Gender

Ladies, Back In Your Girdles! Gender-Neutral Clothing Is Now a Tool of Oppression

A new Louis Vuitton ad campaign features Jayden Smith in a skirt. That's apparently transphobic.

|

Louis Vuitton

Once upon a time, the expectation that clothing be highly gendered was considered a regressive view of style. Women eschewing traditional markers of femininity and men (like a young Reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch) donning dresses and skirts signaled that fashion, like gender, was flexible in left-leaning circles. But in the bizarro realm of gender resistance circa 2016, breaking with stereotypical style cues is actually an affront to progressive good taste. 

At least so says Katie Glover, writing in U.K. paper The Independent. "Trans people should be aware that well-known faces like Jaden Smith are starting to encroach on our territory," Glover writes

Smith, the 17-year-old son of actors Jada Pinkett and Will Smith, appears in a new Louis Vuitton ad campaign decked out in a skirt and leather jacket. Glover objects:  

Jaden seems to be up for this gender-neutral, equal clothing rights thing which allows men to wear women's clothes without any fear of ridicule. But there is another, more important issue afoot.

There's a reason why men wear men's clothes and women wear women's clothes, and why they are generally so different.  OK, I know women have been wearing trousers for decades but they're usually a femme version of the male equivalent—and I'm not talking about unisex clothes like jeans and t-shirts. 

I'm talking about basic clothes norms that depict which gender is wearing them, even in the modern world. Stereotypically, men wear trousers and women wear dresses and skirts. That's the 'norm' and it's more than that – it's a uniform. 

Bruce Allen/Medium

And that uniform is a bad thing, right? The stuff of the slut-shaming old bad days and Sharia law, right? Well…

Without strict sartorial gender norms, trans women "will no longer be able to rely on [gender-coded] props to help them display a female gender identity," Glover protests. 

I'm tempted to chalk this whole piece up to trolling—how could anyone seriously believe that the way to subvert strict constructions of masculinity and femininity is to reinforce them for most people? You can't liberate people from oppressive gender norms if liberation is contingent on adopting the right label. Saying only trans people should get to wear what they want is no better than saying trans people should stick to dressing as the sex they were assigned at birth. 

For a much more enlightened take on Smith's new ads, here's The Guardian's Fred McConnell: When Smith "looks stunning in an outfit media outlets unironically call 'womenswear', he reminds us of the equally beautiful truth that gender expression is distinct from gender. In other words, how Jaden expresses himself is not dictated–or more importantly restricted–by him being male. In fact, I'm not sure what Jaden's gender is, but I do know it's not indicated by his skirt." 

NEXT: Nikki Haley Will Respond to SOTU, Hungry Militia, Tyga in Trouble: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Which one of the members of Pearl Jam is Welch in that photo?

    1. +1 yellow lead better

    2. Pearl Jam? Don’t you mean Oasis?

      1. I’m pretty sure that’s Toad the Wet Sprocket.

        1. Not L7?

    3. Welch seems more like a Savage Garden kind of guy.

      1. Okay, let’s not get personal.

        1. Everclear?

          1. WELCH HAS FEELINGS, YOU KNOW

            1. Prove it!

          2. The Presidents of the United States.

            Welch is “Peaches.”

            1. Movin’ to the country; gonna eat me a lot of…Welch?

      2. Nah, Blues Traveler before John Popper’s gastric bypass. He strikes me as a bear lover.

        1. Actually knew Popper’s brother pretty well in Budapest back in the day.

  2. For the love of god. I’ve never seen so much ink and pixels devoted to gays and transgenders. WHY? No wonder that some surveys show that some people think that over 20 percent of the population is gay/transgender.

    A report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.

    1. Its people who are desperate for a Great Moral Crusade on par with the civil rights movement, is what it is. It’ll blow over.

      1. But… Joe Biden said…

    2. There has been some pretty radical social change in attitudes about gayness over the last couple of decades and some pretty big things happened last year. I think that’s a pretty good reason why. And crazy stuff like this is pretty amusing.

