“We’re all going to die. So let’s mess it up”. It may not be the most profound of life philosophies, but Brad Pitt’s words on the red carpet in 2022 sought to answer a much more basic question: why was the Hollywood star wearing a skirt? Indeed, perhaps the more incisive question would have been, ‘Brad, why does anyone care that you’re wearing a skirt?’.
If gender identity has become a hot-button topic of late, the gender divide in the way a man and a woman dress has been prevalent for much longer. Challenging the codes—received ideas as to what constitutes "masculine" and what "feminine" in dress—has been commonplace since the 1960s, when rock stars the likes of Mick Jagger and David Bowie started picking at the fabric of the debate. Of course, arguably they had licence too: as with Pitt—or Jared Leto, Lenny Kravitz or Steven Tyler, Travis Scott or Jaden Smith—being a performer gives a free pass to buck convention not afforded to the man on the street.
Yet the conventional does look to be increasingly fragile. The last few years have seen a proliferation of independent brands like Cold Laundry, Story MFG and LaneFortyFive opting not to state whether their clothing is for a man or a woman. Bigger brands—from Zara to H&M, Gucci to Marc Jacobs—have created ‘gender neutral’ lines, with designer Haider Ackermann saying he’d like his customers to wear his clothing without the notion of menswear or womenswear “dictating their choices”. Meanwhile, the Council of Fashion Designers of America—which awards the Oscars of the fashion industry—has added a "unisex/non-binary" category for its fashion week shows.
They are trying to capture a Gen Z culture that, according to a 2016 J WalterThompson study, shows that less than half of that demographic always shops according to gender, especially in specialty stores where men’s and women’s wear aren’t neatly segregated. And maybe they are simply following similar recent shifts to “de-gender” in other industries, from bedding to toys, cosmetics to fragrances.
Take, for example, the designer NickHart, best known as the man behind the Spencer Hart label, pioneering the modernising of sharp suiting, but now flipping that on its head with his new, eponymous, but still minimalistic brand, focused as it is around avant-garde, outsized and deconstructed clothing that he sees as being for both a man and a woman. There are echoes perhaps of 1980s Armani, who proposed Emporio piecesto the same end, long before “gender” had become a buzzword. But, Hart stresses, finding one style to suit both men and women need not be the only direction for unisex clothing.
“Particularly in big, more metropolitan cities, you see more and more men in floral prints, sheer fabrics, tight-fitting clothing. You see more adventurousness when it comes to hats and accessories, ”he says. “The message doesn’t have to be that this is men wearing more obviously ‘feminine’ clothing, even if these things would have been considered as much not that long ago. I think it’s probably all part of men going through identity issues more broadly now, questioning their place in the world and ideas of masculinity. That’s why Brad Pitt in a skirt is such an interesting image: it’s both empowering but also challenging to traditional men and society”.
Tanmay Saxena, the founder of LaneFortyFive, has seen both sides, having worked as a business analyst in the City of London—one of the most sartorially conservative enclaves—before leaving to launch his “gender-neutral” clothing line in 2016. “This does not mean that we make one shape/size-fits-all clothing,” he says, more that it comes from the notion of equalism, the idea of treating all things equally. That means an aesthetic that works for both men and women. That draws a distinction between traditionally gendered clothing that seeks to cross the divide that has long been there and clothing that doesn’t impose a gender divide in the first place. “Terms like ‘unisex’ or ‘gender-free’ in clothing are rather like the term ‘sustainable’ a decade ago: it was once sneered at, but now we’re more accepting of it. It’s part of the conversation now, and part of society’s betterment,” reckons Saxena. “For me, it’s a moral choice rather than a fashion trend, though it is part of style now. I’ve seen men pick up a pair of our trousers, ask if they’re actually women’s, be a bit confused by the answer and just buy them anyway.”
But is there scope for gendered clothing to cross the divide? After all, it’s hard to get Harry Styles out of his lace collars and gauzy pussy-bow blouses. He looks good in them too. But then the apparel in his own ‘life brand’, Pleasing, is mostly T-shirts, shorts, and hoodies. And therein lies one of the obvious hurdles: form and sizing. While we’re all different shapes, men and women fall into broad archetypes—broad shoulders and slim hips on men, breasts and wide hips on women—that can make fitting both a design challenge. Not for nothing have collections claiming to be unisex—sometimes for the purpose of virtue-signaling—so often amounted to little more than athleisure, long considered gender-less anyway.
