Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:32 am
Don't know what you are blithering about.
Oh I'm sorry, am I not speaking in your pompous 'blithering' English(?) accent? Did I forget to spell something proper for you? Why bother speaking at all if you've got nothing but insults to pass out? I'd at least respect you better if you weren't hiding behind an avatar. By the way, is that avatar yours? If your a 'bloke' maybe she is your Rorschach expression of who you see yourself as?

Come on....Tell us. What have you got to lose? I can keep a secret. :roll:
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:48 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:32 am
Don't know what you are blithering about.
Oh I'm sorry, am I not speaking in your pompous 'blithering' English(?) accent? Did I forget to spell something proper for you? Why bother speaking at all if you've got nothing but insults to pass out? I'd at least respect you better if you weren't hiding behind an avatar. By the way, is that avatar yours? If your a 'bloke' maybe she is your Rorschach expression of who you see yourself as?

Come on....Tell us. What have you got to lose? I can keep a secret. :roll:
Well I think it is a very attractive painting of Veg, granted it was painted in the 1920s but I like old people.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:48 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:32 am
Don't know what you are blithering about.
Oh I'm sorry, am I not speaking in your pompous 'blithering' English(?) accent? Did I forget to spell something proper for you? Why bother speaking at all if you've got nothing but insults to pass out? I'd at least respect you better if you weren't hiding behind an avatar. By the way, is that avatar yours? If your a 'bloke' maybe she is your Rorschach expression of who you see yourself as?

Come on....Tell us. What have you got to lose? I can keep a secret. :roll:
Still don't know what you are blithering about :|
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Lacewing »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:48 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:32 am
Don't know what you are blithering about.
Oh I'm sorry, am I not speaking in your pompous 'blithering' English(?) accent? Did I forget to spell something proper for you? Why bother speaking at all if you've got nothing but insults to pass out?
That's pretty much the extent that Veggie demonstrates she knows how to do: spew contempt at people as if she somehow reigns superior.

And if that requires fabricating labels and groups she can rage against, so be it.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:56 am You mean point to those women who would NOT interpret that such men are worthy to date?
No, I mean point to the SAME WOMEN who demand the right to dress as they please, but want to deny that right to men.
Choosing whom to date, for what reason, is entirely different from one's stance on civil liberties.
[Because it is effeminate. In many of its examples, it's downright stupid....]
So you would be like those who think that one has to be strictly heterosexual or homosexual only?
No, I said that "feminine" fashion is a heterosexual masculine fantasy, and anybody who wears it does it in deference to - or approval - of that fantasy. You can be as bi or other as you want, and still wear what you feel comfortable in and what's appropriate to your work. Clothing doesn't need to advertise your sexuality, but some kinds of clothing do convey strong messages.
Styles' style looks definitely 'girly' - not a type I'm attracted to, but I'm sure someone is.
[the religious issue doesn't belong here.]
Why not? I gave this as an extra example to demonstrate that this mentality is fluent across other issues, not simply about one form of discrimination. But it is interesting to see that you cannot notice the relationship.
I see a superficial similarity of wearing one's chosen or assumed or coerced identity in public. Nevertheless, I believe that the social ramifications of displaying religious affiliation and assuming gender-uniformity are separate issues.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Lacewing »

It's a cute dress. :D
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:31 am 1. Is there a slippery slope between one man putting on a dress in a fashion magazine and cross-dressing becoming a social norm?

2. And if it were to become a social norm for men and women to appear in almost any way imaginable (thereby eliminating the divide between male and female appearances), would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
I think we're already sliding on that slippery slope... and the momentum seems fast.

I also think it's a good thing to break through "norms" that limit our thinking and understanding. We could all be wearing togas, and then there would be no issues. I've seen some hippy dudes wearing long skirts, and they look very nice. :) Or island fashion might allow men to wear wrap-around skirts, and it's no big deal. For me it's more about how people act, than what they wear. I think men's suits with ties are kind of ridiculous... and I would like to see them disappear as a "norm". Men in suits... who do they think they're kidding. :lol:
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:48 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:32 am
Don't know what you are blithering about.
Oh I'm sorry, am I not speaking in your pompous 'blithering' English(?) accent? Did I forget to spell something proper for you? Why bother speaking at all if you've got nothing but insults to pass out?
That's pretty much the extent that Veggie demonstrates she knows how to do: spew contempt at people as if she somehow reigns superior.

And if that requires fabricating labels and groups she can rage against, so be it.
Veg is my favourite chick on the forum. She's intelligent, she doesn't waffle (take note of that LW and other blitherers), she calls a spade a spade and it's extremely refreshing in this PCturd world.

If I was a lot older OR better looking, more intelligent, had a time machine, i'd go back to the 1920s and attempt to bonk her brains out.

Yes, you've got some work to do princess, if you aspire to the lofty heavens where Veg floats on a long white cloud of wise counsel.
Last edited by attofishpi on Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Lacewing »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:05 pm Veg is my favourite chick on the forum.
An endorsement from you is meaningless.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:27 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:05 pm Veg is my favourite chick on the forum.
An endorsement from you is meaningless.
...ah, that so warms my heart (because you are incapable of reason), if it was worthless, well I'd be perturbed.

