Kicking at a dead horse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonicDaughter

Let's change this argument a bit here, shall we? See the focus seems to always be that because women were denied the right to wear pants that now that they do so, this is a form of crossdressing or what-have-you. The argument that skirts are not male attire is moot because it USE TO BE. Kilts, togas, etc. From Romans to Africans to Scots to Vikings they wore a type of dress/skirt. Just have a gander and fashion over the centuries.

So really the argument is "why isn't it fashionable anymore?" That's really what you are asking. Let me tell you why. Blame the cowboy. See, when America was discovered and began to populate, the trek to the untamed west was considerably harsh. The fashions of the original colonialist wasn't suitable and the birth of "jeans" or "dungarees" was the fastest excepted trend in the history of fashion! It became the ICON for the west and America. It became the symbol of "manliness" and being "macho". It told everyone who saw you that you were more powerful than the untamable west! (How's that for advertising?) Jeans were practical, inexpensive, suitable for all weather and activities.

So your question of why don't women, other men, society, etc. accept you in a skirt but are okay with women in pants, well that's easy. Because it's become commonplace. Just as it use to be common place for men to wear togas, or silk tights (did you know that Queen Elizabeth the First was the first woman to wear silk stockings? And it was considered absolutely scandalous!). It's also been common place for men to wear ruffled shirts and peacock feathers out of their collars, yet you don't argue about acceptance of that anymore. You only want to argue about the fashion that's "taboo" for you personally. But the answer is the same from one to the other. It's not commonplace anymore. For you to have your wish, start fashion trends wearing skirts and fight just as the women did to wear pants.

And I honestly don't know where you get this idea that there is no repercussion for attired based on a persons gender. Least of all from someone who is obviously a goth. As a goth myself, I'm INSTANTLY judged based on my appearance and yet here I am, a GG who can "wear whatever [I] want". Yeah right! Because if I wear a mini-shirt and a guy rapes me, I was really "asking for it" right? No assumptions there based on attire. Or if I dress like a "butch" and rapes me because "all a lesbian needs is a 'real man' to show her how much she likes it", again, it's not because I'm dressed "manly" right? Oh no, because in your little world that doesn't happen. Women can wear tutus on their head and no one bats an eye! Get over yourself. IF IT'S NOT MAINSTREAM IT'S NOT ACCEPTED. End. of. Discussion. Want to wear skirts, wear skirts. Hopefully one day it will be in style again but till then... you REALLY are beating a dead horse.

---

This is a great post...
I think many of the guys here that just like skirts or certain elements of feminine garb are mistaking folks simply not relating to them for not supporting them in their rights to do what they want..

Quote:

---

I think many of the guys here that just like skirts or certain elements of feminine garb are mistaking folks simply not relating to them for not supporting them in their rights to do what they want..

---

That is spot on kaitlyn.

Also DD has some great points there in her post:

Quote:

---

As a goth myself, I'm INSTANTLY judged based on my appearance

---

Quote:

---

IF IT'S NOT MAINSTREAM IT'S NOT ACCEPTED

---

These two stand out to me, growing up being goth it really hits home and i think that it is an extremely valid point in this topic. Growing up being different, you develop these coping mechanisms for how others judge you based on you outward appearance, no matter if its painting my nails black or wearing guyliner....ive been called many terrible things for it. Now in these times Goth and Emo are mainstream.....growing up in the late 80's and early 90's it was extremely taboo....now people barley even notice. Why is this?...its because those of us who stuck to our guns and expressed ourselves how we wished paved the way for a new generation of kids to grow up with maybe a little less judgement from society as a whole. if you dont believe me look up "cosplay mtf" in google images and see the droves of young people being accepted in what was and has been very taboo for a long time. What are they? They are the trend setters on the new generation, paving the way for us who are "different"......

Many have taken an active step to change the world and have been judged harshly for it......what do they do when that happens?.....they keep their chin up and keep struting with a huge smile on their face.

-Donni-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sue101

No thats not the argument at all. This is about gender perception not fashion. It does not matter to which sex certain clothes are attributed to, what matters is that clothes do have a known gender attribute and so they can be used to alter your gender presentation. The argument is why is it when women use clothes with male attributes, this is not considered crossdressing while the same is not true for men.

