How fashion is a set-up for misogyny


No, the post is not about ‘THAT hat’, but I suppose it is a good example of how ridiculous ‘fashion’ is. There were a lot of other ridiculous hats yesterday (including ones that restricted the wearer’s vision), but I do vote Beatrice’s hat probably No.1 for the day in absolute silliness, and alerts us to the possibility of an enclave of evil and sinister milliners out there…

So no, this post is not about ‘THAT hat’ specifically at all. It was good to see it again to remind myself that, no, I was not really imagining how silly it was. And note, I did not make any disparaging remarks against the wearer, just the hat, there is a difference.

This is about fashion in general, and the male-female dress codes. Although this thought has occurred to me in the past, I was reminded of it after looking at this article in The Daily Mail. You don’t need to read it, just have a quick scroll down through the pictures.

The main point is that at these events (any kind of social, meeja, fame event like awards evenings), the dudes just rock up in the tux (or variation of the suit required for the event). This does not make them stand out from each other, and almost never are they criticised for what they are wearing. Women at these events are both competing with each other, and also opening themselves up for criticism for fashion choices and faux pas. Primarily the women are often ripped apart for having bulges showing, big bums, too much or too little cleavage on display, and lots of other made-up ‘crimes’ that women supposedly commit. Basically there are very few women out there that fit the ‘perfect ideal’, so it is easy pickings for the meeja to point out the women’s (perceived) flaws.

Secondly, we have the obvious spending-lots-of-dosh on the dress, and how dudes can just buy, or even just rent, a tux, and job is done, much cheaper than it is for the women.

Whilst there is a tiny bit of ‘fashion’ involved in men’s suits, they don’t change that quickly, and a dude could easily get ten years or more out of the one suit. Even in yesteryear, when things like men’s wigs were in fashion, they really did not vary that much, they were all of a fairly homogenous standard, a bit like men’s ties, where a little bit of individual expression is allowed, but overall, it is pretty much a male uniform. So fashion ‘pressure’ is never really an issue for males.

Not forgetting also, that the fashion industry is dominated by gay men, who are not free from misogyny just because they are gay (frequently they express their misogyny and contempt for female more openly than het dudes). Just take a look at these shoes as an example, not sure how one is supposed to walk in these, and the risk of falling over and making a fool of one’s self is high (I wonder too if that is part of the motivation).

Speaking of hobbling and misogyny, Pippa Middleton got nothing but praise for her outfit (because she had a nice figure, and no perceived ‘imperfections’ were showing). Except the woman could barely walk, her stride was severely limited, and I also noticed that she nearly stumbled with the low hemline as she entered the church. Nor was anyone really critical of that supposedly wedding faux pas of ‘never wear white to a wedding’, I guess because it was a criticism-off day due to the blah blah magickal important event.

Gimme comfy loose-fitting unfashionable clothing any day.

– – – – –

As an off-topic aside of this blah blah magickal important event, I wanted to point out the public relations manipulation in all of this. The style of Kate Middleton’s wedding dress was a modernised version of Grace Kelly’s wedding dress, and the closeness of the design is more than just accident. It sets up within the collective mindset (both general public and to a degree, the meeja) that Kate is a Grace Kelly equivalent, to become much beloved by all. Which means that for the long term, as long as Kate stays married and plays the good wife, she will remain in this role. It’s a PR manipulation. Right down to the length of the veil.

ETA a couple of links related to fashion/hobbling.
Ballbuster – Hobbling Part 1, Part 2.
FCM – Footbinding.
Ballbuster – Lingerie

87 thoughts on “How fashion is a set-up for misogyny

  1. zeph

    The biggest joke of all is how praised fashion designers are , for ridiculing us in fabric!

    I heard once about a pub brawl where no bones were broken except for the ankles of two different women pushed over in the crush, their heels broke their legs.

    Your post has made me think about Grace Kelly, and I suddenly remembered that after she became unhappy, began to drink and therefore cause media interest, she died in a car crash. I wondered for a moment, then thought it must be coincidence.

    Like

    Reply
  2. FAB Libber

    I have always wondered if the Grace Kelly thing, the commoner marrying the [handsome?!?!] prince, was Sponsored By Disney!

    Certainly both Grace Kelly and Kate feed into the ‘commoner’ marrying a prince propaganda. I think Grace, even though her dissatisfaction with the lifestyle was obvious, was still treated fairly kindly by the meeja (and beloved by the ‘commoners’) because she remained dutiful wifey (and locked up in her cage). Versus Diana, who got pissed off with the sham (specifically Chuckles having his mistress on the side), therefore breaking the cage and making a bid for freedom – she was under a lot of criticism at that time. She was able to regain the beloved status via her charitable works. There was some comparison at the time, with the two of them dying in car crashes. Diana was still regarded as a ‘commoner’ too, just titled (and the Earl Spencer title only goes back to mid-late 1700s). There is always distinction made within the royal family with regards to titles, you don’t get Prince/ss stuck in front of your name unless it is hereditary (Phil the greek was a prince by blood). Not sure why I threw in that bit of diversion, perhaps it illustrates how cliquey the royal family are, and how obsessed they are with bloodlines. Maggie made the ‘filly’ comment over at Scum.

