skirtcafe.org

An olde article, sound familiar?

Hey TM, you quoted yourself yet not giving/showing a reason of why.

The Facebook post you references in no longer available

IMHO, when you mentioned WIN-95, that's an indication - to me - that
Facebook doesn't keep info that long

Uncle Al

A quick image search turns up this on instagram which you can read https://www.instagram.com/p/DPtRtgfiFgn/

Western women's success in erasing their gendered fashion limitations can be expressed in 3 words
venerunt viderunt vicerunt. (They came, they saw, they conquered)
And they haven't looked back since.

timemeddler wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 1:49 am An olde article, sound familiar? unfortunately the ridiculous file size limit from the days of windows 95 make it hard to read.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=13 ... 6903360024

It wasn't "Windows 95" that was at fault here; Windows 95 was merely a symptom.

The real problem was the state of consumer electronics at the time not being really capable of the sort of high-resolution imagery we now take for granted. Drum scanners existed that -- using photomultiplier tubes (!), high-quality optics, and precision worms, gears, and cams were capable of 1,000/line per inch resolutions -- but were way outside the price-range affordable to "mere mortals". There was also the cost to store huge images when disks were much smaller and vastly more expensive than they are now; one cannot really compare the times accurately because of the vastness of the differences.

Answering the question of whether "women blurring the gender line" brought about the fall of civilisation as we know it, I'd say, "No". It took more than that. I'd posit that it was contributory to a small degree, but not at the root. Vastly more destructive was the death of the concept of ethics that arose in the 1980s that did it (but with its roots earlier). Once ethics is cast aside, all manner of unwholesome behaviours become normalised.

Note one thing in particular, those illustrations show women of a certain status.
No low income working class females, more like starlets and avant-garde socialites.
Like the medieval simptuary laws, one for the rich , another for the poor.
How times may not have changed.
Steve.

STEVIE wrote: ↑Sun Dec 21, 2025 12:21 pm Note one thing in particular, those illustrations show women of a certain status.
No low income working class females, more like starlets and avant-garde socialites.
Like the medieval simptuary laws, one for the rich , another for the poor.
How times may not have changed.
Steve.

The article mentions "with the dismaying spectacle of trousered women on the streets of the national capital" which makes me think this was more widespread than Hollywood and the elites. And the article goes on to state "But what does Hollywood say about trousers for women?" - hence why there are photos of famous women wearing them. I think if the author hadn't mentioned Hollywood, they might have added a picture of a scandalous DC-walker instead of or alongside the elites.

Frankly, I see this one as more along the lines of today's rage-bait articles, though a much milder form.

It's scandelous; which for women at the time was bad news.
A whiff of scandel for men is not so bad, just don't bring his gender identify into question.

So if you can do it, that is wear a skirt and nobody questions your gender identity or sexuality; then you have cracked it.