What's in a Name

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.
User avatar
Epiceneguy
Distinguished Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:22 pm
Location: UK

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Epiceneguy »

Fred in Skirts wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:49 pm
Pants What my dog does when e is hot!!! :lol:
Against my better judgement I ended up laughing at that, nice one 😆
When life gives you lemons, slice them and put them into your G&T!
User avatar
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Stu »

Sinned wrote:
Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:11 pm
Sorry, Stu, but we are talking semantics here.
Semantics is way more important than you may realise - it massively affects perception. There is a tribe in Africa in which the members are incapable of distinguishing blue from green. Show them swatches of these colours and they can tell light from dark - but not the colours. Why? Because they have the same word for the two colours. The manufacturer Yves Saint Laurent marketed a handbag for women and then made an almost identical, but slightly larger, version they called a "manbag" - and men bought it (image below). They wouldn't have touched it if it had been called a "handbag". This is also why marketers are using words like "manscara", and they have renamed "blusher" (women's make-up) as "bronzer" (the same stuff, but for men). And it's why the old Action Man toys were never referred to as "dolls" when that is exactly what they are.

Under-estimate the power of words at your peril.


Image
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Coder »

Stu wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:32 pm
And it's why the old Action Man toys were never referred to as "dolls" when that is exactly what they are.
I can attest to this! As a child I told another kid, "GI Joes are just dolls". If memory serves me correctly, I received a light punch to the gut. Of course, these were the 6" figures, not the large doll-sized GI Joes.
Big and Bashful
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Scottish West Coast

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Big and Bashful »

moonshadow wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:47 am
new2skirts wrote:
Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:43 pm
In the UK, braces are metalwork worn on the teeth to help them grow straighter
Wait.... Brits have straight teeth? :lol:

:hide:

Actually, us Appalachians have no room to talk.... I certainly don't! :wink:
Brits with straight teeth? well not like in the US, we just use braces to pull teeth back from the ears to somewhere close to the mouth! to stop us accidentally biting our hats!
I am the God of Hellfire! and I bring you truffles!
Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Dust »

Coder wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:23 pm
Stu wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:32 pm
And it's why the old Action Man toys were never referred to as "dolls" when that is exactly what they are.
I can attest to this! As a child I told another kid, "GI Joes are just dolls". If memory serves me correctly, I received a light punch to the gut. Of course, these were the 6" figures, not the large doll-sized GI Joes.
"Action figures," are just dolls for boys. Words matter to a lot of people. If we have a word for a skirt a man can wear already (e.g.: "kilt"), I'm fine co-opting it for other skirts.

That said, I'm not going to get butt hurt about my utility kilts being called skirts, or my mini skirts being called kilts. Certain Scotsmen seem to get upset at these sorts of things, or even at calling Utilikilts "kilts" because they aren't "real kilts."

I'm not sure if the kilt thing is a net positive or negative for normalizing men in skirts, probably a positive, but sometimes I wonder.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Coder »

Dust wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:26 pm
I'm not sure if the kilt thing is a net positive or negative for normalizing men in skirts, probably a positive, but sometimes I wonder.
I wonder if it is off-putting for progressives (kilt = toxic masculinity), and conservatives would just roll their eyes and say "admit it, you're wearing a skirt, call it what it is". Maybe I'm wayyyy off base on this line of thinking.

I think words like "mirt" "manskirt" "maniskirt" (ok, I made the last one up as a joke) are cheesy and are somewhat obnoxious.
Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Dust »

Stu wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:32 pm
Semantics is way more important than you may realise - it massively affects perception. There is a tribe in Africa in which the members are incapable of distinguishing blue from green. Show them swatches of these colours and they can tell light from dark - but not the colours. Why? Because they have the same word for the two colours. The manufacturer Yves Saint Laurent marketed a handbag for women and then made an almost identical, but slightly larger, version they called a "manbag" - and men bought it (image below). They wouldn't have touched it if it had been called a "handbag". This is also why marketers are using words like "manscara", and they have renamed "blusher" (women's make-up) as "bronzer" (the same stuff, but for men). And it's why the old Action Man toys were never referred to as "dolls" when that is exactly what they are.

Under-estimate the power of words at your peril.
Strange invented words tend to annoy me, especially the ones that force "man" or "men" into them. I understand the intent, but the abuse of the English language makes me cringe. Do these changes actually make a difference? I think long term, insisting on these strange words will backfire, but as a marketing ploy might help a little, in the short term.

