Boys right to wear skirts - woke?

[Barleymower]

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/polit ... ol-5167961

Interesting article revealing the depth of feeling against boys who might consider being anything other than adhering to or reinforcing societal standards and expectations for masculinity.

[crfriend]

That's a standard boilerplate knee-jerk from reactionaries. This does not mean that we should not pay heed to it -- quite the opposite, as these reactionaries directly threaten us and our freedoms and human rights.

The problem is that rational discourse does no good in turning this type of mentality, so that leaves the rational portion of the population at a loss for tools. If anybody can crack that without resorting to violence I'd like very much to hear the idea!

[Barleymower]

There are two major issues here.
The need to maintain the view of masculinity and what means to a society, that is: the function of men. The function of men outside of war, building and maintaining infrastructure is not clear. It is clear they are needed, provided we all understand that women can and do the same if they choose.
Second:
Control. There is a fear that allowing boys to wear skirts will present difficulties for schools. That can be extended to society. If men are given free rein there will be a period of upheaval. Most secondary schools are in a iron fist control, they are not about to give up control.

On the mainland UK nearly all schools took the gamble that boys could wear skirts, knowing none would dare. The kids hate the school rules but know and abide by gender rules.

[Modoc]

The old guard is digging in in Western society, and because they have had some success in places like the US, they will be even more emboldened to maintain the status quo of gender identity and clothes, twisted though it may be. Every attempt to change will be charged as woke ideology and the grooming of children, and a whole host of other tags aimed at demonizing any ideas that they find threatening.

[crfriend]

Control. There is a fear that allowing boys to wear skirts will present difficulties for schools. That can be extended to society. If men are given free rein there will be a period of upheaval. Most secondary schools are in a iron fist control, they are not about to give up control.

This is primarily the province of the reactionaries, and those need to be brought to heel if we're ever to enter the 20th Century nevermind the 21st. Probably the easiest way of dealing with this scourge is political activism -- where something offends your ration self to the core, sound off, get in the middle of the argument.

On the mainland UK nearly all schools took the gamble that boys could wear skirts, knowing none would dare. The kids hate the school rules but know and abide by gender rules.

Again, reactionary behaviour, and this is where we see the corrosive use of it when it comes to the boys. This is a relic of the "Father Knows Best" era, and is best discarded. The old thinking has failed, and failed abjectly. It's time for new thinking to be developed if we're ever going to solve this problem.

[TSH]

"Woke?" This is the exact same thing I highlighted before in another thread. I think it'd be easier if I just quote much of the things remarked in the article and type up my own response. Most of the quotes will be from the person who is in opposition of this proposal, and I do have quite a few... "choice" words to write:

“The purpose of the School Uniform Bill is to tackle the cost of uniforms for families."

I had to search the news tab for such a bill, because there were no links or sources to view what the bill was, but what Peter Martin is probably referring to is this bill. I could be wrong, but it aligns somewhat with the supposed purpose of the bill in question.

"It should not be used to open up a new set of difficulties for schools, or to advance a woke ideology which seems to be embedded within quangos in Northern Ireland. It is also disappointing that no other party either noticed this issue or challenged the Commissioner on it."

This has never made any sense. The whole reason why "girls' right to wear trousers" was proposed was to alleviate the issues a female student would have wearing a skirt/dress, but just go ahead and vaguely mention this "new set of difficulties" for boys in skirts without even listing a single one. That really helps your case. If anything, a boy in a skirt would have the same difficulties as a girl wearing the same garment would; there wouldn't be anything new under the sun. And the "woke ideology" (that DOESN'T exist) bit is the cherry on top for me, as it further demonstrates that these reactionary buffoons just throw the term "woke" around because they're too stupid to get a better script. Either that, or they project this nonsense onto their dimwitted followers who instinctively recoil at anything labeled "woke" by the terrible, idiotic people that they foolishly idolize.

"Many schools offer girls a choice between trousers or skirts, but this highlights what can happen if the freedom of schools to take sensible decisions is replaced with legislation that takes no account of gender."

This is abject word salad. Allowing students to wear whatever bottoms make them feel more comfortable IS a sensible decision, regardless of gender/sex. This freedom doesn't automatically mean gender is disregarded or irrelevant.

"Offering girls the choice, which is already in place in most schools, is then extended to a demand that boys must be offered the right to wear skirts. Yet this additional demand comes without any logical argument other than a blind adherence militant identify politics."

There are plenty of logical arguments that can be made to support the legal right for boys to wear skirts. It includes:
1. Equality
2. Inclusion
3. Being more suitable for hotter temperatures
4. It's FAIR.
You just need to pull your head out of your dumb arse and actually pay attention to what your opposition is telling you morons. Too bad you're not in the habit of actually listening and just like to dismiss all of this as some sort of aggrandizement towards a specific political ideology when your own team are the ones guilty of it. And "identify politics"? It's *identity* politics, dickhead. And once again, you and your own political party are the ones guilty of being militant. It's not a "demand"; it's a suggestion — learn the difference.

