Feminism article with a twist.....

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
Disaffected.citizen
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:16 am
Location: UK

Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Disaffected.citizen »

On browsing some news sites I stumbled across this New Statesman article:
New Statesman wrote:14 JUNE 2016 - BY GLOSSWITCH
Why we should let all boys wear skirts to school

New uniform codes are spreading across schools to help transgender pupils. But if we want to be truly progressive, we should abolish segregated clothing altogether.

As Paris Lees once wisely observed: “Sexism didn’t disappear when women started wearing trousers.” This is sad but true. Trousers, while a practical item of clothing, have not yet brought an end to sexual violence, reproductive coercion or the male appropriation of female labour and resources.

Depressing though this is, there is one glimmer of hope. What if, argues Lees, men were allowed to “adopt feminine styles”? Perhaps that’s what’s been missing all along. It’s not that men benefit from male supremacy; they just haven’t discovered the joys of a nice tea dress or a fetching pair of kitten heels.

I am all for clothing equality. Being 5’1” with an ample chest, I never shop in menswear sections myself, but have always felt the strict divisions in terms of styles – in particular, the prohibition on men wearing skirts or dresses – to be arbitrary and wrong. It is a means of reinforcing the belief that the social and psychological differences between men and women are far greater than those between women and other women and men and other men.

While women, having fought for their trouser-wearing rights, are now permitted (in most countries, at least) to emulate the dress sense of the dominant class, for most men, “women’s clothing” remains off-limits. Even the comedian Eddie Izzard, who once said of his wardrobe “they’re not women’s clothes, they’re my clothes, I bought them”, has since backtracked, now describing himself as “somewhat boyish and somewhat girlish” (despite being 54).

When it comes to children’s clothing, the differences are even more stark and ridiculous. Apart from the obvious, the bodies of pre-pubescent boys and girls are not significantly different, so it is not as though shape and size can even be said to be a factor. But enter any children’s clothing department, and you will find the flowery pink-for-girls, rough-and-tumble blue-for-boys stereotyping impossible to avoid.

As Cordelia Fine, drawing on the work of sociologist Jo Paoletti, has noted, this is a relatively recent development:

“Until the end of the nineteenth century, even five-year-old children were being dressed in more-or-less unisex white dresses […] The introduction of coloured fabrics for young children’s clothing marked the beginning of the move towards our current pink-blue labelling of gender, but it took nearly half a century for the rules to settle into place.”

Fine points out that the change appears to have been, “in response to concerns that masculinity and femininity might not, after all, inevitably unfurl from deep biological roots”. It was not that children needed clothing that reflected a gendered inner self; on the contrary, clothing distinctions existed to create and enforce gender distinctions considered socially useful (for instance, by limiting the freedom of movement of girls).

“Today,” writes Fine, “the original intention behind the objective has been forgotten.” Indeed, if anything, the narrative has been turned on its head. In a convenient turn for any patriarch looking to promote theories of complementarianism, we are now told that the gendered self – dress-wearing and feminine, or trouser-wearing and boyish – was in the child all along. The only trouble is, occasionally we get distracted by genitalia and put a girl in trousers when really she should be in a dress.

The stereotypes themselves might support a gross, worldwide power imbalance (violent/caring, strong/weak, active/passive), yet we’re only meant to be concerned about whether each individual is dressed to match their “true” location within a hierarchy that cannot itself be questioned.

Take, for instance, the news that 80 state schools in the UK have introduced gender-neutral uniform policies allowing girls to wear trousers and boys to wear skirts. At first glance, this makes me want to cheer. As a mother of sons, the closest I’ve ever come to allowing my sons to queer their school clothes is putting one of them in dresses for discos.

The thought that my youngest, still four years away from reception, could decide whether he wanted skirts or trousers for school – or even opt for a mix – is exciting. Children’s ideas of what girls or boys are “allowed” to like become more rigid the more they are exposed to dominant social norms. To give them a true sense of fluidity, you need to catch ‘em young (yes, I am preaching the indoctrination of non-indoctrination – but it sort of makes sense to me).

