Peter v wrote:I agree firmly with crfriend, treated as a proof, it can be polished up quite a bit, not only by grammatical mistakes, but also with":
"Until now, men have considered the idea of wearing something other than pants or long shorts in public to be nothing less than a sacrilege against humanity."
I think that puts people on the wrong foot from the word go!
I let that stand quite deliberately because it formed the crux of Jay's thesis -- it's
men themselves who are the prime "limiters".
Note, too, that this will be my last comment on the matter because I do
NOT want to be seen as slagging off on Jay's article. I will, however, continue to revise
my commentary, by way of documented edits, so that the virtue of proofreading and continual refinement can be seen. As of
this writing, I've already corrected
two gaffes with my own work. What's that old straw about "people who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones?"
And I think that there is sometimes too much empathis on the past, when men wore skirts / dress type garments.
Historical context is seldom in vain, although sometimes it may seem to be. It's true that those who are not interested in a particular notion (whatever the notion may be) will not suddenly develop one if history is invoked, but those that may have a latent interest may have their curiosity piqued enough to actually go and do some independent research. I'd posit that it's the latter crowd that we (as "men in skirts") are interested in.
Even if that were not the case, it is about what men want now, not at all what people did or wore thousands of years ago or more recently. We don't have to seek acceptance based on "what men wore in rome etc". It is about what men want today.
True, to a modern bloke and his current "squeeze", what prevailling fashions were in Rome are of little consequence, but bringing the notion up can at least provide for
some historical context rather than looking at the "phenomenon" of "men in skirts" as if it popped up in a vacuum. Think of this historical context as a form of "intellectual lubricant" to the modern psyche.
), how would you re-write
