cross-dressing

[doolhoofd]

[Notvacka]

A demonstration of power wouldn't be a problem if power itself was not a problem. And true equality is not compatible with notions of power, position, rank, etc.

The symbol (dress) is a problem because the underlying structure is. If you have lots of money, you are taken more seriously. If you are toting a gun or a nuclear missile, you are taken more seriosly. If you are wearing a business suit you are taken more seriously. It's all the same.

Symbols of power will lose their meaning only when power itself loses meaning. In reality that might be impossible to accomplish, but I think it's a worthy goal, and any step in that direction worth taking. Let the meek inherit the earth!

So... back to the real world...

So... might is right then, because that's largely how the "real world" works?

You have no problem with hierarchical structures based on power? Should we defer to the biggest gun, the fattest wallet, the sharpest suit? Should we remain barbarians, or is further advancement of civilisation desirable and perhaps even possible?

[Kayla]

i find women in severe business suits disturbing not as bad as clowns (which terrify me) but still disturbing

wtf?
Maybe you should consider why you feel that way?

funny thats the sort of thing my therapist says

i think its more that i have trouble dealing with women who are stern and demanding and a severe business suit is a symbol of that

i did have a teacher in gr 2 who wore severe business suits and was basically psycho - so psycho that she actually got fired - in a profession where it is impossible to get fired - i think stern demeanor in a woman reminds me of that teacher

also men seem to be able to be stern without being dicks about it - men can be 'stern but fair' - of course many stern men are in fact dicks

women who are stern are total bitches no exceptions as far as i can tell

[chaz wyman]

i find women in severe business suits disturbing not as bad as clowns (which terrify me) but still disturbing

wtf?
Maybe you should consider why you feel that way?

funny thats the sort of thing my therapist says

i think its more that i have trouble dealing with women who are stern and demanding and a severe business suit is a symbol of that

i did have a teacher in gr 2 who wore severe business suits and was basically psycho - so psycho that she actually got fired - in a profession where it is impossible to get fired - i think stern demeanor in a woman reminds me of that teacher

also men seem to be able to be stern without being dicks about it - men can be 'stern but fair' - of course many stern men are in fact dicks

women who are stern are total bitches no exceptions as far as i can tell

I see. I never like anyone in any kind of a suit or tie personally. So I know where you are coming from.
I think it is especially distasteful garb for teachers to wear, as they are supposed to be the friendly facilitators of learning.

[chaz wyman]

A demonstration of power wouldn't be a problem if power itself was not a problem. And true equality is not compatible with notions of power, position, rank, etc.

The symbol (dress) is a problem because the underlying structure is. If you have lots of money, you are taken more seriously. If you are toting a gun or a nuclear missile, you are taken more seriosly. If you are wearing a business suit you are taken more seriously. It's all the same.

Symbols of power will lose their meaning only when power itself loses meaning. In reality that might be impossible to accomplish, but I think it's a worthy goal, and any step in that direction worth taking. Let the meek inherit the earth!

So... back to the real world...

So... might is right then, because that's largely how the "real world" works?

No not at all. But I do not think that world leaders are ever going to be wearing romper suits and nappies.

You have no problem with hierarchical structures based on power?

Loads of problems with that. I just don't think that a woman wearing a suit means they have not achieved equality.
Remember in the UK we were led by an evil bitch for 11 years of hell.

Should we defer to the biggest gun, the fattest wallet, the sharpest suit? Should we remain barbarians, or is further advancement of civilisation desirable and perhaps even possible?

[Kayla]

Loads of problems with that. I just don't think that a woman wearing a suit means they have not achieved equality.
Remember in the UK we were led by an evil bitch for 11 years of hell.

what is the deal with Margaret Thatcher

every british person i talk to either thinks she is more evil than satan or holier then God it seems like a 50/50 split

whats up with that

[chaz wyman]

Loads of problems with that. I just don't think that a woman wearing a suit means they have not achieved equality.
Remember in the UK we were led by an evil bitch for 11 years of hell.

what is the deal with Margaret Thatcher

every british person i talk to either thinks she is more evil than satan or holier then God it seems like a 50/50 split

whats up with that

I suppose it's called democracy.
To stay in power all she had to do was to appeal to 40% of the population of voters.
That she did very well at the expense of the remaining 60%.
Many politicians are prepared to try to appeal to a wider group of people. Thatcher took sides, and gave all the advantages to the better off whilst abandoning the worst off.
That is why the opinion of her is so polarised. If you meet a Thatcher supporter who lived through it, you can be sure that they are in the upper middle class bracket (or aspire to it), and do not think that the poor are worthy of any assistance.