    Actually, when you think about it, the fact that the royal family will allow ‘commoners’ in (whilst keeping the commoner themselves at arm’s length) why should any offspring be regarded as ‘fully royal’? Not logical, even using their rules! Their whole obsession with bloodlines (and purity of bloodlines) made for some nice little hereditary diseases in the line, proving once again that the concept is fucked up.

    Like

    Reply
  3. jilla

    Grace Kelly “played” a princess, and fantasy and reality have always been confused in the American public’s mind. Plus, the inferiority complex. Those who emmigrate never leave because they had it so good, they leave because they had it so bad, and turn around to recreate it as soon as possible. The Kellys. Also, none of the blood royals would marry their daughters into Monaco. So…Grace.

    Her dress was designed by a Jewish woman, who could not break into the cloth trade any other way than Hollywood. Most of the wardrobe designers in film were women recreating the needle arts their foremothers excelled in, albeit shaping that to what paid the rent. Helen Rose created the dress. Grace Kelly just wore it.

    Over 30 needlewomen worked on Kate’s dress, including elements from Scottish, Irish, Anglo and Welsh ancient culture, which was women’s culture.

    Like

    Reply
  4. FAB Libber

    Also, none of the blood royals would marry their daughters into Monaco.

    Could that also be that most of the remaining ‘royal blood lines’ are now proddy, and Monaco was Catholic (Grace also being a good Catholic)? Most of the Catholic countries that had ‘royalty’ got rid of them, or effectively so. It was also a time before the Catholic church cottoned onto the idea of intermarriage with proddies, in order to boost numbers. Just a guess.

    The lacemaking and needleworking was the nice bit out of yesterday’s spectacle. The cake making was primarily female (certainly a female-run business). Although on the cake, I must mentione that it looked more like it was ‘designed by committee’ with little overall motif (and no, too many different flowers to carry the motif concept). I used to do cake decorating in my 20s, including doing my sister’s wedding cake. My grandmother baked the fruitcake. A familywoman dealio.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381944/Royal-Wedding-cake-Kate-Middleton-requested-8-tiers-decorated-900-flowers.html

    Like

    Reply
  5. delphyne

    Wasn’t Princess Grace’s marriage PR for the casino? She looks like she’s about to cry in that picture.

    Kate’s outfit is a copy right down to the lilies of the valley in her wedding bouquet.

    Like

    Reply
  6. jilla

    The Catholic aspect, yes all part of it. Kelly Sr. made his money from bootlegging. As he moved the family into laundered professions, I can assume we’d find evidence of other women harming enterprise having been part of it, before and after divesting. I’m not wasting time finding a link.

    Fruitcake travels well. 🙂

    We could do an exchange. I made strawberry scones yesterday. I know, not strictly ‘pure’. But the clotted cream didn’t say a word agin’ it. Scones evolved into Bannock here, with a bit of help from the Orkney HBC clerks.

    Like

    Reply
  7. jilla

    I haven’t seen any good post about the dress, from the perspective of it being women’s art. I had hoped Vi Socks would do that. She’s well capable.

    Like

    Reply
  8. zeph

    I seem to remember the media making unkind comments about Grace Kelly’s weight, she was late forties why should she not gain weight? I think the drinking accusations were made about her daughters, most of us drink when we are young. When princes drink they are just lads having a good time, but princesses are depicted as dissipated party girls. It is difficult being a princess or any woman in public life.

    Yes, the wedding dress was beautiful, though I am not a fan of wedding dresses or of lace, even though it is traditionally a woman’s craft, but it all came together beautifully on the day, Kate looked extremely elegant.

    Like

    Reply
  9. jilla

    Hey Delphyne. Have you found anything good on the dress? I haven’t even found good close-ups of the needlework.

    Like

    Reply
  10. jilla

    I am fan of dressing for occasion. Somehow, that’s all been subsumed to male occasion; baptism, communion, graduation, wedding. funeral.

    I wish women would just do that again. I get the idea some think because we’re feminists (now) or spinsters, or lefty, we should eschew women’s celebratory arts. F’that. Even the “paint”, jewels, hair. Do it.

    I’m also a fan of Sunday and special occasion dinners, and everyone comes, including the old ones no one cares about anymore. And everyone dresses up and behaves, and the tv is not on. And there WILL be gravy.

    Like

    Reply
  11. jilla

    AND…that’s why I think we are drawn by these celebratory occasions, which have become “quaint” and owned by royalty, or politicians, or religion, and we watch rather than really take part. We are hungry for what we used to do, and we want to dress up and eat foods that have meaning, to us, and take part in the preparation of food, dress and event, But it’s been made silly, and old-fashioned, and “plain” and something women do, or only mothers do, and we go resentfully to that table. Damn. It.

