Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
Daryl wrote:Personally, even if I were touched by His noodly appendage every time I put on a skirt, I'd still have to wonder what He was trying to tell me.
(note: I capitalise the pronoun not for emphasis but for formality, and use the male gender only because it's obvious since FSM is almost always depicted with meatballs)
Blast! FSM. I really should have seen that coming. (facepalm)
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Daryl wrote:Personally, even if I were touched by His noodly appendage every time I put on a skirt, I'd still have to wonder what He was trying to tell me.
(note: I capitalise the pronoun not for emphasis but for formality, and use the male gender only because it's obvious since FSM is almost always depicted with meatballs)
Blast! FSM. I really should have seen that coming. (facepalm)
moonshadow wrote:I didn't attempt the "why" exercise with Mom, but a about a year or so ago, we did explore the issue, and she admitted to me "I can not find any logical reason for you not to do this, and I've tried!"
Did you thank your Mum and wear a skirt in gratitude?
moonshadow wrote:I have played the "why" card with a few others, the first time was actually the very first co-worker who spotted the photo on facebook. A very fundamental Christian man.
"You're not supposed to wear skirts"
"Says who?"
"God"
Ah! Someone who has a video or audio recording of what God said! His recordings should make him richer than everyone else combined! As an active Christian I would have responded that every man in the Bible (Hebrew and Christian scriptures) wore skirts or dresses, and not a single one of them wore trousers, so why would God tell us that we're not supposed to wear skirts? The Romans conquered the known world wearing micro-minis (a.k.a. togas) and no underwear, and the Greeks did a similar thing, also wearing minis (a.k.a. fustanellas).They didn't have to give up their outfits when they became Christian.
Daryl wrote:
That's the easy one. Leviticus 18:22, the supposed commandment-like teaching against male homosexuality. Of course it doesn't refer to skirts but it is the underpinning of fundamentalist understanding of sex roles and challenging gendered social norms like dress is in the simple fundamentalist mind just the thin end of the same wedge. Essentially, being like a woman in any way is just wrong, for men.
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the usually quoted verse against men wearing skirts, but my learnèd Jewish friends have confirmed that the context shows it had nothing to do with men wearing skirts (they already did every day). The same text was used against women wearing trousers in the 40s, 50s and even 60s, but that's conveniently forgotten these days.
Great reference! I hadn't heard of the FSM. What an excellent creation! I chuckled at the imagined image of Pastafarians arguing with some loony Creationists.
Back on topic, I agree with the "turn the argument around" approach. It's best done politely though, and with respect to the other party. Polite but firm. Yes, the argument is likely to founder on some societal rocks, but pointing out the inherent flaws in such dead end thinking can do no harm. The other party may be resolute in her thinking, but any bystanders may start to see sense.
A man actually said that to me once. I replied "this one does" and kept walking. On reflection, asking 'why' would have been a better response; at least it would have made him think.
Charlie
Great reference! I hadn't heard of the FSM. What an excellent creation! I chuckled at the imagined image of Pastafarians arguing with some loony Creationists.
You know the parallel between our situation with respect to clothing freedom and FSM really struck me. Both our skirting and FSM stand in defiance of a norm that is a reification of an idea. FSM points out that the idea is still just an idea, and we find ourselves needing to point out that "skirts are not for men" is just an idea, too. Reification lends an idea more force -- "it's not just an idea; it's a fact". This hard wall is the one we seem to come up against over and over.
Daryl wrote:
That's the easy one. Leviticus 18:22, the supposed commandment-like teaching against male homosexuality. Of course it doesn't refer to skirts but it is the underpinning of fundamentalist understanding of sex roles and challenging gendered social norms like dress is in the simple fundamentalist mind just the thin end of the same wedge. Essentially, being like a woman in any way is just wrong, for men.
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the usually quoted verse against men wearing skirts, but my learnèd Jewish friends have confirmed that the context shows it had nothing to do with men wearing skirts (they already did every day). The same text was used against women wearing trousers in the 40s, 50s and even 60s, but that's conveniently forgotten these days.
Man, this is why I like to get out of my echochamber every so often. Learn something new every day.