---

The original post was why can't men wear skirts as men. Not as CDers but specifically as men. So we're not talking about gender presentation, we're talking about the acceptance of ANY gender wearing ANY type of clothing (masculine or feminine attributes aside). And the answer is that it's not commonplace any longer. Men use to wear skirts as men and they wore dress-like attire for centuries. CDing is a different topic as already established in the thread. CDing is wear the clothing of a different gender. As Kim said, she wouldn't want to wear it if it was a male specific skirt or if it were the fashion for men to wear them. She specifically dresses like a woman and thus would only wear what women do.

And I'm not arguing it's validity, btw. I believe the people should be allowed to wear whatever their heart desires regardless of gender, race, age, whatever. But sadly that isn't society and that's not how things work.

Ok DD, it is not concidered mainstream or commonplace. fine, point taken.

So, I am going to ask the GGs here of this forum.

If you knew of a male at your work that was facing disciplinary action because he was sighted outside their job wearing a skirt, which according to some pea head made a "bad representation" to the company, would you come to that guy's defense? (this is considering the outfit was decent, and was not insulting to women). Before you say this has not happened, look up win dixie, man in skirt. He ended up going to court over this incident.

Just because it is not mainstream does not mean we need to continue following the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythos

Ok DD, it is not concidered mainstream or commonplace. fine, point taken.

So, I am going to ask the GGs here of this forum.

If you knew of a male at your work that was facing disciplinary action because he was sighted outside their job wearing a skirt, which according to some pea head made a "bad representation" to the company, would you come to that guy's defense? (this is considering the outfit was decent, and was not insulting to women). Before you say this has not happened, look up win dixie, man in skirt. He ended up going to court over this incident.

Just because it is not mainstream does not mean we need to continue following the status quo.

---

I personally would and have come to the defense of both men and women wearing attire that is considered "inappropriate" for whatever stupid reason. This starting back with me in Junior High School when a good friend of mine would dress like Robert Smith from the Cure. I was almost expelled for my actions but I didn't care. I firmly believe that no one should be penalized for wearing any type of clothing as long as there wasn't an already pre-existing dress code (as I feel that if you signed on knowing about it, you should adhere to it) and it isn't offensive in that it doesn't contain or suggest pornographic images, inappropriate sayings and/or doesn't promote indecent exposure directly or indirectly (indirectly being skirts so short that the person cannot move "normally" without risk of exposing underclothing and/or body parts).

I've been an Efficiency Manager and have specifically argued with several Board of Directors regarding attire policies as they usually want to change or create one based on one person's attempt to go against mainstream. I argue that it stifles individuality and the person's ability to freely express themselves. I've made points about being more comfortable within their job and having the ability to function better because of it. I can agree there may have to be limits depending on the job/business but what people generally wish to wear is usually more upsetting to their co-workers than it is the customers.

I've been following this thread and the companion one. I find everyones thougths on it enlightening. I came across the following. It pertains to two riders one of which crashed out of the most recent MotoGP motorcycle race. After reading it I came to the conclusion with a few changing of words it could be applied to the comments in this thread. You decide.

'...These guys need to be encouraged to race. We have to encourage them to compete, to race. There ase so many restraints in our society, so many things are suppressed for sociall, moral, politically correct reasons and this is sort of the last frontier where these guys go out and race each other on the limit, doing what they love to do and you don't find too many complaining. We always talk about the need for respecting each other and they do. Most of the griping is for advantage to psyche out a rival but they nee to be allowed to race...'

Pythos, I think what you're looking for is support in dressing as you please and the right to do so at work. There's nothing the matter with that. I also believe you are not pleased with the fact that the average person does little to nothing to challenged what is "mainstream" nor defend those that go against it. But the average person doesn't want to risk their job, least of all in this economy where there are literally hundreds of people waiting to jump into their position. Most of those who wish to go against mainstream don't have the funds to hire a lawyer and fight an employer for the right to wear what they like. Perhaps you should look into some local activist groups and possibly find support or offer your own to the cause. You're bound to get far more responses to your liking there than here where so many are in the closet and wouldn't stand up in fear of everyone finding out about them (even if they are out of the closet doesn't mean that's the case at work). Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythos

So, I am going to ask the GGs here of this forum.