    Like

    Reply
  12. FAB Libber

    I will try to find more on the dress if I can, the ‘something old’ was supposedly the technique used, the “the traditional Carrickmacross craftsmanship” (note that they said craftsMANship, when clearly this is a woman’s craft, so craftsWOmanship)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13235599

    I could really only think that the (white/ivory) wedding dress concept for me symbolises ‘ghosting’ (I thought too, upon first seeing Kate with veil down, “a ghost!”). The symbolism is that the woman becomes a ghost of her former self, losing her individuality. She becomes property of the husband, and his PIV entitlement!

    Like

    Reply
  13. jilla

    Or what they were paid, but they do acknowledge the embroiderers were contracted part-time. Nooo we canna call it sweat shop.

    “And although the dress has been seen by millions of people around the world, it is still shrouded in secrecy as Dr Kay-Williams declined to say how many people had worked on the project or when it started or finished.”

    And I’m under no illusion that Burton is in any way a feminist, or a better employer than McQueen was. Dance dance dance. Grave.

    Like

    Reply
  14. FAB Libber

    And I’m under no illusion that Burton is in any way a feminist, or a better employer than McQueen was.

    Of course not, it is the fashion industry, and is ruled by menz. Toe the line, or you don’t make it. Vivienne Westwood would be another ‘not feminist’ out there. The few women of fame in the fashion industry are tokens, but tokens that toe the ‘corporate’ line (patriarchy).

    I mean to say, do you think Kate could actually breathe much in that dress? Certainly not deep breathing, as discussed over on FCM’s latest post. Yet another form of hobbling.

    Like

    Reply
  15. jilla

    Not sure it was a corseted a costume as Grace’s was. Sheesh. That dress would have had an undercarriage worthy of a bridge span. 1950s et al. And it looks it. Kate is beautifully fit and toned (as are most women pre-babies). I doubt Grace was. She was encased.

    Like

    Reply
  16. FAB Libber

    The upper of both dresses are tight and restrictive, the main difference in the dresses is the skirt, and Kelly’s would have had more crap underneath to pad it out like that. Neither dress looks like you could breathe in it.

    Diverting to delphyne’s earlier comment, yes the similarity in the bouquets is ‘uncanny’.
    *cough* deliberate.

    Like

    Reply
  17. jilla

    I love love love that Delphyne was CBL’s “crazy feminist.”.

    This is true feminist work. Heading out into the war zone, dodging land mines to bring in the CBLs. I have noted, we are out there. Delphyne is one among many. Where have all the feminists gone? We are stealth. We are not breaking down doors to be like men, or demanding we ARE men. We are tearing down the veils.

    Like

    Reply
  18. maggie

    yes and grace kelly’s son was at the wedding! Looking not so good in a patriarchial way. but they were kind to him.

    Oh and I love that the daily male went on about Kate’s uncle who has tatoos and never mentioned Beckham who…has tatoos. Bloody joke and we the taxpayer are forking out for this and at the same time having to swallow cuts to our living standards. This much I know. It’s a huge mountain we radfems climb. I’m up for it though.

    Like

    Reply
  19. zeph

    “The veil is what remains in western culture of a Burka.”

    Yes, when patriarchy took over they, just like the Nazis, desecrated sacred objects and turned them into items to humiliate. So Neith’s sacred veil, used only for her ceremonial worship, becomes forced on women at all times. I have a suspicion that foot binding may have started the same way. That the feet of priestesses may have been wrapped for ceremony to depict the sacred lotus, and that patriarchal invaders may have pulled the wrappings tight and made them keep them on, to humiliate their goddess and their beliefs, because demoralisation assists in keeping a majority population from trying to rebel.

    I don’t like lace because, like samplers, it is essentially useless and very time consuming to make. A humiliating way to divert women’s energies; bent upon a useless tasks. Again dissipating peoples energies in useless ways, aids in controlling them. Give me weaving and leather making any day.

    I have a half written post about why I don’t like lace, I must dig it out.

    Like

    Reply
  20. delphyne

    Kate would have been arrested if she’d worn her veil in France. 😛 Or maybe the men who forced her into it would have been.

    I haven’t seen anything about this particular lace Jilla, but I did watch an amazing programme about haute couture in Paris, featuring Chanel. They still have the braid made for their Chanel suits by the same 80 year old woman who made braid for Mlle Chanel. All done on her loom in a dusty French farmhouse out in the middle of the country with skills that came from her mother and grandmother. They showed the tweed being delivered by the Chanel car to this old lady in her dilapidated buildings, and she got out her old wooden frame and teased the tweed apart to remake it into a braid. Quite amazing. They also filmed the women in Chanel’s atelier who take Karl’s drawings and actually turn them into something real – he doesn’t even give them cutting instructions. So from the most sketchiest of sketches, they create the most beautiful clothes. Who are the real artists? Not the one earning all the money.

    That’s a great point about Kate being turned into a ghost, Fab.

    Like

    Reply
  21. FAB Libber

    Kate would have been arrested if she’d worn her veil in France. 😛
    SCORE !

    I guess France had better outlaw weddings then eh?
    Oh my, they did not see that one backfire on them, did they?
    ROTFLMAO

    That my friends, is Game, Set, and Match.