But then you read the small print and find that actually, the new policies do not appear to be as revolutionary as they at first appear. “It is,” reports The Times, “part of a little-publicised government-funded drive for schools to be more sensitive to trans children who are questioning their gender identity.”

Alas, it seems adults are incapable of letting a boy wear a skirt for the sole reason that it’s just a sodding skirt. In the back of our minds we must be telling ourselves, “this is only in case he’s not a boy after all”. Otherwise all hell would break loose.

Boys might start to realise that – gasp! – they’re not in fact another, superior species. Girls might start to question leniency extended to male people who do not in fact look or act any differently to them. We’d have to stop spouting b***ocks such as “boys will be boys” in order to justify all manner of dickish behaviour. Sod that. Far easier to stick with the perfectly logical, straightforward idea that boys don’t wear skirts, but some non-skirt-wearers might in fact be hidden skirt-wearers so they must be granted the space to experiment with skirt-wearing and thereafter apply formally for re-classification if and when appropriate.

According to Elly Barnes of Educate and Celebrate, currently offering diversity training to the designated schools, “you don’t get boys coming in to schools suddenly wearing skirts. But it just gives that space for it not to be an issue if there are trans kids.” In other words, don’t worry about it becoming acceptable for boys to wear skirts just because they feel like it. We’re simply making it easier to allow them to become designated non-boys should they wish to ditch the trousers.

It is astonishing that, given our knowledge of the severity of sexism and sexual harassment in schools, gender-neutral clothing is not being considered in the context of challenging misogyny. As one head teacher tells the Guardian, it is about children having “the right to express their own identity in a way that is most comfortable for them”.

In response to which one might ask whether the increasing number of girls who wear shorts under their skirts in an effort to avoid sexual assault are “expressing their own identity in a way that is most comfortable to them”. Is “not wanting to be treated as an object available for abuse” an identity? If we call such a style “non-binary gender presentation”, is that the problem solved? I can’t help feeling there’s more to it than that.

In a recent interview, Judith Butler argued that, “if gender is eradicated, so too is an important domain of pleasure for many people”. This is probably true. It is also something that is often said of religion. In neither case is this a validation of any fundamental truth, nor an adequate defence of the manifold abuses of power that both institutions facilitate.

Neither children nor adults should be subject to clothing segregation. School uniform regulations can be rewritten to disrupt the idea that it’s always “different for boys”. Unfortunately, however, this is already feeling like an opportunity lost.
Although the article is skewed to certain feminist propositions, it is certainly more considered and balanced than many I've read in recent (and not so recent) years.

Without delving too deep into the article at this point, I merely extract this succinct sentence:
Alas, it seems adults are incapable of letting a boy wear a skirt for the sole reason that it’s just a sodding skirt.
Interesting note: on copying the article, the forum software automatically censored "boll***s" with "********"!
Last edited by Disaffected.citizen on Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
denimini
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:50 am
Location: Outback Australia

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by denimini »

A well written piece that doesn't differ too much to what has been said here.
Anthony, a denim miniskirt wearer in Outback Australia
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Stu »

"Boys might start to realise that – gasp! – they’re not in fact another, superior species. Girls might start to question leniency extended to male people who do not in fact look or act any differently to them. We’d have to stop spouting b***ocks such as “boys will be boys” in order to justify all manner of dickish behaviour."
Sorry, but this is FOUL! This is an example of the odious type of Gloria Steinem feminism that demonises boys and men while portraying females as perpetually oppressed. I would like the writer to crawl back under her stone and die.

If we must hear from feminists, here is one who takes a totally different view and rejects this Steinem, post-modernist identity politics view and outlines the war on boys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4

Of course boys should enjoy wider choices of garments, including skirts, but we don't need misandrists like the writer of this article on our side.
User avatar
Milfmog
Moderator
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Milfmog »

Stu wrote:...Of course boys should enjoy wider choices of garments, including skirts, but we don't need misandrists like the writer of this article on our side.
Thank you Stu,

You just saved me a lot of typing.

