Nomenclature

[Uncle Al]

Why do we keep doing this:

Nomenclature is a system of names or terms used in a particular field,
such as a science or art, or the rules for creating those terms.

After reading quite a few posts about skirts, 'women's skirts', etc., I've noticed that the posters,
who want to take away gender, keep referring to skirts as 'women's wear'.

When are we going to stop referring, or associating, skirts to women

We, the collective Cafe' membership, seem to be our own worst enemy.
The only way 'we' can overcome this comparison is to police our vocabulary,
training ourselves to stop falling into 'the boxes', society, as a whole, has placed us in.

Skirts, Kilts, Pants, Shorts - All worn by both sexes, are the correct labels, not diverting
into a men's or women's sub-category. Some women look better in clothes designed for
men, and some men look better in clothes designed for women.

Other than clothes designed for anatomical reasons, BOTH SEXES can wear anything
they choose. To change society, we must change ourselves, evolve our concepts
away from preconceived notions of what's men's, and of what's women's, clothes.

They're just clothes PERIOD

Uncle Al

[Mouse]

Ok, but we need to agree on how we term an item sold on the pink side of the shop, but happily covering my body, such as the pair of Timberland tall boots currently on my feet.

[Stu]

When are we going to stop referring, or associating, skirts to women

I have been asking this question for a long time. It is also why I say that, while we should support our trans friends, their cause is fundamentally different from ours.

Because skirts have been worn exclusively by females for so long that they are a taboo for all males, even toddlers, they have taken on a semiotic function. Skirts are now seen as symbols of womanhood - and girlhood. In some parts of the UK, a woman who may be viewed as sexually available/active may be called "a bit of skirt". My first senior school was divided into a boys' and a girls' wing and the staff would refer to the former as "the shirts" (Mr Jones is teaching chemistry to the shirts this afternoon") while the girls were similarly referred to as "the skirts". In linguistics, we call this "synecdoche". If we want to see skirts become mainstream for both sexes, we need to break this reflexive association.

Of course, for a male who wishes to be regarded as female, skirts and dresses are often the first recourse as an identifier, as well as hair length and style and cosmetics. It's an identifier. These garments are perceived as inherently feminine almost regardless of the style and fabric and it's far easier to don such garments to associate oneself as female than, for example, changing one's body shape or body/facial hair or voice. If you tell a 10-year-old boy he has to disguise himself as a girl and he agrees, his first thought will be that he has to wear a skirt/dress rather than he stye of coat or plucking his eyebrows. That applies even though the majority of the girls he sees day-to-day are more likely to be wearing jeans or leggings.

[robehickman]

Completely agree that people need to stop labelling skirts as 'woman's', and I generally think we need to break down the 'man's' / 'woman's' binary in clothing more generally.

When are we going to stop referring, or associating, skirts to women

Of course, for a male who wishes to be regarded as female, skirts and dresses are often the first recourse as an identifier, as well as hair length and style and cosmetics. It's an identifier. These garments are perceived as inherently feminine almost regardless of the style and fabric and it's far easier to don such garments to associate oneself as female than, for example, changing one's body shape or body/facial hair or voice. If you tell a 10-year-old boy he has to disguise himself as a girl and he agrees, his first thought will be that he has to wear a skirt/dress rather than he stye of coat or plucking his eyebrows. That applies even though the majority of the girls he sees day-to-day are more likely to be wearing jeans or leggings.

This kind of embedded cultural mentality is deeply problematic because people aren't learning the actual physiological differences. There are clear, large proportional differences between men and women - at a surface level men tend to have wider shoulders and narrower hips, while women tend to have the shoulders and hips either be the same width, or the hips be wider than the shoulders. Obviously most women have obvious breasts, and face shapes and proportions vary a huge deal as well, and are things that humans have evolved to recognise and can (in most cases) tell male / female apart extremely easily, entirely subconsciously, regardless of what someone is wearing.

Making a man read as a woman, or vice versa, is not trivial.

