>1. Commodity fetishism - which is one of the main vehicles of capitalist
>colonization of everyday life;
>
>Why is it comodity fetishism and not sexual expression?
>
>Somebody likes to be mummified. Some prefer the feel of leather,
>others latex, others saran wrap, some even plaster (it is a bitch
>getting them out). This is not commodity fetishism -- it is merely
>what stirs them. To maintain that it is commodity fetishism is a
>puritanical attempt to de-sexualize their actions.
Because these things aren't entirely one or another. I wear jeans and not skirt, it's a form of sexual expression. I prefer some types of jeans over others, that's probably a commodity fetish, outside of cheaply made, poor quality jeans there's probably not meaningful difference between brands of jeans.
> > Paul Childs is one of the most feminist men on this list and he's
> certainly
>never indicated any sort of puritanical streak in anything he's ever
>written here.
>
>Well now he has. I have known lots of feminists who were against porn, kink,
>sm and expressions of non-vanilla sexuality. Being a feminist does not mean
>you are sexually progressive.
Just as being sexually progressive doesn't make you right all the time.
> > Aside from that, if you read the story, the interesting part
>of it was that hetmen in Japan don't find this particular form of gender
>expression worthy of a woody.
>
>So why did Paul then make a connection to Woody Allen if there is
>nothing sexual about it?
Because the thought of grown women dressing up as described in that article gives me the creeps for a variety of reasons, some sexual, some not. Self esteem issues, the tyranny of fashion trends among them. Woody Allen creeps me out for having adopted a girl, then marrying her. Sorry, it just does.
> > In which case, simply asking him what he meant was probably better than
>excoriating him for a position he probably doesn't hold.
>
>Okay, Paul do you believe that an individual has the right of sexual and
>gender
>self-expression no matter how such expressions may squick others?
Of course I do. Why don't you just ask me when I stopped beating my kids. But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion about it, good or bad. Like sexual self expression, it's my right to be squicked, but I don't have the right to dictate what others should or should not do.
>Paul writes:
>
>Right, my mistake, Japan is nation of emancipated women and enlightened
>men expressing their sexuality freely, openly, in ways that are respectful
>and egalitarian.
>
> > No, your mistake is in criticizing and being squicked by someone who is
>willing to express their difference in such a society. If you are against
>the conformity of the society, why be bothered by the actions of a
>non-conformist? She said that dressing in such a manner relieved stress.
>Do you have something against her relieving stress? Or is there something
>wrong with the method she has adopted.
Yes, I think there is something weird with someone who relieves stress by dressing as a child, in public. What you or I do in private is our business, in public it's a different issue, presentation becomes a manifestation of societal values and Japanese society values women who are vulnerable and child like. She's conforming to a negative, sexist stereotype. It's her right to do that, just as it's my right to be bothered by it. But as others have noted, her choice is not entirely free, just as my choice of jeans isn't entirely free.
> > But I didn't read anything in this article that said adult Japanese men
> were
>dressing like pubescent boys to go to college and work.
>
>So? This woman is ahead of the curve. Should she wait for the men to catch
>up before she expresses herself? Does she need their permission?
WTF? I wasn't talking about this being a race, I was talking about the issue of equity. Fact is, you don't see any grown Japanese men dressed as school boys and you probably never will. There are deeply rooted societal reasons why it's women doing this, and I think those reasons are based on gender inequity.
>Should gays and lesbians have delayed genderfucking until heteros had
>started doing it?
> >I have no idea what 'Proper' sexual expression is or isn't, but given my
>understanding of Japanese culture this fashion trend is more in line with
>women
>in school girl outfits in manga and Asian sex tourism (by all people, not
>just the
>Japanese) than it is about women expressing their sexuality in an enlightened
>environment.
>
>Well, when my husband and I wear our leathers/uniforms we do so in an
>unenlightened environment. Does that make us unenlightened? Should we
>stop?
I don't care, do what you want.
>Unless you can get into someone's head and know why they are doing something,
>you have no idea whether they are enlightened or not. If someone likes to
>dress
>in a school girl outfit or see someone dressed that way -- what is the
>problem? You
>write as if dressing this way or having the desire to see a person dress
>this way was
>bad/wrong.
>
>And what does Woddy Allen have to do with any of this?
>
> > Again, when I read that Japanese men are dressing like little boys I'll
> stop
>shuddering, in the interim, I find this disturbing. Sorry if that offends
>your sense of
>left propriety.
>
>Again, why men have to do it too/first escapes me.
Not first, at the same time. And they probably never will.
>My sense of left propriety is not offended. What is so bad about your
>belief is that it
>makes it harder for kinksters to exist (unless you are in fact against the
>right of sexual
>and gender self-expression).
>
>Kinksters have a hard enough time -- very often being a kinkster can cost
>you custody
>of your children in a divorce case or, even if there is no problem, you
>can be deemed
>unfit parents by puritanical social workers.
A terrible situation I agree, but I don't see how my discomfiture with what these women are doing affects my attitudes about what people do in private laid out above. Especially if we're accepting that this is being done in a non-sexual way, which frankly voids both our arguments.
>Genderfuck is a powerful tool of the left. To shudder at it seems peculiar.
I'm not shuddering at the genderfuck, I agree it's a tool of the left, but dressing up to a damaging stereotype and supporting a fashion craze is not a genderfuck, it's being bourgeois and reactionary in the worst possible way.
PC
N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3
e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'.
-Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo