El Pais: Why are men in skirts still stigmatized: A journey to the origins of a misogynistic prejudice

[Coder]

https://english.elpais.com/culture/2023 ... utType=amp

A lot in here to unpack - and I know some here won’t like some of the words/terminology used. However, I think it’s worth a read regardless of some parts that may offend.

[crfriend]

That was a pretty good read.

One of the more poignant bits was this one: "Pope Francis called feminism as “machismo with skirts” (an expression that he later retracted) [...}". That is so accurate that it defies description, and it's sad that he was forced to recant.

We are, indeed, on the cutting edge of things. Let's hope we can cleave a large gash in conformity.

[STEVIE]

"Pope Francis called feminism as “machismo with skirts” (an expression that he later retracted) [...}". That is so accurate that it defies description, and it's sad that he was forced to recant.

Excellent read, actually and if anyone is offended they really have to join us in the real world.
Feminism (radical anyway), as "machismo with skirts", a truth stated by the Pope, no less and retracted.
I wonder how many times in history the views of women have affected the views of the male head of any faith in this way.
He took up the office in 2013, the statement was made in 2019 and I'd bet he never saw the power of the backlash coming.
Ironically, organised religion has repressed men's fashion freedom as much as, if not more , than any other section of human society in history.
Sorry, to bang on but if you want change as a guy, you have to show that change to the world and the unthinkable can actually happen.
A certain Jorge Mario Bergoglio, knows this only too well.
Steve.

[Barleymower]

"In 1984 Jean-Paul Gaultier paraded men in skirts down the runway, it seemed logical to believe that the trend would spread in the coming years."

In 1984 I was 18, a skirt fan but a non-wearer. I felt I would be ridiculed and ostracised if I did. I knew about Jean Paul Gaultier and his catwalk exploits and observed the reaction. There was not much of a reaction it was essentially laughed off.

The internet is showing that skirtbwearing is more widespread and that's good news. At street level there some brave souls out there. It's going to take time but it will get there.

[crfriend]

Feminism (radical anyway), as "machismo with skirts", a truth stated by the Pope, no less and retracted.
I wonder how many times in history the views of women have affected the views of the male head of any faith in this way.
He took up the office in 2013, the statement was made in 2019 and I'd bet he never saw the power of the backlash coming.

The thing I found precious in Pope Francis' comment was that he wasn't just taking a (much-needed) shot at the rad-fems, he was also taking a shot at generalised male idiocy (machismo) at the same time. That was an entirely equal-opportunity salvo -- and fired from a position of supposed moral authority. 'Tis a damned shame he was forced to recant (and indicates how far we've sunk).

[Myopic Bookworm]

The thing I found precious in Pope Francis' comment was that he wasn't just taking a (much-needed) shot at the rad-fems, he was also taking a shot at generalised male idiocy (machismo) at the same time.

His comment illustrates that toxicity is not a male thing: it is an aspect of masculinity which can be exhibited by either sex.

There is such a thing as toxic femininity, including that kind of subtle psychological bullying associated with teenage girls; and I think it can be seen among gay men as well as women.

[crfriend]

[Pope Francis' comment] illustrates that toxicity is not a male thing: it is an aspect of masculinity which can be exhibited by either sex.

There is such a thing as toxic femininity, including that kind of subtle psychological bullying associated with teenage girls; and I think it can be seen among gay men as well as women.

I've taken some liberty with your quote, just to prove a point, mean no offence by it, and hope none is taken.

If we take the spectrum of colours as an exemplar, most of the visible portions can be used to express the continuum between "masculinity" and "femininity". For fun, I'm going to flip things a bit and assign the most normal "masculine" traits as a medium red, and the the most normal "feminine" as a light violet. Most normal men and women fall into this spectrum, and the traits are all over the place. Most of us spend a lot of our time in the "orange" to blue" regime; a few inhabit the "dark orange" or even the "red" or the "light indigo" and even "violet" ranges.

Now, anybody familiar with physics knows that there's more to this than meets the eye, and that's the infrared and ultraviolet portions of the spectrum which exist, even if we cannot necessarily perceive them (other living creatures can). To continue with the above analogy, I'd put "machismo" in the deep-red to infrared portion of the spectrum. Interestingly, and perhaps by design, we have no notion of what to call the deep violet and ultraviolet portions, even if we know that they must exist. Why is there no "diagnosis" for this, for this is where "toxic femininity" dwells?

[Barleymower]

Feminism (radical anyway), as "machismo with skirts", a truth stated by the Pope, no less and retracted.
I wonder how many times in history the views of women have affected the views of the male head of any faith in this way.
He took up the office in 2013, the statement was made in 2019 and I'd bet he never saw the power of the backlash coming.

The thing I found precious in Pope Francis' comment was that he wasn't just taking a (much-needed) shot at the rad-fems, he was also taking a shot at generalised male idiocy (machismo) at the same time. That was an entirely equal-opportunity salvo -- and fired from a position of supposed moral authority. 'Tis a damned shame he was forced to recant (and indicates how far we've sunk).

