Jaden Smith for Louis Vuitton: The New Man in a Skirt

I'm not at all sure why anybody should feel threatened by a man who dresses up in traditionally women's clothing.

Variety is the spice of life and is there to be celebrated.

This will go NOWHERE.Remember the MERCE that Coach brought out , the -man purse? GONE, and a signal the companies growth days were behind it.Steven Sprouce in grunge acid wash neon green rags for $$$, GONE. If you want to make mans clothes more optionable (made up like merce) lets not start at $4000 or $5000 per item thank you! Fashion starts from the street and works it way up.If i was fashion forward , i could look at Rupaul, or better yet , just relaunch LILLY PULITZER for Men again , and make it work!

Officially? Which official are we talking about?

To be totally honest, the only reason I _don't_ do so so because it's societally frowned upon. I would be overjoyed if I could wear clothes traditionally considered "for women" without being subjected to people's prejudices.

Priests wear cassocks. Traditional Arab men wears thobes. Ancient Greek men wore chitons. These are all dress-like garments. There is nothing inherently feminine about a dress or skirt. It's all in the styling.

Now if only older women could be given a pass when wearing clothes "too young" for them.

I'm informed, tolerant, and embrace LGBT lifestyles. It isn't my business, and I don't care, unless I KNOW you, then I not only care, but I love you. That written, I think the Pinkett/Smith children are severely overrated. Do they have talent, or merely famous wealthy parents? Are they strikingly beautiful/handsome???? Me thinks not. Do I think young Mr. Smith should be the face of women's wear? No. What is next? Can my dog be the face of menswear, he is, after all, male? We aren't meant to be homogenized ... we're different. Is this young man going to wear ladies' bathing suits next? High heals? Bras and panties? Its just a PR stunt and I guess it has people paying attention, and also it can be used to bait hate, or call those who have a difference of opinion haters, bigots, racists. I'd prefer women in those women's clothing adverts, thank you very much.

I believe that we should all be able to where what makes us comfortable and feel good regardless of gender. When we look in the mirror, only we should feel totally happy & content with our appearance as we head out to face the day as well as the world.
Just keeping in mind that it's appropriate and not offensive to anyone.

I don't know a lot about Jaden but not sure on what basis we can declare at this point that he is not in "transition." Time will tell.

I think they are still pushing a body image that they have been pushing for decades that most women just don't have. I am tired of the no breast, no hip , no butt look. Even I had a figure at 100 lbs and 5 feet 2 inches. The smallest female model is just not built like that 17 year old boy. WE ARE NOT MADE LIKE THAT. What are his measurements ? 20-20-20!!! Who are they designing for ? Are they designing for women or 10 year little boys or their idea of how a woman should look. If you want to make clothes for women then do that, if you want to make skirts and dresses for 17 year old boys, you can do that too. But don't put a boy (who has no breast and no hips) in clothes and then market it to women ( who have breast and hips).

"Would you follow Jaden Smith's example and wear clothes officially meant for the opposite gender?"
--------
What a ridiculous question. Women have been quietly doing so for generations. Many men in the hippie contingent wore skirts. And going further back, men have sported tunics, togas, makeup, extravagant wigs, high heels, and any number of other sartorial accessories that have been associated more with women in our current era. Fashion in relation to gender has always been fluid, and it's high time we stopped judging individuals' choices and worrying about the effects of dressing on the "social contract."

I like this a lot. By wearing clothes that are traditionally associated with women, Jaden Smith is saying that the genders are not that different. This doesn't just free us, but it also unifies us.

Jaden looks good. The girls, on the other hand, don't.

He looks good. But why all the fuss? From this and other recent articles, it seems as if the industry is lagging behind the regular folks, on this one. As others point out, wearing the other gender's clothing isn't exactly new. Didn't a young Chanel sometimes wear actual men's clothing? I wasn't being terribly original, when I started in 1968, in middle school, in Texas; and even there, even then, it didn't get anything more than a few shrugs.

For a long time, the non-fashion-industry person isn't likely to make such a big distinction between specified menswear, man-tailored women's wear, whatever. Clothes are worn in all kinds of "un-official" ways: underwear worn as outerwear, eveningwear for day, pajamas and menswear on high school girls.

I say hooray to the adventuresome. Wear what you like--what feels good, and looks good. And welcome to the official fashion folk who wake up to that idea.

