MIS in Wikipedia

Advocacy for men wearing skirts and Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
Post Reply
Stevie D
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Post by Stevie D »

ChristopherJ wrote:I don't know how or why - but a couple of totally hideous photographs have appeared on the MIS Wikki page - both titled: "Skirt designed and modeled by Mark Allyn".

The photos are horrible and the skirts are horrible. Does anyone know how to take them off. They could give MIS a bad name - as no-one would take them seriously!

Put a photo of me up there - I got great legs! :cheer:

http://www.myspace.com/man_in_a_skirt
I agree - the photos are truly awful. I'd much sooner see your pics up there, CJ!

How do you remove a photo from wikipedia? Tell me how and I'll take it off, I don't mind the flak.
Stevie D
(Sheffield, South Yorkshire)
binx
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Missouri

Post by binx »

I agree that those "skirts" are hideous and are actually dresses. But IMO a man in a mini and tights "could give MIS a bad name - as no-one would take them seriously!" as well.

binx
ChristopherJ
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:24 am

Post by ChristopherJ »

But IMO a man in a mini and tights "could give MIS a bad name - as no-one would take them seriously!" as well.
Huh! You're only jealous of the legs - come on - admit it. :D
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 15142
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Hideous is in the eye of the beholder...

Post by crfriend »

binx wrote:I agree that those "skirts" are hideous and are actually dresses. But IMO a man in a mini and tights "could give MIS a bad name - as no-one would take them seriously!" as well.
Well, the photographs on the Wikipedia page, which have since been removed, were a bit jarring on the initial viewing, but the rigs did have some validity. True, they made the chap modelling them look like a piece of furniture, but the cuts and fabrics in use would have looked right at home at, say, a renaissance fair. It's all in going back and taking a second look once the initial, "WTF?!" moment is over -- and your average person on the street is going to react precisely in that "WTF?!" way if MIS ever starts to gain popularity.

As far as a bloke in a mini and tights (US usage) giving "MIS a bad name", that rig is actually vastly more modern than the highly ornate rig previously mentioned. In fact, because it's rather bland, it's likely to attract less attention than something complex or ornate.

Interestingly, neither rig looks effeminate, although I think the trainers-with-legwarmers looks more feminine than the "upholstery look", but that's just my take on it; there are perils all over the place, and we need to be careful to either not step in them or have the fortitude to defend our choices.

Looking "interesting" or "different" is risky business. How many of you caught the American Academy Awards last night? My wife and I had more than a few laughs at how stunningly awful a lot of the folks looked, and I'm not talking about the penguins; most of the costumes were forced, and relied more on showing skin or being so tight that they left precious little to the imagination. At least the penguins all looked the same -- boring, yes, but there were no horrific either. I blame Beau Brummel. :)
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
binx
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Missouri

Post by binx »

crfriend wrote: Interestingly, neither rig looks effeminate, although I think the trainers-with-legwarmers looks more feminine than the "upholstery look", but that's just my take on it; there are perils all over the place, and we need to be careful to either not step in them or have the fortitude to defend our choices.
That's more of what I meant about the look. I'd recommend Dick Ackerman's photos; just a guy in a skirt. Many choices.

binx
ChristopherJ
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:24 am

Post by ChristopherJ »

Interestingly, neither rig looks effeminate, although I think the trainers-with-legwarmers looks more feminine than the "upholstery look", but that's just my take on it;
It's not really my preferred style for winter wear either, but I can't afford to spend much on any of my clothes, so am restricted by my limited wardrobe.

If I could get some decent boots I would wear them with short skirts in the winter - but boots for men are mostly of the cowboy style type things, which I find too baggy as I've got skinny legs. I'd like a pair of zip up boots - normal boot height - but I haven't been able to find any and I think they would be very expensive if I did.

So . . . I have been making do with legwarmers as a sort of surrogage pair of boots. I agree that it looks a little feminine, but I can live with that - as the rest of me does not. You can't see well in the photos, but I have a large scar across the side of my face that makes me look quite mean. :ninjajig:

Just don't tell anyone that I got the scar from falling off my bicycle. Drunk. :D

Anyhow - I don't care much if I look a bit feminine anyway. It simply doesn't worry me. I'm too old to care about things like that. As long as I have a pulse - that's all that really matters . . .
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 15142
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

"Feminine" my backside!

