Gotham Central wrote:
Pants are unisex NOW. As any woman born prior to the 1960s would tell you, a woman in pants prior to that would have been considered quite scandalous and as unacceptable as a man in a dress.
Exactly. Just 60 years ago, a woman wearing pants would've been considered a transvestite.
It's actually a sexist double standard that we today consider it perfectly acceptable for a woman to wear pants but ridicule the idea of a man wearing a skirt. I've always applauded the idea behind the skant; it was an attempt on Roddenberry and Theiss's part to reject that double standard, to say that it was just as acceptable in the future for a man to wear a "dress" as for a woman to wear pants. Maybe it would've worked better as off-duty attire than a uniform variant, but they already had the precedent of the miniskirted female uniforms of TOS.
By my math, 60 years ago = 1954. I wasn't born at that time, but my mother was. I've got photos of women on my mother's side of the family when they were wearing pants. I don't recall any scandalous family stories that any
of them were considered "transvestites." Context does matter, of course. It's wildly impractical to wear a dress when working on a farm or out fishing or hunting.
Put that into the context of what women wear on the job. I recall an episode of Adam-12 where one of the female police officers had to get out of the car, kneel on the asphalt, and point her gun at the crook they were chasing. What had me flabbergasted was the fact that she was wearing a skirt. The only thing between her skin and the road was pantyhose. That's not the remotest bit practical, for reasons that include her ability to run and climb if she had to, plus it's no protection at all from whatever's on the road - rocks, gravel, etc.