London Shopping Trip: Gender Lens

By Saskia Burn (17) and Daisy Halliwell (15)

On Tuesday, July 9, we visited London to look around some shops and see how the women’s sections compared to the men’s. The stores we visited were generally mid to low priced clothing stores that catered to a teen and young adult audience. We were particularly looking at the layout and design of the store, the clothing sold, and the mannequins.

All of the shops we visited took up multiple floors, usually three or four in total. In all the stores the majority of these floors were devoted to women’s clothing and accessories. On average the ground floor and one or two floors above that were women’s clothing. The men’s sections were usually relegated to the basement or the uppermost floor. In a few stores the men’s sections and children’s section were located on the same floor, crammed into half or even a third of the space that the women’s section commanded. The men’s sections were also far plainer than the women’s.

Understandably, the ground floor of the shops were flashy and filled with bright lights and eye-catching displays. However, the upper floors devoted to women’s clothing, although not as over-the-top, were also brightly lit and often featured images or videos of models wearing the brand’s clothing in tropical settings. By contrast the men’s floors lacked any kind of decoration or adornment and on the whole had a darker, more subdued atmosphere.

This assessment is especially true of the men’s sections that were located in the basement of the store as those lacked any natural light. One very telling example is the disparity between the men’s and women’s sections of H&M. Not only was the men’s section located in a dingy basement, the mirrored pillars that were present on all floors were darkened so that it was difficult to clearly see your reflection. The darkened mirrors implied that men didn’t need to see their reflection clearly because they cared less about how they looked than women did.

The overall effect of this disparity was the sense that women were the target consumers while men were an afterthought.

What these brightly-colored, borderline ridiculous outfits do show is the vast range of clothing offered to women.

More subdued or ‘normal’ clothing is usually available, although it’s often found on the second or third floor and normally even basics have some sort of embellishment.

These stores all offered women the option to purchase outrageous, unconventional clothing, basic wardrobe staples, and everything in between. At Zara you could find a plain black blazer and a crop top made of what appeared to be blue feathers within a few feet of each other. This variety extends to the shoes and accessories with Topshop boasting an entire floor devoted to women’s accessories (and a cupcake shop, but I digress). The frankly dizzying array of accessories offered to women range from sunglasses and belts to body glitter and flower wreaths.

While women are given a vast array of options, men have a very limited field of choice.

Although we saw some brighter colors and unusual patterns, these instances were the exception rather than the rule.

In general the men’s clothing was much more traditional in form, color and patterns than the women’s clothing. The clothes were nice but simple, they lacked any of the extra bells and whistles found in the women’s section.

Patterns were confined to stripes of varying widths, spots that ranged from small to miniscule, ironic tropical prints, and the occasional more interesting pattern like pineapples or birds but only if they were small enough to look like dots from a distance. Only a few stores displayed accessories in the men’s section and the selection was very limited. The most common items were socks, belts, sunglasses. Occasionally jewelry was displayed, but only traditionally ‘masculine’ pieces such as Topman’s skull, crucifix, and tooth earrings. Even more than the clothing selection as a whole, the outfits of the mannequins show the difference between how men and women are perceived. In the majority of the shops, the female mannequins were dressed in clothing that was short, tight, or otherwise impractical. The male mannequins were almost always dressed in practical but painfully boring outfits, occasionally throwing in a colorful shirt or some layered jackets.

The message sent by these mannequins, and the available clothing as a whole, is that women can dress anywhere from sensible to sexy, but the important thing is looking nice rather than being practical.

Men, on the other hand, don’t have the option to be fun or sexy or unconventional, they can look smart but rarely over-the-top.

The outfits aside, the mannequins themselves told a story of their own. For the most part there was one body shape that kept recurring, for both men and women the standard was tall, slim, and fit. The women were usually dainty and the men were usually muscular. However, in two stores (Nike and Topshop) there were female mannequins representing a variety of body types. Nike was the most impressive with many female mannequins with different heights, weights, and levels of muscle definition placed throughout the store. However, it had very few male mannequins of different stateurs.

The only variation in the body types of the male mannequins was in muscle definition which indicates a lack of discussion about male body positivity, especially in regard to plus size men.

The general thought process of the brands seems to be that women are expressing that they care about plus size inclusivity and therefore the brand wants to tailor their mannequins and products to that ethos.

This thought process excludes men because there isn’t an active conversation surrounding male body positivity. Although it’s rarely discussed, it’s important for men of all body types to see themselves represented in stores.

On Tuesday, July 9, we visited London to look around some shops and see how the women’s sections compared to the men’s. The stores we visited were generally mid to low priced clothing stores that catered to a teen and young adult audience. We were particularly looking at the layout and design of the store, the clothing sold, and the mannequins.

All of the shops we visited took up multiple floors, usually three or four in total. In all the stores the majority of these floors were devoted to women’s clothing and accessories. On average the ground floor and one or two floors above that were women’s clothing. The men’s sections were usually relegated to the basement or the uppermost floor. In a few stores the men’s sections and children’s section were located on the same floor, crammed into half or even a third of the space that the women’s section commanded. The men’s sections were also far plainer than the women’s.

Understandably, the ground floor of the shops were flashy and filled with bright lights and eye-catching displays. However, the upper floors devoted to women’s clothing, although not as over-the-top, were also brightly lit and often featured images or videos of models wearing the brand’s clothing in tropical settings. By contrast the men’s floors lacked any kind of decoration or adornment and on the whole had a darker, more subdued atmosphere.