    Like

    Reply
  22. jilla

    Haven’t seen the comings and goings Maggie. Just the hats, dress and cake.

    Going to look for that film Delphyne.

    I had a Chanel suit, once. Single days.

    Ok. Fabbity. Nighty night.

    Like

    Reply
  23. Sargasso Sea

    I sure am enjoying reading this thread and looking at the creepy photos; torture shoes and scary hats, beautifully crafted white symbol of human* bondage, boring cakes and all at the taxpayers‘ expense, too. Ima have nightmares for sure

    One of my courses at uni was *Prove that Alfred Hitchcock was a Misogynist or Fail the Class*. See, being a radical and all I don’t take too kindly to people telling me to tell them what they want to hear. So I analyzed Rear Window and took the stance that Hitchcock inspired a proactive female character in Lisa/Grace Kelley (a woman who is both thinking and act-ing) and in Stella/Thelma Ritter as the *street-smart* physical therapist and that compared his peers, Hitchcock was a veritable pro-feminist. Both of those women were positively brilliant in that flick. (big old fail on the paper! wevs.)

    It is good to see Delphyne around again (not sure we’ve ever been properly introduced :)). always witty and insightful. So it’s you who brought CBL to us, then? If so, then thank you very much!

    *when I say “human” read “women”, always.

    Like

    Reply
  24. delphyne

    Hi Sargasso Sea, we haven’t been introduced – I’m very pleased to meet you. Mind you I have been lurking here whilst this corner of the rad fem blogosphere exploded, so I’m probably feeling like I know everybody even if they don’t know me!

    Jilla, it was The House of Chanel on BBC4, but they don’t have it on their website anymore. I’ve just found this French film, Signe Chanel, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMcf4O7B74Q which covers the same things, except with French commentary, which somehow makes it more entertaining. How amazing to have owned a Chanel suit.

    Like

    Reply
  25. jilla

    I’ve found three films so far, none sound like what you describe.

    The Chanel suit was made for me. The seamstress made the pattern from her own drawing, on newspaper. The braid was not made out of Tweek in a dark attic, but almost.

    It was gorgeous and I got lots of compliments and questions about who made it for me when I took it with me to a city to live.

    Like

    Reply
  26. jilla

    That’s about $450,000 in Canadian money, or, my income for 40 years, or, … Kate’s parents income for last month (a slow party mo.) or … what Canadian taxpayer’s will pay for K&W to be here for one-half day of the five they’ll be here soon, or.. .

    I think someone is getting paid far too well, and I’m betting it’s not the seamstress saving for her kid to attend Jamie Oliver’s cooking school.

    Like

    Reply
  27. jilla

    Some questions, one may actually be on topic:

    Do you think the day’s fashion statement included Depends? I mean, it was a loooong day.

    Do you think Kate was told, no divorce, under any circumstances, this is it, because Wills is a future king, and also because of the disgrace Chuck brought upon the crown (Tampon Diaries etc), and the need to redeem the family’s name in history.

    Do you think the off period was mandated by HRH, to see if and how soon one of them would find someone else, or trip up with a toe-sucking incident or what not?

    Like

    Reply
  28. luckynkl

    **Sigh** Grace Kelly. She was so beautiful. She always made my heart go pitter-patter. Still does when I catch some of her old movies. Her daughter, Princess Stephanie, looks a lot like her. I wouldn’t exactly call Grace Kelly a commoner tho. Her family was part of high society in Philadelphia. Her father was a triple gold medalist in the Olympics, a self-made millionaire, and a politician. Her mother taught phys ed over at Penn State, which is currently the #1 university in America.

    Like

    Reply
  29. FAB Libber

    Probably a yes to all three questions Jilla.

    Ah Lucky, you ‘mericans not quite up to speed on the whole royalty/hierarchy thingy, which is all imaginary bullshit anyway. My mother used to tell me when I was a kid “everybody is equal, no one is better than anyone else, and [royalty/rich folk] are just people like everyone else, they aren’t special”

    Lady Diana Spencer was also ‘non-royal’ as was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (who became the Queen Mother, dead now). However, because they come from titled families, the peerage, this is the rung under ‘royalty’, and is an acceptable pool of spouses when ‘royal blood lines’ are not available. Those from rich (or even very upper middle class) families are the rung under the peerage, and always referred to as ‘commoners’. There is also a distinction between a hereditary peerage and a (mere) title. Sir Elton John etc, just has a title, the current Earl Spencer (Diana’s bother) has a hereditary peerage. Nouveau riche really don’t cut it in the Capital of Class called Britain. In America, your class system is based purely on the wallet, not here. John Kelly was nouveau riche (20thC money) and not from any ‘titled’ or ‘distinguished’ family line, as far as European royalty goes, they were commoners.

    The peerage have often had financial woes of keeping their estates (or ‘seats’ as they are called) going. Sometimes they will marry commoners from rich families for a cash injection. Anyway, the whole system is bullshit and made up fairy tales. With a lot of social climbing involved.

