Page 2 of 7
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:04 pm
by crfriend
gender free universe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:37 pmSo, it is appearing that to have access to something other than slacks in the business world, one likely has to identify as something other than male (non-binary), because of reasons.
That is the way that it seems to be shaking out -- which will effectively exclude 95% of the men out there. I find that sad. But, entirely predictable.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:43 am
by ScotL
gender free universe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:37 pm
So, it is appearing that to have access to something other than slacks in the business world, one likely has to identify as something other than male (non-binary), because of reasons.
I think you perfectly summed up the issue most of us have with these labels. Everyone hates labels but everyone uses them out of necessity. We’d be happier if there was a new label that describes ‘identify as male but wears skirts.’
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:00 pm
by moonshadow
Folks...
I don't think most people really care what you call yourself.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:41 pm
by gender free universe
Two different movements intersect. The expansion of gender roles happens to intersect with the expansion of binarity. Thus we observe the same phenomena with different causes. Is it that simple?
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:34 pm
by crfriend
gender free universe wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:41 pmTwo different movements intersect. The expansion of gender roles happens to intersect with the expansion of binarity. Thus we observe the same phenomena with different causes. Is it that simple?
It
could be that simple, but the thesis, I believe, is false because the only space that gender roles have expanded is for women; for men, their role has been undergoing a violent contraction in recent years. [0] Thus the "rise of the non-binary" may be primarily men who are desperately trying to find a way out of what is an ever-shrinking coffin.
The proper answer is to merely reassert ourselves and take back what's been taken away -- mainly emotion, sensitivity, civility, and humility. The ability to "play the peacock" would follow naturally from such a reassertion. But, yet again, men prove themselves to be their own worst enemies and refuse to reassert and are likely, then, doomed.
[0] Violent contractions also produce odd things in the universe -- like black holes.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:14 pm
by FLbreezy
ScotL wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:43 am
gender free universe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:37 pm
So, it is appearing that to have access to something other than slacks in the business world, one likely has to identify as something other than male (non-binary), because of reasons.
I think you perfectly summed up the issue most of us have with these labels. Everyone hates labels but everyone uses them out of necessity. We’d be happier if there was a new label that describes ‘identify as male but wears skirts.’
We don't need a new label. Unless it's "I'm a grown up man and my mommy stopped dressing me a long time ago."
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:13 pm
by Myopic Bookworm
crfriend wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:34 pm
The only space that gender roles have expanded is for women; for men, their role has been undergoing a violent contraction in recent years.
I don't agree. Not long ago, you very rarely encountered a man pushing a pram or supervising his pre-school child. Admittedly, when I was in that position, I was quite often (but not always) the only dad in the toddlers' group, but over the last 15 years I have seen a steady increase in the number of men out and about with baby buggies and pushchairs (and no hovering female), or taking part in parent and toddler groups. People are less surprised to find men working in care homes, or as nurses or primary school teachers. And I can't think of any role that men have been excluded from in recent years (cup-winning footballer, perhaps, for those in England?!): the opening of an opportunity to women does not generally close it to men.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:32 pm
by Barleymower
I've been there in the toddler groups, a man on his own among women ans kids. Quite often I found myself gazed upon like a dog licking it's balls.
What to do? I played with the kids. The mums were ignoring them, deep in their chatting. So I got stuck in. Kids love playing with men.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:36 pm
by crfriend
Myopic Bookworm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:13 pm
crfriend wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:34 pm
The only space that gender roles have expanded is for women; for men, their role has been undergoing a violent contraction in recent years.
I don't agree. Not long ago, you very rarely encountered a man pushing a pram or supervising his pre-school child. Admittedly, when I was in that position, I was quite often (but not always) the only dad in the toddlers' group, but over the last 15 years I have seen a steady increase in the number of men out and about with baby buggies and pushchairs (and no hovering female), or taking part in parent and toddler groups. People are less surprised to find men working in care homes, or as nurses or primary school teachers. And I can't think of any role that men have been excluded from in recent years (cup-winning footballer, perhaps, for those in England?!): the opening of an opportunity to women does not generally close it to men.
Criticism accepted, and I'll need to cogitate on the matter a bit. What I was specifically referring to is what the "stereotypical male" looks like today versus what one looked like a half-century ago. What I see in the modern stereotype is a 4th-rate parody of what it really means to be a man. I may well be wrong -- and in a way I actually hope I am, but I don't see it playing out on Main Street (at least where I am), and one should trust personal observation more than hype and press coverage.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:08 am
by ScotL
FLbreezy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:14 pm
ScotL wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:43 am
gender free universe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:37 pm
So, it is appearing that to have access to something other than slacks in the business world, one likely has to identify as something other than male (non-binary), because of reasons.
