Posts

Posted on

Why Are Skirts Perceived As Feminine?

Before the women’s liberation movement, skirts were just what women wore. In post-liberation America, skirts became something that accentuated the female identity rather than just aligning with the identity. With Queen Victoria’s prudishness far in the rearview mirror, hemlines rose and skirts no longer merely accentuated gender, but became a means of summoning attention once society finally admitted the legitimacy of a woman’s sexual self. Would it be unreasonable to think that males therefore came to cognitively associate skirts with exaggerated femininity?  After all, that seems to be the only time most men take notice of how women dress—when the skirt is styled to stand out or the pants are tight or the shorts are extra short. In other words, males fail to notice (or the brain fails to imprint) when women wear anything “ordinary” that does not compel attention. That leaves only the out-of-ordinary to be noticed.  And if it is out of the ordinary for a man to skirt, that gets noticed. Could it be as simple as men failing to notice the aesthetic range of women’s skirts, noticing only when women wear certain skirts and therewith construe all skirts as a purposeful intent to assert femininity?

Posted on

Naked In Nature

As I lay there naked in the heavy dampness and slight chill with only the drizzle and the creek accompanying me in the blackness, I contemplated the existence of my earlier hominid ancestors sheltering such nights in caves. Continue Reading

Posted on

What To Call Skirts Marketed For Men?

Part of the women’s liberation movement was inventing new vocabulary which enabled women to differentiate their agenda as the pursuit of equality (not emulation). Women sought to be treated equally as men (particularly in employment) but it was also clear that they were not to be regarded as men. Employment law shifted accordingly: if trousers were acceptable attire for men, they must also be acceptable attire for women. And since men were not required to wear stockings or heels, neither could women. As I have pointed out in other posts, these cultural strides were not reciprocated for men. While it remained acceptable for women to wear sandals to the office, I have yet to read a single employee dress code that  specifically extends such option to men. (Granted, no one wants to see most men’s feet, and most men lack fashion sensibility to select dignified sandals, but the same can be said for a number of women as well.)Continue Reading

Posted on

Pro-Life, Yet Not Pro-Health?

Right-wing Christians grandstand on potentiating “unborn” lives with no apparent thought to the quality of those lives. I am this moment reminded of John 10:10 where Jesus said “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” How exactly can one be pro-life without also being pro-healthcare? Conservatives have (as should all) a distrust of government overreach and tyranny, but to be pro-life must necessarily also mean being pro-abundant-life. What use is it to have life without quality of life? And life cannot be narrowly classified as birth but as all those who have been born but not yet died. To be pro-life must mean (as the Catholic church teaches) opposing capital punishment. It must also mean making healthcare available to all—not just the wealthy, not just ‘the least of these’—but to all and to those between. And it probably also means dispensing the same quality and access to healthcare just as it means the equal right to live.