    Like

    Reply
  30. cherryblossomlife

    Jilla, you are so right about women’s art. I think that ties in with Undercover PUnk’s post on femininity. “Women’s work”, so despised, undervalued and derided by society, when it is really the only work there is. Herbalists, medicine women, seamstresses, *cooks!* , horticulture, the list goes on. Women *invented* pottery. What about Persian rugs, all designed and made by women, then sold by middle men.

    Like

    Reply
  31. delphyne

    They work very hard to hobble us, considering we’re supposed to be the “weaker” sex so shouldn’t need any restrictions to be secondary to men.

    Like

    Reply
  32. FAB Libber

    Excellent point delphyne.

    I am always curious as to why more FABs don’t twig to what is going on, esp with the obvious hobbling. Walking in heels does not come naturally, it has to be practised. Restraining yourself in tight and uncomfortable clothing always makes you tense.

    I guess, at the bottom of it is the stupid gender conformity, blinding FABs to what they are doing to themselves. Gender (role) performance – JUST SAY NO!

    And yes, it does make you wonder why Camp Dude have to work so hard on hobbling and binding us. Fashion is the blinkers in all this. A form of mass delusion. Just look back on previous fashions, and it becomes clear how dumb it all is.

    Like

    Reply
  33. jilla

    Why has no one answered my post about us needing/wanting celebration? I think this is rilly important. And ties in with women’s liberation when we dropped all the pat crap, or keep trying to, but we have not put anything else in place. And maybe we need to acknowledge we are the keepers of the chalice, and start using it for kitchen slops. Or at least acknowledge our role there.

    But really, hoomankind needs celebration. That’s why we fall for these things. It’s up to us, within our social sets, our families, our womenkin groups, to foster ritual and celebrations. Spring. Not Easter. Solstice, not Christmas, or take back the real things aobut Christmas, like trees, and gifts and the return of the Sun.

    I finally say something good adn you all ignore it.

    Like

    Reply
  34. FAB Libber

    Not ignoring it exactly Jilla, but I am on the mindset that we have a long way to go before thinking about those alternatives. I do enjoy some traditionally womany things (not all, and I can’t really sew!), I am just a bit more focused on navigating out of ‘here’ to get to ‘there’. At the moment, for me at least, those things are a hobby or distraction, that I cannot fully enjoy because of looking over my shoulder all the time, watching out for the next attack on the World of Womyn.

    Like

    Reply
  35. jilla

    Yah. Well. I don’t play hockey either, but I advocated for women’s and girls’ right to do so. I didn’t go to law school, but marched and picketed for women to get in there. And by the by, I don’t sew.

    Like

    Reply
  36. womononajourney

    I just wanted to say that anyone interested in the topic of how men and specifically gay men, run the fashion industry should really check out Beauty and Misogyny by Sheila Jeffreys. I learned quite a bit from her chapter of fashion; I had no idea the extent to which these mostly gay men hate us.

    Like

    Reply
  37. jilla

    I haven’t read Jeffrey’s, but gawd yes, it’s true. The whole of the fashion industry is based on male sexuality: male thin, long-legged flat bodies, with silicone footballs attached. They hate hate hate hate the real female body shape. The FEMALE non-surgically or drug creatable female body, built to reproduce. (Whether we do or not–that is nature’s design).

    Like

    Reply
  38. Undercover Punk

    Oh yes, fashion is a total set up for misogyny! It is also inseparable from consumerism, and therefore, is by definition manipulative of our desires.
    I love aesthetics and design, which is what I talk about in regard to the redeeming visual value of the self-decoration trait assigned to females. But so many of the “feminine” aesthetic standards are *specifically* woman-harming: dramatic thinness and high heels being the two most prominent in my mind. We have to continue criticizing and seeking to eliminate these objective harms from fashion’s tyranny. Comfort is primary; form should follow function. Not the other way around– AT FEMALE EXPENSE!! Gawd.

    Like

    Reply
  39. jilla

    Gosh. My trifocals must need adjusting. For a mo there I mistook tyranny for tranny.

    Yes, a person trained in design. Hallelujah. Just don’t tell me to go braless. Isn’t gunna happen. Women who are having health problems related to thoracic need to wear bras that have really firm underbust control. Not necessarily underwire, but really tight around the band, on the loosest hooks, because after you’ve worn them a bit, you need to go to the tighter hooks.

    Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    Like

    Reply
  40. FAB Libber

    Yeah, a lot of gay dudes really hate females. What else is a drag show but a contempt and parody of the female (and of femininity, which is thrust upon us by males, gay and straight)?

    I just did a related comment over at FaceButt, somehow the topic is about shoes or something, and even genderqueers are on the thread still thinking they are subversive and stuff.

    *what makes a woman, a woman*
    Woman is an adult human female, that is it. It does not matter how butch or femme or neutral or anything else she is, she is, by definition, an adult human female, a woman.

    Gender is an artificial construct, which includes gender roles. Gender roles are the source of female oppression, and anyone, particularly the people on this thread, who indulge in ‘gender’ in any way, shape or form, are not doing anything constructive for the liberation of females. You are allowing it to continue.

