skirtcafe.org

I found an interesting link. https://www.ft.com/content/99e12c68-994 ... d8fa6961bb What do you all think? Also, like that picture of a rather young FDR in a dress.

Raakone wrote:I found an interesting link. https://www.ft.com/content/99e12c68-994 ... d8fa6961bb What do you all think? Also, like that picture of a rather young FDR in a dress.

They want me to subscribe before they will let me read the article. Thats is not going to happen.

Back then many people dressed their children in dresses, it did not matter if they were male or female. It was just easier for them.

Fred

I googled the phrase used in this thread title and found Financial Times' Facebook page with a link to the article. For some reason if you click on the Facebook link it takes you straight to the full text of the article without the subscription requirement.

They say much of what we've been saying for years, and I suppose they'll make about as much traction. I still remember the uproar from the faux-religious right when a department store decided to remove the "boys" and "girls" labels from their toy aisles. They did nothing else; they didn't put up any signage encouraging boys to play with dolls or mix dolls with guns or otherwise challenge societal norms. All they did was remove the signs insisting that the aisle filled with pink dolls and play kitchens were exclusively "girls' toys" and the aisles with cap guns and styrofoam swords were exclusively "boys' toys". Parents could figure out for themselves which flavor child to shop for in the aisles that simply stated their contents: Dolls, Military, Puzzles, whatever. But from the outrage you'd think they had hired RuPaul to promote a line of tutus for boys or something.

Anyhow, here's the secret backdoor to the article.

"And girls do not all, instinctively, want to wear dresses while boys gravitate to trousers." I don't recall being given a choice as a child. (And at one time little girls weren't given a choice either).

As for women, though some are Skirtonians, I suspect that the majority are not. This is based on comments made by different women, and the observation that most women seem to wear trousers most (or nearly all) of the time.

As for male Skirtonians, it was unthinkable that boys might be interested in skirts.

Ralph wrote:I [...] found Financial Times' Facebook page with a link to the article: secret backdoor to the article.

Thanks for that, Ralph. It's a good read (if a bit shallow, but that's what you get on the "news" these days). I am inclined to make the same observation that I've been making for some time of, "Even Sigmud Freud was eventually forced to admit that, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'"-- and this particular article backs that assertion up.

They say much of what we've been saying for years, and I suppose they'll make about as much traction.

Indeed, but it's nice to see it out in public from a supposedly-reputable outlet. Sadly, I doubt it'll make much of an impression. There is much mass in motion in this regard.

Gluing colour-coded bows to the bald heads of newborns? How insane is that?! [1]

The entire thing might well be summed up in the following abridged statement: "[... T]here is no need to attach a label — and a medical diagnosis — to a child in order to argue that they should be able to wear what they want. A better solution would be to have an agreed set of garments and let all children choose their favourites — and not make a big deal of it."

Wouldn't that be nice. [0] How about allowing the same thing for adults, too? Or, is that too much of a stretch for the Taleban and the over-addled brain of Modern Man?


[0] For the grammar Nazis: The "Wouldn't that be nice" comment has a full stop on it. It was a statement, not a question, and the pitch of the voice should drop at the end of it and be spoken with a hint of sarcasm.
[1] The "interro-bang" (?!) is not recognised by any mainstream publisher or style booklet, but is quite useful as a way to express disbelief at the notion that the question could be asked in the first place. There seems to be no other shorthand to express the sentiment. See, "WTF?".

I recall a saying-"women have all the good clothes". And tradition demands that males shouldn't be interested in interesting clothes.

Ralph wrote:I googled the phrase used in this thread title and found Financial Times' Facebook page with a link to the article. For some reason if you click on the Facebook link it takes you straight to the full text of the article without the subscription requirement.

This also seems to work if you click on the link from Google search results (even without going through Facebook).

It would be nice if people would actually believe that sometimes a boy/man in a skirt is just a boy/man in a skirt, but sadly, transgendered women and female impersonators help the idea survive that "skirts are for girls/women". The persistent idea that a man wearing a skirt is a transgender woman, a female impersonator, or a homosexual bothers me, and I imagine it bothers a lot of heterosexual men who aren't yet wearing skirts.

I am psyching myself up to visit a local thrift store. I have clothes I'm getting rid of, and I'm thinking that may help grease the wheels a bit (at least in my own mind).