What is so special about trousers that men have become shackled
to them?
In terms of their design, trousers are considered "bifurcated"
garments because they are divided into two sections, which cover
each leg separately. The two sections meet at the crotch, where
they are joined by a number of seams (usually an inseam from each
trouser leg, plus seams from the front and back). All these seams
and accompanying fabric converge at what is already the most
crowded intersection in male anatomy. There - in the crotch - they
confine, crowd, bind, chafe, and otherwise cut into the male
genitalia. The trousers also chafe against the inner thighs and,
depending on their tightness, restrict leg movement. In some cases,
the confinement of trousers may cause a rash or even reduce a man's
sperm count.
Trousers are a relatively recent development. In earlier times, men
were accustomed to wearing unbifurcated clothing - such as robes,
togas, tunics, sarongs, and various kilt-like or skirt-like
garments. These unbifurcated garments were not divided between the
legs, and therefore they did not confine or cut into the crotch and
male genitals. Therefore, they afforded men more freedom and
comfort.
Even today, there are many places in the world where men wear
unbifurcated clothing. In parts of the Middle East, Africa,
southeast Asia, and the Pacific islands it is common to see men in
caftans, djellabahs, sarongs, lava-lavas, or other skirt-like
garments. Scotland, of course, is famous for its men in kilts. The
Greeks and Albanians have the fustanella. In the Himalayan kingdom
of Bhutan, all the men wear a traditional knee-length robe called
the gho.
Trousers do have certain practical advantages - especially when
riding horseback, performing various physical activities, and in
cold weather. Perhaps this is why trousers became standard male
attire throughout Western society. In contrast, women were kept
confined in long, cumbersome skirts and dresses until the early
20th century. The male/female distinction in clothing was reduced
to a simple bifurcated/non-bifurcated dichotomy: trousers were
exclusively male and skirts and dresses were exclusively female
(although young boys wore skirts and dresses until the early 20th
century). Men learned to define their masculinity based on the
wearing of trousers. This became a badge of pride that
distinguished them from women. They learned to regard anything
skirt-like as being "feminine," and therefore forbidden.
Consequently, trousers became compulsory for men - even in
situations where they offered no advantage over the unbifurcated
menswear of earlier times.
During the 20th century, women's fashion underwent a revolution.
Women freed themselves from the confinement of the long, bulky
skirts and dresses of yesteryear and switched to styles that gave
more freedom and comfort. Next, women demanded - and won - the
right to wear trousers. Women now have a wide variety of bifurcated
and unbifurcated garments to chose from. Today in the United
States, it is much more common to see women and girls wearing
slacks or jeans than to see them in skirts and dresses. Nowadays, a
man can no longer prove his masculinity by putting on a pair of
jeans - because this is now standard female attire!
Now that women in Western society have won the right to wear
whatever they want, what justification remains for a rule that
arbitrarily restricts men to wearing trousers? Trousers no longer
distinguish men from women. We don't routinely ride horseback any
more. Because of central heating, homes and offices are no longer
as cold and drafty as they once were. Most of today's work does not
involve the kind of physical activity that requires trousers.
Furthermore, trousers do not offer any intrinsic advantage to the
male anatomy. On the contrary! As previously noted, trousers
confine, irritate, and impinge on the male genitals. From an
anatomical perspective, trousers would be much more appropriate for
females!
The desire for less constricting trousers is reflected in the trend
among young men and boys in the 1990's to wear oversized trousers
and shorts, with sagging crotches. This style, which is reminiscent
of the baggy pants worn by old-fashioned slap-stick comedians, has
been criticized for its sloppy appearance. While its low crotch
allows more room for a man's genitals, it still leaves an annoying
convergence of seams rubbing between one's thighs. A man would be
more comfortable - and look less sloppy - if the inseams were
eliminated altogether.
Of course, trousers will always have their place. For certain
activities and environments they are clearly more practical than
unbifurcated garments. Some people - both male and female - may
prefer to wear trousers all the time. Others may prefer to wear
various unbifurcated clothing, depending on the circumstances and
how they feel. Women now have a choice in this matter. The question
is: WHY SHOULD MEN BE DENIED THIS CHOICE?
What justification is given by employers, school officials, and
others who deny men and boys the right to wear unbifurcated
clothing? Usually it is just a dogmatic attempt to enforce
prevailing prejudices. They say that wearing alternatives to
trousers is "not socially acceptable," that it would be "a
distraction" or "disruptive," or that it might "offend" people or
"cause a disturbance." The same kinds of rationalizations have been
routinely used to defend racial segregation and other forms of
discrimination. The same arguments were once used to bar women from
wearing trousers - and were ultimately defeated.
Some people have tried to defend the trouser rule on religious
grounds, as if trousers had been divinely ordained. They ignore the
fact that priests and monks have been wearing unbifurcated robes
and cassocks for centuries. They point to a passage in Deuteronomy
that is sometimes interpreted as prohibiting cross-dressing. What
they seem to forget is that trousers didn't even exist when the
Bible was written. All the men in those days wore unbifurcated
clothing. When have you ever seen a depiction of Moses or Jesus
wearing trousers? If unbifurcated clothing was good enough for
them, why not for us?