    Femininity is the eroticisation of female oppression. High heels, tight fitting clothing, foot binding, ridiculous fashions, all part and parcel of hobbling and bondage of the female.

    Here is the key to exposing the ridiculousness of trans – without these outer coverings (clothing, fashions) trans cannot exist, they cannot exist without acknowledging the fashion of gender. Take away the heels, lippy, feminine clothing on an M2T, and you just have a dude, a man, an adult human male.

    Genderqueer aren’t much help either. Sure, you all think you are really subversive; cute perhaps when you are in you teens or twenties, but you will not change anything at all with regards to women’s subordination. All you do is make your local pub look a little more colourful. You subvert nothing. You certainly do not upset the greater status quo.

    I like having the odd pop at the genderqueers, they get a bit left out most of the time. Just doin’ mah job!

    Like

    Reply
  41. FAB Libber

    Jilla, on bras. They are badly badly designed, all of them. And they basically all have the functioning the form, which is why function suffers.

    For the larger breasted, the support does need to come from underneath, but it also needs to be a much wider band at the bottom. It should not really have to be super tight, again it comes down to the overall design, and certainly ALL bras rely too much on the support coming from the shoulders (the straps should be more about stopping it slip about). Also, you have to get rid of the ‘lift and separate’ and ‘point them out’ concepts.

    Although mine are too big to go without anything, I hate bras, and wear a sort of crop top thing. Or a lycra singlet type thing. Gives no shape, just stops them from over jiggling.

    ps – tyranny and tranny, not a hard mistake to make…

    Like

    Reply
  42. Sargasso Sea

    I just posted a thought I had yesterday but wanted to sleep on over at BB’s but Ima stick it here too:

    It’s like of instead of creating *fashion* like clothes and shoes and such crap they are now creating, a la Frankenstein, the *fashion* of being *female*.

    This squicks me out, big time. I look at the pics of the princess with THAT hat and I see a woman emulating the *fashion* of trans. SQUICK.

    Scary, too.

    Like

    Reply
  43. jilla

    Great post on MyButtFace.

    Fortunately the bras that have what I described are usually called Sports Bras. Wide underband, firm elastic and microfiber and/or soft cotton, uniboob, no itchy stuff. And with back hook ups. I like Royce.
    femalefirst.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/964

    Like

    Reply
  44. FAB Libber

    Back hooks gotta go too – who the fuck thought that would be a good concept?
    Menz I would guess.

    That FF sports bra looks ok (I have to wear a sports bra during MA training). A bit pricey though, 35 quid ffs.

    Like

    Reply
  45. FAB Libber

    Drifting back on topic, now that the shock of THAT hat has worn off a bit, I stare at the photo. If you stare at the photo, you can see a beautiful young woman, hidden under piles of gunk panda make-up and ridiculous hat, and uncomfortable-looking clothes.

    Gay men and their misogyny are behind most of this “fashion”. They like to make FABs look ridiculous. We see that from the drag shows. Certainly not funny.

    Like

    Reply
  46. survivorthriver

    I got a snort, if I might BB, out of the “Beckham frenzy”. Tht Beckham boy looked dandy, buyt the Beckham preggo looked like she was going to a funeral. Perhaps in keeping with pomp and poop of the day she waas maintaining a stiff upper lip pip pip and all that rot, but she looked angry, severe and contemptuous. I guess you got to cut the preggers slack, it’s her third child. Notice how the daddy looks chipper, rested, shiny and unscathed.

    I saw nothing chic about that Beckham woman.

    Now, Beatrice also looks contrived, pinched, like a rhesus monkey that’s had one too many electrode experiments. And, her hat, like a bullseye right on royal forehead, all tied up in a bow, signed sealed and delivered to the patriarchy.

    Oh second thought, the Beckham creature does not have a “fuck me” look she is definitly radiating “fuck you”.

    Like

    Reply
  47. jilla

    I really really wish I didn’t see a pregnant woman referred to as a “preggo” or “preggers”. Whether we wish to have a child or not, or are able to or not, this is something that is uniquely female. We are the only sex that has a uterus.

    Like

    Reply
  48. survivorthriver

    Just curious, because I’ve not seen this word called out as pejorative, and I’m happy to understand more. Having born two children myself, and having had a pregnant woman refer to herself as preggers recently I am just caught off guar.

    Beckham, pregnant, looked angry, severe and contemptuous. She looked that way before, and she looks that way now. She was praised as chic. Is that a better way to describe? I’ve just always been struck with the fawning over her and her FU tude.

    Like

    Reply
  49. jilla

    I don’t follow her at all so I don’t know her lifestyle or personality. I do think she looked chic.

    I find the expression somewhat pejorative. I guess lots of people use that and similar terms. To me it’s dismissive of something I think we should respect and honour, even if we aren’t havin’ any. And I do not mean this to protect the mother/goddess idea, or an anti-abortion stance. I’m an on-demand-anytime advocate. For too long it seems whatever is female has been put-down. Well I don’t want to swing the total opposite, but not be using what is uniquely female as a toss-off. I’ve heard worse.

