Is it our duty?

[couyalair]

Yes, if we believe that men should enjoy the advantages of open garments without criticism from the reactionaries, yes, I do think it is our duty to get out there and be seen.

I've been out there (in Grenoble and Malaga and 101 holiday visits) for 12 years, but I can't claim to have influenced anyone to follow my example, other than the men who go Scottish dancing in Grenoble who now arrive kilted whereas before they would probably have arrived in trousers and then changed.
Of the men I see most often, while a few may admire my style, none have shown the slightest wish to go into skirts. I've not tried to convert anyone beyond saying how comfortable open garments are. The gay men among my acquaintances are the ones that disapprove most.

From time to time, halloween is mentioned as being a good day to go out skirted (for the men who are not yet into everyday skirting). Personally, I feel this is counterproductive as it reinforces the notion that a skirt must be a fancydress costume not a regular garment. Wearing prince charlie jackets, sporrans and all the (commercial) paraphenalia with a tartan kilt similarly reinforces the notion that a kilt is only for Scots and only for special occasions. Wearing a kilt/skirt with ordinary pullovers, shirts, etc gives the message that it's just another article of clothing. Although I have for most of my life been a kilt-wearer, I am more and more favoring the plain denim skirt to get away from the costume look (and also to get away from the schoolgirl uniform look here in Spain).

Martin

[Charlie]

Leisure attire depends on what I'm doing and the season/ambient temperature. Skirting comes firmly under this latter heading and is indulged in just to please myself, not others, so one can argue that it is a selfish pursuit/hobby.

Hmm. Wonder prospective employers might think if I added 'Skirt wearing' to the hobbies and interests section of my CV ...

Charlie
(who doesn't want a job because he's retired and wears what he d%^&*d well likes anyway )

[Nolyn]

I think that there is another "duty" for us as well. And that is to promote an equality of treatment toward women. As to clothing, women have license to wear what used to be men's only clothing (e.g. trousers, etc.). But over the centuries, women have been subjected to treatment that has relagated them to a lesser role in society - this has shown itself in what has traditionally been understood as women's work (e.g. nursing, teaching, secretarial jobs, etc.) and how we talk to and about women (e.g. males are "men" when they grow up, but women are still referred to as "girls" long after adulthood). The first has come a long way toward equality, but our societal attitudes toward women has not as much. How women have been viewed and treated has been linked to what we consider to be women's clothing. And what's more, men and women both use male and maleness as the definition of success and acceptance, and female and femaleness as less than so. In a very significant way, the ability of women to wear trousers is a way of elevating themselves in society.

Here are some examples: In the USA anyway, the word "guy" is becoming the common word used to refer to a group of people no matter what the gender mix of the group is; "guy", of course is a word that refers to a male, so to refer to women, for instance, "How are you guys doing?" is an insult to women. In the same way to call a man a "pantywaist" is ment to be an insult - i.e. calling him a woman - is actually more of an insult to women. I could go on with many more examples.

My point, then is that as we wish to promote skirts for men, we must also promote full equallity for women in all areas of society and attitudes. This way the idea of a man wearing a skirt or dress won't be viewed as debasing himself down to wearing "women's clothing" (i.e. lesser clothing). I think the goal of wearing skirts and defending the rights of women are very much the same cause.

[Big and Bashful]

<snip>

Here are some examples: In the USA anyway, the word "guy" is becoming the common word used to refer to a group of people no matter what the gender mix of the group is; "guy", of course is a word that refers to a male, so to refer to women, for instance, "How are you guys doing?" is an insult to women. In the same way to call a man a "pantywaist" is ment to be an insult - i.e. calling him a woman - is actually more of an insult to women. I could go on with many more examples.

<snip>

I don't get this bit; To me "How are you guys doing?" is an inclusive phrase, treating everyone the same, not insulting the women. Also how on Earth is calling a man a woman insulting women?

To me that is convoluted and twisted logic, a way of reading offence into anything you want.

[skirtyscot]

And some female actors no longer wish to be called actresses. They see the feminine version of the word to be demeaning, and a single unisex word to be much better.

[crfriend]

And some female actors no longer wish to be called actresses. They see the feminine version of the word to be demeaning, and a single unisex word to be much better.

I suppose the ultimate end of this will be a simple call of, "Hey you!" (in the plural of "you") and that'll be that. Gone will be the subtleties that can be offered with the language, and with that some of the gentility that the language offers. To this writer's mind, this will be a sad event.

As far as the argument of "men" versus "boys" and "women" (which in extreme "feminist" circles has been corrupted to "womyn" to avoid any hint of the male) versus "girls" goes, I routinely start things off with male pals of mine with a "Good morning, lads!" or somesuch. Is this, too, to be prohibited? I understand the female (to use the age-neutral term) distaste for "girl", but women themselves use it in their own company (e.g. "You go girl!") much the same way that blokes will "spend an evening out with the boys". I think the whole thing's overblown, and I think it's overblown by a small percentage of the population.

