Size-Z
Insulting tits guy has been placed on leave.
A Canadian teacher has reportedly been placed on leave after months of criticism from parents about
hersize-Z prosthetic breasts.Kayla Lemieux, an industrial arts teacher at Oakville Trafalgar High School in Ontario, Canada, was reportedly photographed by a newspaper outside school, dressed as a man and without the prosthetics.
Dressed as a man? How could they tell? I was outside today dressed in black jeans, a turtleneck and couple of sweaters, and a windbreaker. Was I dressed as a man? (I know, it’s not fair – it’s easier for a woman to wear jeans and t shirts than for a man to wear dresses and high heels.)
At a board meeting last month, Julia Malott, a transgender mother, said that what Ms Lemieux was wearing in class was “absolutely not appropriate for school”.
She said: “It is fetish wear used in sex work and the drag industry or people in their own houses who enjoy it. It is certainly not something I would want my daughter to see.”
Can’t a guy have a hobby?
At a board meeting last month, Julia Malott, a transgender mother, said that what Ms Lemieux was wearing in class was “absolutely not appropriate for school”.
What’s that?
I wondered the same, and guessed but don’t know it’s…father pretending to be mother.
Well if it’s someone who’s trans objecting, then they have to listen! No True Trans strikes again? Anyone else complaining, especially boring cis women, can be safely ignored. In fact it would be obligatory to ignore them because they’re obviously bigots. But if it upsets someone who’s trans, SNAP TO IT, BUB! It’s clear the school board didn’t give a shit about the rights and dignity of girls and women (and everyone else) in the whole goddamn school, so how is it there was a perceived need to respect the rights of this one “transgender mother?” How did they go about doing that? My guess is that it was indeed “No True Trans” that did it, and that they were more concerned about this teacher “misrepresenting” or “discrediting” the idea of transness itself, than about this teacher sexualizing and fetishizing his classroom behaviour. If they’d given a rat’s ass about the welfare of students and staff, they would have nipped this in the bud when it first arose rather than taking the teacher’s side. His behaviour remained objectionable throughout; the only thing that changed (as far as can be told from here) was that he was caught not wearing womanface. The trans identified parent might just be a coincidence, but maybe not.
Just as complaints could be ignored until it was shown he wasn’t wearing the fetish gear 24/7. And “dressing as a man” no less. So if he’d “dressed like a woman” but without the fake breasts, he might have gotten away with it?
‘Dressed as a man? How could they tell?’ Seriously, the ideology clearly states that this guy’s a woman no matter what he wears, so this is a weird flex. Women aren’t allowed to go out in public in jeans, sneakers and windbreakers now?
It’s almost as if dresses and high heels are bits of clothing designed to sexually objectify the person wearing them.
J.A:
Except that the women who choose such gear do so as a matter of their own choice. In clothing, men as a rule dress to conform, and to blend into the rest of the pack. Women commonly dress as distinctively as possible, and to make themselves stand out; ideally to become the centre of attention. Marlene Dietrich was a classic example.
Vide OB:
So there you go.
That’s a stunningly sexist assertion.
Yah, it’s not like it was commonplace in the US for skirts-and-heels to be part of women’s office dress-codes for decades, or that even after those codes were mostly ditched under equal employment laws, they still are part of the mindset of many in the upper echelons of corporate hierarchy…. And of course, women only do things for the approval of others, never ever because they want to do something for themselves, whether it be dressing casually so they can relax OR dressing up so they like how they look.
Well the trans cult sure relies on gender stereotypes, in fact that’s about all they have.
She’s only wearing those shoes to become the centre of attention, not because she might actually want to keep her job.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/11/receptionist-sent-home-pwc-not-wearing-high-heels-pwc-nicola-thorp
And there’s this:
Louisa May Alcott promoted pants – “bloomers” – in one of her novels. I think it was Eight Cousins. The central character starts out as a rather sickly fashionable feeble girl who gets a lot of good advice about playing outside more, not drinking coffee, and the like. I think the bloomers were under a dress or skirt but the dress or skirt could be less long and heavy and hobbling.
Yes, here we go, courtesy of Project Gutenberg:
“Some new prank of yours, Alec?” asked Aunt Plenty, indulgently, for she had come to believe in most of her nephew’s odd notions, because they seemed to work so well.
“Yes, ma’am, my last, and I hope you will like it. I discovered what Clara was at, and got my rival suit ready for to-day. I’m not going to ‘afflict’ Rose, but let her choose, and if I’m not entirely mistaken, she will like my rig best. While we wait I’ll explain, and then you will appreciate the general effect better. I got hold of this little book, and was struck with its good sense and good taste, for it suggests a way to clothe women both healthfully and handsomely, and that is a great point. It begins at the foundations, as you will see if you will look at these pictures, and I should think women would rejoice at this lightening of their burdens.”