    I hope you don’t find my comment antagonistic. I just wanted to comment though.

    Like

    Reply
  50. ball buster

    Back hooks gotta go too – who the fuck thought that would be a good concept?
    Menz I would guess.

    The nigel that sired my youngest prides himself on being able to unhook a woman’s bra with one hand. 🙄 I swear, men create this shit for bragging rights, nothing more.

    I wear sports bras. I heart my uniboob! ❤ I don't need *shape*. I need support, goddammit. 🙂

    I've never viewed the word preggo or preggers as pejorative, but I do agree with Jilla that anything related being female does seem to be put down. I suppose that's my problem with certain words, that they're used as a joke or to trivialize/erase female experience.

    Like

    Reply
  51. survivorthriver

    Jilla and BB,
    Point well taken. I’m always happy to dialog and understand another perspective w/o defensiveness. How else would I learn?

    I think to avoid words that trivialize or erase female experience is a key guiding principle! The woman who self-referenced with this word is a friend, but I don’t think I’ll copy from now on. As a home birth advocate, having attended 6 births and my own two I would never want to put down or trivialize childbirth.

    Regards Ms. Beckham, there was a big stir in the U.S. when they moved here and I have felt she’s very male-oriented woman from the limited exposure I’ve seen. I wouldn’t know, as I don’t personally know her or really even follow her. Married a tennis star, has babies, oh, maybe a line of clothing to her name. I don’t bow to any of those. But, I ain’t married to being Right! Just a dumb comment.

    I did run a preschool for a few years and had a lot of seasonal celebrations that were based on earth and seasons, but I’ve already taken up a lot of space here.

    Like

    Reply
  52. survivorthriver

    Celebrations! Here’s a snap shot of my preschool celebrations. This is brief, years of experience, but a short annual cycle is like this.

    Fall is the season of Harvest and Gathering. Gather fallen oak leaves (largest oldest oak tree in community next door), nuts. Of course fruits. From the season of Gathering we move into the season of Making. Paint the dried leaves, hang on threads from bare branches. Celebrate fall! During the winter we know to celebrate the Root systems which are still active underground, read the wonderful Swedish child authors “Root People: book series. Visit the small woodland and pay homage to the imaginery gnomes who live in the roots and help the earth swell the growth again, celebrate the beings that inhabit the deep forest.From the season of Making we move into the season of Giving. My gutters full of cedar and fir seedlings become fairy garden woodlands decorated with golden painted hazelnuts, small natural clay creatures already made and fired around the fall campfire. One winter I did ikebana studies with kids, gather branches, ask the shrub and tree if they will give their bare branch for our arrangements. Make playdough clay from scrach, place in handmade paper vases, insert branches intentionally and voila an ikebana arrangement. Gift! The season of Giving turns into the season of New Life, visit the organic farm next door, gather the girls’ organic eggs, blow them, make scrambled eggs with their goodness and then dye shells with the onion skins from the farm, other paints. Celebrate! Summer brings the celebration of the flower fairies, the tall grasses where we can enjoy grass safaris in tall grasses over the heads of a 5 year old, celebrating the wonderful abundance of the season of Sun.

    We had a wonderful Nature Preschool, borrowing from Waldorf, borrowing from Montessori…very place-based on my acreage, our surrounding fields and pond and farm. Now there are newer preschools, Wilderness Preschools. Similar.

    One summer I celebrated “international music”, hired a samba teacher to come to preschool once a week. We made shakers, hand-prints on t-shirts, wove/decorated crowns, decorated our cart with willow boughs and fuschia branches. Played the samba music, teacher gave us dance lessons, and celebrated international music together. Prepared for the community Strawberry Festival parade. Finally had to ask the fundamentalist Christian mother if she would want to withdraw support because our samba teacher would appear in public with a costume that included a bra hand-stitched with fruits, and a short skirt. That mom consented, she saw how much the school and I loved our dance and our costuming, loved the Brazilian beats of the music, loved the integration of music, dance, art, play, beauty. We performed in front of the parents, for the whole community. Crowns, shakers, hand painted t-shirts, and teacher – dancing!
    Celebrate Summer!

    Like

    Reply
  53. FAB Libber

    Frankly, I think Posh Spice was just pissy because she was not the centre of attention… She does have star-snowflake syndrome.
    Diki:

    Beckham was born at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow, Essex and raised in Goffs Oak, Hertfordshire.[5] She is the daughter of Jacqueline and Anthony Adams. Anthony was an electronics engineer,[5] and the success of the family business allowed for a comfortable upbringing for Victoria and her siblings,[1] Louise and Christian.[6]

    Beckham attended St. Mary’s High School in Cheshunt. She was embarrassed by her family’s wealth and often begged her father not to drop her off outside the school in their Rolls Royce.[7] Beckham said that during her schooling days, she was a victim of bullying, having been made to feel like an outsider. She commented: “Children were literally picking things up out of the puddles and throwing them at me. And I just stood there, on my own. No one was with me. I didn’t have any friends.”[8]

    She was inspired by watching the musical Fame, and subsequently decided that she would become famous.

