Representations Created for Women: Marimekko’s Unisex Clothing of 1956–1979 Portrayed in Finnish and Swedish Magazines

By Anna Parviainen

Introduction

Fashion is deliberately constructed, as clothing becomes fashion through its intermediaries. As one intermediary of fashion, magazine journalism transmits to potential customers what is considered fashionable at a particular time. Being reviewers of fashion, the magazine journalists and editors act also as gatekeepers. Fashion as an abstract concept is thus given meaning through magazines that operate within a fashion system (Entwistle 2023, 1–2; Kawamura 2005, 79–82, 86, 88).  

Compared to newspapers, magazines have provided more space for photojournalism and visual imagery (Brusila 1997, 10, 17, 19–20). The editorial photographs published in magazines promote the portrayed clothing and therefore serve the interests of the company. Hence, the difference between a fashion photograph and an advertisement is vague as both aim to make a product known as a desirable, fashionable object (Kawamura 2005, 81–82, 86–88; Koskennurmi-Sivonen 2002, 43). 

Dress has been influenced by various movements; for instance, when social movements such as second-wave feminism, sexual liberation, and the re-evaluation of gender roles rose to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s (Luther Hillman 2015, xvi–xviii; Paoletti 2015, 6). In Finland, these shifts towards gender equality were realized in the politics and legislation (e.g., Kurvinen & Turunen 2023, 62–63), but were also advocated in women’s magazines (e.g., Malmberg 1991, 195, 286; Saarenmaa & Ruoho 2014, 292–295), and visualized in fashion media, like in Finnish Marimekko’s promotional imagery created for their unisex clothing, as studied in my previous article (2023). 

In addition to the promotional imagery created by the company, magazines were significant platforms for disseminating Marimekko styles (Aav & Kivilinna 2010, 56). This article explores Marimekko’s unisex clothing of 1956–1979 as represented in the editorial pages of Finnish and Swedish magazines, evaluating their portrayals of unisex and gender. This study approaches magazine photographs as independent imagery and assesses whether they carry different meanings compared to the promotional imagery produced by Marimekko. Furthermore, this study aims to evaluate whether the magazine representations created a feminine side for Marimekko’s unisex that for the most part otherwise adapted styles and visuality from traditional menswear — the feminine side of unisex was only on a few occasions portrayed by the company itself (Parviainen 2023, 15, 17–21). 

MAGAZINES AND THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS AS INTERMEDIARIES FOR MARIMEKKO’S UNISEX FASHION 

This study of Marimekko focuses on unisex clothing designed under the leadership of one of the company’s founders, Armi Ratia (1912–1979), starting with the Jokapoika shirt as their first item of clothing adapted to unisex use (Anttikoski 2003, 85; Parviainen 2023, 10). 

In the late 1960s, and especially in the 1970s, unisex designs were frequently portrayed in Marimekko’s promotional imagery. However, this study covers both the designs from before the widespread use of the unisex concept as well as those from the time unisex was in fashion, from the late 1960s to the late 1970s (Paoletti 2015, 4, 31). Marimekko’s unisex designs included, for example, collared shirts, suits, overalls, and cotton tricot collections expanding from dresses to shirts and underwear.  

This article utilizes the author’s previous study on Marimekko’s promotional imagery (2023). As that study showed, photographs are a vital source for the study of Marimekko’s unisex designs as the company was not always explicit or coherent in their promotional materials about which pieces of clothing were gendered and which were intended as unisex. For example, the company’s seasonal clothing catalogues could indicate garments for two categories of wearers: adults and children (e.g., Marimekko catalogue, spring–summer 1976). However, without using gender-specific terms, the texts conveyed the idea of unisex. Despite the representations implying that the clothes were unisex, they might have been indicated for either women or men through gendered sizing (e.g., Marimekko catalogue, summer 1973). Hence, the representations could contrast with the texts. At any rate, the photographs and their representations have given the opportunity to evaluate their suggested unisex use.  

