Anyone else get bitter or angry?

[Different_Trains]

I find myself getting very bitter and angry sometimes at the (to me) very obvious sexism whereby women seem more equal than men as far as clothing goes.

Anyone else find this? What makes me really mad is that the majority of men seem to enjoy and reinforce these restrictions and sexism! I just don't get it...

[SkirtedViking]

That is how males are brought up (macho culture it is called /fear of all that is perceived as "feminine"/ - the advantage in clothing and so on is hidden as being something inferior that is in fact on the contrary) - and guess who brings them (men) up this way . When you have the advantage it is not of your interest to give it away while you can use it for many things and purposes - battle of the sexes if you will. My opinion is not aimed against anybody, that is simply what I reckon , if it offends someone it is not on purpose.

[crfriend]

I find myself getting very bitter and angry sometimes at the (to me) very obvious sexism whereby women seem more equal than men as far as clothing goes.

One would do well to recall that women's "absolute freedom" when it comes to what they decide to clothe themselves in is both a relatively new phenomenon and quite far from "absolute freedom" insofar as there are one heck of a lot of "rules" (especially in the professional realm) that they must adhere to lest they send the wrong message when it comes to status and position. The number of "fashion victim" TV shows currently on the air point up some of this.

Too, one might also recall that whimpering about "how much better off" somebody else is it not typically a masculine approach; the masculine approach to a perceived wrong is to get up and try to do something to better one's own position rather than griping about it. All griping (whining) about things transmits is an unwillingness or inability to face one's own demons and put in a good attempt at making a change -- in essence, passively-aggressively asking somebody else to do one's heavy-lifting for him.

Contrary to what lots of folks might think, it's not illegal in most jurisdictions for a guy to wear a skirted garment so long as basic laws respecting decency (e.g. covering one's private bits) are adhered to. So, if a guy wants to wear a skirt he is free to do so, and is mainly tethered by his own demons that are holding him back. It's the brave bloke -- the "man's man" as it were -- that has the fortitude to stare those demons down and put in an effort to better himself.

Every time I hear the plaintive whine that "men aren't allowed to wear skirts" my teeth get set on edge. If we're not "allowed", then who must we ask permission from? Which body of authority dictates that skirts are impermissible on men? How does one file an appeal? The point is that the only thing that keeps us from asserting our own sense of style is our own timidity -- our own demons that press ever-tighter with their thumbs. Face down your fear and rise up; it's rather exhilarating.

The other thing that we do not want to do is alienate our sisters when it comes to this; they've been through the "fashion upheaval" (e.g. skirts/dresses 100% of the time to trousers as a preferred option) and many likely remember having to navigate it. Ticking them off with griping, grumbling, and whining will not get us many points and will likely lose more than it'll gain.

[Pythos]

Um, CF, I have to counter that.

How many times do you see in a discussion concerning men wearing skirts you see women responding with something like "Well I wouldn't let my man wear a skirt", or "Pants are for boys, skirts are for girls (usually stated by a woman wearing pants).

I am severly limiting my dating prospects by wearing what i want. There are soo many women out there that want "manly men", and don't include the courage to wear "girly" clothes to be all that manly.

Many women also cry out "dresses and skirts and sexy clothing are our domain" and so on.

Black tie functions say for a man to be in a tux, or suit, where a woman can be in a suitable gown. Why the sexism. Why could I not where my chenongsam, or my partner and I be wearing opposite versions of said, she in gold with black accents and me in Black with gold accents. Well because there is a dress code that is being enforced.

When women gained the right to wear pants the opposite should have happened for men...but for some reason it did not. That is a form of inequality.

I do get a tinge of bitterness when a woman host on the view scoffs at the idea of a boy wearing a skirt. Check it out on You tube, the woman in question speaks the minds of many ignorant women out there.

It may be legal for us to wear skirts, but it is also legal for our bosses to can us for doing so, on or off the job. That is not equality.

[crfriend]

I am severly limiting my dating prospects by wearing what i want. There are soo many women out there that want "manly men", and don't include the courage to wear "girly" clothes to be all that manly.