      1. What does gayness have to do with transgenderism?

        Seriously, could somebody please explain to me what one has to do with the other?

        1. It’s hard to say. I’m inclined to think that it isn’t much. But they both have something to do with unusual ways of relating to gender. I think that a lot of transgender people also start out thinking they are gay and later realize/decide that it’s something else.

          But transgenderism is pathological in a way that gayness isn’t. Gay people are, as far as I can tell, just as well equipped and capable of having a good happy life as people in general, assuming they are more or less socially accepted. Transgender people, no matter how much society accepts or accommodates them will, I think, always (or at least largely) broken. Even with sex change surgery and hormones, they will never actually be the other sex and their body will never actually be what they want.

          I’m all for making reasonable accommodations for people, but I think it is a mistake to look at transgender as just another “lifestyle choice” or orientation (or whatever you want to call it) like being gay. I don’t think a “cure” for gayness is necessary or particularly desirable at all. But a cure for gender dysphoria would be a good thing

          1. I don’t think a “cure” for gender dysphoria would be appropriate, but I do think a different approach is called for. That is that instead of encouraging trans-people to attempt to actually be a “woman” or “man” that people should be encouraged them to embrace mixed-gender or in-between identities. Accept the body you have and the person you are and be the man/woman or woman/man you were meant to be.

            And a large part of this is actually deconstructing, rather than reinforcing, perceived gender norms. If a biological male “feels like” a woman that is only because that biological male has been taught that men are supposed to feel one way, and women another way, and his/her image of what he or she is inside is at odds with those norms. The way to fix this is to change the norms so that it is OK for a biological male to “feel like” what society thinks is supposed to be a woman. So that there is no sense that there is something wrong with feeling that way or that there is anything abnormal or even “feminine” about it in the first place.

        2. It’s coalition-building, the coalition being “not regular heterosexual people.”

    3. “For the love of god. I’ve never seen so much ink and pixels devoted to gays and transgenders. WHY?”

      Gay folk make up a disproportionate number of people in the media?

      It’s also a good wedge issue.

      1. Then why aren’t we talking more about the Jooz?

        (I KEED! I KEED!)

        1. The fact that we even learn about Hanukkah in schools is more than enough proof that we already talk too much about them.

  3. and men (like a young Reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch) donning dresses and skirts

    Thank you for this gift, Elizabeth. Thank you.

    1. I hope this leads to a type of flame war among the contributors where they start posting awkward photos from each others past.

      1. We can only hope. A lot.

      2. Welch has already made a good start with some embarrassing pictures of himself.

        1. I am embarrass nothing!

          1. Pride is nothing to be ashamed of.

      3. Or any photo, in Robby’s case.

  4. Transgenderism is all about how there is something so inherent about being male or female that it is possible to be born in the wrong body. Of course that going to cause problems with the agender direction we’ve been heading in for a while. I’m really really freaking shocked that Terfs aren’t a bigger group than they are. Transgender women go against everything that feminism argued about for decades.

    1. The Terfs are on the wrong side of history!

    2. This.

  5. I support any movement that keeps women in hot, inappropriate and revealing clothing. Especially in the office.

  6. I saw an older guy walking his dog last night while wearing a kilt, and it was like ten degrees and windy. I assume he had no problems encroaching on gender normative fashion, just like I assume he possesses testicles that are impervious to cold weather.

  7. “transgender” people are mentally ill and need serious help. The fact that it is celebrated and promoted by the mainstream media shows how sick western culture is today and why the west is in decline.

    1. There is no known cure or treatment for their mental problems. The only thing known to help is to give them hormones to make their bodies look like what they think they should. The major crime is that we aren’t even looking for a treatment that doesn’t completely upend the life of the patient (can you imagine if the recommended treatment for ADD involved changing every aspect of your life instead of just taking a pill).

