Image by Mark G, CC BY-NC 2.0
I loved Laura’s By Common Consent post How hard is it to find a garment-friendly dress? She filtered through Macy’s online catalog and found the percentage of dresses that would be garment-compatible off the rack. (It’s a low number. Go read her article to see it.)
I wondered what percentage of men’s clothing marketed as business wear or formal attire (i.e. clothing that might be worn to church or a wedding) was not garment compatible. I examined the Macy’s catalog to stay consistent with the market of the other article. I looked at three categories of men’s clothing: pants, suits, and shirts. All numbers are pulled from August 4th/5th.
In the category “Dress Pants” all 185 options looked garment friendly.
There were 431 options in “Suits & Tuxedos”. There was one suit that had been tagged as being “sleeveless”, but whoever tagged that must have been thinking of the vest that goes under the long sleeved jacket. I quickly scrolled through all 431 options (because none of the other filtering options would have eliminated garment appropriateness), but zero choices looked incompatible with men’s garments, assuming they are worn with a dress shirt.
Shirts got a little more complicated. The other article used a definition of garment friendly that required opaque fabric to cover the entire garment. Men’s short sleeve dress shirts are often worn without a tie and with the top button or two undone. A man who opts to wear a crew neck style garment top with the shirt unbuttoned this way may be exposing the neckline of his garment. However, because it is socially acceptable for men to expose the garment neckline in this way, and a man could also opt to wear a different garment style with a lower neckline or button the shirt up all the way, I’m still going to consider these shirts “garment-friendly”. My search found 505 items in the “Dress Shirts” category. I know men sometimes have a problem with garment sleeves poking out of a short sleeved shirt. While it was possible to filter the “Dress Shirts” category by sleeve length, only 20 shirts were labeled “short sleeve” and 26 “long sleeve”, so I looked through all 505 shirts. It looked reasonable to expect the sleeves to cover the garment in every picture where the sleeves were visible. The necklines all seemed fine with the possible exception of two Hawaiian style shirts where it was unclear whether or not it would be possible to button the ironed down collar. Two out of 505 is 0.4%. And it would still be socially acceptable to wear those shirts with the garment showing.
While button down dress shirts are most common at church, sometimes men wear things like polo shirts. Macy’s had 2948 choices. Polo shirts have a wider variety of sleeve length than dress shirts. I asked my husband to judge whether or not each of the first 120 shirts listed could be worn with garments completely covered. He guessed that there were maybe 3 shirts where the garment sleeves would not be covered. Assuming all three would have sleeves that are too short, and assuming that the rest of the polo shirts have a similar fraction of shirts with shorter than average sleeves, 2.5% of the polo shirts would not be garment friendly.
Even if I include all men’s shirts (athletic wear, jerseys, tank tops, undershirts, etc.) and assume that 3% of the short sleeve shirts will show garments, only 7.3% of the total men’s shirts would be “immodest”. Over 90% of all the men’s shirts in the store are garment-ready, and the ones that are not would be easy to sort out simply because if it has sleeves, it’s probably fine.
If we combine the options of dress shirts and polo shirts, 2.2% of the available Sunday shirts at Macy’s might not be able to cover the garment. That means that 97.8% of the shirts and 100% of the pants and suits that a man might buy for church would be compatible with his garments. By comparison, the percentage of garment-compatible dresses was in the single digits. (Really. Go read her numbers.)
Just because that small fraction of available dresses are garment-compatible, it does not mean they fit the woman, or are appropriate for her desired use of the item. Last spring I was looking for a new top or two to refresh my wardrobe. I wanted something short-sleeved and nicer than a plain t-shirt. I had gone to two thrift stores and hadn’t had any luck. When my mother-in-law took the family to Macy’s for shopping, I tried on at least a dozen potentially-garment-covering tops (it can be hard to judge on the hanger just how low the v-neck is, or if the cap sleeves will cover garments). Only three of the shirts fit me, and only one of those was garment-friendly. The color was unspectacular with my skin tone. The fabric was heavy. The sleeves had layers of sweaty ruffles. It might have been a good shirt for wearing in an overly air conditioned office, but it was not a good shirt for wearing outside to enjoy a warm summer day. At this point I had looked for three hours in three stores for a shirt. I decided I was tired of using an immodest amount of time to look for “modest” clothing. I chose to get one of the shirts that was not garment-friendly.
