Do we really want women's "fashion freedom"?

[AMM]

One recurrent theme (or, sometimes, whine) here at the Cafe is the desire for men to have the same freedom to wear skirts and the like that women do.

In thinking about it, I wonder if that would really be so great? Would we really end up being able to wear what we want without any flak? Or would we just find ourselves dealing with a new orthodoxy, but one that requires us to have bigger closets?

A long time ago, when I was young, most offices required men to wear a suit and tie. When you graduated from college, you went out and bought a few suits, and the same set of suits served you for any "formal" occasion, from a day at the office to dinner with the President. You only replaced things as they wore out (or shrank ) You kept around some "old clothes" for your time off, for gardening or working on the car, but nobody expected them to do more than not be indecent.

Then they instituted "casual Fridays", and you had to have a second work wardrobe, called "casual," which is not the same as what you wear on weekends.

Women's greater "freedom" has meant that they have to pay a lot more attention to what they wear. A "suit" involves not only a skirt or dress (and maybe a jacket), but also blouses, pantyhose, purse, shoes, and jewelry that coordinate in style and color. That's called an outfit, and a woman is expected to have several, because it's considered weird to wear the same outfit two days in a row. And all the different styles out there mean you have to match the style to your workplace. A big, conservative company will expect more conservative suits, a more dynamic company will expect more dramatic, maybe edgier fashions. And she can't wear daywear to an evening event, or office wear to a friend's wedding or a family funeral, etc. Virtually every major event involves running out and buying appropriate clothes. (And I do mean buy, because while a man can rent a tux, women can't rent a bridesmaid's dress, or a mother-of-the-bride dress, or an evening gown, etc.)

Do we really want that kind of freedom?

In most places, we already have the freedom to wear skirts and kilts outside of work and maybe a few family functions and the snobbiest of restaurants. You may get some guff, but no more than what you get for being, say, a Democrat in a largely Republican workplace.

One advantage to men in skirts/kilts being such a novelty is that there aren't any generally accepted rules. If a man is wearing a skirt, he's so far outside all the usual rules that nobody except a SkirtCafe member is going to scrutinize what else he's wearing. If he wears a kilt, he may get some scrutiny if he comes within range of the kilt-Taliban, but most people are going to see the kilt and not look at what else he's wearing. (Well, some may want to check out his underwear -- or lack thereof.)

[Bob]

I agree, we don't want that kind of "freedom." Freedom to express oneself through our body and presentation is good. However, extreme social pressure on one's body as a commodity for public consumption (or acceptance) is not good. Unfortunately, that is what women must deal with in our society. I would like to see a social order in which we all get to reclaim our bodies for ourselves.

[Milfmog]

Agreed. I certainly don't want the "freedom" of being constrained by a whole raft of new rules.

I tend to agree that we have the freedom we need already, but that far too few people exercise it. Consequently there is some social discomfort for wearers who worry what others think and from those around them who think that they may be tainted by association with the wierdo.

I would like the sight of guys in kilts, skirts etc to be less unusual, as I suspect that is the only way that most companies would ever permit skirts etc to be worn while on the clock. However, like so many other things, it is down to people who have something to gain (us) doing something (wearing what we choose and defending our right to do so if challenged). I'm not expecting any big change in the near future and don't feel that the fashion houses parading "eye-catching" (read "silly and impractical") skirts down the catwalk will have any useful impact.

I will continue to exercise my freedoms and fashion choices as I please. If others see me and decide to try it, that will be a bonus and another small step towards public familiarity with the idea.

One further comment on your post AMM:

...(And I do mean buy, because while a man can rent a tux, women can't rent a bridesmaid's dress, or a mother-of-the-bride dress, or an evening gown, etc.)

Off the top of my head I can think of four designer dress hire shops within 10 miles of where I live and, since it is not something I have consciously looked for, there may be more. So women's dress / outfit hire is certainly possible here, however we are talking dresses that would retail for at least a few hundred pounds and I suspect that hire is not going to be any cheaper than the cost of hiring a formal kilt outfit (£100 plus and you still need to buy the hose), so it may be cheaper to buy something without the designer label.

Have fun,


Ian.

[crfriend]

[...] I certainly don't want the "freedom" of being constrained by a whole raft of new rules.

Actually, we're in a very good time at the moment to either craft some of those "rules" ourselves -- or to keep them from being made at all. Such is the power of the "early adopters" (the "Pioneers" are the guys like Tom Manuel, Bill Guerts, Bill Ackerman, and the like), and they have that power because no rules exist in the millieu in which they function.