(sorry Veg - I know U R not old!)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

Skip wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:56 am You mean point to those women who would NOT interpret that such men are worthy to date?
No, I mean point to the SAME WOMEN who demand the right to dress as they please, but want to deny that right to men.
Choosing whom to date, for what reason, is entirely different from one's stance on civil liberties.
I'm not against the civil liberty here. It is irrelevant THAT those women who want choice for themselves may favor that of men. But they would interpret that freedom in way that they do not want others to interpret of them: that if a man wears a dress, he must be gay and someone I would not want to date for that assumption, while still wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages. Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.

THAT is the issue. The stereotypical judgments are what matter because they are what others are complaining about, not their freedom to choose to be and dress as they want.
[Because it is effeminate. In many of its examples, it's downright stupid....]
So you would be like those who think that one has to be strictly heterosexual or homosexual only?
No, I said that "feminine" fashion is a heterosexual masculine fantasy, and anybody who wears it does it in deference to - or approval - of that fantasy. You can be as bi or other as you want, and still wear what you feel comfortable in and what's appropriate to your work. Clothing doesn't need to advertise your sexuality, but some kinds of clothing do convey strong messages.
Styles' style looks definitely 'girly' - not a type I'm attracted to, but I'm sure someone is.
I was asking if you assume discrete stereotypical beliefs about others. Obviously you do. While it is effeminate for Style's choice, the context is missing. Vogue magazine is itself about flaunting runway style imagery and raising awareness of the variety of choices people can have in ones attire or presentation. That 'context' tells me that for whatever reason he is wearing it as the cover story, it likely has a backstory that requires one invest in reading it to determine, not just looking at the pictures.
[the religious issue doesn't belong here.]
Why not? I gave this as an extra example to demonstrate that this mentality is fluent across other issues, not simply about one form of discrimination. But it is interesting to see that you cannot notice the relationship.
I see a superficial similarity of wearing one's chosen or assumed or coerced identity in public. Nevertheless, I believe that the social ramifications of displaying religious affiliation and assuming gender-uniformity are separate issues.
'Gender attire' is the cultural definition of behaviors that are based on ones freedom to choose what they wear that expresses something meaningful to the weare just as 'religious attire' is the cultural interpretation of the same for their religious beliefs.

We hypocritically accept it fair to demand restrictions on what one wears that might insult another, such as a Nazi uniform one might choose to go to school in because many believe the opposite no restrictions applies to religious attire and ambiguosly restricted to gender attire choices. The bolded words here are the hypocritical distinctions I question.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 am It is irrelevant THAT those women.... Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
The same reason it's all right for you to judge "those women" - whoever they are, wherever they are, whatever they actually said about anything - for their judgment: because everybody judges everybody else and nobody wants to be judged by others.
THAT is the issue.
If that's an issue, it's unresolveable.
I was asking if you assume discrete stereotypical beliefs about others. Obviously you do.
I'm not sure how you find that obvious, but you're certainly within your right to think so.
While it is effeminate for Style's choice, the context is missing. Vogue magazine is itself about flaunting runway style imagery and raising awareness of the variety of choices people can have in ones attire or presentation. That 'context' tells me that for whatever reason he is wearing it as the cover story, it likely has a backstory that requires one invest in reading it to determine, not just looking at the pictures.
If that kind of thing interests you, by all means, do so. I just said that 'girlie' style doesn't appeal to me, no matter who wears it in what context. It's okay on an 8-year-old, but they don't appeal to me, either.
'Gender attire' is the cultural definition of behaviors that are based on ones freedom to choose what they wear that expresses something meaningful to the weare just as 'religious attire' is the cultural interpretation of the same for their religious beliefs.
One can assume that, though it's not likely to be true of all the people of whom we choose to believe it. Very often, the men in a culture have far greater choice as to their own self-expression than the women. Indeed, some cultures impose unequal dress requirements and behavioural limits on their members, and the patriarchs of some cultures, when transplanted to a different dominant culture with different rules, feel entitled to keep their old-world stranglehold on their female dependents , while they themselves take full advantage of the freedoms of the new culture. So it's always questionable what garb is freely chosen by the wearer and what garb is forced upon them.
If you restrict the question to religiously significant items worn by an independent adult male, yes, he is expressing something that is important enough to him to make a public statement in his everyday encounters, and in that case, yes, it does tell us something meaningful about his attitudes, priorities and loyalties. If he's putting on a costume for a photo-shoot, that tells us rather less about him. If it's an entertainer putting on a costume, it tells us nothing personal about him.

The situation with western feminine attire is somewhat different, in that most of what people wear is chosen, more or less freely, under the auspices of multi billion dollar fashion industry, in tandem with multi billion dollar industries in other aspects of beauty, all of which benefit greatly, vastly, enormously and obscenely from undermining women's self-esteem and persuading them to emulate a fictitious heterosexual male fantasy of feminine appeal. If enough of them keep doing it, it's the norm and any deviation is noticed - sometimes with approval, sometimes critically. No deep cultural truth here: Girls just want to look pretty for boys. (*sigh* and for other girls and boys want to be attractive to girls and other boys and old men and women and people who haven't decided .... just stay away from the kiddies, all right?)
These attempts by the vast majority of women to conform to a cultural ideal of what men desire in women are, of course, doomed to eternal failure, which means they never stop throwing more money into the bottomless pit of futility and garnering the society's contempt both for the effort and for the failure, so they console themselves by indulging in the other multi-billion dollar industry of making people fat.