Rightly or wrongly it's my contention that the rad fems are now unstoppable. I DON'T believe the extremists will achieve their end goal of writing men out altogether and achieve a totally female society. However they might get close to it.
How though, do they affect us, MIS? Are we the enemy? We are male but also not the enemy, that is we are not misogynistic (hopefully).
I can see animosity between MIS and women (and within that group, rad fems). They probably feel that after many years / centuries of oppression they are getting somewhere. Then the enemy (men) think they can take their clothes and they are not about to do any man, decent or not any favours.

How will the radical feminists damage or end the case of men in skirts? Do they even want too?

[crfriend]

Men in this particular this fight, are absolutely 100% the enemy as we have a "Y" chromosome. There is no changing that fact. If the rad-fems even acknowledge that we (MIS) exist, then we're likely going to be regarded as some sort of "sleeper cell", although I find it rather unlikely that we even really show up on the RADAR as we're so thin on the ground. (We don't even show up as "ground clutter".)

What's the upshot on this? If we're lucky, the birth-rate will drop through the floor and the "female-only" fallacy will be exposed for what it is -- and the backlash against that is going to be hideous. This will take some pressure off the ecosystem by reducing the human population (which needs to be reduced anyway) and hopefully the whole rad-fem notion will quietly (or not) go extinct and we'll be able to live once again as partners. That, however, is not going to happen in my lifetime.

Men have been marginalised for too long for any sort of random catchup to happen; we've had the edge taken off us. Our sons and grandsons have been dumbed down to the point of being simpletons barely capable of making their way in this complex world, and the ground lost is potentially forever lost.

Perhaps the rule of the world should be applied to humankind -- and recall that the rule on this rock is not survival, but extinction. The planet will not care. Natural laws have no pity.

[Barleymower]

I agree that MIS would not be seen as threat to the RFs due to numbers being so low. The reasons our numbers are low is documented. However, unlike tribes of monkeys humans can change so changing mens dressing habits can change too.

The acceptance of MIS can and will happen in our lifetimes. We cannot be negative about this, we must look at the destination and constantly strive for it or it will never happen.

Post feminism will therr be a backlash against RFs? I dont think there will be. Women in general are riding the wave created by the rad fems. If the movement collapsed they would deny all knowledge and go about their daily business.

Men have been marginalised? Maybe we misinterpret the world prior to feminism. Women always ruled the home and anyone who's been a relationship will contest that they don't just roll over in a argument. Men have always been in many respects ruled by women. Men were always sent war against their will or sold-a-lie to volunteer. We are being further marginalised but we dont have to be, we can stand up for ourselves. Plenty of men do and succeed.

There is dumbing down of everyone and if I could, I switch the internet off today. I don't think it will last its current form.

In order to have view on the future of men we need to look at the past and understand the true, essential, unchanging roll of men. In this world as it stands we are not needed. When this shambles of a society collapses, men and women will be there to pick up the pieces as we have always done. We will know who we are and what we are here for. Let's hope when that happens men will be free to dress as they please. We should be constantly paving the way for that to happen.

[Myopic Bookworm]

Women in general are riding the wave created by the rad fems. If the movement collapsed they would deny all knowledge and go about their daily business.

Back to the business of being repressed and under-educated housewives? Do the dusting and bring you your slippers when you get home from the office? Give me a break!

Women always ruled the home and anyone who's been a relationship will contest that they don't just roll over in a argument.

Why the hell should they? I would not respect a woman who "rolled over" in an argument any more than I would respect a man who did so.

Men were always sent war against their will.
...
In order to have view on the future of men we need to look at the past and understand the true, essential, unchanging roll of men.

So what is the true, essential, and unchanging role of men, if it is not to be sent to war, which was traditionally the preserve of men in most societies? Am I supposed to be out chasing antelope?

As it happens, I think it probably boils down to fatherhood. This, in many respects, is almost exactly like motherhood, but without the parturition and the breast-feeding.

In this world as it stands we are not needed.

As a 100% genetic man with functional Y chromosomes, I have an instinctive ability to recognize b0llux on sight!

When my children were born, I was certainly needed. When my wife had to go back to full-time work, both to retain her sanity and to keep bread on the table, I was not just needed, I was absolutely indispensable.

I have little sympathy with the genuinely radical/extreme feminist movement, but I am a humanist, and a believer in human equality. (As has recently been noted, Sinead O'Connor refused to be labelled as a feminist because she wasn't interested in the exclusion of men, but her activism for human rights inevitably ended up supporting women's rights, because their rights were more devalued, and needed more action taken on their behalf.) I support the movement to allow men greater freedom in fashion, and I support the movement to allow women greater freedom in education, employment, and political engagement; I do not consider the first movement more important than the second, or exclusive of it. As recent quotes from Caitlin Moran and others show, the broad egalitarian human/women's rights movement is now becoming more focused on the needs of boys and men, and that needs support, not condemnation by being lumped with the extremists.

(PS Please do continue airing your opinions on this forum, by the way. I'd rather hear them here than have them retreat into some conspiratorial echo chamber in a corner of the dark incelnet.)

[Barleymower]

Hi MB
I'm fairly sure i wrote "they will go about their daily business". I didn't say what their occupation is because I don't know. How do you evidence that they will fetching slippers and dusting. Is that your assumption of a women's role?

Again you state "why the hell should they?" I can not see in my post that they should. Why? Because I did not write it.

Be careful when using the strawman argument. It is one of many logical fallacies and should be avoided.