If you knew of a male at your work that was facing disciplinary action because he was sighted outside their job wearing a skirt, which according to some pea head made a "bad representation" to the company, would you come to that guy's defense? (this is considering the outfit was decent, and was not insulting to women). Before you say this has not happened, look up win dixie, man in skirt. He ended up going to court over this incident.

---

I would, now. But I wouldn't have if I was the sole supporter for my kids in a poor economy, as DD pointed out.

In regards to pythos' question re: disciplinary action: I would raise a stink about it - but then, I work in the cultural sector funded by government which supposedly ought not to discriminate based on grounds of gender. I'm enough of a feminist to be pissed off when ANYBODY gets told they can't do something because of gender. I can't see my particular department having issues with what a person wears - we dress up in costumes on a regular basis, for goodness' sake; I was really attracted to this field because of the open creativity in it - but if it happened in another part of the structure I would not be happy about it.

It would be different, however, if the said job were something that required a unisex uniform or a coverall of some sort. Safety always comes first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonicDaughter

The original post was why can't men wear skirts as men. Not as CDers but specifically as men. So we're not talking about gender presentation

---

But this goes to the crux of the matter. Men who wear any feminine clothes are still considered crossdressers. Are crossdressers only those who try to pass as women? In which case many crossdressers do not do that. Many only underdress, many only are interested in lingerie, many only use costumes like maids and hooker outfits etc.

You cannot distinguish between crossdressers and men in skirts bcause you cannot ignore the gender attribute clothes have. A man cannot wear a skirt without being aware that changes his gender presentation. Even if he chooses to ignore it himself nobody else will. That is why ordinary men are not interested in wearing any article of feminine wear because of its inherent feminine attribute which is taboo in male society to express. Despite skirts and dresses being comfortable and pratical garments they will never gain any traction in male fashion until society itself changes it's view on men expressing femininity.

You cannot detach gender attibutes from the clothes. We dont live in a world which allows clothes to be genderless.

**Quote modified**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sue101

You cannot detach gender attibutes from the clothes. We dont live in a world which allows clothes to be genderless.

---

And that is why a topic on this site such as this is seen as 'beating a dead horse'...you will get some who agree, some who don't, some who don't care. But when you wake up in the morning and go out the door, nothing has changed. I commend anyone who stands for their beliefs (if not unlawful or crosses the rights of others)..but a man wearing a skirt as a man is not ever going to be to my liking. And in no way are my thoughts hateful or disliking to the individual and I would not treat the person negatively in public or private. I would say Hi and go about my business. Call it bigoted, small minded or any other terms you choose...but its my 'right' to think that way since it hurts no one and does not interferes with their rights. I can just close my door or walk across the street..or whatever.

I have also notice what another stated that on daytime shows when its about fashion, many are 'introducing' their manskirts...just like makeup shows are introducing male eyeliners. But you don't see it in the mainstream..and I doubt you will until a change occurs (if it ever does).

But don't let my thoughts or opinions (there are many like me) stop you from doing what you are compassionate about...

And now I have become caught up in the weave of the 'dead horse' web :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sue101

You cannot detach gender attibutes from the clothes. We dont live in a world which allows clothes to be genderless.

---

It's society that determines gender appropriateness to clothing and that depends on the trends at the time. At one time men wore skirts and dresses without it being considered feminine. Pink was only associated with girls since the 1940s, previously it was blue for girls, pink for boys. Before that, ALL children wore white DRESSES, dress shoes and had their hair uncut until the age of six specifically because it was deemed "proper attire" at the time. Now it's completely unheard of. Why? Because the gender of clothing changes with society's view. Thus a skirt in actuality, has no gender until deemed so by society.

