Boston’s Heywood Wakefield, MC of International Drag KingCommunity Extravaganza 8’s open-mike at Emo’s last Friday, shown here not wearing a sexay French maid outfit. Photo by Twisty.
I steel myself to open my email inbox — no mean feat, as I have come to despise email even more than I despise written sentences beginning with the phrase ‘first off’ — whereupon I perceive a dire warning from my ISP. “Your inbox is overquota. The world is ending.”
I look forward to the world ending. I’ll smoke all the cigarettes I want and if anybody gives me the stinkeye I’ll just point at the white-hot death-comet hurtling toward the earth at 478,590 miles an hour and emit a hollow, mirthless laugh.
Alas, that day is not today. Today it’s just a tedious little software problem. My email client usually takes care of deleting my 1439 daily spams* from the ISP server, but now something has gone awry somewhere. Although my ISP’s threat (”Take care of this at once, or you may not receive any more email!”) is more tantalizing than it is foreboding, I reluctantly begin the laborious process of hunting down the hitch. Fortunately, when I click the email help bookmark, the mouse slips, and I accidentally click the Broadsheet bookmark instead.
I am pleased to report that Broadsheet’s Page Rockwell is on the case of the slutty Halloween costume epidemic (as reported in the Thursday’s NYTimes Style section). Several of you blamers have emailed me, outraged, about the proliferation of the Hustlerization of Halloween, manifested (complete with softcore photos of witchy hot sluts) by the Times’ “not-so-new bulletin […] that costumes for women and girls of all ages tend to be revealingly clad caricatures of stereotypical male sexual fantasies.” The Times, like everybody else, is preoccupied with what women look like. They wonder why on earth would liberated women [women are now deemed ‘liberated’, see, since second-wave feminism was such a rousing success] want to costume themselves as brainless receptacles for male incontinence? Perhaps it’s because Halloween has been co-opted by today’s sassy empowerful women who want to show the world that they’ve gotten the memo from Dude Nation: non-sexy is a non-starter. Halloween is now ‘a “safe space”, a time to play with sexuality’.
As long as the sexuality being played with is male sexuality, and that said sexuality as practiced by women is acknowledged by all as “bad.” Bad, bad, bad. It is not insignificant that the title of the NYTimes slutty-Halloween article is “Good Girls Go Bad, for a Day.” Halloween or no, women rarely experience the exhilarating joys of empowerfulness when they neglect to glorify the phallus by taking a self-esteem hit. I’m not sure that dressing up as a “vixen pirate” or a “va-voom Girl Scout” exudes quite the post-patriarchal nuances the spinster aunt would like to see in a class-neutral party outfit.
In any event, negligible is the ideological distinction that can be measured between the sexay costumes of “Slut-o-ween” (Ha. Good one, Page) and the ‘normal’ (but objectively fruity) get-ups women have to wear every day to avoid ridicule.
Sex-positivity will remain a pipe dream until the patriarchy-serving construct of the equation between sex and porn gets the boot. The boot of shiny, shiny leather.
__________________________________
* If there exists any body or any thing breathing air who would actually act on a stock tip derived from “a technical and fundamental perspective” from an unsolicited email titled “gasworks yourself’, I would totally pay $1.75 to meet him.
From Broadsheet:
“Pat Gill, a professor of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, tells the Times that dressing as a sexy version of a fairy-tale character or other archetype ‘can be a way to embrace the fictional characters women loved as children while simultaneously taking a swipe at them.’”
Wha?
I know, I know. “Let’s tell women that by actively participating in their own humiliation, they are really in control!”
Twisty, I have read well-reviewed books that were not one-tenth as insightful (or cogent) as one of your blog posts, which you apparently are able to dash off between tacos.
I read the Times piece yesterday, and was just thinking to myself “Now, Twisty would really be able to make sense of this” — and there you are!
M friends and I years ago dubbed this the “slutty cat” phemonenon when we saw one after another of our grad school acquaintances leave their brains in their cubicles, don a leotard, a tail, and ears, and go parade around on Sixth Street. Their rationale seemed to be, “I have to be smart for 364 days a year, but on Halloween, I get to be SEXY! And also, it’s IRONIC!” News flash: it’s really neither.
People wonder why I hate Halloween. Demanding, sticky children on sugar highs and slutty cats, that’s why.
I’m so glad you took the time to comment on this disturbing phenomenon. Being the Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, I put my own spin on the topic chez moi, but I don’t suggest visiting unless you want your eyes to bleed.
(snipped from my post)
So here I am, hoping against hope that my blogsisters are NOT dressing up like prostitutes for their upcoming Halloween parties. But if you are, please consider this before you pull on your fishnets:
* Why is it only OK for women to dress this way once a year without suffering social retribution, and why doesn’t this bug you?
* If you insist on dressing like a real-life street hooker, are you giving yourself a black eye for that little dose of realism? How about some track marks on your arms? Street prostitutes are some of the poorest, most abused and addicted women in the world. How, pray tell, is this “sexy?â€
* If you bought a sexy cat, sexy nurse, or sexy-whatever costume, why did you pay all that money for that piece of polyester crap you’ll probably never wear again?
* If you are heterosexual and partnered, what is your date wearing? Is he dressing like a pool boy or a Chippendale dancer? Why not? How much did he pay for his costume?
* If you are single and dressing for the sake of the generic Male Gaze, why are you going to all this trouble? If you are of childbearing age you can show up at this party in feety pajamas and all the straight men will still want to fuck you.
* What has the generic Male Gaze done for you lately? If the answer is “not much,†why bother?
I love Halloween. I love it because I remember running around in the cold with a gaggle of friends in some costume my mom made me getting bags full of candy until my fingers froze off.
I am not quite sure why every kid thing has to be co-opted for adult pleasure.
I’ve twice been able to talk guys into dressing as a woman for Halloween. They both said it was one of the scariest nights they ever experienced and a real eye-opener. They were stunned by the number of males who felt entitled to feel them up, ogle, leer, say suggestive things, pinch and grab. Whiners. Welcome to our world, boys. Shave those stems, shove them into a pair of black panty hose (lifting and tucking here and there), heels and a mini and I challenge anyone to tell me the gender.
One of them was particularly amazed because he went as the bearded lady since he refused to shave his off. Didn’t seem to slow those boys down one bit. The other one was creeped out entirely because for weeks some guy kept coming into the tavern where the party had been asking for the large and lovely woman he’d met.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
See, now this is something I’ve always hated. Everyone knows that halloween is the day everyone gets to dress slutty, and I hate that. I love the idea of costumes, but hate that everything for women is made for some big ‘I’m sexier then you’ contest. Bollocks.
I will be going as Sir Percy Blakeney, rumoured to be the Scarlet Pimpernel. And if I had a male partner he would get to go as Marguerite Blakeney and wear all those impossibly big skirts.
Hmmmm…maybe I just don’t get it.
Everyone knows that halloween is the day everyone gets to dress slutty, and I hate that.
When did this happen? The last time I went to a Halloween party was 1992, and women were still just wearing normal costumes.
oh, and I left something off my list:
* How can it be “transgressive” or “ironic” if EVERYONE IS DOING IT???
