A dozen male train drivers in Sweden have circumvented a ban on shorts by wearing skirts to work in hot weather.
The workers, who operate the Roslagsbanan line north of the capital Stockholm, have been wearing skirts to work for the past two weeks.
Employer Arriva banned the drivers from wearing shorts after taking over the running of the line in January.
But the company has given the men its blessing to wear skirts, according to local newspaper Mitti.”
Our thinking is that one should look decent and proper when representing Arriva and the present uniforms do that. If the man only wants [to wear] a skirt then that is OK,” Arriva communications manager Tomas Hedenius told the paper.
“To tell them to do something else would be discrimination.”
Driver Martin Akersten told the BBC he and his colleagues came up with the idea to wear skirts after they were informed of the new company dress code in the winter.
“We have always said that when summer comes, we will get some skirts and wear them. Its very warm weather here so we would like to wear shorts but if we cant then we have skirts for comfort”.
A man skirt can only be pulled off if teamed with chunky shoes, a dark top, and for those less adventurous, pants. The key is to keep it masculine and strong and not have the skirt as the outfit’s centerpiece.
It’s about time men threw off their fashion social shackles, took off their pants and put on a skirt! It’s much more liberating, and isn’t this precisely what we women fought for when we wanted to wear pants? Ironically, Paris revoked a 200-year-old law only three days ago, which stipulated women can’t wear pants in public unless given permission by authorities. This absurd law obviously wasn’t followed or enforced, but the symbolism of women’s rights not being supported in Parisian law was enough for the people to force a change.
In the same way, men wearing skirts isn’t about men adding to their wardrobe or being edgy, it’s about receiving the same freedoms as women enjoy in fashion. It’s certainly not about being constrained to socially approved, preconceived notions of what a man should look and dress like. Bottom line is if you want to wear a skirt in public, there shouldn’t be a single thing stopping you.
From Braveheart’s era to the present day, the kilt has been synonymous with masculinity. But isn’t it just a skirt?
From Braveheart to the hard-drinking, ginger-haired Scots who cause a boozy ruckus at weddings, the kilt has long been synonymous with a rough-and-tumble sense of masculinity.
But change the fabric from tartan to a block colour and iron out the pleats and you have yourself a fetching knee-length skirt – an article of clothing the aforementioned filmic and social warriors wouldn’t be caught dead in.
While fashion designer Marc Jacobs has pioneered the idea of the male skirt by wearing them publicly on different occasions, it’s largely considered the by-product of eccentric creativity as opposed to a valid style choice, whereas the kilt, though carrying a different historical weight, is perfectly acceptable.
But what’s the big difference? Dr Mary Tomsic, lecturer in history and popular culture at The University of Melbourne, chalks it up to a gendered society.
“Clothing is practical, but also highly symbolic, so it is a key avenue through which gender is learned and encoded. One needs only to walk into a children’s clothing shop to clearly see how different girls and boys should be dressed … I see this as being restrictive for both boys and girls,” she said.
“There are a range of factors at play in determining the gender of clothing and these change over time in response to a range of factors: political movements like feminism and women’s liberation, cultural movements like glam rock, social and political needs like women wearing pants and work clothes during WWII, and commercial interests like companies identifying men as consumers, as per the metrosexual movement.”
Indeed, there have been moments in history when we’ve seen a blurring of gender lines. As Tomsic suggests, glam rock pioneers such as David Bowie and his spandex and makeup wearing cohorts showed men of the ’70s that sexual and gender ambiguity wasn’t to be feared but celebrated. But while the lavish stage costumes went on to influence such bands as Kiss, Culture Club and Mötley Crüe, it didn’t result in a broader knock-on effect because everyday consumers were still reluctant to buy clothes they saw as feminine.
“I think escaping the gender order is very difficult and strict gender codes can be restrictive for people in terms of expressing their sense of self … It shouldn’t matter at all – but it does – which tells us something about how society reads, understands and values women and men,” Tomsic said.
“I would like there to be less interest in coding clothes as belonging exclusively to either women or men. I can’t really see any benefits of coding clothes and fashion within a strict gendered regime.”
Though there is evidence that the tide is turning. Once considered a fringe item, male pantyhose – or mantyhose – have infiltrated the broader public sphere and now make up a small, yet noticeable, percentage of stocking sales. Executives from upscale Italian hosiery company Emilio Cavallini told The New York Times that since introducing a unisex line in 2009 they have seen sales steadily increase to a point where male customers are now an appreciable portion of their overall business.
It’s a trend that’s only going to gain steam as it becomes more accepted by the mainstream, says Chan Kraemer of mantyhose marketing website e-Mancipate.
“Fashion is always about exploring, about pushing the limits. That’s the natural way and critics are welcome,” he said.
“We are close to reaching the critical mass. And why not? Mantyhose are functional, they are basically unisex, simple to wear … they can replace socks, give different levels of warmth. I like that I can use the same trousers from fall to spring, only changing the thickness of the hosiery worn under. I mean it can greatly simplify the dressing process, which is very practical – and men do like practical things.”
