Its Not Historical Incidences That Count

[ziggy_encaoua]

Personally its not historical incidents of Men’s Fashion Freedom which carry weight.

I think that that the arguments which relate to the here & now, the arguments which have contemporary logic are the arguments which carry weight.

Arguments such as why can women wear trousers but men can’t wear skirts, why can wear their hair short but why is it still frowned upon for men to wear theirs long.

[crfriend]

Personally its not historical incidents of Men’s Fashion Freedom which carry weight.

I hold the opinion that invoking historical references is useful, to a point, and then primarily when the reference is used to highlight what's been lost, not what might be. It's all in context; without thoroughly modern logic and presentation calling up the past is merely "pinin' for the good old days" (which really weren't that good, mind you). I try to use history as precedent, not excuse.

[What are called for (and correct me if my reading is wrong on that, Ziggy) are] Arguments such as why can women wear trousers but men can’t wear skirts, why can [they] wear their hair short but why is it still frowned upon for men to wear theirs long.

I'll disagree on the matter of hair, but that may just be the millieu I travel in. Guys with long hair were massively reviled for while, but for the most part, a bloke these days can wear his hair any way he wants to now so long as it's well kept. There are plenty of longhairs where I work, and in fact in certain circles of my profession a ponytail is a status symbol with increasing length denoting seniority and rank.

However, back to the argument about skirts. I suspect it's rather pointless to argue the inequalities of the matter when it comes to the choices that men have versus the choices of women. It's rather like comparing apples and oranges -- or rocks and pitchforks. What's needed is a new -- and, most importantly, compelling -- way of looking at the issue; arguing equality isn't going to work because men and women are still, in large part, considered unequal. That's a very sad commentary, but it cuts across both sexes, and may also explain, in part, why wives have such a hard time dealing with it when their men don skirts, but otherwise being OK with the notion. Yes, it's wrong; yes, it's corrosive; and yes, it's stupid. With luck the more enlightened types can help eat away at the notion of one sex being superior to the other, but that's going to take a long time because it's fairly well entrenched -- and there are powers that benefit from that, and so try to keep it that way. So, without full equality, we're not going to be able to easily "win" this one.

[Bri]

I had the idea of going on a university website in colorado and finding a sociology teacher/professor and asking them what we could do to better improve why we want want we want, and (even though some of you are much smarter than most of teachers/professors I've had) possibly giving a direction for us. Not to say we don't already know what we want, just more insight on how to get there from different people.

I agree with how women are going to perceive our fight for this, they still don't get paid as much on average so to them, skirt wearing might be a "oh, you just want to wear skirts, is that all? Well I'd like to get paid as much as (points at a man) him for doing the same job as him and having the same hours and education, etc." There are a very other issues that women might think more pertinent at this time than our little "But I wanna wear a skirt, wah wah" cry. Sorry to make this seem like we only want something that I'm making seem so small, but as the idiom goes "when you don't have air or can't breathe, nothing else matters".

That sounded rather harsh.. Err, I know there are many/ a few women on this board who can offer much better insight into what they don't have and deserve than I can.

But back to the historical part. I don't think telling people that 300 years ago or so, men wore skirts will help much. Maybe as a side note to convince easier, but that shouldn't be our main argument. Health I don't think, unless it's a pandemic will help much either. Women had a much easier argument. Our jobs would be so much easier with jeans, they're more practical for everyday wear, they have pockets, I don't have to worry about guys looking up them, I don't feel like I can't do anything, and of course the thing might have made men accept them is feeling that women wanted to be more like men (braver, stronger, all that). We'll have to come up with something equal to but not the same.

[Departed Member]

Personally its not historical incidents of Men’s Fashion Freedom which carry weight.

I try to use history as precedent, not excuse.

That's even more pertinent when you consider we should not have to think "excuse" as an option. "I'm wearing a skirt because..................." is the thinking that needs to be overturned, methinks.

... for the most part, a bloke these days can wear his hair any way he wants to now so long as it's well kept.

Outside of the 'uniformed' arena, that's been the case in the UK for the last 30-odd years.

What's needed is a new -- and, most importantly, compelling -- way of looking at the issue; arguing equality isn't going to work because men and women are still, in large part, considered unequal. ...... So, without full equality, we're not going to be able to easily "win" this one.

It's going to be extremely difficult fo men to achieve equality with women, as whereas women seem to be quite capable of banding together over specific issues, men seem determined to press their own, personal point of view, even if it means de-railing everyone else around them. I mean no personal malice, but the chap who turned up at the MSM event in 2004, wearing high-heels, etc. unfortunately did untold harm to the supposed 'cause'. The press 'latched on' and that was it - the whole serious point blown out of the water. It's ironic, of course, that the only 'identifier' of anything vaguely 'femme' was those d*mned hgh heels!

Moving back to the inequality issue, I've been rather surprised by comments from a good few women (of all sorts of ages, especially middle aged, and backgrounds) about how they feel they are 'losing out' in the present day, as opposed to, say, the seventies. The quest, by the 'feminazi' element (which, by and large, hijacked feminism) to impose their (warped?) view of 'womanhood' on the rest of us, man or woman alike, has certainly resulted in bringing women down to a kind of 'second class man' level. The same clique (at least in the UK) has been at the forefront of imposing (or at least, trying to!) "PC" on everyone else, too! The fight-back is certainly there, but today's youngsters (of either gender) have been so conditioned to mundanity that I'm afraid the future looks ever more bleak. Especially for those of us wanting to 'buck the trend'.