I'll submit that you're limiting your dating prospects by eliminating at the outset relationships that would not have worked in the long term anyway. In what's fundamentally a numbers game, I actually call that a win. One cannot expect rational thought when it comes to the dating/mating game, especially when it comes to initial attractions; it may come later on in the process, but then again it may not. I think that by forcefully expressing yourself for who you are you're doing everybody a favour by eliminating quite a few blind alleys.

Many women also cry out "dresses and skirts and sexy clothing are our domain" and so on.

That's true enough, at least at first blush before anybody applies rational thought to the matter. "Sexy" is a different notion between male and female, but I don't see how one clothes one's self (unless it's really incompetently done) can detract from that. Recall that the most important "sex muscle" is the one that dwells between the ears; I'll submit that a confident man in a skirt will "win" a substantial proportion of potential mates when compared with a milquetoast in trousers.

Black tie functions say for a man to be in a tux, or suit, where a woman can be in a suitable gown. Why the sexism.

In a word, "inertia" (and I hope our lovely neighbour using that nom de plume doesn't take offence): nothing more and nothing less. Note that kilts are already completely accepted as formal attire; all that needs doing is to bend the old stale rule until it snaps.

When women gained the right to wear pants the opposite should have happened for men...but for some reason it did not. That is a form of inequality.

To this, I shall submit that the sexes have never been equal; this persists today. Men, at least in most cases, are "more than equal" -- and that's wrong. However, it's mainly men that have either resisted donning skirts -- or have been cowed by their contemporaries into not doing so. Yes, our wives/girlfriends/significant-others play a part, but ultimately it comes down to who we are, and how we wish to express ourselves. I am not saying that it's worth sacrificing a long-term relationship for chucking on a skirt instead of trousers, but I am hinting that if the relationship can be fatally injured by such an act it might have been fragile from the get-go.

It may be legal for us to wear skirts, but it is also legal for our bosses to can us for doing so, on or off the job. That is not equality.

Now that is a problem, and will likely take a while to solve. But, I believe that it is solveable; I used to fear what might happen if "they" found out at work that I wear skirts. Ultimately, I found out that it's a non-issue. "They" appreciate my skills and my insight far more than they're (possibly) offended by my fashion sense.

[Since1982]

Pythos said: It may be legal for us to wear skirts, but it is also legal for our bosses to can us for doing so, on or off the job. That is not equality

CrFriend said: Now that is a problem, and will likely take a while to solve. But, I believe that it is solveable

In my opinion, all it takes is a worker with money that can make do AFTER being fired to go after the Boss and/or company and have enough money and time to fight it to win that war. A Civil Liberties (gunslinger) atty would help.

[AMM]

How many times do you see in a discussion concerning men wearing skirts you see women responding with something like "Well I wouldn't let my man wear a skirt", or "Pants are for boys, skirts are for girls (usually stated by a woman wearing pants).

Is this online (as suggested by "see in a discussion") or in person (as suggested by "wearing pants")?

I don't run into this too much because I don't hang around with people like that, neither on-line nor in person. One advantage of associating with people for whom a fair amount of feminist (or at least "alternative culture") consciousness is a given is that it's not really an issue for them. Actually, when I get any grief, it's always been from the men. They're the ones who feel threatened by a man blurring the lines between men and women. The women, if they care at all, are a bit intrigued. But most people just shrug their shoulders and at least act like they don't care.

I do get a tinge of bitterness when a woman host on the view scoffs at the idea of a boy wearing a skirt. Check it out on You tube, the woman in question speaks the minds of many ignorant women out there.

Well, what do you expect from shows like that? The mass media are about feeding people's fears and prejudices. Actually, the medium pretty much forces them to present people as stereotypes, not as real people, because that's all you can present or discuss if you're limited to 30-second disconnected "sound bites" about huge groups of people.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the people who say these things have almost certainly not met any (normal) man who wears skirts. Men in skirts is just an idea to them. It's one thing to talk about an abstraction, like "blacks" or "women" or "gays." It's quite a different thing to deal with a real, live human being.[*] I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who say "ditto, ditto" to these views would respond quite differently to a skirt-wearing man who presented himself as a normal sort of person, someone who you can talk to. And if they met enough of them, they would probably start saying different things.

