Will skirts for men finally catch on in Generation Z?

[gender free universe]

Here come some thoughts on observations of men and skirts in the young Generation Z. Do you see it the same way? Where is contradiction called for? What needs to be added to this description of the state?

Some media have said that the young men of Generation Z are redefining masculinity. They are breaking with old-school masculinity more than any other generation before. In my opinion, this is becoming increasingly visible in fashion.

Skirts for men were still taboo for the rock 'n rollers of the 40s and early 50s, conceivable for the hippies of the '60s but ultimately too freaky. The punks of the 70s could accept them if a man's skirt was a kilt. The goths of the 80s already accepted dark skirts with long flowing lines. Then designers discovered the skirt for their men's collections – but the design still followed that of traditional men’s skirts. It wasn't until Generation Z that more and more men in skirts (many of them even wear skirts from the women‘s section) made it onto the stages and the red carpets of the world and onto the covers of major fashion magazines. Even in the once macho rap scene, some men perform in skirts. Today, there are even nonbinary rappers.

The young zoomer generation seems to break particularly strongly with the traditional conventions. They are more honest with themselves and live their characteristics in the configuration in which they find them, unwilling to adapt to old societal standards. They still can be aggressive and dominant, but also empathetic and team-oriented. They no longer taboo traits that are the privilege of another gender, which they see as equal. They reject any self-censorship to fit into a predetermined social gender role that does not correspond to their personality. Thus, they socialize their authentic selves, thereby extending the traditional gender role.

On the female side, the same development can be observed for much longer. The struggle to expand the assigned role to the point of breaking with it led to feminism.

Where overlap arises from the expansion of gender roles, gender dissolves. Where role assignments are generally broken, women, men, and others become equal people.

[Barleymower]

I see your point of view which follows a logical path. I don't however fully agree with what you are saying.

I don't believe that women's hard fought and won ground was by solely by women. Nefarious forces were at work in this period. My own contention is that the 'they" wanted women out of the home and paying more tax and a broken, obedient man.

They can't fully control everything, the Internet has been used against us but has also educated us by improving communication. 'They" have attempted to destroy the new knowledge by labeling anything they don't like as conspiracy or false news. Providing their own fact checkers.

Gen Z's are more savvie than us old timers and the giant pendulum will eventuslly swing back and balance will be restored. If men are loud and proud with a brand new wardrobe, then old man BM will sit in the corner sipping my soup with a smile on my face.

[Myopic Bookworm]

My own contention is that the 'they" wanted women out of the home and paying more tax and a broken, obedient man. They can't fully control everything .. 'They" have attempted to destroy the new knowledge by labeling anything they don't like as conspiracy or false news. Providing their own fact checkers.

I don't recognize your "they". Ideologies that want "broken, obedient men" are almost invariably those that also want silent, subservient women.

(The reverse does not hold: some of the ideologies that want silent, subservient women also seem to want arrogant, overbearing men; and while men at the top of the pile oppress other men, the ones at the bottom of the pile have to resort to abusing women.)

[Tazzmac]

I think one day if you could time travel into the future blokes will be wearing skirts or such again as a general thing to wear . Fashion trends will eventually change again as they have throughout history .
Even as recently as several decades ago it was relatively normal for young lads to wear dresses and kilted skirts for a decent period of time after they were born .
The military fought in kilts including in the World Wars and quite obviously well before that .. Many cultures other than most Western ones still have undivided crotch garments as normal dress for men .

For some reason it became acceptable for men to breech and women not to . Again it was 'deemed' that males were the stronger sex and women the weaker one... so I guess if a bloke liked to wear a dress or skirt they must be weak . Not true of course but that perception is probably why men can be shunned for dressing that way ..It's totally wrong but the fear of being ridiculed would stop many of us for trying skirts or dresses on . Even kilts being primarily a skirt for men have to be justified somehow when worn out and about , That's also very wrong .

What also fascinates me is how women can dress in male perceived clothes with much less grief that blokes would get the other way. Some girls may get typecast as same sex in some instances when they're not though .

Not sure whether I'll live long enough or be young enough to enjoy the freedom males deserve if they want to freely choose clothes that we currently deem as skirts /dresses/tunics etc but no doubt one day a more tolerant and egalitarian society will see that happen for whoever is around then .

Cheers...

[Barleymower]

What also fascinates me is how women can dress in male perceived clothes with much less grief that blokes would get the other way. Some girls may get typecast as same sex in some instances when they're not though .

Women have nothing to prove, they can just be.
Men have to prove their manhood.

Not sure whether I'll live long enough or be young enough to enjoy the freedom males deserve if they want to freely choose clothes that we currently deem as skirts /dresses/tunics etc but no doubt one day a more tolerant and egalitarian society will see that happen for whoever is around then .

I don't think you will live long enough to enjoy the freedom males deserve. If you are brave and by all accounts men should be/are brave, you can enjoy those freedoms now.

[Barleymower]

Ideologies that want "broken, obedient men" are almost invariably those that also want silent, subservient women.

Agreed.

(The reverse does not hold: some of the ideologies that want silent, subservient women also seem to want arrogant, overbearing men; and while men at the top of the pile oppress other men, the ones at the bottom of the pile have to resort to abusing women.)

Men at the bottom of the pile do not necessarily abuse women. From where I stand the bottom of the pile is close. I have little or no rights and no safety net. Yet me and many like me do not abuse those around us. We continued to love and support them. Even those at rock bottom are still kind and supportive. If there are men as you describe, they are not representative of mankind.

[Grok]

You can have fashion freedom if you decide what you are-are you a conformist, or are you a maverick?