I love doing the costume thing for Halloween. One of these years I will actually get the fabric and pattern to dress my bf up like Elrond, since he does a spot-on Hugo Weaving impression it’s either Elrond or Agent Smith. (Imagine either selling you a computer.) Every year I’m a witch of the non-sexy variety*, which has more to do with the fact that it’s easier and cheaper to sew a t-tunic than to fight to find a size 28 women’s costume of any type. That’s the biggest problem I have with the sexification of Halloween costumes - nobody wants to see a sexy fat woman at all, and even if they did, those costumes aren’t designed to support much.
*Actually, I’m a sexy Witch every day of the year. The costume I make, however, isn’t a cheesecake outfit. As an added bonus, if I sew it properly it will hold up through several parties and washings, unlike that flimsy storebought stuff.
I have a lovely, kind of baggy witch costume that I wear every year. This year I even got the striped stockings, hee hee!
Well I am a witch and this shit spooks me out bigtime.
Can I get first dibs with the shiny, shiny leather boot please?
Having been a seamstress for the past 25 years or so (among other things), I have to say that I have DEFINITELY seen a change in costumes these last few years. I mean, we always had these sexy slut costumes, and everyone knew they were for the women who really wanted to “be” that way in real life but didn’t dare–women who wanted to “give in” and be a male fantasy in front of everyone. (Aaaaahhhhhhh!!!!! And wouldn’t they be surprised if they found out how it “really” was for the poor women who had to live it as a reality every day?) It was no biggy. I usually just ignored them, unless a customer with some big bucks came along and wanted a slut costume, hahaha.
But these last few years things have changed. First of all, most costume patterns you used to find were for kids, and they were KID costumes: ghosts, witches, monsters, kings, princesses, etc. They looked like kid costumes, and there was nothing sexy about them. Then all this Renaissance stuff came along and the Lord of the Rings movies and stuff like that. Suddenly there was a glut of adult costumes. Most of them were fantasy costumes, like from Lord of the Rings. A good number of them were historic costumes, bent on accuracy; things like Civil War costumes, etc. And a large number were the “Renaissance” costumes, like the kind you’d see at a Renaissance Faire or something that a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) would wear (and if they really knew their stuff, those costumes were FUN–medieval clothes are to die for!). The problem was that there were less and less children’s costume patterns. The new patterns were all for adults. Yes, a good seamstress can make an outfit without a pattern, but it sure helps when you’re trying to imitate something in a hurry–like Wonder Woman (insert rolly eyes here) or Bat Man. It seemed to me that the kids were getting the shaft. There were less choices for them and a whole hell of a lot more for the adults. (Of course, the adults are the paying customers, hahaha.)
And like I said, there were always slutty costumes. But last year, and most especially THIS year, there is a GLUT of slut costumes! It’s amazing! It seems like no theme is above or beneath being turned into a sexual slavery theme. It’s all I see now! Many seamstresses have remarked upon this. The kids are getting more of a shaft this year than they ever have. Even a simple (nonsexy) witch’s costume is getting hard to find, and the bonnet is even harder to find! It’s all about women dressing in fishnets as French maids, slutty she-devils, cheesy cheerleaders, feral femme fatales, etc. (
I would so buy a computer from Elrond/Hugo Weaving. I thought he was the hottest male in that movie. Lord, lord.
We just got a last-minute party invitation from some friends. If we don’t all go as Jerry, which would serve him right, I think I’ll do something with what I have on hand: a pair of black-flocked “dragon’s wings” and some black metallic and some glow-in-the-dark facepaint. Not sure what I’ll do with them exactly, but I’d welcome suggestions from anyone here.
I guarantee it won’t be ~sexy~ unless you’re my kind of pervert. I suppose I could look for some early-sale Hanukkah gelt and go as Smaug.
Here’s what I wonder: why do street hookers dress like street hookers? Is that shit really all so predictable? (Though I did see one dressed in green Converse hi-tops, very small gold-lame’ gym shorts, and a tight singlet once.)
“…why do street hookers dress like street hookers? Is that shit really all so predictable?” Ron Sullivan
Probably as predictable as the johns. What is a singlet?
My soon-to-be 12 yr old daughter and I went to the costume story for stuff for her Mustard Seed costume (she and her pals want to do a Midsummer Night’s Dream theme). Folks, it is scary. There are the children’s costumes, then the teen costumes with a subcategory called “Hot hot hot” (slut-o-ween). She’s too tall for the kids costumes, so there was nothing left for girls that was not porntastic. She wanted to try on the Aqua Fairy costume, and I let her, but when she emerged from the changing room, she was too embarassed, and decided it was not for her. I was SO GLAD I didn’t have to argue, since we all know that the easiest way to make your kid really want something is to fight over it. She has now adopted a scornful attitude to the whole sexual display costume thing.
We did buy a pair of purple wings, that I’m sure will see a few years use, and went next door to the fabric store. I will spend rest of the week altering one of my old dresses. It will be very cool! ( but I’m the kid who got a D on my apron in Home Ec in 1972, so I just hope I’m up to it).
A recent visit to the Target costume aisle revealed the existence of stripper shoes for little girls. I do not kid. They were silver and platformy. Yeah, nothing says fun like seven year olds stumbling around in the dark. As daunting as I find the prospect of raising my son to be a blamer, at least I don’t have to deal with that shit. Yet, anyway.
This year I was going to go as a ghost, until it was pointed out to me that a woman wearing a long sheet with a hole cut out for the eyes doesn’t really scream “ghost” anymore, these days.
My next thought was, why not wear my bathrobe? And go as … a woman in a bathrobe … wait, that’s still sexual, too.
Fuck. I guess there’s nothing a woman CAN wear that isn’t sexualized, then.
Indeed, a disturbing phenomenon. I can’t stand it. A big pet peeve of mine since I really love this holiday and the creativity involved in creating a character and bringing it to life. I have a thing against store bought costumes anyway, but just try finding one that isn’t some sort of perveted fantasy. Not gonna happen unless you and your partner go as the old “ball and chain” or even the “plug and socket”. Oh, wait, I think there might be a few things worth blaming there, too.
The little girl costumes are just as bad. Once they are too big to be Tigger, they get to graduate straight to fairy slut or dead girl scout slut (hey, isn’t that an episode of Law and Order?).
When did the point of Halloween change from scaring the bejeezus out of each other to seeing how many boners pop out of pants in one night? I mean, really, the point of dressing up originally was to make your neighbors think the devils and spirits were out and about and they had better hand over the goods or else! Now instead of dressing like dead shit we get to dress like prostitutes and whore ourselves for candy.
Way to go empowerfulment. If I put a price on my sexuality, it would be a wee bit higher than a fun size snickers bar.
I have banned pirates and slutty costumes from my party this year. The theme is Post-Apocalyptic so the only way you get to look like a tramp is if you also look like you can kick some ass. A small concession, I suppose.
I went to a public Samhain circle last night. There were costumes involved and there was a teen girl in a “naughty Dorothy” outfit two sizes too small. She couldn’t bend over without exposing bits and this was at a social, religious ceremony! Why? And why do women think it is fun to play a bit part in some man’s fantasy for a night? Don’t they have fantasies of their own they’d like to act out instead of picking what they think will get the most attention from the guys? I just don’t get it. So much for creativity, I’ll just be a naughty nurse next time.
