The right time is now

[crfriend]

Shall we revert to those times? They weren't too far in history, not only could a man not express himself freely, but in many cases he couldn't even be a customer!

In typical fashion, you'll find that my solid answer is vastly more nuanced than the original thought might have stated.

Yes, those times are not all that far in the past, but, even in those times, if one was a member of an "unpopular group" (pick your own definition for that) and the locality you were in was that hostile to you, then you usually had the option to relocate to somewhere that the "unpopular" status was lessened. Even today, if I was faced with something along the lines of "We don't serve your type here." I'd bid the establishment an "Adieu. Have a nice day." and merely go my way never to return again and to comment about the matter to others. Note that I am not comparing any plight we might have to, say, what "folks of colour" faced not all that long ago, because we have the option to camouflage ourselves by "dressing normal" because what we're doing involves choice. "Folks of colour" have it vastly worse because they cannot camouflage themselves the way we can.

There exists choice in the world, and not all of that is necessarily driven by greed -- and some of those choices are not going to be "popular" with everybody.

I guess there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, you never heard of a guy in a skirt for obvious reasons. Unless he wants to starve, he'd better comply.

A final parting thought. If a woman is free to choose how she expresses herself, why should I be denied on account of how God made me? Why should the natural construction of my body cause me to be subject to such prejudice?

Women persevered through the interim when they broke "the barrier" -- and now men need to do the same thing. The thing is that it's going to be tougher for us than it was for women because women united on the matter and guys -- and women -- remain divided. It'd be nice if the gals came on-side. Odds, anyone?

Thank God for greed.

My word, man, you sound like Gordon Gekko!

[Modoc]

Apples and oranges. Every one of those Hooter's employees knew exactly what they signed up for, and the uniform was part of it. There are plenty of other incidents where people have pushed back against arbitrary non-job-related dress codes and won. The court in the cases below could just as reasonably have found in favor of the male plaintiffs because the fact of the matter wasn't the clothes they wore but that they were men wearing those clothes, and that's discrimination based on sex.

[rode_kater]

I’m here and have been for sometime, so I do offer some support for your position/opinion - BUT………

Why should a private business owner not have complete say in who or what he wants to represent his “brand”?

If a private business owner wants (for example) only short haired males in trousers to represent his brand - why is that not acceptable?

Why is your (our) right to dress as we choose any more important than his right to present his business how he (or she) sees fit?

Well, there's a balance to be drawn here. The employee has the right of freedom of speech (and what you wear is part of that) and freedom from discrimination. The employer has the right to determine how customers see the business, and a responsibility for a safe workplace. These rights have to be balanced. Now, in an at-will state in the US (which is most of them I understand) it's basically the employees lose their rights at the door, but much of the rest of the world doesn't work that way. The employer can require a uniform, but then it has to be provided free of charge.

Here the short-hair requirement would be going pretty far, unless you can argue it's for work safety and the same is required for women (after all you can't discriminate on gender either). It might work in the army where you're going to be in a jungle for week without proper chance of cleaning it. I'm guess people who want to do that might voluntarily do that. Actually I just looked it up for the military here and there are no requirements with respect to hair length for except in places where for example it might get in the way of a flight suits or machinery. However, everyone agrees that it will make your life so much simpler of you do cut it short.

I don't interact with customers, so I could wear a clown suit to work and the employer couldn't object. Well, I guess they could object, but they couldn't force me or fire me over it. It might be a "career limiting move' however. A cashier at the supermarket doesn't have that possibility.

[moonshadow]

It should also be noted that in my case examples, many were of men wearing skirts on their own time.

Like it or not, we're all a part of a society, and much like Elizabeth Warren has indicated, employers are a part of that society, they enjoy the police and military protection provided by that society, they enjoy a reliable transportation system, banking, financial systems etc. Employers aren't on a proverbial island. That society includes all of us, even the people we don't like.

This is why we have laws governing this type of thing. There are exemptions for smaller employers, and some exceptions for religious reasons, though I don't see how a business (the business itself) can possibly believe in God. Furthermore of a business was going to discriminate against certain sinners, shouldn't it discriminate against everyone then? After all, everyone's a sinner.

Anyway, I think the matter that bothers me about this "holier than thou" attitude with some employers and individuals is how they love to sit high on their pedestal and cast thou judgement upon the world, but ignore the possibility that the MAN that restored the electricity to his home after a storm might have been GAY. That the woman who made is all American Big Mac at McDonalds might have been transgender. The man who replaced the brakes on his car wad a MUSLIM. The man that helped install his roof last year had a questionable immigration status....

But he still believes none of them have a right to exist in HIS country because of... reasons.

[moonshadow]

I mean, I see what you're saying Layne and Carl, but with this hypothetical employer, maybe I have a problem with my hard earned tax dollars subsidizing a system that makes his world possible.

No, he doesn't mind taking my tax dollars so he can participate in society, but he doesn't believe that I deserve to make a living so I can afford to pay those taxes.

The whole system just falls apart if we let this kind of bigotry run rapid. So we attempt to strike a balance with laws in combination of public awareness.

If someone wants to live in a theocracy... go live in Iran or Afghanistan. If someone likes the idea of every man looking the same with a proper haircut and attire, North Korea may be an option. There's no reason to wait, these countries are here now and would be more than willing to grant citizenship to anyone tired of having to deal with the "freaks of the west".

[Barleymower]

I’m here and have been for sometime, so I do offer some support for your position/opinion - BUT………

Why should a private business owner not have complete say in who or what he wants to represent his “brand”?

If a private business owner wants (for example) only short haired males in trousers to represent his brand - why is that not acceptable?

Why is your (our) right to dress as we choose any more important than his right to present his business how he (or she) sees fit?

