Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
This Associated Press news item about an anti-discrimination law passed last year in New Jersey, USA makes it sound like skirted men could be protected as well. Here's the part that caught my eye-
The law makes it illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant because of his or her gender status, and companies cannot refuse to hire people because they are transsexual, cross-dressers, asexual, of ambiguous gender or simply not traditionally feminine or masculine. The law also bans discrimination in credit, business contracts and public accommodations such as stores or restaurants.
I'd like to beg to disagree. (I always like to play the Devil's Advocate.. it's more fun and it helps getting a critical view)
The Belgian constitution starts with the clause 'all belgians are equal'. I suppose a similar law exists in the US. This should be enough reason not to discriminate against anyone. Therefore no new law is necessary.
If there would be a law making it illegal to lynch, say 'child molesters', then it would mean that child molesters are special case of people who are usually lynched when recognized and as such should be protected by law. A skirt is just a tubular piece of fabric, and given some minimal standards of decency and good taste, there should be no reason to forbid anyone to wear one. Nor would be any good reason to treat such a person differently. Creating a law addressing skirt-wearing would single skirt-wearers out and would make something special out of something that isn't.
A law that protects A, B and C from discrimination is fine. What about D, he's just a bit different from the norm, yet doesn't quite fall in the categories A, B, or C... Shouldn't he be protected from discrimination too?
I wear a skirt/kilt everyday as a man. As I am unmistakenly masculine in appearance, therefore I wouldn't consider myself to fit in "...simply not traditionally feminine or masculine.." so I could be discriminated against, but not if I'd wear a frilly pink skirt?
kiltair wrote:I'd like to beg to disagree. (I always like to play the Devil's Advocate.. it's more fun and it helps getting a critical view)
The Belgian constitution starts with the clause 'all belgians are equal'. I suppose a similar law exists in the US. This should be enough reason not to discriminate against anyone. Therefore no new law is necessary...
...Jan
The argument has been made before, (about other things as well,) but the argument still doesn't change the fact that some people are still discriminated against. It's a nice thought that in theory seems flawless but the reality is different. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that things don't always go according to the way they should or the way that we theorize. If they did, we wouldn't need laws to tell us how to treat each other.
Freedom since July 3, 2004.
Genius can be recreated - Stupidity is irreplaceable. -The Satirist 2004-
I think that's quite a well drafted law and certainly does appear to offer some protection at least to men who wear traditionally feminine items like skirts. I would expect the existing racial laws would protect kilt-wearers.
Now we need that law in other countries too, such as here in the UK. All garments which form part of uniforms, or "corporate dress", could be classed as unisex and offered to employees of both sexes. This would surely be progress, even if relatively few men actually took advantage of it.
The whole landlords evicting people for their "gender status" is something I did not think was EVER legal. So why is there a law for this? I thought that would fall under housing discrimination, which is illegal on all counts.
