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.