That's funny, but not insightful. I assume that with pants, you don't mean plain jeans, but a pantsuit (because this isn't the 60's).
There are pantsuits designed for women, but no dresses designed for men. Even further than that - a dress is very specific to female anatomy in a way that a suit isn't, to male anatomy.
The real issue, however, is that a woman wearing a suit is perceived in a certain way (as aggressive and, funnily enough, "only imitating men") while a man wearing a dress happens to be an often frequented motif in comedy.
Finally, a man can wear a dress specifically to underline just how male he is, because "even a dress can't take that manliness away".
No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case.
I was not attempting to be funny at all.
^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.
It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.
I don't understand how men wearing dresses works as a comparison to women wearing pants, as there hasn't been an equivalent attempt by men to adopt dresses as everyday attire.
Yes, and I maintain that jeans simply aren't as gender specific as a dress. I have never heard that jeans are 'male'. That's why it's not a comparison of opposites.
That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument. Also - jeans ceased to be considered gender specific in society while also never being, in their shape and technical form, gender specific to begin with.
Edit: The point of posting this wasn't just a funny fake political ad but also the nuances of suggesting that Bill Clinton wears the pantsuit, instead of Hillary wearing the pants.
He wore a kilt, which is actually an interesting addition to my point. Despite the strong masculinity of a kilt, they do not appear to be very popular in modern society. I would suggest without evidence that this is in no small part due to a potential association with "feminine" skirts.
They are not popular, but men wearing them won't have their sexuality judged, so they probably don't have significance to your original point. I think they are not popular because they have a strong cultural association with being Scottish.
"25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability."
Compare:
One person is going to have their sexuality judged. And it's not going to be the woman.