario, is seen as trying to usurp certain privileges that he, as a man, shouldn’t be afforded according to society. And it goes beyond freedom of expression.

              The less it “shows” that this person is trans or a guy, the more it is threatening. Because while the butch trans women who would never be seen as cis as considered a laughing stock, the young pretty trans woman is considered a threat – she can blend in, even probably have sex with you without you even knowing, go in the public bathroom with no one pestering her, and generally enjoy much of female privilege, by doing essentially nothing.

              It’s seen as like a nouveau riche getting bailed by Obama, when the banks and GM think it should be them and them alone. The working class might be jealous that “one of them” is really getting better treatment, too. Even more if what it takes to get better treatment is to be perceived to not be one of them (that’s a blow to the ego, being told that your group merits no consideration, no DV shelters, no concern about pedophile scares and being profiled as an abuser etc).

              This only works if people recognize that being seen as female will normally warrant better treatment from most, than being seen as males. And people generally don’t think about this professionally either, but happiness overall.

            • “The distinction is huge. My cousin Ann is a lesbian and literally wears men’s clothes. button-up shirts, blazers, the occasional tie, very butch haircut, men’s jeans that fit very loose, and Converse”

              Wouldn’t a man doing the opposite be pretty much in a dress with pantyhose, maybe heels, a handbag, generally appropriate (but visible) make-up and very long hair?

              Your “tomboy example” is much closer to a man wearing a skirt or dress and just that (no make-up or anything else). Except he’ll probably get a lot of crap for it, except for specific subcultures.

              And if all it takes to be considered tomboy is avoiding make-up and hair coloring, count me in. Breast size is not something I can control, so even if I only got A cups, meh. Hormones (and weight gain) have given me an ass. I used to have pretty much none. But I did wear pretty tight-fitting pants under the smallest men’s size (which is 28 inch waist). I wore 24 inch pants (because my hips aren’t big), looked feminine somewhat.

              I don’t think shopping in the women’s section at all makes me feminine. My body language makes me. My clothing (and confidence) just helps me not be perceived as male, it doesn’t make me feminine or masculine.

            • David Byron says:

              Mm. Well I didn’t assume or state anything about you in that comment as it happens so perhaps you just put that in there on the basis of our prior conversations? For that matter since I do know you somewhat why would it have been bad for me to make those assumptions (that I didn’t make) if I had?

              Maybe you jumped the gun a bit there?

              The opinion you expressed is indeed the feminist position. The issue seems to deserve scare quotes (do you disagree?) because it’s a non-issue.

              > Why can women dress like men and it’s not a big deal but if men dress like women it is?

              At least that’s a more open way of asking the question. Any answer ought to begin by saying this is not unusual because men are generally much more tightly restricted in our society than women are, in all sorts of ways. Also women have a far wider variety of clothes to chose from even without considering this “issue”. So a better way of seeing it would be to ask why do women have so many more freedoms than men? Or specifically when it comes to clothing why do women have a far larger variety and spend far more on their clothes?

              The original framing tends to assume men and women are comparable on clothing but that’s not true. Any walk through a shopping mall will show you that women’s clothing is far more important commercially than men’s. Much more variety, much higher sales. (Funny how women afford it all when they’re supposedly earning less)

              Interestingly there’s evidence that has been the case for many centuries, at least in Europe.

              Is there even any such thing as male clothes? It seems like there’s female-only clothes and then there’s stuff anyone can wear.

            • You were like, “Julie’s taking the feminist position” and then back slashed me and feminism as if that’s the only connection or position I’m taking.

              I’d say that women’s clothing is for attraction and pleasure then it means perhaps we aren’t useful, except as objects?

              I guess I’d say men are used as utilities as are women only in different ways.
              People afford clothes all the time on low salaries, it’s called credit cards

      • Great comments Julie! I was going to say the exact same thing, but you a
        Ready said everything :)

  3. Women are allowed to dress like men and not the other way around because dressing male is higher status. That makes sense. It’s like how rich people are kept out of wall mart, but poor people are welcome in the country club.

