Gender Swap Day!

[Dumb Ideologies]

Back when I was at school when we ran a similar event the Art teacher stood up and started shouting about almost exactly this. Basically, not necessarily trolling, perhaps just fail. Real people do actually manage to unthink like this.

"Real people" are able to "unthink" like this?

Ah. I see. That is why it is no longer an insult to claim a man is 'acting like a woman'. Good to know this is merely all in my mind and does not reflect reality in any way. I was worried you see. I should have realised that we have become so self-aware and critical minded that we have erased all classism, sexism, racism and heteronormativity by dressing up as caricatures of 'the other'.

For my next trick, I will dress up in black face, with watermelon in one hand, a slave collar around my neck, and a big-buxomed white blow up doll on the end of my massive strap-on, just to prove that stereotypes about black people have all been 'unthunk' by most people. Many thanks.

I love the smell of freshly-built strawmen in the morning.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

SNIP

Noice

[Ecans]

Just another pain in the ass feel-good distraction from learning. PLEASE give these pitiful people some real work with which to fill what is obviously wasted time!

[AiliailiA]

Farce or futile perhaps. But "further shore up patriarchial notions ...etc" is just bullshit.

You have a load of patriarchial notions of your own if you think dressing as a woman is "mockery" but dressing as a man is "glorifying".

I strongly suspect that you are quite deliberately mocking feminist thought. You're trolling, right?

Using the term 'patriarchal' is automatically trolling, since the patriarchy does not exist, right? Perhaps you can tell me when it was obliterated? Or perhaps you can explain to me that it never existed. I would be ever so grateful for such education.

To deny the obvious fact that the 'feminine' is denigrated while the 'masculine' is glorified, is to accept the effectiveness of socio-politictal justifications for the legitimacy of the patriarchy. I am not the one who has decided that being female equates to weakness, and is deserving of contempt. I merely recognise that when men dress up as women, it is supposedly funny because being a woman is funny. Being a woman is embarrassing. Being a woman is demeaning. I am not the one who has decided that being male is powerful and deserving of respect. I merely recognise that when women dress up as men, it is not funny or embarrassing. It is instead something that angers 'real men', because women are infringing on male power, even if that is only symbolic and not real.

But in that school, the 'women' are allowed to dress as 'men' too. So you're assuming that men dress as women on that day only for laughs, and the women dress as men but no-one notices because everyone is pointing at Rodney scratching his hairy legs which itch like bejesus in those stockings.

Never mind that this play-acting could allow some, male or female, to feel their patriarchal assumptions at work and question them in a safe environment where they are not allowed to oppress (let alone express physical violence to) their classmates.

It not being serious enough seems to you a problem ... whereas to me it seems exactly what education should be. A safe environment to explore with imagination and curiosity, what are and will remain important issues throughout their lives.

Women are not encouraged to dress as males do. A woman in a suit is not dressing like a male. Her suit is carefully tailored to emphasis her femininity. To bring attention to her anatomy in ways that men are comfortable with. When women actually dress like men, i.e. in ways that do not draw attention to their breasts, hips, or buttocks, men become uncomfortable, even angry with them.

Irrationally so. And it is feminist fatalism ... it is defeatism ... to say that it could not be done in a constructive way in school. Yes, it could be a field day for misogynist bullies. But only if the school allows bullying! Why assume it does?

When you have an event such as the one described by the OP, there is no actual analysis of gender roles which have men in positions of power and women in positions of inferiority. To the contrary. This activity reinforces these roles. Women who do not 'dress up like men' in a way that actually highlights their feminine sexual traits are looked upon negatively. Men who 'dress as women' do so in a way that generally exaggerates feminine sexual traits (ridiculously large breasts for example) and mocks them. Men dressed as women in these situations will exaggerate the 'negative' female characteristics by simpering, batting their eyelashes and acting in sexually provocative ways. While these characteristics are looked down upon, they are also the characteristics men expect women to have. Deviations from those norms are threatening and thus are attacked.

Women dressed as men in these situations will also exaggerate male characteristics, but without causing mockery. No matter how foolish and 'macho' a woman acts, these are legitimatised male characteristics of power rather than being denigrating definitions of masculinity. All of which reinforces patriarchal notions of 'proper' gender roles.

So what's your alternative?

If you were to say a strict unisex uniform code I might actually agree with you. Not many of the kids who have dress freedom at school now would though.

[Femnipotent]

I love the smell of freshly-built strawmen in the morning.

