What's so bad about a boy who wants to wear a dress?

[Stevie D]

Excellent, well-written and thought-provoking article from the NY Times. I am heartened by the enlightened approach taken by these children's parents.

Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/magaz ... dress.html

Related slide show:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/0 ... magazine#1

I wish these attitudes had been prevalent when I was a child.
Stevie D

[RichardA]

I hope he gets his/her life sorted

[janrok]

Impressive and enchanting pictures. I love their parents for being so understanding.

Jan.

[crfriend]

One of the things I consistently find repulsive and revolting about press coverage of matters like this is that they positively insist on confusing curiosity and experimentation with confusion over gender and sex. It took years, but even that maven of the psychological world -- Freud -- eventually had to concede that, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." And so it should be with clothing, and hence there should not be this incessant "overloading" of the topic.

A quick observation of the sorts of typical male attire that is affordable -- and hence accessible -- to the average male should naturally give rise to questions:

Why are the fabrics in the construction almost universally heavy and frequently harsh to the touch?
Why are male clothes so seemingly rigid that they cannot move on their own accord even in a high wind?
Given male anatomy, why is it that we insist on putting a wedge of fabric precisely where the sensitive bits are?

I find it difficult to imagine a young lad not comparing his own wardrobe with those of the girls around him. He's got rigid scratchy stuff whereas the girls have fluid soft fabrics to work with. Where he has stuff that sticks to him, frequently when he least wants it to, the girls have stuff that floats and flows. When he's sweating his ****s off in his long trousers, the girls have lightweight skirts that let the air in. That more young guys don't ask those questions, and demand proper and rational answers, baffles me; but then again, they'd just get kicked by their fathers (or, worse, their mothers) for being "less than manly" so they don't question and merely plod along. Then they become adults and fathers, and so the cycle repeats.

I really wish that folks could stand back and disconnect gender and sexuality -- there, I've gone and said it -- from something so simple as a choice of clothing. It's trivially easy to make that connection, but in doing so it's keeping reason and thought from the mix, and that just hurts the search for truth. Instead of going for complex "solutions" to the "problem", why not start by asking the simple ones?

[Sarongman]

Thank you Carl, that was so completely and eloquently put that there need be no more to be added. It's just a pity that the general public doesn't take it's ostrich head out of the sand and think!

[r.m.anderson]

I have a neat DVD video "The Dress Code" where a young man wears a dress (&tutu).
Can be found on ebay from time to time: present LINK:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid= ... E&_sacat=0
"A comedy that is long on orginality and short on pants" !
If you get a chance to rent or own it - do it - your will enjoy it !

rma

[MrUtopia]

I wish, when I was young, that society accepted a boy who liked girl style clothing and some 'feminine' activities like child nurturing and drama but was still a boy, did not like aggression or mechanics but was still a boy. Maybe many things in my life would be different.

Well put crfriend.

Peter

[crfriend]

Thank you Carl, that was so completely and eloquently put that there need be no more to be added.

Thanks.

The thing that goads me worst on the matter is the not-so-subtle subtext that just because a guy wants to step outside the straitjacket of "men's" styles and fabrics that there must be something intrinsically sexually wrong with him -- and each and every article like the one above strongly hints at that. Even society is conditioned (possibly via inputs as above) to react to a guy in a skirt like he's got something wrong with him (another subtext to that is that "the sickness" can be "fixed" by psychological violence, deprivation, or even physical violence); this is, most likely, the reason that guys hide things or go the full crossdressing route. I also suspect it's a prime driver of the notion of "shame" that so clouds the vision of those close to the man in question.

This is the major reason that the moment that the first hint of "Are you exploring your femin..." or "Are you transitioni.." comes up I shut it down with a comment of, "There is no subtext to this; this is a style and comfort chioce." With that out of the way, the path is then clear (reasonably) for a rational discussion on the matter rather than somebody trying to arrive at a "diagnosis" so I can be "fixed". If the other person insists on returning to the theme, I'll try once or twice to reinforce the "No Subtext" truth of the matter and if they persist, I assume that they clearly cannot wrap their heads around the notion and abandon any attempt at conversation with them.