While profit and religion are both powerful players in modern society, and while I wouldn't be surprised if churches invested in liposuction clinics and palm oil processing, the psychological mechanism doesn't operate quite the same way in both cases.
We hypocritically accept it fair to demand restrictions on what one wears that might insult another, such as a Nazi uniform one might choose to go to school in because many believe the opposite no restrictions applies to religious attire and ambiguosly restricted to gender attire choices.
I don't. I think every school, workplace, restaurant, club charitable and sport organization has a right to set a dress code for its members. It should not, however, discriminate by member but by item of clothing.
That is: neither boys nor girls, men nor women are allowed to wear a swastika, crucifix, turban, stiletto heels, shredded jeans or leather collar with studs. Both women and men, girls and boys must wear overalls, face masks, safety harness, life jacket, bullet-proof vest, hard hat. Simple.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 am While it is effeminate for Style's choice, the context is missing. Vogue magazine is itself about flaunting runway style imagery and raising awareness of the variety of choices people can have in ones attire or presentation. That 'context' tells me that for whatever reason he is wearing it as the cover story, it likely has a backstory that requires one invest in reading it to determine, not just looking at the pictures.
IT WAS A PUBLICITY STUNT - NOTHING MORE. Look, here we are talking about a shit magazine!!
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Lacewing »

Skip wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:04 pm If you restrict the question to religiously significant items worn by an independent adult male, yes, he is expressing something that is important enough to him to make a public statement in his everyday encounters, and in that case, yes, it does tell us something meaningful about his attitudes, priorities and loyalties. If he's putting on a costume for a photo-shoot, that tells us rather less about him. If it's an entertainer putting on a costume, it tells us nothing personal about him.
I see what you're saying, however, I think (actually) all clothes are a type of costume, and they don't necessarily tell us anything significant or true about the person wearing them. One example: priests who are actually evil and/or predators in their actions. Clothes may denote a "group" that one identifies with, or wants to identify with. If clothes are not intended for functionality, then they are a covering for some kind of "show", right? Whether anyone sees any of this costuming as "appropriate" or significant is based on their own particular/limited judgments and perspectives.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:49 pm
Skip wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:04 pm If you restrict the question to religiously significant items worn by an independent adult male, yes, he is expressing something that is important enough to him to make a public statement in his everyday encounters, and in that case, yes, it does tell us something meaningful about his attitudes, priorities and loyalties. If he's putting on a costume for a photo-shoot, that tells us rather less about him. If it's an entertainer putting on a costume, it tells us nothing personal about him.
I see what you're saying, however, I think (actually) all clothes are a type of costume, and they don't necessarily tell us anything significant or true about the person wearing them.
They tell us something - not necessarily what the wearer hopes to convey. What we see depends partly on how successful the wearer is in presenting their persona, in our own preconceptions/prejudices/desires/needs etc. and on whether we know that the wearing of this particular attire by this particular person is voluntary, deliberate, unconstrained or whether it's coerced by others, limited by circumstance, conformist or simply habitual.
One example: priests who are actually evil and/or predators in their actions. Clothes may denote a "group" that one identifies with, or wants to identify with.
Uniforms tell us about the organization that mandates them. They say nothing about the character of the wearer, except his or her occupation. We know what they do, but not how well or why. (Unless it's a masquerade, in which case, we know even less.) Since the occupation of entertainers is to perform, their costume is a function of the role in which they are cast, and does not reflect the character of the performer: all it tells us is what role he or she has accepted (not why).
If clothes are not intended for functionality, then they are a covering for some kind of "show", right?
Can be, and very often is, both and maybe more. What we have to wear (suit and tie at the office; hard hat and boots on the construction site; diving suit under the ocean; parka at the Arctic circle) is about the environment in which we function and/or the functions we're carrying out. What we wear in our leisure activities (climbing harness, track shoes, elbow pads, jodhpurs, ball gowns...) is presumably a function of the activities we choose to pursue, and tell the onlooker one piece of information (ie, the nature of the chosen activity) which the onlooker may extrapolate to make further assumptions - some of which may be accurate. What we wear on the street, to private parties, at entertainments, or at home can be quite communicative, intentionally or inadvertently -- or it may be deliberately misleading, or simply habitual and conformist. From it, the onlooker may draw a range of inferences, assumptions and suppositions - some of which may be accurate.
Whether anyone sees any of this costuming as "appropriate" or significant is based on their own particular/limited judgments and perspectives.
After accounting for context, of course.

(edited to repair mistakes caused by keyboard. Must repaint my letters. again)
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Lacewing »

Skip wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:31 pm...
Nice post... lots of good points, and stated well. Thanks. :)
Post Reply