

To me, a size 36 is NOT an XL by any stretch of the imagination

Uncle Al



Indeed it does not make sense.Grok wrote:Indeed, Gordon. How many people view a skirt as feminine simply because its a skirt? Which would include, by definition, the less flamboyant skirts worn by some members.
Rationally, it doesn't make sense that a man is obligated to wear two pipes.
Take a closer look at who is driving those monster trucks; I see more "women" driving them than "men" (and who tend to behave vastly worse on the highways than real men).Daryl wrote:Men wear trucks with roll bars and extra lights the way women wear dresses and pearls.
That's some pretty serious circular-logic in action. Don't just dismiss or disbelieve social policing; refute it absolutely with credibility, passion, and candour. Others will either follow suit or have their belief in it shaken somewhat, and if shaken hard enough and long enough, most structures collapse -- and their own weight helps.We may want to believe that masculine and feminine are entirely unreal arbitrary social definitions, because we don't want to be limited by them, but in doing so we aren't acknowledging the actual source of our limitations: the socially-policed idea that people should live up to their assigned m/f archetypes. We are in fact tacitly affirming the legitimacy of that social policing. (insert animated gif of Sisyphus)
Heh, parenthetical women and men vs. real women and men. This is me backing away slowly and holding my ten foot pole well away from it....crfriend wrote:Take a closer look at who is driving those monster trucks; I see more "women" driving them than "men" (and who tend to behave vastly worse on the highways than real men).Daryl wrote:Men wear trucks with roll bars and extra lights the way women wear dresses and pearls.That's some pretty serious circular-logic in action. Don't just dismiss or disbelieve social policing; refute it absolutely with credibility, passion, and candour. Others will either follow suit or have their belief in it shaken somewhat, and if shaken hard enough and long enough, most structures collapse -- and their own weight helps.We may want to believe that masculine and feminine are entirely unreal arbitrary social definitions, because we don't want to be limited by them, but in doing so we aren't acknowledging the actual source of our limitations: the socially-policed idea that people should live up to their assigned m/f archetypes. We are in fact tacitly affirming the legitimacy of that social policing. (insert animated gif of Sisyphus)
It occurred to me that the Skirtcraft garments could be described as androgynous-wear.Daryl wrote:Grok wrote:. I just don't see feminine and masculine as representing ideals we need to embody or live up to. ?
Bowtie:Bowtie wrote:I would agree with a lot of the comments previously written. For me a more masculine skirt is plain, without pleats or too much detailing, in a solid, dark colour, such as black, navy blue or dark grey... I agree that the back or side closure is also rather feminine, but with few skirts specifically made for men this can be unavoidable. For instance I have a few lovely plain skirts which look good, but have the zip/button closure at the back, this is unavoidable and you do get used to it pretty quickly and it does give the garment a clean look at the front. More feminine skirts for me are also those in 'louder' colours or with lots of detailing/patterns.
Oh yes androgeny is subversive. If only Skirtcraft made skirts that we could wear around our waists (not hips) without our lack of actual androgeny being apparent.Grok wrote:It occurred to me that the Skirtcraft garments could be described as androgynous-wear.Daryl wrote:Grok wrote:. I just don't see feminine and masculine as representing ideals we need to embody or live up to. ?Has a nice subversive ring to it.
Indeed. But when worn as formal wear, a kilted outfit can look grand. This is something otherwise hard to find, with the possible exception of some dress military uniforms. And kilts may offer more color than the typical monkey suit.Daryl wrote:. Skirts that are pretty and gathered to make them round, for example, are more feminine than kilts with their sewn straight lines and not much to call "pretty" in them.sl893 wrote:
What would be deemed masculine? Probably garments that have been traditional menswear. Kilts. Traditional menswear imported from non-Western cultures, such as sarongs (I not really familiar with these).sl893 wrote:
I was more looking at it from the standpoint that if we want to make a massive change in the way skirts can be worn mainstream, and viewed by everyone in society, it may potentially be easier to start with getting as many men wearing as masculine skirts as possible, as this would be easier for society to accept initially, then as society comes around to the idea and is more used to seeing this in their everyday lives, and it then comes across as 'normal', then start to push the boundaries with the more feminine styles etc.
Cinch the waist in a little bit and, voilà, it rides at your waist.Daryl wrote:Oh yes androgeny is subversive. If only Skirtcraft made skirts that we could wear around our waists (not hips) without our lack of actual androgeny being apparent.
That is exactly the sort of thing I have in my closet (an unfortunate term these days) and I wear most places.eightofnine wrote: I'm thinking about buying this one .
But http://www.forever21.com/UK/Product/Pro ... VariantID=