cross-dressing

[John]

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%

The perception wasn't just that she didn't really care about the other 60% is was that she was prepared to sacrifice them for the betterment of the 40%.

Whether you think that was true or not will undoubtedly be coloured by your political persuasion and there are many reasons but one example would be Thatcher's policies to bring rampant inflation under control (peaking at 18% in 1982) lead to record levels of unemployment and at a time when the conspicuous consumption of the new financial elites in the City of London was being shoved in everyone's face this left an extremely bitter taste to the unemployed and those who feared for their jobs. The attitude was summed up in 1991 (Thatcher had been ousted by this time but the Tories were still in power) by the Chancellor the Exchequer Norman Lamont who said "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying." illustrating the real disconnect between Thatcherite policies that regarded the economic system as a machine that only needed to be adjusted to make it function properly and the very real realities of people bearing the brunt of those adjustments and having to live with the consequences.

Other examples such as the "poll tax" which was a flat property tax based neither on personal income or property value was also particularly despised, and it didn't help her popularity in Scotland where it was introduced first despite the Tories having very little popular support there, was a major, if not the major, contributing factor in her downfall.

We can look back and decide whether Thatcher was right or wrong but whatever your stance on her politics I think it is undoubtedly the case that she was a highly divisive Prime Minister. The Tory party new this by the end of the 80s anyway because it's why they got rid of her.

[anna_sophia]

I think gender is a behavioral role. Normally we expect people to treat us according to our gender.
Males consider visual signs from females very important. So in my opinion feminine clothes and fashion have a much more potent sexual message for men than vice versa. Since men are still having more power than women it is natural that society is mostly and latently still run by males (politicians, business people etc.). So being feminine in the eyes of a lot of men unconsciously means being a sex object. Men are still struggling to differentiate between sexual dominance and social dominance. I think most women enjoy male sexual dominance but there is no healthy woman who enjoys exploitation or bad treatment.
I think the problem is that femininity and female sexuality is connected, so for the average man femininity unconsciously is some kind of sexual submission.
Of course sexual submission is not social submission, but men are instinctively mixing the two.
For women open sexual submission is frightening because it means the threat of social submission - but I think women like sexual submission, if it is emotional and voluntary.
Some instinctively feminine behaviors, clothes etc. have a sexual message too.
Basically society still thinks that dressing up in one way or another means that someone is going to behave in a gender stereotypical way.
I suspect that most men and women quite enjoy expressing their gender differences through gender related clothes.
In that sense wearing certain type of clothes means that the wearer wants to be treated in a certain way.

[Kayla]

i've been running an informal experiment

would be itneresting to do it with proper controls and everything

some days i dress really girly - pink dresses, ribbons in my hair, that sort of thing

other days i borrow my brother's clothes (all of my own clothes are girly it seems) and just use a sweatband (not a pink one) to hold my hair in place

if i do the latter, the guys will swear in my presence freely use the word fuck when talking to me etc

if i dress girly they stop swearing as soon as i come in

i havent had an unusual volume of comments bout the dorkiness of my clothes so i dont think that is an issue

[Lynn]

i've been running an informal experiment

Kayla, I am pleased that your informal experiment switching between dressing girly and tomboyish has brought such immediate and tangible results, with dressing girly stopping swearing in your presence . I think it shows how much attention the guys do actually pay to you and your gender, in that they have noticed and modified their behaviour towards you when you changed your appearance to a more girly manner.

With different motives, I have been dressing in different flavours of female clothing since last year. When I have been flowery and feminine, my colleagues have mirrored my sunny demeanour and been very helpful, with a touch of rescuing a damsel in distress. When I have been suited and booted, they have been helpful too but there was been a slight sexual undercurrent which I felt a bit uncomfortable with but, since I am still the same person when flowery, I can only attribute it to wearing the black leather stiletto heel boots . I think both examples fit in with anna_sophia's comment.

Basically society still thinks that dressing up in one way or another means that someone is going to behave in a gender stereotypical way.

For women open sexual submission is frightening because it means the threat of social submission - but I think women like sexual submission, if it is emotional and voluntary.
Some instinctively feminine behaviors, clothes etc. have a sexual message too.

The result of my own experiences is that I have gained in self confidence again to wear what I like, when I like and disregard what gender stereotypes, motives or expectations others may have. It is only my own motives which concern me now - and those affected by them of course - so no more playing games .

[Kayla]

Kayla, I am pleased that your informal experiment switching between dressing girly and tomboyish has brought such immediate and tangible results, with dressing girly stopping swearing in your presence . I think it shows how much attention the guys do actually pay to you and your gender, in that they have noticed and modified their behaviour towards you when you changed your appearance to a more girly manner.

my father pointed out that there is a variable there that i failed to control

i am short and well a bit behind on my development compared to my peers would be the way to put it

and since younger girls are more likely to dress girly i was also making myself look younger and that may have been a factor in less swearing since in my case a big indicator of age is how i dress

[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.

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.

Submission is the antithesis of leadership - get a life!

[Notvacka]

Submission is the antithesis of leadership - get a life!

As usual, you don't seem to appreciate the paradoxal, chaz. But straight logic is ever the victim of the premises and definitions it's based upon. And as I just stated in another thread, things are defined by what they are in relation to other things. Where it gets really interesting is when you merge opposites.

And, by the way, I would say that "get a life" is probably the most useless comment you can make in any discussion. If time is wasted here, each are wasting their own.

[chaz wyman]

Submission is the antithesis of leadership - get a life!

As usual, you don't seem to appreciate the paradoxal, chaz. But straight logic is ever the victim of the premises and definitions it's based upon. And as I just stated in another thread, things are defined by what they are in relation to other things. Where it gets really interesting is when you merge opposites.

And, by the way, I would say that "get a life" is probably the most useless comment you can make in any discussion. If time is wasted here, each are wasting their own.

Try to think about what you are saying!

You are working with a prejudged notion of the feminine by which you epitomise a female principle.
Then you insist that a woman ought to be able to bring those qualities to a place where they do not apply.
Being in a position of leadership requires leadership qualities, if your prejudice does not allow the feminine to have those qualities then what are you trying to say?
The fact is the women are perfectly capable of leadership when they have those qualities which you have not included in your prejudged notion of the feminine. There is only a paradox here because of your prejudice. Women carry on and some gain leadership regardless of your view of them.
The fact that the numerous examples of females in leadership roles do not comply with your prejudice says more about the failure of you to understand the requirements of leadership, and points to your inherent sexism.

In my opinion it is unwise to assert some metaphysical form "feminine", but to judge women, not by those preconceptions, but by what women actually do. Notions of 'feminine' and 'masculine' are hopeless ideals that no single person can or should want to aspire to - and doing so has proved to be highly damaging to moves towards sexual equality.

[Kayla]

Submission is the antithesis of leadership - get a life!

i am a little slow of mind

how are pretty dresses and skirts submissive?

[chaz wyman]

Submission is the antithesis of leadership - get a life!

i am a little slow of mind

how are pretty dresses and skirts submissive?

When was the last time you wore one?

[Kayla]

Submission is the antithesis of leadership - get a life!

i am a little slow of mind

how are pretty dresses and skirts submissive?

When was the last time you wore one?

today

why