    Society cosiders women to have inherent value (though not necessarily in a way women want to be valued). For a man to be feminine is basically to say that he doesn’t see himself as needing to work to justify his right to exist in the ways that men are usually expected to.

    Because women are cosidered to have inherent value you can’t expect attitudes towards feminine men to reflect attitudes towards women. Men who don’t try to earn value as men don’t gain womens’ value they end up with (ittle or no percieved value by society

    • and trans women are trying to “steal” this inherent value

      No one cares about trans men, because they’re becoming “worker ants” sort of. More hands to do the work is always welcomed. Trans women present at the buffet, and get told they didn’t pay the ticket price of being born with a vagina.

      I’ve NEVER seen maleness valued as above in itself, outside of what he can do, while I have seen femaleness valued in itself, just for existing.

      My value has gone up with transition. I was a geeky guy, so a nerdy loser according to culture. But as a geeky girl, I’m chic and fun and interesting. I’m also assumed to be prettier or more physically attractive than my male counterpart. People might make concessions to make me feel more welcomed as a woman. They wouldn’t do the same to men in female-dominated venues, wether it be sports or work or a household.

      • Anthony Deluca says:

        Thank you for presenting the position of someone who as actually experienced both sides.

      • “I’ve NEVER seen maleness valued as above in itself, outside of what he can do, while I have seen femaleness valued in itself, just for existing.”

        Yep! At least, not by society in general, short of celebrities.

        I’m going the opposite direction you are (I’m a trans man, so female to male), and I’ve found that being perceived as male has given me a form of invisibility. When I was a woman, it was something I “was”, other than just being a person. Now I’m a white male, which makes me largely the default in our society, and therefore nothing to take notice of in particular.

  4. FlyingKal says:

    Dressing in bad-fitting clothes makes you look like a dork, regardless of style and gender (mostly).

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      What’s funny is that when I put on my husband’s clothes, it reminded me of the early to mid 90s when my friends and I dressed like a skater boy most of the time, and in baseball caps you couldn’t tell the girls from the boys unless you got close. Talk about ill-fitting!

  5. I think the predominance of sport/casual in American fashion already infuses a lot of androgyny into people’s appearance. I was struck by how, with a few exceptions, much of the women’s clothing was already similar to menswear.

    The significant distinction, for me, was how the cut of women’s clothing, even casual/sport, is so much more body-oriented. And this wasn’t noticeable, I felt, until the men were in women’s clothes. Immediately, the shape of their bodies, the beauty of their body line, became apparent. It was hidden in men’s clothing.

    I think this is very much a gendered starting point in fashion, that cut and line are about the body, and that body is female. It means that aesthetically, the female body is the more interesting, and hence representative of the concept of “body.” And this licenses fashion to romance it with colors and textures and ingenious constructions that heighten or obscure or reveal—that create a story of allure and power and mystery. The men became part of this process for a moment when they were in women’s clothing. Suddenly, they too had bodies that had curves and erotic volumes, with a tension between what was shown and what was suggested.
    Strange as it may be to say, to me, only in drag were they able to convey a very powerful presence based on the projection of their physicality—not just size and bulk, but the allure, the ability to command attention and dominate desire, of an artfully presented body. This is a daring concept of manhood that only high-fashion menswear (think Dolce & Gabbana) takes on regularly.

    Conversely, the women seemed reduced aesthetically by men’s clothing. The “story” men’s clothing told was mere utility, expedience. They might as well have been wearing animal skins.

    • “It means that aesthetically, the female body is the more interesting, and hence representative of the concept of “body.””

      Interestingly, at various points in history fashion has moved to give men a more hourglass shape, mimicing the large hips of women, because it was considered more beautiful.

  6. I don’t think it’s so much to with status. In the area of clothing, women have greater choice because their feminist foremothers fought for it — whereas, with a few exceptions, men haven’t really fought that fight yet.

    As for the pictures, I think most of them are potentially pretty good. The women mostly look okay. And two of the men (#3 and #6) look better after the swap, especially #6. I would seriously recommend that #6 throws his own clothes away!

    The main drawback for the other guys is that their partners’ clothes are too small. For these it’d have been better to find the same clothes a size or two up and see how they worked then.

