skirtcafe.org

I can't read it without creating an account or making some form of payment, neither of which I am prepared to do.

If you have a mac and Safari try reader view... might get around that pesky paywall, just sayin...

Sorry, I have neither - I could never afford a Mac - great but beyond my Yorkshire sense of prudence. Short arms and deep pockets.

Sinned wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:25 pm I can't read it without creating an account or making some form of payment, neither of which I am prepared to do.

Ditto.

I understand that newspapers need to fund themselves somehow, so I don't blame them for forcing payrolls.

But the issue is, we just can't subscribe to all of them, lest we get nicked and dimed to death every month.

I mean, we complain about ads on free sites, paywalls on pay sites. It's just not realistic to have a heavily trafficked news site with no ads and no paywalls, someone has to pay to keep the lights on and the journalist deserve to make a living.

We could argue that the government could fund this, but then we would have state owned media, which would only be allowed to run such stories when we have a liberal government, during other times such writings would be banned.

Nah... I guess the current system is fair enough. There is after all, no such thing as a free lunch, somebody is paying for it.

NYT now allow you to share a limited number of articles per month. This should work for 14 days:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/styl ... =url-share

Dammit, I truly wish the mass media could decouple style choices from gender and sexuality. It's getting very, very tedious -- and destructive to the gender-normative male who might want to free himself from trouser tyranny.

Enough!

crfriend wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:33 pm Dammit, I truly wish the mass media could decouple style choices from gender and sexuality. It's getting very, very tedious -- and destructive to the gender-normative male who might want to free himself from trouser tyranny.

Enough!

AMEN. While I thought the article was somewhat helpful, there was something about their take on it and the over-reliance on gender and sexuality in the article that bugged me.

Coder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:22 pmWhile I thought the article was somewhat helpful, there was something about their take on it and the over-reliance on gender and sexuality in the article that bugged me.

Indeed. It's this idiotic stance that any guy who dares to challenge The Norms of Society when it comes to style choices must be somehow flawed or perverted -- and that's what drives me wild, and it drives me wild because it's stupid and wrong-headed.

OK, I know that I've self-selected out of the heterosexual romance scene because of my attire -- sure, they're nice and receptive at a distance, but won't have a lick to do with a non-conformer when it comes to brass tacks. I'm OK with this; I've long known that the last part of my life is going to be a solo flight, but in every instance where I've tried to "start something" have been rebuffed -- possibly because they think I'm fatally flawed somehow.

The mass media needs to do better -- vastly better than what they're doing. Full stop. What they're doing is merely perpetuating old legends and misnomers.

If anyone is interested, I've created a WORD document with
the article and pic's. Send me a PM, with your email, and I'll
send it to you. Didn't want to save all the pic's individually
to include here. The article is down to 4.5 pages.

Uncle Al

Another possibility is https://archive.is/uasK8

This is an archived version of the page.

The article itself is so-so. Not impressed.

LOL, I even used that exact title "The Boys in Their Summer Dresses" in one of my early blog posts about men who prefer skirts and dresses to trousers.

It's certainly uplifting to see the topic move off the garish runways and into the streets. But I suspect it will still take a while before it grows beyond a celebrity fad. I'll believe it's mainstream when mainstream retailers on Amazon and the like stop categorising dresses in the "clothing->women" department, or at least include dresses in the "clothing->men" department.

The other bit of discouraging detail in the Times article is the way they emphasise the "genderfluid" or "genderqueer" identity of the dress-wearers. Why does it have to be "Mx. So-and-so", not just ordinary "Mr. So-and-so"?

[EDIT] Ah, I just hadn't read far enough before writing the above complaint. Now I see they move on to cisgender men who enjoy the same benefits as the genderfluid examples.

Ralph wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:59 pm It's certainly uplifting to see the topic move off the garish runways and into the streets. But I suspect it will still take a while before it grows beyond a celebrity fad. I'll believe it's mainstream when mainstream retailers on Amazon and the like stop categorising dresses in the "clothing->women" department, or at least include dresses in the "clothing->men" department.

I suspect that when it happens, it will be like the quote from Hemingway: “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways: Gradually, then suddenly.”

The Dutch proverb applies: if one sheep crosses the dam, more will follow.

Seriously though, I do feel like there's a momentum building that wasn't there before. I convinced I will live to see it.

Any garments aimed at men will only have a chance of acceptance and challenging the "trouser tyranny" if they are:

• Simple
  
  Sensible
  
  Masculine