The primary research material observed in this study comprises magazine photographs of Marimekko’s unisex clothing, held in two Finnish archives: Design Museum and Marimekko. In 1986, Marimekko donated an extensive collection to the Design Museum at the time when the company’s 35th anniversary exhibition was held at the museum (Aav 2003, 16). Swedish magazines are included in the analysis, as a significant number of international magazines portraying Marimekko items were Swedish. An exhibition held at Stockholm’s Artek boutique in the early autumn of 1958 introduced Marimekko to Sweden. Already then, the company’s internationalization was fuelled by the Design in Scandinavia (1954) exhibition, which had toured the United States, and Milan triennials (1954 and 1957) (Aav & Kivilinna 2010, 19; Ratia 1986, 23; Saarikoski 1977, 65–67; Vainio 2015, 47–48). 

Using curated scrapbooks or preselected magazine clippings as a primary research material narrowed the framing of this research. Marimekko in the 1960s and 1970s was featured in various magazines, such as fashion and lifestyle magazines (Aav & Kivilinna 2010, 56). Most of the magazine clips observed in this article fall into the category of women’s magazines, such as the Finnish Anna, Me Naiset, and Viuhka, as well as the Swedish Femina and Hennes. 

Fashion has often been treated as a women’s topic as women have usually been the target group of fashion. As a category, women’s magazines are gender-specific as they are formed according to the magazines’ assumed readership. They are explicitly aimed at a readership of women, who are thus the viewers of the featured photographs (Edwards 1997, 37; Kawamura 2005, 79; Koskennurmi-Sivonen 2002, 43; Töyry 2005, 26). In addition, magazines centring on homes and interiors or family (e.g., Avotakka) frequently published images of Marimekko’s clothing. This tracks as themes such as home and family were also usually targeted at women (Töyry 2005, 310). Additionally, general lifestyle or so-called news magazines (e.g., Suomen Kuvalehti) published photographs depicting Marimekko’s unisex designs.  

The magazine photographs were published in different contexts. The clothes could be portrayed in traditional fashion photographs for an editorial feature, which were constructed product placements. In these portrayals, both the company and the clothes were captioned, and the prices were usually included. Garments could also be used as props for photoshoots where the focus was not on the clothing. These features did not necessarily reference the company, the clothes, or their prices. As Marimekko was a well-known company with a recognizable style and aesthetic, it is fair to assume that the origin of the design could nevertheless be identified. 

Magazine photographs portraying clothing contribute to the production of fashion as representations that construct and give meanings. 

Photographs picturing people also inevitably visualize genders and gender markers, such as clothing or stylings made to the person’s appearance (De Lauretis 1987, 2–5; Hall 2013, 11, 14; Koskennurmi-Sivonen 2002, 40; Rossi 2003, 11; Vänskä 2006, 95). The photographs used for this article’s research material depict men, women, and children wearing unisex clothes. While they portray the relations between the people in the photographs, it is possible to also observe the representation of gender and gender roles: to construct a representation, a choice of how to portray is always made. The photographers who worked for magazines played a significant role as the creators of the representations. For example, in Me Naiset the photographer was allowed to create the representation (Salo 2005, 144). However, in some examples, the photographer remained uncredited. 

As a methodology, this study utilizes the constructionist approach to analyzing representations, introduced by Hall (2013, 11). Thus, instead of the portrayals themselves having fixed meanings, the meanings of the photographs are analyzed in dialogue within time and space. According to Arnold (2018, 22), the editorial representations published in magazines have worked as cues for how to wear the garments. In the photographs, the clothing and their representations are observed as “syntagmatic combinations” (McCracken 1988, 65) that are interpreted simultaneously. The overall appearance, including the clothing, the people wearing them, and the compositions (Schreier 1989, 2), informs a reading of the meanings communicated in the representations of unisex and gender. Even though the focus is on the photographs and their representations, the terms the magazines used to describe the portrayed clothing and styles, as well as the context in which they were published, are also analyzed.  

