About mocking women

[Toni_Lynn]

I have been a member of this forum for a while and it has been a integral part of my self discovery of crossdressing. And I have to say that I NEVER EVER read or at least got an inkling that one of the male to female crossdressers dressed that way to mock women. On the contrary, it appears that we want to emulate the women we admire.
The women who claim that we are mocking them really make me laugh. They are the same ones who have a problem with a man holding a door for them.
....
Its almost like they are saying, equal rights for me, but not for you.

Jennifer -- I mostly agree with everything you have said. One little point though is about the fact that you have never "got an inkling ... dressed that way to mock women...we want to emulate the women we admire. "

Pardon my snipping there. I hope that I haven't mangled what you said!

Okay -- where was I -- oh -- they reason you haven't gotten that inkling is because we here are for the most part a very respectful and dare I say it, 'gentlemanly' bunch of ladies! Every so often something crude, rude, and disrespectful attempts to slip through but the mods usually nip it in the bud, and the person sees that this isn't that kinda place and departs.

The seamier side of things is on CD groups at places like Yahoo Groups.

As to your second bit, IMHO, the women who feel threatened by us -- oh heck here comes the generalisations -- would be ones who themselves have embraced the the negative aspects of some men's characters as their own -- all in the name of their own 'equality'. In other words, their quest for equality has taken them down and made them equal to the 'gentleman' (sic) who sit in strip clubs. We are the embodiment of that which they despise in themselves, kindness, gentleness, compassion, romance, and love.

Which ties back the first bit .. when I read about that which we love about women, (there was a thread about that a few months back), it was filled with kindness, gentleness, compassion, romance, and love in women, but also toward them.

Only a bully of a woman would see that as mockery.

Huggles

Toni-Lynn

[Tess]

a point that I was trying to make in the post above was that in a University setting, you probably have a much higher percentage of young women that might be buying in to the feminist philosophies of the past just out of some kind of "wanting to matter" motivation. Might be interfering with just seeing "people as people". It can be a funky kind of reverse sexism in my opinion. IE: Don't make us women doll up for you *men* (dirty word). And then: "wait a minute... you can't wear our clothes !". Why not,.. you co-opted men's in the name of your own need for self expression !? If yin and yang are true principles,.. the difference has to be made up somewhere.

I tend to think along the same line. Ask this question of university students at a liberal institution in a liberal area of the country and you are likely to get an extreme answer. Even the girls that don't feel strongly about the topic may answer as they think their peers would expect them to answer. That isn't to say that there isn't truth to their position, but it isn't necessarily something you can extrapolate to women across every area of the country, every age group, or socio/economic condition. What it does show is that the public face of cross dressing leans toward the female impersonator side of the spectrum and that the over the top presentation will make the biggest impression.

[MsSamanthaErica]

I agree...it is *not* mocking. I know deep down that I look at a beautiful woman and want to be closer to her. Not hurtful, not spiteful, not mocking. Just desiring to be closer to her.

Many times I look at a woman and admire how well they are dressed, how beautiful they are, and so on.

It seems to be that a lot of sisters have a similar outlook, I know I do!

~Samantha

[Sheila]

The seamier side of things is on CD groups at places like Yahoo Groups.

Toni-Lynn

Thanks a bunch Toni ................... I started a yahoo group for local cdr's and their SO's ................. gives me a sense of WTF am I doing, when I see lines like the above.

We have a hard enough time with the general public at large making assumptions and accusations with our own Bloo*y lot starting crap like that

[Toni_Lynn]

Thanks a bunch Toni ................... I started a yahoo group for local cdr's and their SO's ................. gives me a sense of WTF am I doing, when I see lines like the above.:

No offense intended .. its just that there are more people on Yahoo Groups showing their genitalia in public and more groups that permit that than their will ever be here.

If you have a good respectable group there, good for you.

Huggles

Toni-Lynn

[Carin]

I have been a member of this forum for a while and it has been a integral part of my self discovery of crossdressing. And I have to say that I NEVER EVER read or at least got an inkling that one of the male to female crossdressers dressed that way to mock women.

I think the subject is not about Crossdressers intentionally mocking women. I agree that this is not a discernable motivation.

The relevant information is that some people feel that over the top exposure is too much, and when done so in the name of expressing femininity is an insensitivity if not a mockery of that, even if it is not the intention. We all know that this is not a valid generalization of crossdressing and crossdressers. It doesn't hurt for us to be aware of the various perspectives that are there.

[Lisa Catherine]

When I'm en femme in public, I try my best to pass, and I dress conservatively and respectfully as I can. Gina Lance said it best in her book, "Get Dressed" when she said that the mass media will always publish and broadcast the outlandish character in the purple wig as the mainstream of crossdressers in order to sell advertising, they don't care about telling the real story.

