skirtcafe.org

When I was growing up, the term "girly" meant that a boy was showing
tendencies of what a girl 'was supposed to do' instead of the rough and
tumble 'he-man' stuff that a boy 'was supposed to do'.

In today's world, when a man is referred to a being 'girly', the term
'girly' implies a man wishing to impersonate a woman. Many
posters in this thread have eluded to the 'forum rules' that
this forum is not for this type of discussion.

After re-reading the posts, and the original topic that started this one,
this topic is headed down the garden path, away from the guidelines
and ideals that created this forum.

Some of you folks have tried to 'bail some water' out of the ship.
Others have poured water into the ship.

Let's turn this ship around away from the rocks so it doesn't turn
into a sinking ship.

Mod Hat On

Please consider the above statement as a polite warning. If this topic
continues "down the garden path", not following the forum guidelines,
this topic/thread will be locked. We're now just getting over a similar
situation about a year ago. We don't need it repeated again.

Mod Hat Off

Uncle Al


(Carl-You're right. The blasted thing really does itch )

A few disjointed thought... Probably I would be well advised to bake these a little longer and craft a better whole from them, but instead I shall take the risky road and give them to you as-is.

Anent AMM's original post: Good point! I particularly like the point that OC's opine that they are "bringing out their feminine side" and this may indeed be why so many in this forum so vigorously avoid the "girly" fashions: Because they are trying to shout "I have no 'feminine side' - it's just a skirt dammit!"

I don't know if I have a feminine side or not, but I do like the girly fashions. A have several skirts that are floral elastic waist skirts known as "gypsy" or "boho" style. They are 'girly.' But that's OK, I have several pairs of 'girly' shoes, a few 'girly' shirts, and so forth. I do try to stick with my "Rule of One" and thus the girly shoes are paired with trousers, and so forth.

But as to the real question: What is 'girly'? It's a real stumper. It is like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

Some of the difficulty is because the "girliness" is not inherent in the garment alone, but is either exacerbated or rebutted by the effect of the ensemble as a whole. Thus we had the girly looks of an earlier thread here, but I opine that some of those boys would have looked girly even if they were dressed in Carhardt coveralls!

...

Carl mentioned that when he looks in the mirror he doesn't ask "Will I look cute in this?" but rather "Is this believeable"?

Carl it is intriguing to me that "believeable" is an adjective for clothing. Yes, I understand what you mean: You mean something like "...believable, or does it look like some sort of costume." But nevertheless the word "believable" is an interesting choice, and I invite you to ponder the nuances of meaning that you have for this word. I suspect they are complex! But given your analytical skills and your gift for expression I look forward to your comments.

I use the vague term "good." "Do I look good." But if I had to flesh that out I have two phrases that normally follow:

"Do I look good, or do I look like a nutcase?"

and

"Do I look good, or do I look like a failed attempt at crossdressing?"

...

Interesting discussion AMM. Thanks for bringing it up.

Chris

When I first glanced at this thread/topic I thought it had something to do with
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Gov Arnold used the reference "Girly Men"; but I can not recall where I read or
heard of it.
Gov Arnold is the anti-thesis of "Girly Men".
So I thought that I would be reading something in that vein.
Although I must comment Arnold sure look cute in his Spartacus Kilt
in Conan the Barbarian.
Thus skirts aka kilts go back a long way in history or I should make that
cinema history.

"So Much to Kilt On"
rm

WELL I HATE TO TELL YA THIS, PILGRIMS, BUT YER ALL BEING GIRLY.

NOW GO BACK TO YER DOLLHOUSES AND QUIT BUGGIN' US GUYS!

damn wimminfolk don't know to stay in the kitchin and mind their business...

r1g0r;

Great sense of humor

I'm still

Uncle Al

What bothers me about "girlyness" is what it implies about one's purpose. There's far too much of a prevailing wind in our society, in which girls are supposed to be fun, frivolous, never angry, always smiling, and always looking good for others (without letting on how hard she worked at it). And it all comes out in school. Girls do just fine in math, until middle school --- at which point, far too often, they become obsessed with fashion, boys and makeup. The implication is, in so many ways, that what a girl (and young woman) needs more than anything else is a man. And extreme girliness becomes a marker of subservience to men.

