Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Jim »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:43 am
The IWD Goals:

✔️challenge gender norms, No thanks. I am happy with the existing gender norms
...
Really? You are happy that in many workplaces women may wear skirts but skirt-wearing is prohibited for men?

I am not happy about this. This sexual discrimination makes me care more about the sexual discrimination against women, which says they may not go without a shirt in the many circumstances where it is normal for men to go barechested.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Stu »

Jim wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:26 pm
Really? You are happy that in many workplaces women may wear skirts but skirt-wearing is prohibited for men? I am not happy about this. This sexual discrimination makes me care more about the sexual discrimination against women, which says they may not go without a shirt in the many circumstances where it is normal for men to go barechested.
The only reason men can't wear skirts in some (!) workplaces is that skirts have been designated as womenswear and designed exclusively for women. The issue is to change the designation of the garment and have more styles available for men and made available for men to buy. The alternative would be that males would be wearing garments expressly made for women and thereby quite literally crossdressing, and it is understandable that employers might not be comfortable with that. That to me is the issue - the designation and availability of the garment itself, not gender discrimination.

As for "going bare chested" - this is another issue altogether, namely one of decency. Women's breasts are regarded as an intimate part of the human body while men's chests are not. Now, if you can show evidence that the majority of women would like to change that, to have their breasts regarded in the same way as male chests, then I will accept that. However, you generally find that it's other women who find exposed female breasts to be unacceptable in public rather than men, who more often don't care. And I am thereby listening to women.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Coder »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:35 pm
Jim wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:26 pm
Really? You are happy that in many workplaces women may wear skirts but skirt-wearing is prohibited for men? I am not happy about this. This sexual discrimination makes me care more about the sexual discrimination against women, which says they may not go without a shirt in the many circumstances where it is normal for men to go barechested.
The only reason men can't wear skirts in some (!) workplaces is that skirts have been designated as womenswear and designed exclusively for women. The issue is to change the designation of the garment and have more styles available for men and made available for men to buy. The alternative would be that males would be wearing garments expressly made for women and thereby quite literally crossdressing, and it is understandable that employers might not be comfortable with that. That to me is the issue - the designation and availability of the garment itself, not gender discrimination.
I hate to disagree with you here because on the whole I tend to agree with your posts. Perhaps it’s just semantics, but women routinely raid the men’s aisle, and no one says they crossdress. I think that is gender discrimination against men, that is, when men do the same as women do, but are held to a different standard.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by pelmut »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:35 pm
As for "going bare chested" - this is another issue altogether, namely one of decency. Women's breasts are regarded as an intimate part of the human body while men's chests are not.
Skirts are regarded as women's wear and we are trying to change that perception; what would be wrong with changing the way breasts and chests are regarded too?  There is nothing sacrosanct about the perception of skirts or breasts (or ankles in a bygone age) so a change of perception would be an easy way to solve the problem and remove the discrimination.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Stu »

pelmut wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:03 pm
There is nothing sacrosanct about the perception of skirts or breasts (or ankles in a bygone age) so a change of perception would be an easy way to solve the problem and remove the discrimination.
I'm not sure there is a parallel between skirts for men and bare breasts for women. A man wearing a skirt is simply contravening a convention of fashion; a woman exposing her breasts in public is offending against current norms of decency.
Last edited by Stu on Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Stu »

Coder wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:49 pm
Perhaps it’s just semantics, but women routinely raid the men’s aisle, and no one says they crossdress. I think that is gender discrimination against men, that is, when men do the same as women do, but are held to a different standard.
So maybe that's an issue for International Men's Day? But, to be honest, how often do most straight women shop for their clothes in the men's aisles? I would say it's actually pretty rare. If women are buying men's garments, it's more than likely the retailers would respond very quickly and create identical garments expressly for them.
User avatar
denimini
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2016
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:50 am
Location: Outback Australia

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by denimini »

Talking of "Modern Western Nations", it was on the ABC news tonight that Australia has slipped in the World Gender Gap Index from 15th in 2006 to 44th in 2020. Is it that other nations have lifted their game or have our recent Governments fostered a retrograde attitude.

