Kill It With Fire May 24, 2012 Jill An incomplete list: Wedding Uggs. Man-jewelry (exceptions: watches and wedding bands). Wrap-around sunglasses (exception: you are a professional beach volleyball player).
Man-jewelry Yeah, only thing worse is women wearing pants (not that theyre ‘real’ women anyways, amirite?).
Hmmm… I see no problem with men wearing jewelery. I’m more of a fan of “Less is more” for men and women though. I may also be biased because my dad always wore more jewelery than my mom.
I like a man who wears jewelry, though I agree Johnny could stand to limit himself to three necklaces at a time.
Man-jewelry? I read feminist blogs to get away from the gender police. I agree entirely. Let people wear what they want.
Man-jewelry? The first image which came to mind was a guy wearing scrotum earrings, like those trucknutz people hang from their pick-ups to show how macho their cars are. But you’re objecting to men wearing jewelry, period? Men wearing necklaces? Wedding uggs may be a fashion choice, but “men (as a category) shouldn’t wear jewelry/certain types of jewelry” isn’t fashion policing, it’s gender policing. Frankly, I’d like to see all kinds of men wearing all kinds of jewelry, or not, as their personal choice in freedom of expression. The fact that people think of jewelry as something for women, not for men, is exactly the problem.
I find that particular arrangement of necklaces pretty unattractive, sure, but “no man-jewelry ever?” Unless I want to get married or know what time it is? I certainly don’t expect to see this sort of ridiculous gender policing on a feminist blog.
I’m sorry for posting something irrelevant, but the missing apostrophe in my above post (they’re, not ‘theyre’) is driving me crazy to the point where I am forced to post again and correct myself. PS. In case the sarcasm wasn’t clear above, the idea that men wearing jewelry is awful is not only patently sexist but is arguably transphobic, as well, insofar is it buys into the theory that maleness/masculinity/manliness always go together, are distinguishable by external characteristics like dress, and should be enforced by society (with violence, if neccesary, i.e. “kill it with fire.” I’m aware of the idiom, but it’s not like there’s never been violence directed at women/trans* people who don’t conform with gender norms, so it’s an uncomfortable choice of words).
Man-jewelry (exceptions: watches and wedding bands). You can’t possibly be serious. You sound like the guy at my office who got absolutely furious with me when I had the temerity to get my ears pierced a month or so before my transition. I guess you agree that I should have waited. Remind me to tell my son that he needs to get rid of his earring.
Thanks, amblingalong. Yes, it is transphobic. Or, at least, cluelessly cissexist. And, if intended to be funny, it isn’t.
Additional side-eye at the man-jewellery thing.. maybe just gaudy-assed jewellery.. on anyone? I will add heavy perfume and/or cologne to the list though.. isn’t deodorant enough? I know so many people with scent issues that I sincerely hope that one day wearing scent in public places becomes as frowned upon as smoking.
Good to know that women aren’t the only ones that have to insert themselves into a patriarchal institution to gain jewelry-wearing approval. And I know you don’t mean to imply that my diabetic-bracelet-wearing man friends should die in a fire, but c’mon. Also, my brother and sister-in-law got married in the snow at Lake Tahoe, and she decorated her own wedding boots with faux fur, so there’s little excuse for wedding Uggs. Ugh. (although sometimes I feel guilty because I borrowed a friend’s Uggs one night and they were so comfortable. Same with Crocs. Still butt-ugly, though. )
Seriously can we stop with the putting “man” before things (man-nurse, man-purse, man-cave) It’s stupid dumb and not funny.
This thread does stand out. This is Jill’s blog, and she’s certainly free to express her opinions through it, but in this case I feel like this thread doesn’t belong to her–as if someone stole her password. ???
This is Jillâs blog, and sheâs certainly free to express her opinions through it, but in this case I feel like this thread doesnât belong to herâas if someone stole her password. I had very much the same feeling. Not that I’ve never disagreed with something Jill’s written, but this seems particularly out there.
Is this a hacking? Because seriously, the gender policing and reinforcing of socially approved gender norms seems like something you wouldn’t see on Feministe.
There’s lots of great men’s jewelry out there, including non-wedding rings, necklaces, cufflinks, tie-tacks, even bolo ties (though that’s a tough look to pull off). Too bad that magazine cover doesn’t show any of it.
Now Jill has an acceptable way of backing off while saving face: âit wasnât me!â Ah the Shaggy defense. Works every time.
I love bolo ties! I also have a large collection of belt buckles I presume were designed for men, and they’re definitely closer to jewelry than functional. Inquiring minds want to know, does man-jewelry include the gold and stones on top of a walking stick?
Inquiring minds want to know, does man-jewelry include the gold and stones on top of a walking stick? OMG, I have this thing for ornate walking sticks and canes! Love!
I’m just confused. Why is this post on feministe? It really doesn’t fit here. And personally I’m a fan of jewellery on men
Wasn’t this the site where I participated in a discussion about how Guy Fieri’s fashion sense is derived from his lower class upbringing and that its incredibly classist the way that Jill refers to him? Oh thanks google: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/10/17/people-who-should-not-exist/ Die in a fire? People who should not exist?
That was by no means a consensus opinion. I maintain that Fieri’s fashion sense is reminiscent of nothing so much as a frat boy’s. What I don’t understand about Uggs is…oh, never mind. It’s pretty much everything.
I love walking sticks and would carry one all the time if I could go a day without someone referring to it as a “pimp stick” and ruining my good blood pressure. My uncle has a walking stick because he wanted to be stylish after a hip replacement. It’s gorgeous and he loves it, but his asshole son won’t stop calling it a pimp cane, and accompanies his commentary with totally-not-racist jokes about buying him a gold tooth next Christmas. Hmm, it’s almost like reading stereotypical implications into people’s choice of clothing/accessories is a fucked-up thing to do. (Sorry for the derail, but this thread was doomed before it even started)
Not a problem: men wearing jewelery Problem: calling anything âman-jewelryâ I need an education here. Is this a problem because the term man-jewelry is meant to be derogatory, and doesnât just mean menâs jewelry? Librarygoose: I see no problem with men wearing jewelery. Iâm more of a fan of âLess is moreâ for men and women though. I may also be biased because my dad always wore more jewelery than my mom. EG: I like a man who wears jewelry, though I agree Johnny could stand to limit himself to three necklaces at a time. Andie: Additional side-eye at the man-jewellery thing.. maybe just gaudy-assed jewellery.. on anyone? Agreed. Less done with style is better than lotsa bling in my opinion. Thereâs lots of great menâs jewelry out there, including non-wedding rings, necklaces, cufflinks, tie-tacks, even bolo ties (though thatâs a tough look to pull off). Too bad that magazine cover doesnât show any of it. Lindsey, This is interesting; I’ve never thought about jewelry this way. I and most guys I know do not consider cuff-links and studs to be jewelry per-se. Yes, they can be very decorative and expensive, but because you have to wear them with certain shirts and tuxes, they have a function. I include watches in that category as well. Personally, I do wear studs and cuff-links when necessary, but never considered them jewelry. Iâve always considered jewelry something decorative but mostly without function.
Iâve always considered jewelry something decorative but mostly without function. Narrow definition of function, there. Everything people does has a “function” to the extent that we do things for reasons in order to accomplish things or make something happen. But some “functions” are deemed more or less important than other in ways that are stratified by class and gender, at the very least. Plenty of jewellery is functional: holding clothes together, signalling one’s status (e.g., wealth, marital status, cultural beliefs), improving the overall aesthetic of one’s appearance, memorializing something significant, and so on. Cufflinks and tie-pins could easily be replaced by things which are not nearly so pretty and visible. Not a problem: men wearing jewelery Problem: calling anything âman-jewelryâ I need an education here. Is this a problem because the term man-jewelry is meant to be derogatory, and doesnât just mean menâs jewelry? I don’t actually know what Jill thought she was saying with this post because it is pretty light on context. (Clearly she assumed it would be more obvious than it was.) But whether this is what she was aiming at or not, I do object to the idea that there’s a province of things which are “women-only” that men have cordoned off a small part of, usually with the aid of obnoxious neologisms like “man-cations” or “man-scara”, or awkward phrases like “male nurse”. It reifies gender norms that I object to.
Hmm, itâs almost like reading stereotypical implications into peopleâs choice of clothing/accessories is a fucked-up thing to do. QFT! May I also express my love for elaborate canes? The second my disability renders me in need of a cane, I am going to order a Japanese-style decoden cane, complete with Hello Kitty adornments. Because I can.
Also, men with mascara on are hot. Also eyeliner. This has been notes from EG’s…libido. Tune in tomorrow, when we take up the question of facial hair.
Wrap around sunglasses might not look cool, but they reduce the bright Australian sun’s glare to my compromised eyesight. I am surprised that there’s a post proscribing harmless things that are a matter of taste. It seems at odds with a blog that supports freedom of choice.
Oh, come on. I can support political freedom and human rights and freedom of expression and feminism and still think that, I don’t know, acid-washed denim is an abomination and that flip-flops are not shoes (they are not, people!). It is about subjective taste; this is Jill’s. I’m not a fan of the gender mores that hold decorating oneself to be unmanly (they tend to go along with a real rejection of the masculinity of many gay men), but it’s also not like this blog post represents some kind of reprehensible abridgement of freedom. The overt self-conscious melodrama of the title makes it pretty obvious that Jill is aware that these are subjective opinions. It seems pretty clear that this is a list of fashion trends that bug Jill and that she finds unattractive.
The second my disability renders me in need of a cane, I am going to order a Japanese-style decoden cane, complete with Hello Kitty adornments. I call the red one!
I need an education here. Is this a problem because the term man-jewelry is meant to be derogatory, and doesnât just mean menâs jewelry? It’s a problem because it A) reinforces the idea that only women are female-bodied (because presumably if a female-bodied trans* man was wearing the jewelry, it wouldn’t be a problem for Jill) B) reinforces the idea that jewelry is for women only, regardless of the personal tastes of the people involved, which is gender-policing of the most knee-jerk kind C) What Jadey said very eloquently at the bottom of #36
My great aunt Bernadine is going to be tickled pink to hear that she’s not the world’s last, grim hold-out against men and boys wearing bracelets. Jill, what are your thoughts on men who style their hair? Those Uggs, on the other hand, are extraordinary. I’m sending a link to a couple of friends who are planning a (lesbian) wedding!
Just to clarify, because I’m the one who used the specific phrase: I don’t think Jill actually wants anyone to die in a fire. I do think we should all have walking sticks. Carry on.
Oh, come on. I can support political freedom and human rights and freedom of expression and feminism and still think that, I donât know, acid-washed denim is an abomination and that flip-flops are not shoes (they are not, people!). Are you seriously saying that because something is a subjective personal opinion, it should automatically be protected from inquiry as to its societal basis? So if someone was to say “Attractive women are those with light skin, big breasts, no fat, and no body hair, but that’s just my personal subjective opinion,” you wouldn’t have any sort of analysis to offer? Please. Nobody is saying Jill can’t find jewelry on men unattractive, any more than anyone’s saying that nobody is allowed to be attracted to big breasts or skinny women. But your request that we ignore the oppressive cultural forces which underly those preferences is kinda silly. Just out of curiosity, EG, do you consider male-bodied trans* women wearing jewelry to be “wearing man-jewelry?”
At first I was like “Why is that Ugg boot so shiny?” And then I looked back at the post and I was like “Oh. Wedding Uggs.” And then I was like EW THAT ARRANGEMENT OF NECKLACES IS GROSS. Even if a woman wore them.
Just to clarify, because Iâm the one who used the specific phrase: I donât think Jill actually wants anyone to die in a fire. I agree. I’m guessing Jill is going to apologize and retract pretty quickly, because she has a good history of doing that when she fucks up (because let’s be honest, people, we ALL fuck up. In my case it’s near-constant). But that doesn’t mean the juxtaposition of violent language- even used in jest- and gender-enforcement isn’t an uncomfortable one for people who have had actually had violence directed at them for non-gender conforming actions like, say, being a man with pierced ears.
