A negative experience

[Sasquatch]

the UK most certainly does NOT have the right to call the US a nation of anarchists and "gun nuts".

I don't know, Carl. Perhaps there are some unspoken feelings lingering from that little disagreement with our friends across the pond in 1775! I recall reading that George III once wrote in his diary "Nothing of importance happened today". The date of that entry was July 4, 1776. I suppose from that side of the pond they might tend to view the boys at that bridge in Concord as anarchists and gun nuts! I sort of fall in those catergories myself, along with "eccentrics" and "rebels without causes" and "half-a-bubble off plumbs."

sasq

[Sasquatch]

And, to be honest, many neighbourhoods (esp. if US films are to be believed - just seen "The Dark Knight! ) do seem to have their share of resident 'nutter's!

I'm curious - exactly how much does one have to drink to start believing Batman movies?

sasq

[Sasquatch]

Real people don't stand on a girl's front yard holding a boom box above their head to serenade them (cf. Say Anything).

Real people don't narrowly dodge cars zooming down the street during car chases in urban environments (cf. The French Connection).

Movies exaggerate what does happen because it tells a better story. That's why we enjoy them, because they offer an escape from reality.



Uh huh. And it's just a few yards of fabric, with two fewer stitches down the middle. "Men don't wear skirts."

That sort of thing, in some parts of the United States, hardly gives pause. It has nothing to do with "nutters", and it has nothing to do with what flag you fly over your head. It has to do with what your comfort level is. There is equivalence in everything. We just pick and choose those things with which we want to take issue.

The fact is that with 300 million people we are, by the laws of probability, going to have a much larger number and variety of "nutters" than a smaller country. And we do (it's part of what makes us interesting). And with a massive and dominant media industry, our "nutters" get represented worldwide, but mostly in works of sheer fantasy like TV and movies. The typical American doesn't hear much about the "nutters" in other countries, because it just doesn't get reported widely in our commercial press, unless they commit genocide or something. You simply won't get much general European news unless you listen to NPR or BBC broadcasts regularly, or take the time to read foreign press, which few of us do.

What cheeses-off a lot of Europeans is the fact that the US acts politically, socially and culturally, like a monolithic entity. This is likely to our detriment, since political cooperation is generally preferable to conflict. But I suspect the main source of the anger is the lack of attention we give to Euro-centric points of view socially and culturally. Sorry about that. It isn't an issue of contempt or a dearth of intellect on our parts. It's just that the din of our own culture and society is overwhelming.

We do have much in common with our European colleagues, since we all reside in countries that people from much of the rest of the world run toward, and not away from. Regardless of the worst things that we may at times think about each other, the freedoms we share are pretty good things to have uniting us. As for civility, it is true that in some places in the US, wearing a skirt might get you an ass-kicking by some unenlightened, drunken jerks, but mostly we can wear what we want without fear of anything more than insults and glares, neither of which mean anything more than temporary discomfort. My suspicion is that, of US men observing another man in a skirt, maybe 2 or 3% would actually say anything. Of course 2 out of 4 are immediately thinking "queer", 1 out of 4 is thinking "wacko", and 1 out of 4 is wishing he had the nerve to wear one!

sasq

[crfriend]

The . was a token to make it legal in Nevada,

It's legal without the period.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it good behaviour. Such costume also says much about the quality of the character wearing it.

[Sylvain]

the UK most certainly does NOT have the right to call the US a nation of anarchists and "gun nuts".

I don't know, Carl. Perhaps there are some unspoken feelings lingering from that little disagreement with our friends across the pond in 1775! I recall reading that George III once wrote in his diary "Nothing of importance happened today". The date of that entry was July 4, 1776. I suppose from that side of the pond they might tend to view the boys at that bridge in Concord as anarchists and gun nuts! I sort of fall in those catergories myself, along with "eccentrics" and "rebels without causes" and "half-a-bubble off plumbs."

sasq

Funny but irrelevant. His Majesty had to wait a couple of months before a boat could bring the news...