    Frankly, it was probably her stuck-up attitude.
    The couple of rich kids that went to my school in a small country town thought they were better than everyone else, no one hung around them either. No one really cared if they had better stuff either, it was completely down to their attitude of superiority.

    Like

    Reply
  54. survivorthriver

    Wealth can create a disability. Your information does give me a different take on the Beckham female. I was not a fan of the Spice Girls. Anyone who is bullied does deserve compassion. So, now she is famous. I get a big “bingo” out of connecting her historical information to my sense that she wears a big “fuck you” face. Hmm.

    Superiority can also mask deep inferiority. I knew a wealthy woman who had everything handed to her. The deep underlying insecurity that she was worthless, had no value of her own except daddy’s money, also presented as a big superiority face. Sad.

    Now I understand more, thank you.

    I was also abused and bullied as a child. I decided that I’d dedicate my life to helping others. I’m not being holier than crap here. There are more than one way to react to bullying and abuse. Bullying also sucks a big one, and there is one antidote and that is the “sympathetic bystander” effect. People who saw her bullied and abused should have stepped to her defense. I think we all should step to the defense of those weaker, more helpless or who are singled out because they are rich and/or beautiful. Back in the Burning Times it was often women who turned in other women as witches, due to jealousy, or other perversion of authentic power.

    I have a stuck-up niece, now a super model in the making spending 6 weeks in India on a shoot. I feel really sorry for the super beautiful sometime, or the super rich. It can create a disability of the heart. unless other factors intervene.

    Like

    Reply
  55. ball buster

    I didn’t want to mention this because I didn’t want to offend any of my UK friends here – but those hats were AWFUL. Almost every one of them was too bizarre to look at. I don’t understand how or why those are considered “fashion” but I do think it has something to do with making women look ridiculous. Not just feminine. But clowning us up in caricature style.

    Like

    Reply
  56. Pingback: 29 April, why weddings suck for women | twanzphobic since forever

  57. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    I am not sure what the hell is going on at ebay, but the original link says that the bidding is closed (and shows the opening bid of £5k), and there is a new link to one bid of £80,000. It closes tomorrow.

    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Princess-Beatrice-Royal-Wedding-Hat-Philip-Treacy-/230624681772?_trksid=p4340.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DDLSL%252BSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%252BDDSIC%26otn%3D8%26pmod%3D230620500557%252B230620500557%26po%3D%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D92552791449357499

    Like

    Reply
  58. jilla

    Undercover Punk just a heads up. (snort)

    Monday is Victoria Day. Best get that hat soon. I think it would look great with whatever it is punks wear.

    I’ve always liked Vicky. Don’t the doods like to rip her to shreds though.

    Princess B. played a lady in waiting to Vicky in the movie The Young Victoria.

    Like

    Reply
  59. jilla

    Oh cool. That page was set up by Princess B’s charity, which will donate the hat proceeds to UNICEF and another children’s charity.

    Like

    Reply
  60. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    Here is the winning bid (again, that page is weird, it bounces off to the fake hats).

    Like

    Reply
  61. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    Hey GM, did you see the spoofs of the hat?
    There was a catflap and all sorts of things.

    Like

    Reply
  62. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    And here are a few other hat spoofs:
    This one is supposed to be a headlight, but ol’ sci-fi fan me thought it was the Stargate

    Ah, from Mordor:

    Obligatory flying spaghetti monster:

    I am not sure what this one is, but it continues the monster theme:

    More on the monster theme, cartoony style:

    And finally, yes the hat is ridiculous, no matter who wears it:

    Like

    Reply
  63. GallusMag

    Hhahahahha those are funny. That last pic pisses me off every time I see it tho because Hilly says she covered her mouth to cover a cough but they played it like she was all femming it up wif the laydee drama. Note to female executives/politicians- never cough! *

    *Especially not with a doorknocker on your head

    Like

    Reply
  64. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    I took the hand-over-mouth gesture to be ‘shocked at the thought that some people in the world did not have one of these hats, the tragedy of the hatless…’
    But I do have a vivid imagination.

    Oh, and actually, that first one is STARGATE (upon closer inspection).
    MacGyver probably rigged the hat for her, using a paperclip and a rubberband.

    Like

    Reply
  65. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    What’s MacGyver doing with a dusty-pink tube sock?
    My guess is he found a giant worm carcass.
    Chances are that the headgear may actually be some sort of nuclear device, making it a bargain for $81k.

    Like

    Reply
  66. sellmaeth

    You know what I really hate? The fact that women are expected to wear ridiculous dresses, but are then ridiculed for not wearing exactly the right kind of ridiculous dress.
    I mean, some of the dresses female celebrities wear at such events are actually quite funny, if you see them as what they are: A disguise that is meant to look silly.

    But noo, the “What’s that on her head? How horrible!” comments in the media are mocking the women wearing the silly hats instead of thanking them for contributing to everyone’s fun.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s