Grayson Perry irks me

If you hear him talk about gender, his thinking is very much inline with GC women from what I’ve seen.

I agree, his words on femininity and masculinity are sound. I just don't see anything positive in the Claire persona, it's a manifestation of his paraphilia rather than gender nonconformity.
I think excessive kink positivity is one of the reasons why the aggressive AGP types have been able to invade women's spaces, so a little bit of a pushback against men who act out their fetishes in public isn't a bad thing.
It has been enlightening to see how many people aren't familiar with crossdressing as a fetish! TRAs have done a good job erasing vocabulary relating to this subject. I believe the word 'transvestite' is banned at Stonewall?

And Grayson, if you’re reading, I really appreciate your clear and unequivocal support for women in the face of the TRA onslaught

Yeah, yeah, you don’t have to, but it would’ve been nice.

Interesting.

How many men are dressing in burqa or the garb of fundamental jewish or christian women???

I wrote that and I suddnely realised

In public - none
In private - plenty probs
And experiencing it as a submissive / sexually submissive experience

Male sexuality seems fucked up no matter where...

That is maybe what needs dealing with

By men,as women have been trying for literally centuries and still no dice

The fact society attaches it to female, is not his fault.

No, but nobody forced him to pick it up and run with it.

Yet another excellent post, Datun

I like GP. His book is brilliant. I love the way he pushes gender identity beliefs. It completely opposes everything that the TRAs try to push.

I think his pots are shite tbh.

The humiliation is his, no? Isn’t that what he means? It’s not directed at women is it?

No. He is not being humiliated. Have you not read the transwidows thread? These men are determined to be sexually dominant by forcefully demanding the role-play of humiliation.

Perry isn't interested in actual humiliation. He doesn't want to stand on a podium and forget his words, or have his body of work held up as pathetic.

He's taking society's view of women as lesser than, and subverting it, in order to inhabit it. In order to be temporarily aroused. But only while he inhabits that persona. Or thinks about it.

Actual sexual humiliation is not what he's after. He's after the theatre of pretend humiliation in order to be aroused.

And being a woman is worse than anything. It's degrading, humiliating. Women are victims.

And he's orgasming to it.

And he knows it.

It doesn't stop him being a good artist, an effective orator or being insightful.

It is, however, a narrative that should be criticised by feminists. Because it relies on women being degraded in society.

The fact that he doesn't go out of his way to shove it down your throat doesn't mean that the basis for it isn't women's oppression.

I think I understand you. But I think his point is that for most men, the humiliation is not being masculine enough. I think his focus is what is expected of men and that men see it as humiliating, when it shouldn’t be. The fact society attaches it to female, is not his fault. I see it as actively working against that expectation, if you put it alongside his other comments and the documentary’s etc I have yet to read his book though, just ordered. Thanks for the chat, it has been good to get other thoughts.

Feminine and female aren’t the same though? It’s the attachment of feminine to female that’s an issue for GC people, isn’t it?

I agree with this, but feminine is attached to female in most people's minds, and certain types of clothing are coded 'female', rather than feminine. So if a man is humiliated by wearing a dress (stereotypically female attire) and adopting feminine mannerisms, then it's only a small step to being 'female' being the humiliation.

Feminine and female aren’t the same though? It’s the attachment of feminine to female that’s an issue for GC people, isn’t it? If you hear him talk about gender, his thinking is very much inline with GC women from what I’ve seen.

being extremely feminine is the humiliation for males.

So doesn't that imply that, for them, there is something inherently humiliating about being feminine/female?

He doesn’t say he’s a woman or that he wants to be one. I’m taking it that the humiliating part is a Male not performing masculinity as expected, being extremely feminine is the humiliation for males. He has said he took the Claire personna when younger and doesn’t ever use that now, even when in a dress.

The humiliation is his, no? Isn’t that what he means? It’s not directed at women is it?

The fact that the humiliation takes place when he is cross-dressing implies it is directed at women. Because the fantasy of being a woman is what is humiliating.

www.dailymotion.com/video/x69dfwp

It’s a classic look. I used to call it the crack cocaine of femininity. It’s the furthest from the male macho look you could get. It’s vulnerable, it’s young, it’s humiliating. The fantasy of humiliation is a big drug for many men.”

Playing with those ideas of young femininity/vulnerability/humiliation requires pushing things onto female people in order that males can be tourists. We have to be involved somehow for it to work, so maybe not ‘directed at’ us, but certainly utilising us for no clear benefit to ourselves.

It’s not cut and dry by any means, but to me, the difference is that transvestism and drag seems to kick against toxic masculinity - it’s sticking a big two fingers up to conventional ideas about what is acceptably ‘male’.

Transgendersim takes it somewhere else. Instead of saying ‘yeah I’m a hyper feminine man, so what?’ It’s saying ‘I want to be hyper feminine therefore I am a woman, because all women are hyper feminine’.

The end result looks the same but the motivation is very different.

I agree, women don’t ‘own’ hyperbolic femininity because that is objectively nothing to do with being a woman. Contrary to the beliefs of the TRAs.

The humiliation is his, no? Isn’t that what he means? It’s not directed at women is it?

“It’s a classic look. I used to call it the crack cocaine of femininity. It’s the furthest from the male macho look you could get. It’s vulnerable, it’s young, it’s humiliating. The fantasy of humiliation is a big drug for many men.”

Thanks for posting that, Doctoress.

That right there is the troubling bit for a lot of us, I guess.

"I don't really understand why men dress as women"

++

why do women dress "as women" and what does this actually mean?

Obviously plenty of feminist critique of gender role, makeup, various styles of clothes that are sold to women & etc and so on massive topic.