[Stevie D]

The thing that goads me worst on the matter is the not-so-subtle subtext that just because a guy wants to step outside the straitjacket of "men's" styles and fabrics that there must be something intrinsically sexually wrong with him -- and each and every article like the one above strongly hints at that. Even society is conditioned (possibly via inputs as above) to react to a guy in a skirt like he's got something wrong with him (another subtext to that is that "the sickness" can be "fixed" by psychological violence, deprivation, or even physical violence); this is, most likely, the reason that guys hide things or go the full crossdressing route.

Perhaps it's me misinterpreting it, but I didn't understand the article in the same way. Whilst a fair proportion of the article does explore the usual western societal responses to someone (particularly young boys) not conforming to gender expectations with their clothing choices, it seems to me that this is done in a sort of 'devil's advocate' way, moving towards challenging the stereotype that there must be some degree of gender dysphoria in the subject, just because they want to wear girly clothes. However, as the article moves to its conclusion, it becomes clearer that for some of the children at least, it is wanting the freedom to wear what takes their fancy for whatever reason (comfort, fun, colour, texture, prettiness) but still clearly not wishing to be anything other than boys. I think the article supports that point of view quite nicely indeed, and that's why I liked it and thought it was well done.

[crfriend]

[... A]s the article moves to its conclusion, it becomes clearer that for some of the children at least, it is wanting the freedom to wear what takes their fancy for whatever reason (comfort, fun, colour, texture, prettiness) but still clearly not wishing to be anything other than boys. I think the article supports that point of view quite nicely indeed, and that's why I liked it and thought it was well done.

The pity is that the article, right to the very end, continued to harp on the issue of gender. What happens if we can divorce the notion of clothing from the notion of gender? That would certainly shake things up a bit for it will reveal all the fundamental expectations we heap atop the notion of "conformance", and if -- just for a moment -- it made people think it would have been worth the exercise. But I have never -- not even once -- seen an article writen by a psychological professional or journalist that did not conflate clothing or other superficial appearance choices with gender or sex.

I do not know whether the media reinforces society's notion of "gender" and what's "right" and "wrong" or whether it's the other way 'round. Certainly in the past hundred years the range of expression available to girls and women have multipled and those for boys and men have dwindled, likely driven at both ends of the media/society complex in a spiral that feeds upon itself. My grandfather could not get it out of his head that I was somehow "wrong" or "abnormal" (and I love how that term is overloaded) because I had long hair; he was convinced that I was either homosexual or "less than a man" (despite me having girlfriends and ultimately a very successful 20+ and continuing relationship with a wonderful woman). He's long dead now, but the pain inflicted is memorable, not just for the harassment but also for the fact that an otherwise brilliant man could sink to such depths. What ever happened to the old cliches of, "Never judge a book by its cover." or "Apperances can be deceiving.'? Why do we as a society immediately jump to the complex, and highly charged, notion of sexuality by virtue of simple appearance? Would it not make more sense to look at simple questions first?

[Stevie D]

The pity is that the article, right to the very end, continued to harp on the issue of gender. What happens if we can divorce the notion of clothing from the notion of gender? That would certainly shake things up a bit for it will reveal all the fundamental expectations we heap atop the notion of "conformance", and if -- just for a moment -- it made people think it would have been worth the exercise. But I have never -- not even once -- seen an article writen by a psychological professional or journalist that did not conflate clothing or other superficial appearance choices with gender or sex.

I think that only goes to show how deeply rooted and visceral are most people's ideas of gender and sexuality, especially for men. As we are all aware, in western societies women can wear trousers, and men's clothes generally and very few people would be confused by the woman's gender, nor jump to the immediate and probable erroneous conclusion that the woman was a lesbian. But for men, there is a long way yet to go before they will be able claim the same degree of freedom from unwanted associations of clothing, gender and sexuality. I believe the situation is better than it was some years back, and maybe it is easier in some countries (e.g. parts of the UK and Europe, Japan) than others.

I do not know whether the media reinforces society's notion of "gender" and what's "right" and "wrong" or whether it's the other way 'round. Certainly in the past hundred years the range of expression available to girls and women have multipled and those for boys and men have dwindled, likely driven at both ends of the media/society complex in a spiral that feeds upon itself.

