skirtcafe.org

Ralph, on the cat post. My wife and daughter breed bengal cats and they can demonstrate the fetch and retrieve functions. We have a cat that we sometimes call "Fido" because she exhibits the begging function of most dogs.

Stevej180 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:44 amIf I wear a skirt, but my top half is regular men’s clothing, I feel as though I am breaking the gender binary of ‘either/or’ by wearing ‘both’. And I am breaking that binary precisely because skirts are still associated with femininity/females.

I would propose that 'binary' be changed to 'barrier' as most people easily understand that term.
Women have been quite successfully breaking that barrier for many years now.

I wear combinations as you've described, too I have some below the knee tank/shift dresses in solid
colors. I wear a straight hemmed shirt over the top. Looks like a shirt/skirt combination but
is much more comfortable and less restrictive on the waistline.

It's quite fun mixing and matching items to create a great look, one that the wearer feels like a Million

Uncle Al

C) Because I want to.

moonshadow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:34 pm C) Because I want to.

I rescind my vote for A and choose C

...obviously greater male participation in skirting would increase my own sartorial choices... but if I'm being honest I'm not wearing a skirt for the "greater good" (choice A), but rather for "selfish" reasons (this clearly highlights a major flaw in my normal mode of thinking, that is, if I am doing what I want it is being selfish, sigh)

I suppose my reasoning was originally "C" but has migrated to "A" over time. The simple asymmetry of what's acceptable for females but not for males should not be allowed to stand. We can -- and need to -- invoke the old rule about double-standards.

by Stu » Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:59 am

I partly agree with him that people should be able to dress as they want, but there is an internal contradiction in his point. On the one hand he says he wants to break the gender binary while, on the other hand, he is still associating clothing with gender. To my mind, you can't have it both ways. You can:

1. Make it a fashion argument - clothing doesn't have a gender and so there is no such thing as men's or women's clothes or boys' or girls' clothes.

OR

2. Make it a gender expression argument, accept clothes express gender and therefore someone's clothes say something about whether they wish to be identified or perceived as male/female or masculine/feminine.

You can't have it both ways and claim to be adopting a logical position.

Fellas -- you have entered the Twilight Zone -- one of the most dangerous parts -- The EITHER OR Rift.

We so often pose our quandaries as "either/or" -- and that is an inherent trap; almost universally illogical in itself.

As a some here have started to point out, there are options C,D, E, and beyond; probably some -A or +/- a few combinations.

Do try to consider the limitations imposed by assuming there is only a "this or that" option to questions coaxed to imply no other choice.

I am enjoying the discussion of varied points of view -- but I see little value in following the toxic male syndrome of a battle for a triumph of A over B.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:45 pm Females naturally engage in cooperative linguistic strategies while males use competitive strategies

Males are brought up to be more competitive than females, why attrubute differences in language to genetics when it can easily be explained by the environment?

Faldaguy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:54 am
Fellas -- you have entered the Twilight Zone -- one of the most dangerous parts -- The EITHER OR Rift.

We so often pose our quandaries as "either/or" -- and that is an inherent trap; almost universally illogical in itself.

As a some here have started to point out, there are options C,D, E, and beyond; probably some -A or +/- a few combinations.

Do try to consider the limitations imposed by assuming there is only a "this or that" option to questions coaxed to imply no other choice.

I am enjoying the discussion of varied points of view -- but I see little value in following the toxic male syndrome of a battle for a triumph of A over B.

Ah, so you are claiming a false dilemma fallacy for this? Nah, sorry, that won't work here and the reason is that I am not so much claiming there can only be two positions, but rather that position (a):

You think males should enjoy a greater range of sartorial choices (without impinging on their masculinity)?

Is somewhat incompatible with Position (b)

You see skirts as an act of gender expression and they are a great way to liberate/express your feminine persona?

Holding these two views simultaneously is at least to some extent cognitive dissonance. This doesn't discount other possibilities, though, so there is no false dilemma fallacy.

pelmut wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:51 pm Males are brought up to be more competitive than females, why attrubute differences in language to genetics when it can easily be explained by the environment?