  7. “I don’t think it’s so much to with status. In the area of clothing, women have greater choice because their feminist foremothers fought for it — whereas, with a few exceptions, men haven’t really fought that fight yet.”

    I don’t think there was this much resistance against working class women wearing utilitarian clothing. But it’s only been in recent eras (since 150 years ago) that “maleness” became associated with “working class”, as in working with his hands, getting dirty, doing heavy lifting. Even at higher levels of professions, it’s still manual labor that is dirty and often physically demanding, like plumber and mechanic.

    On the opposite end, femaleness became associated with aristocracy, looking good and such. Aristocrats work because they want a hobby, or are bored, not because they need to feed themselves that day. So they end up being a lot more picky about the work they do, rejecting manual labor as beneath them and too dirty.

    You’ll notice that getting dirty itself is considered masculine. A woman can decide to go play in the mud with some friends. People who wash the clothes might complain, but that’ll be it. A man who decides to go into embroidery because he likes that better, will be shamed into being more directly useful with harder manual labor.

    That’s part of homophobia, they’re not as compelled to perform for the status quo, so they musy be shamed back into performing as much as their heterosexual brothers.

    And that’s also transphobia. Trans women are seen as wanting a free meal, without having been born into aristocracy. Like if your mechanic decided your 200k home was his all of a sudden.

  8. So. I guess it’s just me that looks at the switcheroo pictures and marvels at how folks mostly continue to look like the same people regardless of how they’re dressed?

    Some interesting ideas in the discussion here though. :)

    • yes, totally. how do photographs of people wearing clothes that don’t fit them make a statement about gender relationships, besides that old trite saw: “underneath our clothes, everyone is the same.”

      this looks fun in the way that putting on a costume is fun. if that’s the photographer’s intention, i think she’s done a great job. the rest of the gender blahblahblah sounds like projection.

  9. I think there’s actually a sex-symmetrical thing going on here. It’s not about privilege or one sex outranking the other. It’s just that people look silly wearing clothes that obviously don’t suit them, and don’t match our mental model of how people are ‘supposed’ to look.

    A LOT of women’s clothing is designed with the female form in mind: designed to accomodate a bosom, to show off wide hips, a narrow waist, the feminine appearance of the face, and so on. Relatively little men’s clothing is designed specifically to show off the male form.

    So when husband and wife switch clothes, he’s wearing clothes that are designed to fit someone with narrower shoulders and waist, broad hips, and so on. So he’s going to look silly, because his entire outfit is trying to show off things he doesn’t have. And because it’s probably too tight, which exaggerates everything because the clothes are [i]sticking[/i] to features he doesn’t have. This is extra-obvious for #1, where the dress exaggerates his flat chest and lumpy arms, when it’s designed for a woman with a real bosom and rounded arms. Plus, of course, the beard.

    She, on the other hand, is just wearing clothes that are big and baggy and (effectively) conceal her form. Which may not make her look attractive, but it doesn’t make her look ridiculous. Wearing clothes that are too big looks less silly than clothes that are too small.

    So how much of this reflects power structure, and how much of this is just the way aesthetics work? I don’t think you can take this and say “men who dress like women are trying to ‘dress up.'” Many of the men who react to that with homophobia/transphobia would say the opposite: they target and attack crossdressers and transwomen because they are ‘unmanly,’ because they are falling away from a manly standard of behavior and appearance.

    But on the other hand you can’t really say “men who dress like women are trying to ‘dress down,’ because much of the asymmetry comes from the fact that women’s clothes are usually designed to look good on women, and men’s clothes usually aren’t designed to look that good on men.

    Is it because women are perceived as inferior and expected to act like ornamental flowers, prettying themselves up for dominant males? Is it because women are placed on a pedestal and expected to be inherently good-looking, while men are not?

    I don’t know. Can I say the answer is “both,” without getting shouted at?

    • How can women be perceived as inferior and be put on a pedestal at the same time? That’s a complete contradiction. Men’s clothes tend to be more functional and women’s more decorative which correlates with women having higher status. A peasant would by defenition apppear more utilitarian than an aristocrat for example, and the aristocrat would certainly wear more decorative clothing I would assume as a general rule. By the way no one is shouting at you.