Pythos could have used a clown suit in place of the word skirt to demonstrate his point and it would have worked just the same. The truth is, as long as something isn't commonplace, "normal", mainstream, etc. it will be discriminated against by the majority of society until events change it's importance, significance and/or practicality otherwise. And though I agree that it is unfair that co-workers don't rally behind each other, especially if they are friends, do something similar, wish to share the same freedom of expression, etc. sadly, this doesn't happen nearly as much as it should. Like any change throughout history, it must start somewhere and it must be rallied behind before it will ever be noticed by the masses.

I just wanna say I love DD's posts, I've seen very few posters that can lay out their thoughts as well as she can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyCD

I just wanna say I love DD's posts, I've seen very few posters that can lay out their thoughts as well as she can.

---

*blushes* Thank you. I try to be as plain spoken as possible though sometimes... I seem to accomplish the opposite. LOL!

I agree with you DD. But I think a point to consider is that no matter what is considered masculine vs. feminine clothing, whether it is now, at the turn of the last century, or 18th century France, no matter how feminine looking (by our current standards) men dressed then, if you were a CDer you would not have wanted to wear the things that Louis XVI wore, even with all the lace, tights, and frou-frouness. You would have wanted to dress like Marie Antoinette. It's relative to the fashion of the times.

A point I made earlier is that even if man skirts do make it into the mainstream, there will still be a difference between man and girl skirts and the CDers will continue to prefer wearing the girl skirts and perhaps think it is unfair that others will discriminate against them because they are not instead wearing the man skirts.

The issue is not about what people wear, really. It is getting society to accept there are men and women who wish to cross the gender lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

I agree with you DD. But I think a point to consider is that no matter what is considered masculine vs. feminine clothing, whether it is now, at the turn of the last century, or 18th century France, no matter how feminine looking (by our current standards) men dressed then, if you were a CDer you would not have wanted to wear the things that Louis XVI wore, even with all the lace, tights, and frou-frouness. You would have wanted to dress like Marie Antoinette. It's relative to the fashion of the times.

A point I made earlier is that even if man skirts do make it into the mainstream, there will still be a difference between man and girl skirts and the CDers will continue to prefer wearing the girl skirts and perhaps think it is unfair that others will discriminate against them because they are not instead wearing the man skirts.

---

I agree 100% (and thought I said so earlier but perhaps not), thus why it's society that deems the gender of clothing as well as personal perception. I'm merely trying to give Pythos the answer he seems to be specifically searching for; which has him stating things like it specifically not being a CDing thing or even that it's a feminine article of clothing. I think he's trying to remove certain aspects to get to the root of precise perceptions (primarily of himself, I believe) and making valiant attempts at trying to understand society from society's point of view. A very noble cause though utterly frustrating as the deep philosophical answers we hope to find are often non-existent and end up being something as simple as "that's the way it is". :(

I love you Huntress and you need to get your girly butt here for some vaca! And no, JFK was no DD. LMAO!

The way that attitudes regarding men wearing skirts as men will change is when men are women are accepted as equals in society. Men pay lip service to this concept, but it is still nothing but lip service. Unfortunately, we live in a patriarchal society and masculinity is highly valued while femininity is seen as weakness and is not valued to the same level. Therefore men that emulate women in any way are considered inferior. If society ever values masculinity and femininity as equals, then men will be able to wear skirts as men without facing ridicule. In my case, I will wear what I want to wear even if I am considered to be "less of a man". I would rather be considered "less of a man" than to futility attemtp be something that I am not that ultimately results in depression and anxiety.

Jamie, I think it's deeper than that. In some corporate structures, in the medical field, and also in academia, the gender divide is greatly narrowed if not non-existent, yet all these people go home to their roles as wives and husbands. They still choose to maintain their genders, even if it is the wife who sits on the lawn mower on Saturday morning, and it is the husband who does the laundry. Neither of them wish to present like the opposite gender, and I'm sure they maintain their gender roles in the bedroom too. In today's marriages, I can't honestly picture a husband who feels patriarchal about his wife, who more than likely earns a similar salary. If he did, I don't think she'd go for it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

But I think a point to consider is that no matter what is considered masculine vs. feminine clothing, whether it is now, at the turn of the last century, or 18th century France

---

You beat me to it. DD is right in what she describes about how clothes can switch gender but it is not about the actual clothes nor fashion trends, it is about the gender attribute that item of clothing has here and now. The fact that it may switch again in the future is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

A point I made earlier is that even if man skirts do make it into the mainstream, there will still be a difference between man and girl skirts and the CDers will continue to prefer wearing the girl skirts and perhaps think it is unfair that others will discriminate against them because they are not instead wearing the man skirts.

