Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
Uncle Al
Moderator
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:07 pm
Location: Duncanville, TX USA

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Uncle Al »

Shilo wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:54 am
Did you not listen to uncle Al ? Definitely severely off topic. At least start a new thread. I am a new member but I don’t think anyone is doing the forum any favours
Thanks for your support Shilo, it is thoughtful and greatfully appreciated by the Admin Staff.

To put it quite bluntly - - IF THIS THREAD DOESN'T GET TURNED AROUND, IT WILL BE LOCKED :!:

The clock is ticking - - - - Don't let it run out before this thread has been set straight on the tracks :!:

Uncle Al
:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:
Kilted Organist/Musician
Grand Musician of the Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. of Texas 2008-2009, 2015-2016,
2018-2020(and the beat goes on ;) )
When asked 'Why the Kilt?'
I respond-The why is F.T.H.O.I. (For The H--- Of It)

User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2913
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Fred in Skirts »

WHAT UNCLE AL SAID!!!
Fred :kiltdance:

"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle."


"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951

Yonkas
Active Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:28 am
Location: Buffalo, NY
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Yonkas »

Uncle Al wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:52 pm
Shilo wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:54 am
Did you not listen to uncle Al ? Definitely severely off topic. At least start a new thread. I am a new member but I don’t think anyone is doing the forum any favours
Thanks for your support Shilo, it is thoughtful and greatfully appreciated by the Admin Staff.

To put it quite bluntly - - IF THIS THREAD DOESN'T GET TURNED AROUND, IT WILL BE LOCKED :!:

The clock is ticking - - - - Don't let it run out before this thread has been set straight on the tracks :!:

Uncle Al
:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:
Honestly, I don’t see much vitriol here—not at least since I chimed in to respond to a post of BobM's. Yes, I do see strong positions being taken, and an uncomfortable conversation, and certainly a discussion that has veered wildly from what it was initially about. Yes, I haven’t read the forum rules in a while, so it might very well be that it is against the rules for a discussion to diverge from its original topic. That being said, unless people are actually hurling insults at each other, which I don’t see, and, unless it really is against the rules for a discussion to diverge from its original content, I really can’t see why people are poohpoohing this phase of the discussion.

That's because I have seen lots of threads in this forum go off topic, without anybody complaining about it. If this is an inaccurate observation, please correct me. But, if not, then, my own impression is that there is much more to the Admins' attempts at tamping this down than merely going off topic.

One possibility is that this topic differs from others in that it is a hotbutton issue, and is likely to lead to flame wars. But, there likely are others.

Regardless, I feel like it is an unfortunate aspect of our society that we discourage uncomfortable conversations such as this, and further that people have difficulty having uncomfortable conversations without talking past each other (which I agree is happening).

In light of this, if you really don’t want discussions to veer into uncomfortable territory, here is what I suggest: if you can, try to prevent them from happening in the first place.

While I take full responsibility for resuscitating this particular topic, I wish to point out that I would have said nothing had some people acted with proper decorum, and not said inflammatory/disrespectful things in the first place.

We all know that trans people/allies don’t like it when somebody calls trans people delusional, or indulges in any of the myriad other such tropes. You all know what I am talking about, and so I won’t spell the rest of them out. So please, if you don’t want people to “go there”, then please try to quash it before it even starts by telling offenders to knock it off. And non admins, just don’t egg people like me and Pelmut on by saying inflammatory things.

Honestly, you can avoid most gaffes if you just put yourself in the other guy's shoes and ask if he would take offense (this goes for my side, too). And yes, it should matter to you whether you offend people or not. This is not your house. It is a (relatively) public forum, where strangers from all walks of life come to discuss one particular thing that they have in common. I should hope you wouldn't consider it proper to walk into a science fiction convention, and call atheists lost, or walk into a religious conference and call Evangelical Christians delusional. And I certainly would hope that if you did act with such imprudence, you would have anticipated the escalatory nature of your actions. So, just as with those two examples, you should choose your words wisely, when talking about transgender people in a forum where a significant percentage of the members are likely to sympathize with them. But I digress.

