Does BBC’s Boy in The Dress drama signal the liberation or the emasculation of boys?

December 28, 2014 by Inside MAN 33 Comments

Watching straight men in frocks in the name of entertainment is a great British tradition, but the BBC’s Christmas comedy, The Boy in the Dress, is a thoroughly modern entertainment which marks a new phase in our cultural conversation about masculinity, says Glen Poole.

The British love laughing at men in frocks.

Take the Christmas pantomime, where fairy tales are brought to provincial theatres by casts of cross-dressing “celebrities”, who subvert gender norms by casting men as pantomime dames and women as the principal boys.

When Sir Ian McKellan, the actor who is known around the world as Gandolf and Magneto, received rave reviews for Widow Twankey in Alladdin in 2004, he joined a long line of male actors who have thrown on a frock to give us all a topsy-turvy titter that’s as traditional as the Christmas turkey.

So at first glance, there was nothing remotely revolutionary about the BBC presenting it’s star-studded Christmas comedy—The Boy in the Dress—as prime time family viewing on Boxing Day.

Is the BBC promoting cross-dressing for boys?

And yet I suspected there may be something more radical being expressed in David Walliams’ frothy, cock-in-a-frock-com and my suspicions were confirmed when I saw a comment by one of my my socially conservative Christian friends on Facebook.

“I’ve seen enough,” he declared in his status update. “Now we have the BBC using prime time to promote cross dressing for kids. For pity’s sake!”

So for those who think The Boy in The Dress was just another slice of traditional, cross-dressing, Christmas fun I say: “Oh no it wasn’t!” Because there was something far more radical happening in terms of how we think about manhood in the 21st Century.

The key difference is this. In pantomime, men pretend to play female characters for laughs. It’s subversive because only women are allowed to wear dresses in public without transgressing the cultural gender norms that we collectively and unconsciously police.

We all police what men and boys can wear

In The Boy in The Dress, the main character is an ordinary boy who plays football and seems to be attracted to girls, but also happens to love dresses. He fulfils his dream of wearing a dress by creating a female alter ego—because pretending to be female is the only way it is culturally permissible for men and boys to wear dresses in public, without being policed by the rest of us.

When his pretence is discovered, he is expelled from school and (spoiler alert) is sidelined from a cup final match, right up to the dramatic climax when the entire team rebels and comes out to play the victorious second half with every player wearing a very camp dress.

It’s a brotherly show of masculine solidarity that’s not quite “I’m Spartacus”, more “I’m in a party dress!”

So why does this very silly comedy—conceived by Britain’s campest straight comedian—qualify as a revolutionary piece of “gendertainment”?

Well look at how far we’ve travelled. When I was a boy in the Seventies and eighties I captained my school football team and dressed up as one of the Nolan Sisters in front of 3,000 people as part of the cast of the Blackpool scout gang show.

Cross dressing isn’t just for girls

One of my favourite films was Gregory’s Girl, where a beautiful, blonde Scottish lass, who is brilliant at football, pretends to be a boy so she can play on the school team.

And one of my favourite comedy sketches was the Two Ronnies’ “The Worm That Turned“, a mini sitcom set in a dystopian future where women ruled and men were subjugated under the rule of a matriarchal dictatorship headed by another blond bombshell, Diana Dors.

There’s a great speech in which Dors’, the commander of the state police, reveals how the key to women’s rise power, was forcing men to wear dresses and take on the domestic duties:

“Trousers have always been the symbol of the male overlord,” declares Dors’ character in the opening scene. “Our master stroke was to insist on the change over in traditional dress. Once the men had to wear the frocks they were subjugated. As soon as we took their trousers away, they were putty in our hands.”

The cultural belief, reflected in these comedies, created in the early years of Thatchers’ first government, was that entering the masculine realm of trousers, football and work, was the road to empowerment for women, while entering the feminine realm of dresses, emotions and domesticity, would be emasculating for men.

Experiencing the feminine realm can liberate men

It’s now so normative for women to live their lives in both these “masculine” and “feminine” realms, that principal boys have all but disappeared from mainstream pantomimes. For female actors, subversion is no longer dressing up as a boy to play the male lead, it’s having Jack in the Beanstalk rewritten so that the main character is a girl.

Men have yet to go on an equal and parallel journey into the feminine realm. While pretty much everyone in Britain thinks it’s normal for women to wear trousers, play sport and create whatever life-work balance they choose; men wearing dresses, sharing their emotional experiences and putting home life ahead of career are still not considered to be mainstream expressions of masculinity.

There are people who fear that giving everyone equal access to the masculine and feminine realms, will breed a generation of girls who are butch or laddish and boys who are effeminate or gay. And yet there is a great deal for both women and men to gain from experiencing aspects of life that were traditionally restricted to one gender or another.

What is worth celebrating about The Boy in the Dress is that unlike The Worm That Turned thirty-odd years ago, it doesn’t present the feminine realm as a space that will emasculate men and boys, it presents it as a place that can liberate us by allowing us to express our masculinity however we want to.