But the bottom line is that given a choice, men and women seem to often veer towards the same style > jeans and a comfy tee. They have at every dress down day I've ever had anyway. Then the more formal you get, the more the gap between what women and men are wearing grows. Yes before some say they prefer skirts / dresses yes of course that's fine but BUT the largest differentials in clothing seem contrived. Think men and women on high street vs red carpet it gets much more extreme.

The question why do men wear "womens clothes" and by that it's usually meaning very feminine / or extreme / "sexy" clothes aimed at women >>
Can also be asked, why do women wear them?

Just a thought.

I suppose in answer to the OP, part of the art is the irking. Just like Greer liked to get people angry when she was teaching, because it made them think.

ScrimshawTheSecond thank you for such a well considered contribution, says a lot of what I’ve concluded but more eloquently than I could.

Perry's dressing seems to have several different elements. Sexual elements, I suppose, also provocateur elements. An artist provokes questions, and I'd say if it leads to detailed consideration of, discussion and thought on the issues of, say, femininity, gender, social responsibility etc, it's been a fairly successful art work/project.

And now, it's clearly part of his 'brand'. Self-parody, maybe. I don't think it's mocking women, so much as Greer's 'third sex' of femininity. I seem to recall her discussing drag in exactly this context.

As for the fetish aspect - we can't police someone's thoughts or sexual impulses. People can wear whatever they like, it's their words and actions that matter. Any one of us could be part of a thousand passersby's sexual fantasies/thrills; I'm afraid there's not a huge amount anyone can do about it. Besides, is everyone just to ensure they never entertain a sexual thought while out in public? What do you propose? Anyone who looks like they're wearing unorthodox clothing and enjoying it should be tutted at?

Perry seems to be thoughtful, kind and respectful. I don't doubt he's considered all of this in depth. I think he's making his own contribution to the debate(s), in his own way.

We seem to be talking about two things which to my mind, are quite different: 1) men wearing women's clothes because they like them or to challenge gender norms. And 2) men wearing women's clothes because it gets them off.

Yes, I think you're right Floisme.
Anyway, here's Grayson Perry on transvestism. I think it's disingenuous to say that he doesn't dress as a woman. Why deny the fetish element, which he himself talks about so freely?

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/04/grayson-perry-dress-tranny-art-who-are-you-tv

Perry rarely dresses up unless he’s going out, because it’s such an effort. Does he ever get bored with it? Now he tells me I don’t understand the nature of transvestism. “No, I’m not bored with transvestism. That would be silly – I’m a transvestite. The dress is only one element of the psycho-sexual process. Just because you don’t have a dress on doesn’t stop you being a tranny, in the same way as, if you’re not in bed with a man, it doesn’t stop you being gay.”

Does he still find it sexually exciting? “Oh yes,” he shouts excitedly. “Yeah!” But there is a problem, he says, with being a very public tranny. You mean, you couldn’t be seen at the Royal Academy in a nice frock and a stiffy? He nods enthusiastically. “You couldn’t do it. If I could manage it, I’m sure I’d be thinking how to do it. But I can’t.” He pauses. “My days of a spontaneous erection are long gone, anyway,” he adds a little sadly.

As a young man, he dressed as a more conventional woman. Why did Claire change her look? “I had a Damascene moment when I realised that the masquerade of dressing up as a woman and getting away with it, or ‘passing’, as they call it in the tranny world, was a fairly unrewarding experience. I used to come back from shopping in Oxford Street in my Monsoon outfit and think, well, nobody really gave me a second glance and that was boring.” He wanted to be noticed? “I was always slightly envious of those trannies who dressed more flamboyantly and didn’t give a shit.” But why, for instance, the Little Bo Peep look? “It’s a classic look. I used to call it the crack cocaine of femininity. It’s the furthest from the male macho look you could get. It’s vulnerable, it’s young, it’s humiliating. The fantasy of humiliation is a big drug for many men.”

These days, most of his dresses are made by students at Central Saint Martins, where he teaches a course in fashion (“teaching them is pushing it: I expose them to my sensibilities”), and he has to tell them he’s got more than enough Little Bo Peep numbers. At 54, he thinks he is struggling with his look. “Trannies go through this horrible cycle. When they’re really young and just post-pubescent, they can look gorgeous as a woman – you’re fairly androgynous, you’re thin, you just look good. When I look back at the first photographs, I realise what a wasted opportunity it was. I didn’t have the budget, experience or confidence to pull it off. Now I’ve got the budget, experience and confidence, but I’ve not got the features. You go through this cycle where you get older and older, and you get to around 35 to 40 when you’re looking your most manly. Then there’s a little payoff at the end, where, as you get really old, you become androgynous again.” He can’t wait for his 70s: if he’s got his hair, he’s going for the lilac rinse. “I’m going to go the whole way. I’m looking forward to being an old artist and not giving a shit.”

I don't really understand why men dress as women

He’s not dressing as a woman. He’s a man in a dress, he says this repeatedly.

Ok I was being disingenuous to a degree by saying that there's no such thing as women's clothing. I do however mean there shouldn't be.
And yes wearing them is a big fetish thing for a lot of men.
But would the fetish even exist if it wasn't for all the stereotypes? Isn't a fetish a sexual expression of something else really - ie not being allowed to express yourself fully in all areas of life?
I really don't care what people wear. Nor do I care what their sexual fetishes are, if they don't impact negatively on others. There's a fine line between imitation and appropriation. But I'm heartily sick of having people's fetishes shoved in my face. Has our society got nothing other than sex to think about these days?
I think Grayson is exploring and sharing a few things in a fairly acceptable manner, but the line is crossed so easily.