Brought up? You don't think that, for example, innate characteristics plays a role, including genetics or hormones (testosterone/cortisol)?

The research suggests this is not the case. That research has looked at the issue across cultures who have had no contact with each other - and it has even considered other, non-human primates. One of the leading researchers looking at vocalisations by various species of monkeys is Agnès Candiotti and she notes how males and females, including infants, use their calls in different ways and for different purposes.

I suspect you have chosen to believe that gender speech differences are all down to nurture rather than nature, but the research of my academic colleagues doesn't point to that. In linguistics (my own field), the innateness principle in human communication is pretty much settled science.

Stu, I still say that a and b maybe only apply in a limited number of cases in this cafe. Personally I don't see that my skirt wearing is going to have any effect on the sartorial choices of men even locally and I don't consider that my skirting says anything about my gender, sexuality apart from saying that I like wearing skirts. Full stop. Others in this cafe have their own reasons for skirt e=wearing - some of which we have in common and some of which we don't but many of them will have nothing to do with a or b. Hence I choose c.

Sinned wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:56 pm Stu, I still say that a and b maybe only apply in a limited number of cases in this cafe. ... Hence I choose c.

Yes and that works perfectly well with what I said - i.e. "This doesn't discount other possibilities, though"

A (c) motivation is fine.

Stu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:24 pm

pelmut wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:51 pm Males are brought up to be more competitive than females, why attrubute differences in language to genetics when it can easily be explained by the environment?

Brought up? You don't think that, for example, innate characteristics plays a role, including genetics or hormones (testosterone/cortisol)?

Yes, but so do many other factors and we do not attribute speech differences to them.  This appears to be a multi-stage process whereby genetically characteristics result in a difference in hormones which result in a difference in aggression, and the ability to put it into practice because of body strength, which results in a difference in expectations and upbringinging, which results in a difference in language.

That research has looked at the issue across cultures who have had no contact with each other - and it has even considered other, non-human primates.

Did it look at societies where women are brought up to be the domiant sex and men are brought up to be submissive?  If it did, but still found the more aggressve speech patterns in men, then I would accept that the speech patterns may be genetically linked (bearing in mind that corellation is not proof of causation), otherwise no conclusions can be drawn from a study, however wide-ranging, in which one of the 'variables' under consideration doesn't actually vary.

pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:10 am Yes, but so do many other factors and we do not attribute speech differences to them. This appears to be a multi-stage process whereby genetically characteristics result in a difference in hormones which result in a difference in aggression, and the ability to put it into practice because of body strength, which results in a difference in expectations and upbringing, which results in a difference in language.

In my original post on this I said that some aspects of masculinity and femininity are culturally-derived and I gave the example of why men don't carry handbags. I went on to challenge the claim that the differences were nurture only - the influences are clearly a mixture of nature and nurture,

pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:10 am Did it look at societies where women are brought up to be the domiant sex and men are brought up to be submissive? If it did, but still found the more aggressve speech patterns in men, then I would accept that the speech patterns may be genetically linked (bearing in mind that corellation is not proof of causation), otherwise no conclusions can be drawn from a study, however wide-ranging, in which one of the 'variables' under consideration doesn't actually vary.

I can't remember the specifics, but the studies are all peer-reviewed and published in respected academic journals and so I cannot imagine that factor would have been disregarded. The fact that these differences extend to other non-human primates would also support that thesis and these have been accompanied by others which show infant apes follow sex-role interests - e.g. young females prefer playing with dolls while males prefer trucks or tools. In light of the evidence we do have, even if it may be less than 100% watertight proof, then the onus of disproof that this is a factor would now rest with those who discount the innateness element and to show nurture is the sole operator. I don't believe any evidence in that direction.

I wonder how this question would be answered in those societies in the world where clothing isn't seen as (or as so) gender specific?

Interestingly, I don't agree with either A or B, but don't really have an alternative position either other than "I do what I do".

Bodycon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:54 pm I wonder how this question would be answered in those societies in the world where clothing isn't seen as (or as so) gender specific?

Are there any, though? I'm genuinely interested.