"boyfriend jeans"
Nov. 2nd, 2009 06:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trueloveOh, "boyfriend jeans," let me count the ways in which I have a problem with you:
They're normal jeans that have been cuffed. Why are they not just cuffed jeans? Going from there, we identify the assumption that particular styles of clothing are only bought/worn by men. Which... is demonstrably not true! But this therefore requires that she have borrowed the clothing from a man in her life!
So we then get the assumption that the male she borrowed it from is her significant other which, oh, itself brings the twin assumptions she has an SO in the first place and that that SO is male.
And pretty much none of these are founded assumptions. At all. But they are awfully sexist and heteronormative!
Also? Back to my first point: they're fucking cuffed jeans. They are not special or new or some innovation that requires a new terminology.
They're normal jeans that have been cuffed. Why are they not just cuffed jeans? Going from there, we identify the assumption that particular styles of clothing are only bought/worn by men. Which... is demonstrably not true! But this therefore requires that she have borrowed the clothing from a man in her life!
So we then get the assumption that the male she borrowed it from is her significant other which, oh, itself brings the twin assumptions she has an SO in the first place and that that SO is male.
And pretty much none of these are founded assumptions. At all. But they are awfully sexist and heteronormative!
Also? Back to my first point: they're fucking cuffed jeans. They are not special or new or some innovation that requires a new terminology.