---

This is at the root of crossdressing. We are chasing femininity, we consume it like it is a drug, it is our elixer to happiness. What we are after is the clothing that has the feminine attribute so male skirts are not desireable assuming they are designed differently. On the other hand if the male skirt was a direct copy then it would not matter if nobody could tell the difference.

QUOTE "I also really really really dislike the idea that men should be limited to kilts"--------------Yes me too I really don't see what all the fuss is about it's only a piece of cloth, what is it with society in 2011 that makes some people find the site of a male wearing female clothes a threat, perhaps in this war-torn violent world we live in if men were allowed to express their more caring feminine side the world would be a far better place.

Just to add a few things not mentioned so much, so far....

Much of what passes for "men's clothing" is job related - a particular "outfit" for a particular job or occupation. Wearing a welder's bib to weld makes sense for any welder, wearing a three piece Brooks Brothers suit would not. Women, when they were allowed to weld for the war effort, could make it look good - see the posters.

Much of what passes for "men's clothing is life related. To "be a man" is to be ready to compete - be it a footrace (after a purse snatcher), a "wrassling match" (catching a purse snatcher), and to bring the food back to the cave: "Here's your purse. Do you know how we can cook and eat this guy?"

Much of what passes for "menswear" is defensive. A dress doesn't do much to keep the hands off your "junk" and it's too easy for someone to grab the blanket wrapped around your waste to hinder you, throw you off balance, etc. Tight fitting, "slippery" clothes - being less of negative - are a defensive advantage.

Fashion is a presentation of availability for a particular purpose. It could be, "See, I'm a competent banker." It could also be, "Come hither." Fashion, therefore, can be a very tricky thing as non-verbal communication. "No, I'm not a banker; I"m going to a funeral." "No, I'm not looking for a date, I just felt like wearing something fun this evening - go away."

For me, men wearing skirts (only) requires a cost/benefit analysis: "Is it worth the probable hassle that comes with various interpretations people have, or, could have?

Frankly, I think it's easier to crossdress fully as it's generally a more easily understood presentation than a "man-a-taur" wearing a skirt and a suit coat....

There are again, no "fashion police" and no "absolute" rights and wrongs when it comes to clothing. But, there is "being reasonable..."

If you want to wear a skirt, thats up to you, but YOU take what comes with it.

What you do about what comes with it, depends on how much effort you want to put into doing what you're doing.

If you want the "rights," you'll need to gather the votes to have and keep them.

"Unalienable rights" are "just" ideas until put into laws and codes - and the "putting" takes more effort than just talking or writing about it now and then - from your password protected computer, hourly hotel room, or, closet sanctuary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joanagreenleaf

Much of what passes for "men's clothing" is job related - a particular "outfit" for a particular job or occupation. Wearing a welder's bib to weld makes sense for any welder, wearing a three piece Brooks Brothers suit would not. Women, when they were allowed to weld for the war effort, could make it look good - see the posters.

---

I know this is a comparatively minor point in your overall post, but I do want to comment. It is a discussion that I have had with my SO. Although I've quoted you, I'm addressing this to everyone.

There is the idea that if the outfit looks good on a woman, it will make a CDer look good too. I've taken the liberty to look for two 'Rosie the Riveter' images. The image on the left is appealing, as you suggest above. The woman is svelte, she is pretty, she has a belt which emphasizes her waist, the pant legs are fashionably sailor-style wide, her breasts protrude, her feet are small, her hat is perched at a cute, cocky angle on her head, she has what looks like rich, brown locks even though her hair is short, her neck is long, and she is wearing bright lipstick. In short, it is an image of an appealing woman (who has a model's body), wearing fashionable looking overalls, despite the welder's image she is portraying. The image next to it is likely what the average looking woman looks like when she wears overalls and her arms have gained muscle from her welding activities ... hardly a look that I think most CDs would want to emulate, although even in this image the woman has attractively arched eyebrows and a feminine shape to her face.