When you say "men bought it" how many are we talking about? In your handbag example, were half of them bought by women who just wanted the bigger version?
Coder wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:36 pm
Dust wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:26 pm
I'm not sure if the kilt thing is a net positive or negative for normalizing men in skirts, probably a positive, but sometimes I wonder.
I wonder if it is off-putting for progressives (kilt = toxic masculinity), and conservatives would just roll their eyes and say "admit it, you're wearing a skirt, call it what it is". Maybe I'm wayyyy off base on this line of thinking.

I think words like "mirt" "manskirt" "maniskirt" (ok, I made the last one up as a joke) are cheesy and are somewhat obnoxious.
You may be right on the progressive/conservative differences on views on these kinds of words. I know I tend to the conservative side and definitely roll my eyes like you say. Cheesey and obnoxious is an understatement. And if the word is cheesy and obnoxious, is that going to then be the view people will have of the thing that word refers to?
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Contact:

Re: What's in a Name

Post by moonshadow »

Coder wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:36 pm
Dust wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:26 pm
I'm not sure if the kilt thing is a net positive or negative for normalizing men in skirts, probably a positive, but sometimes I wonder.
I wonder if it is off-putting for progressives (kilt = toxic masculinity), and conservatives would just roll their eyes and say "admit it, you're wearing a skirt, call it what it is". Maybe I'm wayyyy off base on this line of thinking.

I think words like "mirt" "manskirt" "maniskirt" (ok, I made the last one up as a joke) are cheesy and are somewhat obnoxious.
I don't think you're off base. In fact, when you boil it right down, that's exactly how society will see it with all of our various prejudices.

So just call it what it is. If a man out there has that big of a hang up on wearing a skirt, then screw 'em... it's not our problem.

And yeah, calling every previous feminine thing a "man" thing (e.g. manskirt, murse, meggings, etc) is completely retarded.

I think we'd be better served as a species to destigmatize anything associated with femininity. I'm not saying that a skirt is feminine, but the fact that many people view the skirt as a feminine garment is going to be quite a hurdle to clear.

Skirts have been associated with femininity for a long time now, and the vast majority of men are just not going to try one on so long as we view anything feminine as inferior. Now I expect most people here to disagree with me, and that's your right. But yet here we are, year after year and skirts just can't seem to gain a foothold among men. Why? Because people don't want to be seen as girly. Even many girls don't want to be seen as girly. So here we are. You can call skirts kilts, mirks, smirks, mugs, anything you want, it's still a skirt, and society still views skirts as a garment that represents weakness and femininity. It is what it is.

I mean, we're all over here obsessing over whether a skirt is feminine or not... it's just a skirt! Just wear the damned thing or don't! Who cares?, or rather, why should we care?
-Moon Shadow
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Grok »

Unless a design already has its own traditional name (kilt, sarong, etc.), the word that comes to mind is "skirt". I imagine that most people will think "skirt", with the possible exception of "kilt".

I expect that acceptance will come very gradually in any case, so don't worry about it.
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Grok »

Consider the term "trousers". In the early 21st century does this word have any connotations of gender? It may be possible that "skirt" will become a generic term without such connotations.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 12587
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: What's in a Name

Post by crfriend »

Grok wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:32 pm
It may be possible that "skirt" will become a generic term without such connotations.
I fear that it will take more force to change the trajectory than is really worthwhile. We can hope, of course, and chart out own paths and blaze our own trails as individuals, but that's not going to have the thrust required to change the mass in motion that automatically connotes "skirt" as "feminine" (whatever that may be in the early 21st Century.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: What's in a Name

Post by Grok »

crfriend wrote:
Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:50 pm

I'm no longer looking to procreate (actually I never wanted to knowing the trajectory of the local "society") so that's not a concern. But it would be nice to find a good woman whom I could snuggle up with at night where we could ward off chill for each other from outside. I'm getting set to jettison this notion as well, sadly.
I gave up on both procreation and snuggling some years ago. I never had any luck-romantically-with women.

I recall the day I made the decision to forget the whole thing. When I made the decision I immediately felt a sense of relief. No more time would be wasted for a futile effort. I decided to celebrate by going to see a movie. (Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World).

Sometimes I think that some men are destined to be alone.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Contact:

Re: What's in a Name

Post by moonshadow »

Grok wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:49 am
I decided to celebrate by going to see a movie. (Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World).
I just watched that yesterday (for about the 20th time)

Good movie, always enjoyable.

"one must always choose the lesser of two weevils!"
-Moon Shadow
Post Reply