Does this mean all men and boys should start wearing dresses? No! But this very camp, very British, very silly slice of “gendertainment” does present the opportunity to ask ourselves, what opportunities are men and boys missing out on by our continued failure to make the “feminine” experience of life equally available to all human beings.

—Picture Credit: BBC

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Also on insideMAN:

D Wood

I think what is different here is that when a woman wears more ‘masculine’ attire, like trousers and a tshirt, or shirt or jumpers, she is moving toward a ‘practical’ pole and asserting her ability to be an active agent in the world.

Wearing a massively fluffy pink frock on the other hand, takes something that women wouldn’t even typically wear outside of a night on the town or party, where there is an aspect of displaying adult feminine sexual beauty where part of that is displaying a cosmetic display of beauty, practicality be damned.

When men try to wear such things they are wearing something tailored to a completely different, feminine body type. The female dress/costume is tailored to bring attention to aspects indicating female fertility and so on, arguably to increase attractiveness and grab attention of male sexual desire.

So if womens’ aspiration in adopting male clothes was for active agency, competence, etc, then what is the male aspiration in wearing prom dresses and frocks? I suggest it is not ‘symmetrical’ to womens adoption of male clothes. Women *can* be active agents, but men will never be objects of desire in the feminine sense – they don’t have wombs or breasts. They can’t be equal in that realm.
- Inside MAN
  
  Thanks Dan
  
  Yes there are many masculine/feminine realms where men and women will never be equal from physical strength to breast feeding, from beard growing to having babies and more besides.
  
  However men’s narrower range of choices in fashion reflect the narrower range of choices that men currently have in other key areas of life, most notably in the way mums and dads balance life and work—-currently, generally speaking, men are expected to be the main breadwinner while women get to choose whether to be an at home mum, a part-time mum or a full-time working mum.
  
  that narrower range of choices for men in parenthood is far more problematic than whether we feel able to wear more feminine clothing—-but the two are linked in some way
  
  Glen
- William
  
  But using practicality isn’t a good argument. Life isn’t just framed in practicality and survival. The manliest of men engage in plenty of frivolous activities like golf, and nobody thinks less of them for it. If wearing a dress enriches your life, and isn’t harmful, then why not do it? Hell, we don’t just tolerate the playing of Rugby, an activity which is not just frivolous, but dangerous, we condone it.
  
  Also, by arguing that men shouldn’t wear dresses because they are tailored for women, you are begging the question. The dress can be tailored for a man. We just call them other things: togas, hanfu, fustanellas, and so on. There is no reason to think that if men started wearing dresses, that designers wouldn’t come up with more suitable designs for men.
  
  Don’t forget that when women first started wearing pants, people said the same thing. Consequently, the first pants wearing women were not flattered by their clothing choices. But when it became accepted, pants designed for the female figure were created. Now, you can easily distinguish between jeans made for women and jeans made for men.
  
  So, to answer your question at the end, the male aspiration for wearing frocks is for enjoyment. It’s no different from a male choosing to paint. It isn’t practical. It’s just fun or fulfilling. And actually, your point about it not being symmetrical is spurious. Right now, the current situation IS asymmetrical because women get to wear practical clothing, and they get to wear frivolous clothing, while men are stuck with, essentially, a uniform. Your point about men being objects of desire is also silly. I wear dresses. I don’t do it to be an object of desire. I do it because dresses are fun to wear. I wish they were made for men, though, because then I would look better in them. Ironically, some of the dresses I wear turn my girlfriend on. So, you just aren’t correct.
  - Inside MAN
    
    Hi William
    
    Thanks for that comment. You’ve reminded me of a passage I stumbled across in Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus 1992:
    
    A man’s sense of self is defined through his ability to achieve results. Even their dress is designed to reflect their skills and competence. Police officers, soldiers, businessmen, scientists, cab drivers, technicians and chefs all wear uniform or at least hats to reflect their competence and power.
    
    A woman’s sense of self is defined through her feelings and the quality of her relationships. They do not wear uniforms to reveal their competence. on the contrary, they enjoy wearing a different outfit every day,according to how they are feeling. Personal expression, especially of their feelings, is very important. They may even change their outfit several times a day as their mood changes.
    
    I think if you swap men and women or mars and venus with masculine side and feminine there’s a lot of truth to be found in that statement—and as men’s self expression is more limited in general to the masculine side, while women’s self expression allows for elements of both—men are still largely limited to the “masculine side” while women are more likely to have choices that reflect both sides — masculine/feminine; practical/frivolous etc
    
    Best
    
    Glen
Brett Caton

“Experiencing the feminine realm can liberate men”

Interesting premise. So what’s the support for that idea in this article? I couldn’t find any.

Let’s look at it from another perspective: can “putting home life ahead of career” help men?

Will it help them attract female partners? Almost never. Women fairly consistently report sexual desire to powerful men, not domestic men. There are exceptions – I’m sure some Dommes will find the idea of a nation of male submissives to be wonderful.

What about give them a greater bond with their kids, at least? Well, that is the problem – fathers have no parental rights. So all that will mean is the loss of access to their own children will hurt all the more. I guarantee you the rate of suicides, and especially murder-suicides, will go up.