He goes on about adults being powerless if this proposal went into effect, but he still hasn't given a concrete explanation on why this should be opposed, aside from his own awful conservative perspective and double standards when it comes to girls in trousers.

"I think we've been clear and that boys aren't asking us to wear skirts. You'll notice that we haven't brought any boys this evening. There's no boys expressing interest in coming. While boys agree that there should be uniform equality and that girls should be allowed to wear trousers – they're not telling us that they want to wear skirts."

(I decided to merge these two quotes into one. Less clunky and this response can equally be applied to both, anyway.)
That doesn't mean they don't exist. There's a very clear stigma that exists outside of school grounds surrounding males in skirts. Boys are afraid they'll be called out and ostracized if they express any kind of support for this. People like you are part of the problem. By rejecting this proposal, you're helping maintain that stigmatization. You're a prick.

Before I end this, there's one quote from another person (finally) — Laura McFall:

If they were, why not? Men wear kilts in Scotland — it's quite a normal thing. Clothes don't impact your ability to learn. I think that's the key point that we're making here. They just don't impact your ability to learn. So therefore, find out what does. What does impact your ability to learn? Being included, feeling respected, feeling part of a community, cohesion, inclusion, that's the most important thing

(Had to exchange the comma splice with an em-dash. Seriously, what is up with editors not knowing how to properly punctuate quotes? Anyway...)
And there you go. A logical, compelling argument that's going to be completely ignored by people with own agenda. I'm surprised no one went, "but kilts aren't skirts!"

That's a standard boilerplate knee-jerk from reactionaries. This does not mean that we should not pay heed to it -- quite the opposite, as these reactionaries directly threaten us and our freedoms and human rights.

The problem is that rational discourse does no good in turning this type of mentality, so that leaves the rational portion of the population at a loss for tools. If anybody can crack that without resorting to violence I'd like very much to hear the idea!

The best solution I could think of is to take the many logical paradoxes and hypocrisies these assclowns proudly exude, and just throw that **** right back at their dumb faces.

[Barleymower]

Personally, I would like to get to the root of the problem of MIS. Unless you know what the real problem is you will never find the solution.
When people object to something they will often say all sorts of things rather than the truth. eg "men should not wear skirts they are womens clothes" translate "if I can't wear skirts why should you?"

[Damon]

Surely the root of the problem is school uniforms. They are an unnecessary expense for parents and in most cases uncomfortable and impractical wear for active children. Any unbiased survey, that is one not sponsored by the multibillion £$€ school uniform industry, always finds they increase friction between teachers and students and through being uncomfortable reduce classroom concentration.
Pretty much all of Europe gets by quite well without them, and so does most of North America. On the subject of skirts. In my city, Ottawa, a couple of years ago a school Principal or Vice Principal got worked up about skirts being too short. So they made a rule about how far the hem could be above the knee and a few days later shamed and humiliated some skirt wearing girls by measuring that distance. The female teachers rightly refused to participate, so a few male teachers got down and measured the girls legs. The furore and outrage at this sexual touching of teenage girls was city wide. Officials apologized publicly. There were well justified sackings and the City adopted a mandatory dress code for every publicly funded school in the city. It is short and sweet. THE PRIVATE PARTS MUST BE COVERED.
There are a few private schools with uniforms but most don't have them.
As for boys wearing skirts, there is obviously nothing to stop them and noone is going to measure their legs. If any boys do wear skirts they could get hassled but the authorities may regard that as unacceptable. The problem though is that research in Australia shows that girls wearing skirts are only 70% as active during recess as girls wearing shorts or trousers. As anyone who wears skirts knows, they do affect how the wearer sits and moves. Kids have both a physical and a psychological need to burn off energy during recess. I have a Female to Male transgender friend and he says that having to wear skirts and dresses as his religious parents made him do throughout his childhood, perhaps because he kept insisting he was a boy, his skirts severely curtailed his freedom. On the other hand: I had a Scottish cousin who always wore a kilt, at home and at school, and when we visited them or they us in London, I didn't see him much constrained by his kilt, nor me mine. I had a Scottish mother and certainly when he and I were together I also wore a kilt. As boys did in those days, more than 70 years ago, we both wore girls gym knickers under our kilts. And I don't remember either of us caring if people saw our knickers. And that was the word used to describe them. I guess if all boys wore skirts people would get so used to seeing their knickers that noone would think anything of it.i

[crfriend]

That's a standard boilerplate knee-jerk from reactionaries. This does not mean that we should not pay heed to it -- quite the opposite, as these reactionaries directly threaten us and our freedoms and human rights.

The problem is that rational discourse does no good in turning this type of mentality, so that leaves the rational portion of the population at a loss for tools. If anybody can crack that without resorting to violence I'd like very much to hear the idea!

