Everybody in dresses: Why does gender neutral clothing alway

[KasparHauser]

http://fb.me/7vh7Iv9iN

Because if we’re going to escape the tyranny of all-gendered-everything (special lip balm for men? are you kidding me?), we need to start with letting kids choose clothes from whatever — arbitrarily divided — section of the clothing store they want. All kids, not just the girls.

A discussion on how "gender neutral clothing" is being sold. Also, might have to check out "Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America", by Jo B. Paoletti. Paoletti also has a book entitled, "Sex and Unisex: Fashion, Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution"

[crfriend]

The Facebook author gets it more nearly correct than Paoletti, who, from the quotes from her books seems a throwback to 1970s "feminism".

At issue here is that the entire notion of "unisex" or "androgeny" has been entirely about de-feminising women and turning them into ersatz-men -- it has never been about releasing the ossified stereotypes of either masculinity or femininity. Those stereotypes are as rigid today as they've ever been -- perhaps more so; modern "women" simply ignore them when it suits their intents -- men, however, are not allowed that luxury. The notion is even explicitly stated in the use of the term "androgeny" which has, at its root, "andro" which is Greek for "masculine". The primary androgen (a hormone) is testosterone. So much for levelling the playing field. It was about "butch" then; it's about "butch" now; some things may never change.

So, let's call a spade a spade; feminist books are not going to be where we -- as men -- find any sort of consolation or relief. In those tomes we'll find attacks on manhood and an attempt to subvert mens place in the world.

Now, before anybody goes off and calls me a woman-hater, I am not. I am a ardent supporter of equality between the sexes -- equality in opportunity; equality in wages; equality in status. What I am is equally fervent against is the corruption of one, which in turn compromises the other, in a misguided attempt to bring the first notion of "equality" about. Men and women are different; this should be celebrated, not reviled and "corrected".

[Gordon]

Well said.

[skirtyscot]

Good rant, Carl, except that androgyny is derived from the Greek for "male" and "female".

It's not like you to make a mistake like that!

[crfriend]

Good rant, Carl, except that androgyny is derived from the Greek for "male" and "female".

Good catch! I stand corrected on that count, but I believe the rest of the rant is pretty well on-target.

It's not like you to make a mistake like that!

I'm human; that means I commit errors from time to time. If I was inerrant I'd get to be outright intolerable right quick! (I'm bad enough as is.)

[r.m.anderson]

Good rant, Carl, except that androgyny is derived from the Greek for "male" and "female".

Good catch! I stand corrected on that count, but I believe the rest of the rant is pretty well on-target.

It's not like you to make a mistake like that!

I'm human; that means I commit errors from time to time. If I was inerrant I'd get to be outright intolerable right quick! (I'm bad enough as is.)

Carl be glad you are not the Pope and infallible - and "Who am I to judge" ?

[dillon]

I send you a shiny new mental hammer, Carl, for hitting the nail square on the head.

[Tor]

I quite agree with the quality of the article.

I would note, Carl, that Pink and Blue (which I read a while back) is children's fashion through the 50s and 60s. Sex and Unisex (that I haven't read yet) is the sequel, which I believe is specifically about the 70s and 80s. Thus, for the book to "seem a throwback to 1970s 'feminism'" is not really a fault of the book, and whether we agree with what it describes, that the book would describe such is an intended feature. IIRC, there are some indications in Pink and Blue that Paoletti might well hold opinions that more nearly match "ours" than the quotes pulled for advertising would indicate.

Unless plans have changed, Paoletti is working on a third book that will cover more recent territory and perhaps even attempt to look into the future a bit.

[Jim2]

In Jo Paoletti's book, Sex and Unisex, can be found this statement,

We still have a long way to go before ... men can trade their khaki trousers for cotton skirts on humid summer days - without having to shave their legs.