And I do so love the one line quips of those who claim all is well, claims to the contrary are all lies, and anyone who says differently is engaging in some sort of self-evident logical fallacy.

[Akela-Victoire]

My high school would have never done anything like that. We all wore uniforms and hardly had casual days, far less this...

[Polruan]

Please, people, don't feed the troll hysterical shrike

[The Rich Port]

This is could actually be very educational, especially about what it is to be comfortable with your gender.

I have dressed as a woman on many occassions, and I have to say: I like being a man.

Skirts are really breezy and they make the hair on my legs stand up.

I fucking hate make-up. It feels like I'm wearing an extra layer of skin. It's just uncomfortable.

I like it when women are secure enough in their looks that they don't feel the need to wear make-up.

[Krakadarek]

I dont hate it, BUT:.....
I do don't think this should be compulsory, it would make some boys/men VERY insecure.
like me for instance.

[Femnipotent]

But in that school, the 'women' are allowed to dress as 'men' too.

Could you find me a visual of what you personally believe to be 'dressing male' as practiced by a female? I think in this discussion, such a visual is very important if we want to actually analyse the gendered mode of attire.

So you're assuming that men dress as women on that day only for laughs, and the women dress as men but no-one notices because everyone is pointing at Rodney scratching his hairy legs which itch like bejesus in those stockings.

Actually, I made the claim that people would indeed notice women dressing as men. I make this claim because I believe that what you consider to be 'ordinary male dress' as worn by females is anything but. That indeed the 'male' dress you are thinking of is quite within the patriarchal bounds of femininity. Dress that emphasises 'feminine traits'. I would expect that on a day like this, some women would merely continue to wear their feminine clothing and claim that it is male, thus not threatening men at all. I would expect that some women however would actually attempt to wear male attire as it is actually understood and that this would also encourage mocking. However, mocking a woman for 'dressing male' is based on the mocking of a woman for attempting to 'step above' her station as an inferior rather than because being male is embarrassing, inferior, or inherently denigrating.

Never mind that this play-acting could allow some, male or female, to feel their patriarchal assumptions at work and question them in a safe environment where they are not allowed to oppress (let alone express physical violence to) their classmates.

Do you consider the school a safe environment normally? As in, do you think that the women there are not subjected to unwanted sexual advances, jokes, and constant denigration at the hands of both men and yes women who have internalised notions about female inferiority? Do you think that men on 'normal' days are not mocked if they display supposedly 'feminine traits'?

Schools are not normally safe places, just like society is not a safe place for the feminine. So when you say that this is a safe place on this day, what are you talking about? The feminine is being denigrated just like it always is, only in a more overt way. How is that safe? Men get to feel a common discomfort with temporarily putting on the trappings of femininity, but a camaraderie built on the knowledge that thank goodness it's a temporary thing surely overcomes said discomfort. As for the women participating in this farce, they get to see that yes indeed, being a woman is a funny thing. Just in case it wasn't clear before.

Not the kind of safety I'd ask for, thanks.

It not being serious enough seems to you a problem ... whereas to me it seems exactly what education should be. A safe environment to explore with imagination and curiosity, what are and will remain important issues throughout their lives.

Is it exploration to affect a lisp and a limp wrist and 'act gay'? Is that safe? For whom?

Irrationally so. And it is feminist fatalism ... it is defeatism ... to say that it could not be done in a constructive way in school. Yes, it could be a field day for misogynist bullies. But only if the school allows bullying! Why assume it does?

Because our entire society is shaped around the permissive bullying of women and the feminine. How could schools possibly be different when they are informed and shaped as much by society as any other structure?

Perhaps you could explain to me why you think schools have managed to break free of such powerful forces.


My alternative would be to actually examine people's assumptions about the worth of the feminine versus the worth of the masculine, as well as a critical analysis of what is actually 'feminine' and 'masculine'. My alternative would be to look at how supposedly fact-based 'physical difference' biological arguments are used to shore up socio-political notions of what men and women are capable of and should be allowed to do. Merely play-acting the stereotypes one has about gender does very little more than affirming that these stereotypes exist and inform so much of what our society believes and promotes.

[Femnipotent]

Please, people, don't feed the troll hysterical shrike

Yes. Anyone who uses words like 'patriarchy' or even worse 'feminism' and 'gender' must be hysterical.

Women get hysterical because they don't use logic the way men do. Men do not get hysterical, they merely get logical.

In addition, I must be a woman, because my hysteria is showing.

And a troll, because no one could actually believe what I am saying.

