I was shopping in Goodwill yesterday afternoon, browsing the mens' section for interesting shoes. I looked back over the row of shoes I'd just passed, seeing if I'd missed anything, and a pair that had not fazed me a bit caught my attention. It was a pair of quite large neon orange ballet flats. In the men's section. And I got to thinking. Whose idea was it to dictate fashion based on plumbing? WHY do we have social constructs regarding 'suitable' behaviors and 'appropriate' clothing based solely on the presence or lack of... um... external liquid waste nozzle? Once upon a time, EVERYONE wore dresses and sandals (shhhh... even Jesus). Why is it okay for women to wear 'mens' clothing but not the other way around? In other species the males get the flashy, frilly, colorful, lacy, stiletto markings/plumage to attract the ladies. They don't give a flying flip what gender their fellow species-member chooses to pair up with. Yet humans, who supposedly possess the advantage of 'reasoning', have based an entire complex social paradigm on the presence or lack of a penis.
I know, right?
I work with an older gentleman who has some mental disabilities. His mild disability has been pronounced by the system to be more severe simply because he would rather wear skirts and earrings. He has been shamed all his life, and was initially described to me as a short-tempered grumpy old man. Well duh! If I were shamed for being ME, I'd be short-tempered and grumpy, too! I don't give a hoot what he wears, and I've become one of his few friends. He's a gentle soul who is so rarely accepted for who he is, and truly doesn't understand why people are mean to him when he wears dresses.
I was thinking about that for the rest of the day, and obviously this morning too.
Humans are stupid.
But kudos to whoever 'filed' those shoes.
The World's Most Unfortunate Wedding Monogram - Some couples look for a sign that their marriage will last. This isn't it. Thanks to Ruth H. for the initial discomfort. Note from john: For thos...
12 hours ago