I would imagine that this pressure should be worrisome any parent of a girl who has at least an ounce of feminist sensibility. The fact that Mattel (even briefly) came out with a Barbie doll that said "Math is hard" should make one supremely suspicious; and we're not even talking about Barbie's longstanding impossible physical proportions here, which seem to be accepted almost as a matter of course. Here's a humorous (but scary) take on the issue:
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/07/games-for-tweens/

Or put another way: marketers have found that promoting "girliness" is profitable, whereas promoting academic achievement is not. Note that male fashion took a giant turn away from frivolousness when men started being valued for what they accomplished in the industrial revolution.

I do believe that both men and women need to develop a balance between being valued for who we are and what we look like (object), versus being valued for what we can achieve (subject). For men the problem is that in so many ways, we are devalued for anything other than what we can accomplish, whereas women are devalued for anything other than what they look like. And neither extreme is healthy.

I believe that many men on this forum wish for more freedom of expression, and wish to be valued for who we are in addition to what we can achieve. Since men have been so strictly excluded from that realm for so long, we sometimes must start with "girly" models for what is possible. But I would hope that we can make it our own.

This is not so different from how women started dressing like men when they entered the professional American workforce en mass, but since have developed more distinctly feminine professional workplace fashions. Women have more perceived "fashion freedom" than men because they are expected to fill a wider variety of roles in our society --- everything from "go-getter executive" to "house cleaner" to "super mom" --- whereas expectations on men still do not extend much beyond financially supporting the family. Women need more clothing to fulfill those (often unattainable) roles. But there's also a continued element of devaluation, as evidenced by the continued pay discrepancy between men and women. In one way, society "cares" less about what women wear to work because it devalues women in the workplace.

My biggest problem with the mainstream crossdressing experience --- which I'll call "girly crossdressing" to make a point --- is that it so often reinforces the ultra-feminine, subservient, girly stereotype for women.

First and foremost, I feel the need to forcefully state that if the term "girly" is being used as a slight or insult then we need to stamp on that practise forthwith. Used in that manner it's demeaning, sexist, and discriminatory. I'd like to believe we're better than that. (I'd have put on my mod hat for that comment, but it seems that Uncle Al visited whilst I was at work and lifted^W "appropriated" it; I'll have to conjure another.)

ChrisM wrote:Carl it is intriguing to me that "believeable" is an adjective for clothing. Yes, I understand what you mean: You mean something like "...believable, or does it look like some sort of costume." But nevertheless the word "believable" is an interesting choice, and I invite you to ponder the nuances of meaning that you have for this word.

When I described my attempts at putting looks together as "believeable", I meant that when observed would onlookers immediately be taken by the incongruity of a bloke in a skirt or would they innately "understand" -- i.e. "get it"? If the former happens, the outfit is not a "believeable" one, whereas if it's the latter the look is because it's embraceable, or at least intuitively understandable to the average observer.

Face it, if a guy is going to wear a skirted garment in public, he will get noticed -- "invisible denim" or not -- and if one is to be noticed, it's best to be so in a positive light. Looking outlandish, I feel, is a recipe for disaster, not just for one's self but also for any other guy who wants to shove both legs down one pipe. When I put on a skirt, I know I'm going to get noticed -- it goes with the territory; If I want to blend in, I wear trousers (and there are times when I just don't have the psychological energy to wear something really flashy, no matter how believeable it is).

I use the vague term "good." "Do I look good." But if I had to flesh that out I have two phrases that normally follow:

"Do I look good, or do I look like a nutcase?"

and

"Do I look good, or do I look like a failed attempt at crossdressing?"

I suspect it's possible to both look good and look like a nutcase at the same time; I am unsure about the latter, because if one looks like he "failed at crossdressing" the resulting look likely would not be a good one anyway. Ultimately, I suppose it all boils down to not looking outlandish -- which is what the vast majority of runway looks seem to project.