*eye roll*
And don’t get me started on the costumes for guys like “pimp” and all the horrific caricatures of women like the “hill billy bride” and “fat bitch” and “big titty cheerleader”. I mean, one demeaning satirical costume of a stupid kung fu character and the anti-defamation leagues are all over it, the costume gets pulled and the threatened lawsuits quietly go away. Yet all the ones demeaning to women remain. You can’t make fun of asians but go right ahead and mock bitches all you want?
I blame the patriarchy.
How’s this for ironic? The one and only Halloween costume I ever wore where I felt really sexy, I dressed up as a man. I had on a suit and mustache and I got quite a number of looks from women, both confused and not.
I was one fine looking drag king.
Yes, costumes for women have gone into a very, very weird area. This year I will resurrect my not so sexy witch costume and my daughter is getting her bat costume homemade out of black sweatpants, black turtleneck and leatherette wings and ears.
And another thing, Halloween night usually is damn cold. Why are women forced to wear fishnets and little else when a nice warm fuzzy bear suit would be warmer? And more huggable.
Oh my, “Naughty Dorothy” would get you banished from our local Samhain circle. Partly because every adult in the church is either married or dating someone, and mostly because people bring their kids to the circle. It’s fine for the after-party or the local Witches Ball, but a little decorum for the circle itself won’t kill the participants. (Says the woman who lead the quiet snickering when the wand got annointed with oil and the HP kept saying “accept my essence”.)
I am a Christian feminist. Patriarchy has theological underpinnings. We will never be free from patriarchy until we deal honestly and truly with the bad theology that supports it. Christians For Biblical Equality is a wonderful organization dedicated to Biblical feminism, and is confronting the patriarchy of our day. Please, whatever your faith or lack thereof, join us at cbeinternational.org for great discussion and wonderful publications.
My twenty-year old daughter and her sister annually go to friend’s parties on Halloween. This year she said she was going to be a ’sailor’ and ordered a ’sailor suit’ outfit online. I learned about her online spending when she came in today and showed me a pair of ’shorts’ that looked more like bikini underwear, in white satin with stupid red rhinestones on it. She said, “Can you believe this ma? Someone would wear this? I’m not wearing that!” My daughter is very social and I’m glad to see her assert herself this way. She and her sister went shopping for some pants to match the old (real) cracker-jack sailor shirt I’ve had for years.
And Hedon, I absolutely agree with you. I’ve known men who’ve asked me to dress up like Big Nurse, Cat Woman, you have it, or should I say, they think they should have it. But they don’t get it, not from me at least. And any man that would ask such of me usually won’t get the chance to ask anything else again, its their last meeting with me and I mean it. Usually at first I’m frightened at the propect of looking like what I deem foolish, secondly it usually hits me that the man thinks me some kind of play-acting bunny at his service.
Anyway, I will be working probably right through christmas. If it wasn’t for my daughter, I don’t think I’d have noticed or thought about halloween.
Save for the red-paint faced, red acrylic wigged lady I saw walking across the grocery store parking I spied today, that might have reminded me.
And as for Lands. Wasn’t there an organization that used to organize around this crap, boycott stores, protest, raise hell and get attention? The right has certainly succeeded in scaring everyone passive and now we have the clocks turned back with a ‘modernist’ twist–liberation now means my womanhood has been freed to express its inner pornographic, sinful self and men are so kind to give me the means.
Thanks guys!
So all I have to do to meet Twisty is buy some spam stock? Done and done!
(I assume you’ll be buying your own plane ticket, no?)
Quote of the day: “Way to go empowerfulment. If I put a price on my sexuality, it would be a wee bit higher than a fun size snickers bar.”
Can I get a hell yeah.
This subject really hit home with me this year as I shopped for a costume for my 5 year old. At Spirit, a fly-by-night Halloween megastore, I led her through a maze of nightmarishly bodacious children’s costumes (seriously, I don’t remember kid’s costumes being this sexualized even 2 years ago) saying “No. No. No, not that one either”. Thank goodness for a more traditional full-body unitard catsuit I found at Target which hangs loosely on her rail-thin frame. Grab some cat ears & we’re done! Look Ma! No fishnets!
I swear, next year I’ma gonna cut a couple holes in some old sheets and we can all be ghosts.
It gets even worse.
Gasworks Yourself is my cousin from Newark. He made me rich!
I share everyone’s dismay here about the direction Halloween is going, particularly for little girls. The last few years I’ve become a much greater fan of Dias de las Muertos (sp?)… those skull masks definitely don’t put you in mind of the Playboy Mansion.
WitchCityWoman: oh, god. At this rate I suppose it won’t be long before the Orkin Man resorts to smut.
Joanna, a Mustard Seed costume — how very creative of your daughter!
hedonistic — “How can it be “transgressive†or “ironic†if EVERYONE IS DOING IT???”
Brilliant — that goes on my running list of great quotes.
I’m glad I read this post before I e-mailed you, Twisty. What I wanted to send you had nothing to do with Slut-O-Ween, though. It was about the color pink, to wit:
“In the pink - will it improve the city?,” by Amarnath Tewary,
Aurangabad, Bihar (for BBC)
I heard this on the radio while driving around running errands yesterday and thought immediately of you.
Of course, when we read/hear things like this, it is important to remember that other cultures do not assign or relate gender to blue and pink the way ours does. Still, I found some of Mr. Singh’s quotes about the color pink especially amusing in light of recent postings here.
Cheers!
Mar iguana: Probably as predictable as the johns.
That’s what I was getting at: apparently there’s some autofunction button that says “get hard when fishnet hose in sight.” You know how anyone under, oh, 40? 35? reflexively sees pants that come up to your waist as dowdy? Remember, if your an old bat, how oldfashioned low-riding bikinis and hip-hugger jeans looked 10 - 15 years ago? That button would be something like a deeply-worn cliche’ or being “retro” because you’re all out of ideas and just have to have something to wear, something fashionable. You’d think the johns would get embarrassed, well, maybe not. If one’s focus is no farther than the end of one’s dick I guess one’s less inclined to notice that one’s acting like a one-trick robot.
What is a singlet?
Sleeveless jersey, ranging from “wifebeater” to “ath-a-lete.” (I guess as opposed to a doublet, which nobody wears anymore.)
“…if you’re an old bat” of course. See what happens when I get up early? I’m not even looking at the rest of that post, ugh.
Christian feminists? That’s like gay Republicans, right?
* What has the generic Male Gaze done for you lately?
X-lent question
If MLK can be a Christian civil rights leader (and a Reverend to boot), why can’t we have Christian feminists?
Perhaps you’re forgetting that Martin Luther King was a man, and as such stood to loose nothing by colluding with Judeo-Christian patriarchy. Anyway, clearly we can have Christian feminists — several who claim the affiliation have posted here — but the concept strikes me as unburdened with excessive reason, given that Christianity is the root of, provides the catechism for, and has enforced for millennia and continues to enforce with an unwavering conviction, a most brutal and violent systemic misogyny.
.