A man with no money and no prospects because he stayed at home will be regarded by the courts as utterly worthless, and since no evidence is required, a woman who wants to eliminate him entirely from the family can just claim he abused or even raped her. Her lawyer will tell her as much – his will tell him to surrender custody or face prison.

Still, at least he can spend his prison time in a nice frock. I bet that will go down a treat.
- Inside MAN
  
  Thanks for your comment Brett
  
  You take a very binary view. Maybe you could look at this as matter of gender diversification rather than gender role reversal.
  
  let’s look at the example you gave of the challenges faced by separated fathers.
  
  there are two key ways to prevent fathers being excluded from their children’s lives:
  
  One is to strengthen marriage. The less divorces there are and the fewer children there are born outside of a committed relationship, the less likely dads are to be excluded.
  
  The second way to prevent fathers being excluded from their children’s lives is to promote and support shared parenting from birth which can only happen when more women enter the masculine realm of bread winning and more men enter the feminine realm of childcare.
  
  When countries in Europe where this happens most are in Scandinavia.
  
  So what happens to separated dads in Sweden, for example, who are more likely to have experienced the feminine realm of childcare (alongside the masculine realm of breadwinning)?
  
  Are they more likel to have problems as you suffer?
  
  Not on average no, in fact they are three times more likely to share parenting post separation than separated dads in the UK who are less likely to have spent as much time in the feminine realm of childcare.
  
  Does any of this mean that dads don’t need better rights? Not at all. In fact, women entering the masculine realm en masse only became possible when enough women over enough time demanded equal rights to go to univeristy, to enter the professions etc. Men entering the feminine realm needs to go hand and hand with equal parental rights for dads…..and this will only happen when enough men over enough time demand equal rights to enter the feminine realm of parenthood (and to have that position protected in law in the event of family breakdown).
  
  Men’s and women’s roles have not and will not reverse, but they have and will continue to diversify…. They have diversified more for women than men which means women now have more choice than men to, for example, enjoy balancing parenthood and career—-a balance which isn’t always easy but is still easier and more accepted as a life choice for women than it is for men.
  
  This will change when men en masse demand equality of opportunities and choices to women….including in areas like parenthood.
  
  Glen
  - Brett Caton
    
    “The second way to prevent fathers being excluded from their children’s lives is to promote and support shared parenting from birth which can only happen when more women enter the masculine realm of bread winning and more men enter the feminine realm of childcare.”
    
    The Tender Years Doctrine changed parenting from something fathers were seen as being perfectly capable of, to something only women were supposed to do – and it was initiated by a woman, not a man, and has been defended by feminist groups like NOW.
    
    I don’t see how making men financially dependent on women – when women have routinely expressed contempt for such men, and society describes them as ‘deadbeat dads’ (there are no female equivalents) – will ‘liberate’ them and change the legal system to grant them equal parental rights.
    
    If anything, it will result in total alienation when they lose their children and have have to either go on welfare or commit crimes to survive – and here, at least, the government has been trying to get a SIX MONTHS LONG WAITING PERIOD for benefits.
    
    And men who commit crimes do not have the courts looking sympathetically into their backgrounds. They will not have investigations by the government into the scandalously large amount of male prisoners (like there was with female prisoners, when it was decided in the UK that female prisoners should be released, and the prisons set up only for men).
    
    Any male prisoner will not only be unemployable but unable to see any children even if they are the sole parent. Courts grant women dispensation over crimes when they are parents, but are not so kind with men. Males who commit crimes are *wicked*. Females? They must have been pushed into it. They must have been abused as children.
    
    “Men entering the feminine realm needs to go hand and hand with equal parental rights for dads…..and this will only happen when enough men over enough time demand equal rights to enter the feminine realm of parenthood”
    
    Men HAVE demanded parental rights since the days of that doctrine – and it hasn’t worked so far. Perhaps it doesn’t help to see it as a ‘feminine’ realm – perhaps being a father is something that should be seen as male, and defining it as ‘feminine’ is as helpful as defining good as ‘female’ and evil as ‘male’?
    
    We need to stop demanding and start taking. We need to fight like women did. Feminism is, after ll, a lobby group for the benefit of women – just as pig farmer lobby groups lobby to the benefit of pig farmers.
    
    Feminism can and will fight dirty – the current tactic is to claim we are all child molestors and pedophiles, not to mention terrorisers of poor, innocent lady-folk.
    
    Feminists can and will push emotional buttons to whip up violence against perceived enemies and unless we stand together, we can count on our members being beaten by crowds, or silenced by judicial systems.
    
    Already, the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” has been removed, the function of journalists to investigate corruption has been removed – I have to wonder what their next tactic will be? Male only taxes have been announced – what about female-only suffrage? It’s the logical next step, after all.
    
    No, women and men will not swap places. Men never dreamt of exterminating women. There are countless books by feminists of the converse. It’s not practical just yet – the so-called ‘Female Sperm’ still has technical glitches – but the fact they are using public funds to pay for that research is interesting.
    