Post by crfriend »

binx wrote:
crfriend wrote:I think the trainers-with-legwarmers looks more feminine than the "upholstery look"
That's more of what I meant about the look.
True enough, but one must bear in mind that the whole lot of us are still very much in an experimentation phase here, and I'm more than willing to posit that each and every one of us has "laid an egg" from time to time in that experimentation. It's damnably tough getting a look that works for you that won't push others to pass judgment. That said, I don't think we should slag off on folks who come up with unbirfucated garments that we might find "whimsical".
binx wrote:I'd recommend Dick Ackerman's photos; just a guy in a skirt. Many choices.
Mr. Ackerman's looks are decent, perfectly honest, looks. They're also somewhat safe, almost on the primally macho side. Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a range of expression that should be possible without stepping "over the line" into crossdressing. One can look at this aspect as an extension of the "anything other than a kilt is crossdressing" argument.
ChristopherJ wrote:[Trainers-and-legwarmers is] not really my preferred style for winter wear either, but I can't afford to spend much on any of my clothes, so am restricted by my limited wardrobe.
This touches on my earlier comment that if we're to take the matter of popularising (or trying to) the notion of men in skirts, we need to be able to defend (in the sense of defending one's post-grad thesis) our choices. Christopher hits it in that comment -- it's a practical choice; one motivated by financial restraints; and a choice he's willing to abide by. That's worthy of respect -- far more so, actually, than a juvenile statement of, "I want to wear it, and that's enough!"

Some really salient points have been touched on in the more recent threads, such as the "gut-fitting" notion that seems to at least partially tame that bane of middle-aged males -- the "beer gut". I count myself lucky (very lucky, 'cause I really like beer!) that I don't have one at the moment, so I can get away with wearing garments that fit closer to my hips; once the inevitable catches up with me, though, I may find myself looking for a traditional kilt.
ChristopherJ wrote:I don't care much if I look a bit feminine anyway. It simply doesn't worry me.
There's the "spirited defence" again, and that's to be lauded. Ultimately, it comes down to what each of us is comfortable with, and how we're willing to carry it, that matters. There's no percentage to be gained by doing any of this in private, either -- if we can project, yea even exude, the confidence we feel wearing what we want and like, then the battle is nearly won. Face it, by wearing skirted garments in public, we're already branded by "the public" as being "feminine"; it's up to us to refute that and to defend our position.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
binx
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Missouri

Post by binx »

crfriend wrote:
Mr. Ackerman's looks are decent, perfectly honest, looks. They're also somewhat safe, almost on the primally macho side. Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a range of expression that should be possible without stepping "over the line" into crossdressing. One can look at this aspect as an extension of the "anything other than a kilt is crossdressing" argument.
I totally agree that a range can be established, but we should start somewhere that the majority can accept. Nothing wrong with Chris' rig, just that the mere hint of a fem look can negate MIS acceptance, whereas Ackerman's looks, as you say, ARE safe, honest, decent, and somewhat macho. This, I believe, represents a neutral look for MIS; not fem but not muscular he-man either. A nice balance and a way to introduce MIS to the mainstream.

binx
User avatar
Dick Ackerman
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: Gilford, New Hampshire, USA

Post by Dick Ackerman »

If someone wants to use some of my photos please feel free to do so. What can I say they are just me. Thanks for the endorsement.

Dick Ackerman
ChristopherJ
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:24 am

Post by ChristopherJ »

I totally agree that a range can be established, but we should start somewhere that the majority can accept.
I don't agree with that - at all. I can understand where you are coming from when you put forward that point of view but, as I said, I don't agree with it. Who are "the majority" that you speak of? If we took that approach, I think that what is most likely to happen is that we would be forced to bend to the whims of the most vocal MINORITY. So the boundaries of fashion for men - in wearing skirts etc. - would probably be determined by the most conservative section of the public. I could not/would not accept that.

Fashion designers don't adjust their new range to suit the most conservative of their clients. They design new, bold looks, that they hope will encourage their clients to use and move forward with.
Nothing wrong with Chris' rig, just that the mere hint of a fem look can negate MIS acceptance, whereas Ackerman's looks, as you say, ARE safe, honest, decent, and somewhat macho. This, I believe, represents a neutral look for MIS; not fem but not muscular he-man either. A nice balance and a way to introduce MIS to the mainstream.
I'd like to know on what basis you say that "the mere hint of a fem look can negate MIS acceptance". I'm not familiar with that. Oh yes, it may be true for the beer-swilling, shell suited, chav gangs that delight in "queer bashing" and other such pastimes - but for the mainstream public? I don't think so.

You also say that a certain type of clothing "ARE - safe, honest, decent, and somewhat macho". Again, that's a funny statement. How are they "honest"? How are they "decent"? In any case, these are purely subjective opinions. "Safe" can just mean boring - predictable - magnolia. I would hope that there are quite a few MIS out there who - given a chance - would like to be a bit more adventurous than that.

I love diversity in the range of fashions adopted by men who choose to wear skirts. Some prefer the heavier styles of the various kilts, cargo type skirts etc. - while others may prefer medium weight denim or cotton skirts of various lengths - while still more may prefer the lightweight kilkoy or sarong etc. In my view there is plenty of space for all of these fashion styles - without any of them needing to be labelled as masculine or feminine. They are simply clothing choices.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
binx
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Missouri

Get real and back on the topic!

