Male and Gender Critical

[Letmespeak82]

Anyone else find being associated with some of the male Gender Critical activists a bit…well embarrassing? I’m not even going to deal with the dumpster fire that is Glinner (though it seems many on this board love him). But now we have James Esses who is hyper focused on what this woman is wearing. What difference does it make if she wears revealing clothes or not? Typical gross male attitude.

I think there are a lot of people on Twitter who just look for things to complain about so they can get some viral tweet out of it. Pretty sure James Esses is one of those people so I take most of what he says with a pinch of salt even if some of it happens to be useful and interesting. Him ranting on about "scantily clad asexual activists" is neither of those in my opinion, he's attention-seeking just as much as he's implying this asexual activist is.

I think there are a lot of people on Twitter who just look for things to complain about so they can get some viral tweet out of it
I agree there, that there definitely seems to be.
In this case though and others I think it's a case of "when someone tells you who they are, listen.'

I found a picture. Anyone who sucks up to OJ is a loser to my mind!

Now I've read her tweets, I do think she's playing at "Look at meee, I'm so sexeh and you can't have me!"

Which is annoying enough when teenagers do it 🙄

I think you are being disingenuous.

Though of course the queer theory informed, wide eyed “They’re just clothes. You are obsessed” fools no-one.

Without seeing the photo. Would you be happy for it to be school uniform?

So what messages do you think her clothing, as opposed to her Tweets is supposed to give?

What do you think she’s subverting?

It seems like there are a lot of threads started attacking Glinner lately. Someone have a grudge?

I think it would have been better for Esses, and the OP, and everyone else, not to give that woman the attention she’s looking for. I’m sure she’d be absolutely delighted that there’s a long thread on here discussing her outfit; why reward such vapidity??

(For avoidance of doubt, it’s the “activism” that’s vapid here not the person, about whom I’m not making any outfit-based assumptions.)

There was a horrible pile on last night on a man wearing a dress on a shops Insta who sell fairly traditional modest prairie type linen dresses.

Wasn’t it the shop people piled on? Which is fair enough really, I don’t care if men wear dresses, but if a brand I like was trying to sell me dresses modelled on men I’d find it obnoxious. (I wouldn’t have thought it obnoxious back in the days when men wearing dresses could be read as defying gender stereotypes in a mildly interesting way, but those days are long gone.)

And then the dress-wearing man started abusing the shop’s female customers in the comments.

I really really don't get why GC women are being disparaged in this totally bizarre situation.

Same reason for all the other weird threads (the UN wants to kill us all, Megyn Kelly is awesome etc) started by new members: Genderists can't win on the arguments so they disrupt and harass.

‘Asexual people deserve to be protected under the Equality Act. We deserve to be protected by the ban on conversion therapy.’

I genuinely don’t understand. Protected from what?

Why would even the most wild-eyed and puritanical religious conservative want to stop people being indifferent to sex?

Character assassination of GC men. How novel.

The idea that “feminists have always been against” doesn’t cut much ice for me. It’s becoming clear that some feminist ideas, particularly the more extreme ones, haven’t actually been great for women. We can now work, but still have almost all the shitwork in the home is classic. Better perhaps to have pushed for a model where it was normalized that either parent could stay home or work and home were split and both worked, but fewer hours.

Additionally, I was amazed to find many feminists held the view that all behaviours were socialized and none inate.

Anyway, I regularly judge men and women who wear explicitly sexual clothing in public places. Argue all you like that we should be fighting that concept. Bondage gear, men and women who choose to wear fishnets and leather miniskirts, they are all sending messages. That’s not saying they deserve to be attacked or should be assumed to be “up for it” but they’re wearing clothes to make a statement and if that statement is in obvious contradiction with what they’re saying, then I can’t see a reason not ti comment.

I genuinely don’t understand. Protected from what?

I think activists like this see being protected by the Equality Act as validation. It's like the Government patting them on the head and telling them they are very special and important, and that it knows that they exist.

It doesn't occur to them that the Equality Act has purposes other than validating people, because they've never experienced actual discrimination. They just feel like it's not fair that other people get Government headpats and they don't and they are throwing a tantrum for their equal share of headpats.

