Why women in trousers and not men out of skirt ? This clothing which is and was worn by men belonging to different civilizations with the course the history and in the present one acquired, in our Western culture a primarily female connotation. In a civilization where an unconscious feeling of superiority of the "masculine" persists, a representation of the "man" strong, dominating, guard, combative, his clothing must be with his image: a little severe, standard, even a little rough.

  The mental representation of the "masculine" does not stick very well with imagination, brittleness, change, softness. The man who dares to wear a skirt is extremely likely to be suspect to want to be a woman, to be even twisted" to want to be identified with a sex perceived like "inferior".

  Actually, the goal to reach is to make pass a very simple idea, but not very convincing for the majority:

  "Each human being, man or woman, should be able, within the limits of the good direction, free being to get dressed as he hears it and like he has pleasure to do it".

  The feeling shared by those which, being "male" side, would quite simply like to worn a skirt when they want it is that, in occident at least, the freedom of the men on this subject is infinitely less than that of the women and than there is a kind of injustice. From where a desire to break these borders and a claim which one has tendency to support on any possible argument to show the nonsense of the constraints on this subject. One should not forget that which defends this point of view has in front of him a fortress behind which hide the majority of the "men" (and even those which would like to leave there). For the majority of the men, to put on a skirt is quite simply still "unthinkable" per hour of today, and this, even if they suffer from it more or less unconsciously. The dress is at the man so related to the sex, that to change some generates a fear, an anguish, a shame, a kind of disavowal of the image that the company impregnated in himself. It follows sometimes a kind of "against argumentation" which tackles the point of view which one would like in addition to even evolve (a little as in the catholic Church, where persons in charge defend a celibacy of which much of them very extremely suffered).

  In fact, if one wants to defend the skirt for men, it is necessary to defend the true reasons to get dressed thus and not to be based on perhaps right, but peripheral arguments. We think for example of those which say that the skirt is adapted better to male morphology, that it could improve fruitfulness or avoid cancers of the testicles. This kind of argument, for sincere that it is, is not productive because it does not touch absolutely with the true reasons to worn a skirt. I have a girl who puts only top-heels because she perceived herself as small. She never wonders if it is good or bad for the feet... Even if it were proven that the skirt, contrary to what is said, increased the risks of cancer slightly, that would not change anything with the desire of those which want to put one of them. The reason is not there and to argue on this ground weakens the defended cause. It will be always easy to answer that the few hundreds of million men who are in trousers, are for the majority fertile and that would have some sufficiently many share to be created a reference group men out of skirt, and this, during a few years, to show the veracity of the assumption that the skirt is minder carcinogenic or more favorable to fruitfulness.

  It is thus necessary to argue on the truth of the desire. That can then touch much men who, at the bottom of themselves, would wish an evolution without daring to say it but which in addition do not have any notorious fear compared to the risks of cancer or another problem which they run to remain in trousers.

  The woman who had to fight to wear trousers, did not completely have the same kind of problem because she got dressed in a "male" way; she was rather perceived, at the time, like "usurping". Fortunately, the culture evolved in a combat to more equality: that the woman gets dressed in a "male" way more thus took part in a combat of the type "equal work, equal wages". The favoured wages never asserted to gain less in the name of this principle of equality. Thus, the man who would like to get dressed in a "female" way must row with counter-current.

  It is there probably one of the large brakes to a vestimentary evolution, even if, in theory, the claim is completely founded and legitimate.

  In fact, it is the man himself which avoids in the majority of the cases crossing the step to wear himself a skirt, even if he like it. He saw a species of shame that pressure cultural prevents to cross over: cover a clothing of "woman" (like thus the skirt is perceived) would be in some kind to lose something of his virility.

  There is error on two levels:

  Initially, there is no shame to express a femininity which is distributed between human in a way much more complex than the dichotomic vision "male-female".

  After, it is completely inaccurate to consider that a man out of skirt wants to necessarily resemble to a woman.

  It is certainly not gained in advance because, even the women often - and without the knowledge nor to want it - will keep for they these prerogatives. For only example, this fashion for some time spread in the girls to get dressed in trousers, with a dress or a skirt over. That does not mean it: I put trousers, but, do not mislead you there, I superimpose an accessory reserved to the women and who says to you well that I am a girl? By doing that, they do not certainly facilitate an evolution for the boys since they still reinforce the "exclusively female" aspect of the dress or the skirt. All this is obviously an unconscious collective behavior which represents the major thought and the unvoiced comment of the culture. It is possible, indeed, that the same girl who gets dressed with the kind can at the same time support the movement of the men out of skirt. The majority of the reserves thus form, in this field, part of a collective unvoiced comment, shared as well by the men as by the women.

  It would thus be necessary that the culture evolves on several plans:

  By supporting all that can put forward the richness of femininity, so that, to even express this facet of the male personality is one more and not one less.

  While finding means of making that the skirt or the dress is not in oneself a ladies' garment, but can be carried indifferently by whoever wishes it, while respecting differences in the models, the cuts, so that each sex can find there an clean expression. The women made a success of that with the trousers. The models for man or woman are very often different. Besides this specificity in the models would help to make evolve mentalities since there would be always clothing "man" and clothing "woman" that they are in addition skirts or trousers or anything else.

  There is also a lack of investment of the male fashion designers. If they presented indifferently models of trousers or skirts, the image of the man out of skirt would make way in the culture and the representation that each one is done of the man or the woman. The creators are prisoners of the mental images and the economy want, for the moment, to sell skirts for man is not especially carrying at the commercial level.

  Lastly, it appears as important as the image of the man out of skirt is that of a "normal" man and not that of some eccentrics who belong to movements not understood of general public. When a Scot puts himself out of kilt, he is simply "Scottish" but if a farmer goes out wearing a skirt, he can be perceived by his village like almost insane binding.

  The answer is probably rather simple with two principal axes:

  An axis of the sensuality: to wear a clothing which one regards as pleasant, cherishing, nonaggressive. I find that one does not consider enough, in this field, the pleasure of the touch which is perhaps put "at the index" in our male society. One can charm music, admire colors, be fascinated by forms... but one could not find pleasure (as a male) with the caress of a fabric or the touch of a matter. That progresses certainly, since, even in the stores of menswear, the pleasant aspect of the matter starts to become a sale point. It is necessary to add to that the visual aspects, variations of the cuts, the colors. It is obvious that the skirt, from this point of view, is much more powerful than the trousers. That is not certainly enough to explain why a man would like to wear a skirt, but it is probably an important aspect.

  The other axis is precisely that of "femininity". It would be false to say that, in the desire to put on skirts, the female aspect misses completely. It is perhaps in civilizations where the man gets dressed thus traditionally, but in occident, the skirt and the dress "are marked so much" of a "female" connotation which it is impossible that this aspect is non-existent. In other cultures, the "female desire" will appear probably differently, but on our premises, clothing would be a privileged channel which would make it possible to the men to express what they have in them as "female one".

  The skirt for man goes to the direction of a greater happiness for those which wish more breathing, freedom, wellbeing in their way of living and getting dressed. To better smell himself, to choose his clothes with more horizon can really improve humanity as that does not make a wrong to anybody, on the contrary...

original text: Jacques (Han-sur-Lesse)

Correction and traduction:

POWERFUL ANDROGYNE: Dared superposition of a dress in fabric on an armour hauls. This combinaison expresses the power of the androgyne on the bipolar identity. Gabrielle Lys. July 11, 2008.