In a sense, some of the threads we've had right here -- and some of those have caused some serious consternation -- show us struggling to make our way in a "world without rules" where "everything is new". Those have been interesting and illuminating threads, and point up that establishing rules for this "new" fashion sense is going to be quite complex and fraught with detail and problems. My own take on the matter is that so long as an outfit looks good to an observer, covers the individual wearing it so he complies with local modesty laws, and doesn't overtly hinder his overall activities should "pass muster" and be acceptable and his decision on it should be respected.

I tend to agree that we have the freedom we need already, but that far too few people exercise it. Consequently there is some social discomfort for wearers who worry what others think and from those around them who think that they may be tainted by association with the wierdo.

I, too, tend to agree that the "freedom" is there already, and that not a a lot (or enough) folks avail themselves of it. But, without compelling examples, there seems to be no "need" for exercising the right, hence it goes unused and un-noticed. If more men would exercise that right, then the "association with the weirdo" would vanish pretty quickly in the minds of most -- not all, mind you, but most.

I would like the sight of guys in kilts, skirts etc to be less unusual, as I suspect that is the only way that most companies would ever permit skirts etc to be worn while on the clock. However, like so many other things, it is down to people who have something to gain (us) doing something (wearing what we choose and defending our right to do so if challenged).

I may be close to alone here with my opinion on the matter, but I really don't care whether skirt-wearing in the workplace gets accepted for men in the future (or at least my lifetime), and the reason I don't care is that I personally like the very strong dichotomy between what I wear to work (at least the time that I'm being paid for -- being on salary sucks when The Man expects you to be at his beck and call 24x7 for weeks at a stretch) and what I wear when I'm off the clock: it helps draw a very vivid line between those two portions of my life. With the continual and pervasive erosion of personal time by work responsibilities, I feel the contrast is very important. This erosion is not going to slow down, either -- even once the "race to the bottom" has been won and we're the property of our employers in every way but words. But that's a different rant for another time.

I will continue to exercise my freedoms and fashion choices as I please. If others see me and decide to try it, that will be a bonus and another small step towards public familiarity with the idea.

Hear, hear! This sentiment shows the path forward, and is to be applauded. Thanks, Ian.

I shall be visiting the veterinarian today to pick up three of our kitties (two had dental work done; the other had to be groomed); I'll be wearing a skirted rig, although I haven't made up my mind what it shall be precisely (I'm still in my night-clothes).

[SkirtedViking]

In my country women can go even in very formal occasions with apparel very similar to man's so it is not obligatory to go through all that big closet and so on. I want the freedom to wear whatever I please and to choose by myself when I want to go through the big closet and when not to go. And most importantly, my masculinity not to be measured in terms of clothes,shoes - many gay man are very masculine in appearance, but that does not mean a thing. The term crossdresser, transvestite has to go as it had gone for women 50 years ago. Yes, there were women labeled crossdressers and so on till 2nd World War.

[DALederle]

Skirted Viking said:
"Yes, there were women labeled crossdressers and so on till 2nd World War."
Does anyone here know the name of the most famous of these women whom many would call "crossdressers" at that time? No?
How about Kathryn Hepburn who never wore anything but slacks or pants unless she was doing a scene in a movie. She wore dresses and skirts in scenes but immediately change into her slacks or pants. Do you remember her portrayal in the film "The Aviator" which was about Howard Hughes whom she dated for a while (before Spensor Tracy).
Here's another curious fact.
Women were never called "transvestites" but they were refered to as crossdressers.
To bad our PC times have blurred so badly all distinctions between CD,TV,TS and Drag Queens to the point that on the web they all seemed to be the same. I've always felt these terms reflected really different groups that were VERY distinctive from one another even though most of the great, unwashed public can't seem to tell things apart.
Oh, well, times change but I don't!
The male CDs should leave that term to the women CDs and quit using it.
Actually "crossdresser" no longer applies to either gender since women's fashions have so diluted and merged the gender aspect of clothing that calling someone a "crossdresser" is virtually meaningless, as it should be.
Those other terms. TV,TS and Drag Queen can still be useful in a clinical manner, though the lumping on everything into TG causes more confusion the ever. And makes it really hard for a man to just be a man in the eyes of the public when he wears a skirt.
Things won't really change until enough men are seen in public in skirts or kilts. Say, about 500,000 or so.
Dennis A. Lederle

p.s.
As Clint Eastwood once said, "Girly tough ain't enough!"

[sapphire]

Things won't really change until enough men are seen in public in skirts or kilts. Say, about 500,000 or so.

Amen. That is what happened for women who wanted to wear trousers. There were plenty of them who defied convention and persued their own fashion freedom.