      1. There are no known cures to most mental difficulties (except for tumors, some infections and various forms of poisonings), nor is there any way of distinguishing most so called mental illnesses from difficulties with living . Freudian, Jungian and all other talk therapies are just novel and unsatisfactory belief systems. Psych drugs are hit or miss and we have no scientific understanding of their effects, moreover all improvement is by subjective measurements. We dont try to accomodate people who think they are napoleon or thor, yet we do those who think they are another sex. I am not sure whether those who refuse to accept their sex are crazier then those who feel it is impolite to point out their actual sex to them. You certainly dont help a sick person by assuring them they are perfectly OK. Of course anyone is free to dress as they please but others are just as free to mock their appearance and poor taste ..

      1. Who is tulpa. you sound mentally ill also

        1. Tulpa is a well-known, intelligent, well-respected commenter, and you should be flattered to be compared to him.

          1. *Wipes diet coke off of monitor.

    2. I disagree. They need flippant help.

  8. Well, if gender neutral clothes are oppressive, and hot-n-sexy clothes are oppressive, I guess we need female-specific clothes that completely hide the woman’s body from the male gaze. I swear I have seen that before somewhere. . . .

    1. The only solution is to do away with women’s clothing entirely.

      1. +1 Ferengi

  9. SO problematic. Ugh, I can’t even.

    1. I mean, it’s 2016!

      1. Come. ON!

  10. Can the entire Will Smith clan just go away, please? He has desperate child actor children, he is boring, and he killed DJ Jazzy Jeff. Ban Will Smiths!

    1. +1 WELCOME TO EARF!!!!111!!1111!!!!!

    2. I closed my heart to him when he passed on Independence Day 2.

  11. “Without strict sartorial gender norms, trans women “will no longer be able to rely on [gender-coded] props to help them display a female gender identity,” Glover protests.

    I’m tempted to chalk this whole piece up to trolling?how could anyone seriously believe that the way to subvert strict constructions of masculinity and femininity is to reinforce them for most people?”

    You should be aware that signaling matters, individually, and in communication. What you’ve stumbled across here is the progressive feminist problem of going too far. If you dissolve any agreed upon notion of manliness and femininity (all “sexism”), you dissolve all of it. You don’t merely make stuff more inclusive, you dissolve the very thing you wanted to be included in. There will be neither manliness nor femininity. And even most feminist want to keep some of it. Which, as things progress, entangles them in their contradictions. How strict, how inclusive do you want these constructions to be?

    1. Consider one simple thing: sexism means that you are superior to at least one half of mankind — and that you belong to at least one half of mankind. This applies to both sexes.

      1. Yeah. That’s exactly what’s so shitty about it.

        1. I like that you feel so, somehow. Yet, as superiority is inevitable, this is an uncommonly egalitarian kind. I want to know whether you object to superiority, and belonging, generally. Elaborate as you like.

      2. Wouldn’t you belong to slightly less than half of mankind and be superior to slightly less than half of mankind? There are hermaphrodites and people that identify as asexual, after all.

        1. Relevant to note, in principle. The network effects still work.

  12. Now you guys know why Matt Welch has the Golden Ticket on MSNBC. He’s a counterpoint to Maddow’s lesbian Elvis Costello chic.

  13. How does the author know Jaden isn’t himself in the early stage of transitioning? Transphobic, much?

    1. Well if the author knew that, it would be the only thing it knows.

  14. I don’t get it

    1. Somebody conjured a reason to feel uncomfortable. And that’s a problem.

      1. Do they right a story about every time they’re constipated?

        1. Once they find a way to pin it on the Patriarchy, they will.

          1. Cheese made from cows raised by ranchers.

  15. Without strict sartorial gender norms, trans women “will no longer be able to rely on [gender-coded] props to help them display a female gender identity,” Glover protests.

    What in the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

    1. I think its supposed to mean that if “cis” people can cross dress, the transgendereds are no longer special and deserving of victim points.

    2. Let’s say you are a man, and want to generally communicate that you are “female”. You can’t use your body for that. You can use clothes. Unless there are no clothes that are understood to be “female”.

    3. When you remove the pseudo-academic bullshit, he seems to be saying, “Women should wear skirts and dresses so that men who think they are women can demonstrate this by also wearing skirts and dresses.”

      1. bingo. How can you tell I am feeling womanly, if lots of men are wearing dresses?