[Since1982]

I've been a member here since early 2004 and remember Hamish, a Scot living in England asking how things were in the "colonies"...to which at least 7 of our Americans got all bent about being called "the colonies" including me. We haven't been colonies since July 4, 1776 and don't appreciate any remarks from the "former" masters, to wit, our being somehow of less worth than the British.

[Kris]

I've been a member here since early 2004 and remember Hamish, a Scot living in England asking how things were in the "colonies"...to which at least 7 of our Americans got all bent about being called "the colonies" including me. We haven't been colonies since July 4, 1776 and don't appreciate any remarks from the "former" masters, to wit, our being somehow of less worth than the British.

If a limey says something about "the colonies" I just take it as good-natured ribbing, and hope he feels the same about "limey"!

Kris
(who has English, Irish, and Scots ancestors, and at least four who fought for Independence)

[gorcee]

The . was a token to make it legal in Nevada,

It's legal without the period.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it good behaviour. Such costume also says much about the quality of the character wearing it.

Precisely the same thing can be said about men wearing skirts.

Freedom of expression is not a cafeteria menu. You don't get to pick and choose the things you support. You cannot simultaneously advocate changing the social paradigm of how people are perceived -- particularly about how clothing does not define gender or character -- and say that someone wearing a garment with profanity on it is bad behavior or indicative of the character wearing it.

[crfriend]

Just because it's legal doesn't make it good behaviour. Such costume also says much about the quality of the character wearing it.

Precisely the same thing can be said about men wearing skirts.

Freedom of expression is not a cafeteria menu. You don't get to pick and choose the things you support.

Au contraire. One of the hallmarks that I would hope that guys who are trying to get skirts-on-men accepted is that they'd observe at least some modicum of taste. Splashing an expletive across one's front, by contrast, is quite the opposite. You may disagree, and if that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and I'll not step on your right to plaster expletives on your body, but I will take that visual cue into account if I meet you on the street.

This is not about "freedom", this is about civility and taste. We've got the former: we need more of the latter.

You cannot simultaneously advocate changing the social paradigm of how people are perceived -- particularly about how clothing does not define gender or character -- and say that someone wearing a garment with profanity on it is bad behavior or indicative of the character wearing it.

Profanity is in the eye of the beholder (much like pornography), and runs on a sliding scale. I use "strong language" on occasion and make no bones about it, but it's not the sort of thing I'm likely to do in a public setting unless things are going very wrong. Decorum counts.

On another level, what's happened in recent years to what was formerly regarded as "strong language" has cheapened the very use of such words and phrases -- there's almost nothing that one can say in the modern realm that's actually an honest-to-goodness swear. All the words have been co-opted! What words are now appropriate when one manages to bash his thumb (again) with a hammer?

[crfriend]

If a limey says something about "the colonies" I just take it as good-natured ribbing, and hope he feels the same about "limey"!

Well put. Although, to be perfectly honest, I'll occasionally refer to "the colonies" from time to time if our own "gummint" has managed to pull a real boneheaded move.

Actually, the bonds that unite us are more powerful than the forces that divide us (language aside ).

[Peter v]

The . was a token to make it legal in Nevada,

It's legal without the period.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it good behaviour. Such costume also says much about the quality of the character wearing it.

I do agree, as that is also akin to gang membership
Who would wanting "belong" to a "group" who like publically insulting others?

Here in the netherlands at least, wearing baseball caps is another thing, some wear them for protection, I think most juveniles and joung men here wear them as a symbol of dierespect. "Hiding" under them, and disrespectfully keeping them on, partially hiding the face when talking to others, so that respectful eye contact is not possible.

So I would not wear "fu..." whatever, never, and certainly not as a skirt wearer. It is actually lowering your standard, degrading yourself to be one of the other fools who think showing how dumb you can act is being tough. But in reality, being tough is not conforming to doing things which initially only anti social, under privaliged, criminals would do.

