summary: see title

It has long been the contention of feminists that clothing represent an imposition of society's will upon the woman, or some thoughts along a similar thesis, of more and less reasonable narratives. Recent incarnations represent a departure from even the most radical of first-wave feminist thought, giving primacy not to how the imposition of clothes affect the wearer, but declaring that clothing does not affect the wearer at all. The woman is completely at liberty to dress as she chooses, and this should not affect or concern anyone but her.

This seems intuitively wrong to most men, and perhaps to women as well, though to find one who admits it would be difficult. Could our intuition be closer to the truth than feminists would like to admit? At least one scientific study, ["Enclothed Cognition,"] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112000200) would suggest that not only does the symbolic nature of the clothing impose attitudes on the wearer, but so too does the physical experience of wearing certain kinds of clothes. This is completely antithetical to the dominate feminist narrative.

I'm sure it is possible to find further scientific support here, but given that our intuitions on the matter would seem to be at least marginally supported by the science, let us examine the general premise in greater detail.

First there is the matter of slut shaming, which women do to each other on a regular basis but which of course is forbidden to men. Certain kinds of dress, even in our highly liberalized society, seem to be taboo in most decent contexts. Given the elimination of legal and social-masculine restrictions on dress, in at least most parts of the US and Europe, the continued taboos must then be social-feminine (see also: burqa "empowerment" in the West). Why would this be, when the narrative is that clothing doesn't matter?

In past societies, which can still be glimpsed through the practices of traditional dress, the symbolism a wearer's clothing - like that of given names - seemed to be self-evident to the cultures themselves. Take Victorian-era dresses of the nobility. They seem to at once celebrate the ideal form of femininity, while declaring that the woman is in control of her sexuality. Feminists would say she is "restricted," but this is a matter of perspective. Restricted from what? Wanton disregard for propriety and shame? We have seen how that turned out.

To get at what I mean to say, let's look at yoga pants - a practice I, as many men, could engage in all day without tiring. They are the quintessential modern feminine clothing: comfortable, versatile, and above all, sexually enticing. Since our descriptions of clothing in some sense inform us about their symbolic meanings, and likewise clothing may be created specifically to address certain elements of language they wish to embody, it is easy to extrapolate how the woman in yoga pants must feel: She is is at ease, neither compelled to nor demanded of great exertions, except in the context of exercise itself, where the clothing gives up some of its symbolism for a measure of utility. Still, is there a greater hallmark of the person for whom no great exertions are required than exercise out of desire rather than necessity? She is also simultaneously highly concerned with her appearance, yet cannot be bothered to go to great lengths for it. She sees how amazing her butt looks in the yoga pants, and this is enough. Additional ornament, such a skirt, is not only superfluous to her ultimate goal, which is to show off her legs and ass, but also a waste of time. The more animal and basic her sexuality, the better.

Thus, as such forms of dress become memetically popular, they do not simply take advantage of a latent social desire, they express a desire in the wearer, and the wearer, by choosing the clothing, chooses (consciously or not) to have such desires both imposed upon herself and expressed to the rest of the world.

In effect, they subscribe completely to whatever narrative is contained within the clothing. Or rather, the societal imposition of a narrative upon the clothing, though it is debatable to what extent the nature of the clothing - its colors, material, etc. - holds some value of its own, so that simply by choosing certain kinds of clothing construction a narrative is spontaneously created. The Nike Air Jordon shoe would be an example of the former case, and the Red Wing Iron Ranger would be an example of the latter case. One is essentially a piece of plastic from China with tremendous, imposed social value alone, and the other is a finely, locally crafted artisan work in the medium of leather. These choices say much about what the wearer values, and consequently those values are reinforced by the wearing.

So if you feel confused and somewhat offended by a 12 year old girl wearing shorts with a 2-inch inseam riding up her ass, you are justified in feeling this is wrong. If you feel that boys should not wear girls clothing and vice versa, you are justified in feeling this matters. At least, insofar as you believe that 12 years olds should not be advertising their sexual readiness, and that there is merit to "traditional gender roles," also known as the states of nature to which the opposite sexes belong and are best suited.

lessons learned: As always, trust your intuition, question everything, take the best with you and leave the rest behind.