        I think the answer is that all those men who are wearing dresses are also feeling womanly. the problem, is that they don’t feel emotionally conflicted about it.

        1. Couldn’t you just get the menstrual cramps real hard?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k2FkUF41AA

    4. Wear a low-cut shirt. Assuming you are a competent trans-dresser, your shiny new gender identity will be on display, regardless of strict sartorial gender norms.

      1. Doesn’t work for transgender – as opposed to transsexual (post-operation) – people.

        1. I have seen some . . . interesting (and fairly convincing, really) sartorial achievements by cross-dressers who were not, AFAIK, post-op.

    5. He’s appropriating trans-culture. Literally silencing their ability to express their gender. Practically genocide. How can you not be outraged?

      1. How can you not be outraged?

        Watch carefully . . . .

        There. Did you catch it? Its quite subtle, so I’ll do it again. . . .

      2. Has the “science” on whether trans-people “appropriate” the “culture” they transfer to been settled yet?

        1. I’m still wrapping my head around there being a “trans culture”.

        2. Or wait, did we mean Trans Couture?

          1. “Trans Couture” Nicely done. You should be able to market that, as a word, and a brand.

            The carousel of lifestyle, culture, and essentialism should be familiar from boring old homosexuality. Relativism is fine, but it requires internal consistency. They still haven’t managed it. The advantage of having splinter groups is that you can pursue contradictory things simultaneously. But ultimately conflict arises.

      1. Have you read Beyond the Hoax?

  16. Sorry, Ms. Nolan-Brown, but once we said that reality was a function of how people felt about reality rather than reality in and of itself (yes, I’m aware of hermaphoditism, and I suspect it accounts for a vanishingly small portion of transgenders) rather than starting from the premise that people’s lives, mistakes, silliness and all, are their own, this sort of nonsense was a fait accompli.

    At this point, we only have to await the singularity of derp.

    1. Leave Jamie Lee Curtis out of this please.

      1. Except for the neck down.

        1. + 1 sticky copy of True Lies.

    2. Well, that applies to the people who believe gender is entirely a social construct. Those are the only people who will try to tell you that a trans-woman is actually, in reality, a woman. People with a more nuanced view of the relationship between sex and gender don’t really have a conflict with reality. Some people are morphologically and genetically one sex, but mentally feel more comfortable as the other sex. There is no contradiction or denial of reality in that case.

      1. And I’m fine with anyone doing what they feel comfortable with. But, it only follows when you create this “gender identity” (rather than that person has some set of tastes and preferences), you’ll get people demanding that identity not be diluted.

      2. No, trans women claim that not ALL gender is a social construct. Otherwise, there would be no need to transition.

        No, it doesn’t make any sense. I blame a generation that has been taught that its more important to be nice than to be smart (and I’m 27, so I’m in the middle of these fucktards). Seriously, any number of people, especially young people, take “don’t be mean” as an actual political philosophy. Questioning trans women is mean. Questioining trans-ness is, in general, seen as mean to all trans people. So even though it would invalidate or undermine other parts of gender theory, we’ll just exist in a world of mass delusion, and pretend that there is not need to address this obvious contradiction. And if you question it, well then, all the nice people will get together, and go after you for being mean! But it won’t be mean on our part, because by now it should be pretty clear that we have devoted any intelligence we have to task of justifying cognitive dissonance.

      3. Some people are morphologically and genetically one sex, but mentally feel more comfortable disguised/dressed as the other sex . There is no way for a member of one sex to feel what the other sex does since they are NOT the other sex; just as there is no way for a human to feel what a dog or mole feels or for Bill Clinton to feel your pain..
        The belief that a man can feel like a woman (or vice versa) is itself a denial of reality .

  17. Well then I don’t want to see any women dressed like Superman! Oh wait, yes I do. MSFW

    http://geekxgirls.com/images/s…..irl_02.jpg

  18. If anyone needs to be removed from the celebrity/publicity roll call forever, it’s Jaden Smith. I’d rather hear more Justin Beiber news at this point.