Rob Smith, founder of the New York-based “gender-free” brand The Phluid Project, started out along similar lines, but Smith is bravely taking the next step with his brand’s new incarnation, launching next spring: think cropped tops, lacy shirts, and suiting with back-baring cut-outs for whoever wants them. He says that these clothes are about ditching stereotypes and applauding the simple idea of “wearing whatever it is that makes you feel good,” though he concedes that such garments are both harder to design, and to sell. “There’s a generation now that defines itself through dress very differently [from those before] and who, while many of them will dress this way as an experimental phase, also see [gender-free clothing] as being about greater openness and broad-mindedness,” says Smith. “There’s a readiness to embrace all those things that once only women were ‘allowed’ to wear—tight tops, certain fabrics, clothes that reveal certain parts of the body and so on. For a man to wear a pearl necklace or nail varnish is getting to be as ordinary as it is to see one with earrings now,” he adds, “and if you’d have asked me just a few years ago if they’d have worn those things I would have said you were nuts. I think this is an opportunity for men to embrace their sexiness more. But a lot of retailers are risk-averse and aren’t looking to the future that this generation represents.”
Maybe it will be different this time. For there is a history of attempts to break down the barriers between men’s and womenswear and the track record is not one of success. Jessica Glasscock, a fashion historian at Parsons School of Design, New York, and author of Wigging Out: Fake Hair That Made Real History, notes how the 1970s saw a wave of gender-fluid unisex lines, with leading department stores the likes of Bloomingdales in New York opening a unisex department. “But the result was mostly matchy-matchy outfits and looked quite awful,” she says. “They all closed within three years.”
In part, Glasscock notes, that’s because these things—hard though it may be to admit—tend to have dubious aesthetic appeal beyond a certain age; perhaps this is why the same J Walter Thompson study found that Millennials—those in their 30s and early 40s—did not tend to cross gender lines in their consumer choices anywhere near as much as Gen-Zers.
Dressing across the gender divide is an idea that has more readily appealed to the young: “It’s typically been part of youth culture because it works for lithe, youthful, more androgynous, ectomorphic bodies,” she says. Not for nothing is The Phluid Project aimed at 20somethings. Indeed, one further reason why gender-free lines have so often come unstuck, Glasscock argues, is that this same youth market doesn’t want the notion to be neatly packaged and sold to them.
“Youth culture is a resistant one. It’s not necessarily about being in political opposition to [the dominant] culture but transitioning between men’s and women’s clothing is part of that,” she explains—it’s long been considered bohemian and edgy. “[For them] it’s playful, more free, maybe about prolonging their childhood. But they don’t need unisex clothing to be made for them because they’ve already decided what unisex is.” We saw the same thing happen when designer brands tried to sell grunge style, she adds.
Paradoxically, it’s the young, of course, who, for the moment at least, are also more likely to embrace the very traditional gender divides now dominant in bodily appearance: for women, a blend of affordable cosmetic surgery and trends for hair extensions and outsized lashes, and for men, a gym and creatine culture, has led to a revival of—as older generations might welcome—women to look very much ‘like women’, and men who look ‘like men’. At least when they’re naked.
Maybe it is precisely because younger men are so overly masculine in their physiques that they feel safe to explore the feminine in their dress—without the concern that any onlooker will question their machismo. Hart calls it the Love Island Effect. It’s why nobody is wondering whether Brad Pitt is, after all, a bit fey or camp because he’s in a skirt—though he was careful to wear his with combat boots just to make sure.
And yet even with this toying with the codes of the masculine and the feminine, there are limits. Glasscock argues that, try as designers might to get Joe Average into skirts—from Jean-Paul Gaultier to, more recently, Thom Browne—it remains what she calls “a bright line” that cannot readily be crossed in developed countries (though she notes that in some still very much patriarchal cultures it’s commonplace for a man to wear a skirt-like form of traditional clothing). He can’t quite put his finger on why but Saxena can’t buy into the idea of skirts for a man either.