The best solution I could think of is to take the many logical paradoxes and hypocrisies these assclowns proudly exude, and just throw that **** right back at their dumb faces.

The problem is that they like the smell and the taste (never having been exposed to anything else). As has been said in the past, "You can't fix stupid." The best you can do is make it hurt, but one can get in trouble for that because the cops (and now the idiotic establishment) are on the side of the stupid herd. I am not hopeful. Not one bit.

[STEVIE]

I am not hopeful. Not one bit.
Re: Boys right to wear skirts - woke?Quote Damon
by Damon » Sat Aug 23, 2025 5:12 am

Sadly, much of the recent comments around the cafe give very little evidence to refute that comment.
If we cannot support each other NO ONE else will!
Steve.

[crfriend]

That was not written as a refutation of TSH's thesis, but rather in support of it. I am NOT hopeful in turning the minds of the dolts and idiots that make up the vast sea of what gets called "humanity", for those minds are forever cast in the only things they've ever known -- and for all too many, that's nowhere near enough to produce an open enlightened mind. WE get it, and our minds don't need changing because we're capable of independent thought.

Is the situation completely hopeless? No, but it's worth recalling the notion of "hoping against hope". I'd put the probability of meaningful change in men's fashion/style during the rest of my lifetime at, perhaps, 1 in 10,000. Hope, yes, but only the faintest glimmer -- and that dim beacon may well be the headlight of an oncoming locomotive in the tunnel we're trapped in.

How fast is the locomotive moving?

[TSH]

Surely the root of the problem is school uniforms. They are an unnecessary expense for parents and in most cases uncomfortable and impractical wear for active children. Any unbiased survey, that is one not sponsored by the multibillion £$€ school uniform industry, always finds they increase friction between teachers and students and through being uncomfortable reduce classroom concentration.
Pretty much all of Europe gets by quite well without them, and so does most of North America.

Admittedly, I'm not all that well-read on the subject to elaborate much on it, and I do think there is a discussion to be had about school uniforms, but there are reasons why many schools around the world (particularly, ones in England) continue to implement this highly strict dress code. Again, I don't much knowledge about this, and I don't even have any experience with this since I was allowed to wear some form of pants and shorts to school while still having some individual freedom (particularly in my later school years), so I won't delve too deep into this.

As for boys wearing skirts, there is obviously nothing to stop them and no one is going to measure their legs. Kids have both a physical and a psychological need to burn off energy during recess.

Can't really make such a claim when so few boys openly wear skirts like girls do.

The problem though is that research in Australia shows that girls wearing skirts are only 70% as active during recess as girls wearing shorts or trousers. As anyone who wears skirts knows, they do affect how the wearer sits and moves.

It's true for certain skirts, but we know some skirts are inherently more liberating than any set of trousers could ever be, and if the skirt is long enough, sitting isn't even issue.

I have a Female to Male transgender friend and he says that having to wear skirts and dresses as his religious parents made him do throughout his childhood, perhaps because he kept insisting he was a boy, his skirts severely curtailed his freedom. On the other hand: I had a Scottish cousin who always wore a kilt, at home and at school, and when we visited them or they us in London, I didn't see him much constrained by his kilt, nor me mine. I had a Scottish mother and certainly when he and I were together I also wore a kilt.

My point exactly.

I guess if all boys wore skirts people would get so used to seeing their knickers that noone would think anything of it.

People still fuss over the skirt length of girls, even off school grounds, so I highly doubt boys would be left unscathed.

That was not written as a refutation of TSH's thesis, but rather in support of it.

I think Steve was just referring to a recent derailing from another thread due to politics being brought up.

[STEVIE]

As for boys wearing skirts, there is obviously nothing to stop them and noone is going to measure their legs. If any boys do wear skirts they could get hassled but the authorities may regard that as unacceptable.

Boys will stop boys wearing skirts, it really is that simple.
If by "hassled", you mean mercilessly tortured physically and psychologically, the kids will find a way and the authorities will be unable to do a thing about it.
I'm a Scot living in Scotland, a boy wearing a kilt at school would receive the same treatment regardless of what his underwear is called.
Around here the term "knickers" was used for girls' underwear that was what boys in kilts were given, probably the dark colour had less contrast and therefore less noticeable.
Steve.

[mr seamstress]

Boys will stop boys wearing skirts, it really is that simple.

That test is on. Haven't you heard, young men wearing skirts in Atlanta, making bold fashion statement. The video went viral.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JILRNORoImw

[FranTastic444]

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/polit ... ol-5167961

Interesting article revealing the depth of feeling against boys who might consider being anything other than adhering to or reinforcing societal standards and expectations for masculinity.

BM, I think we need to add some context here about the DUP. Fire and brimstone preacher, Ian Paisley set up this party in the 1970's and their policies / beliefs are very much driven by Christian Fundamentalism. Seeing their stance on LGBT rights, it is no surprise to see them take this stance on a gender-related matter. See here for more info.