Are Blue Jeans a Feminist & Lesbian Uniform?

[Rich_L]

An article about women and Bluejeans or should we say lack of skirts.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8444

Would you describe a women in jeans as "Slovenly" "Drab" Unkempt" "Slatternly" "Blowzy"?

There have been a few ladies I have seen that I get the "GID" – "gender identity disorder." vibes from but mostly today I feel they don't want to stand out from their piers.

The writer state GID as:
"GID" – "gender identity disorder." Her jeans are saying: "I don't want to be a woman. I don't want to look I am in a sgood for men. I fear and distrust men. I want male prerogatives."


But does this imply that when I am in a skirt, am I saying "I don't whant to be a man?"

If skirts are fine for men in the east why aren't they fine for men in the west.

The writer feels women shouldget back in dresses.

Rich L

[Pythos]

The writer should shut the hell up.

his saying this kinda nonsense is just as bad as saying a man in a skirt wants to be a woman.

Both views are WRONG. Period.

[Peter v]

Well spoken, Pythos.
I think there is a hidden truth in what he is saying, but he (the writer) is telling only one part of the story, which makes it utter rubbish.

I do believe that women can move more freely in pants, those being easier to take care of, needing less attention than skirts, being practical as in not having to watch every movement not to get into any position at all that might be misconstrued by any man as being a come on... and women are and stay women whatever they are wearing. It is in their face, their movements, their aura that can be seen that they are the fine beings that women mostly are. I do believe that women are less "floaty" fairy, soft like beings when they wear pants. Blending in with the crowd without being a sex object for men's pleasure ( many men can only think SEX and nothing else any way ) practically dissapearing out of sight by wearing pants can be a very deliberate choice. If women were to wear their becomming clothing, and never wear anything else, by rule or law, that would be very one sided sexist by men. As it would be only for the pleasure of the men involved, not for the women.

I do think that women are much more attractive in clothing that accentuates their attractiveness. Sometimes if done well, pants can be very attractive as well, but women in skirts and dresses are the most appealing for me.

[Pythos]

Only thing is, and this is my own and others observations.

Pants emphisize the rear end, and really tight ones show off ones front, far better than a skirt.

Skirts actually hide a woman's true shape, unless it is very tight, but still hides the very bottom of the bum so to say.

Pants, especially the ones women are wearing these days really show the bum's shape, a part I understand women don't want to show.

I just think what this guy is saying is garbage, and garbage spoken by the same generation that said men with long hair are always hippies and druggies.

[crfriend]

Pants emphisize the rear end, and really tight ones show off ones front, far better than a skirt.

Skirts actually hide a woman's true shape, unless it is very tight, but still hides the very bottom of the bum so to say.

This phenomenon has been well known for quite some time, and to put it delicately, a tight pair of trousers on a woman leaves very little to the imagination. I'm surprised that the current style is for such form-fitting stuff because on the majority of the population it's really not flattering at all. True, those with perfect physiques can pull the look off -- dangerously well -- but the average woman just can't; why the average 30+ pounds-over-optimal (note I did not say, "ideal" as that's a fantasy) weight puts up with what amount to sausage-skins I cannot imagine. I know I certainly wouldn't!

Skirts, on the other hand, leave quite a bit to the imagination, and part of that is the way they can be constructed. Of course they're open at the bottom, so that tends to put the imagination in gear, and whilst they conceal the wearer's true shape (in a way that trousers just cannot) they also reveal parts of it at any given time by virtue of the way they move. This has the effect of revealing the underlying shape, but not in the (somewhat vulgar) manner that tight trousers do.

My hat's off to those with perfect bodies (both women and men), and if you've got it you may as well flaunt it. However, I am long past that part of my life and need all the cover I can lay my hands on (although Sapphire might disagree just a wee bit).

I just think what this guy is saying is garbage, and garbage spoken by the same generation that said men with long hair are always hippies and druggies.

I read the article, and didn't think it deserved being dignified by a response. The author's credibility was also not enhanced by the other stuff that was in the surrounding space. I suppose I'm just not a big one for "conspiracy theory"; conspiracy is an obsolete concept in this day and age -- just state your intent, fiddle with any inconvenient laws (or ignore them), and get on with your agenda. It works in Washington!

[Since1982]

I know this probably seems impossible, but for a change I actually agree with the gist of Pythos' comments, I'd not be quite so blunt with them but, I'm not Pythos.

In my opinion, jeans or any trousers, are better for women IF they CHOOSE to wear them, jeans better fit a female's anatomy, transversely, skirts are better for men IF they CHOOSE to wear them, skirts better fit a male's anatomy. I for one, definitely do NOT MISS having a rough seam slicing into my tenderer body parts and making me stand up at least 5 times an hour at Bingo to "shake out my plumbing" and sit back down.