Gender equality??!?! Put on a pair of pants, dude. You look like your sister.

He looks very chic, I think. But to be a cultural leader, it takes a lot more than fashion forwardness. He probably knows that and uses fashion as a gateway for his vision, we hope.

BRAVO - to Jaden Smith, and to Nicolas Ghesquière of Louis Vuitton. I must withhold my applause for the NYT, for your subtle dig at Jaden's "coat-hangerlike frame" (implying a deficit in relation to your expectation of 'manliness'* - his lack of broad shoulders, triangular torso and muscular, hairy arms and legs).

Yes... clothes are public signals - but the only message one can take with certainty from viewing another's attire, is that the other likes (or at least, doesn't object to..) wearing them. The questions you ask, between 'This could be overstating.." and "..what we are saying", could be more concisely written as "How do we apply OUR PREJUDICES?" You say "We use [clothes] to tell if someone is male or female" - but apart from the infrequent need to recruit a partner for reproductive activity, what real need (or legitimate purpose) does anyone have for speculating (because that's all it ever is - speculation) about another's PRIVATE anatomy?
The rationale you give for segregating clothing by sex - "[this is how we order our world] ..part of the social contract. If that order is thrown up in the air, how will we know [how to exercise our] judgments..?" - this rationale is philosophically identical to the ones used to justify segregation by sex and by race, of things as diverse as education, housing opportunity, voting rights, seats on the bus, and public restrooms.

I'm male. I wear skirts - not because they are "for women", but because they SHOULD BE ok for anyone!

Too late to follow his example. I find women's jeans with spandex more comfortable.

Women crossdress all the time with impunity. Just open your eyes and look around next time you are in the supermarket. Look at all the girls who are enjoying 'boy' clothes, and not for the casual comfort. They are cross dressing. Ellen DeGeneres is a celebrity who does nothing but crossdress and it is NOT just because it's easy and comfortable. She WANTS to look boyish.

Thing is, a fair number of guys would love to have the same freedom i.e. to deliberately express their girl side. For guys though, this is a huge risk. You might get beat up in the parking lot. Even if that doesn't happen, the snide looks and remarks are uncomfortable, no make that 'painful and scary'. All the negative comments about this article are just a more genteel expression of that attitude.

Anyhow, I'm glad to see this stuff poking it's head out of it's burrow, but it'll probably be decades more before we see guys wearing skirts in the supermarket, and I'll probably never have the guts to get my ears pierced like I want.

Is this just a plain re-invention of cross-dressing? If it is, please don't waste paper and electrons on it.

Many moons ago some guys at Grateful Dead shows wore skirts with long braided hair and often donning full beards. This is not a first kids. Gender bending is as old as Shakespeare and Greek/Roman warrior skirt wearing.
As they say in Scotland, 'Up yer kilt!'

When did a black leather jacket ever become officially "female"? And young Mr. Smith just looks like "youth"- young people look good in anything.

This is really more about the photo-shooty kind of stuff than the clothes.

There are deeper issues here...literally millions of children face gender role discrimination. These discriminated but uniquely genuine kids take time to think, plan and coordinate their wardrobes (many of these kids are from poor or working class families) on a very limited budget. They are the courageous ones that are bringing gender identity to the forefront and are creating meaningful conversations on transgender progress (something that would be published in the Village Voice years ago). The wealthy posers in the article's photo reeks of a fake assembly of privileged teens trying to appear "real" with the genuinely confused look.

He might be making a play to be a thought leader? That's a joke, I presume, because it's really funny.

Women do it this all the time and we are supposed to raise our brows that a teenage boy does it? Really?? I say Jada is good manipulator of the press and fashion -

Photos of Jimi Hendrix depict him wearing a woman's blouse plus accoutrements as a matter of course, and several other male performers from that era incorporated dresses etc randomly into their wardrobe.
Jaden Smith, however, is somewhat original as celebrities go, which may be why people seem obliged to vent snark on him. He's not yet the best actor. It might not even be clear what he's good at in a traditional sense, but he knows how to take the attention on him and direct it toward conceptual territory.

Selling us stuff and calling it liberation: we've seen this film before. A bunch of us straight guys used to wear dresses around Ann Arbor in the mid-1970s. The only real issue here is that America became more reactionary in the meantime, and we are fighting our way out of it. You couldn't have gulled a 70s feminist into construing this ad campaign as a sign of anything except salespersonship. :)

Given the ultra-thin bodies of the female models in the photo, one hopes Jaden Smith likewise draws attention to "weight fluidity." None of the three women in the photo appear to be healthy or well-fed. Young women starving themselves to conform to society's "standards" of beauty is very sad. Right, Jaden?

"But here’s the thing: As much as understanding, we also want admiration; to think we look good in what we are wearing."

Hey, isn't that 'objectification' on some level?

(Sorry; pet peeve. Face it: we all want to be "objectified.")

Call it a Skilt : Skirt + Kilt

This is AWESOME! There's nothing inherently gender-specific or sex-specific about either kind of attire. I believe that dresses and skirts hearken back to togas (once worn by both sexes) and the kinds of clothes worn by, among others, Jesus of Nazareth, and that pants were brought to us by the proudly equestrian Mongol Empire.

Maybe men will begin to wear high-heeled shoes, sending such foot gear the way of the codpiece.

Coco Chanel and other late, great designers must be spinning over the state of fashion with this mishmash of generic, knock-kneed models, awful textures, and the spoiled son of a film actor. Even "Zoolander 2" has better taste.

Jaden Smith looks nice. What perplexes me is that in some photos from this shoot he is styled like an Orthodox Jewish man with tzitzit and tefillin. Isn't that the kind of thoughtless appropriation that is complained of today? I'm a non-Jewish Atheist, but am a New Yorker and have seen religious men dressed this way all my life.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion/daily/2016/01/04/04-jaden-smith-lv.w...

It reminds me of the '90s, when Jean Paul Gaultier dressed women in clothing that looked like that worn by Hasidic Jews.

http://www.tabletmag.com/wp-content/files_mf/gaultier_110811_620px.jpg

This "child" is just another example of Free-Range Parenting [sic]. The wealth of his parents can well insulate him from any consequences. He seems like a wayward elfin human without a clue of who he is- which is the case with millions of adolescents. His identity search is just very public and again- shielded from any consequences thereof- by parental celebrity and money.

A well prepped Jaden, for life and fashion as well as taking over the world for Scientology. Hollywood nepotism just isn't enough these days.

My goodness! Such a lot of adult-strength vitriol aimed at a 17-year old! He's obviously trying to find his way and in all probability will learn what he needs to learn as he goes along, as we all did. Put away the pitchforks and give him a chance!

Its very unlikely that men will be wearing women's clothes on any sort of scale anytime soon.
The persecution will be ugly and possibly violent.
I applaud men confident to do so but this is not a tolerant society

Back in 2006 when I taught public high school in Carmel, California, I had twins, brother and sister in my class. They were both quite beautiful, she a petite blonde, he tall and dark, and both creative. One day he came to class in a yellow shirt, beautiful flowing long black skirt to his ankles, and Doc Marten boots. He didn't look feminine, he just looked like him. In a skirt. He looked really elegant and stylish. I asked him if it was his sister's skirt. No, it was his. I asked why the skirt? Because he woke up really wanting to wear the yellow shirt, and the skirt went with it. Cool. And the great thing was, he got no flak from the other kids. Another boy in that same class came to school in a yellow linen women's pant suit he got at a vintage store. I love the fact that clothing can be a way to express creativity, and to give others around us a small piece of theater, to raise a smile, to brighten the day, to shake things up. It's just cloth. Cultural assumptions change all the time. Men wear long robes in lots of cultures. So what? Mr. Smith looks good. More power to him.

Are you all too young to remember that David Bowie did it first? Or certainly before this. He appeared in a dress on SNL in 1979. He is a man, who wore a dress. Jaden Smith is a young man wearing woman's clothes. They are just people wearing what ultimately are just clothes.

Sorry, hollywood, and advertisers, but, you can't 'brand an person.

People go to his father's films because they like them. They enjoy WiIll Smith.

But, unlike potato chips, just because the public likes (liked?) Mr. Smith, does NOT mean the public likes, nor even wants 'Will Smitth jr.'

Whatever happened to not wanting to ride someone else's coattails? TO knowing one's appreciated for ONEself?

This kid is the epitome of everything which is wrong with a generation who hasn't earned anything on their own, and are all too pleased with their smug self, and t shows.

He was first foisted on the public in a film his dad was in. It tanked.

Not only did the film tank, but, special attention was paid to this one's utter lack of charisma, talent, presence, etc.