As he spoke, the Doctor laid the book before Aunt Plenty, who obediently brought her spectacles to bear upon the illustrations, and after a long look exclaimed, with a scandalised face,
“Mercy on us, these things are like the night-drawers Jamie wears! You don’t mean to say you want Rose to come out in this costume? It’s not proper, and I won’t consent to it!”
“I do mean it, and I’m sure my sensible aunt will consent when she understands that these…well I’ll call them by an Indian name, and say pajamas, are for underwear, and Rose can have as pretty frocks as she likes outside. These two suits of flannel, each in one piece from head to foot, with a skirt or so hung on this easily-fitting waist, will keep the child warm without burdening her with belts, and gathers, and buckles, and bunches round the waist, and leave free the muscles that need plenty of room to work in. She shall never have the back-ache if I can help it, nor the long list of ills you dear women think you cannot escape.”
“(I know, it’s not fair – it’s easier for a woman to wear jeans and t shirts than for a man to wear dresses and high heels.)”
Isn’t it also easier for a woman to wear jeans & t-shirt, than for a woman to wear dresses and high heels?
When there is clothing that is ‘supposed to be’ for men and clothing that is ‘supposed to be’ for women, the women’s clothing is generally just less practical.
OB: “That’s a stunningly sexist assertion.”
I disagree. It is not ‘sexist’ to point out morphological differences between the sexes, nor is it ‘sexist’ to suggest and/or investigate consequent psychological differences. ‘Sexism’ is essentially an assertion that one sex is for some or whatever reason superior to the other. The term as I recall was originally coined as a deliberate analogy to ‘racism.’ An assertion that there are different ‘races,’ ‘ethnicities,’ call-them-what-you-will of humanity, analogous say to the different ‘breeds’ of cats or of other animals only transforms into ‘racism’ with the assertion (common in history) that one race is inherently superior to the rest, and is born to rule etc etc..
The late Professor Fred Hollows, a distinguished eye specialist and surgeon, asserted that the Australian Aborigines had superior visual ability to all other races he had encountered. His colleague Prof Hugh Taylor (I cannot find the original Hollows quote) put it as follows in an interview:
Hollows on TV stated that he was happy to be called a ‘racist’ for this, since it was true.
Of course, we are all subject to hypothetical imperatives on clothing, and none of us are free agents. “If you don’t want to be arrested, wear clothes when walking down the street.” And “if you want to keep your job, wear the uniform as provided.” Only prisoners, an exceptional category, lack such freedom of choice. I would not say that that was the case with many women; certainly not those I know personally.
Oh please. “Women commonly dress as distinctively as possible, and to make themselves stand out; ideally to become the centre of attention.” Not stunningly sexist? Give me a break.
If Omar is right, then there are practically no women in Ireland; for the vast majority of people I see when outside wear some variation of jeans or trousers, top (usually a T-shirt), a sweater when it’s cool, and a jacket, or, less often, a coat. Headwear consists of a peaked cap in the Summer, and a woolly hat in the Winter. Few people wear gloves, even in Winter; unless it’s very cold, and then you may see a few more.
“Trans ‘women’ commonly dress as distinctively as possible, and to make themselves stand out; ideally to become the centre of attention.”
Fixed.
Still sexist, but fixed.
Jim @ 14 – yes but in a different sense of “easier.” I meant easier to wear without attracting stares, comments, ridicule, etc. Women in jeans and sweatshirts used to get stares and comments but no longer do…except in fundamentalist Christian circles and the like. But are they just plain easier to wear? Oh hell yes.
OB @# 16:
I think that if you consult any mass-circulation women’s magazine, you will find that they have found what sells copies. A large part of their space is devoted to clothing and fashion, with the emphasis on individual difference within the framework of what is trending at the moment.
Mens’ (mass-circulation) magazines in my experience dwell less on clothing in the above sense; I suspect because it does not sell so well. But where I just see ‘difference,’ you see ‘sexism.’
Well, on the strength of that, I suppose it is ‘sexist’ for publishers to publish magazines aimed at the female section of the mass-market, and likewise for magazines aimed at men. The only ‘non-sexist’ way to go would be to cater for a general interest from cover to cover. To cover all the bases, and to head off all objections, it would have to be non-whateverist as well, particularly re issues A, B, C, D and E [insert titles according to your own taste] which would clear the news-stands pretty smartly and thoroughly IMHO.
