Man making skirts non-gender

[SusannaSpider]

Sorry, stupid title.

But what do you think of this link? Man likes to wear skirts and heels to work, still definitely a man, not a transwoman, not a sexual fetish, he just thinks skirts should be non gender, likes the style etc.

I just find this really refreshing, how things should be really, Men should be able to chose more traditionally feminine clothes, whilst still being a men.
www.boredpanda.com/confident-man-wears-heels-skirt-markbryan911/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=BPFacebook

Yesterday 13:48AntsInPenzance

FairFriday

Tell any Scot that then. We don’t refer to it as a skirt

You may not refer to it as a skirt but that doesn't mean it's not one

Of course a kilt is a skirt. A kilt is just a particular style of skirt- same as a dirndl is a particular type of skirt.

Semantics, innit?

Bumping this to say he’s currently on channel four, being interviewed.

Sigh. I really hope its because he has invented a cheap land mine detector or found a cure for Covid...

Nope, it was all about the clothes and the female presenters fawning over his bravery. It also gave him the opportunity to explain that he like the fact that he feels more powerful because he towers over others, in his heels. Not to mention, that apparently women that wear really high heels seem to travel up the powerful positions in employment. So there you go, women should just wear high heels and they can break the glass ceiling. 🙄

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

There's one thing I've noticed a few times from TRAs, which is that they don't understand what "abolish gender" actually means. First there was that inane contrapoints video where she acts like abolishing gender means everyone dressing in beige tunics with shaved heads and talking like robots, then that stupid twitter thing last week from whoever it was, "you can't say abolish gender if you wear mascara". It misses the point so badly. Abolish gender doesn't mean no one can wear dresses, makeup, take their spouses name, be a SAHP etc, it means EVERYONE can do those things no matter which sex they are. Banning skirts isn't abolishing gender, this guy wearing skirts and saying proudly "they aren't just for women" is abolishing gender. Decoupling femininity from being female doesn't mean forbidding anyone from being feminine. So good for him, TRAs should take notes (they won't of course because they're too deeply wedding to sexist and oppressive gender stereotypes).

Yes, many times ‘gender neutral’ means male as default.

You even get it on here, for exampke you’ll commonly get poster arguing all schools should abolish skirts etc as trousers are less restrictive/comfy.
I couldn’t disagree more, I love skater/fit and flare skirts, so comfy, hide your belly, no digging in as trousers do. I mean, I wear trousers too, it depends on my mood.

It is depressing how anything deemed feminine is deemed inherently bad, and masculine inherently good.

How often do you get posters in here bragging their DDs love to climb trees, and are not interested in clothes/make up/ other deemed feminine and therefore shitty hobby.

It’s depressing

It’s like that whole ‘pink stinks’ thing. Pink doesn’t stink, it’s a lovely colour which men and boys should feel to also enjoy!

It's interesting. If you look at just the bottom half of the picture it is a sexual image. Not the ones with fairly ordinary boots on etc. I can't work out if I think it looks sexual because I'm conditioned to think high heels = sexual because women wear them or if high heels present a sexual picture. And if they do, what is it about them that does? I hope I'm making the distinction clear there.

Pink only became the colour for girls after the end of the Second World War anyway; before that, it was pink for a girl and blue for a boy, if it was anything at all.

“The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls” said Ladies’ Home Journal in June 1918.

To me, clothes have no gender.

But he’s relying on his clothes being gender-stereotypical .

Without this gender-stereotypicality there would be no shock of incongruity, and nobody would notice him.

I thought he looked awesome. Made me think I should stop slobbing around in wfh comedies and make an effort. I always feel more alive and dynamic when dressed up - if he does too gods for him !

Saw this man on Steph's Packed Lunch today talking about how powerful he feels when indulging his love of tight skirts and heels at work as an engineer and how he enjoys towering over everybody. He gave a stumbling, unconvincing explanation about how women wear higher heels as they move up in their careers, which is exactly the opposite of my experience in science and engineering. He had over 40 pairs of very similar looking heels in the background, not the mixture of shoe types usual to shoe loving women. I think Steph McGovern with her background will be more aware and less politically correct about middle aged transvestites (as a working class woman, there's been many in my town as long as I can remember and we aren't naive about their motivation). I think she was purposefully asking him about his motivation and how dressing makes him feel and if he cares what other people think of what he wears. Steph contrasted how she wouldn't dress like he does at home and how she wouldn't mind dressing in male typical colours of suits more often because she wouldn't have to think as much about what she wears. Steph and Vogue's interjections mentioned that high heels aren't comfortable all day and generally implied his rigid fixation isn't very understandable for women because most women don't obsessively wear the exact same kind of restrictive style of skirt and shoes for years nonstop, we usually wear trousers or looser skirts at least sometimes. Co-presenter Vogue seemed to be fawning more over his "empowering dressing up" and not realising she might be giving this man a sexual thrill but I just don't think Steph was born yesterday. It's notable that he talked about his "acquaintances on forums" who were some of the main viewers of his photos until recently when his photos went viral.

There was a young 20-something gay man called Jamie on the show on Monday who wore a variety of dresses. The contrast between the two men really emphasises what the less naive posters are saying about men who wear clothes they like vs men with transvestic fetishes. The conversation and tone was very different between the two interviews. Jamie wore a pretty tunic dress and was very funny and relaxed. It was an equal conversation with him and his mum who talked about being happy loving her son for who he is and how you shouldn't try to make your children change to fit a mould. Jamie talked about his life, his film and his actual problems like bullying at school and trying to make sure lads wouldn't beat him up for wearing a long gown to prom along with his female friends. Steph was much more enthusiastic about Jamie's story, she smiled all the way through the interview and didn't contradict anything he said. The difference between these interviews (which were both with men talking about expanding the bandwidth of clothes for men) really said a lot more than Steph could actually say. Whether this stark difference in interviewing was a deliberate decision or just due to her gut feeling, I don't know.