Comment is Free
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:28 am
I have just emailed the below essay to the Comment is Free section of The Guardian newspaper. I'll let you know if they publish it. I would appreciate your thoughts/comments.
Stu
Sauce for the Goose
Make-up for men is no longer the exclusive domain of the rock star: Superdrug is now marketing eyeliner and mascara for the male of the species. I have to say that it’s not my cup of tea. I can just about manage to comb my hair and have a shave, but the idea of faffing about in front of a mirror with an eye pencil holds no appeal. Moisturiser? Do me a favour! Like most other fifty-something geezers, I’m about as low-maintenance as you can get. Similarly, I have no interest in adorning myself with bracelets, neck-chains or ear-studs and my hair is kept cropped short. I am of the generation in which masculinity is synonymous with simplicity; my aim is to be well-groomed, not pretty. But times change and some members of my sex, mostly several decades younger than me, take preening and bodily adornment to a level which, in generations past, was viewed as the preserve of women. Good for them. In an age of equality, there should no longer be such preserves for either sex.
While men have been making inroads into what were traditionally female levels of vanity, there is a remaining manifestation of inequality which, I would argue, is far more fundamental and yet goes largely unchallenged. As a male, I am subject to a taboo that dictates I can never wear any garment that does not bifurcate the legs, specifically anything which is of the character of a skirt or dress. There are a couple of exceptions. If I happen to be a Scotsman then I am permitted in certain circumstances to wear a particular type of skirt so long as it conforms in cut, style, colour and pattern to that which makes it immediately identifiable as a kilt. If I am a patient in a hospital undergoing surgery, I can wear a garment which, in terms of its structure, resembles a dress. Other than that, I must never be seen wearing any item of clothing on my lower half which are not either trousers, or shorts (i.e. short trousers). This is nuts. Skirts and dresses are tubes of cloth, or wraps, and are the simplest garments into which a human body can be inserted. They have the advantage of being easy and cheap to manufacture, cool and loose to wear and they can actually look good, too. The prevailing social prohibition, which effectively bars 50% of the human population from utilising such a basic form of clothing, is illogical and discriminatory. Yet it is very rarely questioned or challenged.
Every so often, a designer will send a few brave young chaps onto a catwalk wearing some weird and wacky creations that could loosely be described as skirts. They have something of a novelty value, and may be spotted in some of the Capital’s trendiest nightclubs, but don’t expect to see the bloke next door wearing any such thing while shopping with the missus in Tesco. More promising ideas have sprung from suppliers like Utilikilts, but these are not available on UK High Streets and they tend to be pricey. And note the resistance even to the use of the words skirt and dress when describing something made for a male. So what’s stopping simple men’s skirts becoming mainstream? Why can we buy men’s mascara and men’s shirts in baby-pink, but it’s unthinkable to buy a plain, bog-standard denim skirt from a mainstream menswear outlet? We see shops selling men’s summer shirts and shorts in a pastel shades and bearing floral prints, yet the idea that a man’s suit should have a straight, knee-length skirt option is beyond the pale.
The fact is that many, if not most, people persist in seeing the un-bifurcated garment as irrefutably feminine in character although there is no basis for this perception beyond it being an established custom. It is regrettable that much of the resistance to expanding men’s choices in this respect comes from women. While enjoying the luxury of absolute freedom in their own sartorial choices, these women believe skirts are somehow unmanly by nature and thereby impute the same of men who might think of wearing them. Unfortunately, even women who accept that the status quo is unfair and indefensible, and claim to support the notion of men being able to wear whatever they like, more often balk at the idea of their own partners or sons donning such garments. In other words, men can wear skirts in theory, but not their men. And to think we call them the fairer sex!
Trousers were invented primarily for horse-riding - an activity chiefly performed by men in ages past. For many human activities in our own time, trousers are by far the most convenient mode of dress for both sexes. As stylish, smart and comfortable garments, trousers will always have a central place in the human wardrobe. It was right and proper that the utility and comfort of wearing trousers has become as available to women as it was to men. Now it is time for the advantages of un-bifurcated garments to be recognised and for males to be able to enjoy them without suffering social stigma or raising a question mark of their masculinity.
