Grayson Perry irks me

[everythingisbetterafteranap]

Not sure if I'm going to articulate this well, so bear with me.

I was reading a Guardian article on a therapist who is married to the artist Grayson Perry. Reasonably interesting article with a focus on self awareness as a parent.

But it got me thinking again on why so many bright, intelligent women so readily accept men dressing up as women in such a garish pantoesque way. Where is the feminist critique of this?

Grayson Perry has his alter ego 'Claire' who looks like the silliest version of female you could find. Why is this acceptable and not challenged? Would Grayson Perry be lauded for having a black alter ego with big lips and exaggerated gestures? There is even an annual 'let's dress Claire' competition at St Martins art college. Why aren't the students there questioning this?

What is this really all about? It doesn't feel female empowering to me.

My gay friends dressed in a similar way because they enjoy it, they enjoy shocking others by breaking out of gender norms, and they did enjoy making others uncomfortable, partially because that had been done to them for so long just for expressing themselves in ways most men did not.

I think I'll have to make 'just to shock' (without a sexual fetish element) no. 6 on my list of reasons to cross dress. And like no.1 I think this reason is OK. Young people have dressed 'just to shock' their elders since forever, and I don't see anything wrong with trying to shake up the world a bit.

I'm actually quite vanilla, but I can't get in a tizz about the fact that putting on a pair of women's frillys will get some men going, or that young lesbians get off on dressing in boys clothes
Obviously if Perry gets done for frottaging or something I'll change my opinion, but he's not invading women's spaces and he knows he's a man, so for now , however unappealing I might think he looks, he's not bothering me

I'm extremely vanilla and I feel the same way.

How is he forcing someone to interact with him any more than say the women who go out for the night round here dressed in mini skirts, bras, sky high platform shoes with the obligatory trout pout and odd eyebrows that seem to be in fashion? Is there a sexual element in how they dress?

I already answered that question when Jessica said something similar. But just to add to that response, I think another thing for me is to do with the asymmetry in sexual relationships between men and women. Men are more likely to be able to overpower women than the other way round. A man who presents and behaves in an excessively sexual way is more of a threat to women than a woman who dresses provocatively is to anyone (she may simply be putting herself in a vulnerable position).

In short, if a man his flaunting his fetish, I might feel threatened by it. If a woman is, I don't think many people of either sex would feel threatened, and some men might simply take it as an invitation.

Nah. Someone, anyone, dressing to humiliate others in a public arena so they can masturbate to it isn't a good thing. That's a major power trip

Presuming consent is so dangerous

But by the argument on here he isn't presuming consent. The argument is he is openly in the "bad" category. No one need ever engage with him if they don't want to.

My boss posting out before a meeting that he intends to turn up in full gimp gear so he can nip off to the loo for a quick wank at my discomfort doesn't make it ok

That really isn't the same as GP.

There seems to be a distinction between "good" cross dressers who wear dresses simply because dresses are just so much nicer than boring jeans and "bad" cross dressers who wear them as a fetish.

One would need to see inside the individual's head to determine if a cross dresser was "good" or "bad".

Unless they've stated in an interview with a national newspaper that they have a fetish.

Anyone else hoping that Grayson himself rocks up on the thread for a Q&A?

My boss posting out before a meeting that he intends to turn up in full gimp gear so he can nip off to the loo for a quick wank at my discomfort doesn't make it ok

That really isn't the same as GP.

No it's not - or is it? You've been asking why people on here think some crossdressers are OK and others aren't, and I've told you my views. So for you, which fetishes are OK to flaunt in public and which ones aren't?

It's no good saying, as is always said on FWR, that boys should be encouraged to wear whatever they want but that wearing a dress doesn't make them female and then scream "fetish" when they wear a dress. Obviously you don't believe that boys can wear dresses at all.

I suggest you read the post I made at 13.23, Weetabix.

Well I think so long as people aren't acting on their fetish in public ie masturbating, exposing themselves etc I don't care.

Are you advocating a kind of thought police ready to arrest someone for improper thoughts?

What actually constitutes a fetish anyway? Some people develop fetishes around normal every day objects don't they, or feet or things - how are you going to police them?

OldCrone

Yes, I did read it. My question is how do you differentiate? If he hadn't said it was a fetish would that be ok then? In accordance with no 1 on your list? Although it could still be a fetish but he just hadn't admitted it. Does that make it better or worse?

Unless they've stated in an interview with a national newspaper that they have a fetish

In which case those of you who are bothered can avoid going to events featuring Perry.

So for you, which fetishes are OK to flaunt in public and which ones aren't?

One would have to make one's own mind up. At the extreme there are still people who object to gay couples holding hands or kissing in public. I'm not keen on nudity. I woould not like to have met the Naked Rambler for example.

As I said before I'm not a mind reader as to the motives of all cross dressers. Perry doesn't make me feel in the least bit uncomfortable.

Well I think so long as people aren't acting on their fetish in public ie masturbating, exposing themselves etc I don't care

That seems fair. And clearly the OP's hypothetical gimp boss has crossed the line.