  10. I believe the view that women can dress in masculine clothes because the male role is higher status is a mis-identification of the dynamic at work.

    As many many people pointed out in the femmephobia article:
    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/femmephobia-girls-are-gross-writ-large/

    The dynamic I (and others) believe is at work is this: Women’s role is reduced to her biology (which carries it’s own bag of privileges and disadvantages). Men’s successful role is earned through utility and proven ability to sacrifice for others. Women are shackled to their biological role.

    This disadvantages and advantages both sexes. It means women will (almost) never do any act that will raise her to a superior status than her body allots her. A woman might save 10 infants from a fire. A very great deal of men would still have of prime importance her beauty (and a good deal of women would still probably be wrapped up in her mode of dress, slutty/business-like/prudis etc..)

    For men, there are millions of washouts at the male role who are never thought of for help compared to women.

    Think about this. There are a lot of insults around not performing enough: not a real man, loser, turn in your man-card, man up. These insults have no comparable equal to women, because nobody really has any calls upon women to sacrifice or make themselves usable. Men who dress as women aren’t respected because they fail at the male role, not because the women’s role is inferior. It’s men that’s being weighed in the balance, not the clothes and the men are being found lacking as are men who are: meek, suicidal, depressed, don’t initiate advances, don’t fight for themselves or loved ones, run away from danger leaving loved ones behind (as in Aurora), etc..

    It always figures that a disadvantage to men is depicted as anti-women. Totally wrong.

    • Agree, agree, agree John D..!! We’d do well to speak a little less about the “glass ceiling” and start talking more about the “glass floor”. Men are constantly denied access to the full range of their humanity and it is one of the most insidious and covert abuses of all time. It is the cause of much depression, many suicides and dare I suggest it, violence. This is one egg that is going to take a long time to crack, because we are still obsessed with the erroneous supposition that inequity affects only women. To address the type of inequity that men suffer, one has to dig somewhat deeper. Then, society has to change what it expects of men …………….. totally.

  11. Just Passing says:

    I had a guest speaker in my sociology class years back who was a straight average joe smo guy. but he wore dresses and make up and jewelry. He was not gay or trying to make a statement. He honestly just felt that he looked BETTER in women’s clothes. I thought it was refreshing to see him in feminine attire and his reason for doing so was out of personal prefrence and not out of some comic/political/sexuality statement.

    Maybe I’m just WAYYYYY to old school in my thinking. It wasn’t all that long ago that ALL people wore dresses/skirts. The further you look back in history the more those social rules are blurred. People were people and werent trying to seperate themselves from “the other half”

  12. This was fascinating. Utterly fascinating. Finally, we’re on the path to true equality. I think with things like this we can show people of both sexes what it’s TRULY like to be in the shoes of the opposite sex. And on a mass scale. She photographed a lot of people. Some of the men truly looked happier, it was like a spark lit up in their faces, a sass, something lit up and you could see they were happier in the women’s clothing than in their own men’s clothing. But they looked ridiculous, mostly. You could see they looked ridiculous, frivolous, weak, not to be taken seriously, objectified, emasculated, humiliated. They were only for decoration. They served no purpose whatsoever but to be pretty and be used, be passive. This project really sent a powerful visual message. Whereas the women, mostly, looked tough. You could see it in their faces. They looked like they had taken on a level of unprecedented authority, like “I’m wearing the pants now, don’t mess with me, you’ll see who’s boss now.” It’s like they were now authoritarian.

    • I’m really not sure how you are seeing this difference in their pictures.

    • Mark Neil says:

      Wow, you must really have a low opinion of women if that’s what YOU see when you observe men in women’s clothing… ether that, you or hold men to very demanding expectations of utility.

