So here is a poser.

[Pythos]

Let me start with a warning about this post.

It might be disturbing.

Understand I am someone who is for, and when necessary defends the rights of women and Homosexuals, along with other classes of humans.

But this is about homosexuals.

At my work we deal with a flying club. In this flying club there is a gentleman who is an accomplished flight instructor and commercial pilot.

The thing about him is this. He is a total and complete "flamer" Very very effeminate, feeble in behavior, and has a very pronounced lisp.

The guy is very nice, but he is married to a "beard" in other words a very attractive woman, with which he has only the marriage tittle. It is very obvious he is a closet gay man.

I have no problem with this. He is one hell of a pilot, and he turns out some good students. Others at my shop say some mean things about him, which I end up shooting back at, as best I can.

An observation I have made is that Gay men though still stigmatized, are FAR more accepted than we guys that prefer to wear clothing associated with the opposite sex.

Now most likely he is able to keep his position due to his merits (which is how it should be). But if he were to get fired the place would have to prove it was not because of his orientation. If it was, he would be due a lot of money in "damages" and the place could get shut down.

If anyone here were to lose their job for wearing what we wear what would be the overarching reason? Most likely it would be somebody thought we were gay. (remember that is the most likely reason, not the only reason). Why would we not be able to nail such a place for unlawful firing based on perceived sexual orientation?

Now this may sound really horrible, but I have to ask. Why are homosexuals more accepted in society than guys with a desire to have more freedom in what they wear? Morality? There is but ONE part in the "Holy Bible" that says anything concerning the wearing of the clothing of the opposite sex, and that is in a section concerning the marriage ceremony, and it is most likely misinterpreted. There are many many many sections in the "Good Book" against gays. We all know this. The question is not is it right or not (in my book it is bumkiss), but why is it Homosexuality was "accepted" long before fashion freedom was accepted. Social acceptablitly? But isn't this based off morality?

Understand I am not against Homosexuals getting a bit more freedom in this society, but I am just befuddled as to what it is about what we do is so friggin bad, when adulterers, womanizers, drunks, chain smokers, greedy ass bastards, are more accepted than homosexuals, and people like us?

What the heck?

[Milfmog]

...I have to ask. Why are homosexuals more accepted in society than guys with a desire to have more freedom in what they wear?

While not the complete answer to your question, I suspect that visibility is a major part of the difference.

Over the years homosexual's have become more widely recognised and less inclined to hide. The first to become visible were ridiculed and pilloried by society (whatever that is) but as more and more became visible the stigma was spread thinner and thinner; the general populace became used to it. The fear of the unknown in our midst was dissipated and acceptance grew.

At present, men in skirts are a pretty uncommon sight, Joe and Jane Public have not become used to the idea and, like all things unfamiliar, it raises questions in their minds. This is comparable to situation when women first started wearing trousers, apart from the reluctance of many males to try wearing a skirt.

To a large degree the solution is in our hands; we need to get out there with our heads held high. Attitudes won't change overnight but while everyone hides they will never change. *

Have fun,


Ian.

* Note: This is NOT intended as a dig at those who do not venture out skirted, I know it is actually very hard to do it the first few times and can prove somewhat nervewracking.

[Bob]

Only some states have made it illegal to fire based on sexual orientation. In many others, you can fire a gay employee for no reason other than he's gay, and he has no recourse. Sad but true.

In even fewer states is "gender expression" protected, but the transgender community is working for that.

As for men who want to wear a skirt to work --- the states that prohibit firing based on sexual orientation also prohibit firing based on PERCEIVED sexual orientation. If they think you're gay because you wear a skirt, then they'll have a hard time making a firing stick.

That said... how many people here have been fired for wearing a skirt or kilt, either to work or at home? I know some have been asked not to wear it at work, but how many have actually been FIRED for it? I can't think of even one case I've heard of on this board.

[ChrisM]

One company I used to work for went through an interesting period when one of our engineers got a sex change. All the managers got lots of training in what they were and were not allowed to say, and the company did all the right things, complying not only with the law but with ethics.

The said engineer did eventually leave on her own initiative, for no reasons related to corporate policy.

When I started wearing kilt skirts to work there were many raised eyebrows, and a few back room conversations "Is Chris 'pulling a Smith?'" (referring to our departed former colleague.) Those that knew me were able to say "Naw, he's just being his usual Left Field self."

So what they did was simple: Amend the dress code to prohibit kilts on men.


Chris M.

[alexthebird]

Bob's points are well-taken. I'll add another couple.

It took gays years of struggle to achieve the acceptance they have today. It wasn't just the protests and the riots, it was jailing, humiliation, discrimination, physical attacks, murder, and vilification. Being gay was a bona fide mental illness, according to the mental health profession.

But while all that is going on, there is also the beginning and then the reinforcement of a perception among reasonable people that being gay is not threatening and that gays actually contribute to the society. That requires being out, not being afraid to be seen as gay, and taking opportunities to let people know that you are gay.