I'm actually quite vanilla, but I can't get in a tizz about the fact that putting on a pair of women's frillys will get some men going, or that young lesbians get off on dressing in boys clothes.

I’m very similar and Grayson Perry doesn’t bother me, and nor do most drag queens really.

The thing is though, there are shades of grey for me.

Where I draw the line is someone like “part-time” Pips Bunce. There is something about working in a similar environment with all its issues, and really knowing that I’m on some level obliged, not freely choosing, to dress in heels, make-up etc in the workplace that makes me bristle at his/her performative feminity (as well as their hideous taste in clothes!)

wearethecity.com/inspirational-profile-pips-bunce-director-credit-suisse/

That is when I really do feel that being female is treated as a fetish or something you “do”, and it doesn’t sit well with me.

Well I think so long as people aren't acting on their fetish in public ie masturbating, exposing themselves etc I don't care.

I think I'd go along with that. Although I do have an issue with the individual in the Guardian article I linked to earlier, who gets off on making shop assistants feel uncomfortable. That sort of non consensual participation is unacceptable to me - and it is a sort of acting out of their fetish in public.

My question is how do you differentiate? If he hadn't said it was a fetish would that be ok then? In accordance with no 1 on your list? Although it could still be a fetish but he just hadn't admitted it. Does that make it better or worse?

My instinctive reaction if I saw someone like 'Clare' walking down a crowded street would be to laugh - I'd assume they were doing it for a joke or a fetish. And if I saw them in the ladies' toilets I'd want them removed.

If I saw someone looking like Kurt Cobain in a dress, I'd think it was great that they were breaking down stereotypes. And if I saw them in the ladies' toilets I'd want them removed.

Perry has spoken before about the risk of going out and about dressed being the exhilarating thing (ie will he get beaten up). I think this is quite instructive when one thinks so many middle aged transitioners have been in highly masculine professions such as the military. It seems to fit in with getting a semi-sexual thrill out of extreme sports etc.

I don't really think this is forcing women to participate in a fetish, even though it is clearly sexual behaviour.

I'm usually quite hard line on most of this stuff but I like Perry. He knows he's a man. He's interested in unusual expressions of masculinity. He doesn't transgress women's space or services.

I'd rather stick to issues than judge specific people, though I am prepared to judge their actions.
There's no such thing as women's clothes so it's moot. Wear what the hell you want.
'feminine' or 'masculine' (which there were better words that weren't associated with either sex) behaviour is acceptable in anyone.
I don't like anyone's sexual preferences or fetishes displaying in public, whatever their flavour, not interested, keep it safe and respectful and stfu about it.

*wish there were not which sorry

I like Grayson Perry. He makes me laugh and some of his work makes me think. But I don't think that should make him immune from questioning and criticism.

I love clothes and I've worn loads of outfits that have made me feel fabulous but never, as far as I can recall, sexually aroused. So yeah, I was discomforted to read Perry say this and I can't pretend otherwise.

However we only know this about him because he's said so. I think judging people by their thoughts and their fantasies is a very dangerous path indeed so I'm going to stick to judging Perry by what he says and by what he does. From what I have seen, he doesn't lay claim to be a woman or to have any special insight into being a woman and he's not going to try and follow me into the women's changing room. If any of that changes then that's when my views will change.

It is perhaps his likeability that is the problem - his lack of a direct threat to womens spaces, his deliberately non-confrontational stance, his disarming openess. He is perhaps part of the advance guard - to soften hearts and minds and open up a big door in the popular consciousness - this is why he is so beloved of the BBC.

I’m just watching this. At 19 minutes he talks about how he wouldn’t create the alter ego of Claire if he was starting out now, that he is not into deceiving anyone etc and that he is a man in a dress. I’m still watching to see if anything else interesting and relevant comes up:

I can't be the only one here familiar with drag kings:

www.stylist.co.uk/people/drag-kings-queens-gender-neutral-transvestite-art-performance-uk/29914

Norah Vincent has done interesting work on the year or so she spent as a male 'alter ego':

www.theguardian.com/books/2006/mar/19/biography.features1

As it goes on, he discusses the limited options for a transvestite, either comedy or sex maniac in his words,.. he concludes he’s happy to be the one people laugh at. He also doesn’t go shopping in women’s departments, his clothes are made for him.

That's a really great interview, Jessica, thank you. He doesn't strike me as creepy at all, and never has. When he talks about dressing up he talks about it being fun and entertaining rather than sexy.

He has made it clear he's a man in a dress and has no wish to invade women's spaces. I don't think he's an "advance guard" - he represents exactly the opposite to what the TRAs are trying to push. His work on masculinity is excellent and important.

Also yes, there are tons of female cross-dressers, especially in lesbian history.

I don't get this. So many GC feminists claim they are against stereotypical and enforced femininity and want a world where boys and men can do and wear things that were traditionally considered for girls or women? What precisely is the issue with a man wearing women's clothes? How does it offend you? There is nothing inherently womanly about a dress or makeup- it's a social construct.
Good on him I say (and people like the OP are revealing signs that they are probably relatively happy with existing gendered norms relating to appearance, but realise it makes them look better if they claim not to be).