I think you perfectly summed up the issue most of us have with these labels. Everyone hates labels but everyone uses them out of necessity. We’d be happier if there was a new label that describes ‘identify as male but wears skirts.’
We don't need a new label. Unless it's "I'm a grown up man and my mommy stopped dressing me a long time ago."
True. True. We don’t “need” more labels. But they exist and people always name stuff.
Guess it’s not a label per se that is needed. But what I feel needs to be “out there” is the idea that “normal” men want to wear skirts and it doesn’t mean a damn thing
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:17 pm
by FLbreezy
ScotL wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:08 am
But what I feel needs to be “out there” is the idea that “normal” men want to wear skirts and it doesn’t mean a damn thing
Going back to the dark times before "meme" meant "sending funny cat pictures on the internet":
meme: an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.
Step 1: be "normal" (as boring as that sounds)
Step 2: wear a skirt
Step 3: don't care what people think
Step 4: Profit?
Meme on friends, spread the idea. Life's too short to wait for the rest of the world to catch up.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:06 am
by ScotL
FLbreezy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:17 pm
ScotL wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:08 am
But what I feel needs to be “out there” is the idea that “normal” men want to wear skirts and it doesn’t mean a damn thing
Going back to the dark times before "meme" meant "sending funny cat pictures on the internet":
meme: an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.
Step 1: be "normal" (as boring as that sounds)
Step 2: wear a skirt
Step 3: don't care what people think
Step 4: Profit?
Meme on friends, spread the idea. Life's too short to wait for the rest of the world to catch up.
Seems easy. Even too easy. But it’s that step 3 that trips myself up. If it was just out there that me wearing a skirt meant jacksh1t then it’d be easier. But I did wear a kilt to the movies tonight and received not one comment. Though I did have a potential Marilyn Monroe event. But I’m unclenching more and more by the fact I didn’t get a comment. Sometimes you do just want to be left alone
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 6:50 am
by Offkilter69
FLbreezy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:17 pm
ScotL wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:08 am
But what I feel needs to be “out there” is the idea that “normal” men want to wear skirts and it doesn’t mean a damn thing
But I did wear a kilt to the movies tonight and received not one comment. Though I did have a potential Marilyn Monroe event. But I’m unclenching more and more by the fact I didn’t get a comment. Sometimes you do just want to be left alone
I agree. To some it may seem like that a guy wearing a kilt, skirt, or dress is just trying to get attention and be noticed, like some of the recent red carpet male celebrities have seemingly done. For me, that’s quite the opposite. I just want to have the freedom to wear what I want without judgement or belittlement. But, the more I wear kilts in public the less I care about what others think. I’m actually more concerned about how negative reactions affect my SO. I don’t want her to be embarrassed by being with a guy who wears a man-skirt. To her credit, she has never expressed any negative feelings to me, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have them.
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:16 pm
by ScotL
ScotL wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:06 am
FLbreezy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:17 pmBut I did wear a kilt to the movies tonight and received not one comment. Though I did have a potential Marilyn Monroe event. But I’m unclenching more and more by the fact I didn’t get a comment. Sometimes you do just want to be left alone
I agree. To some it may seem like that a guy wearing a kilt, skirt, or dress is just trying to get attention and be noticed, like some of the recent red carpet male celebrities have seemingly done. For me, that’s quite the opposite. I just want to have the freedom to wear what I want without judgement or belittlement. But, the more I wear kilts in public the less I care about what others think. I’m actually more concerned about how negative reactions affect my SO. I don’t want her to be embarrassed by being with a guy who wears a man-skirt. To her credit, she has never expressed any negative feelings to me, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have them.
That’s what I loved about the coverage of the most recent golden globes. Billy porter wore a different color but the same tux dress he did before. One other guy wore a skirt over pants. But there wasn’t a big uproar over it. It just wasn’t the big deal it was before. Though I will miss the awesome comments you get when wearing a kilt, the loss of angst over stepping out in one will be really nice. Particularly if it opens up the kind of skirt one can wear without judgement. The skirt type that is the kilt is accepted as male. Slowly the mainstream will see other skirt types as acceptable as the kilt
Re: The New York Times: Defining Nonbinary Work Wear
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:36 pm
by Sinned
I was reading a DM article by Janet Street-Porter in which she says, "Women have fought to dress as they please ....". It appears that we may have to go through the same fight.