    1. I never hear anything about Jaden Smith but I’m not all that into pop culture.

  19. Looking at the pic, I guess those heroin addicts can afford fancy clothes because they’ve given up food.

  20. By the way, “free-female-nipple” laws discriminate against transgender men. Cis women have breasts to display; transgender men don’t. Why would the law reinforce the meaningless biological distinction of female breasts?

    1. Men have breasts.

      1. Can you milk me, Warty? Yes. Yes, they do.

      2. Yeah, la-di-da. Very “progressive” of you not to be able to distinguish. In case “progressive” and “stupid” aren’t the same yet: very stupid of you. Note “biological distinction of female breasts”. If this is about your man boobs: No, they aren’t even close to female beauty. No, the “joke” is not original any more. No, it wasn’t ingenious at any point in time.

        1. “they aren’t even close to female beauty. “

          You obviously haven’t seen Warty’s man-tits.

          1. It worked like a charm, didn’t it?

          1. Great. Now you just need some reading learnin. I’d suggest Adler’s How to Read a Book, but both the irony and the use would be lost on you. Interpret, and not just the limitations of “structure”, and “nearly identical”.

            1. What’s your first language?

              1. Bullseye. Very good with english, but not perfect.

        2. You make Chuck Schumer’s moobs cry

        1. Gyno is fucking hilarious when you see it in person. You have no idea.

          1. No, it is not hilarious. Chuck Schumer is just disgusting and terrifying, not hilarious.

  21. this gender-neutral, equal clothing rights thing which allows men to wear women’s clothes without any fear of ridicule.

    Indeed. Without *any* fear of ridicule.

  22. Freedom for me, not for thee.

  23. Of course I don’t support laws which would punish men for wearing skirts (hell, kilts??), or women from wearing pants. But that doesn’t mean that a business shouldn’t be allowed to have a dress code that……

    Oh fuck it. I don’t have the energy anymore. ENB if you want to look like a man, go right ahead.

  24. This is why I have to ignore all the in style leftist-drabble from facebook and others. They will literally argue for 1 thing, demonize anyone that disagrees with them, then 2 months later argue the exact opposite

    1. If you search Jessica Valenti on Reddit over catcalling, she first complains about how people rarely catcall her anymore, then has an outrage article over catcalling a few months later after it became a leftist trope

      1. Oh, she is being “meta-consistent”. She consistently holds that her inconsistency is caused by society (patriarchy). It’s also a nice trick when you want to have your cake and eat it to.

      2. ” she first complains about how people rarely catcall her anymore”

        ** looks up photos of Jessica Velenti **

        I think I’ve found the problem….

      3. Anymore? I think she’s stretching the truth a bit there.

  25. “Without strict sartorial gender norms, trans women “will no longer be able to rely on [gender-coded] props to help them display a female gender identity,” Glover protests.”

    Shorter Glover: It will be harder for us to call attention to ourselves!

  26. This is the dumbest shit since Smith’s dad did “Bad Boys III”. But that had the excuse of Michael Bay’s involvement. What is this lady(?)’s excuse?

    1. Derp mixed with a sense of entitlement and “Look at me!!!!”-ism.

  27. Unless I’m mistaken, that picture is on the Charles Bridge in Prague

    obviously an easy guess, since matt was there being generally-Gen-X-ish in the early 1990s. So was I!… if you count Eurail-backpacking as “Gen Xish”

    1. When were you there? Did you ever pick up a copy of our newspaper, Prognosis?

      1. I was there in July-August of 1992 for about 3 weeks. We rented a flat overlooking the bridge that cost…. like nothing… like $100-200 for the month. we used Prague as our travel-hub, and would zoom from there to other places for 2-3 days, then back. Don’t recall much more than that. I was drunk a lot. Might have seen your paper… did you save any scans of it for posterity?

        1. Oh, you definitely saw our bridge-busking band play, then; height of our powers. We were out on the bridge every Saturday and Sunday, five or so ridiculous California hippies jumping to and for, playing harmony originals and so forth for 6-hour chunks of time.

          I’ve got copies of the full run of the paper, but am too lazy to scan, etc.

