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 see that as being an insult to femininity though, I see it as a protest against masculinity. That it's rejecting having to act and dress in a masculine way

you don't see GP thinking that there is something inherently submissive about being a woman as insulting?

cor

Datun

And what was the context of that picture? They weren't just boys wearing clothes, they were making a point.

Which women? Who is being threatened with being forced into prostitution?

It amazes me what you choose to take in and what you choose to allow to float over your head. Someone posted that the Care Quality Commission is saying that care homes should facilitate the cross dressing that you seem to think is so harmless - who do you think is going to get the dirty job of facilitating this, if not low-paid women care workers

the cross dressing that you seem to think is so harmless

I don’t believe I’ve said it’s always harmless and those doing it are always harmless. This is a busy thread today so I’m sorry if I haven’t responded to each and every point but I have a nasty bout of cystitis so have to keep getting up for the loo.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be sharp - but these ideas all have implications for somebody and in this case the they are all too clear. Hope you get better soon

I’ve tried really hard to engage in good faith, trying to consider the valid points some have raised, Ive gone away to read some of his words and understand the problems others have with it and I don’t think I’ve belittled or been passive aggressive and rude to anyone in this conversation. Unfortunately I don’t think certain posters are engaging respectfully with me and others and therefore any further discussion is pointless.

Thank you to those that have made your points respectfully and given me other views to consider around the general issue of cross dressing and fetishism, and Grayson Perry himself. I have the book on its way and will read with an open mind.

Someone posted that the Care Quality Commission is saying that care homes should facilitate the cross dressing that you seem to think is so harmless - who do you think is going to get the dirty job of facilitating this, if not low-paid women care workers

A)has it actually happened?
B)even if it does happen, it will simply involve putting a dress on Bert, rather than a shirt or trousers.

It isn't going to involve dressing a 90 year old up in a rubber skirt, padded bra and fishnets is it?

And I do doubt that many people in a care home are actually going to be that fussed about it anyway. They were also talking about facilitating residents in care homes to have sexual relationships if they so choose. It's all part of recognising the human rights of people living in care homes, not a way of forcing care workers into prostitution.

By the way, men work in care homes too.

I don't see that as being an insult to femininity though, I see it as a protest against masculinity. That it's rejecting having to act and dress in a masculine way.

Yeah, no. Bathing in patriarchy's oppression of women, is about as masculine as it gets.

It's all part of recognising the human rights of people living in care homes

Having sex is not human right.

Forcing, under the threat of your job, minimum wage women (it is mostly women), to facilitate you having sex, is a violation on so many different levels, I can't even start.

The potential for abuse is huge. And seems to be a decision made by the same sorts of idiots who thought that allowing men into female spaces wouldn't be exploited.

And what was the context of that picture? They weren't just boys wearing clothes, they were making a point.

It was for reasons of comfort! The point is they're not fetishising/parodying women.

Women who wear mens clothes do it for a variety of reasons, I imagine. None of them to do with a fetish.

Well what are the reasons then? It's clearly making a statement so what is it?

As I said upthread, I do this, if you include men's t-shirts and jeans, and I've been doing it ever since I started buying my own clothes as a teenager in the 70s. It's nothing to do with a fetish or making a statment. It's because men's clothes are more comfortable and practical for practical activities.

In the 70s, women's jeans didn't exist (at least not in the shops I had access to). So I'd buy men's ones and nip them in at the waist and/or wear a belt. I still do that, because after a short period of women's jeans just being female-shaped versions of men's jeans (in the 80s and 90s), they are now flimsy fashion items, whereas the men's ones are still made of proper heavy denim.

I've always bought men's t-shirts because I prefer loose ones with a traditional t-shirt shape and they don't seem to make those for women.

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?

I don't want to derail this thread too much, but I do need to comment on this point by Weetabix earlier.

If we acknowledge that a little boy might be struggling with gender identity, it assumes that there is some sort of 'identity' that belongs with each 'gender' or sex. This is reinforcing stereotypes if we accept that dresses and pretty tops are gendered 'feminine' or 'female'.

We need to get rid of the idea that anyone has a 'gender identity', because a gender identity is stereotypes. If we can start with children and teach them that clothes are just clothes, and anyone can wear anything (but nobody can change sex), we might start to make progress.

