[skore]

That's funny, but not insightful. I assume that with pants, you don't mean plain jeans, but a pantsuit (because this isn't the 60's).

There are pantsuits designed for women, but no dresses designed for men. Even further than that - a dress is very specific to female anatomy in a way that a suit isn't, to male anatomy.

The real issue, however, is that a woman wearing a suit is perceived in a certain way (as aggressive and, funnily enough, "only imitating men") while a man wearing a dress happens to be an often frequented motif in comedy.

Finally, a man can wear a dress specifically to underline just how male he is, because "even a dress can't take that manliness away".

[burgerbrain]

No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case.

I was not attempting to be funny at all.

^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.

[cg]

It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.

[burgerbrain]

I am very aware. This is exactly why I picked pants for my example.

[cg]

I don't understand how men wearing dresses works as a comparison to women wearing pants, as there hasn't been an equivalent attempt by men to adopt dresses as everyday attire.

[burgerbrain]

Regardless of the history behind the current situation, the fact remains that women are more free to wear "male" clothing than men are to wear "female" clothing.

[skore]

He later changed 'dresses' to 'skirts'. And yes, that completely changes the argument (look at the other leg of this thread).

[skore]

Yes, and I maintain that jeans simply aren't as gender specific as a dress. I have never heard that jeans are 'male'. That's why it's not a comparison of opposites.

[burgerbrain]

That jeans have ceased to be gender specific is my point in a nutshell.

[skore]

That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument. Also - jeans ceased to be considered gender specific in society while also never being, in their shape and technical form, gender specific to begin with.

[burgerbrain]

"That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument."

No. You must be misunderstanding my initial argument if you think that it does. You are definitely missing my point if you don't think that I understand that about jeans...

[skore]

Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point. That you appear to insist on the 60s idea of pants being inherently male (not as your argument, but you still use it as an argument, which makes no sense) further takes away from it.

Actually, I really thought you were only pulling a lame joke in the beginning. If that's really your entire argument then I'm not sure why we bother arguing it in the first place. It seems like you don't care elaborating on your point anyhow.

Edit: Hey Downvote Police, what about stepping out and adding reasoning to your downvotes? Thanks.