Three more cheers for homemade costumes! I taught a friend how to sew, and he made his own wizard costume. He looked divine, and I loved watching his face when he told people he’d made it himself.
Speaking of a full-body unitard: when we were about 13, my friend and I dressed up as characters from the musical “Cats.” We wore store-bought unitards and homemade headdresses. My friend’s mom said we looked “a bit provocative.” I didn’t understand why at the time. We were fully covered from head to toe, weren’t we? I was too young to comprehend the sexualization of pre-pubescent girls. Now, I gather, those costumes would be considered dowdy.
If you have a friend who sews, don’t be shy about asking them to teach you. A sewing machine can be a powerful tool in patriarchy-fighting.
If MLK can be a Christian civil rights leader (and a Reverend to boot), why can’t we have Christian feminists?
I see no contradiction in civil rights leaders being christian. Men have been fight over which color god was made in the image of for milleniums now. That god is male is a given. That women are subordinate is also a given. In fact, this is what all men, regardless of race, class, color, creed, political affiliation, and nationality agree upon and bond in brotherhood over. The subordination of women.
Remember, in order to have civil and basic human rights, one must first be considered human. Women have not reached that plateau in society yet. C. McKinnon summarizes it up all up rather succinctly when she points out this phrase: “Man fucks woman.” Subject verb object.
Back on subject, I find it seriously disturbing how increasingly competitive with children adults are getting. Halloween is a child’s holiday. (We won’t get into the historic context and male conquest of women and the goddess). Granted, men have always suffered from Peter Pan syndrome. I guess women’s idea of equality is to suffer from Peter Pan syndrome too?
Being that children act infinitely more mature than adults these days, maybe children should be running the country?
(We won’t get into the historic context and male conquest of women and the goddess).
On second thought, maybe that plays right in tune with “slut-o-ween.”
Some Fantasies of My Own I’d Like to Act Out Instead of Tarting Up Like Some Guy’s Idea of Sexay:
1) Get paid as much as a dude for doing the same job;
2) Not having to dress and/or act stupid to be Taken Seriously;
3) Mannerliness Day: A day when it’s MANDATORY to behave in a civilized fashion and USE YOUR EFFIN’ TURN SIGNALS when warranted;
4) To have permission to respond the way I want to when the Male Gaze falls upon me without fear of social condemnation;
5) To be recognized for some form of achievement that does *not* involve children or food.
“If MLK can be a Christian civil rights leader (and a Reverend to boot), why can’t we have Christian feminists?” Cass
Because “Christian feminists” is the ultimate oxymoron. What the hell does MLK have to do with feminism? Nothing as far as I can tell. He was male, one of those xtianity was founded by and for, whose very existence is to promote the fear and loathing of women. He fought for the right of black males to be treated like men not boys. But, when it came to women, he was as happy to exploit them for the work and sex they provided as the rest of the liberal/progressive boys were and are.
MLK may have been an outstanding civil rights leader but he was beyond hypocritical when it came to being faithful to his xtian marriage vows and never met am MLK groupie he wouldn’t do. How interested could he have been in their status as human beings? I’m sure he was confident his god forgave and loved him for the sinner he was, weak and unable to resist that forbidden fruit, woman, AKA “sex.” He also knew his good xtian wife would stand by her man no matter how much he humiliated her since she was brainwashed to believe woman’s lot was to suffer, her kind bringing about the downfall of man and all. Perfect.
You do realize the non-violent, passive resistance for which he was so admired was co-opted by Ghandi from a woman, right? At least Ghandi gave her credit for the concept. How telling is it that most people don’t even know who she was? I seriously doubt MLK did.
I dressed in drag for Halloween about 10 years ago for a party at the old Way Out in STL. I think our bands had a gig together, Twisty but I forget. But anyway, I was groped by a couple of boys but one in particular I had to slap in kind because I didn’t like him at all. However, the girls that night were just as aggressive, maybe more so. My date almost got into a fight. It was an eye opener to say the least. A more wreckless Ozzy Lee could’ve wrecked a lot homes that night.
hedonistic wrote: “* How can it be “transgressive†or “ironic†if EVERYONE IS DOING IT???”
So true. I see folks drinking, believing that they’re wild party cats, and all I see are conformists. The same with the conformity that one sees on Halloween.
I was in Boston a few years back on Halloween night and it terrified me: a bunch of bellowing, teetering drunks.
mar iguana wrote about Christianity: “…whose very existence is to promote the fear and loathing of women….”
Nah. You’re sounding a little kooky (and perhaps a monstrous tad too enthusiastic in blaming) when you assert such a thing. Mar, I like your writing, but your thinking here is tipping into the crazy. It reminds me of those evangelical preachers who assert that that God put cancer in their niece’s bones to test the faith of the preacher. That’s cuckoo-y self-absorption. Not everything that happens near us is about us. Likewise, not every device/system/ideology/theology/paper cutter/cartoon character/streetlight that was ever made was made to subjugate women. So, when you assert that the “very existence” of Christianity is to promote “the fear and loathing of women,” you’re sounding a little like one of those sidewalk mumblers/evolution deniers/we didn’t land on the moon believers, but with a feminist twist.
mar again: “You do realize the non-violent, passive resistance for which he was so admired was co-opted by Ghandi from a woman, right?”
And this woman co-opted the idea from whom? She did, because we all do. Twisty doesn’t have an original idea and you don’t, mar, and I don’t either, because we’re all thieves. The only thing that differentiates us is whether we admit that we’re thieves or whether we pretend that we’re novel thinkers.
Gandhi gets the press partly because he had a penis, but also because he fit our archetype of a hero: he died in battle, just like Jesus and MLK, Jr. and JFK and FDR. Did you see the movie, Braveheart? It wasn’t accurate, but it did pander to our notion of a hero, of the man who leads the charge, who is first the meet the spear tips of the enemy. I’m not denying that patriarchy isn’t at play in Gandhi garnering the press. I am suggesting to you that there is another equally inveterate force at work.
And that other force is worship of violent martyr-hero AKA patriarchy. Yes I’ll buy that.
PS Gandhi was a wife beater. I’m sure JFK and FDR were too. I’m sure Jesus would have been except he never existed, but with Gandhi there’s documentation.
When did this happen? The last time I went to a Halloween party was 1992, and women were still just wearing normal costumes.
Ah Violet, if you weren’t such a recluse you’d notice. Things have changed a lot since 92, m’dear. But I love you anyway.
saltyC wrote: “And that other force is worship of violent martyr-hero AKA patriarchy.”
Sure, they’re connected, but you’re missing my earlier point, which is that EVERYTHING isn’t patriarchy and partiarchy isn’t EVERYTHING. Do we blame gravity on patriarchy? Mosquitoes? Excessive ear wax? I’m being hyperbolic because you seem to be thinking in a box that’s as big as a dot on ladybug’s back.
Is this the equation in your mind? x = patriarchy
And when you solve for x, does x equal everything?
If you want to correlate martyr-hero worship and patriarchy, I’ve got your back, but if you want to stuff both of them into the same slot and imply that they’re the same, I can’t clink your mug, drink my ale, wipe my lips, and say, “Aye.”
