Grayson Perry irks me

Few men will wear very, very girly types of clothes, as a practical or preferential choice. Because it's punching down, as it signifies female. Unless they want to punch down - hence fetish.

So they’re restricted even if they just like really ‘girly’ ( 😬 ) clothes, because of society. Again. I’m not sure if it’s you but it has been stated here that all cross dressers have a fetish with an aim to humiliate or reinforce women’s inferiority. It seems your above statement does concede their may be some men who cross dress in very feminine clothing, simply because they like it.

If you call it cross dressing, you're leveraging women's oppression to get your kicks

it really is that simple.

you're buying into the line that there's a divide to cross

if you call it 'getting dressed', and it doesn't make you pop a boner then crack on

if you're a man wearing a stuffed bra, you're in camp 1 by the way

Well ok JessicaWakefieldSVH I understand that.

The problem is because Grayson Perry admits to it being a humiliation fetish.
And I thought everyone knew that.

I agree that highly gendered clothing is a problem. And I would like to see it less so.

But that is a separate issue to imitating women as a fetish, in my opinion.

And I think you can tell one from the other without too much trouble.

IF men routinely wore girly clothes without fetishising women, then yes that would be a good thing. Because they wouldn't be 'girly' any more. The sartorial power dynamic would have disappeared.

Yes, exactly. But the routinely wearing isn't going to happen overnight is it? The same as when women started wearing shorter dresses or "shock,horror" trousers. They didn't all get up one morning a put on a pair of trousers. Surely the change happened by a few radical women pushing boundaries and no doubt being roundly criticized for doing so.

I see that happening here. Boundaries being pushed that maybe over time will become more mainstream and so no longer shocking.

I think its quite simple - kids can wear any clothes conventionally deemed appropriate to the opposite sex. Few people here think it's ok for a boy to wear drag, or more generally for kids to wear sexualised clothing.

And little boys will grow up into men. So are you saying it is fine for a little boy, who maybe struggling with gender identity, to be allowed to wear dresses and pretty tops whilst at primary school but as he gets older he has to stop because we then declare that it is a fetish? It's either ok or it isn't.

You're just trying to find exceptions, for a reason which is beyond me.

No, I’m trying to make the point that not all ‘cross dressers’ aim to humiliate women or think women are inferior simply by wearing dresses and make up. The reason I’m entering into a long discussion is because I don’t think clothes should be gendered and I want men to be able to wear dresses, like women can wear pants, without the automatic assumptions based on a particular fetish. I also want to understand why others with different views are offended by someone like Grayson Perry, and I’m struggling sometimes to see all the connections, although I’ve definitely been given things to think about.

And to say that men are doing this for kicks or to humiliate women - well that only works if you believe that and give it that power surely?

Ah. Women's oppression solved. Don't believe it, don't give power to it.

They're not inventing women's oppression, they're leveraging it. And so it perpetuates.

The same with pornography, gangbanging, spit roasting, treating women like rag dolls. They're capitalising on women's oppression and men's arousal over it.

hipsterfun

No. And that’s not what you said, you said I don’t like being challenged. I’m not the one wondering and complaining about questions being asked and different views being presented. I thanked people for them. I have no expectation of others to change their mind, I’m simply sharing mine and debating. I’m allowed to do that.

to say that men are doing this for kicks or to humiliate women - well that only works if you believe that and give it that power surely?

women are responsible for their own oppression?

now I really have seen it all

But those pictures are of male versions of female clothing - the 2nd one appears to be a kilt, which is male clothing.

It's not a kilt. It's a skirt with pockets.

Interestingly, because the man is not trying to imitate a woman, he looks like a man in a skirt who isn't fetishising women.

What you are arguing for is the continuation of gender stereotypes. You are saying that women "look" a certain way, that there are women's clothes, hairstyles etc and that certain looks belong only to women. Does that mean that women who don't wear dresses or high heels or make up aren't women? And to say that men are doing this for kicks or to humiliate women - well that only works if you believe that and give it that power surely? By defining it as humiliating surely that affirms to any man doing it for that purpose that he's right? If we all stop reacting and accept it as being as normal as a woman wearing jeans and Timberlands then that takes the power away from it surely?

But I see you don’t like to have your view challenged and will refrain from engaging with you on this further.

You're not challenging my view though. You're just trying to find exceptions, for a reason which is beyond me.

There is a difference between men who wear feminine/female clothing. And men who dress 'as women'.

One is a fetish, one isn't.
And it's usually quite easy to tell.

They are not promoting the notion of male versions of skirts, in suit material.

Oh dear Lord, this is like reinventing the wheel.

Some men dress as women, in order to exert their power and leverage/fetishise women's oppression.

It's not the CLOTHES, it's the motivation.

That's why it doesn't work the other way round, when women wear three-piece suits. The power dynamic means they are punching up, not down.

Few men will wear very, very girly types of clothes, as a practical or preferential choice. Because it's punching down, as it signifies female. Unless they want to punch down - hence fetish.

IF men routinely wore girly clothes without fetishising women, then yes that would be a good thing. Because they wouldn't be 'girly' any more. The sartorial power dynamic would have disappeared.

When men wear feminine clothing, but don't dress 'as a woman', it's to be encouraged, because it's a step in the right direction.

It's the difference between a feminine sartorial choice, and imitating a woman.

Again, it's not complicated. Some people are trying to make it so, though.