Just out of curiosity, EG, do you consider male-bodied trans* women wearing jewelry to be âwearing man-jewelry?â What in the world makes you think she would think that, given that she’s often made clear that she understands that trans women are women? What in the world makes you think she would ever even use a term like man-jewelry in the first place? It’s not EG’s preferences being discussed here. Also, using the terms “male-bodied” to describe any trans woman’s body, and “female-bodied” to describe any trans man’s body, is considered by many to be highly — what’s the word — problematic. (Which is why I generally say things like “male-coded” and “female-coded” instead.)
I agree that the juxtaposition of “die in a fire” with men wearing jewelry was an extremely unfortunate choice of words. Despite being clearly intended facetiously. Let’s just say it didn’t make me happy.
Wow, you made what was a totally irrelevant bullshit post about nothing into a just barely feminist related mess by sneaking some douchey gender policing in there. Great Job. You are a master of blogging.
Are you seriously saying that because something is a subjective personal opinion, it should automatically be protected from inquiry as to its societal basis? Yes, amblingalong, that is precisely what I am saying. How clever of you to have figured it out. Well done. I was replying to the post right above mine in which Jo says that Jill is “proscribing” things and that she is surprised to see it on a “blog that advocates freedom of choice.” Because being in favor of freedom obviously means you never express a personal opinion or preference about anything.
Errrr… just to clarify… wedding ugg boots are the equivalent of wedding dressing gowns. They’re for the morning when you’re getting ready!! Yay for shiny shiny (inside-only) ugg boots.
If hating fashion police is a hate crime, I’m guilty as hell. More nudism, less fashion criticism, thank you. Wedding Uggs aren’t barbaric, but I’m inclined to believe that Barbie-princess $28G weddings are vestigial barbarism.
Hmm. I’ve only ever seen “kill it with fire” used to refer to inanimate objects or abstract concepts, never people–usually to show the writer’s mockery for somebody else’s dislike–so it didn’t even occur to me that it had anything to do with the people wearing any of the verboten objets (I’m mixing my foreign-origin words here for the fun). I definitely assumed it was the Uggs, for instance, that had to be killed with fire (after being driven out of their castle by villagers–I understand the metaphor to come from monster movies), not the unfortunate young women who opted to wear them. I defer to your sensibilities on this, Donna.
Whether or not Jill is “proscribing” anything, it’s still totally surreal to see gender policing on a feminist blog…
Just out of curiosity, EG, do you consider male-bodied trans* women wearing jewelry to be âwearing man-jewelry?â Since I’ve never used the phrase “man-jewelry” in my life, I can’t imagine why I would start using it in the example you suggest. I like jewelry. I like cis women in jewelry, I like cis men in jewelry, I like trans women in jewelry, and I like trans men in jewelry (to my knowledge, I have not seen a trans man wearing jewelry, but I can’t see why they would be any exception to my pro-jewelry stance). I thought I’d made my allegiance to the pro-jewelry faction of the revolution clear in above comments about how I liked men in jewelry, but I guess not. I hope this statement, issued by EG’s Minister of Libido clarifies the matter.
Post in mod, but the short answer to amblingalong is this: since I have never used the phrase “man-jewelry,” I can’t imagine why I would use it in reference to a woman, cis or trans.
Thanks, EG. I do understand what you’re saying about the distinction, but as a practical matter, I don’t think it makes much of a difference. After all, nobody would know it’s “man-jewelry” unless a man were wearing it, so it might be a little difficult to kill just the jewelry. And it makes me think, not so much about the incident I mentioned above (as classic an example of gender-policing as that was) — because, after all, I wasn’t a “man” anymore by then, if I ever was — but about the hard time my son was given on occasion for wearing things like bracelets when he was 12 or 13 years old and had recently come out at school.
Yes, that makes perfect sense, and now that it’s been pointed out, I completely see the problem. I was just mentally assimilating the post into the F/SF world, which is where I usually see the phrase, and into the queer-positive circles I prefer in that world. Sometimes I forget that not everybody can assume such a context, unfortunately.
So what’s the problem with the Wedding Uggs? Your dress is most likely floor length, so it’s not like anyone is going to see more than the toes of your shoes anyway. Of course, I’ve never understood why anyone wears heels on their wedding day (if you can’t find undergarments and/or a dress that accentuates your bust/butt enough for your big day, foot torture that no one even sees isn’t going to make that much difference) and opted for ballet flats for mine.
Man-jewelry? I read feminist blogs to get away from the gender police. No shit. This is at best ridiculously gender essentialist, culturally blinkered (lots of men in cultures other than the glorious US of A wear jewelry as a matter of course, and I’m fairly sure they don’t need killing with fire) and cissexist. Or I could be less kind and say it’s the most fucking unintelligent thing I’ve read on this entire bloody site, which is saying something considering I worked my way through Clarisse Thorn’s assorted inane, childish bugnuttery about Hugo Schwyzer.
@Joe Iâve always considered jewelry something decorative but mostly without function. Well, yes. The problem isn’t in thinking that jewelry’s decorative and without function (though I could also argue that decoration is, in fact, a function), it’s the idea that men are somehow rendered less men-men-men-men-manly-men-men-men because they OH THE HORRORS spent a little money on something that wasn’t purely functional. The most “acceptable” jewelry for men – watches, wedding rings, cufflinks – all have a function. Even aside from the trans policing that is involved in the phrase “man-jewelry”. Because you must be THIS trans to wear jewelry, and you can’t possibly be THAT trans if you don’t wear jewelry, blah de fucking blah. I can’t speak to transfolk’s experiences, since I’m not, but I imagine that they’re fairly hideously policed where jewelry’s concerned. Honestly, saying that people wear jewelry and that it’s nobody’s beeswax but the jewelry-wearer’s is the only decent way to go.
lots of men in cultures other than the glorious US of A wear jewelry as a matter of course, Yeah, to the point of the best word being “ubiquitous” and eschewing jewelery on men is fairly odd on the global standard. Ornamentation and body modification across cultures is fucking fascinating.
Just for this I’m gonna wear my pachycephalosaurus necklace today. Jill may have fire, but I have a fucking dinosaur.
Wedding Uggs, Man-jewelry, or Wrap-around sunglasses, meh. Not fire worthy in any respect. Of course, a horde of flesh-eating zombies wearing Wedding Uggs, Man-jewelry, or Wrap-around sunglasses, kill with fire. Please, for the sake of the survivalist community, kill with fire.
Of course, a horde of flesh-eating zombies wearing Wedding Uggs, Man-jewelry, or Wrap-around sunglasses, kill with fire. Please, for the sake of the survivalist community, kill with fire. If you bring your flame thrower to a zombie fight, then you just end up with flaming, ambulatory zombies. No thank you. Boom. Headshot. OT: Once some friends and I brought zombie targets to a shooting range and it was amazing. I am not a fan of having guns around willy nilly, but shooting big ol’ zombie targets was fucking. awesome. And good practice for the impending zombie apocalypse.
Man jewelry: see Liberace for how to REALLY do it without shame, self consciousness or concern for the parameters of taste or sanity. And that is why it was perfect (for him). I LOVE crazy bouffant hairdos on men, flamboyance in all forms, glamor. Give me Lux Interior in heels, leopard, gold lame and a fancy barrette (c. 1986) any day over an unembellished dullard, sans accessories.
Wrap-around sunglasses: extremely useful when you are biking at high speeds and don’t want tiny rocks flying in your EYES. They’re not a fashion statement, they’re a safety precaution.
FWIW, I didn’t read man-jewelry as meaning “any jewelry when worn by a man”, I read it as “jewelry that is marketed towards men”. I definitely see where people are coming from with the other interpretation, but I only realized it existed after reflecting on why the comment could be considered transphobic. (I’m a man wearing a watch…and a gold necklace and two rings, neither for marriage, one is decoration and one is to show I’m an engineer).
Should I burn the navajo jewelry I bought for my (male) native friend on the res last week? Inquiring minds want to know!
“man-jewelry” ? What is that supposed to mean ? Jewelry worn by men is simply “jewelry”, and it comes in many variations, some pretty, some ugly, just like jewelry worn by anyone else.
Theyâre not a fashion statement, theyâre a safety precaution. Like the abundance of anime characters who have goggles on their heads. YOU DON”T NEED GOGGLES FOR YOUR DIGIMON BATTLE.
wow that blew up fast. I 1. Is that paticular jewlry cultural appropriating? 2. DUDE YOUR TASTE IN JEWELRY SUCKS! I do have to say I am a bit annoyed by the _way_ that men try to reappropriate elements of fashion denied them by gender roles, etc. It seems like it is either A. gender warriors who want to actively destroy all concepts of gendered clothing and turn the roles on their heads RIGHT NOW so people get genderfuck when wearing the most standard clothes, or REAL MEN who PREFIX MAN to ALL THE TEH MAN_THINGS!!.
I like it when men wear symbols of the religious wing of the patriarchy – crucifixes, to be specific – on a string around their necks (so much better than a chain, in case you’re looking for crucifix-wearing advice). Fashion is there to be ridiculed, however.
While I do find uggs an abomination, I’m hard pressed to find a way to make “man jewelry” sound less problematic than it clearly is. Maybe Jill meant the appropriation mentioned by #76? Uggs though: kill them with fire asap.
“man-jewelry”? What even. Maybe next time try doing a fun fashion-police post WITHOUT turning off the analytical part of your mind?
Wraparound sunnies protect your eyes a heck of a lot more than non-wraparounds. And while I no longer identify as a man, I got both my ears pierced back before that was realised (and also had a labret piercing for a while).
FWIW, I didnât read man-jewelry as meaning âany jewelry when worn by a manâ, I read it as âjewelry that is marketed towards men.â On reflection Ens, I’d tend to agree with you. Until Jill clarifies what she meant, I’d be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt based off what I’ve read from her on this site over the months. And while I wouldn’t share an opinion that marketing jewelry specifically toward men is a big problem, I could sympathize a bit with someone who felt that way. After all, all advertising sucks, and it’s obnoxious how big business tries to make a few extra bucks by creating ever more specialized niche markets that they can manipulate (i.e. why are there 20 different varieties of Pringles when most of them taste the same, etc.?) But, of course, Jill’s post was cryptic, so I can also see why people are interpreting it not as a comment on marketing strategies but as a gender policing and transphobic insistence that men shouldn’t wear jewelry other than watches and wedding bands. And if that’s, in fact, what Jill meant, then I find what she said completely unacceptable. It’s not wrong for men to wear earrings. It’s not wrong for men to wear necklaces. It’s not wrong for men to wear anything that it’s OK for women to wear. And it would be really ridiculous and transphobic to say that men who are drag queens shouldn’t wear jewelry. And it would be really ridiculous and transphobic (and offend me in a particularly personal way) to imply that the very day a male crossdresser changes her self-identification to a female transsexual it magically becomes OK for her to wear jewelry for the first time in her life.
On a lighter note, as much as I support individual self-determination, there are some style decisions that even I, unfortunately, cannot get behind: 1. New jeans that are sold pre-ripped. Ripped jeans are great, but if that’s what you want buy them at a secondhand store and or just let time do it to your new jeans. Do not buy new jeans pre-ripped. Please. You are spitting in the face of authenticity. 2. T-shirts that feature cartoon images of dogs playing poker on them. It’s not cute, and it’s not funny. Sorry. 3. Only ever wearing white socks. Would you only ever wear white shirts? Would you only ever wear white pants? Unless you’re a professional chef, I’m guessing the answer is no. Well, socks are part of your wardrobe, too, and they come in many colors. Live a little. If you can’t go for purple or orange, at least just do black or grey or something like once a month. Come on. And one final note: [F]lip-flops are not shoes (they are not, people!) Flip-flops are not only most definitely shoes; they are the best kind of shoes. I can’t believe I’m the first person here pointing that out.
