-
Richard Glover on the Sarong!
Taken from the smh website
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-commando-and-sarong-dilemma-20090227-8kbg.htmlThe commando and sarong dilemma
* Richard Glover
* February 28, 2009AS I write this, a cool wind licks at my knees and refreshes my thighs. I’m wearing a dress, you see. Well, not exactly a dress, it’s a sarong. Gradually, the sarong has become commonplace among middle-aged Australian men. For some reason, authorities have not yet felt the need to issue a public warning.
……..
I have always been a girly man, eager for opportunities to pop on some eyeliner, a necklace, or even a dab of nail polish. What a shame that it’s taken me until now to discover the sarong. Having asked around, I now discover half the male population owns one. In our suburb alone there are more men in frocks than in a whole season of The Footy Show.
Most of these men, alas, are in their 50s. Perhaps with the Global Economic Crisis, we can no longer afford to express our midlife crisis through the purchase of a red sports car, skydiving lessons, or a torrid affair with Trisha from accounts. Running around the house in a patterned sheet will have to do.
Sensitive to accusations of effeminacy, I have chosen a sarong patterned with what appear to be judo symbols. It’s a fighting sarong. Whack Mel Gibson in it and he wouldn’t look out of place in Braveheart. It’s not so much a dress as a warning to others.
All the same, it allows aeration of the nether-regions in a manner most welcome during the hotter months. Why have women kept this secret to themselves?
For decades feminism has propagated the myth that women wear dresses in order to flaunt their bodies to the opposite gender. I now understand the truth. Women wear dresses because they offer instant air-conditioning and a certain freedom from chafing.
Why did men give up this right to proper aeration? Roman men had the toga with which to capture the cooling breezes of the Mediterranean. The warriors of the South Pacific had their lap lap. Even the caveman enjoyed the windy comforts of a bear-skin loin-cloth. Then – sometime around the 1500s – the world’s men found themselves tricked into trousers.
Why? Do trousers have any virtues at all? Your average middle-aged man, being an optimist, will always buy his trousers one size too small.
Many of us have been unable to breathe out for much of the past decade. Doing up the buttons in the morning can take hours. It would be easier to bring together both sides in the Middle East.
It’s true that trousers have pockets and that without them men would be even less likely to find their keys in the morning. It’s also true that some sports are difficult to perform in any form of frock. It’s not by chance that the Romans never found a sensible way of doing yoga in a toga.
Then again, the provision of pockets has left men as beasts of burden, laden with wallets, keys and mobile phones. Our women folk skip ahead, unencumbered. It’s all further proof that trousers are an anti-male plot propagated by women.
Consider the design. The most sensitive parts of a man’s anatomy are squeezed into a tightly constricted space, thus necessitating a process of constant readjustment. Think how much men could achieve if we didn’t need to spend most of each day prodding and poking at ourselves in order to achieve a modicum of comfort.
It’s true these highly sensitive body parts are accessible but only via an arrangement of sharp metal teeth known as a zipper. The zipper, you’ll note, has been placed precisely where it can do the most damage. Just having a tinkle is like poking your head through a broken plate-glass window.
Contrast this with the sarong. Being a sheet, its circumference is infinitely variable. There are no dangerous moving parts. The length of the garment can be shifted, to reflect various festive moods. It can, ahem, be easily removed.
Best of all, it’s a change from the dreary clothes that men are forced to wear most of the time.
How come women get to dress up, while men all have to look the same? For most men, going to work means dark pants, a stripy shirt and – if you are still dreaming of promotion – a tie. It’s like one of those space station television shows in which the whole crew are in identical jump-suits.
Worst of all is the black-tie dinner, where the men are required to dress the same. If you lose your husband in the crowd, just grab another.
You can see the female thought process at work. Men are like mobile phone chargers: life would be a lot simpler if they were interchangeable.
That’s why the sarong is so important. It’s not just a patterned sheet; it’s a battle cry against centuries of oppression.
-
7 Replies
-
Wow that was cool … great read…loved it.
xxx
Kelly Jones
-
Simply BRILLIANT!! Great read
All mens clothes shops should sell sarongs, make it acceptable everywhere!
Best story I read in long time! -
I agree with what he has written. The need for pants has long since disappeared, the human race does not need to ride as many horses as we used to. It’s about time we realised that as a whole.
I have been making this point for years. I can still remember the way the English papers went off at Beckham when he was photoed going out in pants covered by a sarong.
My but times change
-
what has this got to do with transgender? 🙄
Robbie
ps I think that makes my point!
-
Quote:what has this got to do with transgender?Define for me the exact boundaries of what is transgender and I’ll tell you.
Is a person who starts out wearing ladies underwear in private transgender?
What if they graduate to crossdressing in public for a year or two, and then go on HRT and then have sexual reassignment surgery….are they transgender?I take a very broad view that anyone who is showing any symptom of not being comfortable with their gender of birth, in any way, may perhaps be transgender.
So I go on record as saying that I spot a bit of a transgender flavour in Richard’s article. And its not the first time I’ve got that vibe reading his articles either. That’s why I posted it.But if someone wants to debate my broad definitions they should start a new thread as this one should just be about Richard Glover’s article
-
Hi Amanda
I guess what I mean is that to me, wearing clothes (like sarongs, kilts etc) which are regarded as men’s clothes in a given society is not visibly ‘transgendered’ or any form of cross-dressing, even if those clothes are in some way similar to dresses or skirts. But yes, perhaps Richard is flirting with his female side! 😉
-
I’m not trying to ‘out’ Richard Glover but in this weeks article he describes the things he does well round the house and writes
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/she-of-little-faith-20091113-ieiu.htmlQuote:I’d love to go away for a few days myself, just so I could stick up my own copy of The List, detailing all the household tasks of which Jocasta knows nothing. There would be tedious instructions about bill paying, garbage removal, compost heaps and the laundering of delicate fabrics.Its that last bit that caught my eye… how many men would consider they were the household expert on “the laundering of delicate fabrics”.
I certainly am in my household – and my daughter would rather give me her bras to wash than subject them to the assault of her mothers weekly wash.Of course I could be reading too much into it – and like last time it could have nothing to do with being transgender…but….
well it is an interesting thing to say.