    I have to wonder, had the jews and the communists and the cripples of Germany known what the national socialists would build, would they have been as complacent as us men?
    - Inside MAN
      
      This has noting to do with men becoming financial dependent on women Brett……..that’s role reversal and you’re right, there is not much cultural support for it. See our post:
      
      http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/09/23/so-much-for-sex-equality-zero-per-cent-of-brits-think-mums-should-work-more-than-dads/
      
      However, according to researchers at the Lancaster University Management School, 82% of men who work full time, would like to spend more time with their children.
      
      the number of stay-at-home-dads in the UK has doubled to nearly a quarter of a million in the past 20 years and many now supplement their primary carer role with part-time work.
      
      And nearly one million men now work part-time because they don’t want a full-time job, a rise of 11% in just 12 months.
      
      This isn’t an easy decision for men to take. For new mums, there is an expectation that they will make a choice between staying at home, working part-time or returning to full-time employment. These choices are viewed fairly equitably by the general public, with the British Social Attitudes survey revealing that 33% of us think mums should stay at home; 43% say mums should work part time and 28% favour mums working full time once the kids start school.
      
      For men it’s a very different story. Public support for dads staying at home is close to zero; only 5% of us think dads should work part-time and the vast majority of us (73%) say dads should work full time.
      
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11122773/Society-still-doesnt-like-the-idea-of-stay-at-home-dads.html
      
      So yes it’s not an easy change for men to make—women entering the world of careers has not been easy either—but massive social change is happening decade upon decade and men’s roles are set to change as radically as women’s roles have changed in the past 50 years.
      
      There was a time when the external world (eg politics, work etc) was a masculine realm and the internal world of home and family was a feminine world—-the external world has become increasingly masculine-feminine and the internal world is (more slowly) also becoming masculine-feminine (as evidenced by the steady rise of in the proportion of time fathers spend caring for kids)
      
      We need laws that recognise the equal role of fathers in the family, just as we have had laws that recognise the equal role of women at work. Some women are more likely to succeed at work irrespective of laws and additional support—-why is this? The same is true of men. Some men get a much better deal post separation than others. Why is this?
      
      It isn’t all about the law.
      
      You can’t simply fix the inequality that separated fathers experience simply by changing the law (just as you can’t change the unequal representation of women in certain professions simply by changing the law).
      
      Laws on family separation need to be reformed (and more importantly the culture and system around those laws needs to radically change).
      
      And there is also much to be gained by fathers embracing and mastering the feminine realm of involved parenting—-the evidence is there to show us this makes a difference. In Sweden, where fathers are more involved in parenting from birth, separated fathers are three times more likely to share parenting post separation than in the UK.
      
      Does this mean fathers are never excluded from their children’s lives in Sweden and that their system is perfect?
      
      NO!
      
      But the evidence is there Brett—In Sweden, where fathers are more involved in parenting from birth, separated fathers are three times more likely to share parenting post separation than in the UK.
      
      Regards
      
      Glen
Daniel Mirante

I would say it signals more of the general pattern of deconstruction of gender, where any inherent masculine identity is under denial, reducing men to ‘women without wombs’.
- Inside MAN
  
  Thanks Daniel
  
  There is an interesting tension between deconstruction and diversification
  
  deconstruction in itself is not a bad thing, to become aware of our conditioning and learn how to go beyond this in a way that liberates and empowers us is positive…..the type of deconstruction that views masculinity as problematic and views boys as defective girls who need to be reconditioned is deeply unhealthy and problematic.
  
  Just because there are people who seek to deconstruct masculinity in a way that emasculates and neuters boys, doesn’t mean that deconstruction per se is a bad thing
  
  There are many negative perceptions of men and masculinity that need deconstructing, for example…..we also as individual men may hold limiting beliefs about our own masculinity that we may need to deconstruct If we want to evolve and grow and reach our fullest potential as human beings
  
  Glen
Flo

Feminists, leave our boys alone. Masculinity is a good thing, you evil monster!
- Inside MAN
  
  There is nothing in this article that suggests that masculinity is a bad thing, what this is article is about is allowing men and boys the freedom to express their masculinity however they want to and not allowing any group of people (feminist or otherwise) to dictate how men and biys can and can’t express their own masculinity
  
  Glen
  - Flo
    
    THEY ARE FORCED TO WEAR TOTALLY UNCOMFORTABLE AND STUPID WOMEN CLOTHING. It makes no sense unless you are a man hating Feminist.
    - Inside MAN
      
      Erm, it’s a comedy drama!
  - Flo
    
    There is a reason an outfit for football looks like that. What is next Formula1 drivers in pink skirts? Cosmonauts in pink skirts? If skirts with thousands of wavey things on them were good for Football they would have been adopted long ago. This is just to portray boys as incomplete girls. It’s same old Feminist propaganda put into practice. You may try to brainwash people into believing this garbage, but it’s still garbage since there is NO REASON TO WEAR A SKIRT unless you want to self-sexualize yourself. Kids are NOT your experiment. Boys are not girls and girls are not boys, they will never be. Only Communists dressed ppl by force, and you are not far away from those tyrants.
    - Inside MAN
      
      Flo
      
      I think you need to take time to read and understand the article first.
      
