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.

good, I’m glad that’s clear. What is not clear is why you do.

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.

Thank you for that post, Datun. This is what I was trying to say.

good, I’m glad that’s clear. What is not clear is why you do.

What even after I've explained it three different ways in three different posts?

I must be slipping.

I object to it when he's working, sexual fetishes don't belong in the workplace. Would it be appropriate for a teacher to teach children when dressed as their sexual fetish ?

I don’t think you’ve shown why every cross dresser thinks the way you keep stating. Like I say, I don’t think wearing feminine clothes should be called cross dressing even. I know men who have worn dresses and it’s not as a fetish. Why the attitude? Can’t you converse with people with different opinions without being passive aggressive and patronising? I’ve been here years under diff usernames and you’re typically respectful, only I usually share the same opinions so maybe that’s it.

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?

To me, the issue isn’t necessarily that Perry gets his jollies by the humiliation he feels at dressing as a woman.

It’s the societal acceptance that to be feminine or womanly is humiliating for a man because it is lesser that is rightly up for feminist critique. A man degrades himself by being feminine. Its a space that he can occupy playfully, and sexually, then opt back up to being a man, and being superior again in his head. It’s why a woman wearing trousers doesn’t have the same impact or meaning.

I object to that thought process being sanitised into “just a kink”. I still have to ask if that attitude and thought process really never leaks through into real life. Can someone with that paraphilia really, honestly truly see and treat women as his equal? I have to wonder.

As usual with feminist critique, it’s less about what an individual does, and more about what the broader meaning is.

SophoclesTheFox Thanks, that’s interesting and I’ll have a good think about what you’ve written. I’m not sure we could know that he thinks he’s superior as a man in his head, but I take your point.

I’m not sure we could know that he thinks he’s superior as a man in his head, but I take your point

Yes, you’re right, I think I could have phrased that better. What I mean is that he goes back to occupying the superior, male position (which he’d have to think it is, or there would be no sexual charge by downgrading temporarily to female, would there?). It might not be that explicit in his head, or any mans head who does this, but without that being the subtext, the behaviour doesn’t make any sense.

JessicaWakefieldSVH

Every cross dresser isn't the problem. It's the fact that cross dressing men wiil typically be leveraging women's oppression for their own pleasure.

It's well documented. The fetish is plastered from one end of the Internet to the other. The social taboo and 'naughtiness' of being part of the oppressed class is a turn on. Knowing that they are getting turned on by having women participate unwittingly is part of their additional power (being served in shops by women when they're buying female clothes, trying on shoes, forcing pronoun usage, etc).

It's misogynistic from top to bottom.

These men aren't wearing these clothes because they like florals, or silky fabrics. That's wearing feminine clothes. These men are dressing 'as women'. It's completely different. And yes, it relies on seeing women are something you can 'dress as'.

I haven't been rude, at all. I've explained my point of view and why I have it, several times. Including again in this post.

I can't keep reacting to you just 'disagreeing'. You are welcome to disagree. But being acquainted with someone who dresses as a woman for some other reason (I have no idea what that could be, by the way, other than drag, but that's a different thread), doesn't alter the fact a cross dressing fetish serves as an indictment on society's attitude to women.

The opening post was talking about Grayson Perry, specifically. Grayson Perry, specifically, has said he enjoys the sexual humiliation of dressing as a female.

You cannot read the accounts of men who dress as women in order to enjoy pretending that they are submissive, whilst demanding that you treat them as submissive, without seeing this as patriarchy on steroids.

Cross dressing fetishists used to confine it to clubs, parties, and their own house. Now, with the advent of transgenderism, it's much more in the public.

And it's being billed as progressive, inclusive and celebrating diversity.

It's tying women's hands, and stifling their voices to the misogyny.

So yes, I will bloody tut.

SophoclesTheFox thanks for explaining that again, I can’t argue with that. Do you think he’s actively challenging the idea men are superior? Overall I mean, not just in the act of cross dressing. I’ve ordered the book as someone else here recommended it and it may give me a better idea of what he thinks on this whole thing.

It's the fact that cross dressing men wiil typically be leveraging women's oppression for their own pleasure. I understand this point as you have indeed said that before, but I replied not every ‘cross dresser’ will be. Grayson states he’s not dressing ‘as a woman or female’ anymore.

How could men challenge the gender norms associated with clothing, without it being a fetish or it being some kind of insult to women? When is a man not cross dressing, and simply just wearing what he wants?

Well perhaps he no longer gets a sexual kick out of it. If people are calling you amazing, stunning, clever, and breaking through gender boxes, when really you're trying to be submissive and humiliated, it's not going to work.

I'll be interested to know what other reason you think there is for men dressing 'as women'.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by ‘dressing as women’? Putting on a dress and make-up isn’t necessarily dressing as a woman. I replied elsewhere why my friends dressed feminine, or in dresses ( they’d usually made ), because they liked them and to shock. Lots of people dress to shock.

When is a man not cross dressing, and simply just wearing what he wants?

When he's not doing it to get aroused.

Okay. So how would you know? With anonymous people we won’t know what they’re thinking. I highlighted someone else’s comments earlier this morning that elaborates on that.

If Grayson says that’s not what it’s about now, is it ok?

What difference does it make if I know, or not??

Whether I know it or not, a cross dressing fetish still relies on the oppression of women and their unwitting participation.

It's like men who go on to make up and beauty forums, discussing clothes and make up. Many of the women won't realise they are men, and many others won't realise they are getting off on it.

Them not knowing, makes no difference to the critique of it.

First of all I think that I should say that I think Grayson Perry has every right to dress as he likes, as does a woman in a niqab, or at the other end of the scale a girl in daisy duke shorts.

The freedom to dress as you like comes with the flip side of other people being free to judge and hypotheses why you choose to wear clothes that go against the ethos of the main or dominant society.

I saw Grayson's Rosetta pot in the British Museum and it is a great peice of art, and on it he has a self portrait of "the artist" he labels his penis as "power", which is telling.

I really think women have no idea of the overriding sexual drive men have at times. How it is the end goal for everything they do at times. I also think men themselves are overwhelmed by this and feel shame as it goes against their ego as "the good guy".

Healthy sexualities are being warped in modern day - you could argue its porn culture, too much status in the masculine or even the hang-over of a too rigid religious ethos from the past. But this is a philosophical debate all on its own.

Here is a link to the Rosetta pot:

www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=1204630001&objectId=3464588&partId=1

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.