Stu
Sauce for the Goose
Make-up for men is no longer the exclusive domain of the rock star: Superdrug is now marketing eyeliner and mascara for the male of the species. I have to say that it’s not my cup of tea. I can just about manage to comb my hair and have a shave, but the idea of faffing about in front of a mirror with an eye pencil holds no appeal. Moisturiser? Do me a favour! Like most other fifty-something geezers, I’m about as low-maintenance as you can get. Similarly, I have no interest in adorning myself with bracelets, neck-chains or ear-studs and my hair is kept cropped short. I am of the generation in which masculinity is synonymous with simplicity; my aim is to be well-groomed, not pretty. But times change and some members of my sex, mostly several decades younger than me, take preening and bodily adornment to a level which, in generations past, was viewed as the preserve of women. Good for them. In an age of equality, there should no longer be such preserves for either sex.
While men have been making inroads into what were traditionally female levels of vanity, there is a remaining manifestation of inequality which, I would argue, is far more fundamental and yet goes largely unchallenged. As a male, I am subject to a taboo that dictates I can never wear any garment that does not bifurcate the legs, specifically anything which is of the character of a skirt or dress. There are a couple of exceptions. If I happen to be a Scotsman then I am permitted in certain circumstances to wear a particular type of skirt so long as it conforms in cut, style, colour and pattern to that which makes it immediately identifiable as a kilt. If I am a patient in a hospital undergoing surgery, I can wear a garment which, in terms of its structure, resembles a dress. Other than that, I must never be seen wearing any item of clothing on my lower half which are not either trousers, or shorts (i.e. short trousers). This is nuts. Skirts and dresses are tubes of cloth, or wraps, and are the simplest garments into which a human body can be inserted. They have the advantage of being easy and cheap to manufacture, cool and loose to wear and they can actually look good, too. The prevailing social prohibition, which effectively bars 50% of the human population from utilising such a basic form of clothing, is illogical and discriminatory. Yet it is very rarely questioned or challenged.
Every so often, a designer will send a few brave young chaps onto a catwalk wearing some weird and wacky creations that could loosely be described as skirts. They have something of a novelty value, and may be spotted in some of the Capital’s trendiest nightclubs, but don’t expect to see the bloke next door wearing any such thing while shopping with the missus in Tesco. More promising ideas have sprung from suppliers like Utilikilts, but these are not available on UK High Streets and they tend to be pricey. And note the resistance even to the use of the words skirt and dress when describing something made for a male. So what’s stopping simple men’s skirts becoming mainstream? Why can we buy men’s mascara and men’s shirts in baby-pink, but it’s unthinkable to buy a plain, bog-standard denim skirt from a mainstream menswear outlet? We see shops selling men’s summer shirts and shorts in a pastel shades and bearing floral prints, yet the idea that a man’s suit should have a straight, knee-length skirt option is beyond the pale.
The fact is that many, if not most, people persist in seeing the un-bifurcated garment as irrefutably feminine in character although there is no basis for this perception beyond it being an established custom. It is regrettable that much of the resistance to expanding men’s choices in this respect comes from women. While enjoying the luxury of absolute freedom in their own sartorial choices, these women believe skirts are somehow unmanly by nature and thereby impute the same of men who might think of wearing them. Unfortunately, even women who accept that the status quo is unfair and indefensible, and claim to support the notion of men being able to wear whatever they like, more often balk at the idea of their own partners or sons donning such garments. In other words, men can wear skirts in theory, but not their men. And to think we call them the fairer sex!
Trousers were invented primarily for horse-riding - an activity chiefly performed by men in ages past. For many human activities in our own time, trousers are by far the most convenient mode of dress for both sexes. As stylish, smart and comfortable garments, trousers will always have a central place in the human wardrobe. It was right and proper that the utility and comfort of wearing trousers has become as available to women as it was to men. Now it is time for the advantages of un-bifurcated garments to be recognised and for males to be able to enjoy them without suffering social stigma or raising a question mark of their masculinity.
