4 ms·

Or this one "25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability." Compare: A woman wearing pants. A man wearing

Or this one "25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability." Compare: A woman wearing pants. A man wearing a dress. One person is going to have their sexuality judged. And it's not going to be the woman.

skore 15y ago
That's funny, but not insightful. I assume that with pants, you don't mean plain jeans, but a pantsuit (because this isn't the 60's). There are pantsuits designed for women, but no dresses designed for men. Even further than that - a dress is very specific to female anatomy in a way that a suit isn't, to male anatomy. The real issue, however, is that a woman wearing a suit is perceived in a certain way (as aggressive and, funnily enough, "only imitating men") while a man wearing a dress happens to be an often frequented motif in comedy. Finally, a man can wear a dress specifically to underline just how male he is, because "even a dress can't take that manliness away".
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case. I was not attempting to be funny at all. ^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.
  - skore 15y ago
    Yes, and I maintain that jeans simply aren't as gender specific as a dress. I have never heard that jeans are 'male'. That's why it's not a comparison of opposites.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      That jeans have ceased to be gender specific is my point in a nutshell.
      - skore 15y ago
        That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument. Also - jeans ceased to be considered gender specific in society while also never being, in their shape and technical form, gender specific to begin with.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        "That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument." No. You must be misunderstanding my initial argument if you think that it does. You are definitely missing my point if you don't think that I understand that about jeans...
        skore 15y ago
        Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point. That you appear to insist on the 60s idea of pants being inherently male (not as your argument, but you still use it as an argument, which makes no sense) further takes away from it. Actually, I really thought you were only pulling a lame joke in the beginning. If that's really your entire argument then I'm not sure why we bother arguing it in the first place. It seems like you don't care elaborating on your point anyhow. Edit: Hey Downvote Police, what about stepping out and adding reasoning to your downvotes? Thanks.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        One word: Skirt. Apologies for the imprecise terminology.
  - cg 15y ago
    It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I am very aware. This is exactly why I picked pants for my example.
      - cg 15y ago
        I don't understand how men wearing dresses works as a comparison to women wearing pants, as there hasn't been an equivalent attempt by men to adopt dresses as everyday attire.
        skore 15y ago
        He later changed 'dresses' to 'skirts'. And yes, that completely changes the argument (look at the other leg of this thread).
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        Regardless of the history behind the current situation, the fact remains that women are more free to wear "male" clothing than men are to wear "female" clothing.
einhverfr 15y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw Or a man wearing a pantsuit? Edit: The point of posting this wasn't just a funny fake political ad but also the nuances of suggesting that Bill Clinton wears the pantsuit, instead of Hillary wearing the pants.
wazoox 15y ago
Actually misrepresenting reality. Do you consider William Wallace as a wimp because he wore skirts ?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  He wore a kilt, which is actually an interesting addition to my point. Despite the strong masculinity of a kilt, they do not appear to be very popular in modern society. I would suggest without evidence that this is in no small part due to a potential association with "feminine" skirts.
  - skore 15y ago
    They are not popular, but men wearing them won't have their sexuality judged, so they probably don't have significance to your original point. I think they are not popular because they have a strong cultural association with being Scottish.

skore 15y ago

That's funny, but not insightful. I assume that with pants, you don't mean plain jeans, but a pantsuit (because this isn't the 60's). There are pantsuits designed for women, but no dresses designed for men. Even further than that - a dress is very specific to female anatomy in a way that a suit isn't, to male anatomy. The real issue, however, is that a woman wearing a suit is perceived in a certain way (as aggressive and, funnily enough, "only imitating men") while a man wearing a dress happens to be an often frequented motif in comedy. Finally, a man can wear a dress specifically to underline just how male he is, because "even a dress can't take that manliness away".

burgerbrain 15y ago
No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case. I was not attempting to be funny at all. ^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.
- skore 15y ago
  Yes, and I maintain that jeans simply aren't as gender specific as a dress. I have never heard that jeans are 'male'. That's why it's not a comparison of opposites.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    That jeans have ceased to be gender specific is my point in a nutshell.
    - skore 15y ago
      That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument. Also - jeans ceased to be considered gender specific in society while also never being, in their shape and technical form, gender specific to begin with.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        "That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument." No. You must be misunderstanding my initial argument if you think that it does. You are definitely missing my point if you don't think that I understand that about jeans...
        skore 15y ago
        Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point. That you appear to insist on the 60s idea of pants being inherently male (not as your argument, but you still use it as an argument, which makes no sense) further takes away from it. Actually, I really thought you were only pulling a lame joke in the beginning. If that's really your entire argument then I'm not sure why we bother arguing it in the first place. It seems like you don't care elaborating on your point anyhow. Edit: Hey Downvote Police, what about stepping out and adding reasoning to your downvotes? Thanks.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        One word: Skirt. Apologies for the imprecise terminology.
- cg 15y ago
  It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I am very aware. This is exactly why I picked pants for my example.
    - cg 15y ago
      I don't understand how men wearing dresses works as a comparison to women wearing pants, as there hasn't been an equivalent attempt by men to adopt dresses as everyday attire.
      - skore 15y ago
        He later changed 'dresses' to 'skirts'. And yes, that completely changes the argument (look at the other leg of this thread).
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Regardless of the history behind the current situation, the fact remains that women are more free to wear "male" clothing than men are to wear "female" clothing.

einhverfr 15y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw Or a man wearing a pantsuit? Edit: The point of posting this wasn't just a funny fake political ad but also the nuances of suggesting that Bill Clinton wears the pantsuit, instead of Hillary wearing the pants.

wazoox 15y ago

Actually misrepresenting reality. Do you consider William Wallace as a wimp because he wore skirts ?

burgerbrain 15y ago
He wore a kilt, which is actually an interesting addition to my point. Despite the strong masculinity of a kilt, they do not appear to be very popular in modern society. I would suggest without evidence that this is in no small part due to a potential association with "feminine" skirts.
- skore 15y ago
  They are not popular, but men wearing them won't have their sexuality judged, so they probably don't have significance to your original point. I think they are not popular because they have a strong cultural association with being Scottish.