July 25, 2015

Nelson Mandela, imprisoned, was told "Indians get trousers. Indians get socks. Boys get shorts."

He petitioned for long pants.

For the annals of Men in Shorts.

17 comments:

ddh said...

If I decide, it's freedom. If you decide, it's not.

Ann Althouse said...

The question is: How will you decide? Of course, I can't dictate what you will wear.

The story is offered as evidence of the symbolism. Shorts say: I am a boy.

Boys, by the way, are deprived of choice and given what they must wear.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Nah, shorts say I'm oppressed by Afrikaaner shitheads.

Roughcoat said...

You know, Willard ... someday this war is going to end.

Chris N said...

I will fight this.

You can try your man-shaming, but you'll never take my shorts.

William said...

You will take my shorts only from my cold, dead legs--especially if I wear them in November.

ddh said...

Okay, Professor, amended:

If I decide, it's freedom. If someone else decides for me, it's not.

Roughcoat said...

If you just ignore this subject, it will go away.

Birkel said...

Shorts say nothing whatever, Althouse. You may choose to anthropomorphize an article of clothing if you like. But your decision to do so will not change the fact that shorts are inanimate objects unable to "speak".

You may wish shorts to be interpreted as they were when you were younger. But language evolves and styles evolve. You are able to "stand() athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" if you like but the shorts will be worn without concern for your antiquated worldview.

etbass said...

Sitting here in Panama Beach Florida, in shorts, I agree with the professor.

Birkel said...

Any attempt to impose the matriarchical views of European women by inflicting some false consciousness about the purpose(s) of clothing must be resisted. The Euro-centrism of the linked story underscores the mendacity of the purveyors of the "boys wear shorts movement". Why else quote affectionately a story about the oppression of a minority in a Third World country as evidence of how I should behave, unless the goal is male oppression?

Clothing is meant to protect the fleshy areas of the body and to conceal private areas from public view. Any attempt to impart meaning is an attempt to control men's bodies. Our bodies are our own. We cannot allow others to control us.

/SJW cant

dwick said...

Janet! Donkeys!

Larry J said...

Same stupid argument on another day. Outside, the heat index is 105. Damned near every man I saw today is wearing shorts. If you don't like it, that's too damned bad. Most men dress for comfort. Get over it and yourself. If you're this uninformed and stubborn in your classes, you probably are a lousy law professor.

Chris N said...

Today, Althouse, many in the commentariat felt the whim of capricious authority; haughty judgment passing over bare legs.

Verily, I have earned my freedom to enjoy short pants.

Unheeded, such stirrings of revolt and casual contempt for a man's leisure choices can lead to an ugly truth: Regime change.

Nay, shorts are not the uniform of an unmolded man-child, some uncivilized professional boy-man yearning for a woman's nudge towards full gentlemanly adulthood....

They are the hard-fought practical choice for the practical man, this beast of suburban burden, this proud, unassuming keeper of the flame of our free Republic.

I urge you to reconsider, Madame, unless of course the raw magnetism of such unclothed man-freedom causes distress.

Gabriel said...

@dwick +1 David Copperfield.

If Ann worries us too much about shorts, I have a horrible feeling we will send her to Australia.

Moneyrunner said...

A Gay Old Time in Kenya where the cops wear shorts. When Liberal imperatives collide, one of them has to give. So what will it be, cultural imperialism of gay weddings?

Modern liberalism has so many rules, with new ones constantly being added by both the bureaucracy and the the more unofficial social justice warriors, that it’s hard to keep up. Oftentimes the rules are in conflict with one another, too, which can lead to the sort of awkward moment President Barack Obama recently endured while advocating homosexual rights during a trip to his ancestral homeland of Kenya.

One ironclad rule of modern liberalism is that every primitive instinct of third world hellholes as such Kenya are to be regarded as ancient wisdom far more profound than anything our decadent western civilization has concocted, and that any attempt to correct them is tantamount to cultural imperialism, but another even more ironclad rule is that homosexuality should not only be tolerated but celebrated with the rainbow colors on the White House, and given the fact that Kenya and most other third world hellholes regard homosexuality as a crime punishable by years in prison or even more draconian punishments this poses something of a dilemma. For Obama, who has famously proclaimed that “No nation can or should try to dominate another nation,” except perhaps for Israel, whose housing policies and ability to defend itself from terrorist attack are of course exempt from this rule, the dilemma is especially vexing. Homosexuals are a more sizable voting bloc than Kenyans in American electoral politics, however, and more generous donors to Democratic candidates, so we are not surprised that Obama went right ahead lectured his Kenyan hosts on the need to get up to date with western civilization’s recent embrace of homosexuality.

http://centralstandardtimes.com/2015/07/27/a-gay-old-time-in-kenya/

mikee said...

Meanwhile, his wife gave away necklaces.

That is, burning gasoline-filled tires placed around the necks of suspected informers.


For Althouse's annals of terrorists who became the government.