This comment was from Jameseq on the post MetroseXY Movement
I can think of 2 periods in history where dresses and trousers were part of men’s clothings, and men preferred to wear dresses.
1. Romans thought that general trouserswearing a sign of barbarism, sure might have to wear trousers in cold climates or for sometimes riding horses. But a dress (the tunic) and robes were the clothes of a civilised man. I remember a documentary saying that Germanics were the butt of jokes for their trouserwearing in Rome.
2. In Song China, floor length robes were the clothes of the aristocratic men. With trousers (an import from the steppe horseriding nations) and blouse for the artisans, labourers, soldiers, merchants etc. Wealthy merchants , particularly the new, preferred the dress of the aristocrat. p129 Gernet, Jacques (1962). Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion, 1250–1276.
The polo shirt craze of a year or so ago, sold cos it associated and pushed images of the shirt as being desireable because it was the clothing of the elite, clothing of the wealthy, of exclusivity, of polo games, of luxurious living – It worked. Young men from lower income background bought into the association.
So one way to reset the social meaning of clothing is associate dresses and skirts with luxurious freedom from work, like the polo shirt advertising did. Advertising that depicts elite young men showing they do not have to wear trousers, as trousers are workwear – for those who need to work. If successfully advertised, Young men from lower income backgrounds would do as they did with polo shirts – want to appear that they are upwardly mobile and are going places. They too will start wearing dresses and skirts again.
—
photo: papertygre / flickr
im in a mellow-uped mood, so cant be bothered to correct the numerous errors in the first comment
yippeeee another comment of the day rosette, and on the day before my 37th birthday too. how wonderful.
While the specific trimmings of gender roles can vary pretty wildly from culture to culture their enforcement does not. I don’t know a whole lot about song china but men’s clothing in roman culture was rigidly enforced. A classic example would be their rejection of any kind of headgear as “womanly” (with the sole exception of during worship as a sign of humility).
Please, just _NO_?
First of all, IDK about the Chinese but the Roman tunic was still pretty gendered. The men’s tunic was always much shorter than the womens. Long (and therefore emphasized) skirts with a tied waist seem to always be women’s clothing.
Second, really? Do we have to do this? Do we HAVE to use some kind of fad to temporarily cause a reversal of certain gender roles?What’s the argument for even doing this?
Political correctness doesn’t generally have arguments exactly, or at least not very cogent ones.
It’s more about fervently pushing one – sided agendas emotionally and subjectively without a sense of clarity or balance. Groupthink basically.
If there are numerous errors in your comment I’m curious to know what they are, someone saying they can’t be bothered to correct them is evasive and unconvincing if you ask me. Notice the total avoidance of specifics or addressing your points in any way.
No, I simply cant be arsed (cant be bothered). You can both have the win, doesnt matter to me. Just like in another discussion three women had the win, when they decided that their experiences of not having a cock and balls, gave them greater insight into what it was to have a cock and balls.