Yes, EG, of course. I wouldn’t have planted my flag unless I was prepared to defend it until the death. Especially considering that running away from the battlefield would be damn near impossible in my flip flops.
EG- why all the flip-flop hatin’? Did you not grow up in a hot climate? Is it just flip-flops or all sandals?
Itâs ok guys, my man-jewellery is totally supported by my man-feminism. Feminism scheminism. More importantly, are you wearing this man-jewelery on/in your small man-boobs? My ladyboner requires this information for the issuance of notes.
I will say, in my vehement defense of flip-flops, that they are incredibly practical for those of us growing up or living in tropical and sub-tropical climates (like Miami or the Caribbean), where it’s stormy, warm and humid one minute, and bright, clear-skied, hot and even MORE humid the next. Your feet get soaked in the rain and immediately dry off soon afterwards. Short-shorts and flip-flops are a great rainy-weather ensemble.
EG- why all the flip-flop hatinâ? Did you not grow up in a hot climate? Is it just flip-flops or all sandals? Just flip-flops. I could graciously accept your defense of those things if I did not regularly see them on the feet of my students in the dead of winter. Why? Why? But now I must shudder in even greater horror as the full import of Becca’s comment sinks in. I remember pre-ripped jeans the first time around. Surely…surely…they can’t…they can’t be back, can they?
When you say flips-flops you’re talking about thongs right? Australia: Bringing you all the best footwear. (we also supply uggs and crocs).
People defending the horrors of flip flops got me thinking, Maybe man-jewelry is meant to designate a very specifically ugly kind of jewelry. Like, I was about to condemn man-sandals. Not the fact that men wear them, but there is a type of sandal peculiarly popular here in Germany which is just unspeakably ugly. Exclusively marketed to men, and men wearing sandals here almost exclusively wear those. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh. With white socks, too. So, yeah, maybe Jill meant a specific kind of jewelry.
Well, I think so, but I think of thongs as being that floss-like underwear and swimsuit bottoms the fashion industry has been trying to inflict on women for the past few years. True story: I was told by a more advanced grad student that when i went on the market, I had to be sure to wear thongs for my interviews so that the interviewing committee could be saved from the the horrifying sight of any possible panty-line. All I could think was “Why is the interviewing committee looking at my ass?”
I donât actually know what Jill thought she was saying with this post because it is pretty light on context. (Clearly she assumed it would be more obvious than it was.) But whether this is what she was aiming at or not, I do object to the idea that thereâs a province of things which are âwomen-onlyâ that men have cordoned off a small part of, usually with the aid of obnoxious neologisms like âman-cationsâ or âman-scaraâ, or awkward phrases like âmale nurseâ. It reifies gender norms that I object to. Thanks Jadey, that’s what I was thinking when I posted. Jill tweeted about this, too. Does it clarify what she meant? I don’t know. PSA to all men from me and @AnneDana: The only appropriate pieces of man-jewelry are watches and wedding rings. STOP WITH THE JEWELRY.
So she actually meant all men wearing any kind of jewelry, and “man-jewelry” seems to refer to any kind of jewelry that is worn by a man at that moment. That IS rather gender-policing-y.
I’m going to give Jill the benefit of the doubt and assume that by “man-jewelry” she really meant “tacky, culturally appropriated faux-ethnic decorations often worn by frat boys, dude-bros, and sensitive new-agey types with poorly thought out gender and race politics.” But yeah, the phrase “man-jewelry” is really not a good way to get your point across.
PSA to all men from me and @AnneDana: The only appropriate pieces of man-jewelry are watches and wedding rings. STOP WITH THE JEWELRY. Ugh. Just ugh. Has she been hacked, or has she just briefly jumped off the deep end? From the articles I’ve seen over the year or so I’ve lurked, I’d be inclined to be generous and suspect the former.
PSA to all men from me and @AnneDana: The only appropriate pieces of man-jewelry are watches and wedding rings. STOP WITH THE JEWELRY. So that pretty much sinks all the “she only meant jewelry which is marketed to men/ugly jewelry” wishful thinking. This is seriously, seriously not OK. It is 1) Sexist 2) Cissexist/transphobic 3) Americo/eurocentric, verging on racist (stop wearing your stupid ugly jewelry, Maori men) 4) Heteronormative/homophobic Wow, way to hit the trifecta (quadfecta?), there.
Iâm going to give Jill the benefit of the doubt and assume that by âman-jewelryâ she really meant âtacky, culturally appropriated faux-ethnic decorations often worn by frat boys, dude-bros, and sensitive new-agey types with poorly thought out gender and race politics.â That’s an awfully specific meaning for a term that was anything but. Cultural appropriation isn’t gender-specific, and if that was her objection, I think she’d have just said “jewelry”.
Yes, that tweet doesn’t sound too promising. I never believed that all Jill was condemning was tacky, ugly, “man-jewelry” specifically created for and marketed to frat boys and dude bros. Had that been the case, it wouldn’t have made sense to specify the exception for watches and wedding bands. Clearly, her sentiment against jewelry for men is not only cissexist and homophobic, but anti-Italian and anti-Jewish as well. (And I’m only half-joking.)
Thank you, @97. >_> Although I must admit the term man-jewelry makes me absolutely ragey. It’s just jewelry, being worn by a man. It doesn’t threaten anyone or hurt anyone, for fuck’s sake. It’s not man-jewelry any more than I’m wearing woman-pants and keeping my woman-short-hair and driving my woman-car to my woman-voting-place. Attaching a man- to things is so fucking misogynistic it makes me boil.
Comment in moderation, but: amblingalong, don’t forget homophobic. And don’t forget anti-Jewish and anti-Italian (gold chains, unbuttoned shirts, hairy chests, etc.)!
Well, I think so, but I think of thongs as being that floss-like underwear and swimsuit bottoms the fashion industry has been trying to inflict on women for the past few years. The confusion between the two terms is pretty much why holidaying Australians take so much delight in telling foreigners about how they’ve packed thongs to wear in hostel showers.
Thatâs an awfully specific meaning for a term that was anything but. Yeah, I think Jill is pretty great, but the mental contortions people are putting themselves through in order to find a way to excuse this post are pretty pathetic. There is no way that saying ALL MEN: STOP WITH THE JEWELRY is acceptable, period.
Well, I think so, but I think of thongs as being that floss-like underwear and swimsuit bottoms the fashion industry has been trying to inflict on women for the past few years. When I was growing up in New York City, back before the Flood, and used to take the subway with my family to Brighton Beach and the Rockaways and Coney Island during the summer — later on, my mother would rent a car and we would drive to Jones Beach (I specifically remember asking her what the Jones Beach Obelisk was; see http://www.flickr.com/photos/hogophotony/6947787231/, and her saying that it was Robert Moses’s penis, which went way over my head) — flip-flops were always, always called thongs. I never heard the terms flip-flops, and never heard the other meaning of thongs, until many years later.
True story: I was told by a more advanced grad student that when i went on the market, I had to be sure to wear thongs for my interviews so that the interviewing committee could be saved from the the horrifying sight of any possible panty-line. All I could think was âWhy is the interviewing committee looking at my ass?â This person couldn’t possibly have been serious, right? At what point did he or she think you were going to be standing there with your back to the interviewing committee so they could inspect your rear end?
Well, @#106, she would be leaving the room. Maybe it’s customary where she’s from to ogle the behinds of departing candidates for extra vetting purposes? (yes, the whole thing seems bizarre)
Also, using the terms âmale-bodiedâ to describe any trans womanâs body, and âfemale-bodiedâ to describe any trans manâs body, is considered by many to be highly â whatâs the word â problematic. (Which is why I generally say things like âmale-codedâ and âfemale-codedâ instead.) Hey, I just saw this. My sincere apologies. The (admittedly small number of) trans* people I know use this terminology because it highlights the actual body dysmorphia they experience, and as a specific rebuttal to the idea that trans* is just about not feeling comfortable with the gender norms one is expected to conform to. I’m cisgendered, so I’ll obviously defer to you in the language I use on this forum, but in my experience (which is obviously coloured by cis-privilege) there are a number of trans* people who object to the idea that the reason they’re experiencing dysmorphia is the way society ‘codes’ them, and so ask to be referred to as a “male-bodied woman” (for example). Again, I’m seriously sorry for not being more careful. The fact I didn’t know that my language was hurtful/there were multiple perspectives on this issue reflects my own privilege.
Yeah, I think Jill is pretty great, but the mental contortions people are putting themselves through in order to find a way to excuse this post are pretty pathetic. I’ll own that. There is no way that saying ALL MEN: STOP WITH THE JEWELRY is acceptable, period. I agree. Saying that is not OK. I believe Jill’s tweet confirms what I feared she was saying in this post, but (because I was trying to be charitable) was attempting to find a more palatable explanation for. I agree with everything else you’ve said here.
there are a number of trans* people who object to the idea that the reason theyâre experiencing dysmorphia is the way society âcodesâ them, and so ask to be referred to as a âmale-bodied womanâ (for example). No problem, amblingalong. I’m well aware that there are trans people who feel that way; in fact, generally speaking, I’m one of them — on the theory that saying I never really had a “male” body can be (but of course isn’t necessarily) a way of dismissing my former body dysphoria and subtly implying that there’s something less “evolved” about trans people who feel a need to change their bodies. To be entirely honest, I brought this up largely because I was momentarily annoyed with you for what I saw as an unjustified attack on EG. Although I do think it’s probably safer, for the most part, to stay away from terms like “male-bodied” and “female-bodied” for trans women and trans men, respectively. Damn touchy trans people; you can never please all of us!
To be entirely honest, I brought this up largely because I was momentarily annoyed with you for what I saw as an unjustified attack on EG. It probably was unjustified. I read this: It is about subjective taste; this is Jillâs. as being an endorsement of the arguments which get made every so often to the effect of “X form of prejudice is just my personal subjective preference, stop oppressing me with your critiques.” But it evidently wasn’t meant that way. Although I do think itâs probably safer, for the most part, to stay away from terms like âmale-bodiedâ and âfemale-bodiedâ for trans women and trans men, respectively. Noted, and much appreciated.
1. New jeans that are sold pre-ripped. Ripped jeans are great, but if thatâs what you want buy them at a secondhand store and or just let time do it to your new jeans. Do not buy new jeans pre-ripped. Please. You are spitting in the face of authenticity. Oh. My. Gord. Yes. Sooo with you on this.
Quick Non-Sequitor anectdote on the subject of “Man-Jewellery” When I was about 8 I had a huge crush on an 11-year-old boy who lived around the corner from me. I don’t remember much about him except that he had a cool BMX bike, black hair and wore about a million bracelets of the woven-friendship and rubber hoop-types. Okay, as you were.
I’m actually a fan of pre-ripped jeans, because I like how ripped jeans look but it’s not always practical to wear jeans until they rip naturally. I have a really hard time finding pants that fit me–the odds that I’ll find pants that fit in a secondhand store are very low, whereas I can usually count on one or two styles at Old Navy. Also, the thighs of my jeans are the first part to wear out, well before any of the places where it actually looks good to have rips.
Oh, hey! It just occurred to me that this post is probably just a Note From Jill’s (lady)Boner. It’s all right, though, she’s not judging women*, so it’s totally feminist. Moving along. *Note: this is sarcasm. I’m well aware of the cissexism/misogyny/homophobia in the post, and have already commented on it above, in case anyone’s skimming the thread.