Until there is a critical mass of those of us who enjoy wearing skirts (or anything else, for that matter) walking amongst the public at large, we will be viewed as aberrant and people don't like that. At the moment, it can take a little courage to be the first on your block (an early adopter, if you will), but until there are millions of us in the public eye, we will be not be generally acknowledged, understood, or seen positively and will be seen with fear and trepidation.

Until we have achieved a presence that makes David Beckham in a sarong a non-item instead of a paparazzi moment, it is no wonder that gays, blacks, women, the handicapped, etc. etc. etc. will be more generally accepted than a man in a skirt.

[JRMILLER]

I also think it is true that most homosexuals try to blend into the crowd. I worked with several at a theater group and as a group, they were generally in better physical shape and dressed better (as men) than us straight slobs. Clearly there are exceptions, some homosexuals flaunt it right in your face and they do catch negative attention.

The guys wearing a skirt is like a bullseye, it catches the eye, it stands out. The sheep begin to bleat not knowing what to make of this.

[Bri]

I was also going to comment that it's taken almost 30 years for homosexuals to gain any kind of respect in the US. It was mostly because people at first didn't understand how any man could like another man, then it was the idea that maybe they "chose" to be gay and not straight. After a few "gay" educators gave speeches that told the rest of the country that this is not a choice for them, but that they're born thinking and feeling they way they do, or some even convert because of traumatic experiences.

The idea is that they really had to educate people about what being gay actually is. They told people that not everyone who's gay has AIDS nor wants to give AIDS to everyone. It was a very small group usually in big cities who spread the disease on their own, yet like the news is great at doing; telling the country that these people just loved the idea of spreading the disease like it was nothing big.

Another thing that was said was homosexuality can't be given to someone else like a virus, you either have it when you're born, or you go through a traumatic experience, and that's IT.

You can thank the media for setting their fight/cause back about 10years. Sorry, but I don't let convicted liars into my house to tell me what the world is like, if I want to know, I'll go outside and ask someone, rather a few people.

I think what we're going to have to go is everytime we see or hear about something on the news or someone saying something negative or just very unprofessionally joking about a guy in a skirt, we HAVE to say something to that person. Maybe saying, So, it's not ok to joke about someone who's gay, but it's ok to joke about a guy in a skirt?? Or compare it to someone (a kid) being killed in an auto accident. They might not think the same level of severity, but have to insist that it is.

[AMM]

I was also going to comment that it's taken almost 30 years for homosexuals to gain any kind of respect in the US. It was mostly because people at first didn't understand how any man could like another man, then it was the idea that maybe they "chose" to be gay and not straight....

It's a little more complicated.

1. I think that what you say plays a role: people were unfamiliar with real gay/lesbians, and fear of the unknown affected their attitudes.

2. However, in the USA, at least, another big reason is that many men see the existence of homosexuality, esp. male homosexuality, as a threat to their own masculinity. I think it's because most people, even now, at least partly define "female" as "who men have sex with," so if a man has sex with another man, it makes him at least partly female, and a lot of people just can't deal with the idea of people walking around who they can't clearly define as "male" or "female." Even more frightening, to a guy, at least, is just the idea that he himself might feel a little attracted to another man and thus turn into one of these neither-male-nor-female creatures.

3. And then there are those for whom homophobia (and usually also misogyny) is a large part of what proves to them that they are male. This used to be a big part of military culture, or so I'm told. (I don't know what they do now that there are women in the military.) And there are guys who prove their masculinity by looking for gays (and/or lesbians) to beat up and kill. Fortunately, these days, most people regard these guys as psychopaths.

As Pythos points out, there is a parallel with men-in-skirts. Since to simple minds, "wears skirts" implies "female," a clearly male looking person who is wearing a skirt is also one of these neither-male-nor-female creatures and arouses the same anxieties.

[matman]

Great posts!

[Peter v]

I fully agree with all posts, in particular AMM, I think that when something is felt as ""Threatening"" to whatever of that person, then they may feel that they must react.

A man in a skirt is no big deal to people who are literate, can think, and are socially aware. As for others, they may not be able to distinguish what the INTENTION of that way of dressing is about, and may think ( no they don't "think") , they may imagine that the man in a dress is solicitating other men for example, or possibly something else, ( I can't put more on paper as I don't think that way myself ) and when they imagine that, they may want to protest against that. Those people may also think they have the right to take the alw in their own hands, and verbally abuse, or worse, the man in question.

I see it as an interpretation question, and has nothing to do with if you wear a skirt or pants. Dumb people seem to interpret clothing in other ways than the wearer intended. Those same people may think that all women who are in any way dressed neatly, are out to get laid. Which is obviously not always the case. !!!

Where employers go wrong I don't know, they too are also people, and may be just as corrupt in their thinking about men in skirts as the above mentioned group.

As for Homo men, ( there are homo women too, called lesbians ) they are of no threat. If you are straight and you meet a gay person, ( talking here only about respectful people) then you need not be affraid of him wanting to pick you up... I think. Once that is understood, normal people need not see homosexuals as a "threat" and everybody goes on their way.