[crfriend]

When are we going to stop referring, or associating, skirts to women

I have been asking this question for a long time. It is also why I say that, while we should support our trans friends, their cause is fundamentally different from ours.

I've been working this angle for years and have largely been ignored. Nobody seems interested -- even though the driving motivations are vastly different between our trans- friends and us, We really can't even compare the two and have them reconcile.

The fact that some of us insist on calling skirts "women's wear" makes me a bit suspicious of their motives. We should not be doing that. We desire to "de-gender" the skirt as an article of clothing. So, why are we fighting ourselves? Do we really need to be "our own worst enemy"?

[Ozdelights]

To achieve the aims of MIS, we must proclaim that all clothing is not male/female, masculine/feminine or mens/women's. It clothing! Because of my body shape there a shirts found in the typical menswear section that I wouldn't wear and so it should be up to an individual to decide if any item of clothing suits their body and image.

If a member is trying to provide information or directions, maybe something like 'a skirt I found in the women’s area at ...'

[Stu]

To achieve the aims of MIS, we must proclaim that all clothing is not male/female, masculine/feminine or mens/women's. It clothing!

I broadly agree, but I am quite happy to maintain a distinction between masculine and feminine on clothing, so long as entire classes of garments are not appropriated by one sex/gender while remaining beyond the pale for the opposite sex/gender. Put simply, it should be possible for a girl or woman to look unmistakably "girly", but being female should no more mean having a monopoly on unbifurcated garments (skirts/dresses) than men have on bifurcated garments (trousers/shorts). While I am more than happy to leave this garment for females.....



.... I see no reason why the below should be exclusively a female garment than a pair of jeans should be exclusively for males:

[robehickman]

To achieve the aims of MIS, we must proclaim that all clothing is not male/female, masculine/feminine or mens/women's. It clothing!

I broadly agree, but I am quite happy to maintain a distinction between masculine and feminine on clothing, so long as entire classes of garments are not appropriated by one sex/gender while remaining beyond the pale for the opposite sex/gender. Put simply, it should be possible for a girl or woman to look unmistakably "girly", but being female should no more mean having a monopoly on unbifurcated garments (skirts/dresses) than men have on bifurcated garments (trousers/shorts). While I am more than happy to leave this garment for females.....



.... I see no reason why the below should be exclusively a female garment than a pair of jeans should be exclusively for males:

I disagree with this notion because it creates a conflation between functionality and gender expression - a lightweight skirt along the lines of the first one shown would be very cool and functional in hot weather - for anyone, the design of the first skirt shown would also behave in far more interesting ways if one were to dance in it.

A denim (basically) pencil skirt would be more constraining to range of motion, but would have the practical advantage of not being blown around by wind very easily. They are different things with different functions.

Limiting styles by gender like this also keeps men's clothing stuck in the 'boring box'.

[Stu]

I disagree with this notion because it creates a conflation between functionality and gender expression - a lightweight skirt along the lines of the first one shown would be very cool and functional in hot weather - for anyone, the design of the first skirt shown would also behave in far more interesting ways if one were to dance in it.

The first one isn't designed primarily because of its range of motion and its coolness; it is designed that way to emphasise femininity. It is designed for the look, not its function. The colour, patterning and fabric makes it the garment a woman wears to be attend an event and be noticed. She's not going to wear it for work, or walking the dog, or doing the laundry.

It would be entirely possible to design a skirt from cotton or polyester that would be equally cool and unrestricted, but that wasn't so overtly feminine and that would work for a man.

A denim (basically) pencil skirt would be more constraining to range of motion, but would have the practical advantage of not being blown around by wind very easily. They are different things with different functions. Limiting styles by gender like this also keeps men's clothing stuck in the 'boring box'.

The denim skirt is possibly sold as "pencil", but it's really just what we used to call a "straight skirt" and it is almost certain to have some degree of stretch by having one or two percent elastane in the cotton. There are very similar ones which are classed as "A-line" and that do not constrict.