[Notvacka]

Margaret Thatcher is the perfect example to show that women adopting male principles does not produce any sort of equality in itself, gender or otherwise.

That a woman has to play the male game the male way to succeed, means that the male still rules, skirt or no skirt.

[The Voice of Time]

Margaret Thatcher is the perfect example to show that women adopting male principles does not produce any sort of equality in itself, gender or otherwise.

That a woman has to play the male game the male way to succeed, means that the male still rules, skirt or no skirt.

what do you think it would take to make symbols worthless of their symbolic value? Because many symbols seems to be have some kind of intrinsic value to people, that they are valuable simply for being present, this way of looking at symbols are however too often in conflict with basic human needs or simple other interests of usage.

Taking the cross-dressing stuff for instance. What would it take for us to be able to wear exactly what we want without anyone ever as much as asking the themselves questions like: "Is she a lesbian? Is he religious?" etc. etc. I think for many of those people they like shining of symbols, because of their identity, but at the same time, the fact that women always wear skirts and uses this as a symbol of their femininity or a symbol of their sexual appeal makes it pretty impossible for me to ignore the looks of people who most likely would say to each other or in their head: "look at that faggot!" if I were to use one, not because I wanted it to have a symbolic value, but maybe I simply liked the free air and lack of zippers hindring me from quickly peeing or taking a crap ^^

(I could of course use a kilt, but unless you live in scotland people would most likely find it a hardly decent way of dressing, that is, without underwear at least).

[chaz wyman]

Margaret Thatcher is the perfect example to show that women adopting male principles does not produce any sort of equality in itself, gender or otherwise.

That a woman has to play the male game the male way to succeed, means that the male still rules, skirt or no skirt.

The fact that Thatcher led the Tory Party and then went on to lead the Country meant ipso facto that gender was not a bar to the highest office in the land.
Making "male rule"meaningless.
She played her game her way.

Feminine is what female does.

[ForgedinHell]

It's a prejudice, plain and simple. Why are people over-analyzing the issue? "WTF?" was a perfect summation of the situation.

[Arising_uk]

... If you meet a Thatcher supporter who lived through it, you can be sure that they are in the upper middle class bracket (or aspire to it), and do not think that the poor are worthy of any assistance.

You mean a fair chunk of the working-classes then.

[Notvacka]

what do you think it would take to make symbols worthless of their symbolic value?

Time could certainly do that, at least as far as dress code is concerned. A few hundred years from now, many of our symbols will have lost their meaning. But that's not what I'm after. Erase one symbol of power and another will replace it, as long as power remains.

[Notvacka]

Margaret Thatcher is the perfect example to show that women adopting male principles does not produce any sort of equality in itself, gender or otherwise.

That a woman has to play the male game the male way to succeed, means that the male still rules, skirt or no skirt.

The fact that Thatcher led the Tory Party and then went on to lead the Country meant ipso facto that gender was not a bar to the highest office in the land.
Making "male rule"meaningless.
She played her game her way.

Feminine is what female does.

That might be good enough for you. But to me, gender equality on male terms is not true equality. (Not that we are anywhere near that either.) I'm not only talking about men and women, but about male and female principles, the yin and yang of it if you will. Listen to yourself:

The case for pretty skirts and dresses is that they are basically a submissive form of clothing, making it wrong for anyone to wear them.

Symbols of submission is supposedly wrong? Because submission is wrong? I think the world needs more submissive leaders. And if you think that's a contradiction in terms, then you haven't understood what I'm getting at.

[Kayla]

To stay in power all she had to do was to appeal to 40% of the population of voters.
That she did very well at the expense of the remaining 60%.

how many people would say that of her political opponents - that they only want to appeal to 40% of the voters - which is about all you are likely to need with more than two political parties - at the expense of the other 60%