As far as martyr-hero worship, Joan of Arc was made into a saint after they burned her. My point is that we don’t only worship male martyrs.
ear wax =/= patriarchy
gravity =/= patriarchy
Joan of Arc - burning =/= patriarchy
joan of Arc sainthood*burning = patriarchy
Braveheart = uberpatriarchy
Ghandi = wife beater
Bob Dylan = patriarchy wife beater
Paul MCartney = wife beater
George Harrison = Wife beater
John Lennon = wife beater
Ringo ?
Allen Ginsburg = pedophile
William S Burroughs = wife murderer
Modern Western culture = sucks ass.
Heywood Wakefield? I have that emblazoned on my chest … of drawers. Old line furniture maker in Massachusetts.
As for the slutty costume thing, it is clearly an attempt to control the scariest of female avatars - the supernatural, powerful, and self-possessed witch. Certainly the most frightening of single women to the church dominant male.
As for that inflatable sumo-wrestler french maid thing my husband wears, I’m not sure what the hell is up with that!
BTW my husband is the only one in the household to use lingerie in provacative ways for halloween - he was a 6′6″ Frankenfurter one year, in 4″ heels and a black corset and fishnets. Scared the hell out of some of our friends when they arrived for the party.
Ringo always was the puzzling Beatle, wasn’t he? He was the half Beatle.
What does this “=/=” mean? I googled it and it stumped Google. No lie. Do it and you’ll see a blank page. It stumps me too.
As far as reducing someone to a bad moment, that too continues your runaway reductionism. I was on the road last night. I set my cruise control at 65 m.p.h. I passed none. I was passed by many. Therefore, when all those folks die, I could write one epitaph for all of them:
“Reckless speeder, crappy citizen, profligate consumer of fossil fuels, and monstrously selfish global warmer”
Never mind that some of them might have been cool friends and cool patriarchy-blaming spinster aunts or doting doctors. Because of my freeze-frame mind, I’d reduce all of them to what they were in one minute. Damn, SaltyC, do you love anyone and if so, how so? How can you love anyone if you reduce them to a vile act, given that we all commit vile acts? None of us are innocent. In the end, again and again, we’re all guilty.
Shut up I love the Beatles, I mean the music.
I just had to bring out some hate because people were dumping on the woman who’s divorcing Paul for coming out and saying yes he beats up cripples.
I sill enjoy this depraved world, I flashed for beads at mardis gras so I’m no stickler.
=/= means not equal to, in code warriorese as in
I’m =/= perfect
I love, adore, and always look forward to all costuming opportunities. This is absolutely related to growing up in New Orleans, in the years before Mardi Gras became a porntastic frat party in the French Quarter. (it is still SO MUCH MORE than that, but that’s what you see on the news, and that’s what you get if you go to Bourbon Street).
New Orleanians as a rule costume whenever the hell possible, and we don’t even have to have a “character.” Just getting yr freaky duds on will suffice. We don’t need no stinkin’ pre-made acrylic one-use walmart costumes! Oh no. No no no. Creativity counts. Which means that lame “slutty whatever” costumes are for the amateur, the tourist, the totally incompetent. Every good New Orleanian has a costume closet from he or she can produce an original costume on very, very short notice.
It’s all one big costuming extravaganza: if you go to the Quarter for Mardi Gras, Decadence (not to be confused with Southern Decadence, where you will mostly see hot boys in tiny shorts or assless chaps if they’re wearing clothes at all), or Halloween, you will see lots of costumes and hardly any of these slut-o-ween outfits around.
My point? I don’t know yet. I’ve noticed some women doing this slut-o-ween thing but I’ve always thought of it a real failure of creativity.
Also, I would have to disagree with whoever said Halloween is a children’s holiday. Adults should get to put on the masquerade and let loose once in a while, too. I think non-costuming cultures are sad indeed. The repressed southern baptists all around me are missing a vital part of the human experience in their refusal to participate in any of the festive costuming holidays.
I’m glad you’re still enjoying this depraved world, saltyC, I truly am.
As far as flashing for beads, I’ve never done it, but I’m so tiny atop that if I did do it, I’d be tossed a single bead here and there and at the end of Mardis Gras, I might have just enough beads for half a bracelet, like the kind I made when I was a kid and couldn’t afford a full-wrap-around of beads.
saltyC, you wrote: “Joan of Arc - burning =/= patriarchy
joan of Arc sainthood*burning = patriarchy”
Now that I know what “=/=” means, what you wrote intrigues me, which I appreciate, for I like to be intrigued.
Speaking of Beatles, Paul was recently asked what he misses most about John and he answered, “John was the last one he told me I’m full of shit.”
Paul should contact you, SaltyC!
“Likewise, not every device/system/ideology/theology/paper cutter/cartoon character/streetlight that was ever made was made to subjugate women.” maggiethewolf
Was too.
‘…the scariest of female avatars - the supernatural, powerful, and self-possessed witch. Certainly the most frightening of single women to the church dominant male.” Ms Kate
No doubt. You can be sitting there minding your own little business and BOOM, there you are right in the middle of another inquisition. The scarey thing is in 2006, people still believe in witches. Here’s frightening: That look in their eyes when they think you are one. Don’t you just hate it when that happens?
“Here’s frightening: That look in their eyes when they think you are one. Don’t you just hate it when that happens?”
Nope. Quite the opposite. Heh.
I never flashed anyone for beads and I had boxloads from living in NOLA for a few winters. The whole flashing thing’s a (pariarchal) tourist trap misnomer.
“negligible is the ideological distinction that can be measured between the sexay costumes of “Slut-o-ween†(… and the ‘normal’ (but objectively fruity) get-ups women have to wear every day to avoid ridicule.”
I agree with much on this site but extreme statement like this concern me — to get from blaming to actual change, I think we should avoid this kind of exaggeration. I’m in the legal area, first as a lawyer and now as a placement specialist. In arguably one of the most patriarchal professions, I don’t think women’s attire is any “fruitier” than men’s. Pantsuits are completely acceptable, the same kind of button-up blouse will do, and women can even wear more comfortable tanks than the stifling shirts men must wear. Simple necklaces are far less “fruity” than ties, and in all firms I know, low heeled shoes are absolutely fine. In outfits as modest and comfortable as those men wear, and makeup less time consuming than men’s shaving, women can avoid ridicule 24-7.
So maybe at an evening event, women’s attire is more showy. There are always perfectly acceptable more modest options that do not invite ridicule. And while “Slutoween” is part of an unfortunate trend to over-sexualize, the extension of this to something women need to do “every day” is ridiculous.
Arguably, blaming is typically accompanied by a belief something should change. So, to my mind, it’s irresponsible to ignore that goal by wiping out a large number of folks who could support it, by being unrealistically extreme. Doesn’t mean selling out, just thinking about whether, really, most women are burdened by something.
In most of corporate America and other patriarchal bastions, women are burdened by glass ceilings. By subtle distinctions edging them out. By mentoring that often leaves them out. NOT by the dress code, which largely affects everyone fairly equally and affects probably a very minute percentage of women adversely, compared to these other factors. Why don’t we concentrate on the real issues here?
“Arguably, blaming is typically accompanied by a belief something should change. So, to my mind, it’s irresponsible to ignore that goal by wiping out a large number of folks who could support it, by being unrealistically extreme. Doesn’t mean selling out, just thinking about whether, really, most women are burdened by something.”