  28. Male-to-female transgender people rely on props like clothes, shoes, make-up and hairstyles to create the gender identity they want to portray to the world because most of the time their bodies alone are unable to do that. There are a few lucky ones who don’t have to do a thing to put across a female persona, but most trans women have to work hard at it.

    The danger for trans women is that if wearing what are traditionally women’s clothes becomes the norm for men too, then trans women will no longer be able to rely on these props to help them display a female gender identity – and for many, that could be a serious problem.

    It should be noted that Katie is the editor of Frock, a magazine described as follows:

    Frock is full of drag and transgender-related articles, features and stories which will be of interest to transsexuals, crossdressers, drag queens and transvestites and intersexed people everywhere, and it’s completely free!

    I suggest that Katie is a hypocritical twat.

    1. Cross-dressers and transvestites aren’t the same as transsexuals. You see, when a man who embraces the fact that he has a penis and likes to dress up in women’s clothes, he is a cross-dresser. Same thing for transvestites.

      Went that man wants society to embrace him as a woman, he is a transsexual.

      Which means:

      A: A man that wants society to consider him a woman and dresses as a woman is a transsexual.

      B: If he wears men’s clothes but still wishes for society to consider him a woman, he would be a cross-dressing transsexual. Or a transvestite transsexual.

      C: If he wants society to consider him a man but likes to dress as a woman, he is a transvestite or a cross-dresser.

      D: If he wants society to consider him a man and dresses as a man, he is a cis-hetero shitlord.

      I swear, you people are dense.

      1. oooooohhhhh, now I get it

        *furrows brow and starts drinking heavily*

      2. Addendum: in A, B and C, I think we’re also supposed to call him a her.

        1. Or xir. Or they. Or it. Or um.

          LEARN MY PRONOUNS!!!1

      3. So what do we make of a sweet transvestite from Transsexual Transylvania?

  29. “”a much more enlightened take on Smith’s new ads”

    In fairness, in context this actually means = “A somewhat-less brain-rendingly retarded point of view on this utterly inconsequential and trivial matter

    Its not like the Lincoln-Douglas debates here. Its idiots pretending that there are political ramifications of a celebrity wearing a skirt. The only sane reaction to which is “no reaction at all”. and the only reasonable response to either person’s take is, “…really? Grow the fuck up.”

    1. The presence of Jaden Smith means something, it’s important, I’m just not sure what it is yet.

      Tweets by Jaden

      If A Book Store Never Runs Out Of A Certain Book, Does That Mean That Nobody Reads It, Or Everybody Reads It

      There Is No Nutrients In Our Food Anymore Or In Our Soil OR IN OUR WATER

  30. A new Louis Vuitton ad campaign features Jayden Smith in a skirt. That’s apparently transphobic.

    He prefers to self-identify as Jaden.

    1. I thought that was the guy from the cartoon about card games.

  31. The outrage is that anyone would hire either Smith child as a model.

    They’re weird-lookin’. They look weird.

  32. Shorter Katie:

    WE HAVE TO HAVE RULES PEOPLE.

    Without rules about this stuff, it’s going to be chaos. And I get to write the rules.

  33. More like Gaden Smith, am I right?

    1. He does seem a little bit like a Tibetan monk, yes.

  34. If I recall correctly, Cary grant appears wearing a frilly something-or-other in Bringing Up Baby after Katherine Hepburn absconds with his clothes while he’s in the shower. America, so far as I am aware, was not moved to interminable debate about the psycho-sexual cultural ramifications. They laughed.

    1. I’d be willing to bet some good money that someone at the time wrote a screed about how Cary Grant was dragging America into the abyss of faggotry. Maybe one of those preachers that had the Beatle record burning parties.

      1. Grant and Randolph Scott were responsible for the degeneration of America.

        1. That story that goes along with that photo (in case any of you were interested, which you are probably not, but I shared it anyway, because I care about you).

        2. Socks on the beach?
          Degenerate indeed.

    2. Cary Grant had to answer the door in that scene. When the prudish-appearing lady at the door seemed disturbed by what he was wearing, he shouted, ‘I just went GAY all of a sudden!’