Pantyhose weren’t always considered the sole domain of women. From the Middle Ages up until the 17th century, male hosiery was not only accepted but a common part of a man’s wardrobe. Even today, some segments of the male population continue to wear them, including athletes and those prone to poor circulation or varicose veins.
Though tights are more popular in Europe where they are generally thicker and feature designs considered more masculine such as skulls and checks, it’s difficult to imagine them taking off in Australia on account of our temperate climate and blokey culture. But that could all change according to Dr Tomsic, who says that shifts can occur with the right pioneers.
“Footballers have been wearing running tights for a while now … As we start seeing men, and in the case of AFL footballers, men who are understood as the bastions of masculinity wearing them, they become acceptable, and hence can possibly shift to other realms,” she said.
“When high-profile manly men wear such items they can have a significant influence with other men … For instance David Beckham in his sarong and nail polish had significant impact on trends, and what is then acceptable for more mainstream men to wear.”
While it remains to be seen if stockings will one day be viewed as completely genderless, there are signs that boundaries are slowly breaking down and marketers are starting to respond. Chan also likes to remind critics of one proudly masculine proponent of items traditionally associated with women.
“Hey guys, even Superman wears mantyhose,” he said.
As a Scottish Muslim, I am deeply involved in the dynamics of community and the exploration of values of national and ethnic pride. Current discussion of independence and the future referendum is bringing a new focus to what it means to be a Scot, and Muslim communities in Scotland are particularly sensitive to the complexities of culture, race and religion that are perceived as an integral part of Scottishness. Generations who have known no other home than Scotland now have a primary allegiance to this country rather than the nations where their parents or grandparents may have been born.
Therefore the idea of a Scottish Islamic Tartan seemed to me to be the perfect symbol of the future generation in particular, for the younger, educated Muslims caught between two cultures — East and West, traditional and modern. Instead of conflict, the tartan represents a tightly woven blend of tradition and heritage. By bringing together the strands of two cultures, a symbol is created of something more meaningful than assimilation or accommodation. The tartan represents the new fabric of society, where Muslim Scots with a sense of history and a commitment to the future of Scotland have become an integral part of the New Scotland.
With the design and introduction of a Muslim tartan, I hope to interest, challenge and provoke discussion among people who have Scotland’s interests at heart. The exclusion of Muslim communities has never been in the country’s interest and Scotland’s future, whether devolved or independent, depends on every Scot playing a part in creating a peaceful and successful homeland. What more fitting symbol of this aspiration than an Islamic Tartan?
Q: Why Do We Wear Pants? A: Horses
JUL 11 2012, 2:22 PM ET 61
The surprisingly deep history of trouser technology.
Whence came pants? I’m wearing pants right now. There’s a better than 50 percent chance that you, too, are wearing pants. And neither of us have probably asked ourselves a simple question: Why?
It turns out the answer is inexplicably bound up with the Roman Empire, the unification of China, gender studies, and the rather uncomfortable positioning of man atop horse, at least according to University of Connecticut evolutionary biologist Peter Turchin.
“Historically there is a very strong correlation between horse-riding and pants,” Turchin wrote in a blog post this week. “In Japan, for example, the traditional dress is kimono, but the warrior class (samurai) wore baggy pants (sometimes characterized as a divided skirt), hakama. Before the introduction of horses by Europeans (actually, re-introduction – horses were native to North America, but were hunted to extinction when humans first arrived there), civilized Amerindians wore kilts.”
The reasons why pants are advantageous when mounted atop a horse should be obvious, nonetheless, many cultures struggled to adapt, even when their very existences were threatened by superior, trouser-clad horseback riders.
Turchin details how the Romans eventually adopted braccae (known to you now as breeches) and documents the troubles a 3rd-century BC Chinese statesman, King Wuling, had getting his warriors to switch to pants from the traditional robes. “It is not that I have any doubt concerning the dress of the Hu,” Wuling told an advisor. “I am afraid that everybody will laugh at me.” Eventually, a different state, the Qin, conquered and unified China. They just so happened to be closest to the mounted barbarians and thus were early to the whole cavalry-and-pants thing.
Turchin speculates that because mounted warriors were generally men of relatively high status, the culture of pants could spread easily throughout male society.
I’d add one more example from history: the rise of the rational dress movement in conjunction with the widespread availability of the bicycle. Here’s a University of Virginia gloss:
The advent and the ensuing popularity of the safety bicycle, with its appeal to both sexes mandated that women cast off their corsets and figure out some way around their long, billowy skirts. The answer to the skirt question was to be found in the form of bloomers, which were little more than very baggy trousers, cinched at the knee. Bloomers provoked wrath in conservatives and delight in women cyclists, and the garment was to become the centerpiece of the “rational dress” movement that sprung up at the end of the 19th century.
What all these examples suggest is that technological systems — cavalry, bicycling — sometimes require massive alterations in a society’s culture before they can truly become functional. And once it’s locked in, the cultural solution (pants) to an era’s big problem can be more durable than the activity (horse-mounted combat) that prompted it.