      • I think that this has been engrained in us over thousands of years.
        A males value to society was seen as hunter, gatherer defender. A female as gatherer & mate to produce offspring to maintain & grow the tribe. If a female takes a male role it does not affect her ability to carry on her “normal” female role. If a male takes a female role he can only do a small part of it. This makes him a burden. (it only takes a few males to sire hundreds of children, so he is of no real use reproduction) . He is then robbing his tribe of a defender & hunter. So he has committed 2 sins , making his tribe weaker & giving them another body to defend .
        He will have little or nothing to contribute in a female role.
        Tribes would often raid other tribes for females for procreation, so females were not seen as valueless . Being male I do not know this for sure, but I think not be able to have children is harder on women than on men. It is seen as key to the females role in society.
        It is not as simple as a man who put on “female” clothes is seen as making himself less useful which means women are less useful.
        This may explain the hostile reaction is causes in males & females. And why older members of society are treated with less respect than younger more “useful” members .
        I am not saying this is right, just suggesting a reason.

    • “I don’t see it as shamefull to dress as a woman because I don’t see any shame in being a woman.”
      -Iggy Pop-

  13. Nuttiest part of all is when you know some of the people in the photos. Weird.

  14. I like the last one best!

  15. Women’s clothing is designed to make them seem younger. While a man’s clothing makes him seem older. As nature goes, there is much more need for a woman’s youth than a man’s for reproduction.

    And that is how things work. The side effects of it include a woman being seen as –
    1 – Delicate (which other women will also infer as pretty)
    2 – Vulnerable (notice the exposed necks on women’s clothing as opposed to men’s)

    This leads to further corollaries likes –
    1 – Women need to be protected.
    2 – A man is stronger.
    3 – Women are victims, men are demons.

    The question to ask is, will be actually able to change our perceptions of gender roles if we FIRST changed the clothing?

  16. somestuff says:

    Has anyone considered that the clothing each sex wears as simply a symbol of toughness or softness? Consider these terms for womens’s attire: dresses, skirts, lace, ruffles, delicate fabrics, flowers, light, breezy, sexy, available, form-fitting, sultry. And consider these for men’s attire: straight, rigid lines, colorless, covered, professional, unrevealing, comfortable, closed-off. It seems that the attire we wear says a lot about the gender roles we play in society. Women’s present themselves more about looks, submission, and availability (less important traits), and men about action and obligation (more important traits). It’s only natural that the former would be encouraged to dress as the later at times, knowing what the attire represents, rather than the other way around. Also, women’s forms are seen as for-display, so the clothing compliments and shows off the form. I can see how men wouldn’t feel comfortable or look right in that same attire because of what that attire represents. That isn’t how men are seen in our culture so therefore they don’t look or feel right mimicking it.

  17. wellokaythen says:

    I’m a really big guy. I’ve never been in a relationship with a woman anywhere near my size. It’s a totally foreign concept to me, size-wise, to be able to switch clothes with a woman.

    There is no way in hell I would try this experiment with my wife. She would be totally depressed at the very idea that I could even get her clothes past my butt. She would probably get a little upset at the nerve of me to suggest that such a swap would even be possible. “My God, how big do you think I am?”, she would probably say.

    It would take an unusual, very secure woman to risk the possibility that her clothes would fit on a man. Even worse if he looked good in her clothes! I bet a lot of women would secretly hope that their clothes are WAY too small to fit their husbands or boyfriends.

    There should be a disclaimer on this experiment – don’t try this at home. Professional driver on closed course.

    It makes me wonder if people’s reactions would be any different if the genders switched clothes but wore clothes that were their size. Some of the silliness in the photos comes from the fact that the men are wearing clothes that are made for smaller people. Not just made for female people, but smaller people.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] If you want to see more of this, check out a video of gender reversal at the gym (“Women Power-Lifting and Men Sipping Smoothies? Role Reversal at the Gym – Video“), and Joanna Schroeder and her husband switch clothing in a gender-bending experiment (“Switcheroo: A Confrontational Gender-Bending Experiment“). [...]

  2. […] Article: http://goodmenproject.com/arts/switcheroo-a-confrontational-gender-bending-experiment/ […]

  3. […] Switching clothes tells us a lot about gender roles, and several heterosexual couples did just that to illustrate the point. The Good Men Project has before & after photos – in their everyday clothes, and then gender switched. […]

Speak Your Mind

*