By and large, the media has just one purpose - to sell copy, either by running sensational stories ('wow! just look at that - a man in a dress! Doesn't he look silly!'), or by telling people what they want to hear and reinforcing their beliefs ('look out, there's a man in a dress - he must be gay/perverted/mentally ill).

Why do we as a society immediately jump to the complex, and highly charged, notion of sexuality by virtue of simple appearance? Would it not make more sense to look at simple questions first?

Totally agree. But, as mentioned in my first response I think it is slowly improving in some parts.

Question: When women seem largely to have overcome it for themselves, exactly why is the whole idea of conflation of clothing, gender and sexuality such a huge issue for men? What are we afraid of?

[couyalair]

It's all Freud's fault!

The French philosopher Michel Onfray enjoys debunking commonly held opinions and prejudices. He has very effectively shown that established religions have not a foot to stand on when faith is replaced my logical reasoning. This year he has treated Freudian sectarians the same way, and in lectures he has also attacked communism (never a faith in GB or USA, perhaps, but in postwar France it became for many an unshakable (an unarguable) article of faith.

Unfortunately, it took a long time before Freud's theories were questioned, and they have found their way into popular thinking (if that is the right word). Everyone wants to show of his "knowledge" explaining this and that by some odd sexual experience in distant childhood, and so on. A pity Freud had never traveled far enough to realize that children in one-room homes the world over witnessed and grew up with what ever their parents would do with each other's bodies. Let us hope that Freudianism is finally confined to the oddities of history and that society can liberate it's powers of reasoning. With luck, there will be less conflict, both beetween indivuals and within indivual psyches.

Personally I feel that, although we are programmed to attract/be attracted by the other sex (for the sake of the future of the species), or maybe any human body with which to simulate procreation, our intellect (or perhaps our education) frequently prevents us from going through with our inclinations. Instinct makes a woman's body want to be inseminated, but intellectually she prefers to choose the agent, and she will dominate her urges until prince charming comes along. Whether it is instinct or mere fashion that makes girls wear figure-revealing (or flesh-revealing) clothes, I do not know -- both I think. Men, too, love to get their shirts off, but in our case, fashion and convention keep us covered up except on the beach or a building site; convention, but also, I think, a fear of attracting the wrong person -- we may not want to go through with every sexual encounter. This is how I would explain men's refusal to wear feminine clothes, which are deigned to show the body and attract another body. We don't want to be hit on by a man or a woman that does not fit our personal preferences.

The different rules for men and women are very obvious here in Spain, where TV comperes, males, are always in suits (how they must sweat with excessive lighting!), and females always in low-cut tops and minimal coverage (how they must shiver, if there is air-conditioning!). The role of the girls apparently is to look sexy; the role of the men is not to.

All this to show that I think along the same lines as Carl, who has elequently outlined his feelings about the overloading of innocent actions with sexual significance.

Martin

[crfriend]

I believe the situation is better than it was some years back, and maybe it is easier in some countries (e.g. parts of the UK and Europe, Japan) than others.

I will not dispute that notion, as donning a skirt in public is something that I would not have even contemplated during the '80s or '90s. I'm not sure what the driver is, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the rotten economy plays a role in it as folks just hunker down and try to keep their heads above water and, likely view the skirt-wearing guy as a lightning-rod that may attract the bolt to him rather than them. I can't talk authoritatively about the European or Japanese level of acceptance, but here in the northeast US there at least seems to be tolerance and, sometimes, overt acceptance.

By and large, the media has just one purpose - to sell copy, either by running sensational stories ('wow! just look at that - a man in a dress! Doesn't he look silly!'), or by telling people what they want to hear and reinforcing their beliefs ('look out, there's a man in a dress - he must be gay/perverted/mentally ill).

Indeed, but it also has the power to shape opinions and behaviours. I recall in the very early '80s when I, for a short time, lived with my first girlfriend she became engrossed in "daytime TV drama" (aka "soap operas") and came out of that believing that it was perfectly normal and acceptable to sleep with anybody and everybody. The relationship unravelled pretty quickly after that leaving me with some rather nasty scarring.