And since we’re sharing notes from our ladyboners now, apparently, I should point out that people in jewelry are sexy, wherever they fall on the gender spectrum (I’ve seen some Cis McCissons look fucking edible in tons of jewelry). No srsly. A pretty choker or necklace will make me swoon anytime. Also, cis straight guys (North American) who are secure enough in their masculinity to wear jewelry are probably less likely to be fragile little lilies needing constant petting and telling that no, they’re sexy macho male guys, really. And to have less misogynistic crap stewing in the backs of their brains. Maybe it’s just my experience, but.
Too bad there’s no one running this blog who could explain, maybe in the comments, what she meant by the original post. That sentence doesn’t make any sense, but boy it would be nice if that person existed.
Thereâs lots of great menâs jewelry out there, including non-wedding rings, necklaces, cufflinks, tie-tacks, even bolo ties (though thatâs a tough look to pull off). The problem with men’s jewelry — or “man jewelry” if you will — is that what is mass-produced is almost universally ugly. Until you get to the fine stuff, men’s jewelry is made for frat boys and goth kids, and even once you start dropping chunks of money on it you’re looking at a weird number of semi-precious gangster-style pinky rings. This stuff is so ugly and ubiquitous, especially the curse of the 1970s gold tone and faux tiger eye tie clips, you can’t pay jewelry dealers to take it from you in lots. Ironically, what makes a lot of mass-produced men’s jewelry so gross is the adherence to “masculine” tropes and stereotypes, so you get a ton of drab colors, indelicate design, and strict adherence to iconic themes, a la Johnny Depp’s “I’m still cool and relevant” boho surfer amulets or the ex-jock’s huge and awkward class ring.
I really can’t believe that this is still up and apparently not a mistake – the tag “Are you serious?” seems pretty appropriate, actually. I mean, how is this any different from saying a hundred years ago that women can’t wear pants? And like… many men already feel the need to act super macho to prove their manliness and are so terrified of being seen as even a little feminine (which perhaps ties into misogyny in general). As Julia Serano wrote, “As long as most men remain deathly afraid of [femininity], they’ll continue to take it out on the rest of us.” Why on earth would this fear be encouraged on a feminist blog? And also, even for Wedding Uggs and wrap-around sunglasses, how is policing and judging people’s fashion at all relevant to feminism?
I see nothing wrong with the wedding Uggs, as long as both bride and groom (or bride and bride, or groom and groom) wear them. Agreed, both the use of the term “man-jewelery” and the sentiment against it are problematic at best. BTW, that thumbnail of JD is a little too small to tell, but IIRC (or maybe it was a similar shot on another cover), one of the necklaces is a Che pendant, which IMHO opens up whole other layers of problemism (none of which has anything to do with Che being a “bad” person, or a “good” one). Wrap-around sunglasses: I’m jealous they won’t work for me because of my nearsightedness. Something about the optics, way too technical, they can’t make ’em work with my prescription. What was it Coco Chanel said about jewelry/accessories? Get ready to go out, then take one thing off? In this case, that would be the Che pendant.
The problem with menâs jewelry â or âman jewelryâ if you will â is that what is mass-produced is almost universally ugly. Until you get to the fine stuff, menâs jewelry is made for frat boys and goth kids, and even once you start dropping chunks of money on it youâre looking at a weird number of semi-precious gangster-style pinky rings. This stuff is so ugly and ubiquitous, especially the curse of the 1970s gold tone and faux tiger eye tie clips, you canât pay jewelry dealers to take it from you in lots. Ironically, what makes a lot of mass-produced menâs jewelry so gross is the adherence to âmasculineâ tropes and stereotypes, so you get a ton of drab colors, indelicate design, and strict adherence to iconic themes, a la Johnny Deppâs âIâm still cool and relevantâ boho surfer amulets or the ex-jockâs huge and awkward class ring. Because the mass produced jewellery that’s marketed toward women is so generally fantastic? I must have been living on a different planet and missed out! Errrr⌠just to clarify⌠wedding ugg boots are the equivalent of wedding dressing gowns. Theyâre for the morning when youâre getting ready!! Okay, that makes the worse in my eyes – why buy something not only to wear only once, but to wear only once before the actual special event even happens?? Conspicuous consumption to a whole new level.
Wow. I’m not even going to touch the man-jewelry part because that’s already been done. But the wedding Uggs… as someone who got married on a ski slope and then spent the afternoon partying in my ski boots, those would have been really nice. And the wrap-around sunglasses? Useful for ANY outdoor sport, not just beach volleyball. When I’m riding my bike, skiing, white-water rafting, etc. I appreciate my wraparounds. What’s wrong with choosing functional accessories? Seriously. When I’m sipping a cocktail outside I wear my fashion shades, but they’re crap at keeping the icy wind out of my eyes when speeding down the mountain. Overall I just don’t see the point of this post. It’s not what I expect to find at Feministe.
Because the mass produced jewellery thatâs marketed toward women is so generally fantastic? I must have been living on a different planet and missed out! LOL, no, not at all. But there’s more of it and a greater variety, so there’s a bigger chance of it being nominally stylish. I’m a low-end vintage jewelry dealer on the side, so I see a lot of junk and the men’s jewelry is almost categorically junk.
Oh, looky! Progressive Nice White Lady engages in thoughtless $_ism while throngs give her Benefit of the Doubt(TM). In other news today: Water – still wet. Look, this was clearly thoughtless and not malicious, but can we remember the basics that apply to *everyone*: 1. Intent =/= magic. 2. Harmful rhetoric still harms people no matter who says it. 3. Apologizing is the best way to show the people who were harmed, and the people upset on their behalf, that you were NOT in fact intending to show ass. 4. When you’re inclined to double down on Social Media, try to remember the First Rule of Holes.
Iâm a low-end vintage jewelry dealer on the side, so I see a lot of junk and the menâs jewelry is almost categorically junk. I know! If only jewelry didn’t come with little gender tags on it that mean that men can’t possibly wear a necklace that women might also wear without magically having their Man Card revoked and sprouting breasts and a vagina and an inexplicable monthly craving for chocolate! It’s such a shame that all jewelry is immediately identifiable as fit for one or the other gender (yes, there really is only a binary in man-jewelry-world), forcing the poor menz to only wear jewelry made entirely of tiny gold and silver penises with jewels for balls! Also my father and I had matching earrings for a hell of a long time (though he rarely wears his). -_- So if you’re arguing from an aesthetic point of view, bullshit.
Oh, looky! Progressive Nice White Lady engages in thoughtless $_ism while throngs give her Benefit of the Doubt(TM). In other news today: Water â still wet. I wasn’t giving her the benefit of the doubt as much as devoutly hoping she’d been hacked. Since more posts have been put up without an apology and this egregious piece of douchery has been up for over a day at this point, I’m disinclined to be kind from this point on.
I was giving benefit of the doubt, not because Jill is a Nice, White Lady, but because I’ve been reading her writing for several years now and she’s consistently been on the side of anti-homophobia, anti-gender-policing, anti-transphobia. If I’m not going to give the benefit of the doubt there, when will I? I’m still giving it, actually. Maybe she’s pissed, knows that’s not a good response, and wants to wait till she cools down to reply. Maybe not. We’ll see.
I really don’t get it; Jill is clearly here, since she’s posting regularly, and she hasn’t taken the time to even address this issue. Usually she’s pretty good about owning up to it when she goofs- really unsure what the deal is here.
One of these days, if I ever run into Jill at a meeting or a deposition or in court, I think I’m going to have to try — without identifying myself — to drop a casual, seamless, reference to “man jewelry” into the conversation, just to see what happens. It might be not be easy (even though I have had some cases in which I represented jewelry companies), but it might be worth it!
macavitykitsune; I totally get what you mean. I myself was hoping that either Jill would ammend or apologize or that this was some kind of glitch. And yet there is a larger dynamic here (the Nice White Lady thing and *F*eminism) in which even putting “I’m giving $NWL the BoD because X” Out There has problematic sides. Really, it doesn’t necessarily need to be said aloud. All this needed to be NBD would have been to keep the universalism and gender-essentialism OUT of the phrasing (easy enough to do) in the first place OR spend those 140 chars on a tweet that started with OOPS. Nobody’s perfect, what the fuck is the problem with just tapping your chest and sayign “My bad”? And yet, to me it feels like that doesn’t happen until a certain pitch is reached. I still read here because I am a huge admirer of a lot of the commentariat and bloggers, but ugh, some days….
Jill is clearly here, since sheâs posting regularly, Many blog sites allow you to schedule your posts, so you can write a bunch at a time and release them at given intervals, so her posting articles doesn’t necessarily mean she’s here.
Many blog sites allow you to schedule your posts, so you can write a bunch at a time and release them at given intervals, so her posting articles doesnât necessarily mean sheâs here. She’s also a mod. At least three of my comments went into moderation on this thread – probably because I haven’t exactly kept a tight rein on my profanity or my opinions – and then got published, so someone’s clearly reading this thread. If she doesn’t have a) the time to put up a quick apology and a “bbl with better explanation”, b) a fellow mod who’s monitoring this thread and can give her a heads-up that it’s exploding, c) the ability to check her fucking privilege and apologise if she has read the thread, d) the time to comment here and go “hey, guys, my bad”, or e) the grace to do any of the above…. Well, fuck me, what is she doing here?
I agree that the term man-jewelry is EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC. I see the term ladyboner being used in the comments and I’m wondering if it is not also extremely problematic. Isn’t it a bit like saying lady doctor? As in there are doctors and lady doctors. As if boners are the rule and ladyboners are the exception. What men have, boners, is the default and what women have is something different, delicate and lady-like, even though the penis and the clitoris are analgous. It’s like a ladyboner is something unusual and uncommon. Look at the magnificent ladyboner, rarely spotted in the wild. And lady! What is the counterpart to a ladyboner? A gentlemen boner, complete with a monocle and top hat? I’m in favor of a fun term for human female arousal, but does it have to be ladyboner? Tell me why I’m right or wrong. I will admit here to having used the term man-boobs before. I could rationalize that and say that if most human female breasts are capable of feeding a growing human being, they should have a different status than what amounts to a bit of fat on a man’s chest. Or I could admit that I’m a bit of hypocrite. I’m willing to come out on either side of both of these terms, really.
And yet there is a larger dynamic here (the Nice White Lady thing and *F*eminism) in which even putting âIâm giving $NWL the BoD because Xâ Out There has problematic sides. Yes, it does. Honestly, if it were a commenter saying this shit, I would have gotten angrier faster. I myself was hoping that either Jill would ammend or apologize or that this was some kind of glitch. Yep, though if she’s putting up other posts and not addressing this, then it’s no longer a glitch, it’s an embarrassment she’s hoping will go away by itself. Sure, those might be on automatic posting, but there’s clearly people modding this thread and Feministe’s mods work pretty fast from what I’ve seen, so if someone hasn’t gotten a hold of her and gone “uh, this is exploding, yo” I’m pretty curious as to what an alternative explanation might look like, because I sure as fuck can’t come up with one.
I’m not really bothered by the “I think this particular material item is bleh” kind of post in and of itself, because many of us have things we think are odd (pre-ripped jeans, crocs, ect) . If the post were just about saying certain accessories seem weird to the author I could be down with that, whether or not I actually agree. But yeah, when it crosses the line into saying that one gender specifically shouldn’t do something then it’s just gross.
I see the term ladyboner being used in the comments and Iâm wondering if it is not also extremely problematic. It is somewhat problematic, and it’s exactly why I used it sarcastically both times I did (as a reference to Captain Awkward’s awesome “notes from boners” comment in the “small boobs” thread), and I think Jen in Ohio was being sarcastic too. I don’t see anyone else in-thread using it any other way…? As for fun terms for female arousal, my wife and I use “happy in the pants”, or “squirmy”. The term makes me happy enough, though in higher regions.