“Things that are made for women that I feel will look good on me—that I like—I will wear,” as Gen Xer Pharrell Williams said in 2019. “[But] I do have my lines. Like, I can’t wear no skirt. Nor am I interested in wearing a blouse. That’s not my deal.”
Maybe it can be argued that while women have now been largely, if not yet completely, free to embrace wearing a version of menswear for decades—from Coco Chanel pushing men’s tailoring for women, through to The Gap’s proposal of the “boyfriend jean”—this is one way in which men don’t have an equal right. They are not equal with women in their sartorial self-expression.
“Men have a lot of freedom but it is in a specific context,” as Glasscock explains, “and I think a lot of spaces are still fundamentally conservative. [More feminine dressing] may be more accepted in some creative professions, such as in the advertising or the graphics department, but probably not in accounting. Do men have a desire to push the boundaries of what they can wear? Maybe. But do men have a burning desire to push themselves so far they can wear a skirt to the office? Maybe not.”
It’s why, she suspects, interest in gender-fluid dressing is likely ultimately more a matter of fashion than of seeking new freedoms, with the pendulum eventually, inevitably, set to swing back to established convention. After all, the codes that define menswear—through the boardroom, formal events, institutions, and so on—are deeply ingrained. They are going to take some shifting.
While there have been utopian visions of the beautiful, comfortable unisex uniform before—or more dystopian, if the likes of Mao’s Communist China are considered—Glasscock argues it may be some time before we’re genuinely oblivious to whether a garment has been made and marketed for a man or a woman and can look on all clothing as just being clothing.
For all the interest in the current exploration, gender-free clothing—whether that be unisex, or womenswear for men, so to speak—may forever be a niche interest and little more than a recurring fad or intellectual exercise. As Thom Browne has said about introducing a below-the-knee Harris tweed skirt for a man in his winter collection last year, “I don’t really care if anybody wants to wear it, but I think it looks good, and it’s an interesting proposition for anyone who does.”
“For the moment [for a man to wear distinctly female clothing] seems to me like a very intentional, spectacular act,” Glasscock agrees. “Once it’s not confrontational and just one of your wardrobe options, well then we’ll see."
A veteran of rock, blues, funk and soul, singer and multi-instrumentalist Lenny Kravitz has been announced as the latest ambassador of Jaeger-LeCoultre. Tapped for his distinctive style, bold attitude and artistic flair, Kravitz and his approach to music mirror the spirit of excellence and innovation the manufacture strives for.
“With his artistry, inventiveness and ability to transcend genres, Lenny epitomises Jaeger-LeCoultre’s values and style,” says Catherine Rénier, CEO of Jaeger-LeCoultre.
In this exclusive interview, the musician—and watch enthusiast since childhood—shares more about his creative process, his most revered mentor, and how he styles his beloved Reverso timepiece.
Where do you find your inspiration?
My inspiration comes from life—every aspect of it. Life is continually feeding my creativity.
What sparks your creativity? Is it something that usually comes naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?
My creativity always comes naturally. I want to be as far away as possible from making conscious decisions in that area. I want it to flow, so most of the time I’m dreaming my music and my creations.
How long does it usually take you to write a song, and have you ever had writer’s block?
It can take from five minutes to five weeks. I never know what it’s going to be. I thought I had writer’s block once when I was making my first album—in the middle of that recording—but it wasn’t a block. It was time when, as I realised later, I needed to be quiet, to be still, so that I could hear what I was going to be given. Sometimes you have to be still and be quiet.
Have you ever had a mentor?
Yes. My grandfather, Albert Roker, was my mentor and he’s still within my heart.
Have you ever mentored anyone?
Yes, I’ve been mentoring younger musicians—kids, especially in The Bahamas where I live—and it’s really interesting and satisfying to come into that place.
You have managed to stay on top of your game through different decades and different fashion eras. What is your favourite one?
My favourite one is something that hasn’t happened yet.
Of all the fantastic art you have made, what are you most proud of? Is there a song, a film or other creative project that you are most proud of?
I don’t put one thing on top of another in terms of what’s better, or whether they’re all what they should be, but there are definitely special days. As a musician, making your first album is always really, really special. The first album, Let Love Rule, was where I entered and set the tone.
Do you have a favourite song from your own repertoire?