Even though men’s garments and women’s garments cover similar proportions of their bodies, equality is not equity. A man can walk into a store and be assured that practically any dress shirt in his size will fit his body and cover his garments, even without trying it on. A woman may need to spend hours locating a comparable item. Looking at my new shirt, my husband was surprised that it did not cover the garment. He was also concerned that I chose to buy it. He’s a good man. He listened to my shopping experience. He recognized that he has never had a similar experience, and he wouldn’t want to be expected to put in that amount of effort to obtain “appropriate” clothing. He supports my decision. The gendered context in which men and women purchase clothing is very different. Finding garment-friendly clothing is significantly more burdensome for women than it is for men. To reiterate, Laura found the percentage of garment-friendly dresses at Macy’s to be in the single digits. I found the percentage of garment-friendly dress shirts to be in the high nineties. It’s harder to find a “garment-unfriendly” dress shirt than it is to find a “garment-friendly” dress. Impossible beauty standard # 539937: look feminine, but wear underwear that only works consistently with clothing that is similar to a man’s.
26 Responses
Amen. Amen. Amen.
Sadly, purchasing the women’s underwear based off men’s is no easier. I have spent over $50, three trips to Distribution centers when I am out of town and two online orders trying to find tops that fit my tiny shoulders natural 30D chest (this matters- they are not located in the same place or the same shape as the surgeon offered model) and very long torso. One fabric is too tight in the waist and still drowning me in the chest and shoulders while another fabric is too short in the chest and a belly short but still too wide. If I order a petite it will make the already short tip even shorter, barely meeting the waist of my pants. If I order a tall the chest will be falling midway between the nipples and the belly button. Both are the smallest size available and still large in the actual shoulders. Finding the shirt to cover them is a nightmare that was already preceded by the nightmare of trying to find the garments to fit in the first place. I literally cried, yelled some four letter words and immediately ripped them off with my last order. After 30 years of body image issues, having my church prescribed underwear cause this much frustration and require this much consideration feels anything but Godly, loving or kind. I just want to be able to dress comfortably without having to obsess over my underwear. And I think God wants that for me too
It is possible to special order garments. My thighs are a few sizes larger than my waist and I have to get them double petite so that the “low rise” waistband sits below my bellybutton. (Double petite = same length as my husband’s bottoms) They don’t make it convenient to special order. The phone hours are limited, and I found out the hard way that if you don’t reorder your same pattern within two years, they make you buy two and wash them a bunch to check the fit again before ordering more.
Mikaela, that sounds like the trouble I had. If the g’s fit around my DD chest, they fell off my shoulders. Always. Every style. And because the chest is a B or C cup and I was DD, I had to wear the bra under the garments, even though I was instructed to never ever put any clothing under the g’s. I had to safety pin the g’s to my bra strap, which is a hard place to pin. So, according to how I was instructed, I wasn’t even wearing them properly. I absolutely hated the G’s. And that was all before I first got pregnant and my bra size increased.
Well, I will just not wear them until the baby comes….well, when I stop nursing. But of course, they still didn’t ever fit.
It took me years and years to tell myself that I didn’t care about being temple “worthy” and that a loving God would not ask what the church was demanding. About 15 years ago, I decided to go inactive for the rest of my life and remove the expectation that I “repent” and start wearing the stupid things again.
The church claims that wearing them is between the person and God, but I never once had a bishop who accepted that. They all held me “unworthy” if I did not wear them close to 24/7. And I just couldn’t.
I had other issues besides the fit, but maybe I could have overcome the other issues, if there hadn’t been multiple problems.
The funny thing is, I still dress as if the garments need to be covered. But with not attending church, I get by with nothing but pants suits and levies. I have one outfit I bought for my brother’s funeral that has lace sleeves, so modest but not garment compatible and it is the only thing I am seen in public in that is not garment compatible. But a big part of that is that I do not have to find dresses.