At least three of my comments went into moderation on this thread â probably because I havenât exactly kept a tight rein on my profanity or my opinions â and then got published, so someoneâs clearly reading this thread. Yes, but not necessarily Jill, right? It’s not up to any other moderator to try to speak for her.
if most human female breasts are capable of feeding a growing human being, they should have a different status than what amounts to a bit of fat on a manâs chest Are you sure of that premise? I have human female breasts, and although I imagine breast feeding would be theoretically possible (I know of at least two trans women who’ve done it), it might not be too easy for me, or for any other woman who hasn’t recently given birth, whether cis or trans.
I should amend # 140 to say, yes, of course another moderator could normally give Jill a heads’-up, but what if she’s canoeing down the Amazon River this holiday weekend and nobody’s been able to get hold of her? It is the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, after all.
Yes, but not necessarily Jill, right? Itâs not up to any other moderator to try to speak for her. True, but as I said, it’s difficult to imagine that they wouldn’t give her a heads-up that a whole lot of commenters who normally go WORD! at her posts (and I’m one of them) are getting increasingly annoyed…? Like I said, I’m waiting on an explanation, but increasingly skeptically.
You folks are right, and I apologize. The grand background of this post is that I was looking at that horrible Uggs site at the same time as I was talking to a friend about a guy I went on a date with who wore a really hideous necklace. That was the entire thought process. It was stupid, and I did not intend to gender-police or shame anyone, but obviously intent is not magic and I should have rubbed two braincells together before putting this up. I was away from the computer all day yesterday and only catching up on this thread now. But I am sorry for putting this up in the first place.
Let’s assume for the moment that Jill actually meant that she doesn’t like the look of jewelry (other than watches and wedding bands) on men. Yes, that preference is obviously born of and influenced by American cultural norms regarding gender and fashion. But so what? Does that fact obligate Jill to work on eliminating her preference if she wants to be a “good feminist”? Or alternatively, should she feel obliged to always preface any statement of her fashion sense that coincides with current gender norms with a buch of throat-clearing about how she’s not advocating gender essentialism? Or, going further, should she just keep her awful, terrible, anti-feminist, racist, sexist, cissexist, homophobic….uh….misogynistic, ethnocentric, classist and just all-around shameful dislike of men’s jewelry to herself?
R. Dave You are welcome to have tastes. So is Jill. You can even express that you find certain things distasteful. Saying ‘Kill it with fire’ is not the same as saying ‘I’m not a fan of men wearing jewellery’ or ‘I don’t really like Johnny Depp’s necklace arrangement’. Sometimes ‘expressing ones taste’ can be harmful to others. And OTHERS are welcome to call said person on that harm at which point the first person has a choice to apologize, which Jill has done, or argue the point and be a belligerent asshole about it, as others *koff* are often want to do around here. Not naming any names.
And of course, Jill posted her apology while I was typing my comment, thus making my point neither timely not trenchant (though I still enjoyed trying to think of all the -isms to include, so it’s not a total loss!). Anyway, more generally then, what is a person supposed to do with personal preferences that track existing cultural norms on gender? For instance, I think male bodies in women’s clothing (throat-clearing: as currently conceived in the US) look unappealing. That said, I have zero objection to anyone choosing to wear such clothing if their tastes differ. Is that problematic (really, not ironically) from a feminist perspective? On a related note, I recently read this article from Jessa Crispin Walk Like a Man, and it’s been rattling around in my head for a few days. Highly recommend it to anyone who missed it. These two paragraphs seem particularly on-point for this thread: After a couple hundred years of questioning, protesting, philosophizing, and dissecting, femininity has become fluid. For all the scare articles about the pressure on little girls to be Disney Princessesâ˘, from girlhood to womanhood, females have a lot of options for gender expression. For the most part, women can stand wherever they want on the masculine/feminine spectrum and itâs not shocking. We stopped freaking out about the âOh my god, women want to wear pants!â thing a really long time ago. Women wandered into the traditionally masculine realms of self-expression and ambition and now itâs just normal. Not so with masculinity. It is still as rigid and well defended as ever, despite a few David Bowies or Johnny Depps in the mix. Just look at last yearâs total freaking meltdown about a J. Crew catalog that carried a photo of a woman painting her young sonâs toenails. Just look at the way the more delicate boys of the world are bullied by their classmates and accused of being gay. Just look at the gender imbalance in the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder in children, with gender disordered pre-pubescent boys outnumbering girls at a rate of up to 30 to 1. When a girl is boyish, or even claims sheâd rather be a boy, itâs cute. Sheâs a tomboy. When a boy is girlish, wanting to wear dresses or try on some makeup, itâs a mental disorder and needs an immediate medical intervention. It’s too triumphalist about the current state of women’s freedom to express non-conformist gender identities, but the comparative point is valid, I think. Like I said, I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with people wearing whatever the hell they want, but I still have stylistic preferences that track the traditional norms. Only regarding men, though, as the Crispin article highlights. Still thinking through what I should do with that though.
R.Dave I think that’s all the quoting I need to do to explain why this comment is bullshit. However…. Does that fact obligate Jill to work on eliminating her preference if she wants to be a âgood feministâ? Point me to someone who said that. No srsly. Not even the ragiest commenter said that. Jill is, in fact, a good feminist. She isn’t, however, a perfect one, as she’s stated herself, repeatedly. There was no ad hominem going on against her as a person. This post would have been just fine if it had been prefaced with “I think, personally”. It was the unthinking generalisation that pissed us off, for which she apologised, and for which most of us have already replied thanking her for it. Or, going further, should she just keep her awful, terrible, anti-feminist, racist, sexist, cissexist, homophobicâŚ.uhâŚ.misogynistic, ethnocentric, classist and just all-around shameful dislike of menâs jewelry to herself? Okay, fine, if you so desperately want to find the Crazy Woman Perspective and cram us all in there? Here you go. Yes. Jill clearly cannot have personal preferences and be feminist. The fact that she has personal preferences in romantic partners is fundamentally unacceptable and I disapprove strongly of it. ALL PREFERENCES ARE IMMORAL. Macavitykitsune has spoken. Jill, I’ll be expecting your apology for having any personal preferences any day now. And if you don’t have absolutely every kind of cereal in your kitchen this, too, offends me. What are you, grainist?
It is somewhat problematic, and itâs exactly why I used it sarcastically both times I did (as a reference to Captain Awkwardâs awesome ânotes from bonersâ comment in the âsmall boobsâ thread), and I think Jen in Ohio was being sarcastic too. I donât see anyone else in-thread using it any other wayâŚ? I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the sarcasm. I’ve seen the term in other places and when I saw it in this comment section it just made me finally contemplate the term. Are you sure of that premise? I have human female breasts, and although I imagine breast feeding would be theoretically possible (I know of at least two trans women whoâve done it), it might not be too easy for me, or for any other woman who hasnât recently given birth, whether cis or trans. That is exactly why I modified my statement by using the words most and capable. I am aware of trans women, women who haven’t recently been pregnant or breastfeeding and women who have been recently pregnant but are unable to breastfeed.
Anyway, more generally then, what is a person supposed to do with personal preferences that track existing cultural norms on gender? Have them. Examine them. Not shove them up others’ left nostril as the ONLY TRUE WAY(TM). Seems simple enough to me.
When a boy is girlish, wanting to wear dresses or try on some makeup, itâs a mental disorder and needs an immediate medical intervention. . . . There are GID boys aplenty in Ken Corbettâs Boyhoods: Rethinking Masculinities. Corbett is an analyst specializing in the condition, and he has to assure a lot of parents that their sons are not doomed. That the bracelets or the pink clothing or playing dolls with girls rather than wrestling with other boys is not a sign that heâll turn into some sort of tragic transsexual like the kind on the cop shows, hustling on the streets and then murdered and left in a dumpster. Dave, you really had to post this, did you? And you have no understanding of how deeply and horrifyingly transphobic it is? And how founded in ignorance? Like I don’t see enough of that everywhere? I am so angry I can’t even speak. Next time, think for a minute? And the author of the piece — never mind. She should just try to get it through her head, before she propagates any more damaging stereotypes, that being trans is not a mental disorder, and that nobody — nobody, nobody — is making little boys think they’re girls because they want to wear dresses or try on makeup. It doesn’t work that way!
Except it’s not that simple, macavitykitsune. Jill didn’t shove her preference up anyone’s nostril or proclaim it as the only true way. She made a snarky, off-hand remark based on that preference. An in response, although no one literally said, “Jill, you have to work on eliminating your preference if you want to be a good feminist,” we had 150+ comments from people going back and forth about how shocking it was that Jill (a) had that preference, (b) expressed it in a snarky, off-hand way, and (c) didn’t include any appropriate throat-clearing.
Oh yes, it might have been nice for Jessica Crispin to keep in mind that if you’re going to mention transsexual women at all (and I don’t no anybody who uses it as a noun; I am not “a transsexual”) it is completely not cool — to put it mildly — to make the only mention a reference to “tragic transsexuals” who are murdered and left in a dumpster. Yes, it happens way too often, but that isn’t the entire sum total of trans women’s lives. There’s nothing tragic about being a woman. I’m a human being, not some kind of tragic outcome because I never accepted being a boy and didn’t end up being a gay man. (I never really liked boys anyway.) God damn it.
I think you misunderstood the article I linked, DonnaL. It’s point was that (i) gender norms for men have not relaxed as much as they have for women, (ii) gender norms are kind of stupid and harmful and (iii) experimenting with gender does not doom a person to unhappiness and tragedy. The GID references were to highlight how overdiagnosed it is. Beyond that, the article expressed no opinion on whether it should be considered a disorder at all.
Damn it, I meant “I don’t know anybody,” not “I don’t no anybody.” Sorry, that happens when I’m upset. And Dave, just go away, will you please?
I think you misunderstood the article I linked, DonnaL. How fucking dare you say that to me, you fucking moron? I understand it VERY well. And yes, the fact that it makes those points doesn’t change the fact that it’s deeply transphobic. And no, GID is NOT overdiagnosed. You’re an idiot.
Too many curse words in that one, so I’ll try this: Dave, don’t you ever again presume to tell me I misunderstand something that’s being written about transness. I understand it very well. The fact that the author is making those points does not prevent her from being profoundly transphobic. And, no, GID is not overdiagnosed, for your information.
(i) gender norms for men have not relaxed as much as they have for women, This can be explained by the fact that things deemed “feminine” are also deemed lesser, so women acting more “masculine” is okay but the reverse is an attack on manliness. Have your preference, go ahead. Jill can also have her preferences, that’s all cool. No one here is demanding that you deem all the world bone worthy lest you hurt feelings. Is it too much to expect a little thought on were your preferences derive from or to insist you not apply them universally?
There are GID boys aplenty in Ken Corbettâs Boyhoods: Rethinking Masculinities. Corbett is an analyst specializing in the condition, and he has to assure a lot of parents that their sons are not doomed. ARGLEFUCKINGBLARGLE. Uh, Dave? This is…. I can’t even. experimenting with gender does not doom a person to unhappiness and tragedy Right, no. Only being trans does. Because that’s so TRAGIC and DOOOOOOMED. Because of being trans! Not because of society and its fucked-up attitudes or anything! No rly! If you want to make a point about how men are in some ways more constrained than women in gender expression, there are a thousand articles about it that aren’t transphobic as all fuck.
Rage. Seriously. I canât remember the last time I was angrier at another commenter. Now Donna, you can’t be mad at somebody and expect them to listen. And cursing? Gasp. How will your opinion ever be taken seriously if you curse? Why, you should just listen. I’m sure R.Dave has put so much more time, effort, and actual deep life effecting thought into the real truth about being Trans than you have. (sarcasm)
macavitykitsune, thank you. I don’t think I’m someone who generally sees transphobia where it isn’t, so I’m glad to know I’m not the only one here who saw it. Ken Corbett is one of the long line of gay male therapists who really does seem to think that being a gay man is always intrinsically a “better” outcome than being a trans woman, because there’s less homophobia than transphobia out there. And because trans women are doomed, of course! Which is all fine and good, except when being a gay man isn’t what you are.