This is what people in anti-racism work do: they try to get the people with racist attitudes to actually get to know some of the objects of their prejudice, so that eventually categories such as "black people" start to get peopled in their minds with real people instead of cartoon characters.

And that's why it's important for us to actually get out of our rooms and into the world in our skirts.

[*] It's a lot like child-rearing. Children in the abstract are easy to raise, because you know all the Right Answers. It's the real live children, the ones that the Right Answers don't work on (that's 99% of them), that are so hard.

[Pythos]

Your whole post, especially the last sentence rings very true.

Good job.

[Bob]

I think that bitterness comes from a feeling that we're prevented from doing what we want. But as has been discovered so many times on this board, the ONLY thing stopping you from wearing a skirt is... YOU!

So just go out and do it, and then you no longer have to feel bitter.

[Pythos]

Bob, there are still situations where you run a tremendous risk of losing something you have worked very hard for. In my case the FAA still views crossdressing as a sign of mental disorder. It is outdated, but that is the impression I get. I may be completely wrong, but the price to pay if I am right is just too much.

[crfriend]

Bob, there are still situations where you run a tremendous risk of losing something you have worked very hard for. In my case the FAA still views crossdressing as a sign of mental disorder.

I don't think it's ever been stated here that there aren't certain jobs that come with intrusive levels of "oversight", but rather that in the overwhelming majority of situations what one wears is not held against one.

I don't know what the appeal process is within the FAA, but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't one, and it'd be in that process that you'd actually get a chance to talk to a human being rather than facing allegations from a faceless, nameless source. The only other line of work that I know of that has that level of intrusiveness is the civilian nuclear industry, and that's pretty much tied to the folks who are in day-to-day operational roles with nuclear facilities. Again, an eloquent person would be able to convincingly argue that "shoving both legs down one pipe" is most certainly not a manifestation of a "mental disorder" and that the practise bears no consequence to one's professional behaviour.

[nicothoe]

I agree with Bob. I certainly see no reason to get bitter or angry, since it is very easy to put on a skirt.

That said, I have yet to wear a skirt in the presence of my wife's family or at my place of work, but there is nothing to stop me from doing so. While my office does have a dress code, most of the rules seem to apply to what type of top a woman can wear. There is nothing in the rules against a man wearing skirt, unless they can be argue that a "man wearing a skirt" does not reflect proper "business attire." This being a large company (I work at Citgo), I imagine they would be very careful as to how the approach the issue, not wanting to break any laws. Problem is...I'm not an employee, just a lowly contractor!

As far as family is concerned, my mother-in-law knows I wear skirts, even if she hasn't seen me in them.

[Kris]

Bob, there are still situations where you run a tremendous risk of losing something you have worked very hard for. In my case the FAA still views crossdressing as a sign of mental disorder.

I don't think it's ever been stated here that there aren't certain jobs that come with intrusive levels of "oversight", but rather that in the overwhelming majority of situations what one wears is not held against one.

I don't know what the appeal process is within the FAA, but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't one, and it'd be in that process that you'd actually get a chance to talk to a human being rather than facing allegations from a faceless, nameless source. The only other line of work that I know of that has that level of intrusiveness is the civilian nuclear industry, and that's pretty much tied to the folks who are in day-to-day operational roles with nuclear facilities. Again, an eloquent person would be able to convincingly argue that "shoving both legs down one pipe" is most certainly not a manifestation of a "mental disorder" and that the practise bears no consequence to one's professional behaviour.

Right, Carl.
As one who was in that situation (and BTW it includes more than just those in direct operational roles) I was concerned about my professional future. I knew that I couldn't (legally), and wouldn't (since experienced people are hard to replace) be dismissed just for an off-duty clothing choice. But I might be required to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine my continued fitness for duty, and possibly be excluded from certain duties pending that evaluation. While I had no doubt I would be deemed "fit", I didn't want to go through that.
I also know that some less open minded people would continue to have their own questions, even after I was "cleared". That can have a more subtle, but still real, effect on your professional status.

(A bit of an aside here. We all had passed an evaluation either when we were hired, or at the time the rules went into effect. So we joked that if a later evaluation found us unfit, we would argue that the job had driven us crazy!)

Kris