Post by binx »

Plenty of space? How are all of these diverse man-skirts' images going to fit in a Wikipedia page? We are talking about millions of people on the internet briefly looking at the definition of MIS. A safe, decent, honest photo of an ordinary man in a simple skirt may be boring to you, but many, many people are not aware of or exposed to MIS. There are plenty of links on the page to further explore the topic. Most all of the bold, fashionable skirts for men that are designed and modeled by young males today are expensive, out of reach to the common wage-earner, thus being marketed to wealthy trendsetters. Sure there's a few MIS that can push the boundaries. How is that going to foster the "mainstream" public's acceptance? Just how many famous, stylish men do you see wearing skirts today? You say it yourself in a previous post: "...Personally, the catwalk models never do anything for me - I can only rarely identify with them. This is partly because the clothes (skirts) they model are often designer items and not meant for everyday wear - and also because the models themselves often don't look like real people..." Real people. Small steps...

binx
ChristopherJ
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:24 am

Post by ChristopherJ »

Plenty of space? How are all of these diverse man-skirts' images going to fit in a Wikipedia page? We are talking about millions of people on the internet briefly looking at the definition of MIS. A safe, decent, honest photo of an ordinary man in a simple skirt may be boring to you, but many, many people are not aware of or exposed to MIS. There are plenty of links on the page to further explore the topic.
I was trying to celebrate the diversity of fashion within MIS - not suggest that it was all included within the Wikipedia page.

My main point was simply that I regard the presentation of a very safe, acceptable - as you put it: "decent, honest" etc. - form of MIS as a cop out.

The nearest analogy would be back in the 1960's - when women first really started wearing trousers as everyday fashion wear - if the leaders of the feminist movement back then had got together and said - "Well look, we need to play this safe. If we wear denim jeans or heavy cotton trousers, people will think that we look masculine, so we need to stick to safe, decent, honest things like flowered prints or lacy borders on all of our trousers. Then people will know that we are girls".

Silly - isn't it?

All I would like to see on the Wiki page is a clear acknowledgement that men can and do wear skirts of all styles - maybe with some small photos for illustration - and not to deliberately restrict the definition of MIS simply to avoid offending some people.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
Departed Member

Post by Departed Member »

ChristopherJ wrote: My main point was simply that I regard the presentation of a very safe, acceptable - as you put it: "decent, honest" etc. - form of MIS as a cop out.
I think it is far from a 'cop out'. It's a 'means to an end' situation, surely. Just as you never see the extravagant 'catwalk' fashions in everyday life, then neither is Wiki the place for illustrating 'extremes', either.
ChristopherJ wrote:The nearest analogy would be back in the 1960's - when women first really started wearing trousers as everyday fashion wear - if the leaders of the feminist movement back then had got together and said - "Well look, we need to play this safe. If we wear denim jeans or heavy cotton trousers, people will think that we look masculine, so we need to stick to safe, decent, honest things like flowered prints or lacy borders on all of our trousers. Then people will know that we are girls".
I don't correlate the 'leaders of the feminist movement' with 'women's fashion movement'. 'Twas the 'feminazis' who took up the deliberate policy of reaching for the ultra(?) masculine garments (not just tr*users!). Never forget, the (so-called) 'feminists' were targetting women as much as men. The fact that women were actually enjoying wearing the miniskirts, etc., etc. was a total anathema to them. Hence the spouting of vitriolic bile, claiming that such clothes emphasised 'men's power(?) over women'. The style(s) of women's tr*users then, was sufficiently 'different' to be readily identifiable as such. 'Pretty patterns' have, in recent years, been applied to jeans, etc. to further emphasise that these are now purely 'women's clothes' - they've even added embroidery to denim skirts in a bid to 'reclaim' these, truly unisex(?) garments!!!!!! :eh:
Big and Bashful
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2921
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Scottish West Coast

Post by Big and Bashful »

The scary photos are back again, Isn't this the work of a 'spoiler' and is there no way to contact the owners of the wikipedia to stop spoilers spoiling pages once they have got to a certain standard without the potential changes being reviewed by the originator first?
I am the God of Hellfire! and I bring you truffles!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 15142
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Spoilers?

Post by crfriend »

Big and Bashful wrote:The scary photos are back again, Isn't this the work of a 'spoiler' and is there no way to contact the owners of the wikipedia to stop spoilers spoiling pages once they have got to a certain standard without the potential changes being reviewed by the originator first?
I checked the "edit history" of the Wikipedia page in question and, much to my surprise, found that it looks like it's the photograph's copyright-holder who injected them not once, but twice. Interestingly, the comment associated with the second edit is, "I see men wearing these skirts in public." I do not believe that malice is at play here, but rather misunderstanding.

Mark Allyn's creations are interesting, and valid, for certain venues and millieus; they are not necessarily valid as everyday wear which is what us lot seem to be aiming for. I hope that this matter can be resolved amicably between the page's primary author and another Wikipedia contributor.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Post Reply