Gender Baggage

For a very long time (1985-1999) I refused to carry a “purse-like object.”

Those items were too feminine, too dinky, for what I considered to be my fiercely independent feminista self, so I lived with a large clutch wallet instead.

If that’s all men need, than that’s all I need, thought I. And I got along just fine: my lipstick and key fit into the change pouch; I felt nicely self-contained.

I also prefer men’s leather carry-alls and funky messenger bags to those manufactured for women. When I do carry a woman’s bag, it must be sleek—no tassles, ruffles, or other frilly accessories; I like a very clean line.

(Unless I’m going for wild embellishments, as on my Ghost by Tanya Sarne bag, which is the most exuberant bag I’ve seen in awhile. It’s orange velvet with embroidery, sequins, tassels—it breaks all my rules!) Here's a photo of a considerably more modest Ghost bag:

And I like a bag to be large. If I must carry a bag, I’m going to carry a substantial one! But not a bag the size of a small trunk à la Katie Holmes.

Lately I’ve been getting the urge to borrow from the boys again, because two posts reminded me of some more gender-based baggage, so to speak.

For what I like in a man bag pour moi, check out the photo below, from the Sartorialist. This Mulberry bag comes in a *smaller* size for women. But I think that the oversized proportion works just fine on a woman’s arm. (And I do dislike “downsized” items for women. I always wore a man’s watch until finding my properly sized tank.)

Further, Disney Roller Girl just bought this men’s Prada clutch (just scroll for a couple of images) in New York. I love the color, the shape, the wrist band. It looks a little more substantial than a woman’s too.

To my mind, “little lady,” whether articulated verbally or through the language of accessories, should be banished.