The only thing he 'oozed' on screen, was a very palpable chip, a sense of entitlement.

For what?

Enough of this no-talent relative.

I - like a lot of other people - believe one has to prove themselves - in whatever category a person chooses.

This horrifyingly annoying, talentless example of nepotism will NOT captivate the publics hearts simply by repeated attempts at popping up and doing something 'outré.' He could wear a skirt on his head, for all I care, I still wouldn't.
And to pay him ?!? Wow.

Advice to father AND son; let your son go to school with 'real' people,' see how he learns to fit into his own skin, develop his own interests. Let him puck HIMSELF up, and STOP pushing him at us.

Look at me Look at me Look at me.

Kid is desperately trying to find relevance.

'Would you follow Jaden Smith's example...?'

Who cares about those full-of-themselves kids?

And I am so utterly tired of this trend of models taking on poses of stupid, vacuous clones. Could the girls in that ad look any more vapid??

LV gave a campaign that should have gone to an accomplished woman to a 17-year-old male with a tenuous grasp on reality and no accomplishments. If you read anything he has written or said, he sounds like he suffers from dillusions indicative of a mental illness.

Interesting article and thank you Vanessa for including the word "pontificator" in your description of Jaden Smith. Having read and seen some interviews with him over the past several years I would say the term is more than applicable, and from (now) the ripe old age of 17 to boot. At least Jean Paul Gaultier never pontificates.

Don't make me - or a nation of handsome and rugged Scottish men - no never mind!

While it may be trendy to blur the lines between the sexes, women should be very wary of men encroaching upon what traditionally has been theirs, be it a women's fashion advertising campaign or a women's college. Women already make just about 70% of what men make, they constantly fight for reproductive rights and sexual violence is a daily occurrence (just look at what happened in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve). Make no mistake, the blurring of lines will not benefit women.

I'm a young woman and grew up wearing jeans and "tomboy clothes." I remember being so shocked when my mother told me that my grandmothers had not been "allowed" to wear pants for so much of their lives.

Isn't it funny how we perceive garments and the people who wear them? Our founding fathers wore buckle shoes, stockings, ruffle shirts, and bows in their hair. But no one doubts their masculinity today because we see their garments in a certain light. The same is true of kilts. Is it tartan and worn by a hairy-legged, confident man? So be it.

Context, context, context. How intriguing that the modern context is inviting males to wear skirts and dresses. And good news for them -- dresses and skirts are easy and comfortable (at least, when it's warm outside). Now, if we could just grow enough so that the context of today's society does away with all of the homo- and transphobia...

A celebrity's wannabe-celebrity child is paid by a luxury brand to pull a stunt in an ad. This is "news that's fit to print"? Good grief, you even prime the comments with a pseudo-introspective question to signal that something significant is going on here. The NYT's bizarre mix of faux transgression, celebrity worship, and shilling of astronomically priced luxuries gets more toxic all the time.

I would never have known that he was male if it hadn't been pointed out to me. Girls' clothes, girls's hair do, pretty face and skin. Nope, looks like a girl to me.

I'm not interested in pillorying the author, but please allow me to point out some subtleties which Friedman & her editors ought to to understand, especially as the NYT is taking serious steps to address transgender issues:

Were Jaden Smith to transition, he would not be a "man in transition." That phrasing is misgendering. Rather, SHE would be a WOMAN in transition.

Also misgendering: phrases like "We use [clothes] to tell if someone is male or female (or wants to be one or the other)." Yes, men may wear skirts, but trans folk are not "men in skirts" or "women with beards" who "want" to be the opposite gender. Better to just leave out the parenthetical.

But will his dad wear a skirt?

To Vanessa Friedman: I love LOVE this article! My favorite part: "... there’s no question clothes are one way we order the world. We use them to tell if someone is male or female (or wants to be one or the other), what they do, how much money they have, what bands they like, what country they come from, etc. Whatever you do in your private life, clothes are public signals about how to read you. They are part of the social contract. If that order is thrown up in the air, how will we know what snap judgments to make? How do we know how to interpret what we are seeing, if interpretation is based on outmoded definitions of identity?

"How will we know what floors to shop on? What fashion weeks to attend?

"The fear of semiological chaos (and the force of historical convention) explains in part why clothing norms have held on so long. We want to understand what we are seeing, and we want those seeing it to understand what we are saying.