That book is really a tour de force examination of the meaning of the 60s and early 70s for society's views on sex, gender, and sexuality. She views it as the beginning of a

very complicated - and unfinished - conversation

about these things, as part of an ongoing culture war. Unisex fashion becomes for her a window into this battle. I disagree with Carl's claim that the entire notion of unisex has been only about turning women into ersatz-men. While that is often how it has ended up in practice, in ideology it is much more and will eventually help lead to dress freedom for men. Paoletti's book does a good job of pointing out subtle yet profound ways that the movement for unisex clothing in the 60s and 70s was in part a loosening up on constraints for men's clothing. It clearly did not go anywhere near what we want from such a movement, but the kind of change we want is hard because the forces against such change are very strong. That, however, is not a reason to disparage the concept of "unisex". The fact that the ossified stereotypes of either masculinity or femininity are as rigid today as they've ever been is not, in my mind, because "unisex" has never been about getting rid of these stereotypes; it is because of the backlash (well documented and described by Paoletti) against the 60s movement that opposed these stereotypes, a backlash from which society is just starting to emerge.

I strongly recommend this book. It will help you to better understand the 60s and its importance in setting up the culture wars over sex, gender, and sexuality that drag on to this day, and to better understand the changes that are happening today. I learned a lot in Pink and Blue, her earlier book, about the evolution of clothes from the 19th century into the 20th, about things I had no inkling about. But Sex and Unisex is about a period that many of us lived through, and her analysis is, in my mind, very powerful and insightful.

[pleated]

That article is also being discussed here-
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical ... r_neutral/

[Sinned]

I like part of the last comment:

Why aren't men fighting for the right to wear clothing deemed "feminine"?

....

It would be ideal if "feminine" clothes were deemed appropriate for everyone (even if impractical and uncomfortable). But I don't think it's going to happen unless men decide they want that and pursue that for themselves.

Why aren't men FIGHTING for the RIGHT to wear skirts and other female garments?

[crfriend]

Why aren't men FIGHTING for the RIGHT to wear skirts and other female garments?

Here's why: It's because we've had it hammered into our skulls (as men and boys) from birth that men don't wear "women's clothing" in western "civilisation", and that those who do have something "wrong" with them. Yes, I know it's a circular argument -- and that's precisely the problem. Let the circle be broken! For once.

As the famous quote from Pogo goes, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

[KasparHauser]

Why aren't men FIGHTING for the RIGHT to wear skirts and other female garments?

Here's why: It's because we've had it hammered into our skulls (as men and boys) from birth that men don't wear "women's clothing" in western "civilisation", and that those who do have something "wrong" with them. Yes, I know it's a circular argument -- and that's precisely the problem. Let the circle be broken! For once.

Google Trends shows "men in skirts" at a relatively high level this month and consistent search activity for this phrase for the last five years which would seem to indicate it's part of the cultural dialogue at present if nothing else.

image.jpg

[crfriend]

Google Trends shows "men in skirts" at a relatively high level this month and consistent search activity for this phrase for the last five years which would seem to indicate it's part of the cultural dialogue at present if nothing else.

What's on the Y axis? It's not labelled with any sort of units. The trend is also declining, save for what looks to be a recent spike.

[KasparHauser]

Google Trends shows "men in skirts" at a relatively high level this month and consistent search activity for this phrase for the last five years which would seem to indicate it's part of the cultural dialogue at present if nothing else.

What's on the Y axis? It's not labelled with any sort of units. The trend is also declining, save for what looks to be a recent spike.

Here's the original chart: Google Trends - Web Search interest: men in skirts - United States, 2004 - present http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl ... nt=1&mob=1 #googletrendsexplore

Click on the "?" By "Interest over Time" and then the "learn more" for a better explanation of the data but in brief:
"Hover your mouse over the graph. The numbers that appear show total searches for a term relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. A line trending downward means that a search term's relative popularity is decreasing. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the total number of searches for that term is decreasing. It just means its popularity is decreasing compared to other searches."

This may be a case of half empty/half full but I see the regular interest of recent years as positive compared to the previous decade.