You have seen, as have I, this argument made time and time again, that young boys be told that it is completely fine for them to wear girls clothes whilst remaining male.

I think its quite simple - kids can wear any clothes conventionally deemed appropriate to the opposite sex. Few people here think it's ok for a boy to wear drag, or more generally for kids to wear sexualised clothing.

But your view seems to be that others must be seen to change their minds, or concede a point - as you have - even when their position is well established, consistent and clearly articulated.

Yes and neither look like they are about to go on the game. Which is her point.

And neither does the photo of GP at Buckingham Palace. So what is her point?

hipsterfun Absolutely false, have you seen my multiple comments thanking others for their thoughts and even saying one gave me something to think about? You make yourself look foolish by claiming something that’s so clearly not true.

But those pictures are of male versions of female clothing - the 2nd one appears to be a kilt, which is male clothing.

Yes and neither look like they are about to go on the game. Which is her point.

It's the fetish that is played out in public with unwilling female contestants that is the problem.

Datun

But those pictures are of male versions of female clothing - the 2nd one appears to be a kilt, which is male clothing.

I am specifically talking about posters on the FWR board saying that boys should be encouraged to wear "girls" clothes whilst being supported to know that they are still male but that being male does not mean that you can't wear pretty dresses or the like. The argument is being specifically used as a way of discouraging boys from identifying as a girl.

They are not promoting the notion of male versions of skirts, in suit material. You have seen, as have I, this argument made time and time again, that young boys be told that it is completely fine for them to wear girls clothes whilst remaining male.

But I see you don’t like to have your view challenged

That’s you, that is.

It's really weird that people are saying what about this guy? How about this one? What if he says this? Then what? What if he does that?

I think it’s about having an in-depth discussion on cross dressing and trying to understand each other’s viewpoint. There’s more than one kind of person who cross dresses and there’s more than one view on what it means for women. But I see you don’t like to have your view challenged and will refrain from engaging with you on this further.

He says he is not ‘dressing as a woman’ and no longer uses the persona Claire, he’s just Grayson in a dress ( made for him not women ), as per my link much earlier.

People giving him positive reactions and kudos for wearing a dress is not giving him a boner any more.

And him wearing a dress is now his USP.

He may not be getting aroused in public, any longer, because it's not humiliating enough. It doesn't mean the fetish is gone. Nor does that mean his motivation wasn't a testimony to his power, in the first place.

It's really weird that people are saying what about this guy? How about this one? What if he says this? Then what? What if he does that?

There seems to be a strong need to deny that women's oppression is routinely fetishised by cross dressing men.

I love Grayson as an artist and film maker but agree it should be OK to discuss his cross dressing; it exists firmly within our misogynist culture of which we as women bear the brunt. I do think it is refreshing and correct that he is honest about his fetish. He puts Eddie Izzard to shame.

I don't have a link & sorry if this has been said already up thread, but I'm fairly sure Grayson himself said that the general public acceptance of Claire ruined the thrill and defeated the point of being her.

I wonder if we can extrapolate from that why trans activism pushes for more and more with its demands? Is our outrage at the blatant unfairness of most of it actually playing nicely into the game for those who get off on the humiliation? Because just going to the shops dressed up barely raises an eyebrow any more.

He says he is not ‘dressing as a woman’ and no longer uses the persona Claire, he’s just Grayson in a dress ( made for him not women ), as per my link much earlier.

There are pictures of GP wearing a dress and hat and collecting an honour from Buckingham Palace. Are you really saying that he was dressed like that to be sexually aroused or to humiliate all women in that scenario? That seems very bizarre to me

What's bizarre is that Grayson Perry has told anyone who will listen that he enjoys being sexually humiliated by dressing as a woman, and people are still saying do you really think he wants to be humiliated by dressing as a woman?

How can this ever actually happen though?

Oh dear lord, like this.

It's not difficult.

Fetishising women by dressing 'as a woman' is completely different to wearing clothes typically designed for women.

Pretending it's complicated is just weird. Why argue about the fact that a cross dressing fetish damages women?

"ALL this hot weather. It’s the perfect weather for a nice, cool skirt. But not if you’re a bloke, obviously. Men don’t wear skirts.
Actually, think again. Recently my mate Bryan confessed he was bored with the conservative dress code for blokes.

“If only we could wear skirts to work,” he laughed, “it’s too hot for pants and skirts world be perfect if they were more gender neutral.”

And as it turns out, he’s not alone. Plenty of Australian men are wearing skirts."

Posters on this board who disagree with young people taking blockers or cross sex hormones often argue that in order to prevent it children should be encouraged to dress how they want to. That it is perfectly acceptable for a boy to wear a dress, including to school, or to wear a pink sparkly t shirt or a party dress. They insist that there should not be boys or girls clothes, just clothes. They actively call for that. But that it is important that he knows that he is male.

How can this ever actually happen though? So many on this thread are insisting that any male who cross dresses is doing so because of a fetish or in order to humiliate women. So a male never can wear typically female clothing, as a male, because he will be constantly judged for doing so?

Surely if we want to see a time where it is as normal and unremarkable for a man to wear a dress as it is for a woman to wear trousers then we have to accept the transition. It will occur by people breaking the boundaries and challenging perceptions.

There are pictures of GP wearing a dress and hat and collecting an honour from Buckingham Palace. Are you really saying that he was dressed like that to be sexually aroused or to humiliate all women in that scenario? That seems very bizarre to me.