But as well, I think we see here what I call the Iron Law of Bloggery in operation. This says that any blog, through a process of selection and elimination, comes in time to resemble a fundamentalist Calathumpian Church, with every participant singing off the same page, and no room for dissenters. Durkheim-style, the group finishes up worshipping itself. Believing and agreement become the means to belonging, very muchly, and with heresy definitely not encouraged. Without that Iron Law, every blogger would finish up in the position of the preacher of an aforesaid fundamentalist church, with most of the congregation following the order of service, except for that bunch of Muslims in the second pew, also given to disputation with the Methodists and Hindus in the third, not to mention the Buddhists, Catholics, Sikhs, Ranters and Holy Rollers scattered throughout. That is, a complete ideological and doctrinal schemozzle.
Good night and good luck.
Omar, almost no one at my workplace, woman or man, dresses in some sort of fashion designed to stand out (except me, and it isn’t to be the center of attention, it’s because when you reach 62 years old, you have earned the right to wear hats and scarfs if you want to). Most of the women where I work – whether faculty, staff, or students – dress similar to the men, but with a more womanly cut. Slacks (jeans or leggings for the students) and comfortable tops of some sort. The men have about as much color as the women do, and most of us don’t want to be the center of attention, we want to be left the fuck alone. The only one who dresses to stand out in our entire college – four campuses and several learning centers – is a male of 62 who dresses in tie die, and has a very hippie hair cut and style.
I used to dress the way you describe. Why? My husband insisted, and I wasn’t good at talking back in those days. I didn’t want to stand out, and spent a lot of my day in my office so people WOULDN’T notice me. Now I feel I can wear what I like, but I do not parade around for everyone to see I am wearing a scarf and a hat. I wear black slacks everyday and sensible, flat heeled black boots, but I have fun with the rest of my look because it is about time I feel free to do what I want.
I am sure there are some women who dress to stand out; that is to be expected when you have spent your childhood being groomed to be a Barbie doll.
Yes, it is a very sexist assertion, making assumptions about the motives of women you do not know, and assuming as much as the trans do that you know what it feels like to be a woman.
Trashy magazines aimed at a female market feature a lot of clothes THEREFORE women in general seek to be the center of attention.
I say this is sexist horseshit THEREFORE I’m a fundamentalist Calathumpian Church.
Absolutely top notch reasoning there.
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/aww
https://m.famousfix.com/topic/ralph
The above two are both published by Australian Consolidated Press. As far as I can determine from a Google search, the first is the top-selling magazine aimed at the female market, and the second was the top-selling magazine aimed at the male market until it went out of publication. (In the case of the AWW, you have to keep pressing the ‘LOAD MORE’ button to see the range of stories and issues covered. As far as I can determine, the AWW is still going strong. )
My aim in making the comments above has been to draw readers’ attention to the reality of mass-circulation magazines strongly oriented towards the separate female and male markets. OB may object to their ‘trashiness’ but such I would argue implies value judgements, and like it or not, there has never been a mass-market magazine aimed at women which has been anywhere near as popular in Australia as has been the AWW. Also IMHO to say or imply that women are pushed towards reading the AWW by patriarchal pressure is to draw a rather long bow. The publishers know what their customers like to read, and set up their product accordingly.
OB at #22 IMHO misrepresents what I said. “Trashy magazines aimed at a female market feature a lot of clothes THEREFORE women in general seek to be the center of attention.
“I say this is sexist horseshit THEREFORE I’m a fundamentalist Calathumpian Church.”
While that was NOT what I said or even implied in either par, for any offence taken I apologise unreservedly to any and all readers here.
What I said at #6 was: “Except that the women who choose such gear do so as a matter of their own choice. In clothing, men as a rule dress to conform, and to blend into the rest of the pack. Women commonly dress as distinctively as possible, and to make themselves stand out; ideally to become the centre of attention. Marlene Dietrich was a classic example.” (My emphasis – Omar.)
Most of the women I have ever known have enjoyed being the centre of attention; on the occasions it occurred. Proportionately less of the men I have known have been inclined that way, though I could cite a couple of afterwards-famous identities. Nor do I think that womens’ choice of clothes is due to patriarchal pressure.
My reference to fundamentalist Calathumpian churches was about blogs in general, and their strong tendency towards general agreement on topics their owners consider important. As in the case of the fundamentalists, you either conform or get shown the door.
Omar, the women’s fashion market is a sales driven market. But how is it done? How do the fashion markets convince women they need to change styles every year, to buy new clothes, to drool over new clothes? This was a deliberate, and cynical, maneuver on the part of the advertising industry. Women throughout history have made their own clothes, with only a handful of rich women able to indulge in “fashion” and have someone else make their clothes. Clothes were typically designed around working – raising children, milking cows, plowing fields, and so forth – even when they wore skirts. They were not designed to be the center of attention, but to be able to get shit done that needed to be done.