This assessment is especially true of the men’s sections that were located in the basement of the store as those lacked any natural light. One very telling example is the disparity between the men’s and women’s sections of H&M. Not only was the men’s section located in a dingy basement, the mirrored pillars that were present on all floors were darkened so that it was difficult to clearly see your reflection. The darkened mirrors implied that men didn’t need to see their reflection clearly because they cared less about how they looked than women did.

The overall effect of this disparity was the sense that women were the target consumers while men were an afterthought.

The general philosophy of most stores when it comes to the ground floor displays is that more is more.

This is completely understandable from a marketing standpoint; people are more likely to go into the shop if the displays visible from the street are attention- grabbing.

What these brightly-colored, borderline ridiculous outfits do show is the vast range of clothing offered to women.

More subdued or ‘normal’ clothing is usually available, although it’s often found on the second or third floor and normally even basics have some sort of embellishment.

These stores all offered women the option to purchase outrageous, unconventional clothing, basic wardrobe staples, and everything in between. At Zara you could find a plain black blazer and a crop top made of what appeared to be blue feathers within a few feet of each other. This variety extends to the shoes and accessories with Topshop boasting an entire floor devoted to women’s accessories (and a cupcake shop, but I digress). The frankly dizzying array of accessories offered to women range from sunglasses and belts to body glitter and flower wreaths.

While women are given a vast array of options, men have a very limited field of choice.

Although we saw some brighter colors and unusual patterns, these instances were the exception rather than the rule.

In general the men’s clothing was much more traditional in form, color and patterns than the women’s clothing. The clothes were nice but simple, they lacked any of the extra bells and whistles found in the women’s section.

Patterns were confined to stripes of varying widths, spots that ranged from small to miniscule, ironic tropical prints, and the occasional more interesting pattern like pineapples or birds but only if they were small enough to look like dots from a distance. Only a few stores displayed accessories in the men’s section and the selection was very limited. The most common items were socks, belts, sunglasses. Occasionally jewelry was displayed, but only traditionally ‘masculine’ pieces such as Topman’s skull, crucifix, and tooth earrings. Even more than the clothing selection as a whole, the outfits of the mannequins show the difference between how men and women are perceived. In the majority of the shops, the female mannequins were dressed in clothing that was short, tight, or otherwise impractical. The male mannequins were almost always dressed in practical but painfully boring outfits, occasionally throwing in a colorful shirt or some layered jackets.

The message sent by these mannequins, and the available clothing as a whole, is that women can dress anywhere from sensible to sexy, but the important thing is looking nice rather than being practical.

Men, on the other hand, don’t have the option to be fun or sexy or unconventional, they can look smart but rarely over-the-top.

The outfits aside, the mannequins themselves told a story of their own. For the most part there was one body shape that kept recurring, for both men and women the standard was tall, slim, and fit. The women were usually dainty and the men were usually muscular. However, in two stores (Nike and Topshop) there were female mannequins representing a variety of body types. Nike was the most impressive with many female mannequins with different heights, weights, and levels of muscle definition placed throughout the store. However, it had very few male mannequins of different stateurs.

The only variation in the body types of the male mannequins was in muscle definition which indicates a lack of discussion about male body positivity, especially in regard to plus size men.

The general thought process of the brands seems to be that women are expressing that they care about plus size inclusivity and therefore the brand wants to tailor their mannequins and products to that ethos.

This thought process excludes men because there isn’t an active conversation surrounding male body positivity. Although it’s rarely discussed, it’s important for men of all body types to see themselves represented in stores.

The poses that the mannequins were placed in ranged anywhere from sitting down to leaning forward (to the point where any normal human would fall over). Although there was variation in poses across all the stores, we noticed a few poses that were present in a number of stores.

For the female mannequins it was standing on tiptoe with the pelvis thrust forward and the shoulders back in a rather nonchalant position.

The men were positioned leaning forward from their shoulders with a wide stance, often with their hands in fists.

My initial thought when seeing the female mannequins was that it was a power move, the stance was not traditionally femenine leading us to the initial conclusion that it was powerful. However, after some discussion we realized that it perpetuated the idea that a woman's power must be derived from her sexuality.

At one point during the excursion we spoke about how the female mannequins at Mango were very “come hither” and that wasn’t due to their outfits, but rather their poses. The male mannequins on the other hand were very dominant and assertive. They were all in poses that conveyed authority and strength, their shoulders were the thing that brought them forward, their stances were wide and often took up a lot of space.

In most of the shops the male and female mannequins were differentiated by other features as well as how they were posed.

A number of stores displayed mannequins without heads and in others the mannequins had completely blank, featureless faces.

In all the stores the male mannequins fell into one of the above categories, female mannequins, on the other hand, were occasionally presented with distinct facial features.

Below is a photo we took of one of the mannequins in Topshop, the other mannequins in the store also had heavy eye makeup, false lashes, and full lips. The colorful eyeshadow was limited to Topshop but the exaggerated lashes and lips were present in other stores.

These mannequins reinforce harmful stereotypes about traditionally female beauty, portraying an idealized and non-representative face with big eyes and lips and a tiny nose and chin.

The contrast between the female mannequins and the male ones also serves to perpetuate the idea that men don’t wear makeup and sends the message that men shouldn’t care how they look.

These small details could be easily avoided and therefore prevent the growth of these stereotypes.

After the day in London we felt an overwhelming sense that the stores were being targeted to a particular audience.

The women’s sections were far superior to the men’s, in terms of the selection of clothing, the decor, and the mannequins.

Perpetuating the stereotype that women like to shop and men don’t care what they wear.