I have read about the "skater" pants, low on the hips, ten sizes too big, much too long, the crutch at knee height, that that look is from the jail birds, the real criminals, and those people in jail have made it a fashion expression, for their criminal gang status. Be and do even more stupid than the "leader" then you will be "accepted" in the group.

Again, only real losers want to degrade themselves to "belong " to a group of other losers.
By doing what some fool dictates to you to do means that you are very weak. Denying others the "power" over you is being strong.

Men wearing skirts don't need any of that degrading behavior.
Men who dress differently, skirted men, at least at the moment, are for all intention, strong men. Strong in character, strong to stand above the domination of discriminating culture, especially macho culture. I would even dare to say that I think real macho behaviour is being very weak, as they fear anybody who is not influenced by them. That they cannot be warm individuals as I would say in skirting terms, men in skirts who go to the middle or over. assimialating by respect is being stronger than being feared by domination. But of course there are exceptions to the rule. Men who choose a certain style do not have to be either macho or femme by doing so.
So men who wear plain men's skirts can be femme, and men who chose to wear finer skirting outfits can be actually macho inthe friendly way, manly, in character. It is not how you look, but who you are, how you behave.

[Sasquatch]

the UK most certainly does NOT have the right to call the US a nation of anarchists and "gun nuts".

I don't know, Carl. Perhaps there are some unspoken feelings lingering from that little disagreement with our friends across the pond in 1775! I recall reading that George III once wrote in his diary "Nothing of importance happened today". The date of that entry was July 4, 1776. I suppose from that side of the pond they might tend to view the boys at that bridge in Concord as anarchists and gun nuts! I sort of fall in those catergories myself, along with "eccentrics" and "rebels without causes" and "half-a-bubble off plumbs."

sasq

Funny but irrelevant. His Majesty had to wait a couple of months before a boat could bring the news...

But ironic, nevertheless!
sasq

[Ray]

Sasquatch,

That was a really well reasoned and balanced commentary. It's piercingly clear in its insight, and conveyed with modesty and candour.

Can you tell I liked it?

Pythos - bad experience, there. Glad nothing came of it.

Peter V - now refreshing it is to hear somone referring to the "Netherlands" instead of "Holland".

...nothing more to say. I'll get back to my beer! (it's called "England's Gold", and it must be good if a Scot's drinking it!)

[gorcee]

Just because it's legal doesn't make it good behaviour. Such costume also says much about the quality of the character wearing it.

Precisely the same thing can be said about men wearing skirts.

Freedom of expression is not a cafeteria menu. You don't get to pick and choose the things you support.

Au contraire. One of the hallmarks that I would hope that guys who are trying to get skirts-on-men accepted is that they'd observe at least some modicum of taste. Splashing an expletive across one's front, by contrast, is quite the opposite. You may disagree, and if that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and I'll not step on your right to plaster expletives on your body, but I will take that visual cue into account if I meet you on the street.

This is not about "freedom", this is about civility and taste. We've got the former: we need more of the latter.

From the header on the site:

Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men.

The entire world does not see things as this forum does. While for you it may be a matter of taste, for an outsider it is a matter of someone breaking the rules. Like it or not, there do exist unwritten rules for how one dresses on their own time. They are rules predicated on false authority, but rules universally observed by a fairly large (albeit not universal) cultural body. Freedom is not about deconstruction of codified injustice, it is also about breaking down social barriers to progress. No one here doubts that women sought freedom and liberation in the 20th century, and that among the fronts of their movement, freedom of clothing choice was a major part. It was not against the law for women to wear pants in the early 1960s. Yet women wore skirts to school and work. It's just how it was.

Freedom is the state of not being held down by unnecessary restrictions. Those can be laws. They can also be attitudes. While we all here have no problem with how Pythos was dressed, the individual in question did, and as such, this is very much a matter of advocacy of freedom of choice. And I posit again, freedom of choice is not a cafeteria menu. You don't have to have gay sex to support gay rights. You don't have to wear a hat that says **** off to support the right to do so.

[Pythos]

The thing is, the individual in question was a nutter. Should we live in fear of nutters like him?

Your argument seems to posit so.