| Revision as of 23:04, 14 March 2007 editCalliopejen~enwiki (talk | contribs)4,401 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:06, 31 March 2007 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,095 edits blank discussion of subject instead of article as OTNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject Fashion}} | {{WikiProject Fashion}} | ||
| Does anyone else besides myself hate the miniskirt and think it's not only the opposite of fashion but also demeaning to women? | |||
| I guess not. | |||
| :It would only be demeaning to women if they were forced by law to wear them (like, say a ], as in some cultures). Personally I think miniskirts are an attractive item of clothing for young women of a certain body shape, but probably not all. However the choice rests with them whether to wear them or not, so I can't really see that the argument is valid. ] 04:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Something is only demeaning if it brings discomfort to the bearer. (When I say 'discomfort', I don't mean chafing.) A miniskirt is just a piece of clothing, and a reasonable one in hot climates. The real question is, does anyone think wearing the miniskirt is demeaning to men? ] 07:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::For some reason it's socially unacceptable (at least where I live) for men to wear miniskirts. This doesn't really seem fair, since I imagine that they would in fact be very practical, comfortable and cool when it's hot, as well as actually looking quite nice, especially if you've got the legs for it. Men's legs can be pretty unattractive, and if you're thinly built, no existing mens clothes really can do much to help you - either hide them in long pants or put up with looking like a stick insect in shorts. However, the miniskirt can really make men's thin legs look OK, if only they weren't automatically ridiculed as part of some knee-jerk reflex. Given this, it takes a strong-willed person to kick against those conventions, and for this reason they are unlikely to catch on in the short term, though some fashion designers have tried (though often they just like to do things for the publicity). However, fashions do change significantly long-term - think of the powdered wigs and flamboyant clothing of the 17th century, so it's all just a matter of convention. That said, I wouldn't personally have the bottle to wear a mini walking down the high street on a Saturday morning, and I expect that goes for most people. So unfortunately it remains likely to be only "allowed" for women to wear them for the forseeable future. The real question is, why are these social conventions so strongly reinforced? What is it that makes the sight of a man in a skirt seem so ridiculous to so many, and so automatically. If you can get over that, you might see it as a practical and attractive item of clothing! ] 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't help but suspect that the above was some sort of joke. But yeah, the reason why men don't wear skirts is because culturally, it's simply "women's clothing." You could apply the same question to just about anything anyone ''ever'' wears. If you want to talk about practicality, you could also suggest that on hot days, we wear nothing that all! (Nothing at all! '''NOTHING AT ALL!!''') (Stupid sexy Flanders...) There's no ''practical'' reason against that either, but obviously society considers public nudity inappropriate. That's just the way things are. | |||
| :And yes, I realize I'm responding to a very old post. --] 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Skirt tax?== | ==Skirt tax?== | ||
Revision as of 03:06, 31 March 2007
 | Fashion Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Skirt tax?
The article mentions skirts being taxed by length. I've often heard this, but is it really true? It has the hallmarks of an urban legend to me. Can we find any proper evidence for this? As far as I know goods were not taxed at all until VAT was introduced in the early 1970s, and then it was a flat rate applied to all goods. While it's a nice story, as far the truth goes it's likely that the mini got shorter purely as a fashion statement, and as part of the increasing climate of permissiveness in the 60s. Graham 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- VAT isn't a flat rate: there has never been VAT on children's clothing. There was a modification of the definition of children's clothing because very short clothes in adult sizes were evading VAT. The then Chancellor, Anthony Barber, apparently said that it was no part of his job to increase the advantages already enjoyed by slim young ladies! - Runcorn 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but VAT came in in 1973, and the minskirt as a fashion phenomenon was already on the wane by then. So the idea that taxation drove the adoption of the miniskirt, or led to reducing its length is obviously bogus. Perhaps Barber's comment, which sounds like it was just a joke, led to the urban legend? Graham 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a reference - "Brewer's Dictionary of 20th-Century Phrase and Fable" - article Miniskirt: it was "a source of irritation to bureaucrats as under British tax law skirts less than 24 inches long were classed as children's wear and so exempt from purchase tax. In an attempt to forestall any loss of revenue, from 1 January 1966 the bust size of dresses was also taken into account, with any bust of 32 inches or more attracting tax." - Runcorn 10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but. Miniskirts are not dresses; they have no bust. While this may have had some small effect on making skirts more attractive, is there any real evidence that sales and adoption of the fashion was affected by this? Graham 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Waitaminnut... there's "some evidence" for correlation between skirt length and stock market prices: when the market gets higher the skirts get shorter i.e. when people are feeling richer they buy shorter skirts. If this tax thing is accurate wouldn't they buy shorter skirts when they feel poorer and want to save money? Ewlyahoocom 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Too many pictures
C'mon folks, 6 pictures!? That's more pictures than text. This is an encyclopedia not a miniskirt fetish site. Can't we just limit it to 1 or 2 pictures? Ewlyahoocom 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I have removed all of the images except one, which I feel is enough. The one I've left in I chose because it gets across the essentials without looking as if it was cut from a soft-porn site. Sheesh, some people really don't GET wikipedia, do they? Graham 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, this page has far too many pictures. I'm going to remove some. - 123.100.86.251 08:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, too many, but equally, a page about fashion needn't be wholly a load of ltext. Have added some more text, but also restored a contemporaneous picture, which is purely illustrative. IXIA 16:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Clothing
this article belongs to Category:Clothing because it was not only popular in the 1960, so Category:1960s fashion is not enough. bogdan 17:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed; I saw several people wearing them today.--Runcorn 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see that cat:clothing was replaced by 2000s fashion. People have been wearing miniskirts for decades; it is not just a 1960s and 2000s fashion. --Runcorn 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears in several categories, and is listed on the page List of types of clothing. Listing it also under clothing is uber-redundant. The Editrix 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Clothing is far from being overstretched. Editrix, can you give some other argument of why you Miniskirt shouldn't appear in this category (or vice versa), as the consensus is currently against you. - FrancisTyers · 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly, in the recent warm weather in London I have seen many women wearing minis; I doubt that they were all making fashion statements. --Runcorn 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A bit puzzled by the apparent obsession with "micro" skirts and what they may or may not cover. The term is peppered about the place, including one gratuitous ref at the end of the 1980s/90s section. IXIA 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There is now a separate section on the "micro skirt" which adds nothing to the reference earlier in the artcile. Not sure why. IXIA 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because the article Micro skirt has been merged today into the article miniskirt and an image added from Commons. Safedom 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then, it needs to be merged properly into the text. It does stick out rather. The picture could be retained, but the text of the special section adds nothing to what has gone earlier. Also, the first sentence of the final section doesn't make sense - grammatically or otherwise. IXIA 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've just improved the article. Safedom 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)