Touching for a moment on "runway looks", I suspect that we cannot expect -- or even hope for -- much help from the "fashion world" in this regard; the model they use is vastly different from the ones the average bloke uses, and in their world "shock and awe" is required to get their vision the attention they feel it deserves. Hence, the looks tend toward the outlandish, bizarre, and wholly impractical ("unbelieveable", see above). If skirted rigs are to gain acceptance on men, I feel it's up to the practitioners -- the skirtsmen -- to create understandable looks that are (1) practical, (2) look good, and (3) can be embraced by observers. They need not be custom-crafted strictly and precisely for the male physique (many of the misses' sizes are for slab-sided body-types and many of the "plus" sizes would likely work quite well on somebody with "keg abs"), but they need to be understandable and acceptable ("believeable") at first glance.

Uncle Al wrote:When I was growing up, the term "girly" meant that a boy was showing
tendencies of what a girl 'was supposed to do' instead of the rough and
tumble 'he-man' stuff that a boy 'was supposed to do'.

In today's world, when a man is referred to a being 'girly', the term
'girly' implies a man wishing to impersonate a woman.

As a fellow native speaker of English, I respectfully disagree. When I've heard it used recently in public discourse -- mostly in the phrase "girly man" -- it's a stick to beat men with who fail to toe the line on some topic that "manly men" use to do their male bonding. For example, a man who is insufficiently misogynistic, or who isn't pro-war enough, or something. There's an implication that he's partway to turning into a girl, but only because "girl" is thought to mean anyone or anything that isn't 100 % manly. I don't think people are thinking of transgenderism when they say it. This was true when I was growing up, and it's still true.

I don't know what the posters I alluded to meant by "girly." They could have meant any of the things Uncle Al mentions, or other things, things they aren't even aware of. I actually don't really care.

The point of my starting this thread was to start a conversation about what role the "girliness" of the things people here like to wear (skirts, tights, high-heeled shoes, etc.) has in our liking them. All the regulars here at SkirtCafe have grown up in societies where skirts, dresses, tights, etc., were "for girls," were in fact signs of being a girl. I find it hard to believe that any of the men here at SkirtCafe put on a skirt for the first time without at least some residue of that boyhood fear that putting on some article of girls' clothing would somehow magically turn you into a girl. We might put it on in spite of its being "women's clothing," or because of it, but I frankly don't see how we can really be neutral about it.

Uncle Al wrote:this forum is not for this type of discussion.

That may be true; you, Carl, and Bob are the arbiters of that.

I notice that there are a lot of topics that are taboo at SkirtCafe, and I think that SkirtCafe is the poorer for it. Now, I recognize that sometimes there is no alternative -- for instance, religious topics are forbidden because we've had it demonstrated time and again that there are too many people here who aren't able to be respectful of or even silent about other people's religions.

But the concept of men wearing skirts (or, to some extent, even kilts) is unavoidably connected to gender, to men's feelings about women and about men, to sexuality and sex (including fetishism), to transsexuality and transgenderism, and more. To say we can talk about men wearing skirts, but not about some or all of the things it is linked to is like saying we can talk about politics, but not about race, gender, ethnicity, religion, morality, economics, war, patriotism, or crime. If we have to forbid discussion of any of these related topics because, as a group, we're not able to talk about them like mature adults, what does that say about us?

And some very practical topics we really don't have any other place to discuss. The underwear issues, for instance. Women learn about what you wear and how to wear it with skirts, etc., from their mothers (or female caregivers) when they are little girls. Since no other forum is willing to even think about men in skirts, and we can't turn to anyone here (even if the topic isn't instantly banned, I've discovered you won't get a useful response), each of us has to individually learn by trial and error -- mostly error.

This is what I find so frustrating about male discussion groups (and despite the valuable contributions of Sapphire, SkirtChaser, Emerald Witch, and female participants, SkirtCafe still functions essentially as an all-male discussion group.) When you try to talk about one of the elephants in the parlour, you get denial, misconstrual, counter-attacks, "derailing," or sometimes just painful silence. The only stuff you can get away with talking about is the stuff that doesn't really matter. There are times when I think "masculinity" is really little more than a vast conspiracy to remain alienated from oneself....

This is what I find so frustrating about male discussion groups... When you try to talk about one of the elephants in the parlour, you get denial, misconstrual, counter-attacks, "derailing," or sometimes just painful silence. The only stuff you can get away with talking about is the stuff that doesn't really matter. There are times when I think "masculinity" is really little more than a vast conspiracy to remain alienated from oneself....