BTW, my grandmother was one of those pioneers. She got all dolled up in one of my grandfather's suits and my grandfather (a professional photographer) took several pictures of her, circa 1916. To show their disapproval of grandmother's antics someone drew a moustache on the pictures.

I'd like to thank AMM for bringing up the pressures that women are under to have multiple wardrobes. I'd also like to thank Bob for acknowledging the fact.

[Milfmog]

I may be close to alone here with my opinion on the matter, but I really don't care whether skirt-wearing in the workplace gets accepted for men in the future (or at least my lifetime), and the reason I don't care is that I personally like the very strong dichotomy between what I wear to work and what I wear when I'm off the clock: it helps draw a very vivid line between those two portions of my life.

Actually Carl, I don't think we're too far apart here. I'd like the freedom to wear a kilt or skirt to work but would rarely exercise it during regular hours for the reasons you cited and because it is not always a practical choice for what I've been doing over the lst few years. However, I feel that dress codes that allowed men to wear unbifurcates would be a demonstration that attitudes had moved on.

Have fun,


Ian.

[AMM]

...I'd like the freedom to wear a kilt or skirt to work but would rarely exercise it during regular hours ... However, I feel that dress codes that allowed men to wear unbifurcates would be a demonstration that attitudes had moved on.

The problem is that in places where who has power over whom is the basis for relationships -- and this describes most workplaces -- "allows" tends to turn into "requires." Cf. "business casual," which has become simply another required uniform in most workplaces. If skirts and/or kilts ever become accepted men's wear at work, I fear that we'd end up being compelled to keep, in addition to the coat-and-tie suit and the wardrobe of business casual outfits, also a kilt suit or two and a skirt suit or two, at a few hundred dollars each. Yes, I know, folks here are saying, let's not let it get that far, but when it comes to social movements, we SkirtCafe folks have about as much control as King Canute did over the tides.

For me, skirt- and kilt-wearing is in part a revealing of my inner self, and I have not the slightest wish to reveal any part of my inner self at my current workplace (think Dilbert, only worse.) A suit of armor would be more appropriate, but I'll settle for a Business Casual uniform.

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

[Milfmog]

The problem is that "allows" can turn into "requires." Cf. "business casual," which has become simply another required uniform in most workplaces.

My last employer went to a business casual dress code a few years ago. It did not ban people from wearing a suit and tie if they wished, simply added the option to wear any collared shirt (with or without a tie) and casual trousers (NOT jeans). This increased the number of options but did not open everything up. T shirts, shorts and sandals were still banned for guys.

I asked about a kilt and was told "no problem" by HR, but the CEO was rather conservative and made it obvious that he did not really agree with that (even though the law requires that neither gender is treated less advantageously than the other). It was made plain (informally) that pushing the issue would not do anyone's employment prospects any good. I know when to back down, but would still like to see the option added in the same way as the option of chinos was.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Pythos]

When I first started reading the OP post, I was a little irritated. Here once again was some guy wanting fashion freedom, but not really wanting it.

Then I got further in the post and got the point he was conveying.

The gist of it to me was this "do we want to consign ourselves to a new bunch of fashion rules when it come to style?" One instance I can think of is the statement "men can wear skirts, as long as they are kilts", or "men can wear skirts, just don't wear hose", or other nonsense.

I for one would like to do away with most fashion related rules. I can't stand sexist rules when it comes to one's attire, or even the statement of "appropriate". One instance I can recall is the one friend of mine who did not like my wearing of leggings, who when it came to an outfit I had chosen for a night out for dinner with friends including her, ( a gray sweater with a collared dress shirt, with black semi shiny leggings, and boots), that she said was "inappropriate". As usual this statement came from a girl wearing a pair of blue jeans and a t-shirt, that really looked like they belonged on a male. The reason my outfit was inappropriate is much the same as some people here have said about leggings in general "they are for the gym". This is a fashion rule that is ludicrous. Reason? Because blue jeans or other such clothing was concidered inappropriate for wearing at any function outside of heavy or dirty labor. They were not originally meant for everyday casual wear. The leggings I was wearing were not dancewear, or work out wear, they were actually meant for "casual" wear. She would not have said this statement if I had been a female in the same outfit. The "appropriateness" in her mind was based on her thinking leggings were for women only. My view is, if a woman can wear a style of garment, then a man can to.

There that I think is the only rule that should apply.

If a woman can wear a style of garment to a function, then so can a man.

I do not want limits placed on what I wear that do not cover the issue of decency "can I see your bits?" or "does it look like you are just wearing underwear, in other words going to dinner in a speedo...gag (IMO)."