I have stopped sewing my own clothing because when I compared, it was actually less expensive to buy and now, I don’t HAVE to in order to have something that I actually like that covers g’s.
Thank you for the time you put into this. It’s nice to see more evidence validating our experiences.
I have not experienced these challenges, and your experiences deeply sadden me. Yes, there must be a better way to experiences the blessings that accompany the full temple experience, most specifically the blessings iterated at the end of the initiatory, without the practical frustrations so honestly expressed here. More work to do….
Thank you for your kind words. I generally have a hard time finding clothing that fits me well and adding the garment component on top of that can be really frustrating. Honestly, I probably have more issues with the fashion industry than the church on this topic, but that’s a post for another day.
The only problem my husband has had is with t-shirts shrinking so that his garment sleeves hang down lower and poke out of the T-shirt sleeves. He is tall and skinny so finding a T-shirt that us long enough without drowning him can be challenging. Other than that, no problem covering the underwear.
Brilliant.????????
Oh my gosh, yes! Men literally have no idea what’s it’s like to try to dress as a woman with garments because they have never tried. The equivalent for them would maybe be garments that go to the wrist and the ankle – limiting them from all shorts and t shirts. Would they put up with it like women have had to? Wearing shorts is almost impossible for us. I just want them to walk a mile in our shoes!
Abby, I feel your pain.
My 13 year old wears shorts and is thin and gangly. She can find regular sized shorts that aren’t hugging any part of her legs (like a guy would wear) – but exposes about 1/2 an inch to 1 inch more of her leg to her knee then they cover. He freaks out about the leg exposure above her knee (and insists that she change), but completely misses when she steals her 6T sister’s pants and wears them as “short leggings” (because they do cover the knee after all).
He has NO CLUE how hard it is to find “modest” shorts for girls/women.
He keeps saying, “well she needs to wear clothes that cover the garment lines” – when a) I don’t think she is likely to attend the temple, b) I don’t want to give her more body issues by focusing on it, and c) she is YEARS away from making that decision.
I ache for your daughter. To me, your husband’s insistence that she wear clothes that covers garment lines is abusive. She is a young teen, not an adult, who even the church has said is not old enough to make covenants in the temple. Forcing something- in this case dressing to cover garments she does not have – that is developmentally inappropriate has the potential to cause a tremendous amount of damage. Perhaps your husband would benefit by reading the book by Dr. Lexi Kite and Dr. Lindsay Kite, More Than a Body a Body: Your Body is an Instrument not an Ornament, to understand how he is objectifying his daughter and seeing her body as an ornament.
Amy, if your daughter is not allowed to say “No” to your husband’s rule, then she is also not able to freely say “Yes” to the behavior he expects of her. It’s not worn of her own free will and choice, but because of his compulsion.
Amy, I’m so sad for your daughter. The way her dad is objectifying her is going to get in her head. That’s heartbreaking. Would it help to have him read for the strength of youth? Even the church’s official rules say nothing about girls’ clothing covering imaginary garments.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/06-body?lang=eng
Thanks for the follow-up to my post! I love this comparison, especially your point about how it’s harder to find garment-unfriendly men’s wear than garment-friendly dresses.
I had also been thinking about what in men’s wear would be comparable—and based on percentages, I found myself wondering what would happen if the prophet asked all Melchizedek Priesthood holders to wear blue shoes as a symbol of the Melchizedek priesthood. Of the 4240 men’s shoes in stock at Macy’s today, 799 (19%) were blue; of the 350 pairs of men’s dress shoes, 48 (14%) were blue. So, in this hypothetical, 2.5-3.5 times as many shoes in Macy’s selection would be priesthood-friendly as dresses would be garment friendly. But in absolute terms, there are only slightly more pairs of blue men’s shoes (799) than garment-friendly dresses (619), and slightly more blue men’s dress shoes (48) than garment-friendly formal gowns (38).
