Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to inc
http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/
Careful BM, that may be contributing to global warming besides containing a pretty good pun too.Barleymower wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 4:11 pm A friendly supportive article to warm the cockles of MIS.
Last year, at the Bullet Train premiere, Brad Pitt walked down the red carpet wearing a brown linen jacket, biker boots, and a matching linen… skirt.
Thank you and apologies I would have cut and paste but I was out delivering children to their explorers fun.Elisabetta wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:51 pmLast year, at the Bullet Train premiere, Brad Pitt walked down the red carpet wearing a brown linen jacket, biker boots, and a matching linen… skirt.
He looked good. Natch, he’s Brad Pitt. Given the heatwave in Berlin, the asymmetrical, knee-length, raw-edged hem was a wise choice providing optimal breathability.
Maybe playing Achilles in “Troy” accustomed him to getting a little more air under there. When asked why he chose to wear a skirt to the premiere, he cagily told Variety, “I don’t know! We’re all gonna die, so let’s mess it up!”. YOLO, Brad. Life’s too short to be moist in the nethers.
All over the world, men are reclaiming the right to wear skirts, a right that over centuries societal pressure has chipped away.
The modern Westerner may think men have always worn pants. Of course, we know from watching The Ten Commandments that isn’t true. The first known pants-wearing people were Asian nomadic horse tribes in the sixth century BC.
In those societies, pants were worn by both men and women. The Greeks and Romans thought the bi-legged garments barbaric. They preferred to lounge about eating olives in goddess dresses. For more strenuous activities, like Olympic competitions, they’d just go naked.
But pants persisted. Certainly, practicality boosted their popularity. They kept legs warmer in cold climates. They were more protective during military operations. Riding a horse was more pleasant. Oh, the chafing! How did Lady Godiva stand it?
Over centuries, split leg coverings evolved from Henry VIII’s hose and codpiece to French revolution style knickers and stockings. Ankle-length pants were worn mostly by the working class.
It wasn’t until the late 1800s, that English King Edward VII made the modern trouser silhouette popular amongst men. It’s now become the de facto standard of Western male dress.
As a tomboy growing up in the 1970s, I would rather be tarred and feathered than wear a skirt. You’d have to catch me by the ear and force me to change out of my plaid polyester slacks.
I refused to be hampered by my clothing, preferring to somersault, cartwheel, and hang upside down from the monkey bars with abandon. Crawling around under the bushes with my plastic Breyer horses was so much easier in my patched-knee Toughskins. A short Brady Bunch-style skirt might have left my legs free to play kickball, but I could never sit carefully enough to avoid a major wardrobe malfunction.
However, for the last few years, I’ve come to embrace skirts and dresses. They’re now a constant fixture of my summer wardrobe. Last year here in Texas we had 68 days above 100 degrees. I lounged around all summer in a dress that was essentially a long tank top. To be truthful, I do more than lounge in tank dresses. I buy groceries, visit the post office, and go out to dinner. I wear them everywhere.
Is it any wonder that some brave guys are trying to bring back the skirt for men? It doesn’t matter how much a fabric claims it “wicks”. In 100-degree heat, it’s not gonna keep the ass-crack of your chinos dry.
As women, we should support men’s right to dress for maximal comfort and utility. After all, we know what it’s like to be persecuted for fashion. Women completely lost the ability to wear pants in Western society in the 18th century. In some countries, women were actually thrown in jail for the practice.
Today, pants-wearing by women is widely accepted in the United States and Europe. Therefore it is astonishing that even as late as 2019, three girls had to sue their school in North Carolina for the right to wear pants in class. They won. The judge overturned the school’s dress code as unconstitutional because “the skirt requirement causes the girls to suffer a burden the boys do not, simply because they are female”.
When I lived in Seattle in 2019, I was surprised by the number of skirt-clad men I encountered riding the bus or walking around downtown. As these were athletic young men, I first thought they played field hockey or tossed a few cabers around after work. But, the absence of uniforms, hockey sticks, sporrans, and bagpipes clued me in that they were just going about their days in freedom and comfort.
Seattle is home to one of the largest skirt stores for men, Utilikilts. They sell a variety of USA-designed and sewn kilts. The “Workman” style can even carry an entire six-pack. Now that’s fashion and function! They sell kilts, or in their words, “Men’s Unbifurcated Garments”, all over the world, a testement (is that spelled wrong?) to the demand for their product.
Take heart, men, there is legal and fashion-scene precedence. If you want your thighs to rub together when you walk, you should have that choice!
There’s some hard opposition though.
On April 13, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller updated the agency dress code to say that employees must dress according to their “biological gender”. What the hell is he talking about?
His policy says :
The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.
My summer tank top dresses wouldn’t pass this dress code. That’s OK, it’s a casual look that isn’t appropriate for a representative of a public-facing government agency. I find comfort in knowing the next time I visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, no matter what other inconveniences I endure, at least I won’t suffer the insult of being served by a guy wearing an ankle-length wife beater.
Just look professional, people.
I have sympathy for the folks in Human Resources who have to write the dress code. Like “pornography”, the definition of “professional” slips from your grasp as you try to define it with words. Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?