CLOTHING, GENDERING, AND UNISEX

According to Barnes and Eicher, “dress is both an indicator and a producer of gender” (1992, 7). As the outfits we wear cover our bodies in various ways, gendering usually occurs according to our clothes and appearance rather than our bodies. Therefore, through clothes, we construct and identify gendered meanings. The gendered meanings are nevertheless subject to change as they form according to time, space, and social context. The gender norms and links between clothes to femininity and masculinity are arbitrary as well as culturally specific (Barnes & Eicher 1992, 1; Edwards 1997, 14; Eicher & Roach-Higgins 1992, 14; Entwistle 2023, 140–144; Reilly & Barry 2020, 2; Steele 1989, 6, 14–15).  

In the history of Western dress, masculinity has been constructed traditionally through negation; as not feminine. Even the concept of fashion has been more closely associated with the feminine than the masculine, which is evident, for example, in the widespread use of the term “menswear” instead of men’s fashion (Barry & Reilly 2020, 134; Edwards 1997, 3, 37, 135; Entwistle 2023, 146–148; Kaiser & Green 2021, 143, 146; Schreier 1989, 2).

Throughout this history, traditionally masculine clothing has emphasized legs, complying with the form of the body. On the other hand, traditionally feminine clothing has modified and hidden the form of the body in numerous ways, for example, by covering the legs with a skirt (Edwards 1997, 14; Entwistle 2023, 144, 151; Kaiser & Green 2021, 144; Steele 1989, 11, 13). 

In the 1950s, the differences between women’s and men’s dress were highly demarcated (Schreier 1989, 4). Unisex clothes designed in the 1960s and 1970s were part of a shift towards informality, but the definitions of masculinity and femininity were also in transition (Bolton 2003, 9, 18; Steele 1997, 36). Similarly to the unisex designs, some gendered fashions of the 1960s and 1970s for women (e.g., miniskirts) (Paoletti 2015, 30) and men (e.g., the Peacock Revolution) (Luther Hillman 2015, 23) challenged conservative views of both femininity and masculinity in dress. 

Unisex clothes designed in the 1960s and 1970s were a reaction to conservative gender roles — at the time, “sex role” was a more commonly used concept (Paoletti 2015, 7, 22). When unisex fashions were introduced, the debate on “sex” and “gender” had been an ongoing discussion. The concept of gender was used to signify social and cultural expressions of biological sex (Paoletti 2015, 2–3, 22). In Finnish, sex and gender are signified with one word (in Finnish, “sukupuoli”), but they can be specified as either meaning biological or social (in Finnish, “biologinen sukupuoli” or “sosiaalinen sukupuoli”) (e.g., Rossi 2003, 12). In this article, the concept of gender is used to acknowledge gender norms, femininity, and masculinity as cultural and temporal constructions.  

Even though the etymology of unisex originates further back in history, its use within the vocabulary of dress began in the late 1960s when it described the clothing and styles designed for both men and women that were “sexually indistinguishable or neutral” (Etymonline 2024; Luther Hillman 2015, 22–27). The prefix “uni-” comes from the Latin word unus, meaning one, and it signifies that the clothes were meant to unify. As a term, “unisex” is usually employed as an adjective to describe clothing, other objects, or spaces used by both women and men. Additionally, it can also be used as a noun, referring for example to “the quality of being equally suitable for both sexes” (Oxford English Dictionary 2024). The unisex concept was attached to heteronormativity and the gender binary system; “his and hers”, another term used for unisex styles (Paoletti 2015, 31), implied that unisex clothes were modelled for heterosexual couples. 

Unisex has been linked to women’s liberation and the move towards equality between men and women (Luther Hillman 2015, 72–73; Paoletti 2012, 100–102, 105). 

