Let's never speak this word again

[Uncle Al]

Women wearing pants did not occur, in America, until Katharine Hepburn wore them off a movie setback in the 1940s-50s.
During WW2, when women replaced men in the factories, the women wore pants during their work hours but had to change
back into dresses/skirts when leaving the factories.

THIS IS OH SO TRUE

Many people just don't understand fashion HISTORY in America(Western World).
I've been 'preaching' this for many years here(Skirt Cafe') but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Seems like people still don't want to LEARN from history but keep on making the same
mistakes(doing the same things over and over) hoping for a different result.

I, along with JeffB1959, Fred in skirts and other members, have added dresses as well as skirts into our wardrobe.
They can be more comfortable in very hot weather as they allow better air circulation around the body as they are
supported by the shoulders, not the waist.
A skirt(and Kilt) only allows better airflow up to the waist as I have to(MUST) use a belt to keep them up.
( I'll have to change my wardrobe contents soon, as I've lost 60 lbs in the past 2 years )

Uncle Al

[STEVIE]

THIS IS OH SO TRUE

Which part Al?

In the UK women were wearing trousers at work and out and about from the the onset of World War one.
There are also other examples from history, lady cyclists wore heavy bloomers from Victorian times, all of which pre-dates Ms Hepburn.
The United States imported much of it's fashions from Europe, so it's likely to have been around in America too.
Are you really saying that the United States is representative of the Western World?
As for learning from history, in general that joke is on men and applies in much more important areas than clothing fashions.

Also back in the 1940's-50's women put dresses on infant boys. Also women also subject to arrest up to including 1970 for wearing pants.
Dresses where considered as being unisex clothing for infants up to including 1950's. Also during that same time periods clergy was claiming men can't wear dresses and women wear pants, while he had a new infant son in a pink dress.

At the risk of being picky, Mr S, I have a few questions?
The infant/unisex dress thing had pretty much died out in Britain very early in the 20th century, was America not similar.
Where in 1970 would a woman have been arrested for wearing trousers, did it happen?
Some clergy are still claiming men cannot wear dresses, but what about their sons?

Many many things are put to uses unforeseen by the inventor.
Perhaps, designed for humans is the best way to think of clothing, then maybe that "word" will become archaic and harmless.
Steve.

[Modoc]

I have nothing to add but I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.

[Myopic Bookworm]

In the UK women were wearing trousers at work and out and about from the the onset of World War one.
There are also other examples from history, lady cyclists wore heavy bloomers from Victorian times, all of which pre-dates Ms Hepburn.

Where in 1970 would a woman have been arrested for wearing trousers, did it happen?

At least in the late 1960s, women in trousers were still being asked to leave London restaurants because they broke the dress code. But not getting arrested. By 1970, "hot pants" were a thing.

[Barleymower]

It's an odd situation, I expect you needed to be there. In a lot of respects women were wearing trousers long before they were truly accepted and still getting arrested or thrown out after they were accepted.

The fact remains that (the men on this forum accepted) If womenkind fancy the look of menswear and start wearing it, men, the general male populace can kiss it goodbye. Moreover the general male population is only just beginning to notice that his wardrobe is becoming a bit drab.

However you read the history of women's struggles to fashion freedom it is not the same as mens. First, men need to recognise there is a problem.

Re the original subject of the thread: Brad you are correct.

[Grok]

THIS IS OH SO TRUE

In the UK women were wearing trousers at work and out and about from the the onset of World War one.
There are also other examples from history, lady cyclists wore heavy bloomers from Victorian times, all of which pre-dates Ms Hepburn.

I think there is a distinction between clothing that is accepted-being deemed within the limits of the norm-and clothing that is viewed as merely tolerable. If the outfit is viewed as tolerable, then the individual won't be rejected by society.

I believe that the examples mentioned were outfits that were viewed as tolerable for women to wear (under certain circumstances), but skirted rigs were the norm back then.

A further distinction would be an individual who's presence is tolerated-such as a man in a skirted rig-but who's outfit is not really viewed as tolerable for men, let alone being accepted as being within the norm.

[Uncle Al]

THIS IS OH SO TRUE

Which part Al?