[Arkinesia]

Sounds fucking weird, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

This.

[Dyakovo]

Seems both weird, unnecessary and a bit ridiculous to me.

"Both"?
*re-reads, still sees three options*

[New Conglomerate]

Not my cup of tea, personally. But do what you want.

[AiliailiA]

But in that school, the 'women' are allowed to dress as 'men' too.

Could you find me a visual of what you personally believe to be 'dressing male' as practiced by a female? I think in this discussion, such a visual is very important if we want to actually analyse the gendered mode of attire.

No I can't. You'll have to ask the OP about that.

As I mentioned before, I went to a uniformed school. We never had a "gender swap day" but I imagine the obvious course of action would be to swap clothes with a girl or boy of about the same height and build. (Not the clothes they're wearing of course, I had two sets of trousers and five shirts and I imagine most other kids had multiple uniforms too). No "tailoring" involved.

So you're assuming that men dress as women on that day only for laughs, and the women dress as men but no-one notices because everyone is pointing at Rodney scratching his hairy legs which itch like bejesus in those stockings.

Actually, I made the claim that people would indeed notice women dressing as men. I make this claim because I believe that what you consider to be 'ordinary male dress' as worn by females is anything but. That indeed the 'male' dress you are thinking of is quite within the patriarchal bounds of femininity. Dress that emphasises 'feminine traits'. I would expect that on a day like this, some women would merely continue to wear their feminine clothing and claim that it is male, thus not threatening men at all. I would expect that some women however would actually attempt to wear male attire as it is actually understood and that this would also encourage mocking. However, mocking a woman for 'dressing male' is based on the mocking of a woman for attempting to 'step above' her station as an inferior rather than because being male is embarrassing, inferior, or inherently denigrating.

Mocking might indeed happen, but the school should punish it where it hits a level of harassment or intimidation. Within the school-sanctioned 'play' which is a "spirit" day or week, I honestly can't see this being as soul-crushing for a student who stands out by dressing to "feminine" or too "masculine".

But really what bothers me in the above is this: how is it better for women who want to dress as men, or men who want to dress as women, not to have this opportunity to do so, and pass it off as "being in the spirit" if it goes wrong for them?

You seem determined to suppress the symptoms, and even to deny an opportunity to those who would stand up and challenge exactly the stereotypes you despise. It is eerily like the attitude of those revolutionaries who oppose democratic socialist policies because they aren't extreme enough. You just want to leap straight to the ideal, and that never works.

Never mind that this play-acting could allow some, male or female, to feel their patriarchal assumptions at work and question them in a safe environment where they are not allowed to oppress (let alone express physical violence to) their classmates.

Do you consider the school a safe environment normally? As in, do you think that the women there are not subjected to unwanted sexual advances, jokes, and constant denigration at the hands of both men and yes women who have internalised notions about female inferiority? Do you think that men on 'normal' days are not mocked if they display supposedly 'feminine traits'?

I don't know the OP's school. I'm not sure how this would play out in the school I went to, because they never tried anything like it.

Schools are not normally safe places, just like society is not a safe place for the feminine. So when you say that this is a safe place on this day, what are you talking about? The feminine is being denigrated just like it always is, only in a more overt way. How is that safe? Men get to feel a common discomfort with temporarily putting on the trappings of femininity, but a camaraderie built on the knowledge that thank goodness it's a temporary thing surely overcomes said discomfort. As for the women participating in this farce, they get to see that yes indeed, being a woman is a funny thing. Just in case it wasn't clear before.

So again, it shouldn't happen in school because school is just like the rest of society. Violent and cruel to "the feminine" whatever that is.

If I were a woman, I'd be feeling pretty low about now. If I was a big bad male chauvinist pig I'd be feeling pretty chuffed. I'd probably feel inspired to drive down to the red-light district and pick up a woman to engage in some mutually patriarchal rape with, and if that went well I'd beat her up! Since that's the way of the world apparently.

But as a recovering patriarch who isn't particularly proud to be a man, and who sees problems still to fix ... and public schools as an excellent place to do some fixing ... I'm nothing more than puzzled by your attitude. It's like you're building patriarchy up to be invincible and all efforts to vince it as futile, despite centuries of effort and very real signs of progress. It's just so defeatist.

It not being serious enough seems to you a problem ... whereas to me it seems exactly what education should be. A safe environment to explore with imagination and curiosity, what are and will remain important issues throughout their lives.

Is it exploration to affect a lisp and a limp wrist and 'act gay'? Is that safe? For whom?