Ahem.
Yes, we are. (I thought this much more civilized than the “Christ on a cracker, are you serious?” that ran amuck in my addled brain before I mustered some sense of decency, fahgodsakes.)
A long time ago I, too, did the Drag King….black suit and tie, white shirt, hat, mustache, cigar….but I let my big dick/dildo hang out. I had no idea that I could scare so many men!
They didn’t see it at first…but then they’d look down and it was like I had yelled, BOO! Their eyes grew large and they’d jump in fear.
It was fun.
I agree with you, Twisty, in the very special sense that I’ve come to believe all unexamined beliefs are unnecessary. That said, I work and have worked alongside people in the domestic violence field who hold one religious belief or another I’m sure I could knock down in a debate; they’re still doing more to dismantle the P. than I’ll ever be capable of. The process of human growth and development goes way beyond the rational intellect. (Which is why as I’ve said before I find Dawkin’s moral philosophy so naive, and so very 18th century.)
And patriarchy of course is way bigger than the Bible, or any particular tradition. It would survive the outlawing of Christianity quite brilliantly. (As Lenin &co. proved.)
As to what we’re supposed to think of Martin Luther King (or anyone) I can’t contribute much. Judging anyone, sometimes even yourself, is ridiculously presumptuous, because you can never discern the border between what’s determined and what’s freely chosen.* (”Free will” itself is as mystical a concept as anyone can imagine; there’s no rational or empirical basis for believing in it, and almost no practical way not to.) But his struggle was clearly part of the same societal movement that led a few years later to feminism, and the place I draw my paycheck today: a mass conscious-raising of the brutality and suffering underlying the “normality” of the patriarchal hierarchy. Would his own consciouness would have been further raised had he lived another ten years, or been able to take some break from his political work? I think so, but everyone is free to make their own guesses, of course.
(*Don’t anyone try to be clever and tell me I’m always judging people. I know that; I’m aware of the irony; end of discussion.)
slade, I think you would scared anyone with that thing.
I just want to say, all patriarchy blaming aside (as far as you can get these days) that Halloween WAS NEVER a children’s holiday until after the World Wars when enforced domesticity became the norm and ideal in this country. You can see some roots of turning a revelrous or religious holiday (depending on culture) into properly circumspect celebrations in the Victorian era, but no kids were out trick or treating. It was a PURELY adult (adolescent boys, really) event. You gave the nice drunk men some cookies so they didn’t let your chickens out and set fire to your barn, kind of thing. But the Victorian era was scared of that kind of unsavouriness and so sanitized it. Much like they did Christmas (when the lower classes would–you guessed it–get lickered up and beg at the doors of their employers for handouts). Can’t have that in an upstanding society so they twwwwwiiiiiist it to be about the kiddies instead (”they” of course being the social paragons of virtue, the matrons, clergy, and Madison Avenue). Don’t like drunk adults making mischief dressed up like the devil? Turn it into a kids holiday. Don’t like the poor getting drunk and knocking on your door for Christmas alms? Turn it into a kids holiday.
Refocus the traditions from their religious and social roots to their consumerist future. Remove the celebrations from the street to the living room. Which so nicely coincided with forcing Rosie the Riveter back to her proper sphere so she could stitch the offspring costumes and hold their hands from door to door or have the perfectly decorated home and lay on the most delightful Christmas spread and spend the most on presents. How convenient the true nature and meaning of both Halloween and Christmas have come to revolve around spending fistfuls of cash.
Instead, I choose to focus on the real spirit of the holiday… getting pissered and dancing around fire.
(And there were loads of children at the public circle, but “naughty Dorothy” didn’t seem to care–she was a young teen and might not have realized the problem, she wasn’t provocative acting it just looked like the outfit was too small/short. But didn’t she have a friend or relative to tell her she was edging into slutty territory? This HP/S did a very long and boring Isis/Osiris enactment. Yawn. And boy, oddly enough, there were lots and lots of witch costumes. Isn’t that funny? ;)
Mar wrote: “Was too.”
Shit. Ya made me laugh. I can’t keep my afterburners lit when I’m giggling.
Nice post, octogalore.
Here in the environs of thebewilderness we tend to robe as either creatures of fright or critters of mirth. Very little flesh is exposed around here from October to May. I’m having trouble visualizing a slutty mummy, snickering.
From JBeeky: “Yes, we are. (I thought this much more civilized than the “Christ on a cracker, are you serious?†that ran amuck in my addled brain before I mustered some sense of decency, fahgodsakes.)” [in response to whether women are affected by dress expectations in environments like the workplace that women’s movements could attempt to alter]
As I said, JBeeky, dress codes for women “affect probably a very minute percentage of women adversely, compared to these other factors.” Obviously, you’re in that minority. But just as you use “we” so insistently, I too could argue that there are no mandatory requirements affecting women in most workplaces that are sweepingly repugnant. In fact, more women are upset about it NOT being acceptable to dress sexily in the workplace. As I’ve done some research on this, I could argue fairly responsibly that more women are upset about things like: policies that would motivate their partners to participate more equally in the home; equal promotional opportunities; equal mentoring opportunities; equal leadership opportunities, etc.
These issues are much more universal, I think, than blaming (someone) for women having to wear certain kinds of outfits to “avoid ridicule.” Most people, including feminists like me, would read that as women who have no interest in the slightest adornments, even those that arguably are not “fruity” or in any way time-consuming or offensive. The women I have met, by and large, don’t have a problem with the latter, but do have a problem with the glass ceiling and related issues above.
Realistically, if women were viewed as equal participants in the major industries that crank the GDP out, a large part of the “patriarchy” would crumble. This isn’t going to happen by whining about “fruity” ensembles. It’ll happen by getting to the roots of why women aren’t viewed as equal participants, not whining about a couple of leaves on the trees that most people can’t see.
Thanks, maggiethewolf. I’m new here and fairly new to blog posting in general — so I appreciate your kind words.
You betcha, octogalore, but if you’re new to blog posting, you should be warned that this is a tough crowd. Smart and tough and frequently funny, but tough. But you seem smart and tough too, so you should fare well. Just don’t, if the heat rises, bid us “farewell.”
It’s swell to have some dissent and especially dissent as well-reasoned and articulated as yours.
Would his own consciouness would have been further raised had he lived another ten years, or been able to take some break from his political work? I think so, but everyone is free to make their own guesses, of course.
Perhaps, but it’s also true that he’d already been exposed to the notion of gender equality and had explicitly rejected it. He’d studied Ghandi, yet took only the doctrine of non-violence while continuing to assert that men must be subservient to men. King was a great civil rights leader, but when he said hoped our nation would one day live out its creed that “all men are created equal,” he really did mean men.
Aagghh! That “women must be subservient to men.” And “when he said he hoped our nation”. Yeah, I should just go to bed now.
I’m jumping in late on this post, as I’ve been out of town, but I remember spending one Halloween weekend in Twisty’s own Austin, and 6th street seemed to be the epicenter of slut-o-ween. The motto seemed to be: dress up as whatever you like, as long as your version of it involves showing as much flesh as possible. The high/low point of this was two young women dressed as “construction workers,” in micro-mini denim skirts with tool belts, tight semi-transparent white tank tops, and hard hats. Ugh.
