Levi’s Women’s Jeans for Men

Levi's site / Fair Use

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Levi’s recently introduced it’s new women’s-style jeans for men: The Ex-Girlfriend Jean. “Remember the girlfriend with the great style?” the catalog copy reads. “Here’s a tribute to her—a fit that’s super-snug allover.” Snug is right. Those jeans look tight, even if you didn’t have testicles. Testes or no, why does the titular girlfriend have to be an ex? 

For women, there are all manner of products marketed as belongings of a current beau: the Boyfriend Sweater, the Boyfriend Jean, the Boyfriend Shirt. Urban Outfitters alone has 20 items with “Boyfriend” in their names, including this girly pink short-sleeved “Boyfriend” shirt with pearly buttons. In women’s fashion, “boyfriend” has become shorthand for anything vaguely menswear-inspired or slightly oversized. And there’s a reason those products are marketed as “Boyfriend” rather than “Ex-Boyfriend”: marketers think women prefer to be seen as coupled rather than single. There’s also that oft-reproduced, “sexy” image of a woman slipping out of a conjugal bed and into her man’s wrinkled Oxford shirt. Another possibility: marketers think an oversized shirt won’t sell to weight-conscious ladies unless it’s labeled as literally belonging to someone else. Imagine: the Roommate Sweater. The BFF Jeans. The I-Found-It-On-The-Street Cardigan.

On the other hand, marketers apparently think men won’t buy anything women-inspired unless it’s associated with a female who is no longer in the picture. (I called Levi’s for comment on why the company decided to make the jeans “Ex-Girlfriend,” but my call was not returned.) Personally, I’ve only once seen a boyfriend wearing my clothes (an old pair of jeans) and the image was slightly disturbing, mostly because the jeans looked better on him than they did on me. It’s telling that although I’ve often borrowed a boyfriend’s coat or sweater, I’ve rarely had them borrow anything off of me. Maybe I’m just a terrible dresser, but it’s also just physical reality: they’re too big to fit into my clothes. The other part is, most men I’ve known have been self-conscious about wearing a woman’s clothes, even if the clothing was unisex in appearance. Few guys want to be ridiculed for dressing like a girl, or looking like a girl, because (I imagine the thought train goes) looking girly=being girly. Being girly=possibly liking boys. Homosexuality and femaleness=bad.

Though the Ex-Girlfriend jeans are meant for men, some females are finding them a welcome alternative to women’s jeans. One of the commenters wrote: “After trying on countless women’s styles, I walked out with these. The rise is perfect, without being high-waisted. The ares which I guess is supposed to be a little more spacious for men leaves just the right amount of space for my curves.”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate