On Language

[crfriend]

I recall some years ago having a very interesting discussion with Bob about the "language of fashion" as it pertains to men in skirts, and I'm going to use that as a building block for what I write below. The intent is to strike two nails on the head in one swat, so bear with the author if he misses once or twice (or hits his thumb).

Every time a man "shoves both legs down one pipe instead of two" he's making a statement -- he's saying something -- and quite possibly that something is important. How, then, to get a "listener" to "hear" the message in a sonorous way rather than something discordant. The same notion holds true in our spoken and written language -- how do we present the notion of skirts on men as legitimate garb and worthy of emulation? The two notions, I admit, seem disparate at first blush, but are they really?

In the visual world, the way we dress speaks volumes about who we are, how we feel, and where we feel our place in the world is. This is attenuated somewhat with the advent of uniform (jeans, t-shirts, whatever everybody else is wearing) but subtle personalisations of "uniform" can have profound effects on the people around us. What we do when we swap trousers -- which are the lingua-franca for men in the Western world -- for skirts is even more profound: we're turning the very "language of fashion" on its head, and we're manipulating it in ways that are rare indeed. What, then is it that we're "saying"? Are we "saying" what we intend? Is our message on-target?

In the linguistic world, which has every bit as much baggage as the "fashion" world, we see the same issues. In a very real sense, we're stuck with the word "skirt" and we're just going to have to deal with that; but what does it say to others when we describe ourselves as wearing pantyhose and other items that are indelibly understood to be women's garments only? Do we do ourselves any favours, or do we pander to those who would lump us in with fetishists and perverts? I posit not. The question from the previous paragraph needs repeating: "What are we saying?" Is what we're saying going to be interpreted in the manner we desire? Are we getting the right message across?

It's worth noting that no matter how "advanced" each of the above notions fancies itself, both are profoundly hide-bound in their outlook. Linguistic patterns change in permanent ways very slowly, and fashion -- or at least fashion that isn't designed for the sole purpose of shock -- changes similarly slowly. That's why linguistic idioms can last for centuries and why there are items of clothing that are considered "timeless" and appropriate in most any setting.

So, "What are we trying to say?" Are we saying that we do not care what we look like and that we do not care what others think of us when we put something on in the morning? Are we saying that we do not care that we'll get lumped in with perverts when we dwell in writing (or speech) about our undergarments? This author would really like to think, "NO" on both counts. I would like to think that we care about our appearance, care about the world's opinion of us, and care about our fellow man's sensitivities when we turn accepted fashion culture on its head -- just as much as I'd like to think that we can get beyond the use of overtly feminized (and, as another writer pointed out, infantilised) terms for the clothing that we wear. We can do better. Not only can we do better, we need to and deserve to.

[Kirbstone]

When I was about 12 years old there was held in our village a big fancy dress parade for children as part of a large Summer fete. For this my mother hired two outfits for my nearest-in-age brother and myself.
He was a pirate captain, with bright jacket, tricorn hat with jolly roger and baggy black pantaloons stuffed into high boots, eye patch & sword &c.
I was Robin Hood dressed in green thick tights, soft shoes and a belted tunic reaching to mid thigh from the shoulders,little soft cock hat, quiver & bow, of course.
The other day a lady came in to see me professionally dressed just like that, albeit in darker colours, minus the bow & arrows. We chatted and I couldn't help remarking that her outfit, nice though it was, was male attire in Robin Hood's time ! She agreed.
Just tonight my younger son and spouse turned up to drop little grandson off on their way to a big concert. She was dressed like 'Robin Hood' only the tights were black and the 'tunic' was silver.

....The language of fashion.

[Don]

In my mind, there is a GREAT DEAL to be learned from the "Women in Pants" movement, which had its start circa 1967. Women have always been allowed to wear pants, but there were tight constraints involved. One would expect a pants-clad woman plowing the north 40 or riveting the wings onto a B17!

1967 changed all that! At that time, pants suddenly became acceptable for women at ALL levels of dress! It suddenly became possible for a hip, sophisticated woman to go thru life without owning a dress or a skirt! Observe that there was NO revolution, and not a single skirt-burning incident! Pants for women just happened, and EVERYONE was delighted!

How did this happen? and perhaps more significantly, what can the MIS movement learn from it? There are two keys, in my mind.

First, the women showed the world a VERY ATTRACTIVE package. The pants they chose flattered their beautiful, curvy bodies in a way that EVERYONE appreciated! Hey, what was not to like???

Second, the women DIDN'T challenge the prevailing notion of "femininity" in their selection of pants. Their prints were very much "nature" oriented, they had beautiful, fleexable "spandex" materials, and ion general, their pants resembled their skirts!

So, what issues raise their heads here?? How to show the world a "very attractive package"? How to "masculinize" the skirt???

Don
OAkland, NJ

[AMM]

So, "What are we trying to say?" Are we saying that we do not care what we look like and that we do not care what others think of us when we put something on in the morning? Are we saying that we do not care that we'll get lumped in with perverts when we dwell in writing (or speech) about our undergarments?

Two (mostly unrelated) thoughts:

1. Language requires that both the "speaker" and the "listner" interpret the "utterance" the same way. If you start speaking with words that most people haven't heard before, or have never heard in anything like the context you're using them in, they are not going to understand you. Imagine if the conductor on your commuter train started making announcements like you hear on an airplane -- you'd wonder if the on-board electronics had gotten messed up or the conductor had forgotten his thorazine or something. Men wearing clothing that most people have only ever seen on women are in a similar situation.

2. As I mentioned in a different thread, what most of the people at the SkirtCafe are apparently trying to say is "I'm not a woman, or even trying to look like one." Otherwise, why would the most common comment about another man's outfit here be about whether the outfit "looks masculine"? Even out in the Real World(tm), it's comical -- or maybe pathetic -- how obsessed most men seem to be with proving that they're really men. (You'd think an occasional look down one's pants -- or under one's kilt -- would answer that pretty conclusively )

[Since1982]

Udderly well said, Carl! You have a udderly clear grasp of the Americanized English Language. Smooth as budder.

[Stu]

it's comical -- or maybe pathetic -- how obsessed most men seem to be with proving that they're really men

I wouldn't go that far. If I am wearing conventional male attire, there is no issue - no-one is ever going to question my masculitity. If, on the other hand, I am wearing a garment which is either normally worn only by women, or even is something expressly designed and sold as womenswear, then I do have to be a bit careful to make sure that, in all other respects, I am presenting myself as entirely and unequivocally male. To do otherwise would make me feel as though I were venturing into crossdressing territory, and that is definitely not my thing!

I think we need to be constantly challenging the limitations which are placed on men in terms of appearance, but that has to be done piecemeal, with due respect shown to the cultural environment and prevailing norms. If we challenge the limitations by a full assault on the culture and norms, we will be perceived either as eccentrics (and some guys in skirts most certainly are eccentrics) or guys in denial about their gender issues (and some chaps who wear skirts may very well have such issues).

Changing public attitudes so that a guy in a skirt is no big deal is a mammoth task for allkinds of reasons which have been explored repeatedly on this site since its very inception. It is a mammoth task not unlike having to eat a whole mammoth - and how does one eat a mammoth? Answer - a little bit at a time.

Stu

[STEVIE]

Hi Carl and very thought provoking this post is, sorry to sound like Yoda.
There are all manner of cliches which I could add but that would not be right, originality deserves the same in return.
I have tried to take some time to compose a suitable additition to what you are saying.
In reality, most of us are not in any position to realistically ignore the people around us whether it is family, friends or the wider communities we live in. To do so, is very much at one's own peril and maybe that of our nearest and dearest. Fashion, according, to my son, who is wiser in years beyond me, may catch up with us "blokes in skirts" sooner than we think. We can but hope.
Then the language we use, words are so powerful, that they can become a "fetish" in themselves. Some repeated use of certain "key phrases" here and elsewhere would seem to bear this out. From my own experience, they vary somewhat at this side of the pond but the principle is identical. I don't really feel the need to repeat or give examples here, but I am sure my countrymen will have some good ideas.
The change we seek will be slow and if we are reasonably careful it may also be sure, we must be mindful of all those around us, it simply cannot be any other way, if we are to live our lives as we wish
On a quite separate note, women first wore "trousers" on stage as a form of "tittilation", female legs, bifurcated were considered quite erotic. The practical considerations for most women came in the First and Second World Wars as they had to do jobs which simply demanded the degree of protection and safety which only trousers can afford.
I can only hope this is not too much of a ramble.
Steve.
p.s. I hope it's O.K. to call you Carl.

[crfriend]

I hope it's O.K. to call you Carl.

Call me Carl. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- my progenitors thought it a good and worthy title and named me so. I hold no grudges on this matter, nor do I have any reason to do so, because the name has served me well for a good many years.

I have tried to take some time to compose a suitable additition to what you are saying.

In reality, most of us are not in any position to realistically ignore the people around us whether it is family, friends or the wider communities we live in. To do so, is very much at one's own peril and maybe that of our nearest and dearest.

That sentiment is very much the one I tried to define -- for in almost every way, we are constrained, whether we like it or not, to conform to the perceived norm, and those who are nearest and dearest to us are subject to the same pressures and may be adversely affected by our sartorial whims. This is why I feel so strongly that we "must get it right" and transmit a cogent and believeable message that we, as men, can not only wear skirts in public but also look damned good doing so and can command attention and respect.

Fashion, according, to my son, who is wiser in years beyond me, may catch up with us "blokes in skirts" sooner than we think. We can but hope.

"Fashion" is taken by more than a few blokes as a dirty word, or at the very least a notion that at best describes something fleeting to be replaced in the next few moments by something equally ephemeral. Personally, I use the word "fashion" as a synonym for "style", and we have many examples of styles that can be timeless and work irrespective of when we happen to be. "Unbirfucated" garments for guys used to be (and still are in many parts of the world) commonplace; we, as citizens of "Western Culture", however, do not seem to be granted the option and therefore muse seize it. But in doing so, we must not jar the onlooker into an overt negative reaction.

Then the language we use, words are so powerful, that they can become a "fetish" in themselves. Some repeated use of certain "key phrases" here and elsewhere would seem to bear this out. From my own experience, they vary somewhat at this side of the pond but the principle is identical.

That's the reason I wrote my piece above -- I wanted folks to think about how they use the language, to be aware of its nuances and pitfalls, and to be aware of the assorted baggage that it carries with it. If we're not careful with our use, we may transmit incorrect information or our listeners/observers may intrepret our message incorrectly.

Social change frequently happens at a glacial pace, so we must be patient; however, recall that glaciers don't move of their own free will -- they have a force acting on them that makes them move. We need to be the force that may, hopefully, shift social perceptions when it comes to men in skirts.