      “Only communists dressed people by force”
      
      The point of this comedy is a boy who wants to dress differently is forced to wear trousers—-it seems that you are the only person in this conversation advocating for boys to be forced to wear a certain type of clothing (Nobody is arguing that boys should be forced to wear dresses/skirts)
      
      You on the other hand are arguing that boys should be forced to wear trousers.
      
      I’m only seeing one fundamentalist in this conversation Flo.
      
      Glen
http://avoiceformen.com Lucian Vâlsan

Good God! And the British taxpayers pay for this nonsense? ?
- Inside MAN
  
  Thanks for your comment Lucian
  
  It’s interesting to note that someone who identifies as a “Men’s Human Rights Activist” doesn’t support the exploration of men’s human rights to wear whatever they want to wear.
  
  Many schools have rules that allow girls to wear trousers or skirts while boys are restricted to wearing trousers only (the same rules can be applied in workplaces). There is a clear case for arguing this a restriction of men’s human rights. Take the European Convention of Human Rights:
  
  Article 10, provides the right to freedom of expression
  Article 14, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex (for example)
  
  Are the unequal dress code restrictions placed on men not a men’s human rights issue?
  
  Glen
Nigel

This is of course a frothy commedy. Overall it does point out the much more restricted choices open to males from both “society” and our institutions. Useful if it prompts some debate about this state of affairs. Mr. Wood’s comment hits a really important point behind the “rules” on clothing and that is the way that feminine clothing is “attracting” attention through depiction of someone who doesn’t work. So female “fashion” continues to demontrate impracticality from hair,make up, shoes etc. It is visually a “princess”. Conversely “masculine” attire remains firmly in the practical, frequently uniform (from dinners suits to “Cargo” worktrousers) and depite many attempts (such as David Beckham’s sarong or the crazy fashions of “glam rock era ) it is rooted in work (shorn hair,simple design based on workwear models,shoes you can walk in etc.) Not so much a prince as a worker. Perhaps more searching than a variation on panto are the boys who wore school skirts in protest at school rules on uniform or even the periodic protests from men working in companies that are much more prescriptive in dress codes for men.
The wealth of our society means that the majority now have the opportunity to indulge in the flights of fancy and outlandish garb of the pre industrial aristocracy ( there appeared a brief realisation of this in the men’s fashions of the late sixties to mid seventies). The really interesting thing is that women do indulge this and men don’t. Not only are men “human doings” in our industrial society but also discouraged from “self expression” (though this may rescue them from the sheer avalanche of marketing and injuries sustained ). It appears that those sci fi programmes of the 70s that saw men still in much the same garb however outlandish the female fashions were much more accurate than those that saw both sexes aglow with shiny fashions. As the “boiler suited” dam bust in china it is the women who have emerged as the peacock’s, men it seem discovered the business suit.
Trevour

I am very uncomfortable with the whole premise of the comedy. I agree with free speech and appreciate that everybody has a right to express themselves. But I also notice how feminism tries to emasculate men and boys in the manner above.
“Experiencing the feminine realm can liberate men”
Men are very able to access empathy love and understanding with all getting in touch with their feminine side. Some men obviously are far more feminine like for many reasons. But do the majority of men, who accept their brothers as they are have to follow suit to satisfy some feminist dogmatic rule of life.
Boys are a force of nature, all any parent should do is give them shelter, love and opportunity at a most vulnerable stage of their lives.
- Inside MAN
  
  Thanks for your comment Trevour
  
  I think it’s really important to distinguish between:
  
  * Men and boys’ rights to have equal opportunities in all areas of life (eg an equal opportunity to be an involved parent, and equal opportunity to wear whatever clothes you want)
  
  * Men and boys being forced to do things they don’t want to do.
  
  This fluffy comedy is about a boy challenging the status quo that restricts him no being forced to do something he doesn’t want to by “feminist dogma”
  
  Best Regards
  
  Glen
Janet Wilkinson

I think we have to be very careful because “comedy” is often used as a catalyst to deliver serious and often worrying undertones. Trying to disregard everything because it is just a comedy would be naive. I recently saw a film called “The Anchorman 2” and this film had so many political messages and anti-male propaganda it was ridiculous. However because the film was classed as a comedy it was ignored. However it was still present and the anti-male messages was still being delivered. There are some excellent youtube videos on how politicians are turning to films specifically comedies to spread their message.
http://www.theskirtedman.eu Jeremy Hutchinson

Another good article Glen about a short comedy program based upon a kids book which raises via ‘the backdoor’ issues on just one of many restrictions placed upon men by society but not women – freedom of choice of dress. Your site Glen raises many others issues and yes many of these are on more serious points that affect mens rights and entitlements that are either denied or restricted by society and your article once again raise relevant issues and imbalances to a subject.

I have read each of the comments above about your article and my conclusion is there is no hope for gender equality/neutrality, both genders working side by side and in harmony with narrow minded views that have been posted above and Glen you have dealt with these very well in your replies. Readers comments above have made me post this comment.