Again, I must call your attitude defeatist. For safety, you'd have no role-playing ever, because it might expose the homophobic (or misogynist) attitudes of some. Nothing but the sternest and most rigorous self-examination will do, comrades! This is no laughing matter, but so gravely serious that anyone with incorrect attitude should just shut up and listen to the lectures of us few, the enlightened who have with great personal disciplined freed ourselves from patriarchal thinking!

... yeah, sorry. It's just a bit hard to take you seriously.

Because our entire society is shaped around the permissive bullying of women and the feminine. How could schools possibly be different when they are informed and shaped as much by society as any other structure?

"As much by" is rather vague wording. You're saying there is no factor more significant in the school culture than "society". But you're not saying that factor outweighs all the others together.

That may be so. Are Universities better? I would hardly expect so, with those students having much more time away from any teacher. And the relative legality of teacher/pupil sex (compared to a high school) which allows corruption. Are workplaces better? Surely not. Perhaps a Parliament is better? Or a church?

So if a school is an inappropriate place to question patriarchy and find patriarchal assumptions in our own thinking, then where?

Can we, by the legal means of government and by the social means of speech and moral persuasion, change how parents treat their small children? How they reward or punish their children for behavior in school, and what influences of media or other adults they allow? Yes a little, but nowhere near as much as we can influence what happens in school.

Perhaps you could explain to me why you think schools have managed to break free of such powerful forces.

They haven't. But schools are where the most change can be effected. And some schools have a very good ethos of fairness and equal opportunity. The OP's school may be one such (why else would they take the legal risk of allowing an event which could increase bullying?) and compare well to any other environment the students could cross-dress in.

My alternative would be to actually examine people's assumptions about the worth of the feminine versus the worth of the masculine, as well as a critical analysis of what is actually 'feminine' and 'masculine'. My alternative would be to look at how supposedly fact-based 'physical difference' biological arguments are used to shore up socio-political notions of what men and women are capable of and should be allowed to do. Merely play-acting the stereotypes one has about gender does very little more than affirming that these stereotypes exist and inform so much of what our society believes and promotes.

So your alternative is to examine, to analyze, and to look at.

"Mere play-acting" is actually better. Because it demonstrates the stereotypes to those who inherited them unthinkingly, and thus makes them self-aware. Surely you can see the educational value in that? Or at least the potential for it, in a tolerant and free-thinking school?


I'll repeat the question I put before: would you favor a unisex uniform code for schools? Some primary schools have that, which I consider a very good idea. Applying the same to Middle and High schools would run up against different body shape, but perhaps there could be a code to allow for that without as you put it "accentuating" the difference.

And here's another question: do you favor gender segregation at High School level?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Sounds like a riot. We should do it.

You want us to riot?

As crossdressers.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Sounds like a riot. We should do it.

I can't imagine you dressed as a girl.

I've dressed up as a girl before.

For acting in projects, sure, but it counts.

[Conserative Morality]

As crossdressers.

Sounds good to me. I better get a NICE dress though. I don't want to look like a trashy crossdresser.

[Norstal]

It seems like a pointless exercise, unless there was also a shift in gender roles involved? Did the 'men' act in ways which subjugated the 'women' or were the 'women' unable to actually give up their male privilege?

The whole thing sounds like a pathetic farce really. All it does is further shore up patriarchal notions of gender roles by mocking that which is 'feminine' and glorifying that which is 'male'.

Maybe it is.

Problem?

[Hydesland]

as part of Spirit Week.

Sounds awfully new-agey, as such I cannot consider this school appropriate at all.

[The Truth and Light]

as part of Spirit Week.

Sounds awfully new-agey, as such I cannot consider this school appropriate at all.

Not sure if serious.

It has nothing to do with SPIRITS. It has to do with rallying for the school sports teams.

[Ifreann]

Oh Gods. So many delicious traps.

I WANT TO TAKE THEM HOME WITH ME.

And in school uniforms. Your poor little head might asplode.

[Dakini]

But in that school, the 'women' are allowed to dress as 'men' too.

Could you find me a visual of what you personally believe to be 'dressing male' as practiced by a female? I think in this discussion, such a visual is very important if we want to actually analyse the gendered mode of attire.

How about this?

or perhaps this?

Neither outfit is emphasizing tits, hips or ass. However, the results are still hot.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Nothing like this would ever happen in our school.

[Imperial--japan]

Nothing like this would ever happen in our school.

Mine either. No matter how bad I would look forward to it.