As far as Pythos' feelings about the writer, umm yes..I agree, but not so bluntly.

[Departed Member]

Only thing is, and this is my own and others observations.

Pants emphisize the rear end, and really tight ones show off ones front, far better than a skirt.
Skirts actually hide a woman's true shape, unless it is very tight, but still hides the very bottom of the bum so to say.
Pants, especially the ones women are wearing these days really show the bum's shape, a part I understand women don't want to show.

Pythos, this is yet another of those occasions I have to agree with you, 100%!

[Uncle Al]

<snip>
This phenomenon has been well known for quite some time, and to put it delicately,
a tight pair of trousers on a woman leaves very little to the imagination. I'm surprised
that the current style is for such form-fitting stuff because on the majority of the
population it's really not flattering at all. .

Too many times I've seen women in pants, who appeared to have been
'poured into them', were 'over-flowing' the pants.
If they want 'skin tight' why not just wear leotards. Everything is
covered, and there is total freedom of movement.
( Oh yes, the above mentioned bulge battle )

Sarcastically yours,

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Peter v]

Although pants most often do not flatter, being far to tight, too low, the legged garment does give some freedom of movement , uncomplicated "movment", ( not having anything to do with actual movement in the garment itself) without the danger of exposing certain parts. Ask women, and men. Ordinary pants also allow the more ordinary functional shoe, which is often more practical than pumps etc. Thus they are not so much worn by women to show their nice body ( very often as stated the reverse, ) except the select few, but just for "ease". Even though skirts are of course a much more free wearing garment. I don't even want to think about men, far too fat, beer bellies, with jeans revealing their "slipway",
bellies hanging way over, but nobody talks about that..

That is no sight to see. Men with beer bellies hanging over skirts are not much different.

[sapphire]

The writer of the article is full of unmentionable garbage.

The other day Carl and I were talking about his recent weekend adventure at work and he mentioned that in one of the cabling chores he did, the skirt was an encumberance to him.

Now, "back in the day" when I did that sort of computer cabling, I wore trousers, nice ones. When one is required to slither on the floor to get machines cabled together, a skirt is inappropriate. At that time in my career, not only was I required to lie on the floor and do cable work, but I frequently went about with cables over my shoulders and screwdrivers in my pockets, something that just wasn't appropriate for a skirt.

At the same time, at home, I was building a stone wall to enclose my garden. A skirt would have been cumbersome, so I dressed in sturdy jeans and sturdy shoes and wore very unflattering heavy work gloves.

None of that turned me into a lesbian.

[Skirt Chaser]

The author of that article has good reason to undermine feminism and freedom to wear clothes that don't follow strict gender lines. Hyperconservative writers such as Henry Makow need to emphasize the oppositeness of men and women to support their orderly world of women being subservient to men. If people are pretty much the same then why must the man be the leader of the family? Best not to ponder that if you are in Makow's family. Certainly men who wear skirts challenge that worldview too. Thank you guys of the cafe!

Makow's argument for why women should wear dresses is summarized as women will look better to men and will be treated better because of that. I can see how he's limiting his audience to the people that want to buy into the idea that the world was better when women knew their place. That and it sells books. You wonder if these people believe what they rave about or if it is just a way to get money out of the people that sadly will believe it.

[Peter v]

Thank you skirt chaser, well spoken, that sums it up pretty much.
Unfortunately a lot of garbage gets read and possibly by people who aren't able to distinguish that it is infact garbage, and accept that to be true, only making things worse than they were before.

There is thankfully a fredom of speech, but that doesn't make things which are actually discriminative or bordering on, right to be widely spread.

Perhaps the clue is to present what WE think is the truth, and hope that people will know THAT and thereby can distinguish between "right and wrong". But that is wishful thinking.

Only commenting on the negative input from others alone gets us nowhere. We or any others for that matter, do best to present things as we think they are, be a step ahead, and hope that THAT gets read and thereby balancing public influence in our favour.

[Departed Member]

Blue Jeans? The Uniform of "Boredom Lives Here"!

[Jock]

In a 100 years from now it will all be different. Women in jeans is today's "normality".

I too think that jeans always look awful - the term "smart jeans" is an oxymoron. They are after all said and done practical workwear.

The bit that still fazes me is the "waist disconnect" - absolute glamour in hair, makeup, upper body clothing, and scruffwear on the lower body. These days I only look at women above the waist - perhaps that is their intention?

As a final thought will we see the Donkey Jacket and wellies added too as Winter draws on?

[Sarongman]

Well, after a good laugh. I have to concur with the previous posters. According to this theory, nearly all women (excepting the Excusive Brethren and other fundamentalist sects that twist, pull out of context and unduly emphasize passages of the Bible in order to use it as a heavy blunt weapon.) Nearly all women, ah say,(wish there was an emoticon of Foghorn Leghorn!) must be, a priori, lesbian feminists