In the UK women were wearing trousers at work and out and about from the the onset of World War one.

This part, not written by me but it is totally correct:

Women wearing pants did not occur, in America, until Katharine Hepburn wore them off a movie setback in the 1940s-50s.
During WW2, when women replaced men in the factories, the women wore pants during their work hours but had to change
back into dresses/skirts when leaving the factories.

This "quote" specifically states in America, not referring to any other country.

Uncle Al

[STEVIE]

This "quote" specifically states in America, not referring to any other country.

Many people just don't understand fashion HISTORY in America(Western World).

Sorry Al, but this does suggest to me, "other" countries.
Besides, would you not agree that historical conditions for fashion non-conformity could be even crazier and less fair than they are today.
Even today, there are countries where a man in a skirt could be legally executed, many others, including many "advanced" nations, areas of which, where it would still be dangerous in the extreme.
"Advanced", you could take as almost anywhere, but some are historically safer than others, it's all relative.
Actually, people don't understand what is happening today, history may as well have happened on another planet.
Steve.

[Jim]

Women wearing pants did not occur, in America, until Katharine Hepburn wore them off a movie setback in the 1940s-50s.

My mom told me the story of how when she moved from Chicago to a Minnesota farm in 1930, she was the first girl around to wear snow pants in the winter. It was already normal in Chicago.

[rivegauche]

My mother grew up in a very conservative community and was one of the first women to wear trousers there in the 1950's and she got a lot of criticism from the God Squad. In spite of this I didn't see her in any form of trousers until I was in my late teens. When I started wearing skirts and also properly crossdressing she was very supportive of the right of men to wear skirts. By the early seventies that same community had changed to the extent that most women were in trousers except for the hardcore churchgoers. Fortunately things have swung back a bit since then and there are now more women in skirts. In Scotland the religious extremists now seem to concentrate on the issues instead of attacking individuals and it is a country where I feel very comfortable in public as a man in a skirt or as a man dressed as a woman. Once as a man in a skirt I was looked up and down with a withering shake of the head by a woman outside her shop, and once when dressed as a woman I was given a sarcastic hand clap and that is as far as it has ever gone. It would be silly to get upset about applause whatever the motive. Neither of my critics said anything.

[Shilo]

Me too, and I have also been that cross-dresser.
Just not women's clothes, my clothes!
Steve.

I agree. I don’t wear women’s clothes, I wear my clothes. They may have been designed with women in mind

[Barleymower]

Since there are no female cross dressers, there should be no male cross dressers either.
My own choice is to never use transvestite, tranny, or crossdresser. I would go so far as saying I don't use any of these terms or similar.

Simples!

[STEVIE]

Me too, and I have also been that cross-dresser.

.....me too, I said that somewhere else, it may even have been on this thread.
Shilo, Steve, I did a double take.

Since there are no female cross dressers,

Oh, but there are BM, there are even "drag kings".
Female cross-dressing is just hidden in plain sight for most of the time. Guys do it too, jeans, white blouse and trainers from the other side, who notices?
Skirts and dresses just put us into a different category, we get noticed.
As for the words, I say again, I really don't give a damn, I have been called worse.
Stevie Steve

[Barleymower]

Me too, and I have also been that cross-dresser.

.....me too, I said that somewhere else, it may even have been on this thread.
Shilo, Steve, I did a double take.

Since there are no female cross dressers,

Oh, but there are BM, there are even "drag kings".
Female cross-dressing is just hidden in plain sight for most of the time. Guys do it too, jeans, white blouse and trainers from the other side, who notices?
Skirts and dresses just put us into a different category, we get noticed.
As for the words, I say again, I really don't give a damn, I have been called worse.
Stevie Steve

Sounds to me like one of those justification arguments I hear:
"Maybe they did, but they don't anymore"

Drag is cabaret.
For many the CD term is a nudge, nudge, wink, wink derogatory backs to the wall, on the other bus eh eh?

Call yourselves what you like. I'm wearing what I want and hopefully normalising the right of men to have "rights" and not be dictated too

[STEVIE]

I'm wearing what I want and hopefully normalising the right of men to have "rights" and not be dictated too

Who is arguing?

Steve