[crfriend]

It's going to be extremely difficult fo men to achieve equality with women, as whereas women seem to be quite capable of banding together over specific issues, men seem determined to press their own, personal point of view, even if it means de-railing everyone else around them.

Perhaps that's another facet of "masculinity" that needs to get a good looking at and revision.

I mean no personal malice, but the chap who turned up at the MSM event in 2004, wearing high-heels, etc. unfortunately did untold harm to the supposed 'cause'. The press 'latched on' and that was it - the whole serious point blown out of the water. It's ironic, of course, that the only 'identifier' of anything vaguely 'femme' was those d*mned hgh heels!

I'd not pillory the chap for his choice of attire on that day, but rather the press that decided to put the focus on one individual. The chap did look a little silly -- but then again, how many of us haven't laid the occasional egg during experiments?

The press couldn't care one whit about a collection of blokes talking about hard-to-fathom and thought-provoking notions like "freedom"; the press are in the game to sell copy, so they'll go for the outrageous. Hence, the underlying ideas were lost to folks who only get their information from "the media". Face it, a bloke tottering about on high heels, and looking uncomfortable, will sell quite a bit more advertising than a thoughtful piece on some real pioneers who were out to make a point about an individual's ability to dress as he wants (within the boundaries of local law). Also, the average individual isn't likely to expend the time reading a thoughtful article on the matter; he (or she) will have more pressing matters going on and needs a shot of humour.

today's youngsters (of either gender) have been so conditioned to mundanity that I'm afraid the future looks ever more bleak. Especially for those of us wanting to 'buck the trend'.

Let us hope that that does not come to pass.

[Uncle Al]

Carl,

I think you have the makings of a great orator!

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Departed Member]

I'd not pillory the chap for his choice of attire on that day, but rather the press that decided to put the focus on one individual. .... The press couldn't care one whit about a collection of blokes talking about hard-to-fathom and thought-provoking notions like "freedom"; the press are in the game to sell copy, so they'll go for the outrageous.

Which sort of makes my point! What would they actually have done, had they not had just the one 'target' to concentrate their 'quirky-radar' at? Perhaps the most edifying factor was that the rest were virtually 'dismissed' as being too 'ordinary' to make other than passing reference to! I've always found (through bitter experience of seeing press manipulation first hand) that it takes quite a bit of guile and subterfuge to 'suggest' angles the press might approach things. Just appeal to their ego in a nice, quiet manner - it actually works, trust me! But the very fact the chappie went 'his own way', and appeared very much at odds with the rest, does rather illustrate the "Cuckoo in the Nest" theory, that often ends up spoiling blokey gatherings.....

[crfriend]

What would [the press] actually have done [at MSM in 2004], had they not had just the one 'target' to concentrate their 'quirky-radar' at?

As a first-blush guess, quite likely not much. If the item appeared anywhere, it'd be buried deep in the "Living section" or someplace of that ilk. The concept is too abstract for most folks to desire to spend much time on; moreover, it's still (sadly) perceived as being a bit odd, so that would likely detract from your average newspaper-reader engaging his brain and actually paying attention.

The "news outlet" and its editorial policy would also, likely, make a difference; compare and contrast, if you will, the probable difference of coverage from, say, The New York Times and Fox News. I'd not mind some ink being spilled on the topic in the former; I'd be positively appalled (and afraid) if it was the latter. Recall, if you will, that a well-known west-coast men's skirts designer and maker (CitySkirt) was forced out of business fairly recently due to a hate campaign that lit off following some coverage in a "Fox News"-like medium.

[... T]he very fact [one] chappie went 'his own way', and appeared very much at odds with the rest, does rather illustrate the "Cuckoo in the Nest" theory, that often ends up spoiling blokey gatherings.....

It's going to be a while before the average "joe on the street" properly understands what's going on here. I mean no disrespect for any "Joe Six-Pack" in general, that comment is aimed at the general herd; in point of fact, the average individual can be engaged quite easily, and be surprisingly supportive. The problem is "herd mentality". There's also the problem with those who take it upon themselves to be "society's saviours" by stamping out anything that looks like it might smack of individual thought or expression.

[ziggy_encaoua]

today's youngsters (of either gender) have been so conditioned to mundanity

I call it corporate conformity

[Bri]

Was just at Walmart and had on my BKE element jeans (flared and tight) and saw a few people looking at me as I was also wearing a black travel purse (i have a lot of crap to carry). I saw a few people look at me, but at the time I was getting off of muscle relaxers and almost forgot to put my seatbelt on in the car on my way to the store and so I really didn't pay to much attention. What I can say is that I think most people like the corporate conditioning, are taught to not speak up or say anything but rather stay subdued and "keep their jobs" kind of attitude. I know a few people wanted to say something but I think as well as we have fear of wearing skirts out, most people have the same fear of speaking up about us wearing skirts. I think it might be the fear of confrontation and doing something that most people wouldn't do.

Yet I also agree that we're taught at an early age to conform and impress others (conventional behavior) and that never really goes away thanks to corporate culture of having to impress everyone all the time, or not getting any higher in the "corp".

[Since1982]

Yep, I agree, Carl orates better than anyone I've seen orate since I listened to President Kennedy orate. Of course Bobby K. was a pretty good orator too. I'd much rather listen to a good oration than a long drawn out filibuster any day.