I’m a man in a skirt or what many in society insist on calling womens clothing. I’m the author of one of your links provided at the bottom of your article. I do wear clothing that society still labels as womens wear, as a man, without make up, lipo, ear rings, heels, false accessories and yes I’m still a man. As a man I can do many things within my life that many, many men cannot do. The only profession in life I am reliant upon is the medical profession! I don’t need builders, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mechanics, ICT etc. I, a man in a skirt have a very supportive wife and numerous good friends and a successful self employment that provides along side my wifes income for a life style we are happy with. My self employment I have to work at to maintain clients and income. I a man in a skirt and clothing labelled as womens clothes by society does not affect me as a person, my sexuality or my gender my wifes relationship or our friends. I have gained friends and clients since letting my choice be known in public.

My choice is freedom of choice, a right. It does not affect anyone else unlike some within society. I do not force my views on others unlike others do towards me and others like me, and yes there are others like me. In situations like this I make an exception and make my views known. My choice of clothing is absolutely no different to the vast majority of women who over the last few decades have moved into clothing styles what society and many men still insist on labeling mens clothing. Walk around society theses days and apart from hairstyles, and that is questionable and two bumps on the front, you are hard pushed to distinguish man or woman, dress code, appearance, behaviour and language. Freedom of choice and expression provided it does no harm is open to all not just one gender. There was a time men with ear rings, pony tail hair or even very long hair was frowned upon by society and those that did in the early days were labeled negatively by many. Based upon the program “the Boy in the Dress” by BBC on 26-12-14, who is the cross dresser these days. To me it is not me. Yes I’m in a skirt but the vast majority of women are these days in trousers and male style clothing that not so long ago was denied to them by society. That to me makes all men in trousers and male style clothing the cross dresser, not me! If not, then it must be the vast majority of women who are the cross dresser. Society cannot have it both ways. Society has become so obsessed with its labels and stereotyping, granting exceptions to those it deems are entitled to that it has got itself all tied up.

Society has changed in many ways and aspects certainly since the early 1900’s and mainly for women. In that era society had specific gender roles and expectations where neither gender was the same in virtually all aspects of life. It was in the early 1900’s a prison offence for women to wear trousers and male style clothing! That is not so these days. The progress of change since the 1900’s has affected all, mainly for women, and this progress of change is quite right and needed to be so and both genders have pushed for their own ‘new ways’ because it suited them. You therefore do not have the right to deny others. Society does not have the right to allow others to embrace change for themselves and deny others. There are many aspects undertaken by public and celebrities that are seen as role models that many do not agree with and do harm to others in society perhaps you should look at these first, eg drugs, alcohol abuse, general behaviour etc . These have an effect upon society.

I will continue to promote men in ‘womens clothing’ in writing and physically in public. I a man in a skirt is absolutely no different in all aspects, reasons for or against to women now in trousers and other male style clothing. If it makes me gay, then women in their modern choice of clothing must make them lesbians. I may not be perfect or seen as normal in the eyes of some but what is perfect and normal is down to ones perception. Also those who knock men like me should look at your own lives first, as many will and do comment about you for aspects of your lives.

I have contacted the BBC congratulating a good adaptation of a child’s book and asking that they consider doing a more serious adaptation.

Freedom of choice, rights and entitlement provided it does no harm to others is and should be available to all, not the chosen.

http://www.theskirtedman.eu
Janet Wilkinson

I posted a reply to this thread this morning but for some reason its not appeared….
C Fenton

As a supposed comedy (book and adaptation) I feel David Walliams has done a fine job in avoiding the subject of sexual identity in young vulnerable people and presented us with a narrative that seems to offer entertainment on the visual aspect of cross-dressing by a young teenager. I can’t help think that this is sending the wrong signals to the potentially gay, lesbian and transgender living today. Whilst in book form, the subject may encourage discussion of the more serious subjects, the tv adaptation was unwise in my opinion by it’s mass and immediate audience on xmas. I found it neither funny nor thought provoking. “Feeling different” is not sufficient to broach the subject of discovery of ones sexual orientation or identity.
Pingback: A Wha Me a Go Win Christmas Cracker | tiemotalkofthetown()
James Mayweather

I will give you starters:
Having a better paid female chase you because your attractive, and your nice and your romantic. Being the main care taker of the house and kids being not seen as weak but empowering. Removal of standards of height as part of male beauty equation, only handsomeness or prettiness of a man should attract a women that plus being either skinny or muscular or half skiny half muscular. Fat is fair game for discrimination obviously, this aint no marxist fantisist world I LIVE IN lol, fat unlike height does affect visual appeal beyond mere social convention hard wired into us. Makeup for men advertised via compaines. A big push to get hetero men wearing some form of makeup. Ads promoting a man and his girlfriend going to facials, pedicures etc together, inc the man getting his nails painted, then going to sport, to show how sharing all aspects of ones lifes and lesiure makes for more connected couples. etc etc.
James Mayweather

Lol at the person trying to link crossdressing to being gay. It is not. They are different things, and no gay person would have an issue with this program, Well maybe hardcore feminists lesbians would but your regular non man hating feminist lesbian who believes in equality not superiority of the genders would mostly see it as immensly positive.
Whatever

You’re actually coming out in support for men who want to wear dresses? That show about feminists was a comedy, but it was exactly right. There is no better literal metaphor for emasculation than a man dressing as a woman. You CAN wear women’s clothing if you want to, but you forfeit your right to call yourself “masculine.” Words can’t mean whatever you want them to. Gay men are even more at risk to this because of what gay culture is like and straight men are more hostile to them than women are.