Wow, you guys are interpreting the trans references in that article in the exact opposite way that I am. I read the author as saying GID is overdiagnosed because, in our culture, males “acting female” is mistakenly perceived as disordered behavior, and the reference to the “tragic transexual like the kind on cop shows” is put forth as an example of the ridiculous and wrong image so many people have in their heads.
_@Dave, who “enjoyed thinking of all the ‘isms” Hyuk hyuk chucklefuck. I’m glad misery and oppression brings a smile to your face. It’s just so funny to sit, soaking in privilege, counting off ‘isms like Pokemon, gotta catch ’em all! You are gross, you make me feel physically sick. My life is made miserable by those ‘isms, ground down by the boot-heel of the kyriarchy. Me and a large number of posters here. People like you are the reason that WOC, trans* people, PWD and PWMI, many LGB posters and other oppressed people have deserved this site in droves. It’s just not safe enough to discuss sensitive issues, to make ourselves vulnerable, knowing that there are people like you here. Knowing that we’re objects of humour, or fodder for your mental masturbation, Our lives aren’t theoretical exercises, they’re real, raw and exhausting. So enjoy your laughs. Wazzock.
First of all, I just told you that it isn’t overdiagnosed, That’s a ridiculous myth. It doesn’t work that way. And, did it ever occur to you that my interpretation is about 1000x more likely than your to be correct? Would you challenge a gay man about whether something is homophobic? An African-American person about whether something is racist? Well, I guess you probably would.
I read the author as saying GID is overdiagnosed because, in our culture, males âacting femaleâ is mistakenly perceived as disordered behavior Except there’s a world of difference between experimenting with gender and being trans. I experiment with gender all the freakin’ time. I wouldn’t call myself trans – that’d be a heap more appropriation than I could stomach, and a slap in the face to actual transfolk. “It’s okay, they’re just EXPERIMENTING. The worst-case scenario is that they’ll be GHEY, but it could be worse, they could wind up doomed in a dumpster, so chill out and let ’em play with the pink stuff.” The unspoken assumption there, though, Dave, is that relaxing gender norms will lead to less incidence of transness, as if it were some sort of forbidden fetish or something instead of a state of being. The old “demystify to defuse” tactic.
You also said “being trans is not a mental disorder”, which would seem to suggest that if even one person is diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disorder, it is overdiagnosed. And yes, I would challenge a gay man about whether something is homophobic and a black person about whether something is racist. Being X does not render one incapable of misunderstanding any and all discussions of X.
And, besides, your comment isn’t even an arguably reasonable interpretation: the stated reason that the article and Corbett are taking the position that little boys who want to try on makeup sometimes aren’t necessarily doomed to being tragic transsexuals is that they’re really just little boys (as if any doctor with experience with actual trans children would ever suggest otherwise!) — not that being transsexual isn’t a tragic outcome. You’re being absurd. Go away.
And because trans women are doomed, of course! Which is all fine and good, except when being a gay man isnât what you are. I….I don’t even want to think of how much pain, anxiety and depression it would cause to be trammeled into a sexuality that isn’t yours because it’s easier for someone to deal with that way than acknowledging your gender for what you say it is. It’s actually nauseating. And yes, I would challenge a gay man about whether something is homophobic and a black person about whether something is racist. Being X does not render one incapable of misunderstanding any and all discussions of X. Sure. On the other hand, being R. Dave seems to render you incapable of understanding (to my direct knowledge thus far by comments on this blog) racism, genocide, gender policing, transness, transphobia and whether or not people are allowed to have personal preferences. You don’t have a real good track record.
Yeah, I’ll bet you would, you creep. if even one person is diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disorder, it is overdiagnosed. NO. That’s just the outmoded technical term for it in the DSM-IV, which, God knows, no trans people I know are fond of. If anything, being trans — gender dysphoria — is a physical condition; for people who need medical treatment to alleviate it, of course a “diagnosis” of some kind is necessary. The fact that an inaccurate term is used doesn’t mean that being a trans child is itself something that’s genuinely overdiagnosed. Do you know how incredibly few children, despite all the publicity they seem to get, actually transition socially before adolescence, compared to the number of gender-variant boys? Not many. Enough; I can’t take this anymore.
Isn’t it time to ban this guy? I didn’t think it was OK for people to come in here, and openly, ignorantly, and sneeringly challenge the (entirely accurate) perceptions of people in marginalized groups as to whether something reflects bigotry.
Cheezuz Chumped-up Christ in a Side Car, R. Dave! I guess the good news is that you have put a sign over your Anal Milliners’ Shop that can be read 3 blocks away… Hugs if you want them, DonnaL.
On the overdiagnosed / underdiagnosed side point, I agree with you Donna L – it probably is underdiagnosed given the prejudices against trans people and widespread misunderstanding of what being trans means. That said, as I noted above, the comparative point still stands. If boys are 30 times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with GID, that suggests gender norms are much more rigid for boys than girls.
Hugs for you Donna. I’m sorry you’re being put through the wringer by Captain Privilege, whose degree from Google U trumps actual lived experience.
Goddammit, I didn’t even see the other posts. Exactly HOW MUCH fuckwaddery are we supposed to put up with here??!!??
Donna L said: “Isnât it time to ban this guy? I didnât think it was OK for people to come in here, and openly, ignorantly, and sneeringly challenge the (entirely accurate) perceptions of people in marginalized groups as to whether something reflects bigotry.” Seriously? You want someone banned because they suggest you misunderstood an article? That’s just sad.
Wow, this R Dave thing is really blowing up. I’ve been working on a response to Jill, and I can’t really handle dealing with something else right now. Suffice to say I agree with Donna and macavitykitsune on this rather than R Dave. So as to my response to Jill, I think I’m going to deviate from proper protocol for a moment. I like you Jill; I like your blog; and I agree with much (most?) of what you write. And we all make mistakes. Now I’ll be be completely frank. As of right now, I’m going to walk away from all this with a slightly bad taste in my mouth. I think this incident–that this was the sort of thing you could spontaneously say in a thoughtless moment–reveals some things about you. I think this reveals some deeply held, probably mainly subconsious gender essentialist beliefs that you have. If a random, not-very-political friend of mine said this and then apologized, I wouldn’t really care or blink an eye. But I do find this disconcerting from a progressive feminist blogger who has been working on these issues for years and who holds an explicitly anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic stance. For instance, I can’t imagine me or any of the progressive, politically-minded trans* people I know saying something like this is a million years, consideredly or thoughtlessly, drunk or sober, whatever. So I am still annoyed, and I don’t think this is just about you being “stupid.” It’s about unexamined “privilege,” a word you didn’t use in your apology. I would appreciate it if you examine that privilege further and more deeply than you’ve apparently done, as wonderful as I think you are, in general, including on trans* issues most of the time.
@IrishUp – thanks to “anal millinery ” I just laughed so hard that I accidentally bit on my drinks tube and shot very fizzy Pepsi into my sinuses! May I steal it?
And yes, I would challenge a gay man about whether something is homophobic and a black person about whether something is racist. Being X does not render one incapable of misunderstanding any and all discussions of X. You do not get to challenge what is and isn’t X because you are oppressed by it. The oppressed are the only ones who have the right to define their oppression. Trans people are telling you to stop with the bullshit. Just as POC had to tell you in the last thread to stop with your bullshit. How many fucking loads are you going to dump on us, R.Dave? The smell is getting more than a little unbearable over here.
You do not get to challenge what is and isnât X because you are* oppressed by it. * = “aren’t”. Rage fail.
You want someone banned because they suggest you misunderstood an article? Thatâs just sad No. It’s because you’re clearly not intelligent enough — or, to put it more kindly, you’re too choked with privilege — to realize that you aren’t even remotely capable of understanding something as well as someone with a lifetime of real experience on the subject, and should refrain from engaging in the extreme presumptuousness of claiming that you understand it better. Someone with that kind of problem, and that kind of cluelessness, doesn’t belong here. Not to mention that I doubt there’s any subject you could possibly understand better than I can, including the subject of what clueless straight guys think like. Don’t forget, I walked among them and heard their secrets for a long time.
Dave, you Know what’s really sad? The fact that you’re wilfully ignoring real people and their real pain, twisting their real experiences, for shits and giggles. Nobody wants to ban you for misreading an article. People want you gone because you contribute to a culture of “man knows best”, something which makers this site feel profoundly unsafe. Because you derail, you ”splain, and gleefully trample over people who’ve laid themselves bare. So, what k said at 171, twice. If that’s too long then I refer you to the response given in the case of Pressdram vs Arkell
nobody â nobody, nobody â is making little boys think theyâre girls because they want to wear dresses or try on makeup. It doesnât work that way! Are you seriously saying that there are no parents, doctors, or other individuals in positions of power over children who are inflicting so-called “treatment” on them for ostensible Gender Identity Dysphoria when the children in question are not, in fact, trans girls, but cis boys who want to enjoy the freedom to have pretty things? Little boys do not become little girls because they like pretty things or like to wear makeup. But it’s far from unheard of for parents, and religious leaders, and ignorant medical professionals, to confuse the two. And it’s not unheard of for little children themselves to be confused and need to be informed by a responsible parent. My son told me he was “half a girl and half a boy” because he likes pink stuffed animals, and then “but mostly a boy”… so I explained to him that he’s entirely a boy, it’s just that boys should feel free to have pink stuffed animals if they want. I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that my son is actually a trans girl — he’s very much about being a boy — but our culture is so adamant that there are “boy things and girl things” that he thought that his enjoyment of “girl things” made him “half a girl”… even though he really is pretty sure he’s a boy. A child who says something like that to a more ignorant parent could well end up misdiagnosed, and likely abused for it. If what you’re trying to say is that pressure to conform to male gender stereotypes doesn’t actually cause cis boys to turn into trans girls, then yes, absolutely not… but it sounds like what it says is that medical professionals are misdiagnosing boys who won’t conform to gender stereotypes as “gender dysphoric”, which is the DSM-IV term for being trans but is also a medicalized term that opens children up to being “treated” in abusive ways. I’ve heard of so many cases of lesbians and gays being medically abused because of “gender dysphoria” diagnoses; I find it impossible to believe that no straight cis boy who likes pretty things was ever medically abused under the false beliefs that a, he’s trans, and b, trans is a bad thing he needs to be “cured” of. (For that matter, the statement, as given, doesn’t specify the sexual orientation of the children in question, and gay cis boys are most definitely being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria and medically abused for it.)
Thanks for the hug offers, etc., people. Seriously, I always love to start three-day weekends with a healthy dose of transphobia to send me off. But at least I have an excuse to leave my apartment this weekend: my son graduates from college in two weeks, out in Chicago, and I really need to find something nice to wear. His comment was, “what difference does it make? Nobody’s going to be looking at you!” Which is only partly true in the first place (my former spouse will be there, prepared to judge me harshly I’m sure, whether I look great [deceiver!] or terrible [pathetic!], not to mention the fact that in a sea of middle-aged women all dressed up, I don’t want to be the only one wearing blue jeans and sneakers, my usual weekend outfit! So I’ll have plenty to think about that will allow me to wash the sad memory of R. Dave and Jessica Crispin from my mind!
First, as I have understood it, the ONLY reason why GID is included in the DSM-IV is so transpeople can get treatment covered by insurance. Otherwise they would be shit out of luck, because insurance companies wouldn’t cover elective procedures, and they consider any sort of plastic surgery that they deem medically unnecessary elective. I have no idea where the hormones fall under that guideline, so I won’t speak to that. Second, Dave R. really needs a banning, stat.
Partial Human – I am so very sorry to hear about your Pepsi, the venerated Soft Beverage of Choice @ Teachin Irish. The H/T for anal milliner goes to blogger CaitieCat. I have shamelessly stolen it. There is honor among (some) thieves, so please, have at. DonnaL, congratulations to you & your son and I am manifesting a productive relaxing shopping excursion and weekend your way.