Let’s be honest. This topic of transgenderism is going to keep coming up. And if people keep saying the same old inflammatory things, then it's going to keep becoming heated (and again, this goes for both sides). It is an unfortunate side effect of both the topic or this forum and living in our current society. However, if we can establish some explicit ground rules about this topic in particular, then I see no reason why we can’t keep things civil when it inevitably comes up again. Forgive me if you have already done this.

Please note that I am not absolving myself of any responsibility, here, though for my part I did try to keep things respectful. Also, please note that I do understand that moderation is difficult. I don’t mean to be harsh, and I apologize for the role I played in making things difficult for you.

Just understand that from my perspective, I see an uneven playing field, where all to often, a person defending themselves or others from an aggressor is castigated with the same amount of oppobrium as that aggressor, even though they were just reacting accordingly (a problem almost every online forum suffers from). I understand that others probably have a different perspective.

All this being said, Stu, please don’t take any if the things I have said in this post to be about you. Moreover, I feel I made an unfair assumption about you. While I do disagree with some of what you said, I don’t feel you deserve to be called a bigot based on this recent exchange of words. I would certainly like to respond to some of your points elsewhere. You seem like a reasonable person now that you have qualified your position.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say for now. Writing on a phone is hard work. Sorry for any typos :).
Last edited by Yonkas on Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11465
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by crfriend »

Thanks, Yonkas.

The problem with this particular thread, and in fact most threads that go off the rails into vitriol, is that there were two entrenched sides talking at -- or even past -- each other with no motion or hope for resolution. Frequently it wasn't even about the same topic. Had the two sides actually engaged in a conversation about one of the topics at hand, then it's likely that reasonable minds would have prevailed. What happens in this situation is that lots of heat and smoke gets generated, but precious little light -- and it's illumination we're after,
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Stu »

Thanks, Yonkas.

I reckon we can move on from this, but we can discuss it elsewhere if you would like to. We all come at topics from our own positions - in my case as a cognitive linguist and a free speech absolutist (you are SO lucky having your First Amendment!!) - but I appreciate others have different priorities.

Anyway, let's get back on topic - and celebrate an article which mentions men wearing skirts in a favourable way. Now that does make a change. :D

skirtyscot
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:44 pm
Location: West Kilbride, Ayrshire, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by skirtyscot »

The author is clearly in favour of men wearing skirts if we want to, but his extensive mention of skirtcafe can only really be called neutral. He expresses no opinion on it whatsoever. It seems as if he read the home page but failed to delve into any of the forums. A pity; a wee bit of encouragement to the reader to drop by here would have fitted nicely in the article.
Keep on skirting,

Alastair

Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Dust »

pelmut wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:31 am
Dust wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:57 am
Right or wrong, women have special legal protections...
Not in the U.K., the Equality Act of 2010 abolished the last remnants of that.  I don't know about U.S. law...
Hasn't heard about this "Equality Act" in the UK, but here in the US we have the Equal Protection cause of the Constitution, and still have legal inequality. As others on here have pointed out (Moon I think), that should be sufficient to have legal equality between the sexes, but it's not interpreted and enforced that way. Thus the ERA push.

Even if we do get "legal equality" (whatever that looks like), society does treat men and women differently. I would think that here, on a forum for guys dealing and fighting with society's prohibition on them wearing certain articles of clothing solely because they are men, people would get that men and women are treated differently.

Let's get back to promoting a little more equal/fair/just treatment for men as men, especially in the area of clothing. That's why we are all here, right?

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4925
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by moonshadow »

To be fair, to my knowledge, there is nowhere in the U.S. where it is forbidden for a man to wear a skirt, even a weird one. Granted, there are plenty of circumstances where it may be inappropriate, but still legal.

There is one area where women are not equal in law, and that is when it comes to not wearing a shirt (topless). Something I think should change. Nationwide either women should be afforded the right to choose, or men should share in the prohibition. Fair is fair.

I'm frankly quite surprised that the strong arm of feminism hasn't remedied that injustice by now.
-Moon Shadow
"How do you propose to control me when you can't even control yourself?"

User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Jim »

moonshadow wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:44 am
...
There is one area where women are not equal in law, and that is when it comes to not wearing a shirt (topless). Something I think should change. Nationwide either women should be afforded the right to choose, or men should share in the prohibition. Fair is fair.

I'm frankly quite surprised that the strong arm of feminism hasn't remedied that injustice by now.
I'm shirtless most of the summer. I agree it is very unjust that women may not do the same many places. But even in places where court cases have affirmed women's rights, it is about as rare as a man in a skirt--social pressure.