Have fun,


Ian.
Do not argue with idiots; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Cogito ergo sum - Descartes
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Daryl »

Milfmog wrote:
Stu wrote:...Of course boys should enjoy wider choices of garments, including skirts, but we don't need misandrists like the writer of this article on our side.
Thank you Stu,

You just saved me a lot of typing.

Have fun,
Ian.
Ditto (though I'm a bigger fan of https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat myself)

OTOH, every step in the right direction is a step in the right direction even if coming from the wrong direction, don'tcha think?
Daryl...
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by crfriend »

I read the thing and spend most of the day trying to figure out how to respond to it (at low priority, mind) and couldn't figure any way to do so politely.
OTOH, every step in the right direction is a step in the right direction even if coming from the wrong direction, don'tcha think?
Sometimes it's not that simple. Recall that "the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend" -- and this is a stellar case in point. If we feed the espoused sentiment, then it's virtually a guarantee we'll get our hands bitten. 'Tis safest to maintain a clear and unambiguous distance.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Daryl »

crfriend wrote:If we feed the espoused sentiment, then it's virtually a guarantee we'll get our hands bitten. 'Tis safest to maintain a clear and unambiguous distance.
I tend to agree but hasten to point out that the espoused sentiment is in no danger of starving anyway...yet.
Daryl...
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Jim »

Stu wrote:
"Boys might start to realise that – gasp! – they’re not in fact another, superior species. Girls might start to question leniency extended to male people who do not in fact look or act any differently to them. We’d have to stop spouting b***ocks such as “boys will be boys” in order to justify all manner of dickish behaviour."
Sorry, but this is FOUL! This is an example of the odious type of Gloria Steinem feminism that demonises boys and men while portraying females as perpetually oppressed. I would like the writer to crawl back under her stone and die.
If you understand that this doesn't apply to all boys and girls, just too many, I see no problem here. Some boys do consider themselves superior and some girls differ to that supposed superiority. Just apply it where it is due; if it doesn't fit you, great!.
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Daryl »

Jim wrote:
Stu wrote:
"Boys might start to realise that – gasp! – they’re not in fact another, superior species. Girls might start to question leniency extended to male people who do not in fact look or act any differently to them. We’d have to stop spouting b***ocks such as “boys will be boys” in order to justify all manner of dickish behaviour."
Sorry, but this is FOUL! This is an example of the odious type of Gloria Steinem feminism that demonises boys and men while portraying females as perpetually oppressed. I would like the writer to crawl back under her stone and die.
If you understand that this doesn't apply to all boys and girls, just too many, I see no problem here. Some boys do consider themselves superior and some girls differ to that supposed superiority. Just apply it where it is due; if it doesn't fit you, great!.
This is one of those places where our weird wonderful world is capable of reminding us just how subtle its weirdness can be. What's really at play is mostly rank, not "superiority" much less assumptions of superiority. In 43 years in the business world I have often experienced being looked to for leadership by women, even women ranking above me in the formal hierarchy. I've sometimes felt like they must have had a secret meeting then decided to get me to do the duty. Maybe it was the tie. Even when I've tried to defer to women I've wound up being looked to for assent...or maybe more like punctuation. Now I am aware that some of that is the feminine mode of inclusion and if I'm in a room with all women (besides me) they are probably just making sure that the out-group member is being in-cluded, but that doesn't explain it all, not by a long shot. Authority has many dimensions and decisions can need justifications. I've been in the position where my boss, a woman, just totally gave up leadership to me, presumably because of my expertise but I've never had a man do that with the equivalent expertise gap. Men seem to know that lower ranking men already know who the drummer is and that they have to keep up the rhythm otherwise it's going to get awkward for everyone. Women sometimes perhaps don't have enough experience with rank and authority to do that very instinctively. I've never met a female cop who didn't know how to exert authority but I've never gotten a sense of "superiority" from one. In fact, most of the men I've ever seen who really were concerned with superiority were patheticly obvious and no one, man or woman, treated them with any real deference.

