The Mary Beard Appreciation Society

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between bad feminine clothes and good ones. Lovely comfy dresses, for instance, are amaaaaazing. In an ideal world, it would be socially acceptable for everyone (male or female) to wear a lovely cotton frock on a hot day.

Heels, however, I cannot get on board with. I used to wear then quite often, and would even pretend that they didn't hurt as much as they did. I don't know why... maybe I wanted to look brave? To 'win' at femininity? And I would always justify it by saying "this is my choice, heels make me feel powerful" etc.

Then I got bunions and I hate to get rid of every single pair of heels. What a blessing. I suddenly realised how much agony I had been putting myself through. Not only that, but flats make me feel safer - is it a coincidence that the shoes women are expected to wear prevent them from running away from danger (i.e. dangerous men)...?

I have found it hard to get my head around with regards to 'T-girls' and trans women and without seeming mean - they seem to want to dress themselves as patriachal parodies with glam hair, high heels, short dresses etc or is this not so true of the younger trans people?

It almost seems like they wish to completely redefine 'female' to some 'new female' and then I am guessing trans as a term would then disappear...

Is "performing femininity" controversial? > I've first come across the term here and feel that it expresses my experience.

"Unisex" or "gender neutral" ^always means "male"

I regularly get shouted at on baby name threads when people ask for unisex names for children and it's always boy's names being used for girls.. And, interestingly, then falling out of favour for boys. They don't like it when I suggest that if they are going to call their girl Eliott or Brandon they should be prepared to call their boy Alice or Emily......."....

what i'm trying to pinpoint is where "unisex" might come to essentially mean "boys' clothes", whereas in reality there is no reason why either sex shouldn't wear any category of clothing

what do you mean by "unisex clothes"? do you mean categories of clothes that both men and women wear (trousers, jumpers, t-shirts, jackets)? or do you mean clothes that have literally been designed for both sexes to wear (so not cut specifically for a (stereotypical) male or female shape)?

because clothing designers, manufacturers and shops very much segregate the former into boys'/girls'/men's/women's and while there is no reason from my POV why a man who wants to wear jeans cut for a (stereotypical) woman's figure shouldn't wear them, but they can't really be described as unisex from a societal POV. they even call jeans marketed for women to wear but cut as men's jeans would be "boyfriend" jeans - they aren't marketed at men too

i certainly spent a portion of my childhood refusing to wear trousers because i didn't find them comfortable - i climbed trees and went on muddy walks wearing skirts and dresses. i've seen many posts in this section talking about how convenient and comfortable it is to wear and style a dress - in many ways it's surprising that more (western) men don't wear dresses and skirts every day (occasion wear like kilts aside - they aren't everyday wear these days)

the problem is where clothes intended for girls or women to wear restrict them from doing whatever it is they might want to do, or provoke the restrictive reaction of "don't get it dirty/torn/ruined!" whereas those intended for boys or men aren't restrictive or are expected to need to withstand robust wear

Still lost sorry if I've upset you. I was not trying to patronise anyone, just trying and obviously failing to reflect where TAs seem to be coming from - that bio women have privilege.

Sorry rant over.

It kind of is, though. Just another 30 something woman, 10 a penny. But perhaps not the 'performance' of femininity that springs to mind when someone would "Dress As A Woman". I think that's what she was driving at, rather than wanting to insult women who like dresses and heels. IYSWIM?

Jeans and boots are a cliché. I didn't want to point that out.
" The performance of femininity " is a bit patronising too. As if I'm too thick or subjugated by patriarchy to have actually made a choice to "dress as a woman"

I hate and always have hated unisex clothes. It irritates me immensely to see posters here go on about girls not being able to climb trees, get dirty, run about, etc if they wear skirts and dresses. As if my early childhood doing that must have been a figment of my imagination.

I've been following this thread throughout - Hakluyt thanks for posting that last link; I hadn't read about that before. But -- am speechless. How did we get to the point where a feminist society is "for" the sex industry? I have no words.

More interesting stuff

another NS article

On a seperate note, does anyone know whether Glosswitch is ok?

StillLost I'm certainly not sneering at women who choose to wear dresses, heels and make-up. I wear exactly that when I go to work in an office or go to a party. (Sometimes I even wash and attempt to style my hair, though in our rural setting it's often wasted on the sheep )

What I'm cross about is from my understanding that being a 'cis' or biological woman, and therefore able to perform femininity in that way, ie by wearing classic feminine clothes, is apparently seen as a huge privilege, and trans*women are oppressed by our privilege.

What they're not either admitting or are possibly not even aware of, what with not growing up a girl/woman, is that along with being able to wear these lovely feminine clothes we have to put up with constant, subtle, every-day sexism, earn less, feel far less safe in life, and are generally less privileged than men who have grown up as boys/men.

My point being the sneering tone adopted by the poster. "Cliché"?

I bet she wouldn't describe your dress style as clichéd

But I think now that it means a lucky, happy, biological woman, delighted to be able to perform all the feminine 50s cliches of dresses, high heels, make-up, etc. without fear of censure. I'm so privileged - can't I see that??

Actually I am a lucky , happy, biological woman, delighted to be able to perform "all the feminine 50s cliches of dresses, high heels, make-up, etc. "

Would be nice if other women didn't sneer at me.

Also wow hello Mary Beard!
You're a cool lady and I'm sorry that sexist idiots have attacked you again.

It seems that anti-feminists these days have it really easy if they want to shut up women they don't like. No longer do they have to use words like prude or manhater, no, use new trendy words like terf and wh*rephobic and people think you're being progressive while doing it!

That word, whrephobic is vile. It's blatantly anti-feminist to call women whres, why do people use that word and expect to be taken seriously?

I'm really, really disappointed with Owen Jones, who, although I sometimes disagree with, I usually like, and I have seen him defend radical feminists on Twitter against violent trans activists before. Firstly, I don't think as a man, he has any place to be telling feminists how to deal with issues in their own movement. Secondly, for not acknowledging the horrendous misogynistic abuse anyone deemed a TERF or accused of having interacted with/defended/looked in the same direction as one receives. The article is blatant angling for approval from these same trans activists, and mark my words, they'll turn on him next for the slightest thing. You cannot placate people who think that acknowledging that women are a biological reality is 'an act of violence'.