If in the rare instance I choose to wear a skirt without hose, I do not want to have to deal with the violating of some arbitrary rule that says if skirted hose must be worn. I don't want stupid rules like "not wearing white after labor day" foisted on us.

I see such rules as limiting, and unnecessary. In the end they limit and in some cases kill new ideas in style.

[Bob]

Hey, let's please stay on the original topic of the thread. This thread was recently hijacked to respond to another thread in the "Off Topic" forum. Why the person didn't just reply on that thread is beyond me.

[crfriend]

My last employer went to a business casual dress code a few years ago. It did not ban people from wearing a suit and tie if they wished, simply added the option to wear any collared shirt (with or without a tie) and casual trousers (NOT jeans).

That sort of thing was going on in the States (at least in New England) back in the 1990s, and was almost immediately abused. I railled about the "tie-required" dress code that existed for the rest of the week, but made sure to wear one on Fridays -- especially once the slide into grunge became very apparent.

My current gig completely lacks any dress code (or so it would appear): I think I'm going to take up tie-wearing again just to be different. What are they going to do? Sack me for it?

I asked about a kilt and was told "no problem" by HR, but the CEO was rather conservative and made it obvious that he did not really agree with that (even though the law requires that neither gender is treated less advantageously than the other). It was made plain (informally) that pushing the issue would not do anyone's employment prospects any good. I know when to back down, but would still like to see the option added in the same way as the option of chinos was.

This points up the problem with narrow-minded Management; handled tastefully and tactfully, skirted rigs on guys should not "ruffle any feathers", but without a decent sense of aesthetics on the part of the practitioner might fall apart pretty rapidly. Closed minds don't (or can't) understand the difference and rely on power tactics to keep the sheep in line. From a technical perspective, the CEO was out of line on this, but power trumps "right" almost every time in this regard; it's the old "might makes right" argument, or, "he who has the gold makes the rules".

[tooslowprius]

some people may like what i'm going to say some may not. i "in my oppinion" don't think that it is women's fashion freedom that we men are looking for. I think what most of us on here are looking for now is being on the same playing feild as women as far as work and play attire. by this i mean being able to go into work and wear a skirt if we want, or if we are going out to have a good time with friend's being able to weat a skirt and not get made fun of. in not so many words be able to wear a skirt where we want when we want and not have someone say "Oh look at that guy he must be gay." or "What are you some kind of pervert?" I mean the last time i checked the clothing that you wear does not define if your gay or not? It is how you act and how you present your self that define's that. here is the perfect example. I was in my local walmart yesterday and seen a guy that you could tell was what I would refer to is "Uber gay" here is why I say this.

• 1. he was wearing women's work out pant's (the cotten kind) they wear gray with a white stripe down the side.
  2. He was wearing a baby doll type tshirt that was the 2 layerd type the one under neath had the lace typre bottem you see a lot of women wearing
  these next item's are what really made him look gay
  3. a pink bandana
  4. long pink finger nails
  5. a pink purse
  6. make up (more than my wife had on)

no those item's in there self would make one wonder, but it wasn't even the clothing that made me wonder it was the way he acted in genral that made me automaticly know he was gay. did he get looked at, you better beleive he did, but i don't think it was about the way he looked or the way he was dressed. I think it was more about the way he acted that attrected everyone's attetion. So i guess my point would be this it not about wanting "womens fashion freedom" we already have that and we always have. It's more about how we present are self's and how we act that is going to be able to make some say "hay look at that guy he's wearing a skirt but i can tell he's not gay by the way he act's" and make thing's change as far a skirt's being accepted as normal clothing for men. in all realtiy when women wear "men's" clothing they still act like women, so men if we are going to wear "women's" clothing then we need to act like men, so to speak.

[Pythos]

But this rears up the question...What is "acting" male entail.

Now if someone is acting the stereotypical gay male, then that is one thing. But what does acting masculine entail. I have often stated that I find most of the time when men a depicted in a feminine article of clothing act silly. They flounce about and talk in silly voices. Very rarely are they shown acting, well...normal. It is strange to really think of what normal or masculine, or for that manner feminine is. Isn't it.

It is quite easy to pinpoint what can be called negative or bad behaviour. For the most part (in my opinion), overly macho male behavior is bad. At the same time the overly feminine can be bad or negative. I dislike it when a woman expects a door held open for her just because she is female. I dislike it when people who are fully capable of an action choose to have someone else do it because of their gender.

My friend who went through the "change" started taking on such traits, which I found disheartening. They started, what I call, acting prissy. Giggling acting "girlish". The kinda "girlish" she was acting was a total turn off for me. I don't like women acting weak and or feeble, and dumb.