It’s OK to have constraints. But do we need to throw the undies out with the wash water and completely ban people with penises from wearing skirts? GQ says 2023 is the year of the skirt for men. Are Robert Pattinson and Harry Styles wrong?
What would Jesus do? Every morning, when confronting his wardrobe, he chose a simple knee-length linen shift.
It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women. The policy states that employees can be fired for violating the code. That’s fighting dirty. The clothes don’t make the man. He/She/They/We must resist being shoehorned into categories.
Stand up for your fellow man if he wants to slip out of his pants and show a little leg. How else would we know Brad Pitt has a delightful rhinoceros tattoo on his right shin? How can we deny men the freedom women have enjoyed for centuries? You’ve come a long way, baby. Just watch those subway updrafts, guys.
When there are two standards, there is no equality. Let’s give people with testicles the same right as people with ovaries. To do otherwise would be injustice enough to make Justin Beiber clutch his pearls.
I pasted the article here for you based on BM's link that was shared.
Ha ha Steve good one. Who says skirts won't warm your cockles?STEVIE wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 6:55 pmCareful BM, that may be contributing to global warming besides containing a pretty good pun too.Barleymower wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 4:11 pm A friendly supportive article to warm the cockles of MIS.
Steve.
Barleymower wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:10 pmThank you and apologies I would have cut and paste but I was out delivering children to their explorers fun.Elisabetta wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:51 pmLast year, at the Bullet Train premiere, Brad Pitt walked down the red carpet wearing a brown linen jacket, biker boots, and a matching linen… skirt.
He looked good. Natch, he’s Brad Pitt. Given the heatwave in Berlin, the asymmetrical, knee-length, raw-edged hem was a wise choice providing optimal breathability.
Maybe playing Achilles in “Troy” accustomed him to getting a little more air under there. When asked why he chose to wear a skirt to the premiere, he cagily told Variety, “I don’t know! We’re all gonna die, so let’s mess it up!”. YOLO, Brad. Life’s too short to be moist in the nethers.
All over the world, men are reclaiming the right to wear skirts, a right that over centuries societal pressure has chipped away.
The modern Westerner may think men have always worn pants. Of course, we know from watching The Ten Commandments that isn’t true. The first known pants-wearing people were Asian nomadic horse tribes in the sixth century BC.
In those societies, pants were worn by both men and women. The Greeks and Romans thought the bi-legged garments barbaric. They preferred to lounge about eating olives in goddess dresses. For more strenuous activities, like Olympic competitions, they’d just go naked.
But pants persisted. Certainly, practicality boosted their popularity. They kept legs warmer in cold climates. They were more protective during military operations. Riding a horse was more pleasant. Oh, the chafing! How did Lady Godiva stand it?
Over centuries, split leg coverings evolved from Henry VIII’s hose and codpiece to French revolution style knickers and stockings. Ankle-length pants were worn mostly by the working class.
It wasn’t until the late 1800s, that English King Edward VII made the modern trouser silhouette popular amongst men. It’s now become the de facto standard of Western male dress.
As a tomboy growing up in the 1970s, I would rather be tarred and feathered than wear a skirt. You’d have to catch me by the ear and force me to change out of my plaid polyester slacks.
I refused to be hampered by my clothing, preferring to somersault, cartwheel, and hang upside down from the monkey bars with abandon. Crawling around under the bushes with my plastic Breyer horses was so much easier in my patched-knee Toughskins. A short Brady Bunch-style skirt might have left my legs free to play kickball, but I could never sit carefully enough to avoid a major wardrobe malfunction.
However, for the last few years, I’ve come to embrace skirts and dresses. They’re now a constant fixture of my summer wardrobe. Last year here in Texas we had 68 days above 100 degrees. I lounged around all summer in a dress that was essentially a long tank top. To be truthful, I do more than lounge in tank dresses. I buy groceries, visit the post office, and go out to dinner. I wear them everywhere.
Is it any wonder that some brave guys are trying to bring back the skirt for men? It doesn’t matter how much a fabric claims it “wicks”. In 100-degree heat, it’s not gonna keep the ass-crack of your chinos dry.
As women, we should support men’s right to dress for maximal comfort and utility. After all, we know what it’s like to be persecuted for fashion. Women completely lost the ability to wear pants in Western society in the 18th century. In some countries, women were actually thrown in jail for the practice.
Today, pants-wearing by women is widely accepted in the United States and Europe. Therefore it is astonishing that even as late as 2019, three girls had to sue their school in North Carolina for the right to wear pants in class. They won. The judge overturned the school’s dress code as unconstitutional because “the skirt requirement causes the girls to suffer a burden the boys do not, simply because they are female”.
When I lived in Seattle in 2019, I was surprised by the number of skirt-clad men I encountered riding the bus or walking around downtown. As these were athletic young men, I first thought they played field hockey or tossed a few cabers around after work. But, the absence of uniforms, hockey sticks, sporrans, and bagpipes clued me in that they were just going about their days in freedom and comfort.