Question: When women seem largely to have overcome it for themselves, exactly why is the whole idea of conflation of clothing, gender and sexuality such a huge issue for men? What are we afraid of?

This is one of the core issues we here at Skirt Cafe are grappling with. Some of it may be down to an expectation that men be ready for action at any time (in whatever situation may be), and to be inerrant. This is obviously impossible, as men are mere humans, but men get thought less of if they don't live up to that stereotype; this means that they can never let their guard down, be seen to fail publically, or even to look particularly different than what the media of the day portrays as the "look" of that stereotype. Of course, this leads to massive levels of insecurity, and one of the earliest lessons gained in the schoolyard is that one can always -- always -- get a rise out of a guy by calling him out as being "less than masculine" as that implies fallibility and weakness. Sadly, that behaviour persists into adulthood, if not maturity, and guys likely remain jittery about it deep down. Rationally, of course, it's rubbish -- "hot air from a buffoon" -- but emotionally it can still cause problems.

[Stu]

I think there are two quite discrete issues here and we should be careful not to conflate them.

On the one hand, there are the "gender variant" kids, for whom dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is simply cross dressing. That is not in any way to demean their desires to dress as the opposite sex; it is an affirmation of the fact that they identify with the opposite sex. On the other hand, there are children who simply like to wear particular styles which are conventionally associated with the opposite sex, either out of curiosity or because they are experimenting with their identities.

The first group will undoubtedly need professional help to resolve the issues they have and there is little in their lives and experiences which are relevant to our interests. When a boy in this group wears a dress, he is not saying "I am a boy in a dress" he is saying "I am a girl and I want the world to know that".

The second group will not usually require professional help and their behaviour is well within the range of what is normal. This group will feel very much at home in Scandinavia and, in particular, here in Sweden. I have students who work or have worked in childrenswear shops and they will tell you that it is by no means unusual for a boy to point to a dress or skirt and say they want it, and for their mother to let them try it on and to buy it for them. These little boys might or might not play at being female - but they have no wish to be perceived as girls as a general rule. Similarly, many nursery teachers will tell you that it is not too unusual for a small boy to turn up wearing a dress and, when that happens, it is mostly not an issue with the other children. This development certainly is relevant to our interests because it undermines the great edifice we have been confronting which says that no male can ever wear an unbifurcated garment. To these boys, their parents and teachers, a boy in a dress simply isn't a big deal. It has other spin-offs, too. Many younger children's clothes shops here simply sell children's clothes - no boys' section and girls' section: just kids' clothes. If this can eventually extend to the older children's section, then that will be yet another crack in the metaphorical edifice. Team that up with a wider availability of men's kilts, sarongs, walking skirts and so on, and the edifice will eventually collapse, meaning that skirts will be as natural a garment in the men's section of any store as it is in the women's section.

Then there will be little point in having a "skirtcafe".

Stu

[skirtyscot]

I think there are two quite discrete issues here and we should be careful not to conflate them... On the one hand, there are the "gender variant" kids, for whom dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is simply cross dressing. ... On the other hand, there are children who simply like to wear particular styles which are conventionally associated with the opposite sex, either out of curiosity or because they are experimenting with their identities.

The second group ... will feel very much at home in Scandinavia and, in particular, here in Sweden. I have students who work or have worked in childrenswear shops and they will tell you that it is by no means unusual for a boy to point to a dress or skirt and say they want it, and for their mother to let them try it on and to buy it for them. ... Similarly, many nursery teachers will tell you that it is not too unusual for a small boy to turn up wearing a dress and, when that happens, it is mostly not an issue with the other children. ... To these boys, their parents and teachers, a boy in a dress simply isn't a big deal.

Another reason to go there! Having been to Sweden three times, the only big downside I can think of is the price of beer!

Mind you, in Gothenburg this year, I detected pretty much the same ratio of funny looks to people not appearing to notice (or care?) as anywhere else.

the edifice will eventually collapse, meaning that skirts will be as natural a garment in the men's section of any store as it is in the women's section. Then there will be little point in having a "skirtcafe".

I suppose the aim of SkirtCafe is to make itself obsolete. Roll on the day when that happens!