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.

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.

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

That’s you, that is.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

I love him, and think he is an absolutely brilliant artist and a national treasure as a person.

Clearly his incredibly intelligent and together wife doesn't have an issue with his cross-dressing.

Cross-dressing can actually be an anti-essentialist feminist praxis: this has, in fact, been a major strand over the last 30 years. The way that people on this forum talk about feminism without knowing the first thing about it is annoying. Go away and do the reading before spouting off.

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

I agree.

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

No you are totally twisting what I am saying. How are you managing to compare a man wearing a dress and gang banging?

Why is it so controversial to treat a man out and about wearing a dress in exactly the same way as a woman out and about in jeans and a lumber jack shirt? Do you feel demeaned or humiliated by that? If some men do it in order to get a reaction why give them the reaction that they want? Surely that takes the power back rather than being oppressed?

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 it doesn't turn them on, then it's not a problem.

Has anyone read Philippa Perry's books? I read the Guardian article too and was impressed. Ordered on Amazon as I'm intrigued to know more.

Why is it so controversial to treat a man out and about wearing a dress in exactly the same way as a woman out and about in jeans and a lumber jack shirt?

Because of the inherent power dynamic between men and women. I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Women wearing men's clothing is punching up because men aren't oppressed.

It doesn't work the other way round.

It's not about the clothes. It's about the power dynamic. The clothes merely represent that.

If everyone wore the same clothes, it would address the issue of clothes indicating the power dynamic.

It wouldn't solve the actual power dynamic.

Women do not fetishise men by wearing their clothes.