While I take your last point about limiting styles by gender, we have to be realistic. In my experience, the wider public, me included, strongly subscribe to the idea of "vive la différence" - we value the differences between males and females and, unless you want to copy Maoist China, that should be retained. To do that means both sexes have to be willing to concede certain styles as the domain of the opposite sex - and we have to define what the styles are that denote masculinity and femininity. We can do that without insisting that entire classes of garment can only belong to one of the two sexes, which has been the case in Western culture for the last few centuries.

[robehickman]

While I take your last point about limiting styles by gender, we have to be realistic. In my experience, the wider public, me included, strongly subscribe to the idea of "vive la différence" - we value the differences between males and females and, unless you want to copy Maoist China, that should be retained. To do that means both sexes have to be willing to concede certain styles as the domain of the opposite sex - and we have to define what the styles are that denote masculinity and femininity. We can do that without insisting that entire classes of garment can only belong to one of the two sexes, which has been the case in Western culture for the last few centuries.

I strongly disagree with this notion because as far as I can see, most women have discarded it - being free to wear practically anything they want (with some filters based on appropriateness for situation). It is men who are obsessively constraining themselves.

[denimini]

Most skirts are marketed to women but men can buy and call them their own. I guess women's skirts are owned and worn by women.

[Jim]

strongly disagree with this notion because as far as I can see, most women have discarded it - being free to wear practically anything they want (with some filters based on appropriateness for situation). It is men who are obsessively constraining themselves.

There is the very significant and oppressive exception of women being top-free is considered inappropriate in most situations where a male can be more comfortable when it is hot. A woman's nipple should be no more considered sexual than a man's.

[Stu]

There is the very significant and oppressive exception of women being top-free is considered inappropriate in most situations where a male can be more comfortable when it is hot. A woman's nipple should be no more considered sexual than a man's.

Not quite that simple, Jim, as I discovered some years ago. I used to work out with weights at my university gym. I had just done some bench pressing when I was approached by a female colleague. She looked at my chest hoping she would be admiring my well-developed "pecs", but she joked that " had "bigger boobs" than she did. I replied that mine were solid muscle, at which point she mischievously put her hand on my left chest and made an approving noise (I can't recall what that was). I tried to imagine what would have happened if I had commented on her "boobs", let alone touched them uninvited. Some time later, I mentioned this to another colleague who was an anthropologist. He explained that women's nipples are considered intimate in most human cultures whereas a man's are not. We have a strong cultural understanding that intimate parts of our bodies are kept out of public view, at least from the opposite sex.

[Modoc]

Why do we keep doing this:
P

After reading quite a few posts about skirts, 'women's skirts', etc., I've noticed that the posters,
who want to take away gender, keep referring to skirts as 'women's wear'.

When are we going to stop referring, or associating, skirts to women

We, the collective Cafe' membership, seem to be our own worst enemy.
The only way 'we' can overcome this comparison is to police our vocabulary,
training ourselves to stop falling into 'the boxes', society, as a whole, has placed us in.





They're just clothes PERIOD

Uncle Al

I don't think that what I have to say is revelatory to any degree, but it appears to me that a signifigant number of posters here actually like the idea of wearing "womens clothes" I haven't read every post and probably not very many as the number is overwhelming.
I've asked the same question in at least two other sites whose focus is men wearing skirts ets. The feedback centers and inclusion and that is okay even great as far as I am concerned but I think the idea ofclothes losing their gender specific conotations is not on the horizon.

[crfriend]

Given what I'm gathering from this thread we're going to be confined to denim, khakis [0], boring styles, fabrics and drab colours for all time going forward. Along with all the other cr@p that's swirling around us at the moment, I think I'm just ready to give up and die.

Life in a drab, bland, boring, and ever-decaying world is not where I want to spend the last of my days.

Count me out of that world.


[0] Internet meme from a few years back: "Hitler wore khakis."