Angel H. said: “You do not get to challenge what is and isnât X because you aren’t oppressed by it. The oppressed are the only ones who have the right to define their oppression.” I strongly disagree, but that’s beside the point anyway. I didn’t say anything about defining oppression. I simply said that I thought Donna L was misunderstanding an article – i.e. I challeged her reading comprehension, not her experience as a trans woman. Partial Human wrote: “Nobody wants to ban you for misreading an article. People want you gone because you contribute to a culture of âman knows bestâ, something which makers this site feel profoundly unsafe. Because you derail, you âsplain, and gleefully trample over people whoâve laid themselves bare.” All of which I apparently did by simply suggesting that Donna L misread an article, so yes, people seemingly want to ban me because of that suggestion. And as for derailing – I linked to an article about gender norms in a thread that was largely about men wearing jewelry. That’s not a derail; it’s directly on point. Donna L is the one who derailed us into the discussion of transphobia.
shfree, yes, at least for trans women, a medical diagnosis is necessary to prescribe estrogen, anti-androgens, etc. to people with “male” ID documents. (Even though many insurance plans still exclude all coverage for “transgender-related” prescriptions.) And, yes, there are ways to get hormones without a doctor’s prescription — I don’t talk about it much, but I started out that way for a number of reasons — and estrogen pills and injectables aren’t expensive even if they aren’t covered by insurance, but some medicines are. And for anything beyond medication, you absolutely need a diagnosis. Even for something like breast augmentation surgery, for trans women who need or want it, there are plenty of surgeons who probably do them practically in their sleep for cis women, who absolutely refuse to do them for trans women without not only a diagnosis but the same kind of “sanity” letters you need for GRS.
R. Dave, you still don’t get it. Here’s a clue: when you link to a transphobic article, even when you don’t understand that it’s transphobic, you don’t get to accuse the person who points out that transphobia of “derailing.” I challeged her reading comprehension, In an ideal world, that should be grounds for banning all by itself. Who do you think you are, anyway?
R.Dave: Right back atcha, mac. *eyebrow* I’m fascinated to see that I’ve been transphobic, racist or misogynistic in my comments here. Examples, linked to my name and website, please. Seriously? You want someone banned because they suggest you misunderstood an article? Thatâs just sad. Right. Exactly. This is totally what we want. I mean, you were a racist and a genocide-denying, victim-blaming prick on the Elizabeth Warren thread, and have linked transphobic articles here and stubbornly refused to see why they were, but that’s okay! You also argued with pheeno (a NA) on that thread about what constituted systemic racism against NAs, and are arguing with Donna L (who’s trans) on this thread about what constitutes transphobia, while bounding along serenely under the impression that you don’t need to examine your own thoughts. Your post surrounding that article quote was fine, and if you’d just gone “hey, my bad” when Donna pointed out the article was transphobic (like Jill did when we pointed out her post was transphobic) we would have laid off you (kind of like we laid off Jill, if you notice). But, of course, none of that could be why people are calling for your banning. It’s clearly the fact that you insulted Donna’s reading skillz. Right. Okay. Lol.
I didnât say anything about defining oppression. Except when Donna L was saying “you’re being transphobic” and you said “nuh-uh, silly trans woman. I know better”. You trying to tell her what is and isn’t transphobic is an attempt to define her oppression in a way that *you* more comfortable, just as would be if you were challenging a gay man on what is and isn’t homophobic or a POC on what is and isn’t racism. I don’t care if you agree with it or not because it doesn’t affect you directly. It does affect those of us who have to deal live the oppression. Again, cut the bullshit.
shfree–you often need a GID diagnosis for *treatment* not *insurance.* Most insurance companies explicitly refused to cover transition-related care, whether or not they would cover the exact same protocol for a cis person. R. Dave, that exerpt was so blindingly transphobic, you’re the last person who should be questioning anyone’s reading comprehension around here. Donna L–congratulations to your son on his graduation!
In an ideal world, that should be grounds for banning all by itself. Who do you think you are, anyway? *grin* Good point, Donna.
Comment in moderation, but in short: Most insurance companies explicitly refused to cover transition-related care, whether or not they would cover the exact same protocol for a cis person.
macavitykitsune wrote: “Right. Exactly. This is totally what we want. I mean, you were a racist and a genocide-denying, victim-blaming prick on the Elizabeth Warren thread, and have linked transphobic articles here and stubbornly refused to see why they were, but thatâs okay! You also argued with pheeno (a NA) on that thread about what constituted systemic racism against NAs, and are arguing with Donna L (whoâs trans) on this thread about what constitutes transphobia, while bounding along serenely under the impression that you donât need to examine your own thoughts.” So, stripped of the mind-reading and flowery prose, you’re basically saying you want me banned because I disagreed with pheeno in one thread, disagreed with Donna L in another, and I failed to immediately apologize for those great sins. Nice.
Whoops. Blockquote fail in my previous comment. My response to macavitykitsune’s post starts with “So, stripped of the mind-reading and flowery prose….” If a mod could fix that, I’d appreciate it.
Alara, what I meant was that nobody is taking little boys who like makeup or to play dressup occasionally, and “diagnosing” them as being trans, and then supporting them in wanting to transition. As I said, it doesn’t work that way. (This isn’t Iran in that way, after all.) That sort of “trans-positive” really only happens to children who persistently and often single-mindedly insist on their identity for years. It’s nothing like what you describe with your child. I promise you this from personal experience, both as someone who knew who they were no later than the age of 3, and someone who happens to be the parent of a son who was himself very clearly “different,” and, at times, gender non-conforming, from an equally young age — but in a very different way. (He is, by the way, quite happy being a young gay man, especially so since puberty, I think! Something that had very much the opposite effect on me. As I knew it would.) The misdiagnosis you’re talking about doesn’t come from therapists (or even, for the most part, parents). The abuse of gay and lesbian children generally comes from reparative therapy, from parents and doctors who hate the idea of children being gay, never mind trans, and really do think of “GID” as being a disorder that has to be brutally extirpated. And then there are the kinds of people like Zucker — and, I think, Corbett — who do see being gay as a better outcome, and do try to steer even genuinely trans kids away from transness, by a variety of methods. None of this involves “overdiagnosis” in the sense of thinking that gender non-conforming boys really are girls, and treating them as such.
I meant, “that sort of ‘trans-positive’ diagnosis really only happens,” etc. And “The misdiagnosis youâre talking about doesnât come from trans-friendly therapists (or, for the most part, parents).” Sorry, I’ve been at my office since yesterday morning.
The misdiagnosis youâre talking about doesnât come from therapists (or even, for the most part, parents). The abuse of gay and lesbian children generally comes from reparative therapy, from parents and doctors who hate the idea of children being gay, never mind trans, and really do think of âGIDâ as being a disorder that has to be brutally extirpated. And then there are the kinds of people like Zucker â and, I think, Corbett â who do see being gay as a better outcome, and do try to steer even genuinely trans kids away from transness, by a variety of methods. None of this involves âoverdiagnosisâ in the sense of thinking that gender non-conforming boys really are girls, and treating them as such. Well said, Donna.
Why the coy disguises? Wh use “I disagree with” when “I choose to be a fucking asshole on the internet towards” would be more accurate? This isn’t a journal article, there are no word limits It’s the you being a fucking asshole towards other people that deserves the ban-hammer. #absofuckinlutelyposifuckintivelyvileassdouchecanoery
I’ve been lurking around on this blog reading a lot of posts without comment for a while, and I am really surprised about this post. It makes me re-think coming back here. You may have just lost a reader.
So, stripped of the mind-reading and flowery prose, youâre basically saying you want me banned because I disagreed with pheeno in one thread, disagreed with Donna L in another, and I failed to immediately apologize for those great sins. Nice. No, Dave. There’s a difference between disagreeing with and being a giant douchehat towards. I’ve disagreed with Donna L here before, in my first comment here, in fact. We talked it out, found we agreed on some points and disagreed massively on others and dropped it. No one was calling to ban me. You, however, were fairly douchehatty. And I’m still waiting for those linked comments where I’ve been racist, transphobic or misogynistic, Dave. What are you doing about those, Dave?
R. Dave, I would if it would make a difference. Alas, there is nothing I can show you that you won’t “disagree” with. You have been shown and been told and hand your hand held et cetera ad nauseum. If you wanna come down from the cheap seats so you can see the show better, you’re going to have to leg it yourself.
Iâve been lurking around on this blog reading a lot of posts without comment for a while, and I am really surprised about this post. It makes me re-think coming back here. You may have just lost a reader. It’s not linked in the OP, but fwiw Jill has apologized and recanted in the comments. Re: R. Dave and the little shit factory he’s started up here in the comments Cheers to everyone engaging him on his BS, and soothing Internet tea and cookies to all the trans* readers on the thread, including Donna (and anyone else participating I may have missed) and anyone lurking.
Sorry for the confusion, macavitykitsune. When I said “right back atcha”, I just meant the general dismissive rudeness of your post, not the specific content of your insults. Could you please return the favor and explain how, specifically, you feel I’ve been a “giant douchehat” in this thread if simply disagreeing with you and Donna L isn’t the supposed problem?
“I’m leaving and never coming back. No. NO, don’t try and stop me! I’ve never commented, never contributed, you don’t know me from a hole in a blow-up doll, but my leaving will surely crush you. Yours Flouncingly, Judea London” Seriously dude? All my cries are for you. I love you 5Eva
Seriously though Judea, join in properly. Don’t just appear then throw out an “I quit. ” There’s no way you could be more clueless than R. Dave, so give it a try.
Could you please return the favor and explain how, specifically, you feel Iâve been a âgiant douchehatâ in this thread if simply disagreeing with you and Donna L isnât the supposed problem? 1) Posting transphobic article. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t realise it was. 2) Proceeding to argue that the article means the exact opposite of what it does, and Donna and I are far from the only ones who pointed out that it came off awfully transphobic. 3) Accusing Donna of derailing by talking about the transphobia in your comment, when she was engaging with your comment. 4) Misconstruing comments so far in this thread as having been about Jill’s temerity in having personal preferences, rather than the generalisation to gender-policing that it was. However… here’s the thing. The point you were making? Didn’t need that article. There was no need to leap to the article’s defense and claim that anyone who detected transphobia in there is clearly wrong. You weren’t even defending your own statements. And is it such a terribly out-there assumption that a trans person might see transphobia more clearly than you? That an LGB person like me might be a bit quicker to detect oogy homophobic subtexts? Mostly, though, I’m carrying my opinion of you over from the Elizabeth Warren thread and the genocide denial you engaged in there, that included pointing out that it can’t be genocide because it consisted of a collection of crimes. If disagreeing with Donna were a huge problem I wouldn’t be here, and if disagreeing with me were a huge problem half the people on this thread wouldn’t be.
Lol! I love that I’ve apparently become the standard by which asshattery is judged. The weird part is that I actually am interested in and engaged on these issues, making what I consider good faith arguments where and when I disagree. I simply don’t accept the idea that one must always defer to a person with characteristic X whenever discussing anything related to characteristic X. I do accept a lesser form of that theory – namely, that a person with characteristic X will have a more intimate and personal experience with issues related to X than I do, so I should give their perspective some additional weight when considering their points – but if I still disagree, then I say so.
“I actually am interested in and engaged on these issues, making what I consider good faith arguments where and when I disagree. ” See, that’s the problem, R. Dave. You are making what YOU consider to be good faith arguments. But it’s not about you. When you are talking about issues concerning marginalized groups to which you do not belong, it is not about what you consider to be a good faith argument. Because it’s not about you.