Image

One of my motives for skirt-wearing is equality in how we dress, with this particular issue foremost.
This map created by GoTopless shows states that do not ban female toplessness in green and those with bans in red. Orange signifies uncertain status and some localities in green states have municipal bans.
See the article at https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... on-horizon

Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Stu »

I think nudity and semi-nudity are rather different from fashion options.

I also note that public toplessness for women peaked some years ago and now it's a rarity in Europe, including here in Scandinavia. I am glad it has, frankly.

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4925
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by moonshadow »

Jim wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:20 pm
One of my motives for skirt-wearing is equality in how we dress, with this particular issue foremost.
Did a few more states go red or is it just me? I could have sworn that map only shaded Tennessee as red a few years ago...
Stu wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:02 pm
I think nudity and semi-nudity are rather different from fashion options.
My personal opinion on who should wear a shirt or not is beside the point. Whatever is decided should be level across the board.

Also "semi-nudity" is pretty vague. Virtually everyone shows some amount of skin.
-Moon Shadow
"How do you propose to control me when you can't even control yourself?"

Shilo
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 pm
Location: NW UK

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Shilo »

Even if it’s not banned I don’t think it’s appropriate for either sex to go about topless in every circumstance. Who wants to sit near sweaty bodies in a restaurant or brush against them while shopping. The beach or garden is fine for either sex. As for complete nudity , same is true for me but I can understand why some would be offended. For that reason it should be confined to clearly designated places which these delicate souls can avoid
:roll:

Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Stu »

moonshadow wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:32 pm
My personal opinion on who should wear a shirt or not is beside the point. Whatever is decided should be level across the board.
Also "semi-nudity" is pretty vague. Virtually everyone shows some amount of skin.
What are and are not acceptable body parts to expose in public is determined by the prevailing culture and there is considerable variation between cultures with regard to what is considered "decent". Personally, I am fine with our own, modern western cultural convention which states that generally chests should be covered, and women's breasts (which are regarded as "intimate") should always be kept out of sight in mixed-sex public situations. The extent to which the law should enforce cultural taboos is, of course, debatable - but I am comfortable with the existing status quo.

User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4218
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Sinned »

There is a movement called "Free the nipple" which advocates acceptance of topless women. It doesn't seem very widespread. Let's face it the breast mostly is acceptable display - it's the display of the nipple that seems to be frowned upon. After all, if the total breast is exposed ( at least in the US anyway ) then it's generally the nipple that is greyed out. The breast is a cute container but let's face it once you've seen a half dozen the rest aren't really that different. Yes. colour and size, the nipples and areolae are but are those differences enough to cause such a fuss about their display? The breasts have been sexuallised beyond what should be really expected - but there seems very little evidence that that's going to change anytime soon. Just sayin'.
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.

Yonkas
Active Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:28 am
Location: Buffalo, NY
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Yonkas »

moonshadow wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:44 am
To be fair, to my knowledge, there is nowhere in the U.S. where it is forbidden for a man to wear a skirt, even a weird one. Granted, there are plenty of circumstances where it may be inappropriate, but still legal.

There is one area where women are not equal in law, and that is when it comes to not wearing a shirt (topless). Something I think should change. Nationwide either women should be afforded the right to choose, or men should share in the prohibition. Fair is fair.

I'm frankly quite surprised that the strong arm of feminism hasn't remedied that injustice by now.
The way I see it, the only time presentation of the body should be legally restricted is when it presents a public health/safety concern. For example, I don't believe it should be legal to be nude in public, because, then there is no barrier between your private parts and public surfaces. Note that I define a private part as "a part of the body used primarily for regular excretion of solid/liquid waste."

While I don't prefer public displays of private parts, in my opinion, making something illegal because it offends people is rarely, if ever, warranted. If you wish to wag your genitals around by wearing see-through clothing, don't let me stop you. It isn't difficult to avert my gaze.

Of course, I also don't believe in absolutism, and so, I am willing to concede that there are gray areas. In other words, I believe that we should strive, as a society, to be as tolerant of individual differences as possible, and only concern ourselves with legality, when one of those variations infringes on other benefits of living in society.

Post Reply