A favourite song of my own? That’s a hard one. Thinking of You is one of them. It’s a song that I wrote for my mother after she passed, and it’s one of my songs that is very important to me.
Is there anything that you find really hard and have to work at?
I have to work at patience—slowing down and waiting. I like to do so many things at once and I don’t want to stop, but that’s not reality. So, learning to be patient, to wait and stay centred in the middle of that patience is something that I continually work on.
Do you have any rituals before you go on stage?
Not really. My ritual is just to feel myself—to feel ready. When I’m ready, when my band is rehearsed, when I feel confident that we’ve done all that we can to make it the best that it can be, I’m ready. So usually, it’s just very quiet in those moments before I go on. Then I just walk through the tunnel and onto the stage and go.
How will you describe yourself?
I’m an artist.
You’ve already achieved a huge amount as a musician, singer, actor, designer and photographer. Are there any hidden talents the world hasn’t seen yet?
I’m looking forward to painting. That’s my next creative outlet. And surfing.
What are you most looking forward to about the year ahead? New album, new tour?
Absolutely. It’s been a few years since I’ve been on the road. I’m looking forward to releasing the new music that I recorded over the last three years and getting out on the road and playing and celebrating music in life.
What are the most important values that you hope to teach to the next generation?
Love. Love and more love.
You are watch collector. When did that passion start?
I think it started well before I even realised I had it in me. I think I started with my father when I was a kid because he had these cool watches in the 70s that I loved to look at and hold and play with. I wasn’t allowed to, but I used to grab them and play with the stop and start buttons on the watch.
Watchmaking and music have a deep connection, such as the tick-tock of the hands, the chime of a minute repeater, the entire concept of timing and rhythm. What interests you the most about watchmaking?
The precision and the craftsmanship.
And what is most important to you about a watch?
Obviously the function, but also the style, the way it looks, the way it fits on your wrist—it’s important to really connect with it; it has to become one with you.
How do you wear your Reverso? On what occasions do you flip it?
The best way to explain it is that I wear it very naturally. It feels like it’s always been there. That’s one of the beautiful things—it blends with me. I flip it whenever I want to change. That’s another beauty of this watch. You change moods, you change vibe, so you flip it over and you’ve got a whole new thing happening.
On which occasions do you wear it?
Usually when I’m in cities. When I’m on the island I tend not even to think about time, but when I go to a city and I’m working, I’m touring, I have things to do, then I absolutely wear it.
What does Jaeger-LeCoultre represent to you?
It represents craftsmanship, design and function at its best.
From: Grazia SG
Storied Swiss watch brand Jaeger-LeCoultre—famed for its iconic Reverso watch—just announced an unexpected addition to its roster of ambassadors: Lenny Kravitz. The legendary rocker is exactly the sort of person who can move the needle for the brand in America. And the announcement comes at just the right time, when collectors are finding new joy in just the kind of ultra-refined, slim dress watches in which the house specializes. While a Reverso might seem like a surprise on the wrist of someone like Kravitz, it's worth noting that he’s part of a long line of rock-and-roll watch-wearers whose timepieces are often at odds with the milieu. It’s a kind of contrarian move that throws the workmanship and luxury of such watches further into relief.
Kravitz’s weapons of choice? First, the steel Reverso Classic Duo Face—so named because there are separately functioning watch faces on both sides, so you get two watches for the price of one—which he wore when he performed live at the Oscars last month.
For the press shots here, however, Kravitz supercharged his high-watchmaking game still further with the Reverso Tribute Duo Face Tourbillon in pink gold , a monumental piece of Jaeger-LeCoultre wizardry that was unveiled just last month at Geneva’s Watches and Wonders. The watch crams two separate timepieces, plus a tourbillon with a total of 254 individual parts, into the signature rectangular Reverso case that, despite all those components, is just 9.14mm thick.
For Kravitz, who recalls from childhood his father’s collection of chronographs, watches are a longstanding passion. “Beyond the function of a watch, style is very important,” Kravitz said in a statement. “You have to really connect with it. I feel very drawn to Jaeger-LeCoultre. The way they combine such a high level of craftsmanship, design, and function in their watches—that really resonates with me.” In his first official outing with the brand in May, Kravitz will feature in a new campaign alongside fellow Jaeger-LeCoultre ambassador Anya Taylor Joy.