As unisex clothes were labelled “indistinguishable” or “neutral” in theory, the clothes could have contained elements of both traditionally feminine and masculine dress in equal measure. Nevertheless, masculinity was usually an overriding feature in both the unisex clothing designs and their representations in advertisements, and thus it was presented as the shared neutral (Davis 1992, 36; Paoletti 2015, 6, 31, 49–51, 152; Paoletti 2012, 102, 106, 108; Parviainen 2023, 19–21). Examples of men adopting items of clothing that were designed originally for women have been rare, as for example, men wearing skirts and dresses did not follow a similar path to that of trousers being worn by women in Western countries. The development of and changes in men’s attire have been slower processes (Bolton 2003, 9; Davis 1992, 33–34; Edwards 1997, 15, 17; Entwistle 2023, 144; Steele 1989, 9). 

Despite its efforts to challenge gendered dress, researchers have criticized unisex for not pursuing gender neutrality and even questioned if true unisex clothing ever existed, as the distinctively different clothing and other adornments still communicated the differences between men and women (e.g., Luther Hillman 2015, 153; Steele 1989, 8). Unisex designs aimed to serve both men and women by fitting the clothing for both sides of the binary. Nevertheless, in the 1960s and 1970s, unisex fashion did not contain masculine and feminine elements of dress in equal portions (Parviainen 2023, 15–21; Steele 1989, 8–9). Hence, the division into women’s and men’s clothing was still evident, despite the premise of a unifying unisex fashion. Unisex fashions also faced resistance during the 1960s and 1970s: even the use of the term unisex was partly rejected by retailers due to opposition and prejudice (Luther Hillman 2015, 26–28; Paoletti 2012, 107, 110–114). 

Whereas the conception of gendered fashion in the 1960s and 1970s followed the gender binary, the vocabulary of fashion is nowadays updated with more inclusive terms, such as gender-neutral and genderless fashion, that reflect a more contemporary notion of gender. Even though “unisex” is a term still used today, these terms are also used separately from unisex, as they aim to go beyond historical and cultural stereotypes. They are not tied to the gender binary system as “gender-neutral” or “genderless” as concepts aim for an idea of clothes without such explicit markings of feminine and masculine features or attachment to a binary. Contemporary issues regarding clothing and gender include, for example: clothing fit issues with ready-to-wear; and how to find clothes that fit and align with one’s gender identity (Luna & Barros 2019, 271–272; Reilly & Barry 2020, 1–15; Reilly, Catalpa & McGuire 2019, 13–14). Social demands for contemporary fashion include the need to adjust designs to diverse expressions of gender identities. 

REPRESENTATIONS CREATED FOR WOMEN 

Marimekko promoted the debate on gender equality by visualizing changing gender roles in their promotional representations (Parviainen 2023, 13–15). Already in the 1950s, Marimekko had designed kitchen aprons that were worn in photographs by both women and men. In a photograph published in the women’s magazine Viuhka (1959), a young man wearing a bow tie and neat, white-collared shirt under a chequered kitchen apron is shown washing the dishes in the kitchen (see Figure 1). The title of the feature is “Man in the Kitchen”. The message of the feature’s title, as well as the photograph, seems to suggest that men should participate in the housework equally with women. The photograph represents both the clothing typically worn in the kitchen as “unisex” and the activity of housework as equally a man’s task. This representation was in line with Marimekko’s promotional imagery (e.g., Marimekko advertisement 1963) that portrayed men wearing similar kitchen aprons manufactured in Noppa (1954) fabric, by Vuokko Nurmesniemi. 

figure 1

The magazine feature portrays a man wearing a kitchen apron made from Noppa (1954) fabric. Viuhka 1959, no. 11, p. 52. Photographer unknown. Marimekko archive.

Figure 8

 A news item shows students wearing Ryppypeppu (1966), designed by Annika Rimala. Suomen Kuvalehti 1968, no. 21, p. 48. Photograph by Arno Keinonen. Marimekko archive.

The new function created by users could influence the magazine’s interpretation of a garment. A year after the portrayal of its new unisex use, Avotakka (1969) showed a man wearing Ryppypeppu without the newly established context of the student uniform. Instead, the feature framed the jumpsuit as leisurewear. Compared to Figure 8, a news photograph, the portrayal in Avotakka functions as product placement, and thus had an obvious promotional value for the clothing and its adaption. The chronology of these features implies that the images of the jumpsuit being used by the students affected the interpretation and later representations of Ryppypeppu. 

