cross-dressing

[Kayla]

the little girl i babysit - Clara (she is 7) decided that she wants a short haircut and wants to dress like a boy

here parents being hippie democrats were like ok whatever

so now someone who did not know her before could not tell if she is a boy or a girl just by looking at her

her new appearance barely registered on anyone everyone was like whatever so she wants to look like a boy

she wears blue jeans and non-pink/purple tshirts to school no one could care less

if parents let their boy to go to school dressed as a girl parents would be freaking out and calling the school board and demanding that something be done and they dont want their kids in a school with a pervert there would be a major kerfuffle

once again my question is wtf

on a related note the parents of her best friend whom Clara wants to marry (another girl) relented and decided that the girls can continue spending a lot of time together even if they say they will marry when they are old enough

it was actually a southern baptist minister who told them they were being stupid

[Notvacka]

Yes, wtf indeed.

It's of course all about the male being the norm in our society. Male is perceived as superior and powerful, female as inferior and weak; women dressed as men are dressing themselves upwards on the ladder of power, while men dressed as women are dressing themself downwards.

That's why you see Hillary Clinton in trousers all the time, but never Obama in a skirt.

And as long as this kind of view prevails, we will never have true gender equality.

[doolhoofd]

Transvestism. Neither homosexuals nor transexuals, transvestites like to play with the indistinctness of the sexes. The spell they cast, over themselves as well as others, is born of sexual vacillation and not, as is customary, the attraction of one sex for the other. They do not really like male men or female women, nor those who define themselves, redundantly, as distinct sexual beings. In order for sex to exist, signs must reduplicate biological being. Here the signs are separated from biology, and consequently the sexes no longer exist properly speaking. What transvestites love is this game of signs, what excites them is to seduce the signs themselves. With them everything is makeup, theater, and seduction. They appear obsessed with games of sex, but they are obsessed, first of all, with play itself; and if their lives appear more sexually endowed than our own, it is because they make sex into a total, gestural, sensual, and ritual game, an exalted but ironic invocation.
Nico seemed so beautiful only because her femininity appeared so completely put on. She emanated something more than beauty, something more sublime, a different seduction. And there was deception: she was a false drag queen, a real woman, in fact, playing the queen. It is easier for a non-female/female than for a real woman, already legitimated by her sex, to move amongst the signs and take seduction to the limit. Only the non-female/female can exercise an untainted fascination, because s/he is more seductive than sexual. The fascination is lost when the real sex shows through; to be sure, some other desire may find something here, but precisely no longer in that perfection that belongs to artifice alone.
Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex, and it commands the higher price.
One must not seek to ground transvestism in bisexuality. For the sexes and sexual dispositions, whether mixed or ambivalent, indefinite or inverted, are still real, and still bear witness to the psychic reality of sex. Here, however, it is this very definition of the sexual that is eclipsed. Not that this game is perverse. What is perverse is what perverts the order of the terms; but here there are no longer any terms to pervert, only signs to seduce.
Nor should one seek to ground transvestism in the unconscious or in "latent homosexuality." The old casuistry of latency is itself a product of the sexual imaginary of surfaces and depths, and always implies a diagnosis of symptoms and prognosis for their correction. But here nothing is latent, everything calls into question the very idea of a secret, determinate instance of sex, the idea that the deep play of phantasies controls the superficial play of signs. On the contrary, everything is played out in the vertigo of this inversion, this transsubstantiation of sex into signs that is the secret of all seduction.

from Seduction by Jean Baudrillard
http://free.art.pl/fotografie/baudrilla ... CTION.html

[chaz wyman]

the little girl i babysit - Clara (she is 7) decided that she wants a short haircut and wants to dress like a boy

here parents being hippie democrats were like ok whatever

so now someone who did not know her before could not tell if she is a boy or a girl just by looking at her

her new appearance barely registered on anyone everyone was like whatever so she wants to look like a boy

she wears blue jeans and non-pink/purple tshirts to school no one could care less

if parents let their boy to go to school dressed as a girl parents would be freaking out and calling the school board and demanding that something be done and they dont want their kids in a school with a pervert there would be a major kerfuffle

once again my question is wtf

on a related note the parents of her best friend whom Clara wants to marry (another girl) relented and decided that the girls can continue spending a lot of time together even if they say they will marry when they are old enough

it was actually a southern baptist minister who told them they were being stupid

I notice that your question is often "wtf".

The world does not necessarily makes sense, and you will find at some point that what you now think is an uncomplicated basic truth will also turn out to be nonsense. This might happen to so much you now think is real and obvious that the whole basis of your personal reality will be challenged.
I'd advise you to keep up with philosophy if you don't want to end up like most people.
Most people just go about life and stay in denial about the contradictions; many simply integrate them into a worldview and there seems to be a mechanism present in most humans that allows them to hold mutually contradictory views.
Let's hope you don't go the way of most people.
"Wtf" is quite promising.

[chaz wyman]

Yes, wtf indeed.

It's of course all about the male being the norm in our society. Male is perceived as superior and powerful, female as inferior and weak; women dressed as men are dressing themselves upwards on the ladder of power, while men dressed as women are dressing themself downwards.

That's why you see Hillary Clinton in trousers all the time, but never Obama in a skirt.

And as long as this kind of view prevails, we will never have true gender equality.