When I saw the twentysomething woman who was wearing a big, round bee-girl costume (a là that video from that 90s band whose lead singer died of a herion overdose, whose name I can’t remember), I wanted to hug her, because she was obvious not the least bit interested in being seen as a sexual object.
Unless, of course, there are bee-girl fetishists out there. Which there might be.
There’s been a push to make makeup mandatory in the workplace for females and I’m also noticing more businesses trying to mandate that women wear dresses. Refusing to comply results in losing one’s job. It has been upheld in courts. PA recently tried to mandate that female teachers wear skirts/dresses on the election ballot.
Obviously trying force women to dress like prostitutes has bothered and affected women enough to bring it to court. It has been controversial enough to put on an election ballot. That sure doesn’t sound minute and trivial to me. It sounds like just the opposite of your assertions, octogalore.
Sure your assertions pleased Maggie, the wolf. Who is still looking for needles in haystacks for the 3 men in Outer Mongolia who have redeeming qualities and has taken to looking under rocks for evidence that “women do it too.”
Men are responsible for 97% of the world’s violence. 80% of the casualites of this violence are women and children. Women are accountable for 3% of the world’s violence. But in Maggie’s book, 97% = 3% which makes women all equal now and no different than men. I don’t know. Maybe it’s the new math.
I can only wonder why it would be so important for you to invisibilize women’s oppression and pretend it doesn’t exist. Who does that serve? Who does that benefit?
You’re much too old and have been around the block too many times to be that oblivious and miss that elephant standing in the middle of your livingroom. So what could possibly be your motivation? Well, whenever I’m in doubt, I usually ask those same basic questions. Who does that serve? Who does that benefit? And therein lies the answer to the motive.
So I’m curious, Mags. What does “the wolf” stand for in your name? That wouldn’t be “wolf” as in “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” now would it? **wink**
Violet Socks: “He’d studied Ghandi, yet took only the doctrine of non-violence while continuing to assert that [wo]men must be subservient to men.”
True, but never let it be implied that Gandhi was against female subservience. His approving remarks about women were all based on the great nobility, eagerness to serve others, and perpetual self-sacrifice of our sex. Whoopee-do.
Luckynkl: “There’s been a push to make makeup mandatory in the workplace for females and I’m also noticing more businesses trying to mandate that women wear dresses. Refusing to comply results in losing one’s job. It has been upheld in courts. PA recently tried to mandate that female teachers wear skirts/dresses on the election ballot.”
Good grief. Is this true? Because if it’s true we’re into urgent blaming time, but I can’t find these stories on Google.
Do you have any links/refs to relevant info? Would be most appreciated…
Because I’m THAT sort, I “F[ound] on This Page” the word “slut” or “slutty” 30 times. Make that 32.
I blame the patriarchy for the phenomena of sexualizing/dumbing down of girls from age 5 and up if not earlier, via princess and other insipid consumes once Tiger is outgrown.
But all those “sluts” (33) up there make me wonder.
If — yes, I know, perish the thought! but if — a woman DID have a desire to dress “slutty” (34) for whatever reasons, it’s no wonder she lets this side out only once per year, when the Slut Factor (35) is “allowed.”
Otherwise, she’d just be a “slut” (36) by men and apparently Blamers alike.
As for the stated oxymoron of Christian Feminist, I’m not taking that one on yet as that damn circadian rhythm thing has rendered me more sensitive than usual and therefore more prone to the spirutual than the secular than I would be otherwise.
I blame insomnia.
The one time I dressed slutty for Halloween I did the slut-witch thing–lots of Stevie Nicks-looking black rags and shawls, a blond wig under the pointy hat, fishnet stockings and four-inch stiletto-heeled laced-up boots. On my way to a Halloween party, I blew a tire. When you are dressed this way and have this problem–even in the liberal haven of New Jersey–well, let’s just say it was an eye-opener for me. Even after fifteen years, the thought of the sleazebags who stopped to “help” me skeeves me out.
These days, my Halloween costume consists of one of my numerous NFL jerseys with its matching cap. Maybe not imaginative, but comfortable, but I still get guys leering at me and telling me how cute I am. Then I remind them I’m kicking their ass in fantasy football and that stops that.
Dearest Luckynkl, you wrote: “I can only wonder why it would be so important for you to invisibilize women’s oppression and pretend it doesn’t exist.”
You frame my position as being the utter antithesis of your position. It isn’t. I am a feminist. I can’t contemplate that 1% of the world’s land is titled to women for too long or I’ll crack a molar. I can’t walk through the Hall of Presidents without fear of retching: an unbroken line of white male faces works better than a finger down my throat.
I do oppose absolute positions and no, I’m not looking for 3 fine men in Outer Mongolia. I’m looking for qualified positions here. For conditions. For caveats. For uncertainty. Whereas swagger has its place, it doesn’t come from confidence. It is confidence that qualifies.
Luckynkl wrote: “So I’m curious, Mags. What does “the wolf†stand for in your name?”
If I were a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I wouldn’t name myself “the wolf,” would I? I’m a wolf in wolfskin. And Maggie the Wolf is actually a character in one of my novels.
Forever yours,
The Wolf
Octogalore has come down firmly on the side of nervous-feminists-who-wish-Twisty-would-just-shut-up. I remind those who fear that my ‘extreme’ views are chasing away would-be recruits that my ‘agenda’ is nothing so mundane as the elimination of sexbot Halloween costumes or who gets to wear the more comfortable clothes to work. It is hypocritical to say ‘this sexy girl scout costume is anti-woman’ and then simply ignore that women are forced to adopt that very same ‘femininity’ — by which I mean lace, delicacy, teddy bears, Hello Kitty, lipstick, fashion, subservience, pink, fishnets, spandex, receptaclism, smiling, head-tilting, beauty, girliness, Martha Stewart, marriage, sexbottism, unpaid domestic labor et al — as a survival skill in everyday life. If I shut up about femininity, I might as well vote Republican.
I also adore Halloween. In fact, I plan my costumes out two years in advance. This year I’m doing a charming Mrs. Lovett, cobbled together from cannibalized bits of other old costumes, and for that gritty touch of realism I’ve squirted the whole thing with human blood, including some cute bloody-beseeching handprints on the apron. The effect of real blood plus a nicely sharpened cleaver does tend to put a damper on the sexiness factor. Oh, sure, from twenty feet away I look entirely fetching, but those who are enticed to come closer are in for one hell of a surprise, even if they are too drunk to notice the slaughterhouse odor.
As for Slut-o-Ween, I’m with Jezebella on this one: shocking lack of creativity, although I can’t say I’m surprised.
But Twiiiiiisty, don’t you know you’re scaring those nice ladies who enjoy, from the bottom of their uncoerced hearts, being receptacals? You shouldn’t be so damn radical! You’re alienating sexbots who might otherwise call themselves feminists if only they could be feminist sexbots! Shame on you and your divisiveness.
