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.

"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.

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 his pots are shite tbh.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

Have you not read the transwidows thread?

What has that got to do with GP? He’s not transgender.

I just don't see anything positive in the Claire persona
He no longer does and doesn’t use it, in the link I posted he said she doesn’t exist and he’s just Grayson.

It has been enlightening to see how many people aren't familiar with crossdressing as a fetish!

I’m aware of it, I don’t think it’s exclusively a fetishise for all, it certainly isn’t for my friends who do.

What has that got to do with GP? He’s not transgender.

It doesn't matter what label you give it.

He's got a cross dressing fetish that he is happy to own.

Other men have a cross dressing fetish which they are determined to get sanitised by calling it transgender. (And yes there are other men who have gender dysphoria and call it transgender).

I don’t agree that a ‘cross dressing fetish’ is always a problem.

I don’t agree that a ‘cross dressing fetish’ is always a problem.

Clearly!