We believe that, in addition to looking and feeling great, the kilt is a symbol of the mature masculine. A mature man is a man who has faced his emotions, stood up, and freed himself from the social expectations of the old fashioned macho man.
Kate Luck explores the relationship between trousers and feminism in the book ‘The Gendered Object‘:
‘In 1851, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Amelia Bloomer, two leading American feminist writers and activists, appeared in the streets of Seneca Falls in a costume which consisted of a sack coat, a loose-waisted dress which fell only to the knees and a pair of draped trousers, gathered at the ankle. Almost immediately they became the focus of a fierce debate about dress and gender which was carried on in the press, and in private homes, all across America. Stanton and Bloomer had challenged the presumption that only man should wear trousers and that woman’s proper garment was the skirt, a presumption so deep-seated that it had acquired the status of ‘natural’ law.’
I believe that, for many men, venturing out in a kilt involves the same level of courage and makes a similarly important challenge to the natural law of men’s proper garment being trousers. When we wear our kilts people are confronted with their preconceptions and nudged into considering what it is to be a real man.
Not everyone believes that the wearing a kilt is symbolic of an emotionally mature man but this article on www.dividedbytruth.org argues that it is, in fact, sinful! The author suggests that kilt wearers are silly and foolish looking sissies who lack refinement, cultivation, or taste.
It only seems fair to share this information so you can decide for yourself. :-)
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” -Deuteronomy 22:5. This Scripture naturally raises questions as to–what is men’s and women’s clothing? The Bible warns effeminate men in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate … shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Let’s establish from the start, that the Word of God condemns effeminate men. “Effeminate” in 1st Corinthians 6:9, comes from the Greek, “malakos,” which means “soft, i.e. fine (clothing).” We read in VINE’S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, concerning the word “effeminate” …
“soft, soft to the touch” (Lat., mollis, Eng., “mollify,” “emollient,” etc.), is used (a) of raiment, Matt. 11:8 (twice); Luke 7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1 Cor. 6:9, “effeminate,” not simply of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.”
Although 1st Corinthians 6:9 is clearly condemning homosexuality and cross-dressing, it is also equally clear that any form of femininity in a man is sinful. This is why Deuteronomy 22:5 condemns men wearing women’s apparel. Clearly, it is not acceptable for men to wear women’s clothing. Men are to be men! Men should talk like men, dress like men, walk like men, and act like men. Kilts on men are sissyish. Although a man wearing a kilt may be tough, the skirt makes him look silly and foolish. Although most men who wear kilts aren’t gay, it makes one wonder why any man would ever want to wear clothing that is considered women’s apparel by 99% of the population. A quick look at any bathroom door will quickly reveal that men wear pants, and women wear dresses.
Men’s Clothing Verses “Soft Raiment”
Jesus said in Matthew 11:8, “But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.” John the Baptist was rugged, as a man should be. The men who lived in the palace wore “soft” clothing, i.e., they didn’t look or act like REAL MEN. I’ve never seen a construction worker wearing a kilt. I’ve never seen a truck mechanic or a coal miner wearing a kilt. I only see men with clean jobs, or playing bagpipes, wearing kilts. Kilts are for men in the palace, not for John the Baptist type men … real men!
Did men Wear Skirts in the Old Testament?
No, they wore robes with outer skirts. This is VERY different from the skirts we see today. The photo to the right shows what men wore in the Old Testament. This is NO kilt! We read in 1st Samuel 24:5, “And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt.” David had been running for his life from king Saul. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David infiltrated the group and cut off a piece of Saul’s “skirt.” However, the Bible reveals that the skirt was simply a part of Saul’s robe, and not a skirt by itself. This is evidenced by 1st Samuel 24:11, “Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it.” Although Verse 5 says “skirt,” it is abundantly clear from Verse 11 that Saul was NOT wearing a short skirt like a women. Saul had a robe, with an outer skirt.
The FACT that men did NOT wear skirts in the Bible is further evidenced by the words of Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 3:9, “And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.” If Boaz was wearing a skirt, like many people today contend, then Boaz would have had to remove his skirt in order to spread it over Ruth. Which means Boaz would have been either partially or completely naked. This didn’t happen! Furthermore, Boaz and Ruth weren’t married until Ruth 4:13, so there was no physical relationship between Boaz and Ruth at the time of Ruth 3:9. So what did Ruth mean when she asked Boaz to spread his “skirt” over her? She was simply saying, “Take me to be yours.” She wanted Boaz to take her under his outer skirt, under his wing so-to-speak. It would be absurd to interpret this Scripture any other way.
Now think of a man in a kilt, and try to imagine how he would “spread his skirt” over someone. It would be impossible while he was wearing it. Clearly, men in the Old Testament didn’t wear the type of skirts or kilts, which some uncouth (lacking refinement or cultivation or taste) men wear today. There’s just something uncouth about a man wearing a kilt!
Women in the Old Testament also wore robes with skirts; but they were more feminine, cut differently, and made with more feminine materials. Clothing which was transparent, tight fitting, loosely worn, or exposed intimate parts of the body were considered the ATTIRE OF A HARLOT (Proverb 7:10).
by Robert J. Stewart