The weird part is that I actually am interested in and engaged on these issues, making what I consider good faith arguments where and when I disagree. Okay. I’ve engaged repeatedly seriously with you, in comments that don’t, I think, come off snarky. It’s not, as I said, that your own initial statement around that article was problematic. The article itself, however, whoo boy. I simply donât accept the idea that one must always defer to a person with characteristic X whenever discussing anything related to characteristic X. Well…don’t. That’s not what engaging is about. However, you’ve shown a remarkable tendency to ignore both objective arguments and lived experience. I do accept a lesser form of that theory [but] if I still disagree, then I say so. And nobody’s told you not to say so. Just be aware that you’re coming off incredibly cluelessly bigoted-by-ignorance in some places (the Warren thread for example), and disingenuous in others (your defense of Jill in this thread, which was both unnecessary and which assumed extremely bad faith on the part of those of us who’d dissected the isms in her post). You have every right to say whatever, but you don’t have immunity from being called out on silly beliefs.
Iâve disagreed with Donna L here before, in my first comment here, in fact You did? What did we disagree about? (Sorry, I can be awful with people’s names.) Do I want to know?
You did? What did we disagree about? (Sorry, I can be awful with peopleâs names.) Do I want to know? Eh, it was about that unfortunately named Cotton Ceiling workshop. I argued that partners needed to be included, you said they weren’t necessarily relevant to the workshop…. we agreed to disagree after a bit. (Heh, don’t worry about it. I’m terrible with faces; one reason I hang out on the internetz a lot)
The weird part is that I actually am interested in and engaged on these issues, making what I consider good faith arguments where and when I disagree And maybe you should realize that you are probably not as educated on these issues as Donna? Seriously, not only because Donna’s own experiences, but because as far as I can tell from reading Donna’s comments here, she is WAY more informed. Has read a lot, has participated in more communities, is just all around more qualified than you for many reasons. At least pretend like you acknowledge that you are not the end-all be-all of educated participants on this thread.
So R. Dave still has not learned how to shut the fuck up and stop shitting all over oppressed folks “in good faith.” The only thing that surprises me about this scenario is the fact that this chucklefuck is still allowed to post at all.
Just getting back from a day in which I realized that I massively screwed up at work. Yay me. But, in order: Jill: thank you very much for the apology and clarification. It really matters. Donna: I’m so sorry that this is how you kick off your three-day weekend. I am fucking furious on your behalf. I find myself, probably as the result of privilege, and possibly as a result of ingrained values, as angry if not angrier about the aspersions cast on your intelligence, knowledge, and reading comprehension as the transphobia. R. Dave: What the fuck? How the fuck dare you suggest that Donna doesn’t know what she’s talking about or understand the article? She is consistently one of the most eloquent, intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful commenters here; I’ve learned more from reading her comments than I learned from entire semesters at school. If she doesn’t get it, the problem is not with her, but with the article. But that’s moot; she understood the article perfectly. It’s you who seems to lack the ability to understand an article, let alone the world, from any viewpoint other than your own. To whomever is listening: So, after some truly epic racist bullshit in the thread regarding Native American genocide, R. Dave has posted and linked to a transphobic article and gone on defending it even after real people have not only explained why he’s wrong, but noted that he’s repeating canards that have led to suffering. Other commenters have been banned for similar crap, in my memory. I wish he would be, too. I mean, for fuck’s sake: telling Donna she doesn’t understand some two-bit pop-culture article? When somebody insults my intelligence, it’s usually because I’ve been obnoxious, and I usually know when I’m being obnoxious, and I’m OK with that. Donna is never obnoxious. This is not OK.
wow. That blew up REALLY big! I donât actually know what Jill thought she was saying … I do object to the idea that thereâs a province of things which are âwomen-onlyâ that men have cordoned off a small part of, usually with the aid of obnoxious neologisms like âman-cationsâ or âman-scaraâ, or awkward phrases like âmale nurseâ. It reifies gender norms that I object to. That is something I agree with, and furthermore, I REALLY HATE the way that people suck about reclaiming it. In addition to MAN-CATIONS! there are gender abolitionists, who I feel threatened by for reasons that have nothing to do with me having privilege, and others who want to perform some kind of patchy gender-bending and seem to want everybody in society to engage in it. @everybody talking about R. Dave: Genocide denial is pretty horrible and it’s established fact that while nowhere near all of it was intentional, Europeans tried and succeeded in killing nearly all remaining native americans. And transphobia is never good. However, I assert that anybody can be wrong in their interpretation of subjective experiences, and that anybody can be skeptical. In fact, oppression can create it’s own irrationality in the minds of the oppressed who resist. Still though, he is an ASSHOLE.
In fact, oppression can create itâs own irrationality in the minds of the oppressed who resist. Yeah, nobody’s arguing that. However, I highly doubt that any irrationality induced by that thread was from being too oppressed to not be “irrational” (what’s next? Hysterical?) and am fairly certain that most of it was from arguing with goalpost-shifting, intellectually dishonest chucklefucks.
At least pretend like you acknowledge that you are not the end-all be-all of educated participants on this thread. Hey, don’t take away his right to automatically be the most awesome of awesomes on this thread! I mean, what’s next? Making him confront his privilege? Meanie.
Because her sense of humour seems familiar to me, I can usually get where Ms Jill comes from in posts of this style, but this one was confusing before the welcome apology/clarification. The term “man-jewelry” and most of what it implies make me quite ill. But, then again, there did seem to be a greater element of taste, and Ms Jill’s taste in men is rather different from mine, my late fiance appearing to great advantage when bedecked and being the sort of person for whom gifts were only too easy to buy because almost anything suited him. Thankfully, he did not die in a fire. Ms Donna is, of course, quite right about harm done to children, and I really wish Ms Rogers had been my mother. I can’t recall whether I took the thinking behind it so far as to consider myself partially, mostly or entirely female, but for years, even before I had any clue that my legs were my only really good feature, I wanted to wear skirts. And that got me nothing but trouble, perhaps being the first stop on that dreaded parent-directed journey into “reparative” therapy. At least it predated a memorable birthday party when, asked what famous person I would marry if it were possible (and I have no idea why young children would be asked such a question, and hope the practice has fallen into disuse), I brought the party to an abrupt standstill by selecting Davy Jones.
One down… MacK – if only we were just nicer to the ‘splainers, instead of being shrieking harpies. I mean how maddeningly frustrating must it be to get us to understand that they know best? How upsetting it must be to know that oppressed people are just too emotional to interrogate their experiences from the right perspective. Can’t you see how those at the tip of the kyriarchal pyramid are suffering? Just stop the hysterics long enough to see how agonising it is for them to know they know what’s best for us, but to be batted away by uppity opponents. How terrible it must be to carry that most unbearable of burdens. Yes, the duty of explaining to those ungrateful minorities that what they experienced as Xphobia or Xism, was nothing of the sort. That what they perceive as harassment/assault/overt discrimination/murder is just misunderstood. How do they impart the truth of anti-white racism, sexism directed at men, cisphobia, heterophobia, and the brutal cruelty toward the able-bodied and neurotypical, to such a hostile audience of professional victims who think they are the most qualified to judge their own life experiences? An impossible mission. But don’t fret, they’ll keep ‘splaining until their last breath escapes their bodies. They’ll reach the irrational ones with their message, if they keep on following them to their hives of misinformation, and simply repeatedly state why they know best, despite never experiencing the alleged bigotry at hand, until it sinks in. *weeps* Brave, brave soldiers, aren’t they? Let us bask in the wisdom their unexamined privilege affords them, that it may wash our suspicion and hysteria away. Until that day…
Hey, DonnaL, just to throw my two cents in: Even in jest, suggesting that the existence of being trans is a tragedy isn’t fucking funny, it’s not witty, it’s deeply hurtful. And it’s even more hurtful when you consider how dangerous it is to be trans in this world, the staggering amount of violence directed at trans people, and the panic over anyone who doesn’t perfectly gender role conform. So, like, enjoy your weekend, and if nothing else, bask in the knowledge that you are right.
How do they impart the truth of anti-white racism, sexism directed at men, cisphobia, heterophobia, and the brutal cruelty toward the able-bodied and neurotypical, to such a hostile audience of professional victims who think they are the most qualified to judge their own life experiences? \ Y…you’re right. I’m so sorry…. *weeping hysterically into delicate lace hanky* *falls back onto fainting couch* Oh, how can I ask forgiveness for such a sin!
a memorable birthday party when, asked what famous person I would marry if it were possible (and I have no idea why young children would be asked such a question) Ugh, they did that to me too, all the time, and were always so hahahahohohoAMUSEDhehehe when I staunchly refused to marry and have kids. Ten, fifteen, twenty years later, here I am, married to a woman (which I hadn’t known possible when I was a kid) and with a stepdaughter I fucking adore. They’re not laughing now. *grin*
I’m glad you’re finding marriage and child more enjoyable than expected. That sort of life twist is the sort about which I don’t myself mind having been proved wrong.
Iâm glad youâre finding marriage and child more enjoyable than expected. That sort of life twist is the sort about which I donât myself mind having been proved wrong. *grin* I think so, yes. It’s actually rather awesome to be proved wrong this way! All I had to do was look beyond what rural Indian society told me I was allowed to have, and there was everything I wanted. *cough* yes I know I’m sappy.
Jill should really take this down and/or denounce it. Gender policing on a feminist site is a no-no. It reinforces stereotypes and is extremely hypercritical.
Jill should really take this down and/or denounce it. Gender policing on a feminist site is a no-no. It reinforces stereotypes and is extremely hypercritical. I would suggest reading the comments. I already apologized.
âSorry I canât be bothered to read the threadâ would have also been nice. Eh, an update to the post itself would be useful. I routinely blow off comment threads (especially ones with 200+ comments) when I don’t have a reason to think it’s worth my time because Internet = full of comment fail. I’m sure there are plenty of people reading the post, skipping the comments (and not commenting themselves), and having no idea that there were any further developments.
I’m still not going to take the time to read through every single comment. I had no idea Jill had a special red box around her comments and a little star by her name, until I saw her boasting about it in a different thread. lol. I’m new here, so please, except my apology.
Oh, and I should probably also add that I didn’t think the whole “man-jewelry” thing was a big deal. Although I stand by what I originally said, it was slightly comical as well. I enjoy Jills posts thus far, even if I don’t agree with everything or she/I make a mistake.
Omg really?? I have to agree with what was said in some of the first comments, “I certainly donât expect to see this sort of ridiculous gender policing on a feminist blog.” Not just GENDER policing but FASHION policing.. I mean, seriously?? đ Shame on you Feministe. More and more I feel I need to say that and it’s really making me sad, because I used to love coming to your blog for a breath of fresh air. Now more often I find things like this, and disability shaming, and I’m just like, what? Really, Feministe, get your act together. In the meantime I’m going to still support my son’s love of wearing jewelry (yes multiple necklaces and bracelets at a time) and lounge around in my own pajama pants and my husband’s oversize polo shirts. :>
Well IMO being a bit fashion police-y can help people make their fashion better if maybe they don’t know for example something is unfashionable. I think it’s important to let people wear what they want too. The important thing is that the person in question knows whether what they are wearing is fashionable or not and that they have the full story. For example sometimes I wear a beanie. I know that’s not fashionable but it’s part of my image sometimes on the street, but because I know it’s not fashionable that’s OK. However if it was someone clueless just wearing a beanie then maybe someone ought to point that out. That’s just my two cents.
However if it was someone clueless just wearing a beanie then maybe someone ought to point that out. Thatâs just my two cents. Um, no. If someone says “Hey, do you think my beanie is fashionable?” then you should probably give an honest opinion because you have been asked. Be civil, though. If someone is wearing a beanie or anything else you may deem unfashionable and has not asked your opinion, your best bet is to just keep your mouth shut because nobody asked you. Because maybe they’re not ‘clueless’.. maybe they just don’t give a shit and want to keep their head warm and/or covered.