I agree entirely with what you say up until your last sentence.
As if we will ever have 'true gender equality', or even if that is desirable. Surely the point is that whatever your gender orientation it is not equal to others - it would ahve to be the same gender for that which is no gender at all
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. But what is to say that a dress suit is not appropriate for a woman (as if they are emulating men)?
By saying that you are confusing the issue of gender with the symbol of gender inequality, as if to imply that it should be okay for Hilary to wear a pretty skirt with frilly fringes and be taken seriously!!
What would gender equality actually look like?
In such a world what would men and women wear?
Surely the answer would be - any clothes that were not particularly gender specific.
The point is that women have already proved they can do that. They have colonised the symbolic preserve of the male.
And I submit THAT is exactly what gender equality (in the sense of equal opportinities) would look like.




There are no many examples of men colonising the symbolic preserve of women. Perry is s great artist, but I think he looks silly.

[Kayla]

The case for pretty skirts and dresses is that they are basically a submissive form of clothing,

how so?

perhaps this may be true of the victorian ladies clothing and modern tight short skirts that inhibit movement physically and if you are not careful everyone will see your undergarments

basically skirts should be long enough to not worry about displaying ones undergarments and not long enough to trip over them pretty much all of my dresses and skirts satisfy this requirement

and wtf is with high heels i tried that in in like five minutes my feet were in pain

By saying that you are confusing the issue of gender with the symbol of gender inequality, as if to imply that it should be okay for Hilary to wear a pretty skirt with frilly fringes and be taken seriously!!

and why not take someone wearing a pretty skirt with frilly fringes seriously

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

[chaz wyman]

How seriously as a politician could you take Grayson Perry?

[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?

Consider the answer I gave you in another thread about pretending. You said that when you dress up as a princess, you know you are not a princess.
Humans adopt a symbol as a demonstration of power, position, rank etc. It is part of the human game. There are those that confuse the symbol with the idea behind the symbol that is why the symbolism works.
In the 19thC the Japanese were emerging on the world stage as an important power and moving away from centuries of isolation. Part of that was the adoption of the symbol of the diplomat; the symbols of modernity. But being a traditionalist nation they did not keep up the symbolism.

By 1945 their dress code was well behind the times, but the lesson is that this is all about pretending. The signing of the surrender said more about backwardness than modernity.
But whatever they wore would not change the facts of their defeat, and their failure to embrace Western values.

[Notvacka]

But what is to say that a dress suit is not appropriate for a woman (as if they are emulating men)? By saying that...

But I'm not saying that.

you are confusing the issue of gender with the symbol of gender inequality, as if to imply that it should be okay for Hilary to wear a pretty skirt with frilly fringes and be taken seriously!!

Actually, it should be okay for Obama also to wear a pretty skirt and be taken seriously!

What would gender equality actually look like?

Gender equality is only one aspect of equality in a wider sense. True equality would be blind to looks. The colour of your skin, the length of your hair, the clothes you wear... nothing of that should matter; only what you have to say should.

In such a world what would men and women wear?

Whatever they want, of course!

Surely the answer would be - any clothes that were not particularly gender specific.

In a culture where no clothes are considered gender specific, that would be any clothes, right?

[Notvacka]

Humans adopt a symbol as a demonstration of power, position, rank etc.

That observation points straight to the heart of the matter. 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!

[chaz wyman]

But what is to say that a dress suit is not appropriate for a woman (as if they are emulating men)? By saying that...

But I'm not saying that.

you are confusing the issue of gender with the symbol of gender inequality, as if to imply that it should be okay for Hilary to wear a pretty skirt with frilly fringes and be taken seriously!!

Actually, it should be okay for Obama also to wear a pretty skirt and be taken seriously!

No , that's the point. The symbolic meaning of the skirt with frills is weakness. He would not be conforming to the symbol, regardless of what he is like. That is exactly why you are confusing the symbol with the reality. Wearing a dress would just be sending a confused message. The symbol in NOT the gender, and NOT about equality or inequality.

What would gender equality actually look like?

Gender equality is only one aspect of equality in a wider sense. True equality would be blind to looks. The colour of your skin, the length of your hair, the clothes you wear... nothing of that should matter; only what you have to say should.

Then if that is the case. It should not matter that Hilary is wearing a suit. The point being she CAN wear a suit means that she is equal. You are saying, in effect there can be no gender equality whilst people wear different clothes. That is why you are confusing the symbol with the reality. The appearance is just the appearance. Equality should not rely on symbols being meaningless which is what you are trying to say. The reason Hilary wearing a suit represents gender equality is the same reason that she would not wear a swastika and a toothbrush moustache.
Are you saying that we will never have race equality until black people and jews can wear swaztikas?

In such a world what would men and women wear?

Whatever they want, of course!

But that would mean an end to symbolic meaning. This would not relate to their equality in any sense. In fact it would mask it.
Symbolism will continue to have its power regardless of the social reality.

Surely the answer would be - any clothes that were not particularly gender specific.

In a culture where no clothes are considered gender specific, that would be any clothes, right?

But clothes will always carry messages. So when Hilary wears a suit she is saying that she is part of the political class.
Thatcher always wore a skirt, but there was precious little femininity about it. What she wore became the symbols of power right down to the handbag, which she carried like a weapon about to bash any wet minister over the head like a headmistress.
By your rubric, you are saying it should not matter if she was dressed like a whore with fishnets and suspenders.

So, NO absolutely NOT 'any' clothes.

[chaz wyman]

Humans adopt a symbol as a demonstration of power, position, rank etc.

That observation points straight to the heart of the matter. 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...

[Kayla]

How seriously as a politician could you take Grayson Perry?

not very seriously he looks ridiculous

but maybe if he found the right dress he would not

i dont think that dress would work for me either i would look like a dork in it

but on some girls it would work just fine

[doolhoofd]

Kayla have you seen the thread I made for you, in The Lounge ?

[Kayla]

asshole