This study has shown that magazines were a significant platform for unisex meaning formation and for portraying new adaptions of clothing. Even though women’s magazines were much debated in the 1970s as exemplifying oppression (e.g., McRobbie 1997, 190), they were pioneering and reformative when it came to representing unisex clothing. 

As the magazines did not share the same concerns about the sales of the clothing that they portrayed, the visualizations could differ from the company’s vision. The magazine photographs published, especially those in women’s magazines, were reformative as they gave Marimekko’s unisex a feminine side and new interpretations in representation (Figures 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8) — Tasaraita dresses and Ryppypeppu were rare examples of men adopting items from womenswear. Additionally, the magazines’ portrayals made visible the timely ideals of gender, as well as gendered roles. Nevertheless, both the representations of the man adapting to his new role (Figure 1) and the emancipated woman adopting “masculine” clothes (Figure 2) were in line with the promotional imagery of Marimekko’s unisex. This article shows that most of these revolutionary representations were created within women’s magazines. The examples provided reinforce the claim that these reformative representations of Marimekko’s unisex clothing — worn by women, men, and children — were targeted towards women. 

Conclusion

This article argued that the independent magazine imageries constructed meanings for Marimekko’s unisex designs together with and in comparison to the company’s promotional imagery. The examples analyzed in this article showed that they were in part exceptions compared to Marimekko’s promotional imagery. As opposed to the adaptation of menswear, the portrayals of Marimekko’s unisex also showed how women’s garments were used by men. Thus, the magazine portrayals provided alternative and reformative representations that created a feminine side for Marimekko’s unisex. This, however, remained a curiosity exhibited mostly in women’s magazines. 

While this article observed the meaning formation in magazine photographs, understanding how consumers adapted unisex clothes in everyday life remains unanswered. This article analyzed the visualizations but did not observe the clothing in everyday use, except for the news story on the student overalls: the magazines have thus provided a glimpse of the new meanings and functions formulated for the clothing by their users. Further research is nonetheless needed to evaluate the impact of these representations of unisex clothing. 

Research Material 

Ahtiluoto, Anna-Liisa. 1964. “Naisemme New Yorkissa.” Hopeapeili, no. 1, 1964.

Borger-Bendegard, Lisbeth. 1973. “En romantisk historia.” Hennes, no. 11, 1973.

Helander, Eija. 1969. “Ennakkoluulottomia unia.” Avotakka, no. 2, 1969.

Marimekko advertisement. 1963. Helsingin Sanomat, November 17, 1963.

Marimekko advertisement. 1971. Helsingin Sanomat, April 4, 1971.

Marimekko clothing catalogue for summer 1973, Design Museum archive.

Marimekko clothing catalogue for autumn 1973, Design Museum archive.

Marimekko clothing catalogue for spring–summer 1974, Design Museum archive.

Marimekko clothing catalogue for autumn–winter 1975, Design Museum archive.

Marimekko clothing catalogue for spring–summer 1976, Design Museum archive.

Mattsson, Maija-Liisa. 1968. “Ilo nähdä kesäunia.” Anna, no. 24, 1968.

Niiniluoto, Maarit. 1968. “Kivi kulki Kööpenhaminaan.” Suomen Kuvalehti, no. 21, 1968. 

Notini, Anja. 1965. “Se på julklapps blusen!” Femina, no. 52, 1965.

P. O. 1958. “Nainen ja tehdas kankaan takana.” Kaunis Koti, no. 2, 1958.

Svensson, Inez. 1968. “Det fria livet...” Femina, no. 23, 1968.

Tähkävuori, Anna-Maija. 1971. “Ollaan omissa oloissa.” Kodin Kuvalehti, no. 18, 1971. 

Valajärvi, Riitta. 1967. “Oli kesä kesä kesä.” Me Naiset, no. 32, 1967. 