“feminine realm of…emotions”

Emotions are not all that great. They’re largely not based in objective reality and they can very easily hinder people’s ability to do what’s best for themselves and others. With emotion-based thinking is it any wonder that women have higher rates of mental illnesses? What do you think the whole of first world feminism is based off of? What do you think social justice in its entirety is based on? What you should be thinking is trying to make your emotions and passions /do what your *rational* mind wants them to do/ and making your emotions your servant rather being more emotional and “following your heart.”
- prokaryoticeukaryote
  
  “There is no better literal metaphor for emasculation than a man dressing as a woman.”
  
  Yep, Achilles definitely was emasculated for dressing as a woman. As was the union soldier, Nathaniel Lyon. Oh, wait…dressing as a woman has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be manly. I forgot that my knee doesn’t jerk like yours.
  
  Also, wearing dresses is not “dressing as a woman,” any more than a woman wearing pants is “dressing as a man.” It’s one thing to try to pass. It’s another entirely to don an item of clothing that has arbitrarily been designated the clothing of one gender by society. There’s a difference. Try not to think so simply about these things.
  
  I am a man who wears skirts. I have been doing this at work for the past year, and am happily married to my wife. I am sorry that your wiener feels shrunken at the thought of men subverting stupid cultural norms, but I assure you that there are things far more emasculating than wearing a dress. For example, being insecure in your manhood as you are.
  
  “With emotion-based thinking is it any wonder that women have higher rates of mental illnesses?”
  
  *cough*Chauvenist says what?*cough*
  
  1) While there is SOME evidence that shows women feel negative emotions more deeply than men, that is not the same thing as emotion-based thinking.
  2) A person can feel deep emotions and still think logically. Showing your emotions is not the same thing as acting logically. A person can still make logical decisions while crying.
  
  “What do you think social justice in its entirety is based on?”
  Oh, noes! Making sure that nobody is unfairly! How can a male chauvenist get a hard-on if he isn’t aware of somebody who is being crushed by the arbitrary whims of society? Surely this is the greatest injustice that every was! Much greater than people being oppressed by society.
  
  “What you should be thinking is trying to make your emotions and passions /do what your *rational* mind wants them to do/ and making your emotions your servant rather being more emotional and “following your heart.””
  
  So, what you are saying is, “stop being yourself, and, instead be someone else, because I have irrationally decided that feeling emotions equates with not being rational.”
  
  Thanks for the tip, but no, I think I will continue allowing myself to feel emotions while acting rationally, thank you very much.
  - Whatever
    
    First part: Context? Considering the society of America and Greece at the time, I hardly think it was what *you’re* going for. I should clarify that there are some instances where it’s not a problem at all. Comedies that involve it are often fucking hilarious, especially if the “woman” acts insanely violent and unladylike.
    
    Pants and vests, jackets, etc. are utilitarian and are practical. Additionally, women did it in order to cast off male restriction and to become more powerful.
    
    “I am a man who wears skirts. I have been doing this at work for the past year, and am happily married to my wife. I am sorry that your wiener feels shrunken at the thought of men subverting stupid cultural norms, but I assure you that there are things far more emasculating than wearing a dress. For example, being insecure in your manhood as you are.”
    
    Allow to give you a medal for dressing like a woman in your everyday life and a big batch of cookies to boot for holding extremely safe and mainstream opinions.
    
    “*cough*Chauvenist says what?*cough*”
    
    Or how about repeated psychological studies? Assumption-making feminist twat.
    
    “1) While there is SOME evidence that shows women feel negative emotions more deeply than men, that is not the same thing as emotion-based thinking.
    
    2) A person can feel deep emotions and still think logically. Showing your emotions is not the same thing as acting logically. A person can still make logical decisions while crying.”
    
    Real nice. Next time try not putting words in my mouth.
    
    “Oh, noes! Making sure that nobody is unfairly! How can a male chauvenist get a hard-on if he isn’t aware of somebody who is being crushed by the arbitrary whims of society? Surely this is the greatest injustice that every was! Much greater than people being oppressed by society.”
    
    You must believe social justice is actually a good thing. How about you spend a field trip in a majority Black and Mexican, high security male prison while wearing those pretty clothes if you believe that? White men have a term for their viewpoint after their damnation in those places: becoming “racially aware.” The reason American prisons are Hellholes isn’t because guards don’t over-assert authority; it’s because they barely assert their authority at all. Injustices exist, it’s just you have the wrong bad guys and are helping them.
    
    Also, WTF are you even doing on a Men’s Rights’ site if you’re a feminist? Looking for an article to be pissed off at and someone you can bitch at in the comments? Because I’m actually quite taken aback by how extremely bitchy you are.
    
    “So, what you are saying is, “stop being yourself, and, instead be someone else, because I have irrationally decided that feeling emotions equates with not being rational.”
    
