We have it so internalized, so assimilated, that perhaps you have never thought about it, but here goes one of those questions that sound like a truism: Why do men and women dress differently? Why is it that when we go to a wedding, a gala or an elegant dinner, it is taken for granted that they will wear a more or less sober suit and discreet colors while they will wear dresses and heels? Why are ‘men’s’ clothes usually more functional than women’s clothes? And already, why don’t we wear skirts, like was wondering recently David Uclés?
As is usually the case when we talk about fashion (social trends in general), none of the above is the result of chance or simple whim.
Why do you dress the way you dress? Things as they are: if you are a man (at least in the Spain of 2026) and you go to a meeting in a dress and heels, it is quite likely that your colleagues will be surprised to see you cross the door. However, the same clothing on a woman would be considered very normal.
Because? That same question was recently asked by the writer David Uclés. And it’s not the first. Before him, others had already slipped it, such as the designer and photographer Ana Locking, who in another recent interview on the SER network encouraged men to be much more risky when selecting their wardrobe.
“If you want to feel sexy today, dress sexy. The boys’ legs are super sexy, the boys’ necklines are super sexy. Open your neckline, wear a skirt, some shorts, some ankle boots with a little heel,” encouraged Locking after lamenting that, as they mature, men “clip their wings” when they confront the closet. “What they will say comes into play a little bit, feeling vulnerable.”
Is it just social pressure? It depends how you look at it. Fashion in itself is a social construct, but the tendency that leads us men to opt for sober clothing and banish skirts, heels and clothing that may be considered ‘extravagant’ from our wardrobes is explained by another reason: the story.
In fact, it is not a guideline that has always been applied. Come take a walk through the Costume Museum or El Prado to prove that when it comes to men’s fashion, sobriety has not always been synonymous with good style or elegance.
For example, this canvas of King Philip V with his family painted in 1743 by Louis Michel van Loo or this other work from the end of the 17th century, also preserved in El Prado, and in which Jacob-Ferdinand Voet shows us Luis Francisco de la Cerda, IX Duke of Medinaceli. Is there anything that catches your attention about them?
Wigs, high heels and brilli brilli? Exact. If you look at both works you will see that the men wear wigs, heels, stockings, loose jackets that fall almost like skirts, and an abundance of bright colors, the kind of clothing that at that time (late 17th century, first half of the 18th century) denoted status.
If you think about it it makes sense. What they show us Jacob-Ferdinand Voet and Louis Michel van Loo They are characters dressed in colorful outfits, although they are not what we would say ‘functional’. But… Why should they be? If anyone could afford that kind of clothing it was aristocrats who didn’t have to work.
Who doesn’t like heels? William Kremer explained it well in 2013 on the BBC when reviewing The history of high heels and why men stopped wearing them. Again, it may sound like a far-fetched question, but it actually makes a lot of sense and reveals even more about our history.
For centuries heels were worn in the Middle East as part of horse riding clothing. And not only for aesthetic reasons. With them Persian soldiers could stand on the styles, stabilize themselves and adopt a good posture to use the bow. When at the end of the 16th century sha Abbas I of Persia He sent a diplomatic mission to Europe to gather support. The nobles noticed the Persian-style shoe. They liked it so much that over time they began to wear high heels that highlighted their size… and their social rank.
And all that with heels? That’s how it is. “One of the best ways to convey status is through the impractical,” commented in 2013 Elizabeth Semmelhack, of the Bata Footwear MuseumToronto. Perhaps heels were not very advisable for walking through the countryside and the paved and potholed streets of the 17th century cities, but did the same nobles who posed for chamber painters dressed in clothes as luxurious as they were cumbersome have to do so? “They don’t work in the fields nor do they have to walk a lot.”
Why did they stop being used? Times have changed. And the way of thinking. When they review the history of fashion (especially men’s fashion) historians usually stop at the Enlightenment, between the mid-17th century and the beginning of the 19th century, a time in which intellectuals opted for a way of thinking in which what was rational and useful was prioritized. Also education about privileges. Status is no longer an inherited gift, but the result of training and work.
As far as fashion is concerned, this translated into a new sensitivity that favored the use of garments comfortable and functional. In England, for example, even landowners ended up embracing a more practical style, better suited to managing their properties. At least that’s how it was among men. The rational aspect stood out among them; The emotional nature was highlighted in them.
Did only the Enlightenment influence? No. The Enlightenment mentality played a crucial role, but historians usually point out an episode that (although inspired by the Enlightenment) is much more specific, both geographically and temporally: the french revolution. Against this backdrop, the way one dressed became more than a simple aesthetic choice or a mark of status. It became in a way a form of political demonstration, like remember the BBC.
Probably the clearest example is the sans-culottesa term that can be translated as “without pants” and that designated the strongest supporters of the popular classes during the Revolution. Instead of the short, tight leggings that the aristocracy usually wore, their members (craftsmen, merchants, peasants) wore long, loose pants, much more comfortable for work. Museums are once again useful for us to understand this change. Here we leave a portrait of sans-culotte made in the 18th century by Louis Leopold Boilly.
Does a garment say so much? Over time, that change in mentality took hold. Especially as radicals and jacobins They gained influence. The Enlightenment idea of usefulness took hold and clothing became a way of rejecting (overtly) the extravagances of the old aristocracy. Long pants replaced bloomers and the filigree, ornaments, flourishes and bright colors that were so popular at court were dispensed with. The way men approached the locker room began to change.
Is it that simple? When we talk about trends, nothing is. The process is actually more complex and goes beyond revolutionary France. For example, in an interesting 2025 essay on the topic The Green Compass He remembered that between the middle of the 16th and 17th centuries in Habsburg Spain, sober and dark clothing used to predominate among gentlemen. Also in Calvinist countries the aesthetics were different. However, they were exceptions, not the general pattern.
Beyond continental Europe, the new masculine aesthetic made its way to America and England, where it also strongly caught on with the Enlightenment mentality. In the first we find two eloquent examples. The first is Benjamin Franklin’s decision to do without the famous white wigs. The second is the ‘Golden Spoon Speech’ delivered in 1840 in the US House and which basically ridiculed the style president’s dapper Van Buren.
Were they all abstract trends? No. There were also influencers with names and surnames that contributed to the change. Perhaps the most famous is the British George ‘Beau’ Brummelthe prototype of the European dandy, who became friends with King George IV. For a time Brummell was the great guide of men’s fashion in England and a clear exponent of the new style.
His style was committed to discretion, cleanliness and elegance. Goodbye flourishes. Coat, vest, shirt, tie, pants and riding boots. Soft colors, no eccentricities. Temperance. The focus shifted to attention to detail, quality and composure, not unnecessary flourishes.
What do the experts say? All of the above may sound abstract or diffuse, but the phenomenon is well studied by experts. In fact, they even use an expression to refer to that change of mentality in men’s fashion that led us to prioritize what was useful over what was ‘pretty’: “Great male renunciation”a label coined around 1930 by the British psychologist John C. Flügel.
“Man abandoned his claim to be considered beautiful. From then on he intended to be only useful. To the extent that clothing continued to be important to him, his efforts could be directed only in the direction of ‘being appropriately dressed,’ not in that of being elegant or elaborate.”
As the centuries pass that maxim It has not remained unchanged (fashion is rich in pendulums and in revising itself), but it helps to understand why in the middle of 2026 so many men still do not see themselves stuffed into a skirt.
Images | Wikipedia 1, 2, 3 and 4
.jpg){kind=link}
In Xataka | The boys are not well: men’s fashion is burning men in summer
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings