Mission Statement and Who are We?

[Bob]

There has been much discussion recently regarding who we are and questions about whether we are "drifting." I would like to open discussion on that issue.

First of all, below is a proposed mission statement. Please vote and comment on it. It is my belief that this mission statement accurately captures the spirit of current Cafe membership. Also, please comment on the material below.

Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating for men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of fashion choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garmets. We recognize and applaud a diversity in terms of fashions our members feel comfortable wearing, and we do not a priori exclude any potential fashion choices. We encourage continuing dialog on gender and masculinity in the context of fashion freedom for men.

We are not a cross-dressing or transvestite community, and we do not use women's names (except for our woman members).

I would like to elaborate on this more, in the context of the classic "Bravehearts vs. Freestyle" war. Fashion Freedom has come a long way since the early days of Tom's Cafe. Where there used to be just one on-line community dedicated to fashion freedom of sorts, now there are many.

As more differentiated choices opened up, some members chose to move their attention to some of the other on-line communities that they felt better fit their approach to fashion freedom. In particular, many Bravehearts --- those who seek only to wear kilts --- moved to a kilts-only community. Meanwhile, another "old guard" community went in a distinctly transgender direction and some members left for that. I wish all ex-Cafe members well. Availability of choice is progress, an indication that fashion freedom is becoming more accepted.

After the "big exodus", Tom's Cafe was left staking out a middle ground by default --- not Braveheart, but certainly not Transgender. Tom believed emphatically in the values of diversity and tolerance. Tom's Cafe therefore became a place --- the ONLY place, in fact --- where Bravehearts and Freestylers could meet and discuss fashion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. We all wear skirts or kilts for different reasons and feel differently about the experience. We do not expect that all members would want to wear all outfits discussed at the Cafe.

This diversity and mutual respect within the realm of fashion freedom is the most important defining aspect of Tom's Cafe, and the one I would most like to see continue. Because the Cafe is the only community that embraces this diversity, it fulfills an important on-line niche. That is why I agreed to be proprietor of the continuing Cafe.

I do not believe we should aim to be the most popular on-line community --- this is a volunteer effort after all, and would only result in high server bills! Nor should we aim to copy any other communities we feel are more "successful" --- that doesn't work anyway. Rather, I wish to see us understand at a deep level who we are and what we stand for, and then patiently and respectfully discuss, promote and advocate for it.

From time to time, there is discussion about whether we are "drifting" in a direction that could alienate our membership. In particular, I believe many members do not wish to see the Cafe move in a transvestite, transgender, transsexual or any other trans- direction. I also believe that most members do not wish to see it turn into a fetish site. It also seems to be agreed upon that this is not a gay issue, although we certainly welcome both gay and straight men.

In any case, it is absolutely my intention that we do NOT drift in a trans- direction. Other on-line communities handle those issues just fine, and drifting could seriously endanger our diversity. From time to time, I have heard members express concerns that we ARE drifting, or (more frequently) that we MIGHT drift.

I believe that a few simple board policies can safely ensure we don't become a trans- community:
1. A mission statement like the one above, posted prominently.
2. A board policy of "gender honesty, that we don't try to "pass" as a gender other than our own. I believe a specific rule against the use of woman's names (unless you're a woman) as user handles would suffice in this.

I don't want this to become an "up-tight" board with a lot of rules, but I believe the above rule could help to cement our position of diversity and middle ground in fashion freedom.

The decision to retire the tomscafe.org domain was Noodle's. He wished to turn tomscafe.org into a memorial to Tom Manuel and his significant contributions to the fashion freedom movement.

As for the name "Skirt Cafe" --- some members are uncomfortable with it, or see it as a sign of drift away from the masculine zone. That is not my intention. The big question is: do we need to change the name to ensure our middle position --- even with a good mission statement? If we change, what should the new name be? Discussion is welcome.

Finally, I propose a simple "line" we can draw between what we advocate for (fashion freedom) and what some other sites are about (cross-dressing). The difference between cross-dressing (same as transvestite) and fashion freedom is gender honesty. With fashion freedom, men do not pretend to be women, and women do not pretend to be men. You can wear whatever you like --- a pink tutu, for example --- but you have not cross-dressed unless you pretend to be a woman.

[The Satirist]

Make sure the spelling is correct, (garment), before it is posted permanently. I wouldn't use Latin in the statement. I feel that this makes us seem too legalistic, or perhaps even "stuck up". (Just my opinion.) I do believe though that a posted mission statement will help keep us on focus. Tom's Cafe had one and it was quoted in many posts.

I also think that there should be somewhere on the site, a faq, or a written guideline as to what is not allowed. A list of rules perhaps. I agree with many others that fashion consists of what others see us in, not what they can't see. Men's fashion has nothing to do with certain undergarments and fetish wear. I have discussed undergarments in the past, but have since matured in my freedoms and realize that what I wear that others can't, or at least shouldn't see is nobody's business but my own. There's enough discussion of that elsewhere.

I do think that nail varnish, as girly as some may see it, is a part of fashion since it can be seen. These days I don't wear skirts as often as I used to because my job disallows loose clothing, but I do wear nail polish even with pants. If you saw me you would know that I am in no way "girly". I would like to see a sub-forum on accessories such as shoulder bags, nail polish and such. I do understand that there are a few here who disagree which is why I have voluntarily ceased posting about my nails here. I agree with most of what you have written, and disagree with none of it.

Oh yes, one more thing: Thank you for clarifying your point about gender honesty, here and in PM's. I whole heartedly agree with you now.

[hiker]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for taking over the management of the cafe. I think a place like this is unique and important (at least to me). As one of the people who voted for "skirt cafe" I like the mission statement. As a relative new comer I am a little wary of various incursions into the cross dressing world and so as Hamish notes we may want to consider a different name and it may require some policing of the policy.

When I go back and read various parts of the old Tom's cafe list --- I'm not sure it has changed that much over the past 6 years. But I do think that maintaining the list in the center will be challenging.

hiker

[Aloofguru]

Maybe Im a bit off here and need some clarification.

>>We are not a cross-dressing or transvestite community, and we do not use women's names (except for our woman members).

as percieved by the outside world. we are cross dressers. crossdressers in the sence that we cross the isle in to the womens department when shopping.
we are not crossdressers in the sence that we try to pass as women. should we define crossdressing in the mission statment or atleast to what extent.

[crfriend]

I think Bob's initial cut at a "mission statement" was a pretty good one. There are a couple of things that might be reworded a bit, but the basic thrust looks solid.

Possible changes?

We recognize and applaud a diversity in terms of fashions our members feel comfortable wearing, and we do not a priori exclude any potential fashion choices.

I'd drop the passive ".. applaud a diversity ..." and state it forcibly "We recognise and applaud diversity ..." Gettng the wording into the active voice makes the passage more compelling to the reader.

Similarly,

"We are not a cross-dressing or transvestite community, and we do not use women's names (except for our woman members). "

could become, "We are not corss-dressers nor transvestites; our male members do not adopt female on-line personas and heartily welcome participation by our female colleagues."

The Satirist looked to drop the latin phrase. I thought about that one for a while and couldn't come up with a better or more consice way of getting the point across; I'd have to say, "leave it in."

[Since1982]

I agree with Chuck on the Latin phrase. It "might" be taken as some semblence of a "superiority" attitude, 'specially from those who don't understand latin. They will look at that and think or say, "What the heck does that mean????". Otherwise I agree with the current statement as it's written. I personally am not trying to hide my skirt wearing as I have been public with it for nearly a year and a half, THANKS TO THIS PLACE, so I am also happy with the name "Skirt.Cafe".:ninjajig:

I have a question though, about the "women's names" thing. About the members who already had women's names when they joined this site when Noodles was running it, are they going to be asked to change to different names? If not, you're going to have a problem telling new members they can't do what existing members are already doing.:shake:

[Bob]

Maybe Im a bit off here and need some clarification... as percieved by the outside world. we are cross dressers

One of our goals, I believe, is to build fashion freedom mindshare in the wider world. Cross-dressing (as I've defined it) makes many people uncomfortable, but our experience is that a guy in a skirt usually does not. Why? I believe it's because of the gender honesty thing --- people want to know your gender when they see you. If they can easily "read" your gender, they really don't care what you're wearing or how long your hair is.

Consider how this plays out in women. A woman wearing pants is not considered to be "cross dressing". Why? Because she looks and acts like a woman no matter what she wears. When women start to "pass" as men (and I've seen it before), it makes the average bloke just as uncomfortable as men trying to pass as women.