I think some perspective needs to be applied here. An employer takes on staff because he/she needs assistance to run their business. They do not own their employees. It is an exchange of labor for payment.
A person may dress however they choose provided they dress in a manner that covers themselves up. Very simply, they should be family friendly.
Clothes worn by either sex is acceptable. What is good for the goose....

[Grok]

I'm in my early thirties, and it would have been unenvisageable to wear a skirt at school. I have been bullied from 11 to 17 years old (I'm from end of the year so I started university at 17) and the only way for me to feel safe at school has been to gather enough people in the same situation than me, into a group of friends. We did become numerous enough to protect ourselve from the bulliers during the break, in the classes the teachers were guaranteeing nothing (too) bad would happen and outside school I was not in contact with anyone. Bullies did continue, but physical threat was gone thanks to the group. I'm definitely sure that if I did wear a skirt at that time, I would not have had anyone joining me.
As for how I would have behaved if society was more tolerant at that time, I don't know. I guess that "it depends" how tolerant and obviously, if I would have been the only skirted one or not. I had less balls than I have now for things like that, but I had more for other things, I guess that's what we call "evolve"

I am 66 years old. I think that, as a boy, I could have worn a skirt to school only if movement towards MIS had begun during the 19th century.

As has been discussed before, nonconformity by boys is too easily crushed. Whatever the official dress code, The Powers That Be know that bullies would enforce the unofficial dress code.

Boys will bully other boys who conform in dress; certainly the bullying would intensify against a lone boy in a skirt.

We can expect MIS to gain traction with men first, not boys.

[Grok]

Since the topic of mens hair length was mentioned, lets consider this-some taboos are more intense than others.

One of the less intense taboos-longer hair for men. I remember the late 1960s. Many young men let their hair grow. So, at the time, that taboo was quickly and successfully defied. However, when I think about the image of a hippie, he may have been wearing, say, jeans, but never a skirted rig.

Jewelry for men may be of intermediate intensity. A very limited selection is actually within the confines of conventionality, mostly worn on clothing. I can imagine change being incremental, with an invidual adding one item at a time.

MIS is probably the most intense taboo.

[STEVIE]

I think some perspective needs to be applied here. An employer takes on staff because he/she needs assistance to run their business. They do not own their employees. It is an exchange of labor for payment.

What I am about to say comes under the rider that what is legal is not necessarily fair.
In the relatively tolerant UK there is no legally established right for a male to wear a skirt in the workplace.
The only exception is being transgendered and presenting accordingly.
If a UK employer states that it will be "detrimental" to its commercial interests they can enforce a generally acceptable/traditional dress code.
That "generally acceptable" has of course come to mean trousers only for men but either for women.
To cite my own case, my employer could, in theory demand that I don trousers for work as of tomorrow, however, two factors make that unlikely.
It actually suits their purposes to be seen as diversity friendly. More importantly they have acquiesced for more than than ten years now so they also know that they would have a battle on their hands.
What's more, it actually helps me do my job, which I just happen to be rather good at.
If anyone in this country is considering the possibility, of following this path, talk to your employers first.
However, do not assume anything and certainly not on the basis of the female choices.
Sorry guys, but that is the reality.
Steve.

[rode_kater]

What I am about to say comes under the rider that what is legal is not necessarily fair.
In the relatively tolerant UK there is no legally established right for a male to wear a skirt in the workplace.
The only exception is being transgendered and presenting accordingly.

Yeah, this is incredibly jurisdiction dependant. Here in NL freedom of expression in a constitutional right and interprets this to cover what you're wearing. And it's a positive right "everyone has the right, with exceptions defined by law", as opposed to the US negative right "congress shall make no law that". The difference being that the negative version only prevents congress for restricting it, whereas the positive version restricts everyone. The right of a business to determine what happens in their workplace is however not constitutionally protected. So it's pretty clear which one wins.

Incidentally, freedom of expression is also listed in the European Convention of Human Rights as a positive right. The UK just choose not to apply it this way.

[bikesaurus]

I've never been in my company's office as I work from home, but I was curious what our dress code was. I was happy to see that it doesn't mention gender anywhere in it. Merely outlining what can't be worn, and to be professional.

[Barleymower]

What I am about to say comes under the rider that what is legal is not necessarily fair.
In the relatively tolerant UK there is no legally established right for a male to wear a skirt in the workplace.
The only exception is being transgendered and presenting accordingly.
If a UK employer states that it will be "detrimental" to its commercial interests they can enforce a generally acceptable/traditional dress code.
That "generally acceptable" has of course come to mean trousers only for men but either for women.
To cite my own case, my employer could, in theory demand that I don trousers for work as of tomorrow, however, two factors make that unlikely.
It actually suits their purposes to be seen as diversity friendly. More importantly they have acquiesced for more than than ten years now so they also know that they would have a battle on their hands.
What's more, it actually helps me do my job, which I just happen to be rather good at.
If anyone in this country is considering the possibility, of following this path, talk to your employers first.
However, do not assume anything and certainly not on the basis of the female choices.
Sorry guys, but that is the reality.
Steve.

Thanks Stevie. A dose of realisim in a cruel unfair world. What I said is a fair and reasonable view and a view held in other countries, (eg NL as another member posted) but we don't live in a fair and reasonable country.
Still I have little good news to share. Mrs BM saw a guy on Campus in a skirt, he presented as male. She saw another in town in a goth style outfit and skirt. She also talked to the Waterstones bookclub host about the Catlin Moran book. In the conversation she told the lady that I wear skirts. She replied saying that she would like to meet me and she had seen a man in town in a skirt. Later she questioned herself "why not? Why shouldn't a man wear a skirt?" These little snippets take a weight off me.