AMM, thank you for your precinct observations. This is about what was observed in the book "The Self-Made Man" (in which the author, a woman, disguised herself as a man for a year and "infilterated" a variety of male settings." But we're men, and if we want this kind of discussion, we have to somehow just forge ahead and try anyway, in spite of our insecurities, faults and setbacks.

I would like to put on my mod hat and address some of the concerns that have been raised in this thread:

I notice that there are a lot of topics that are taboo at SkirtCafe, and I think that SkirtCafe is the poorer for it. Now, I recognize that sometimes there is no alternative -- for instance, religious topics are forbidden because we've had it demonstrated time and again that there are too many people here who aren't able to be respectful of or even silent about other people's religions.

But the concept of men wearing skirts (or, to some extent, even kilts) is unavoidably connected to gender, to men's feelings about women and about men, to sexuality and sex (including fetishism), to transsexuality and transgenderism, and more. To say we can talk about men wearing skirts, but not about some or all of the things it is linked to is like saying we can talk about politics, but not about race, gender, ethnicity, religion, morality, economics, war, patriotism, or crime. If we have to forbid discussion of any of these related topics because, as a group, we're not able to talk about them like mature adults, what does that say about us?

SkirtCafe is a carefully engineered Internet forum, with the goal of generating positive discussion of a certain type. I make no apologies about the social engineering, I believe it is a necessary part of a healthy on-line community.

There's a difference between taboo topics and off-topic topics. Taboo topics are actually very few --- politics, religion and underwear. Politics and religion are banned because they create endless flame wars. Underwear is banned because I wanted this forum to be family friendly. Not only do I believe that being family friendly helps our cause, it also simplifies management of the forum and helps avoid legal trouble. But note that I take a broad view of what "family friendly" means. We live in an era in which some kids have two mommies or two daddys, some kids have a daddy who turned into a mommy, and almost all kids watch endless sex and violence on TV. I think kids can handle a bloke in a skirt. But underwear and explicitly sexual topics are not, and never will be, appropriate for children. That is the consensus of the vast majority.

Google beckons for those who need a "how to" lesson on underwear.

Off-topic topics are different. SkirtCafe sits in a unique niche in the world of on-line discussion. I do not want this forum to look like a crossdresser or transgender forum because it would then lose its unique purpose. So certain topics are discouraged. On the other hand, those topics are not banned, and threads are generally not moderated just for talking about (for example) transgender issues. I chose not to make hard and fast rules in this regard because I felt it would diminish discussion. There is a kilt-only hyper-masculine board that effectively bans conversation about the deeper topics, and I don't want SkirtCafe to be that shallow. Note that the SkirtCafe masthead explicitly encourages a continued dialog on gender.

Every now and then, someone comes to SkirtCafe seemingly with the intent to disrupt the community and antagonize its members. Statements like "come on guys, you're all crossdressers, you're just afraid to admit it" need to be shut down. Respectful discussions on a similar topic are allowed to continue.

Every now and then, a weirdo also comes to the Cafe. This usually manifests itself in terms of someone who seems to get excited about "girly looks," or who posts titillating indecent pictures. An apparent motive of wanting nothing other than to look girly is often a big warning sign. It is important for the community that these people are sent packing quickly, or else regular members will drop out quickly.

I have observed that SkirtCafe seems to have a mix of "just guy" guys and genderqueer guys. I think this is a healthy mix, and we can all learn from each other. There are many reasons why a guy might wear a skirt, it's not a garment that can be "reserved" by one or another subset of the male population.

I draw the line and transgender because there are plenty of "regular" transgender boards, and genderqueer folk often find they're not welcome there. Moreover, although I have a lot of respect for the transgender movement, I find that discussion is often frustratingly shallow. I've seen many people who have seemingly bought into our society's "lookism," and are furiously trying to conform their bodies to a certain physical ideal. The constant talk about the "how to" of making this physical transformation seems to preclude discussion of the deeper questions, including the lookism issue itself!

Bob wrote:(A well-written response to my post, describing the rules of what's acceptable and not acceptable; too long to quote -- please read it.)

By "taboo" I meant something a little different from what you mean.

I understand that some topics are explicitly forbidden, and I believe I understand why. I just think it's unfortunate that this community has shown that it can't be trusted to handle them in a reasonable way.