And btw, Weetabix, I don't think anyone here has been arguing that wearing dresses and skirts is always a fetish - quite the opposite.

A man wearing a dress or skirt because he likes wearing it is fine. Men wearing skirts in hot weather are similar to me wanting proper sturdy jeans for outdoor activities.

A man wearing a dress because it arouses him and/or he's trying to impersonate or parody a woman is not OK. Any man wearing a stuffed bra is in this group.

OldCrone

I'm reading it as the opposite - that people who have a problem with it are saying that men are doing it as a fetish.

Grayson does make it clear that the erotic cross dressing he engages in started as a child.

Phsycologists that have talked to the press recently have referred to AGP being a part of the mix of symptoms presented by children coming to gender clinics. This to me is part of the negative impact of presenting this all as identity, we are more or less guaranting kids get stuck with life long fetishes which they are convinced mean that they are the opposite sex and expect legal protection of their behavior.

Datun

What’s meant by private life?
Private life has a broad meaning. It means you have the right to live your life with privacy and without interference by the state. It covers things like:

your sexuality
your body
personal identity and how you look and dress
forming and maintaining relationships with other people
how your personal information is held and protected

No one was talking about forcing care workers to enable residents to have sex. It was talking about respecting the rights of residents in a care home to enter into sexual relationships is they so choose.

As you can see above, it is also a human right to be able to express your identity and how you look and dress, so people in a care home should have that right too.

Are there actually 90 year olds in care asking to cross-dress? Or is some well-meaning, or perhaps ill-meaning other trying to push it on them?
Not only is there potential for low-paid workers to be dragged into something they don't want to do, but what about the potential for someone to take a job as a care-assistant so they can use old people as 'dolls' to dress up for their own fetishes?

hdh747 I don't know. It was clitherow above who mentioned it. I only heard about a report stating that residents should be allowed to have relationships, if they have capacity.

This thread is hard work and I salute those showing endless patience. The acknowledgement of cross-dressing when it is a fetish has a Schrödinger character and seems to appear and disappear according to the argument being advanced.

I see very many posts using wilful misunderstanding to undermine, when it suits, other's objections to fetishes performed in public.

The acknowledgement of cross-dressing when it is a fetish has a Schrödinger character and seems to appear and disappear according to the argument being advanced.

It's actually very amusing to watch.

True 😂😂

Seen it before

Here is the link.

mobile.twitter.com/ThrupennyBit/status/1104429992329572352?s=19

You can support wanting minimum wage care workers to help men watch porn, and ask about their fetishes as much as you want.

I think it's nonsense. It's an ill thought out, fairly abusive even in its concept, notion that panders to men's entitlement to sex.

And I'm not sure how you can live in this world, and gain any sort of experience, whilst imagining there are lots of elderly women in care homes desperate for sex.

mobile.twitter.com/ThrupennyBit/status/1104429992329572352?s=19

I'm a fairly patient person, but this thread is the epitome of an intellectual wank fest of concepts, ideas and notions over the lived experience of most people.

As an exercise in futility, it's right up there.

I'm reading it as the opposite - that people who have a problem with it are saying that men are doing it as a fetish.

Some of them are doing it as a fetish. Do you have a problem understanding the difference in meaning between 'some' and 'all', Weetabix.

I always think a man donning a bra is a fairly good indication of what's going on

no man needs to wear a bra - they're not just 'getting dressed, so what are they doing?

You might be saying it'ssome OldCrone and I agree with you, but others on here are saying it's all. I don't agree that it's all, I agree with you.

His books are interesting - not the one ghost written for him (which is seriously dire) but his own analysis of what it is like to be male in our society, and the dangers therein: The Descent of Man.

That's an interesting finding, Trousering. But I suppose it links into the late transitioners who say that they've always enjoyed crossdressing or 'always knew they were trans'.

This to me is part of the negative impact of presenting this all as identity, we are more or less guaranting kids get stuck with life long fetishes which they are convinced mean that they are the opposite sex and expect legal protection of their behavior.

And the problem with them conflating this with sexual orientation means that we're not supposed to suggest that we shouldn't be encouraging children to have fetishes.

others on here are saying it's all.

I must have missed those posts, Weetabix. Can you tell me which posts these were? I'm not going to go back and read all 425 again.