However, I am little more than one stick in a large patch of mud. But I love the English language and don't want to see it (further) dumbed down.

[Sarongman]

I was going to start a new thread, but as this has skewed slightly off topic, and the treatment of women has raised itself as a topic, this bit of news is as apt here as in a new topic.

It came over the news today, that an old legal act in French law has been repealed. This law has not been policed for QUITE a few decades, but women can now wear trousers in public without "fear of arrest". Up until the repeal, the law stated that a woman could only wear trousers, with a licence, while in charge of a horse or a bicycle It makes one wonder just how many archaic laws are still in the statute books around the world.

[Kirbstone]

Hereford is an English county or shire bordering on Wales. When we were being shown round the Hereford Cathedral School we were informed that the Bishop of Hereford may still shoot with a crossbow any Welshman within the City walls on sight.

T.

[Nolyn]

*I don't get this bit; To me "How are you guys doing?" is an inclusive phrase, treating everyone the same, not insulting the women. Also how on Earth is calling a man a woman insulting women?

To me that is convoluted and twisted logic, a way of reading offence into anything you want. *

Big and Bashful, the reason that I see that it is wrong to use "guy" or "guys" when referring to women is because it is a word originally meant to be a male reference. It actually is a misuse of the word - a dumbing down if you will - to use it as an inclusive word because that is not its meaning (on the contrary, it is actually EXclusive). As for insulting a man by calling him a woman in some way is an insult to women, because it makes male and maleness the standard as if men are better and superior to women (calling a man a woman "lowers" a man to the percieved "level" that women exist on).

Does this make sense?

[Nolyn]

And some female actors no longer wish to be called actresses. They see the feminine version of the word to be demeaning, and a single unisex word to be much better.

Another example of the point I am trying to make: I wonder if female "actors" see the term "actress" as demeaning because male and maleness has become society's standard of superiority. To be called an actress may be viewed as inferior because male and maleness is seen by society as better than female and femaleness. What I don't understand is if thespians want a unisex word for their craft, then why do they choose "actor" which is the male form of the word.

It is another example of the dumbing down of the language that people forget what words are meant to mean - but that is a whole other topic.

Also, I appologize if I have inadvertantly hijacked the topic - not my intention. I see equal treatment of women as part of our "duty" to promote the mainstreaming of men in skirts.

[couyalair]

Hijacking, perhaps, but I quite agree with you, Nolyn, that it is only right to seek equal rights and respect for women, if we want equal clothing rights for ourselves.
I've always been a feminist and believe the world will be a better place for us all when (if) women are no longer held back from expressing themselves and taking their rightful place in society. Things have improved enormously in the west during the last half century, but elsewhere ..., there's a long battle ahead.

Martin

[Jim]

I think the goal of wearing skirts and defending the rights of women are very much the same cause.

Excellent point!

[crfriend]

Indeed I've heard it said that any bloke who wants to wear skirts must be, in part, a bit of a feminist simply because he does believe in equality.

[partlyscot]

<snip>

Here are some examples: In the USA anyway, the word "guy" is becoming the common word used to refer to a group of people no matter what the gender mix of the group is; "guy", of course is a word that refers to a male, so to refer to women, for instance, "How are you guys doing?" is an insult to women. In the same way to call a man a "pantywaist" is ment to be an insult - i.e. calling him a woman - is actually more of an insult to women. I could go on with many more examples.

<snip>

I don't get this bit; To me "How are you guys doing?" is an inclusive phrase, treating everyone the same, not insulting the women. Also how on Earth is calling a man a woman insulting women?

To me that is convoluted and twisted logic, a way of reading offence into anything you want.

I do agree that getting bent out of shape about using "guys" as inclusive greeting is, perhaps, taking it a little far, but your other statement, "Also how on Earth is calling a man a woman insulting women?" To give an example, the other day someone called another male a word which could be used to describe a cat, but in this context was derogatory word intended to refer to a female body part. My girlfriend overheard, and said in an icy voice. "Thank you for denigrating my genitalia." I'll let you figure out the word used.

[Big and Bashful]

There's nowt so queer as folk! (Queer as in odd, just in case any one takes it the wrong way!).
Rightly or wrongly, I see people who take offence for all sorts of reasons whether perceived or genuine, and I am afraid I can't even begin to understand 90% of humanity. I just feel like an outsider when these 'deep discussions' take place.
No wonder I don't do personal relationships, I don't understand people, they're weird! I'm glad I'm not human! I would hate to be that confusing!