I'm not so sure. I tend to agree with O'Callaghan, and I don't think it is simply because we are imposing spurious rules on ourselves. The Creator...or evolution (choose whatever religion you feel most comfortable with)...made sure that men and women were different. Made sure that we look different, think different, and react to situations differently. There is a purpose there...either a "higher purpose" or an evolutionary one. What? Well, survival comes to mind.
Originally Posted by thanmuwa
If a reluctance to blur those distinctions makes sense to a person it is probably because we are hard-wired to be most comfortable with them.
Conversely, the desire to obscure such differences implies a discomfort or, just as likely, a dissatisfaction, with oneself. Maybe it isn't true, but to those who are a little more hard-wired than others the implication is there and stark.
It also implies a certain discomfort with the whole concept of "otherness." That which is not like ourselves. Ying yang. Etc..
What makes me uncomfortable, is the notion that we cannot tolerate sexual dimorphism in our social vision...that we have to, or that it is desirable to, suppress it at every turn. Because in the end, one thing leads to another and soon all individuality, all idiosyncrasy, all eccentricity, becomes suspect.
I'd hate like the devil to think that what was once a male garment with a glorious history and overtly masculine associations should, because of a rather misguided (in my opinion) impulse to proselytize the kilt to anyone and everyone, become the foundation for a unisex garment that further blurs the distinctions between individuals and brings us closer to a society of faceless (and sexless) drones. It would be ironic.
But then it has already happened with trousers...now that is ironic.
DWFII--Traditionalist and Auld Crabbit
In the Highlands of Central Oregon