A Little History

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.
Post Reply
BobM
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:14 pm
Location: Ellenboro, NC

A Little History

Post by BobM »

For the edification of those who think men should confine themselves to pants:

In mid 16th century Italy you’d have laughed at men in pants, pants were named after the famous clown, Pantalone. In 393AD Rome, you’d have been leading the mob to exile men in pants after the order was issued by Theodosius I. Men in pants were political subversives. In ancient Greece, you’d have been shocked at the barbarians wearing twin tube leg coverings. In Bulgaria in 867 AD, you’d be waiting for the messenger to return from Rome to get the Pope’s decision on whether you could be a Christian, EVEN THOUGH YOU WORE PANTS. In 1431 AD, you’d have tossed the torch onto the woodpile that burned Joan of Arc to death, because she had worn pants (“clothing not belonging to her sex”); In the 1870s, you’d have been saying along with the editor of the New York Times that women in pants were under “permanent mental hallucination.” In 1943, you’d have been the Chicago cop who arrested Evelyn Bross for wearing pants (“clothing not belonging to her sex”) or you’d have been judge Jacob Braude, who ordered her to see a psychiatrist for six months. Do you think it no longer matters what style women wear, because they’ve all become hermaphrodites? More like you think what they wear doesn’t matter, because the notion of everything goes for women has been drilled into your thinking from day one. You’re a typical conformist expressing the viewpoints dictated by this mass hypnosis environment you’re in that men have to look plain and drab, and that we always have to wear what was invented for riding a horse—pants, centuries after what caused pants has long since faded away. A man needs pants and plain clothes to confer gender on him, but a woman’s gender is conferred no matter what she wears. You are an idiot. I hope your pants are tight enough to squeeze your parts. It’s men that need the extra space a skirt gives—not women. Skirts and pants, fancy and plain clothes—individual differences—not gender differences. What people wear has been caused by social forces, the absorption of concepts from parents and teachers causes learned behavior. Neither has to do with sex chromosomes. Hair length is also a non-gender difference. Short hair on men is a habit tracing to early medieval European military regulations that came about as a measure for controlling head lice. The markers of male identification are facial hair, deeper voice, broader shoulders, narrower hips. These natural differences are in place and need not be added. What you’re appealing to is entirely synthetic and arbitrary.

(I forget where I came across this.)
Ordained Deacon and Ruling Elder, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
User avatar
denimini
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:50 am
Location: Outback Australia

Re: A Little History

Post by denimini »

BobM wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:55 pm

(I forget where I came across this.)
Probably from this page about half way down from Charles.
https://pinkisforboys.wordpress.com/201 ... in-skirts/
Anthony, a denim miniskirt wearer in Outback Australia
User avatar
JeffB1959
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: A Little History

Post by JeffB1959 »

I found that fascinating. At the end of the day, clothes are clothes, designed mainly to keep people warm and protected, the gender connotation, that men can only wear pants while women can wear ANYTHING is stupid on steroids, and I'm happy to break that particular wall in my own way.
I don't want to LOOK like a woman, I just want to DRESS like a woman.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4668
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: A Little History

Post by Sinned »

The trouble with using historical aspects to "prove" that we shouldn't be wearing trousers, and hence by implication should be wearing open-ended hemmed garments, is that one can use the argument that we have moved on from then and now have different standards and customs. Then was then and is now dead and buried, now is now, a different age. There are lots of things in history that we wouldn't even want to do now. This is MOH's argument, not mine, though I have a tad of sympathy with it even though it undermines my stance on the issue.

I think that there's more mileage in the "women can wear anything, all I'm asking for is equality in this" argument. MOH has no real counter to this. She doesn't really try just to say that when she sees me in a skirt she sees - Woman.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: A Little History

Post by STEVIE »

It should be remembered that there were very strict rules for men and women covering what they could and could not wear.
In many countries there were "sumptuary laws" which governed who could wear what and even beyond.
One example;
The term Sumptuary law has been derived from the Latin words ‘Sumptuariae leges’ meaning the laws brought into force in order to systematize the habits of people in clothing, food, trade or business, to maintain social hierarchy, etc.
The Sumptuary laws were also passed in 1571 during the Elizabethan period. As per this law, every person who is above six years was to wear a woollen cap on Sundays and holidays. However, the law was enacted only to profit the woollen industries in England and was restricted to the lower classes of the society.

I haven't even looked at the penalties which may have been imposed on anyone who dared to transgress. I suspect harsh in the extreme.
Would we really want to return to this way of thinking
Steve.
steamman
Active Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: A Little History

Post by steamman »

I believe that even today it is illegal for a man to wear a skirt in Italy.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: A Little History

Post by STEVIE »

Steamman
There will be places all over the world today where it will be illegal for a guy to openly wear any feminine clothes.
In others it would be downright dangerous.
Here in Scotland, a guy impersonating a woman is still technically a Breach of the Peace I think.
I doubt if it would ever be enforced these days though if it has not actually been removed from the list.
As for history, I am not really sure just how much we have progressed or learned from past mistakes.
Steve.
geron
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:31 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: A Little History

Post by geron »

steamman wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:07 am
I believe that even today it is illegal for a man to wear a skirt in Italy.
If so, there must be some legal distinction in Italy between a skirt and all those cassocks and surplices -- especially those fancy lacy numbers. It must have been quite a challenge to write it.
rivegauche
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: A Little History

Post by rivegauche »

Scotland has an unfortunate law called conspiracy to cause a breach of the peace but it is rarely if ever enforced (assuming it even could be). I recall in the late 60s or early 70s a young man was charged with "pervading in women's attire" or something similar. He said his girlfriend had told him he had no idea what it was like to be a woman so he tried wearing a skirt and tights (I know, but this was a long time ago when such associations would be automatic). Unfortunately he pleaded guilty but there were articles in the Scottish press defending his right to wear what he wanted. I suspect that any Police Officer who found a way of arresting (not even charging) a man with an offence based purely on the perception of wearing womenswear would find their career stalling. Scotland has become a country that is actively tolerant of all sorts of personal freedom and is determined to be perceived as this so it is fairly safe for us. This even applies to public perception - men wearing skirts or dressed as women (I do both) does not raise any eyebrows and there is almost complete indifference to all variations of LBGT. I remember a case in Ardersier, near Inverness, where a man hugged another man who had come into the bar. He was immediately set upon by several of the customers and started to protest. One of the women told him to shut up and take his beating. It turned out what he had been trying to tell his assailants was that the man he had hugged was his brother. The case went to court and I don't remember the outcome, but everyone regarded Ardersier as a place inhabited by primitives for some time - it caused shock to normal people in the Highlands.
Post Reply