Of the 153 countries, 107 have consistently been included in the index every year since the first edition, published in 2006.
US has dropped from 23rd to 53rd
UK has dropped from 9th to 21st
New Zealand has inproved from 7th to 6th
Ireland has improved from 10th to 7th
Iceland has improved from 4th to 1st

Some countries are suprisingly good and some are predictably bad.
The complete report can be found here http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf

We mightn't like what some people say about our governments or leaders but if it is true then we should acknowledge it. People who are treated unjustly have a right to complain or protest. Imagine if we didn't get that job because we wore a skirt ....... IMAGINE.
Anthony, a denim miniskirt wearer in Outback Australia
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Coder »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:33 pm
Coder wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:49 pm
Perhaps it’s just semantics, but women routinely raid the men’s aisle, and no one says they crossdress. I think that is gender discrimination against men, that is, when men do the same as women do, but are held to a different standard.
So maybe that's an issue for International Men's Day? But, to be honest, how often do most straight women shop for their clothes in the men's aisles? I would say it's actually pretty rare. If women are buying men's garments, it's more than likely the retailers would respond very quickly and create identical garments expressly for them.
I honestly don’t have any scientific data to back up my comment - I keep seeing this rational being thrown about in discussions, plus how Hollywood portrays things the morning after a hookup. Stupid cliche of the women wearing the man’s shirt. It just feels rampant in my mind.

Plus, I’ve read scores of forum postings/clothing reviews by women complaining about how they buy mens pants because they are more durable, etc... and the same for flannels and boots.

And, the terms “boyfriends jeans” and ”menswear”. Boyfriends jeans are often marketed as “so you don’t have to steal your boyfriends jeans”. Menswear - I should really understand that term better but my take on it is “power suit to emulate men”. Which, while both are cut to fit their bodies properly, are about as close to crossdressing as the previous example in my mind, at least in spirit.

Now... there is crossdressing and then there is CROSSDRESSING. The latter case trying to pass - with the former just shopping from the other side of the aisle. I do think trying to pass is wrong - in the sense that you are being a fraud unto yourself and others, though that is just my opinion and I’m not judging. I can dislike something and at the same time not condemn a person. As for the former... I try to rationalize it that once a piece of clothing enters my possession, it’s mens clothing at that point. Still a bit iffy on that, but I’m gettin there. I’ve read it here on the forum and it helps me brush aside the cd label.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11656
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by crfriend »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:35 pm
The only reason men can't wear skirts in some (!) workplaces is that skirts have been designated as womenswear and designed exclusively for women. The issue is to change the designation of the garment and have more styles available for men and made available for men to buy. The alternative would be that males would be wearing garments expressly made for women and thereby quite literally crossdressing, and it is understandable that employers might not be comfortable with that. That to me is the issue - the designation and availability of the garment itself, not gender discrimination.
What happens in the situation where the garment actually fits better than one "designed exclusively for men"? Would it still be considered "crossdressing" [1] in that case?

Yes, we need to "de-gender" clothes. Full stop. Some allowances for natural variation need to be made. For instance, guys are naturally somewhat larger than women, so some garments need to be made in larger -- and especially taller -- sizes. Fortunately, in the interim, there are places that specialise in what you call "womenswear" that cater to the small percentage that are on the statistical fringe when it comes to height, and those can work very well on men. Also, there are places that can cater to anybody by virtue of producing "runs of one" in entirely custom sizes. It's a bit more expensive than standard sizes [2] that come off the peg at retailers, but well worth it. I have several such pieces now in normal rotation.

To this writer's mind, if a garment fits well, looks good on, and the wearer is happy in it then that is all that matters. What location in the store it came from is completely irrelevant.

[1] Note that it is technically impossible for a woman to crossdress. The DSM says so.
[2] There's an oxymoron!
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Stu »

Yes, we need to "de-gender" clothes. Full stop.
I want to see unbifurcated clothing options for males, but I wouldn't go that far. It's not just a matter of size. Some clothes are designed to emphasise either the feminine or masculine body shape, or just the sex of the wearer, and I have no desire to see that eradicated. I think the differences are enriching. Clothes are used as signifiers of many things including age, status, event or activity - and our sex.