Viuhka. 1959. “Mies keittiössä.” No. 11, 1959. 

Works Cited

Aav, Marianne. Marimekko: Fabrics, Fashion, Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2003.

Aav, Marianne, and Harri Kivilinna. Marimekko: Fashion and Design. Helsinki: Designmuseo. 2010.

Anttikoski, Riitta. “Fashion: Individuality and Industry.” In Marimekko: Fabrics, Fashion, Architecture, edited by Marianne Aav, 2003, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003, 84-117.

Arnold, Rebecca. “Behind the Scenes with Louise Dahl-Wolfe and Toni Frissell: Alternative Views of Fashion Photography in Mid-Century America.” Fashion Studies vol. 1, no. 1, 2018, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.38055/FS010110.

Barnard, Malcom. Fashion as Communication. London: Routledge, 2002.

Barnes, Ruth, and Joanne B. Eicher. Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Contexts. New York: Berg, 1992.

Barry, Ben, and Andrew Reilly. “Gender More: An Intersectional Perspective on Men's Transgression of the Gender Dress Binary.” In Crossing Gender Boundaries: Fashion to Create, Disrupt and Transcend, edited by Andrew Reilly and Ben Barry, Bristol: Intellect, 2020, 122-136.

Bolton, Andrew. Bravehearts: Men in Skirts. London: V&A Publications, 2003.

Brusila, Riitta. Realismista fiktioon: visuaalisuus ja suomalaiset aikakauslehdet. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, 1997.

Cunnington, Cecil Willett, and Phillis Cunnington. The History of Underclothes. New York: Dover, 1992.

Davis, Fred. Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

De Lauretis, Teresa. Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Edwards, Tim. Men in the Mirror: Men’s Fashion, Masculinity and Consumer Society. London: Cassell, 1997.

Eicher, Joanne B., and Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins. “Definition and Classification of Dress: Implications for Analysis of Gender Roles.” In Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Contexts, edited by Ruth Barnes and Joanne B. Eicher, New York: Berg, 1992, 8-28.

Entwistle, Joanne. The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Pres, 2023.

Etymonline. “Unisex”. https://www.etymonline.com/word/unisex. Accessed August 8, 2024.

Hall, Stuart. Representation. London: Sage, 2013.

Heinonen, Visa, and Hannu Konttinen. Nyt uutta Suomessa! Suomalaisen mainonnan historia. Helsinki: Mainostajien liitto, 2001.

Kaiser, Susan B., and Denise Nicole Green. Fashion and Cultural Studies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.

Kawamura, Yuniya. Fashion-ology: An Introduction to Fashion Studies. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2005.

Kivilinna, Harri. “Marimekko avaa lastenvaateliikkeen.” in Lapsen vuosisata: pohjoismainen muotoilu ja lapset 1900–2014, edited by Hedvig Hedqvist and Elna Svenle, Värnamo: Museum Vandalorum, 2014.

Koskennurmi-Sivonen, Ritva. Salonkimuoti lehdistössä: Atelier Riitta Immonen kuvissa ja teksteissä 1945–1985. Hamina: Akatiimi, 2002.

Kurvinen, Heidi, and Arja Turunen. “Radical Sex Role Ideology and the Finnish Gender Role Movement in the Late 1960s.” Women’s History Review vol. 32, no. 1, 2023, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2022.2092270.

Liljeström, Rita. “Sukupuolijärjestelmä ja naisten työ.” In Miesten tiede, naisten puuhat: yhteiskuntatieteen kritiikkiä naisten työn näkökulmasta, edited by Liisa Rantalaiho, Tampere: Vastapaino, 1986, 84–108.

Luna, Camilla Pinto, and Denise Franca Barros. “Genderless Fashion: A (Still) Binary Market.” Latin American Business Review vol. 20, no. 3, 2019, 269–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2019.1641412.

Luther Hillman, Betty. Dressing for the Culture Wars: Style and the Politics of Self-Presentation in the 1960s and 1970s. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015.