If blue shoes were required as outward evidence of a man’s inner commitment to honoring his priesthood, I imagine so many questions might come up for men that would sound very familiar to women: What if a store doesn’t have blue shoes in stock? What if he’s not sure blue shoes, or the only blue shoes he can find, are the most appropriate to the occasion? What if blue shoes cost more than brown and black shoes? How would wearing only blue shoes impact the rest of his wardrobe, like his black suits? What if the shoes he likes or that feel comfortable are only available in brown or black? Would he consider buying those brown or black shoes and shining them / tinting them blue? Wearing blue shoe covers? Making his own shoes? What about two-tone shoes? How might it affect his family, friend, work and church relationships if everyone who saw him and was familiar with the church knew his worthiness as a Melchizedek priesthood holder was contingent on his wearing blue shoes?
“Men’s wear”. That was the phrase my brain was looking for when I was writing this article!
I was expecting to find at least one suit that was a little wild, but I guess that’s really not Macy’s market. Nordstrom’s has 2.4% of suits with shorts (!) that look too short for garments. The flamingo one looks cool:
https://www.nordstrom.com/s/opposuitsflaminguy-summer-trim-fit-two-piece-short-suit-with-tie/4409232?origin=keywordsearch-personalizedsort&breadcrumb=Home%2FAll%20Results&color=400
I like your blue shoes comparison. It gives the same sense of arbitrariness to the rule. Blue shoes would fill the same function as shoes of another color, they just look a little different. Many women’s shirts or dresses that don’t work with garments would fill the same function as ones that do.
That’s because unlike ours, men’s bodies aren’t scary and gross.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this comment. Sometimes I find men’s bodies to be intimidating or stinky. Are you saying that men make rules about women’s garments because they are frightened of women’s bodies?
Thank you for writing this. Women and men in the church are not having even close to the same experience.
Is the problem with the clothing industry or the garments?
This is a good question. I think the answer is both and also culture’s pressure for gender performance. I’d love to hear your thoughts about it.
Thanks for the article! Just yesterday I went shopping for a new shirt. Of the 100 or so options, I can only think of one that I could have purchased to meet the requirements for wearing with garments. It was a t-shirt that looked like a man’s, in a color that I already own (and that I happened to be wearing.) Sigh. This is not to say that the other 99 were immodest. Quite the contrary. Many were completely modest. I just happen to refuse to wear clothing where when I lift my arms I’m advertising what undergarments I’m wearing. Needless to say, I didn’t even bother trying anything on, and went home disappointed. I would have loved to have found something beautiful to wear, something that felt feminine and pretty. Nope. My internal chatter, once again, told me that feeling beautiful in clothing is just not an easy task to manage when you’re a garment wearer. It’s gets old after forty years of trying.
I have three pair from 2011 that I swear I’ll wear until I die. I literally save them for special occasions and for certain dresses. I don’t want them to wear out! I love them because they don’t come up to my armpits. We are told not to alter the garment to accommodate clothing styles, and yet, old styles of garments that were deemed appropriate because the church sold them, aren’t available anymore.
I also really don’t like the added element of garment wearing that causes humans to go into natural man judge mode. It’s an invitation for “othering,” creating division where it isn’t needed nor helpful. I’d rather people experience my Christian beliefs by my interactions with them, not by the telltale signs of the line on my pant leg.
Yessss so validating but what do y’all do about it??? Like how do y’all wear g’s all the time and not take issue with the way it restricts everything? I just struggle to wear my g’s ever bc they make me hate my body and they make me angry that I can’t just wear what I like. How do y’all get over this???
Sarah, I think I’m not over it, and that’s part of why I wrote this post. Somehow I have managed to avoid body image issues that many women tell me about. I do have a naturally thin body that is idealized in our culture, and I’m sure that effects my experience. It makes me sad to hear you say that you hate your body. Is it the garments themselves or our culture’s rules and expectations around garments that cause your intense feelings?
A guy’s story.
Last week I went shopping for new clinic coats to wear at work (dental office). I finally found one I liked–right color, right fabric, and pockets. I go to try it on and then the OH NO, garments show. Can’t buy this. This isn’t supposed to happen to me.
Now I know what the problem was. It was probably a woman’s.