As for asexual people needing explicit protection under the law, it’s nonsense . Gay and lesbian people need protection so they can be open about their relationship. That’s because their sex is visible if they’re out together.

What people do (or don’t do) in the privacy of their bedroom makes no difference to anyone else. Why would you need to tell anyone? The idea that we must all be able to disclose our sex lives (or worse, conduct them in public) is bizarre.

Yup, agree.
It's not criticising her clothing or saying she's 'up for it'.
To the question 'what rights do asexual people not have?' the answer seems to be none, but it must be a pain to live in such a sexualised society. Therefore it's an odd choice to embrace hyper sexualised clothing (although obviously she can wear what she wants etc etc ).
Having said that I do appreciate the point above- if she didn't make herself look hot she'd get 'noone wants you anyway love'. There probably were other asexual protesters not wearing sexualised clothing- no surprise they're not the photo being shared everywhere.
Which maybe, inadvertently, proves their point..?

The irony is, as a woman of colour she'll have experienced absolutely tons of discrimination. Maybe she's mistaking the anger she faces as not being 'up for it' as anti-asexuality, when it's just boring old misogyny.

Forget him mentioning the clothes she may be wearing, what is his problem with asexuals, exatly?
And why the apostrophes?
Asexuality is real.

This woman campaigning for asexuals to be protected under the Equal Rights Act and protected from “conversion therapy” while wearing fishnets to attract attention for her cause is concentrated, purestrain, extremely high quality blend TQ+ nonsense and considering Esses is on Twitter a lot commenting on TQ+ nonsense I don’t think it’s very notable he mentioned the dissonance.

And I like Dennis Kavanagh! Great way with words and always credits lesbians.

Well, there isn't a PRIDE in being a woman march is there?

The PRIDE march which used to be all about sexuality but has morphed into straight kink is definitely the place to march if you are asexual. Like a vegan going to a Butcher's March...or something. Dressed as a furry.

You want a simple rather than nuanced answer. Life is not simple, though. Social interactions are complex and nuanced and we all have to navigate them.

Most men don't prey on women purely because of what they are wearing no, and if a man is intent on sexual assault it won't matter what a woman is wearing. Women get assaulted in countries in which the abaya is mandatory.

You cannot control people's perceptions and reactions, though, but what you can do, and control, is to be at least a little bit conscious and aware of the subtleties of what you signalling through your presentation.

Why do you think people tend to make an effort to look 'professional' and 'smart' ( both encoded via a certain type of clothing and presentation) for an interview for an office type job?

You clearly have a problem with people and men in particular making comments about what a woman is wearing - and forming some kind of judgment based on that; as if people are not supposed to notice how someone is presenting themselves.

Clothes/fashion are all about image and message - even if the wearer is unconscious of that.

You certainly aren't!

The whole queer movemnt is predicated on identities that revolve around sex and sexuality. And when that happens, women tend to come out of it the worst.

And for many transwoman the costume they assume is totally sexualised. Have you seen Eddie Izzard's outfits? It is all high heels, fishnet stockings, PVC coats, ridiculous amounts of make-up. 'Woman' is a totally sexualised concept and prersenttaion for men like this.

That is the misogyny right under your nose.

So many fashions for women have become pornified, and the trend for trout pouts and slug like eye-brows create a totally manufactured look. Like a sex doll,

Indeed. Glinner used to be an outlier , inasmuch as it's usually GC women who are set upon and insulted. Perhaps the same toxic treatment is now being extended to James Esses.

I don't see the same visceral hatred for eg Lol Fox or Matt Walsh. I suppose it's because they can be written off as far right nutjobs. Whereas people like Esses , Linehan and Lord Winston are obviously left liberals and therefore more dangerous to the gender lobby?

Ps I agree with your other point - attention seekers are best avoided.

" Subvert the message".

That is the sum total sum of what Queer Theory preaches.

When you are intent on playing around with, and "subverting", sexual norms then you are playing around with sexual responses and messges. you don't exist in a vacuum, though, you exist in given context and society. You cannot control the message in the way you think you can.

This is just idealistic thinking not rooted in reality. If you want to spend your whole life so consciously and wilfully trying to subvert norms that's up to you.

We all do that in one way or other - but if you choose to subvert sexuality and so on then that is how you will be perceived.