Puff puff, that was one long sermon!

Anyhoo, forget the "male superiority" fem-ideology nonsense, I say, and just support leadership training opportunities for girls and I am sure this garbage will sort itself in time. I for one really enjoy interactions with non-deferring women fully asserting their own agency. At a minimum it means that we all take the heat when the excrement hits the spinning air circulation device, nomesane? :)
Daryl...
User avatar
Caultron
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4122
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Feminism article with a twist....

Post by Caultron »

Leadership is certainly a slippery thing.

Most people actually want to be led. They want somebody to clearly define the rules for success and then to succeed. They want someone else to take responsibility (and if necessary, blame). Even leaders generally want to be led, not by those they're supposed to be leading, usually, but by those above.

Confidence, likeability, concern for those you're leading, willingness to listen and respond, openness, admission of failure, and an overall history of success are all attributes of a good leader.

Someone asked Richard Daley, the one-time and legendary mayor of Chicago, what made him so powerful. And he said he did it by defining success for others, allowing them to succeed, and applying gentle pressure only when necessary.

All this took me a long time to learn but I find it can be really satisfying. Not only do I succeed (usually) but I help 10 or 15 or 20 other people succeed as well, and that makes them happy with both themselves and me. And that, rather than ego or power, is what's most satisfying for me.
Courage, conviction, nerve, verve, dash, panache, guts, nuts, balls, gall, élan, stones, whatever. Get some and get skirted.

caultron
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Feminism article with a twist....

Post by Daryl »

Caultron wrote:Leadership is certainly a slippery thing.

Most people actually want to be led. They want somebody to clearly define the rules for success and then to succeed. They want someone else to take responsibility (and if necessary, blame). Even leaders generally want to be led, not by those they're supposed to be leading, usually, but by those above.

Confidence, likeability, concern for those you're leading, willingness to listen and respond, openness, admission of failure, and an overall history of success are all attributes of a good leader.

Someone asked Richard Daley, the one-time and legendary mayor of Chicago, what made him so powerful. And he said he did it by defining success for others, allowing them to succeed, and applying gentle pressure only when necessary.

All this took me a long time to learn but I find it can be really satisfying. Not only do I succeed (usually) but I help 10 or 15 or 20 other people succeed as well, and that makes them happy with both themselves and me. And that, rather than ego or power, is what's most satisfying for me.
Daley was on to something for sure.
Daryl...
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Stu »

Jim wrote:
Stu wrote:
"Boys might start to realise that – gasp! – they’re not in fact another, superior species. Girls might start to question leniency extended to male people who do not in fact look or act any differently to them. We’d have to stop spouting b***ocks such as “boys will be boys” in order to justify all manner of dickish behaviour."
Sorry, but this is FOUL! This is an example of the odious type of Gloria Steinem feminism that demonises boys and men while portraying females as perpetually oppressed. I would like the writer to crawl back under her stone and die.
If you understand that this doesn't apply to all boys and girls, just too many, I see no problem here. Some boys do consider themselves superior and some girls differ to that supposed superiority. Just apply it where it is due; if it doesn't fit you, great!.
Saying "Some boys consider themselves superior" is meaningless. I could say " "Some girls consider themselves superior".

Unless you have evidence that considering oneself superior is a uniquely male trait, I do't think you have a coherent argument.
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Jim »

My opinion is that it is an attitude in boys that is too common. I was a boy; I saw it. I was not with girls when they were just with other girls; I don't know how common such a bad attitude is there.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by moonshadow »

Both sexes and all genders have their good and bad apples. This battle of who is the better sex must stop. Everyone has their good and bad characteristics.

Let us build bridges.. not dig trenches...

:flower:
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
Caultron
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4122
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Feminism article with a twist.....

Post by Caultron »

moonshadow wrote:..Everyone has their good and bad characteristics...Let us build bridges.. not dig trenches...
Well said!
Courage, conviction, nerve, verve, dash, panache, guts, nuts, balls, gall, élan, stones, whatever. Get some and get skirted.

caultron
Post Reply