Here's my point: it is not really the outfit that a man may feel looks 'cute' in the first image (compared to the outfit a male would wear), it is the 'feel' of the woman who is wearing it that attracts CDers, IMO. It is her hair, face, body, lips, tiny waist, small feet, etc. True, the outfit is tailored to fit her body. But, put the outfit on an average woman's body and it just doesn't look as good. Yet a CDer during the 40s would have ignored how ordinary women who wore overalls looked and would have preferred to wear the model's welding garb over men's overalls (thinking of the model's body), and further thinking that wearing such an outfit might transform him. If that makes sense.

So, the same is true with catalogue pics and online shopping site images of the clothes as they appear on gorgeous models. Yet put the same clothes on the average genetic male (or even on the average female who has shorter legs, squarer torso, smaller breasts, not a mode's face, and who might not have a well defined waist), and the look is entirely different. To achieve the same results, the CDer must be of similar stature as the model (or his vision of the "ideal" female) that he wishes to emulate. This is a difficult thing to accomplish for the average genetic male, especially if he is older than 25. To accomplish this, he needs to shape his eyebrows, wear forms, cinch his waist with corsets, etc.

I don't know what my point is, really, other than it appears to me that even though the average CDer may think it is all about the clothes, in reality it is about becoming the sexy woman that his guy self admires: the ideal woman who, if she has a model's looks and stature, would look good wearing a burlap bag as long as it was cinched at the waist and showed some leg. If the only images of women dressed in women's clothing ever available were of the average women that don't turn men's heads, I wonder if there would be as many CDers. :)

Or, I may be missing the point entirely here?

The first picture is the first day of work at 7AM when she reported to the assembly line...the second is 6 months later ;)

I agree Reine it is trying to become the attractive person you "imagine" you are. In daily life I have an image in my mind of how I look no matter what mode I am in and then I see a mirror and I know reality. Same with getting dressed up. I have an image of how I look, then I see the photos and although many say I look good I never see the image I want to see. The clothes always look good, it is the wearer (me) who makes them look bad. :)

Lorileah, if you look like your avatar, I seriously doubt that you ever look bad. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

... There is the idea that if the outfit looks good on a woman, it will make a CDer look good too...

Here's my point: it is not really the outfit that a man may feel looks 'cute' in the first image (compared to the outfit a male would wear), it is the 'feel' of the woman who is wearing it that attracts CDers, IMO. It is her hair, face, body, lips, tiny waist, small feet, etc. True, the outfit is tailored to fit her body. But, put the outfit on an average woman's body and it just doesn't look as good. Yet a CDer during the 40s would have ignored how ordinary women who wore overalls looked and would have preferred to wear the model's welding garb over men's overalls (thinking of the model's body), and further thinking that wearing such an outfit might transform him. If that makes sense.

So, the same is true with catalogue pics and online shopping site images of the clothes as they appear on gorgeous models. Yet put the same clothes on the average genetic male (or even on the average female who has shorter legs, squarer torso, smaller breasts, not a mode's face, and who might not have a well defined waist), and the look is entirely different. To achieve the same results, the CDer must be of similar stature as the model (or his vision of the "ideal" female) that he wishes to emulate. This is a difficult thing to accomplish for the average genetic male, especially if he is older than 25. To accomplish this, he needs to shape his eyebrows, wear forms, cinch his waist with corsets, etc.

I don't know what my point is, really, other than it appears to me that even though the average CDer may think it is all about the clothes, in reality it is about becoming the sexy woman that his guy self admires: the ideal woman who, if she has a model's looks and stature, would look good wearing a burlap bag as long as it was cinched at the waist and showed some leg. If the only images of women dressed in women's clothing ever available were of the average women that don't turn men's heads, I wonder if there would be as many CDers. :)

---

I may be missing your point, but it seems to me that women aren't immune to this kind of thinking either. Virtually all the women's catalogs that show up here are filed with the gorgeous, perfect-bodied models you describe above, and these images are there primarily to influence purchases by women.