I think therefore that it is very important wher needed, as at work for example, to put things straight from the beginning, so that others have no excuse for conjuring up all soorts of things, reasons to get you removed.

You are there to do a job, not to walk the catwalk at a fashion show.

I hope this was constructive.
Peter v.

[Uncle Al]

You are there to do a job, not to walk the catwalk at a fashion show.

Quite true Peter v., but most people still want the 'catwalk' look to fit
into the workplace picture. This is stereotyping at it's 'best' ( ? Looking
for a different word, but could not find one.) What 'they' wear is more
important to 'them' than the work they do. 'They' try to out-do each
other, and that can get kinda scary!
This goes for both men and women.

Well, this is my $.02 worth.

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Sarongman]

From an Australian perspective, the situation is quite a bit more complex. We had a culture in the police of "Poofter bashing" for some decades, but now, at the last Gay & Lesbian mardi-gras, there was a sizeable contingent of gay police openly marching. Prominent author, Patrick White, openly lived with his partner, Manoly from the end of the second world war, until his death a couple of decades ago- a real trailblazer. To see men as couples (and women) holding hands with obvious love is now unremarkable and passes (mostly) unremarked.
The upshot to all this is, we have to become a "critical mass," as alexthebird puts it, to be as accepted (mostly) as the Gay & Lesbian people are.

[Sasquatch]

Pythos,
Maybe the seeming acceptance of an especially effeminate gay man is more of an acknowledgement that he is clearly gay by nature, much as someone of a different race isn't at fault for the color of his/her skin. It doesn't necessarily imply social acceptance as an equal or as someone with whom the greater group of (hetero/traditional) men would choose to personally associate, but more of a "there but for the Grace of God go I" acceptance. They may look on him with a sense of pity, as they would someone confined to a wheel chair, or suffering a painful affliction, i.e. "Oh, the poor devil."

Maybe that makes it harder for them to understand straight men who voluntarily display themselves in garb that, to that group, says at best "feminine" and at worst "queer". And even understanding you are neither, in their subconscious processes you become radical and dangerous because you threaten the belief structure they've held since socialization: that all things masculine are important, meaningful, to be desired, and all things feminine are trivial, silly, without real importance.

Anyway, that's my conjecture. Being one of the "volunteer" group, I couldn't really speak to what others are thinking. I just have to follow my own calling.

Now if six turned out to be nine,
I don't mind, I dont mind!

If all the hippies cut off all their hair,
I don't care, I don't care!

'Cause I got my own world to live through,
And I ain't gonna copy you!

Jimi Hendrix If Six Were Nine

Sasq (See, I told you there's music playing in my head!)

[crfriend]

Maybe [the juxtaposition of "masculine/feminine" in homosexuals] makes it harder for [people] to understand straight men who voluntarily display themselves in garb that, to that group, says at best "feminine" and at worst "queer". And even understanding you are neither, in their subconscious processes you become radical and dangerous because you threaten the belief structure they've held since socialization: that all things masculine are important, meaningful, to be desired, and all things feminine are trivial, silly, without real importance.

This speaks to the notion that a bloke who willfully tosses aside the "machismo" is saying, in effect, "We've been had! The whole bill of goods that's been shoved down our throats from day one is utter b*ll*cks!" We can't cry for fear of not being manly; we can't stop and smell the flowers 'cause somebody'll think of us as "poof"; and we can't share emotions with our fellow man because we'll be 'less manly' if we do so. The act of appearing "less masculine" in that light is a direct challenge to the "power" of masculinity -- and it's a direct challenge to the societal structures that put us in that position in the first place. In a sense, we're "flippin' the bird at The Man".

We've been reduced to automatons by that rigid way of thinking, so it's not terribly surprising that other men (note that women don't seem to have the same issues with men in skirts (unless it's their man, that is)) quite naturally wig out a bit; the facade is all most blokes have, and it's a pretty sorry one. It's possibly also one of the reasons that men tend to be moved to violence more quickly than women; there aren't as many options on the table at the outset.

[ChrisM]

Yes Carl, I am frequently stunned at the degree to which men have been brainwashed.

This is not directly apposite to the discussion underway, but I'll tell two stories anyway.

I recall in our church on the West Coast the time one of our deacons wore a pink dress shirt to service. Many of his friends joked with him saying "it takes a real man to wear a pink shirt".

Years later, last weekend, I overheard two tourists making a similar remark: "Gee Bob, it takes a real man to wear a shirt like yours." I turned to look at the shirt was a very conventional floral hawaiian shirt.

Have we come to that? Where "it takes a real man" to wear anything but white or blue? In that case I am proud to be the man in a skirt!

Such narrowness stuns me into silence. I recall standing jaw-dropped when I met my first real bigot. A man who said he wouldn't let a negro into his house. I can not conceive of such thinking.

Perhaps Marvin the Paranoid Android said it best: "I've seen your mind. It amazes me how you can live in something that small."

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest!

Chris