I think crossdressing is more than just wearing a garment more traditionally associated with the opposite sex; crossdressing is essentially presenting as a member of the opposite sex and eschewing the normal appearance of one's own sex. If I borrow my wife's waterproof over-trousers on a rainy day, I would not consider that crossdressing even though this garment was designed for women. But if I were to don a lacy dress, hosiery, high heels and a long wig, and slap on some lipstick and rouge - that would be crossdressing (of course it wouldn't occur to me to do that).
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11656
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by crfriend »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:01 pm
It's not just a matter of size. Some clothes are designed to emphasise either the feminine or masculine body shape, or just the sex of the wearer, and I have no desire to see that eradicated. I think the differences are enriching.
Indeed the differences are, and I'd be the last to deny that; I celebrate it, in fact. However, a garment that looks positively fabulous on a curvaceous woman is going to look bad on the typical male physique, and something designed for the typical male physique would look just as bad on the same woman. That's form and fit. Clothes should fit the wearer.
Clothes are used as signifiers of many things including age, status, event or activity - and our sex.
They're used a bit too much for that function if you ask me, especially the latter as women routinely dress like guys.
I think crossdressing is more than just wearing a garment more traditionally associated with the opposite sex; crossdressing is essentially presenting as a member of the opposite sex and eschewing the normal appearance of one's own sex.
You're using a similar definition to the one I do. The essence of "orthodox crossdressing" is the masquerade; the deception (or attempt at). I do not regard a bloke in a dress who is not trying to "pass" as a crossdresser -- especially if the clothes fit well, and thanks to the now-popular "stick figure" look being pushed at women a side-effect is that clothes marketed at that (tiny) demographic can actually work really well on guys. In this, I cheerily admit to being an opportunist.
But if I were to don a lacy dress, hosiery, high heels and a long wig, and slap on some lipstick and rouge - that would be crossdressing (of course it wouldn't occur to me to do that).
If one is going to those lengths, it's highly likely that he's trying to "pass" and then, therefore, gets lumped into the "crossdresser" pile. But, why is it that women get away with butch haircuts and men's clothing but don't get called out for "crossdressing"? There's a double-standard there. I don't like double-standards.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by oldsalt1 »

I don't define crossdressing by the label in the clothing. But by the intention of the person .

If it is your intention to present as a women than you are crossdressing. I really think this starts when you put on a wig and makeup and try to disguise your male appearance.

I don't feel that what you do to present a piece of clothing in a proper manor ie shaving your legs wearing nylons and pumps. makes you a crossdresser

on the other hand I am sure that when some people have seen me in one of my outfits they may have referred to me as a crossdresser but I am sure they have also used less complimentary terms
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Jim »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:27 pm

I'm not sure there is a parallel between skirts for men and bare breasts for women. A man wearing a skirt is simply contravening a convention of fashion; a woman exposing her breasts in public is offending against current norms of decency.
It is now legal in all 50 states in the USA for women to breastfeed in public. The norm is changing. Let's help this discriminatory norm disappear. A century ago men couldn't go bare-chested at the beach either.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by SkirtsDad »

Stu wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:27 pm
pelmut wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:03 pm
There is nothing sacrosanct about the perception of skirts or breasts (or ankles in a bygone age) so a change of perception would be an easy way to solve the problem and remove the discrimination.
I'm not sure there is a parallel between skirts for men and bare breasts for women. A man wearing a skirt is simply contravening a convention of fashion; a woman exposing her breasts in public is offending against current norms of decency.
What are "norms of decency" if not another convention? I don't see these women as being told they are not decent:
Image

Even in the West there is movement. Women can be seen breast feeding in public. That is a convention that has changed.
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Equality - IWD -- as it relates to this site

Post by Jim »

SkirtsDad wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:35 pm

Even in the West there is movement. Women can be seen breast feeding in public. That is a convention that has changed.
Breastfeeding in public is still rare around here. Many women don't breastfeed and many more don't for the recommended year or more. One big reason is the sexualization of their breasts. Many babies are missing the healthiest food because of our society's attitude toward breasts.
Post Reply