I’m so disappointed. All along I thought this was a Liberal Feminist Blog. I only figured it out when I noticed there are no half concealed hooters and porn advertisements. Thats it. I’m leaving. If I can’t dress like a slut (because I choose to, not because it garners me privilage) then I don’t wanna be in this movement. I’ll go back to where I’m wanted, where real differences are being made.. oh.. um… nowhere?
(Oh, and here’s a newsflash–boys and girls could magically all get paid the same for comparable work the day after tomorrow and it would still be a patriarchy and women would still be oppressed, so people whose main feminist concerns revolve around the workplace and the wage gap should shut the hell up and maybe take a trip outside their middle class, walled in, hermetically sealed enivronment. Most women in the world–because there IS a world out there beyond the US borders!– struggle not to be murdered for having the audacity to be born female, so I gaurantee that ensuring pay equality in the good ol’ USA is as “minor” a concern as “slut-o-ween”.)
So, yeah, Twisty, shame on you for pointing out the oppressive factors of enforced and exaggerated feminity. You should worry more about real problems. Like the fact that Ally McBeal isn’t on the air anymore. That quirky lawyer was a true feminist! She fought for her right to wear short skirts and obsess about men AND she had an empowerful career. Without her, the movement is diminished… but I think I’m rambling now…
/rant
Very few of us are immune to sexual desire, so if we sometimes seek to arouse others through signals that create desire, forgive us for being human. It would be nice if desire wasn’t tied to the degradation of women, maybe more tied to unconditional love and shared intimacy; or something less public and performance-oriented than the stylized costuming of current sexual excess.
Slut-o-ween is a fine example of the growing hyper-sexualization of our culture. The patriarchy is growing stronger wherever men can carve out a space that they can pretend is somehow defensible while serving their interests. There’s a common ground between arch conservative men and liberal men where sex is concerned, and they each use different perversions of the ideas of freedom and tolerance to defend it. It’s as if men think that by an provocation of sexual arousal they have been given a license to degrade women, because men refuse to see anything degrading about stimulating their male arousal no matter how it is done.
I’ve always thought that creating desire in someone else also creates desire in yourself if you see yourself as actively creating it - like acting submissive or acting as if aroused. It’s like a kind of self-hypnosis and a circular system that closes when the arousal is detected and acknowledged. Maybe this is only something men think, like so many things we think about women that are wrong. But it’s just one possible explanation for why women seem to embrace things that, if examined critically like Twisty does, are basically degrading, and why men, ignorant of the possibility that a woman might be demeaned by men’s arousal because the women themselves provoked it for reasons unrelated to the desire to be degraded, while denying with all possible force that it is degrading to act submissive and slutty.
When a man dresses as a woman and creates desire in others by sending the same signals women are required to send every day, the reward of sexual attention can seem wonderful, because it’s so transient and tied to a false identity.
When it becomes so pervasive that the private becomes public, the stupid imposed on the subtle, that we all start to feel almost forced into a default state of sexual posturing. Why more men aren’t terribly sick of being manipulated sexually for commercial gain is beyond me.
Told ya it’s a tough crowd, Octogalore. I suspect that part of langsuyar’s motivation is TwistyChips (TM). If you please Twisty, you’re rewarded with TwistyChips (TM), which can be redeemed at various indigenous Austin eateries for burritoes.
Okay, that’s not true. There are no TwistyChips (Not a TM), but there is the desire to please Twisty, which I understand, for she’s wicked smart and a helluva writer. I’m pert near sure that langusyar has motivations other than Twisty-pleasin’ as I believe that there is the desire in all people (even people with penises) to want to do the right thing. Knocking you upside the head with her rant probably seems the right thing to her, but if you are silenced, then the bell tolls for all of us.
Twisty wrote: “Octogalore has come down firmly on the side of nervous-feminists-who-wish-Twisty-would-just-shut-up.”
Maybe. Or maybe she posted here to engage you.
I do love to dress up and play at Halloween. My little girl is a bad witch this year. She has told her mother and I that she is the wicked witch of the west, mom is the scarecrow, and I am the cowardly lion. Her grandmother has been recruited to be Dorothy.
At her day care center last night I didn’t see any slut costumes except one very pretty blond girl in an almost see-through goth skirt and outfit. I suppose her parents were just tying to make her more pretty. Because that’s what pretty is, you know. Girly. So slutty is merely prettier than girly, because it’s even prettier. The make up is heavier, the skin a little easier to see. More is better than less, right.
I’m talking preschool here.
Langsuyar: “so people whose main feminist concerns revolve around the workplace and the wage gap should shut the hell up and maybe take a trip outside their middle class, walled in, hermetically sealed enivronment.”
Hallelujah!!!!
Thank you thank you thank you.
Equal pay for equal work is the bait that will kill us.
Sure octopussy may be doing great playing the boy’s game but it’s still the boy’s game.
It’s not that women don’t want to work 60-80 hours a week at a job. Women the world over always do most of the work.
It’s that if they don’t take care of family, clean the house, do the shopping and otherwise clean up after and support others for free, no one will.
I know because I also am palying the boy’s game and I realize my prospects for advancement are limited by the fact that I don’t have a support staff at home, whereas they do.
How’s that for tough?
“Or maybe she posted here to engage you.”
Well, I got that, so I posted a response. I disagree with her, but I would hardly call it “knocking [her] upside the head.”
It can’t surprise you that I dislike being told to tone it down ‘for the sake of “the movement”‘. “The Movement”, such as it is, will stay exactly where it is (by which I mean, “tumbling in retrograde free-fall”) until more people realize that femininity — indeed, all gender behaviors — is/are oppression.
Your Manolos, ‘boy jeans’, burkas, shop-for-the-cures, sport corsets, BDSM clubs, downy-fresh towels,’transgressive’ hooker outfits, Oprah-approved pop psychologists, what have you, they are just signals to the oppressor that you acquiesce and obey. Faugh, I say.
“Gandhi gets the press partly because he had a penis, but also because he fit our archetype of a hero: he died in battle, just like Jesus and MLK, Jr. and JFK and FDR.”
No, he did not. Nor did JFK. I don’t know about FDR. Anyway, isn’t it the essense of patriarchy to hero-worship warriors who specialize in killing and dying, while treating life-giving women as expendable cows?
So, why is Gandhi idolized while those women who came up with the idea of civil disobedience are reviled? Because we all know that women are just supposed to put up and shut up and if they don’t, they deserve to be kicked. However, boys will be boys, violence and all, and if they voluntarily desist, then we should all fall down on our knees with gratitude and thank them for not killing us.
So what if Gandhi abused his wife and sexually exploited young female satyagrahis? Minor detail. He was a great, great man. We should keep repeating that. So what if MLK was a sexist bigot, even for his time. Minor detail. He was a great, great man. Keep repeating that.
CannibalFemme, great googly moogly! I hesitate to ask someone with the word “cannibal” in their handle but, how did you happen to acquire that “gritty touch of realism?”
Catherine Martell, see:
http://www.littler.com/presspublications/index.cfm?event=pubItem&pubItemID=13959&childViewID=249
The Ninth Circuit Court upheld Harrah’s right to require women to wear their hair and make-up in exactly the manner they demand, und they vill like it:
“Other standards, including those relating to hair, nails and makeup, were differentiated on the b