      As far as I’m aware, that was the first use of the word in its modern meaning in film. I assume they got away with it because the censors didn’t realise what it meant.

  35. I want the record to show that the only gender-bending item in my outfit there is the atrocious page-boy haircut. That’s no skirt that I’m wearing, it’s a pair of horrendously flowered/striped basketball shorts of some kind, which match the hi-tops. Also, close observers will note the Black Power-fist necklace.

    1. I just want to know where you guys found a Food Lion in the Czech Republic?

      1. It was next to our office in a Prague 6 suburb, weirdly!

        1. So that photo is from the Czech remake of Cameron Crowe’s Singles., with Welch in the Matt Damon role.

          1. Wow. That’s worse than the Savage Garden comment upthread.

    2. Hush. You’re not helping yourself.

      1. WILL NOT BE SILENCED

        1. Have you considered hiring Gilmore as a valet? What I really want to know is how an obviously fashion challenged man like yourself managed to hook a French woman? Is she color blind?

          1. God, now I want ReasonTV to produce the series Welch and Gilmore. You can basically just lift whole Jeeves and Wooster episodes and update them to modern Los Angeles. It will be a hit, I swear!

          2. This is an outstanding question.

  36. Look, in the progressive victim stack transgender beats feminism, therefore we all need to dress in a heteronormative way to destroy the patriarchy. Got it?

  37. If anyone feels they would like to learn more about feminists theories on gender…

    But I post this not to highlight retarded feminist gender theories (you… you probably won’t enjoy the piece. Like, on some level, you should possibly read it- not because its enlightening, but because this is the discourse that is out there. Like reading Marx helps you debate communists). Instead, I post it to highlight how interanally incoherent they are. Because this piece triggered a MASSIVE (for the site) shitstorm in the comments of a lesbian site from trans ladies (this lesbian site tries to stay on the good side of the trans types).

    Just read the comments, because in a column about gender theory on a feminist, lesbian, too-the-left-of-Karl-Marx site, THEY broke down into a shitstorm when the idea of “gender as a social construct purely” v “gender as innate” came up. They haven’t resolved this AT ALL. They basically handwave it as “gender identity and gender expression are different” which, sure… but then how do you know if you “feel like a woman” vs “want to present in a more feminine way”?

    Basically, they can’t answer that question without reinforcing the idea that some things are male and other female- which doesn’t work too well for a movement that claims “some women have dicks”

    1. Is this a link to the story about the 60 women (and counting) who were sexually assaulted on NYE at the Cologne train station?

      I’m eagerly waiting for the feminist call to arm in protests against, well, an actual rape culture.

      *crickets*

      Instead feminists will wallow in their ghettos discussing gender identity v. gender expression. Call me when the slut walk in Cologne, Germany begins.

      1. Necessary to differentiate: any number of these attacks may have been part of theft and robbery, serving as distractions. The attackers apparently had a (family) history of migration, mostly Arabian and African. Many of them may be “refugees”. In a larger view, the attacks apparently happened out of a group of 1000. And this could be connected to the fact many “refugees” (some 300.000) are not registered, there wherabouts unknown. As such, they don’t get support from the state, and several reasons, and some reports indicate that many of them are recruited by criminal organizations.

        Moreover, feminists can complain about almost everything. The problem here appears to be to find a response that does not confirm tenets and policies of the right, or that reveals contradictions of their own philosophy.

        P.S.: Amusingly, the female mayor of Cologne now promotes guidlines for women. Remember the short skirts issue (including “rape is not about sex, it’s about power”). Again, it’s necessary to differentiate. Individually, this can be prudent advice, without in itself shifting moral or legal responsibility. — There’s no word yet on what other men did. I wonder whether anyone stepped in to defend women. (See the issue of chivalry, and feminism tension there.)

        1. Corrections: “And this could be connected to the fact [that] many “refugees” (some 300.000) are not registered, [their] wher[e]abouts unknown.” A couple other mistakes that I don’t find as bothersome.