Then the advertising community sells the fashion designers on the idea that they could start selling more clothes by marketing and persuading women they needed to be up to the minute. This corresponded nicely with the time that work-saving appliances were starting to be used, giving women less time gathering wood, carrying water, etc. The marketing built on that…and it worked. Now they don’t even need as much advertising (though it is out there); women bring up other women to believe they must be feminine.
Not patriarchal pressure? Of course it is. When women were left alone, not told they had to have the latest design, they made their clothes for how they lived.
And when women are forced by dress code to dress a certain way, though they would like to dress in a comfortable manner, that is also pressure – the strongest pressure of all, the potential loss of their livelihood. I’m fortunate to work in a place that has little in the way of a formal dress code, though there are things that would get you in trouble, I imagine. If I wore a bikini to work (never gonna happen) or one of my atheist t-shirts, I would be lucky if I was only sent home to change.
Societal pressures shape women, and determine their preference in clothes. It is not some inborn need to be the center of attention. Just because you have women friends who like being the center of attention when it happens (perhaps because most of us are tired of being ignored all the time) doesn’t mean every woman wants that, or that it is some sort of innate difference.
Check out Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee (Ivy being a male name back then, at least in this case).
‘Most of the women I have ever known have enjoyed being the centre of attention; on the occasions it occurred. Proportionately less of the men I have known have been inclined that way, though I could cite a couple of afterwards-famous identities.’
That seems odd to me. In any given mixed-sex group I observe or encounter it’s far more likely that the ‘center of attention’ doing the bulk of the talking is male. If they’re not inclined that way why do we disproportionately see and hear men in nearly every sphere of life? I’d have thought if they prefer otherwise they’d want to take a step back and let all these women who are so eager for it have the spotlight.
It’s actually a classic of the much-documented fact that in groups men think women are dominating the conversation when in fact the women are speaking far less than the men.
And yet those women are all out there dressing nice and attempting to draw attention to themselves, tsk tsk. As I’m writing this I realise only a man would actually think women in general are trying to attract male attention–women know how annoying at best and dangerous at worst it generally is to attract male attention.
New rule: one-word replies are subject to unceremonious removal unless they’re clearly friendly or approving, like “Brilliant!” or “Truth!” or “Yeah!”
And another (couple of) things…. Yes, this has been sticking with me; I do often find it upsetting when people draw the kinds of conclusions from their observations that lead to ascribing negative characteristics to traditionally ‘othered’ people (on a par with the ‘poor people must be stupid or lazy, otherwise they wouldn’t be poor’ people).
Women generally do dress to fit in and conform. Women who don’t follow male-created ‘sexy’ current fashion trends are the ones who stand out. (Not to mention, following male-created ‘sexy’ current fashion trends is just about mandatory if you’re a woman buying new clothes; we’ve all had the experience of having to wait out a trend–low rise trousers!–before we can shop for clothes again. Men don’t have this problem; basic normal men’s clothes are always readily available for purchase.)
I’ve just realised that ‘[m]ost of the women I have ever known have enjoyed being the centre of attention; on the occasions it occurred’ may be another way to say ‘most of the women I have ever known are pleasantly surprised on the occasions when their thoughts/ideas/opinions are actually heard, acknowledged and taken seriously, as this is not an experience women can routinely be expected to enjoy.’
Why yes, so do I, and then double it when they insist they’re right to do so and dissenters are fundamentalist Calathumpian church-goers.
iknklast @#24: I have taken note of what you have said, and of
We all have to dress to a standard, set by an employer and not by us iif we want to keep a job. That’s a pretty strong hypothetical imperative. The hippies and the 1960s Counterculture were a very strong reaction against that, and changed the Western World in a very positive manner, particularly the national Moratorium movements against the Vietnam War.
The authoritarian goal has always been to get people to internalise the pressure to conform, to rationalise it, and to convince themselves that it is their own idea: summed up rather well by Aldous Huxley in the phrase “I’m glad I’m a Beta” (if my memory serves me well.)
NB: This in place of my previous one-word response, now banned by OB’s announcement @ #28.
We all have to dress to a standard, set by an employer and not by us if we want to keep a job, and also women dress the way they do because they want to be the center of attention. I notice a certain…ah…tension there.
I think that within the limits (that are not necessarily set by ourselves) both men and women alike dress to maximise flexibility. As in the famous case of Marlene Dietrich, her choice was to dress in stylish men’s clothes. That choice did not proclaim anything else about her, eg as to her sexuality.
Only if making some trans statement does a man put on a dress, or other clothes not normally worn by men. In my experience, a woman in the same attire as usually worn by men is generally not seen by all and sundry as making some sort of statement about herself.
The only exceptions I am aware of: it was a fashion for a while for certain militant lesbians to go about dressed in men’s bib-and-brace overalls. Some argued that their ‘butch look’ was a result of trying to make themselves as unattractive to men as possible.
But like everything else, that fashion passed.