By "taboo", I really meant topics that, while formally allowed, generally get

AMM wrote:denial, misconstrual, counter-attacks, "derailing," or sometimes just painful silence.

Discussions of gender and feelings about one's gender are one sure way to get that sort of response here. Another is mention of trans-whatever. IMHO, a large part of what has made the "freestyle" vs. "braveheart" squabbles so nasty is that the participants are unwilling to face up to their own mixed motivations. People (especially men) seem to need to convince themselves that they are 100 % X (for some X or other) and then force themselves into their stereotype of X, and they go into a panic at the idea that they might really be a bit of X, a bit of Y, and a bit of Z, with a sprinkling of the rest of the alphabet thrown in.

it's unfortunate that this community has shown that it can't be trusted to handle them in a reasonable way.

I don't think I'd brush everyone here (This community) with the same wide strokes..

Incredible discussion, a tribute to this forum, no doubt.

To me, a blokey bloke, to steal somebody else's term, what is girly or manly is all a matter of context. Peggy used to tease me a little about my mini-kilts and now my mini-skirts, saying that I looked 'girly' ... my response is that I'd look manly no matter what I put on, I could wear a freakin' tutu and get away with it. Though we've established that human gender and sexuality are complex, to say the least, we have also established that most, if not all, societies embrace and even enforce gender roles and images, what is girly and what is manly.

I hate to sound redneck but no matter what skirt you put on, no matter how feminine it may appear while on it's hanger, once it is on the man it is really up to the man to make it manly or girly in the context of society. Defining girly and manly really does require embracing societal definitions of it because whether or not you look girly or manly in your skirt depends on what society says is girly or manly. Kilts are nearly automatically manly because society sees kilts as a man's garment, all other skirts, in my mind, are left up to the wearer to demonstrate their manliness or girliness by his own actions, ways, demeanor and characteristics no matter what he is wearing.

There's enough pics of me to get an idea of at least one example of what most folks would agree is manly, not just because of the bloke in the picture but the context of the pictures ... there's a freakin' dump truck in one of them!! Basically I look manly in a mini-kilt because I'd look manly in pants, shorts, naked, potato sack, or any skirt I could buy and put on. It's not the skirt, guys, it's the man in it that determines whether or not the skirt, once put on, is manly or girly.

Mug ON!

Chris Webb

PS I don't get the prohibition on talking about underwear, but I've not been here very long. If you wear a skirt of any kind that creates even the slightest chance of your private parts being seen then underwear is part of the outfit, just like socks, shoes, shirts, hats, whatever. If you wear mini-skirts or mini-kilts then what you wear under it really is part of the outfit, a part that seems like it needs, even begs, to be addressed. As for kids, there are underwear ads in every Newspaper on every kitchen table, I think the kids here can handle adults talking about underwear ... but, like I said, I have no idea of the history behind the concerns over talking about underwear and trust that the leaders here have some reason beyond offending children for the prohibition.

As a very experienced Mugsmen, particularly in wearing short short kilts, I'd be happy to discuss this topic via PM if anyone wants or needs to get good, sound, practical information on completing your outfit with proper, practical and legal underwear. It just seems foolish to me for a man to go about skirted in a trousered world with out being expert on issues regarding undergarments, public nudity, public indecency and even what constitutes disturbing the peace in your town. This is just part of what I've called for many years, KIltmanship ... but Mugsmanship or Skirtsmanship works too.

Having just used the term "girly" on another thread, i was intrigued to see it here as controversial. I used it in the context of a dress that was basically a blokey thing made "girly" by adding pretty cuffs. Is that a correct use of the term? Or is it perhaps a "not on" term in any context in this "P.C." age?

Jack Williams wrote:Having just used the term "girly" on another thread, i was intrigued to see it here as controversial. I used it in the context of a dress that was basically a blokey thing made "girly" by adding pretty cuffs. Is that a correct use of the term? Or is it perhaps a "not on" term in any context in this "P.C." age?

Man, Jack, I can't help you, I"m PC illiterate!!

Mug ON!

Chris Webb

I don't get the prohibition on talking about underwear,

It provides a tool that really helps keep out the weirdos; we've had plenty of cases in the past. Moderation seems to work best when it can be applied based on consistent rules, rather than on our personal judgments of individuals.