    Thanks for the tip, but no, I think I will continue allowing myself to feel emotions while acting rationally, thank you very much.”
    
    Again, with the putting words in my mouth. You can feel emotions, just don’t let them control you and decide on your life. Is the kid who wants to follow his dream and get a degree in music being idealistic and brave? Or is he just being stupid whenever he ends up working a dead end job because he doesn’t have the talent to make it big whenever he could’ve just done what most adults who don’t come from privileged backgrounds do and make compromises?
    
    Mastering your emotions is the key to mastering yourself. Actually, your reaction is a perfect example of this because your extremely pissy and hostile comment (typical social justice shit) gives off a feeling that I clearly put you in a bitchy, offended mood. Again, WTF are you doing on a Men’s Rights’ website?
    - prokaryoticeukaryote
      
      “Pants and vests, jackets, etc. are utilitarian and are practical.”
      Because as a man, I must never not be utilitarian and practical lest the vag monster find me and devour my testicles. This cramp pain from me being rigid all the time? That’s just girl cooties leaving my body. pleasekillme-err-I love being a manly man.
      “Allow [me] to give you a medal for dressing like a person who wears an item of clothing that magically changes genders when we refer to it as a lava lava in your everyday life and a big batch of cookies to boot for holding opinions that are not safe at all and that you’ve had to hide in the past when you didn’t have the courage to voice them, especially masculine manly he-men like myself.”
      There, I fixed that for you.
      “Or how about repeated psychological studies? Assumption-making feminist twat.”
      You have to ask yourself some questions, bucko.
      1) Are what the psychological studies saying equivalent to what I am saying (i.e., women feeling negative emotions implies they are prone to mental sickness), or am I indulging in confirmation bias?
      2) What is the source of women feeling negative emotions? How much is attributable to evolution, and how much is attributable to social pressures?
      3) What is the source of increased mental illness in women? How much of it is attributable to evolution, and how much is attributable to social pressures?
      4) How does internet search work?
      5) Am I being a hypocrite by calling this guy an “assumption making feminist twat”, while I make assumptions about women, black people, mexicans, and whether this guy is a feminist or not?
      “Real nice. Next time try not putting words in my mouth.”
      YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARAPHRASE! YOU MUST ONLY USE EXACT WORDS I WROTE BECAUSE I AM A PEDANT.
      “You must believe social justice is actually a good thing.”
      Um…yeah…that’s what modern, civilized, people do. Did you not get the memo?
      “How about you spend a field trip in a majority Black and Mexican, high security male prison while wearing those pretty clothes if you believe that?”
      I know. Melanin is scary. It is the only thing that keeps super manly men up at night.
      
      I mean, is there a reason you think I would fare much better visiting a predominantly white prison?
      
      Hey, let’s play a game. It’s called “what is the skin color of the person you are communicating with online?”
      
      At any rate, considering that I spent my childhood being bullied by super manly man-children like you while trying to fit in and dress normally, I don’t really see what the benefit of doing that any more is.
      
      “Injustices exist, it’s just you have the wrong bad guys and are helping them.”
      
      (The wrong bad guys are scary black people in case you didn’t understand the subtext. Also, I am not a racist)
      
      “You can feel emotions, just don’t let them control you and decide on your life”
      Who are you talking to, here? Who is experiencing this problem? Are the majority of the people you think you are talking down to experiencing it?
      
      “Is the kid who wants to follow his dream and get a degree in music being idealistic and brave?”
      He’s being himself. I doubt if he’s even thinking about being brave at that point.
      ” Or is he just being stupid whenever he ends up working a dead end job because he doesn’t have the talent to make it big whenever he could’ve just done what most adults who don’t come from privileged backgrounds do and make compromises?”
      That’s right. That damn hippie slacker should have become a corporate cog. Because nothing says masculine like being a pussy and not taking risks in the off chance you end up living the life you want.
      
      “Also, WTF are you even doing on a Men’s Rights’ site if you’re a feminist?”
      I know, right? Why can’t you live in a cloistered echo-chamber with all your manly brethren where you can work your panties into wads at feminist bogeymen in peace?
- https://www.pinterest.com/bconservative/ Carrie
  
  Wow, I may never have seen anyone approach something in such an incorrect manner. First, if someone puts YOU into a dress, you think you’ll somehow become less masculine? If someone put you into bunny ears and a cottontail, would you somehow become less human too? Answer: no, and no. If someone wears a t-shirt that says “My IQ Is 200!”, it does not somehow make them more intelligent. Our clothes are NOT IN ANY WAY our identity.
  
  Your take on emotion is actually a very stunted, very uneducated one, and furthermore it is men who have higher rates of mental illness, in fact, significantly higher rates. Emotions work best when employed WITH rational thinking, something girls seem more adept at because boys refuse to hone in on their own emotions; an example of emotions being used WITHOUT rational thinking would be shooting up a school because you don’t have a girlfriend, or killing your wife’s family because she wants to divorce you. (These occur at maddening rates already, and should signify that men need to get MORE in touch with their emotions rather than LESS.)

Share article