If you are a maverick, you might consider yourself a member of a (very small) vanguard. A vanguard who have started a long process of change; we are now in an early, experimental phase.

We may influence the future indirectly. By affecting two different demographics:

1. Little boys. Inspiring them.

2. Little girls. What will their attitude be as grown women?. Will they think that skirted outfits are okay for their own men?

[Grok]

We might see a lot of change with Gen Z. Perhaps change will culminate with the the next demographic to come along, younger people who try to distinguish themselves by being even bolder than the older Gen Z.

BTW, we might see other changes, such as mens jewelry, eyewear, hats....

As for me personally, I am 66 years old. I will likely not be around to see what a Post-Gen-Z demographic does as young adults.

[STEVIE]

Nefarious forces were at work in this period. My own contention is that the 'they" wanted women out of the home and paying more tax and a broken, obedient man.

The "Nefarious Forces" at work were, war, politics and most of all money or economics if we get technical.
Women who performed male roles had to be allowed certain freedoms to do so effectively and they fought hard to keep them.
However, the perceived and accepted conditions for men have remained pretty much the same until quite recent times.

I don't recognize your "they". Ideologies that want "broken, obedient men" are almost invariably those that also want silent, subservient women.

It suits "government" to have acquiescent and obedient populations, in this respect gender is not the issue but elitism is another issue.

Not sure whether I'll live long enough or be young enough to enjoy the freedom males deserve if they want to freely choose clothes that we currently deem as skirts /dresses/tunics etc but no doubt one day a more tolerant and egalitarian society will see that happen for whoever is around then .

It is now for men to take their own fashion freedoms. The tolerance and egalitarianism will only evolve as the status quo is challenged and eroded. If you have doubts about living long enough to see this happen then you may not. One life per person only!

The young zoomer generation seems to break particularly strongly with the traditional conventions. They are more honest with themselves and live their characteristics in the configuration in which they find them, unwilling to adapt to old societal standards. They still can be aggressive and dominant, but also empathetic and team-oriented. They no longer taboo traits that are the privilege of another gender, which they see as equal. They reject any self-censorship to fit into a predetermined social gender role that does not correspond to their personality. Thus, they socialize their authentic selves, thereby extending the traditional gender role.

I would really like to think that by what I do as a daily routine that I am helping to pave the way for the next guy. If so, then all the other crap that I have waded through over the years will have been worth it.
I have no idea who the youngest cafe patron is but they hopefully will experience the luxury of a world where no one is judged on the cut of their garments.

Steve.

[gender free universe]

The military fought in kilts including in the World Wars and quite obviously well before that .. Many cultures other than most Western ones still have undivided crotch garments as normal dress for men.

Skirts used to be very masculine. The shortest skirts (in micro mini length) in fashion history were worn by Roman gladiators and Greek hoplites (infantry). Muscular thighs were considered a sign of virility. The changing gender assignments of skirts and other garments are a cultural construction. It has nothing to do with biology. Social constructions can be changed. I do believe Gen Z is swinging the pendulum to the other side.

[STEVIE]

I may be wrong but the only soldiers who fought in kilts in WW1 and 2 were Scots or in Scottish based regiments.
In fact, in the 2nd World War, most kilts would have been for ceremony and not action.
The Scots uniform in the first war did nothing to alleviate the horrors and tribulation of trench fighting.
Steve.

[gender free universe]

What also fascinates me is how women can dress in male perceived clothes with much less grief that blokes would get the other way. Some girls may get typecast as same sex in some instances when they're not though .

Women have nothing to prove, they can just be.
Men have to prove their manhood.

The psychologist John Carl Fluegel explained in his „Psychology of Clothing" in 1930 that the voluntary renunciation of outwardly emphasized beauty should refer to the inner qualities of man which are to be valued more highly. Women were excluded from wearing pants because they ”are lacking any own identity“. ”Their authentic essence,“ as the philosopher and pioneer of modern democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, explained: ”is the meaninglessness of their appearances. It is nothing but theatre.“ Women should exercise “the gentle rule of the heart at home, while men care for the res publica, the cause of all. Without man, by whom the woman is determined, the woman is nothing." Thus, the pants became a “natural" symbol of a patriarchal claim to leadership.

[moonshadow]

What ever the future holds.. is sure to be a riot.

[Myopic Bookworm]

The psychologist John Carl Fluegel explained in his „Psychology of Clothing" in 1930 that the voluntary renunciation of outwardly emphasized beauty should refer to the inner qualities of man which are to be valued more highly. Women were excluded from wearing pants because they ”are lacking any own identity“. ”Their authentic essence,“ as the philosopher and pioneer of modern democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, explained: ”is the meaninglessness of their appearances. It is nothing but theatre.“ Women should exercise “the gentle rule of the heart at home, while men care for the res publica, the cause of all. Without man, by whom the woman is determined, the woman is nothing."

Wow. It's interesting to see the prejudice rationalized in cold print. I haven't seen anything approaching that last sentence outside extreme conservative Catholic theology.

[STEVIE]

What ever the future holds.. is sure to be a riot.

Indeed, Moon.
The best thing to do is hang onto your hat and enjoy the ride.
The future will happen as it always does and not a damn thing we do or say will stop it.

Without man, by whom the woman is determined, the woman is nothing." Thus, the pants became a “natural" symbol of a patriarchal claim to leadership.

Prejudiced certainly, but this "opinion" has shaped our history. Sadly, the distorted thinking behind it still exists in many cultures and countries.
Yup, GEN Z will have a blast.
Steve.