Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Women wearing pants"
(→Other cultures: new section) |
(→Essay?) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
The history is a bit debatable - what are bloomers if not pants? And Audrey Hepburn was much later than 1857. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 00:04, 2 November 2008 (EDT) | The history is a bit debatable - what are bloomers if not pants? And Audrey Hepburn was much later than 1857. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 00:04, 2 November 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The whole thing reads more like a rant without much point than an essay. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 18:22, 6 November 2008 (EST) | ||
== Other cultures == | == Other cultures == | ||
In Punjab (both sides of the border), traditional clothing for women is a loose shirt and baggy trousers, known as shalwar-kamiz (shalwar is the trousers, kamiz the blouse). So to which culture(s) does your condemnation of trousers as clothing for women apply? To the USA? North America? Or more widely? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 18:52, 2 November 2008 (EST) | In Punjab (both sides of the border), traditional clothing for women is a loose shirt and baggy trousers, known as shalwar-kamiz (shalwar is the trousers, kamiz the blouse). So to which culture(s) does your condemnation of trousers as clothing for women apply? To the USA? North America? Or more widely? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 18:52, 2 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 23:22, November 6, 2008
Essay? DanH 14:30, 9 December 2007 (EST)
- Merge to cross dressing? --Ed Poor Talk 14:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)
- These crazy girls today! With their pants. Feebasfactor 15:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)
- Sorry... to be serious, I would also suggest simply adding it as a section to the cross dressing, to demonstrate that some people believe "women wearing pants" constitutes cross dressing as well. Unfortunately, that article doesn't currently exist... Feebasfactor 15:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)
- It should probably be cross-dressing at any rate. HelpJazz 15:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)
- Sorry... to be serious, I would also suggest simply adding it as a section to the cross dressing, to demonstrate that some people believe "women wearing pants" constitutes cross dressing as well. Unfortunately, that article doesn't currently exist... Feebasfactor 15:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)
- Oops! Sorry about that, then! Feebasfactor 15:17, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Essay?
Ed, can you structure the text to show what part of the essay is the quote from John Quinn, and what is your original content? In its current form it looks like it's just the quote.
That said, isn't this a non-issue? When I look at paintings and drawings of men in Biblical times they're not wearing pants, but they weren't cross-dressing (nor are Scotsmen in traditional garb). Form follows function, which is why nurses wear scrubs instead of the starched white dress and pointed hat that was the norm as late as the 1970's --DinsdaleP 14:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
The history is a bit debatable - what are bloomers if not pants? And Audrey Hepburn was much later than 1857. Canuck 00:04, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
The whole thing reads more like a rant without much point than an essay. EternalCritic 18:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Other cultures
In Punjab (both sides of the border), traditional clothing for women is a loose shirt and baggy trousers, known as shalwar-kamiz (shalwar is the trousers, kamiz the blouse). So to which culture(s) does your condemnation of trousers as clothing for women apply? To the USA? North America? Or more widely? DavyJones 18:52, 2 November 2008 (EST)