Malmberg, Raili. “Naisten ja kotien lehdet aikansa kuvastimina.” In Suomen lehdistön historia 8. Aikakauslehdet: yleisaikakauslehdet, edited by Päiviö Tommila, 1991, 191–291. Kuopio: Kustannuskiila.

Maunula, Leena. “Annika Rimala: 40 vuotta tekstiilisuunnittelua.” In Annika Rimala 1960–2000 – väriä arkeen, edited by Leena Maunula and Rebecka Tarschys, Helsinki: Taideteollisuusmuseo, 2000, 10-13.

McCracken, Grant. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.

McRobbie, Angela. Back to Reality? Social Experience and Cultural Studies. Manchester: Manchester U.P., 1997.

Oxford English Dictionary. “Dress.” N.d., accessed August 8, 2024. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/dress_n?tab=meaning_and_use#5979352.

Oxford English Dictionary. “Unisex.” N.d., accessed August 8, 2024. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unisex_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#16675050.

Paoletti, Jo Barraclough, and Carol L. Kregloh. “The Children's Department.” In Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited by Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989, 22-41.

Paoletti, Jo Barraclough. Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.

Paoletti, Jo Barraclough. Sex and Unisex: Fashion, Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015.

Parviainen, Anna. “Neutraalina esitetty maskuliinisuus: sukupuolen epäsymmetrinen visualisointi Marimekon vuosien 1956–1979 unisex-vaatteiden edustuskuvastossa.” Kulttuurintutkimus vol. 40, no. 3, 2023, 4-23.

Ratia, Viljo. “Alkuvuosien kiemuroita.” In Marimekkoilmiö, edited by Hilkka Rahikainen-Haapman, Eeva Kaarakka, and Marja-Terttu Vuorimaa, Espoo: Weilin+Göös, 1986, 23-29.

Reilly, Andrew, and Ben Barry. Crossing Gender Boundaries: Fashion to Create, Disrupt and Transcend. Bristol: Intellect, 2020.

Reilly, Andrew, Jory M. Catalpa, and Jenifer K. McGuire. “Clothing Fit Issues for Trans People.” Fashion Studies vol. 1, no. 2, 2019, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.38055/FS010201.

Rossi, Leena-Maija. Heterotehdas: televisiomainonta sukupuolituotantona. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 2003.

Saarenmaa, Laura, and Iiris Ruoho. “Women’s Magazines in the Nordic Style: Politics, Politicians and the Welfare State.” European Journal of Communication vol. 29, no. 3, 2014, 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114523887.

Saarikoski, Tuula. Armi Ratia: legenda jo eläessään. Porvoo: WSOY, 1977.

Salo, Merja. Muodin ikuistajat: muotivalokuvaus Suomessa. Helsinki: Taideteollinen korkeakoulu, 2005. 

Schreier, Barbara A. “Introduction.” In Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited by Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989, 1-5.

Steele, Valerie. “Appearance and Identity.” In Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited by Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989, 6-21.

Steele, Valerie. Fifty Years of Fashion: New Look to Now. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Töyry, Maija. Varhaiset naistenlehdet ja naisten elämän ristiriidat: neuvotteluja lukijasopimuksesta. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston viestinnän laitos, 2005. 

Vainio, Annina. “Ensimmäinen näytös: vanha äiti.” In Marimekko: suuria kuvioita, edited by Esa Koivuranta, Kati Pehkonen, Tuija Sorjanen, and Annina Vainio. Helsinki: Into, 2015, 23-100.

Vänskä, Annamari. Vikuroivia vilkaisuja: ruumis, sukupuoli, seksuaalisuus ja visuaalisen kulttuurin tutkimus. Helsinki: Taidehistorian seura, 2006. 

Author Bios

Article Citation

Parviainen, Anna. “Representations Created for Women: Marimekko’s Unisex Clothing of 1956-1979 Portrayed in Finnish and Swedish Magazines.” Fashion Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2024, 1-26, https://doi.org/10.38055/FS050203.