Skirt Clarity

As I set out to re-tweak some SEO metatext, a succinct statement of cause hit me: Although “skirt” is a garment marketed to women, the concept and structural design need not be exclusive to women. I think that is what every man (and ally) has tried to articulate. A while back, I was hit by an unsettlingly realization that I had unwittingly perpetuated the societal gendered construct by speaking of garments as skirts for men rather than skirts for all. To say “skirts for men” implies that skirts have an inherent gender appropriateness that needed broadening. I was undercutting my own position that skirts were acceptable for all. At times I had pondered whether a distinct garment designation was needed, in the way that designers and retailers designated pants-for-women as slacks. I suppose that the (re)statement of cause applies to all fashion. To put a finer point on it, though, the cause does not seek to put male bodies in female clothes for the purpose of looking female, but to liberate the styles of one class for the functional preference and creative expression of everyone. Let everyone wear (appropriate) skirts to the office. Let everyone wear tunics to play golf. Kilts and caftans do not simply designate a style of garment appropriate for men, but rather a specific design of a specific culture. It is fine when a person respectfully invokes that cultural style, but it is not fine when a person irreverently exploits another culture’s heritage to avoid his own culture’s prejudice. Non-bifurcated garments have a soberingly longer history than the post-industrialized civilizations which steered into trousers for practicality and safety. The issue is not whether skirts and dresses should be worn by anyone or not worn by anyone, nor whether skirts and dresses should receive a new designation or a triple-designation. The issue  is that marketing has no intrinsic nexus with design.