Women ridiculed for wearing trousers --

[JRMILLER]

Group,
Check this timely article out, from the NY Times!

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... ref=slogin

[Milfmog]

Nice find John, someone was obviously looking ahead back in 1881, shame he failed to forecast that men in future might choose to wear skirts.

The line at the end "...and crush, so to speak, the undeveloped trousers in the bud" made my eyes water

Have fun,


Ian.

[crfriend]

Great find, that. Good job, John. (And thank goodness for http://www.bugmenot.com!)

Ian hits it on the nose with his comments about somebody being forward-looking. I can't help but wonder, though, what the writer's opinion of the turnabout that we're trying to make happen though.

[Departed Member]

That was a fascinating discovery, to be sure! It could have almost been written 1981, never mind 1881!

[Pythos]

This is so funny to read.

I also have to keep saying this...Pants were men's garments only, and women who wear them are crossdressing.

However I like the idea of being looked at and laughed at over not being seen. Perhaps this is an attitude we should adopt.

[JRMILLER]

I think you could make some minor changes to the article: change women for men, men for women, trousers for skirts, etc. and you would have a modern article describing MIS.

People never really change, when someone goes against the public grain, idiots like this come out of the woodwork to squash the new idea, concept or fashion. It's enough to make you scream!

[AMM]

Warning: I'm in a grumpy mood today, so take what follows in that spirit.


I didn't read the article because you have to register with the NYT and allow them to set cookies, which I didn't feel like doing. (I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the NY Times, the details of which I won't bore you with.) But I think I got the general idea from the follow-ups here.

It seems like I have only to open my newspaper (not the NYT ) or listen to the news (NPR in my case) to be confronted with a world full of people saying and doing asinine things, often with horrific consequences. I don't really need to go to the NYT web site to confirm that people were saying (and doing) asinine things 20 or 120 years ago.

Since this guy's writings evidently went to the sanitary landfill of history many many years ago, and (as far as I know) the body count resulting from them isn't all that high by modern standards, I can't be bothered to work up a proper grump or even a sardonic snicker over them, except maybe a tiny one over the waste of bandwidth and disk space storing and discussing them.

If it were up to me, I'd rather we spent the bandwidth &c. on pictures and discussions of gals (and guys) in cute kilts and skirts and c., and of hemlines and contours, and how we whooped things up in our kilts & c. last Saturday night, to wash the taste of the morning's news out of my mouth.

They say that living well is the best revenge. I say: let's forget the idiots (past and present) for a while and do some "living well."

[JRMILLER]

AMM,
I uploaded it to my own server, try this link:

http://www.sa01.com/SkirtCafe/98571814.pdf

[Bob]

Notice the subtle power plays going on here. The newspaper was controlled by men, and that article was written from a man's perspective. Notice:

1. It implied that women who want to wear trousers are ugly. This is a not-so-subtle form of (verbal) violence used to enforce gender expectations.
2. It implied that the purpose of being a woman is to be beautiful.
3. It implied that women exist for the male gaze, and that this is what women want too.
4. What it failed to address (because that would have been its downfall) is that the women who wanted to wear trousers wanted to do so as part of a larger belief that women are every bit as capable as men, and should be treated as equals in the public sphere --- not as play things existing to be looked at by men.

All in all, a decent enough example of anti-feminist literature from the 19th century. Luckily, we've come a long way since then.

[AMM]

All in all, a decent enough example of anti-feminist literature from the 19th century.
Luckily, we've come a long way since then.

I assume the last sentence was meant ironically.

[JRMILLER]

Bob,
What does the rest of the population think of skirt wearing men? An article like this could easily appear about men wearing skirts today. I am not convinced mankind has come a long way at all, as a group we still have a similar reaction to people stepping outside of the proscribed traditions.

I truly wish mankind had come a long way, if so, this group would not exist.

[ChristopherJ]

I liked this bit:

"It is evident to the philosophic eye that the typical skirt is simply a pair of trousers with one large leg instead of two small ones, and that a pair of trousers is simply two small skirts."

I could not have put it better myself!

[Bob]

No, I truly meant what I said. The subjugation of women in our society is a much bigger problem than lack of fashion freedom for men. Moreover, fashion freedom for men requires that men in general have a more respectful attitude toward women. While we haven't gotten to that goal yet, this article shows how far we really have come.

[Bob]

No, I truly meant what I said. The subjugation of women in our society is a much bigger problem than lack of fashion freedom for men. Moreover, fashion freedom for men requires that men in general have a more respectful attitude toward women. While we haven't gotten to that goal yet, this article shows how far we really have come.

[Skirt Chaser]

What a find. Wanting to wear trousers earns them the name "alleged women" in the article. He might be right though, trousers will never catch on with real women. There are some clear parallels with MIS today. People are still hung up on "you are what you wear" 126 years later.

Quiet Mouse