Are We Winning?

[Grok]

1. The bloomer craze of 1851. During this period of enthusiasm, women created a variety of designs,
.

To the extent that there is a historical parallel to the present, I think this is it.

[Caultron]

Someone mentioned that there are now two classifications of clothes: 1. Womens' wear. 2. Unisex.

Sadly, I think 1. Menswear, 2. Unisex would be more accurate.

[Caultron]

I think we in skirts are more accepted that we would've been 10 or 20 years ago, but that's due more to generalized LGBT acceptance than anything we've done ourselves. Not that I'm complaining. Acceptance is acceptance, and it's all good.

But what's more important is how each of us views ourself. You can't change other people. You can only change yourself.

[Disaffected.citizen]

Someone mentioned that there are now two classifications of clothes: 1. Womens' wear. 2. Unisex.

I think that was me, here.

Sadly, I think 1. Menswear, 2. Unisex would be more accurate.

I don't follow that, Caultron. Consider that "women's wear" is continually labelled as such: ladies skirts, ladies dresses etc., and seemingly only women buy them. If a man buys them for himself, there is something taboo.

Now contrast "men's wear", which is rarely labelled as men's suits, etc., and nobody bats an eyelid if a woman buys them for herself.

Thus, I contend we have 1. women's wear and 2. unisex.

[Caultron]

Sadly, I think 1. Menswear, 2. Unisex would be more accurate.

I don't follow that...

in the sense that men have to wear menswear, but women can wear anything.

[Grok]

, are we winning? Are we getting closer to seeing skirts for men in stores? are more designers getting behind the man skirt and showing them in their catwalk shows? are there more support groups/websites/forums appearing everyday. . For many of you, you have watched the development of the man skirt concept grow and become more accepted in fasion so I would love to hear from you about where we are today.

I live in Seattle, and almost the only change I have seen is the (modest) popularization of kilting. Kilting is now merely uncommon, instead of virtually nonexistent.

I think that-at least in Seattle-such tolerance as may exist is due to kilting. As an example of men wearing what the public may regard as legitimate mens wear.

Kilting seems to be a niche thing; but at least it shows the public examples of men wearing open ended garments.

That does not mean that other garments are viable. I believe that City Skirt was located in this area, but that company seems to have disappeared.

[Grok]

Nevertheless, I regard that modest popularization of kilting to be a significant victory.

As crfriend has pointed out, we have a steep hill to climb. Actually, it would easy for change to stall on a lower slope.

What would I see as another victory? Society extending tolerance to a small group of mavericks. That's the most I can hope for during the remainder of my lifetime.

[crfriend]

What would I see as another victory? Society extending tolerance to a small group of mavericks. That's the most I can hope for during the remainder of my lifetime.

If the stories of many of those of us in the community are to believed we have already achieved that end. As far as any seismic shift of society goes, it may take a while for that to be plainly visible, but from anecdotal evidence here most folks really don't have much of a problem when confronted with a confident affable bloke in a skirt -- and we've got anecdotes from three distinct continents.

[Grok]

1. The bloomer craze of 1851. During this period of enthusiasm, women created a variety of designs, though generally of the short-skirt-over-trousers theme. Eventually, this enthusiasm faded, as did attempts at nonconformity-except for a few mavericks.

2. During the 1890s, a skirtless version was available for a few activeties, such as gymnastics and bicycle-riding. (but not tennis) A pattern was established-it was okay for women to wear trousers for some athletic endeavors.

It just occurred to me that this may represent change over a generational time scale. During the 1850s, little girls and little boys may have noticed a few women in the early Bloomer outfits. An alternative to a "Tyranny of Dresses". Before those kids became set in their ways.

A few decades later, these kids have grown up. And they now have some influence over dress.



Fast forward to the present. Little kids may notice a few nonconformist men in unorthodox garments. A few decades from now, these kids will have grown up....

(I may not be around myself, I'm sixty years old now).

[Grok]

If the stories of many of those of us in the community are to believed we have already achieved that end. As far as any seismic shift of society goes, it may take a while for that to be plainly visible, but from anecdotal evidence here most folks really don't have much of a problem when confronted with a confident affable bloke in a skirt -- and we've got anecdotes from three distinct continents.

Progress!

[Grok]

The article commented about 19th and 20th centuries:

"Bloomers became shorter by the late 1920s. In the 1930s, when out became respectable for women to wear pants and shorts in a wider range of circumstances, styles imitating mens' shorts were favored, and bloomers tended to become less common".

So people were willing by the late '20s to expand their options. (And male garments were an obvious alternative model).

When I was a small child in the early '60s, women were still wearing mostly skirts. But the ancient, rigid "Tyranny of Dresses" was about to collapse. (And male garments were an obvious alternative model).

[crfriend]

When I was a small child in the early '60s, women were still wearing mostly skirts. But the ancient, rigid "Tyranny of Dresses" was about to collapse. (And male garments were an obvious alternative model).

And it's not gotten any better since.

For all the shrillness of the "feminists" when it comes to skirts and dresses I find it hilarious that they would (attempt to) deny men the sublime comfort that only an open garment can provide -- yet appropriate men's stuff like it was theirs to begin with.

[Grok]

Indeed, crfriend. Attitudes that are the product of very long trends.

[crfriend]

The main point of this is that we -- as men in skirts -- should decouple any supposed sexuality of skirted garments from said garments and forge on ahead instead of wasting time laying "blame" for why we cannot adopt said garments. Face it, each and every time we acquiesce to such arguments we set ourselves back; it's time to reject -- forthrightly -- those arguments and treat them as the circular logic that they are.

So the naysayers claim that "Only women wear skirts."; I call BS on that count and am willing to stand up and prove that (1) I'm a guy and (2) I wear skirts. Done. Stop submitting to others' faulty thinking. After all, it's just a piece of cloth.

Ultimately, the only time we should even remotely worry about it is if it causes those closest to us distress -- and then the modus operandus should be to find out where that distress originates from and help them work though it -- gently and with tenderness and understanding. Yes, that means with feeling -- which men are more than capable of if they put their heart into it.

[Grok]

As for going on a path similar to what women have traveled (but going in the opposite direction), we males may go only part way.

Or to put it another way, we may climb only part way up the steep hill before us.

Our efforts may stall.