Seattle is home to one of the largest skirt stores for men, Utilikilts. They sell a variety of USA-designed and sewn kilts. The “Workman” style can even carry an entire six-pack. Now that’s fashion and function! They sell kilts, or in their words, “Men’s Unbifurcated Garments”, all over the world, a testement (is that spelled wrong?) to the demand for their product.
Take heart, men, there is legal and fashion-scene precedence. If you want your thighs to rub together when you walk, you should have that choice!
There’s some hard opposition though.
On April 13, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller updated the agency dress code to say that employees must dress according to their “biological gender”. What the hell is he talking about?
His policy says :
The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.
My summer tank top dresses wouldn’t pass this dress code. That’s OK, it’s a casual look that isn’t appropriate for a representative of a public-facing government agency. I find comfort in knowing the next time I visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, no matter what other inconveniences I endure, at least I won’t suffer the insult of being served by a guy wearing an ankle-length wife beater.
Just look professional, people.
I have sympathy for the folks in Human Resources who have to write the dress code. Like “pornography”, the definition of “professional” slips from your grasp as you try to define it with words. Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?
It’s OK to have constraints. But do we need to throw the undies out with the wash water and completely ban people with penises from wearing skirts? GQ says 2023 is the year of the skirt for men. Are Robert Pattinson and Harry Styles wrong?
What would Jesus do? Every morning, when confronting his wardrobe, he chose a simple knee-length linen shift.
It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women. The policy states that employees can be fired for violating the code. That’s fighting dirty. The clothes don’t make the man. He/She/They/We must resist being shoehorned into categories.
Stand up for your fellow man if he wants to slip out of his pants and show a little leg. How else would we know Brad Pitt has a delightful rhinoceros tattoo on his right shin? How can we deny men the freedom women have enjoyed for centuries? You’ve come a long way, baby. Just watch those subway updrafts, guys.
When there are two standards, there is no equality. Let’s give people with testicles the same right as people with ovaries. To do otherwise would be injustice enough to make Justin Beiber clutch his pearls.
I pasted the article here for you based on BM's link that was shared.
Climate change is real!! That fact has been proven, if you look at the evidence.pelmut wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 12:19 pm I hoped I was being very careful not to reject anything or push any alternative narrative, but 'Climate Change' (interpreted in different ways to suit the circumstances) is being taken as a fully proved and indisputable fact which can be used to justify all sorts of actions. In many cases those actions, far from 'saving the planet', would actually make things worse. This is where scientific information is being rejected in favour of 'belief' -- which seems to be one of the main identifying characteristics of a religion.
In the interest of "gender equality", get rid of pantsuits on women. Skirts or dresses only. For men, get rid of the requirement for a tie and sport-coat. Get rid of boots altogether unless the weather is foul; I don't care if this is Texas. Full stop.The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.
This is reasonable and proper, and no professional would violate that rule.Just look professional, people.
Spray-on pants are appropriate for no-one in the workplace. Full stop. The women will get a pass on this, as well as a pass on all the other strictures. This is one-sided dictum and should be rightfully struck down as discriminatory.Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?
Transgender FtM types are merely regarded as "tomboys" and remain celebrated in our modern society. This is targetted specifically at MtF "transgenders" and catches MIS in the splatter radius of the machine-gun fire. I do not like being "collateral damage".It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women.
I’m an interested party. Can you prove this negative?Fred in Skirts wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:42 pm
If man was the real problem none of the above would have had any effect on the climate!!!
Ok, I'll bite. Whenever I've asked this question on Reddit for some reason people never come back with an answer, but I'll try. But after that I'll leave it alone:
Hadn’t thought of it this way before but well said. Global warming is an “inconvenience” to our current way of life. Does make it more palatable if we either put our head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it’s not happening and/or distance ourselves from blame. As it’s been said, science doesn’t care what we think. The truth is the truth.
Lies, damn lies and statisticsFred in Skirts wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:42 pmClimate change is real!! That fact has been proven, if you look at the evidence.pelmut wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 12:19 pm I hoped I was being very careful not to reject anything or push any alternative narrative, but 'Climate Change' (interpreted in different ways to suit the circumstances) is being taken as a fully proved and indisputable fact which can be used to justify all sorts of actions. In many cases those actions, far from 'saving the planet', would actually make things worse. This is where scientific information is being rejected in favour of 'belief' -- which seems to be one of the main identifying characteristics of a religion.
Fact 1: The world used to be a lot warmer than it is now until the big Meteor blast that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Fact 2: The world went through an ice age and everything was frozen over with a thick layer of ice.
Fact 3: The world is now warming up a bit since the sun has started into it's period of major flares and eruptions. This will cause more problems in the future since it is now early in the cycle.
Fact 4: Man has not had anything to do with all of the above listed facts. If man was the real problem none of the above would have had any effect on the climate!!!
Just my 2 pence worth and you are welcome to agree or disagree as you please!!
This is my thoughts on the subject.
Oh yes, the worlds magnetic poles are moving and just may swap ends, they have done this in the past and that also changes the worlds climate!!
So go have a pint and stop worrying about what you can not change and just enjoy what you can!!
Edited once to fix spelling and extra word that was not needed.