However, most people automatically consider that a man wearing a skirt IS "cross-dressing". The skirt is seen as such an ultra-feminine garment that it feminizes the wearer. It's a double standard. The implicit assumption is that any guy wearing a skirt is trying to pass as a woman, and that makes people uncomfortable. There is currently no space in many people's minds for a guy in a skirt.

By patiently explaining the difference between cross-dressing and wearing a skirt, we can create that space in peoples' minds, and therefore build acceptance for fashion freedom. In order to do this, I believe we should talk about gender honesty and emphasize that this is NOT cross-dressing (which people associate badly), no more than it is cross-dressing for a woman to wear trousers. Time and time again I've seen people get comfortable with the idea, once they realize you're just making a fashion choice, not a lifestyle choice.

[Bob]

About the members who already had women's names when they joined this site when Noodles was running it, are they going to be asked to change to different names?

Thanks for bringing this up, I hadn't thought about it. My recollection is that people actually posting under woman's names are few and far between, and usually transient.

I just reviewed the membership. Sure enough, here and there, there are woman's names, along with names with "TV" in them. The vast majority of these users registered and never posted; my guess is they figured out pretty quickly that this is not a trans site (even without any extra rules), and moved elsewhere. Interestingly, most names with the word "skirt" in them never posted either. Maybe those users were also looking for a trans site. Names with "man" or "kilt" in them were much more likely to stick around and post.

So with that little survey, I suggest that IF someone starts posting actively using a woman's name (or something with "TV" in it), that we welcome him to the Cafe and politely ask him to change names at that point. I believe most of the woman's names currently registered will never post, hence no problem.

This brings up a few corner cases, of course. What about the transsexual, who "really is" a woman at this point? I can think of at least two transsexual Cafe patrons whom I would not wish to alienate. However, they are former Cafe patrons for the most part. These are people who tried fashion freedom, realized it wasn't for them, and moved elsewhere. That is fine with me, just like the guys who tried the cross-dressing scene, realized it wasn't for them, and came to the Cafe. I hope we can have mutual respect between on-line communities of different focuses --- and understand that even though we might not "fit" into a community that we can be welcome to sit down and listen there, and vice versa.

We don't need to bash cross-dressers, transexuals or any one else in order to promote our cause. However, I believe it IS healthy to point out the differences between groups in a non-judgmental manner.

[Bob]

I noticed that two people have voted against the mission statement, but have not discussed why. I am interested in hearing dissenting voices (it's a critical reality check), and would appreciate it if you might please post your reasons, or PM them to me.

[hiker]

I agree with Bob's definition of cross dressing and I think it is important. I do not think that wearing a skirt (or kilt) that fits a man constitutes cross dressing.

Last Sunday I was in a bar in Madison WI on the east side (not the university district) wearing a black ankle length skirt in teva's and a t shirt. The same stuff I'd wear with jeans or shorts. While I was in the men's room a rough looking patron provided an unsolicited comment to my wife "that's okay - it's a kilt and men wear them" after my wife overcame the surprise at the unasked for conversation she tried to correct him and tell him it was a skirt, but he insisted that it was a kilt, probably because it looked manly to him.

I've had the same experience with others for whom skirt+man = kilt. I think that's the response we are looking for. I'm not a man trying to look like a woman. I'm a man wearing a different kind of man's garment.

I do think that message becomes murky when someone adds nail varnish, heals, hose, and a flowery (or very short) skirt to the mix. But it is not my job to tell people what to wear. Hence I think Bob's emphasis on gender honesty is excellent. Skirts/kilts are something that regular guys should consider as a part of their wardrobe.

[Bob]

I do think that message becomes murky when someone adds nail varnish, heals, hose, and a flowery (or very short) skirt to the mix.

I understand this. Actually, for most guys on this forum (including myself), there's always some outfit we could dig up that would make us uncomfortable. But opinions vary and times change, and our own opinions vary over time. By commiting to diversity and making gender honesty the bottom line (using a man's name, going to the men's bathroom, etc), we can avoid fights over what we think "is" or "is not" appropriate for men to wear, and we can allow ourselves room to grow and change our mind over what we want for ourselves.

These fights are especially damaging because they ultimately undermine the message of fashion freedom --- how much freedom do we REALLY have if it's OK to wear a simple skirt but not a skirt with lace on it, or a pink skirt, or nail polish? All we've done then is moved our own hang-ups to the left without ever really dealing with them.

In the end, I believe every person needs to understand his or her own self-image, and then project that in the way we dress. If we are honest and comfortable with ourselves, and we feel comfortable dressing in ways that express that self --- then that is a good thing.

[Since1982]

I don't personally want people thinking that a skirt on a man is "really a kilt" to accept me. Either he accepts me as I am, "A man in a skirt" or he doesn't. I go to lengths sometimes to explain to people in the public that what I'm wearing is truly a skirt, not a kilt and wanting folks to see all men's skirts as kilts is a step back in our fight for equality in my opinion.

[isobar]

I noticed that two people have voted against the mission statement, but have not discussed why.

All right. Personally I'm not big on 'mission statements', and as others have commented it sounds uncomfortably formal in first draft. In my experience it's also a bit hollow - this bit, for example:

We encourage continuing dialog on gender and masculinity

...which doesn't match my experience of the cafe.

Having voiced a general opposition to mission statements, perhaps I don't need to pick nits with the draft, but I'd also suggest we don't need to 'applaud diversity', which doesn't seem especially virtuous in itself. Instead we might accept it as I believe, from his writings, Tom did.

(from another message) One of our goals, I believe, is to build fashion freedom mindshare in the wider world.

Well, I have to disagree. My view is that this is not a political lobbying group but a social and support forum for men who like to wear skirts. A political agenda more or less guarantees you will oppress some who want to be here because we're not all here for the same reason.

On the subject of naming, I think it's supremely unsubtle to use the word 'skirt' in the cafe's title. The aesthetic of understatement is something Tom's Cafe had, and I think the new title is a step away from this. Whether it will attract 'the wrong crowd' is irrelevant - we're either for freedom or we're not, and deterring membership by stealth seems as contrary to that as would be calling the forum 'men in skirts (BUT NOT TRANSVESTITES) cafe'.

[hiker]

I understand this. Actually, for most guys on this forum (including myself), there's always some outfit we could dig up that would make us uncomfortable. But opinions vary and times change, and our own opinions vary over time. By commiting to diversity and making gender honesty the bottom line (using a man's name, going to the men's bathroom, etc), we can avoid fights over what we think "is" or "is not" appropriate for men to wear, and we can allow ourselves room to grow and change our mind over what we want for ourselves.

These fights are especially damaging because they ultimately undermine the message of fashion freedom --- how much freedom do we REALLY have if it's OK to wear a simple skirt but not a skirt with lace on it, or a pink skirt, or nail polish? All we've done then is moved our own hang-ups to the left without ever really dealing with them.

I agree - and that is why I think the emphasis on gender honesty as the bottom line works very well here.

[hiker]

I don't personally want people thinking that a skirt on a man is "really a kilt" to accept me. Either he accepts me as I am, "A man in a skirt" or he doesn't. I go to lengths sometimes to explain to people in the public that what I'm wearing is truly a skirt, not a kilt and wanting folks to see all men's skirts as kilts is a step back in our fight for equality in my opinion.

Let me try to explain this a bit better. When I am wearing a skirt (I sometimes wear kilts) several people including my niece have asked what I am wearing. I always reply "a skirt." My niece after 5 minutes of reflection said "I think its really a kilt -- a long kilt." About six weeks ago in another encounter in DC I was approached by a woman while I was standing on a metro platform. She introduced herself and said that she was "the fashion editor of a local paper." After a moment of discussion she said, so what are you wearing? I replied a skirt (it was silk). She asked why and we had a pleasant discussion. (I half expected to be in her column -- but not yet.) At the end she remarked "it's strange it just doesn't quite look like a skirt to me - maybe you should call it something different."

Now what I was wearing was clearly a skirt -- there is not a question. But I think that when people say "skirt" they think feminine or womanly. I don't think my presentation/appearance is feminine or womanly. Because of this they search for another word (probably to make themselves more comfortable with my appearance) and the word that comes most easily to mind is "kilt." Some on this list have struggled with the same issue hence the word "MUG."

Now back to my original point - I want my appearance to clearly male and masculine and I want my skirt to reflect this - and I think this viewpoint helps move male fashion freedom forward. And so when people see me, I want them to think - that's guy wearing something really diffferent -- not there's a guy wearing women's clothing.