Break up with your boyfriend jeans

[adrotate banner="16"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

Disclaimer: I hate wearing jeans. I also don’t have a boyfriend. However, I promise that I am not just being bitter when I say that I dislike the new trend in denim of “boyfriend jeans” for women.

Sharing clothing with someone you are dating is intimate. It implies shared property ownership, or at the very least, the promise that you will see that person again before laundry day. Maybe it is something you wear to remind you of your partner throughout the day, or maybe it has been borrowed after spending the night; either way, this romantic exchange of clothing is something that the fashion industry has decided to cash in on. The benefit is that these jeans — and all the associations that come along with them — can be purchased without the prerequisite of an actual boyfriend.

So what exactly is the issue with this trend? Jeans cycle through fads faster than our wardrobes can keep up, meaning that this style isn’t guaranteed to stick around. Other trends such as bellbottoms or boot cuts were perfectly innocuous, so why should we care about this one in particular?

The reason is the gender dynamics that have been explicitly incorporated into your clothing. Since these pants are not marketed as “men’s slouchy jeans for women” but as “boyfriend” jeans, they assume certain things about their audience, primarily that they are heterosexual. The sharing of clothing is also not reciprocal. I have never seen a “girlfriend jean” for men, or any other form of female clothing designed for boyfriends, meaning that the denim industry is only comfortable with cross-dressing when it can’t in any way be construed as emasculation or in any way disturb the gender binary.

These jeans also dictate what your relationship should look like. The design leads us to believe that girlfriends are supposed to be physically smaller — both shorter and skinnier — than their boyfriends. The jeans are intended to be baggy with a rolled up cuff, since your imaginary boyfriend ought to physically outstrip you. Standing at five foot ten, I promise you that none of my previous boyfriends’ jeans would have fit me at all, let alone in an artistically baggy fashion. I can’t help but feel I’m somehow the “wrong” size when these jeans are just a small part of a larger message to women that we are supposed to shrink ourselves to fit into our interpersonal relationships.

Perhaps more concerning about the boyfriend jean is its function as a sartorial “no homo.” As of late, women’s fashion trends have been embracing what were previously seen as men’s styles. By labelling a jean as a “boyfriend” cut, you allay the fears of the heterosexual female shopper worried about venturing into “butch” territory. Worried that people might assume you are gay based on your pant selection? Don’t worry, your jeans are just as heterosexual as you are!

In keeping with traditional gender dynamics and inequalities, it should not shock you that your boyfriend jeans can cost you more than your actual boyfriend’s jeans. The cheapest pair on the Levi’s website clocked in at 98 dollars, while the male counterpart cost ten bucks less. (I for one resent the fact that men’s jeans were not only cheaper, but also free of stylized holes.) While this may not seem like much, when every piece of clothing that you are buying is around ten percent more expensive, it starts to add up.

It’s not news that the fashion industry has its problems, but while there has been a push in the past decade for the industry to do away with some of the more blatant issues, the banal ones remain. Do I think abolishing this style of jean will singlehandedly bring about gender equality? Not at all. But do I think this fashion trend is symptomatic of larger issues to do with heteronormativity and body expectations? Absolutely. Break out the ice cream and Netflix, because it is time for us to dump our boyfriend jeans.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]