        2. any number of these attacks may have been part of theft and robbery, serving as distractions

          Sexual assault as part of a larger organized criminal campaign doesn’t make it not sexual assault. I actually think it makes it worse, not better.

          Bottom line seems to be that a bunch of men who immigrated from MENA gathered as a mob and committed a shitload of violent crimes against their hosts.

          1. “I actually think it makes it worse, not better.” To be clear, as this kind of thing is frequently misunderstood: these are not apologetics, I haven’t advocated a moral position. What it can mean is that these events don’t indicate a general increase in sexual violence, but a particular increase only in more narrow circumstances, namely where sexual violence is instrumental – useful – in material gain. Of course the motives (sexual and material) aren’t mutually exlusive.

            Your bottom line likely is accurate.

        3. “rape is not about sex, it’s about power”

          Rhetorical, but, why is it that the method isn’t the point with sexual assault, but is exactly the point in “gun violence”?

          1. I’d compare robbery and rape. In both cases, criminals use force to get something of value that is not freely available. Quite obviously sex has monetary value. In both cases, the thrill of violence and associated power can play a role. But to assume that either one – and, more stupidly, one but not the other – generally is exclusively about “power” is laughable. It’s an article of faith.

    2. They haven’t resolved it because it’s fundamentally inconsistent.

      According to feminists, there’s no meaningful difference between men and women, except for the plumbing.
      According to trans people, the difference is so vast that people born with the wrong plumbing can never be psychologically content unless the acquire the “correct” plumbing.

    3. Sex is based on the body, but biology is a branch of science and science is also a social construct and really what I’m saying is that your sex is essentially a label a very educated person slapped on you at birth using as many contextual clues as they could garner at the time about your DNA.

      I’m guessing they usually come to the same conclusion as an uneducated person using just one contextual clue.

  38. KILLER FACT: That picture was taken mere days before he met Scooby-Doo and turned his life around.

    1. I assumed it was a casting call for the Czech version of Jay and Silent Bob.

      1. Even Randall Graves is there – far left.

  39. Much of this can be framed as a matter of transaction costs, which includes information costs. A simple example is Chapelle’s “whore uniform” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OBPaenkxdg). But it goes beyond that, when certain kinds of signaling are made impossible, not just costly. Mandatory signaling can have the same effect, see affirmative consent.

  40. Also, isn’t that a dude on the left? Whycome the author doesn’t go after him?

    Fucker looks like a “Kids In The Hall” reject.

    In fact, the whole thing looks like it has Sasha Baron Cohen written all over it. Perhaps this will be in an upcoming movie where he gets dickheads/celebrity b-listers to do stupid shit because they think it will make them more famous. At least I hope this is the case, because that ad looks terrible and that “fashion” looks like mismatched garbage.

  41. Ladies, Back In Your Girdles!

    Finally, ENB writes something that I agree with.

  42. It’s hypocritical to want the freedom to define your own relationship with all symbols of gender but want to deny that freedom to other people.

  43. This is one of the core contradictions of the trans rights movement. When trans people cross-dress they actively adopt stereotypical gendered clothing, thus reinforcing stereotypical gender norms and making the world LESS free for cis-gendered people. The trans-woman who dresses in heels and corsets is adopting a gender norm of female sexuality that is oppressive to cis-women, especially, dare I say it, many lesbians, who would prefer it if it were more socially acceptable to not dress in a “feminine” manner.

    1. Progressives call the expressive oppressive

  44. “I’m tempted to chalk this whole piece up to trolling?how could anyone seriously believe that the way to subvert strict constructions of masculinity and femininity is to reinforce them for most people?”

    Because Someone is trying to subvert a traditional cultural expectation does not mean they trying to subvert in he exact same way you want.

    ENB seems to support the idea of androgyny, there is no basic difference between masculine and feminine, While the transgendered think that there are such things as a masculine and feminine mind, they just do not necessarily match the genotype and phenotype sex of the person.

    It is amusing when a social progressive realizes that a group of nominal fellow travelers may not have the same ultimate goal as she does and may, in fact, be working at cross purposes. The cognitive dissonance is lovely to behold.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.