[linnea]

Mockery? Well, there's no sense of mockery in my crossdressing, of others or self, men or women. I'm just trying to look good in whatever way I present myself.

[Melinda G]

I certainly don't dress to mock women. But if I did, there's so much to mock, and so little time.

[battybattybats]

Image-ism.
Discrimination based on clothing, appearance, 'beauty' etc.

When only passable and/or conservatively dressed CDs are not mockeries these women are being as image-ist as a womens magazine showing only size-0 models.

[Melinda G]

If I really wanted to mock women, I would drive with a cell phone in one hand, a makeup brush in the other, and steer with my elbows.

If I really wanted to mock women, I would talk on my cellphone in the bank driveup lane, and when I got to the driveup, I would send the carrier in empty, and ask the teller to send out a pen, and sit there filling out papers, and making out my deposit slip, and signing checks, while holding up a long line of angry customers.

If I really wanted to mock women, I would go to the supermarket, and park my shopping cart right next to another woman, completely blocking the aisle, and stare at the peas for five minutes, trying to decide between the Spartan or DelMonte brand, while carefully ignoring the angry shoppers waiting to get by.

If I really wanted to mock women, I would go to the lingerie dept, wearing my pantsuit and mens shoes, and stare daggers at the gentleman browsing the thongs.

[Toni_Lynn]

Image-ism. Discrimination based on clothing, appearance, 'beauty' etc.

Boo-hiss! Just because something is pointed out as being unacceptable behaviour doesn't make said 'pointing out' into discrimation or an '-ism'.

That kind of thinking would lead us to dismiss Hitler or Stalin as being 'very bad boys' or that to say that the fact they aren't included in the list of great political leaders of the 20th century as anti-labial-hirsute-ism!

Toni-Lynn

[heidi99]

In the initial post, I don't recall seeing any statistics regarding how many of the ladies actually knew someone who crossdressed or if the opinions shared were strictly based on visual perception of any crossdressers they had possibly seen. I find it a bit unsettling that (if it was based strictly on the visual dynamic) these ladies felt it alright to form an opinion that indicated they were being injured in some way by the way someone else was dressing.

Reading too much meaning into how someone is dressed. Hmmm. How is that different from a man thinking a woman is interested in having amorous relationships simply because she is wearing a mini skirt and provocative blouse? We (men) are told that it is inappropriate to read such a message into an outfit. Good for the gander but perhaps not good for the goose? Additionally, are we (men) allowed to presume some kind of hidden message from the fact that most women wear slacks/jeans rather than skirts?

I personally dress because it is FUN. I DO have a mental image of what I find attractive in the opposite sex, and it does manifest itself in the way I dress. I don't see very much of that mental image in today's society, so I guess I am providing it to myself. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad (thanks Sheryl Crow.)

I've tried not to rant, but this thread kind of struck a nerve.

If I really wanted to mock women, I would go to the lingerie dept, wearing my pantsuit and mens shoes, and stare daggers at the gentleman browsing the thongs.

OMG, Melinda! That's a good one.

[Melinda G]

Glad I found one you liked. It has happened to me.

[battybattybats]

Boo-hiss! Just because something is pointed out as being unacceptable behaviour doesn't make said 'pointing out' into discrimation or an '-ism'.

For something to be unacceptable it must have a reason for being unacceptable that is cogent, logical, fair and impartial. Judging people on their choice in fashion is every bit us wrong as doing so because of their choice in religion discriminating against people because of their attractiveness is just as wrong as doing so on their skin pigmentation or natural body-shape.

This is because the same WHY's are involved in both.
A failure to treat others who are different as being equals to oneself. Judging people on arbitrary matters or worse, on stereotypes. Extending personal subjective tastes over others for whom they do not apply.

Just because someone calls something unacceptable does not make their judgement fair, valid, cogent, rational, ethical etc.

And discriminating against another person for not sharing ones own subjective personal taste in clothes or for not sharing ones own religious denomination or for having had their body change via too much testosterone to pass or for having been born with certain skin pigmentation is however able to be fairly validly cogently, rationally, ethically called unacceptable.

It's the WHY that matters.

That kind of thinking would lead us to dismiss Hitler or Stalin as being 'very bad boys' or that to say that the fact they aren't included in the list of great political leaders of the 20th century as anti-labial-hirsute-ism!

I have no idea how you come to that conclusion! Seeing as the fascist oppresions from each of those is much more comparable to those discriminating against CDs and GGs who like to wear short skirts, or Goths for their style. You seem to be complaining that, to use analogy, saying up is up is in fact saying that it is down and I can't see how you get to that conclusion!

Especially as the facial hair of Hitler and Stalin are incidental to their place in the villains of mankind. It is immaterial and irellevant correlation and very much not causation! text-book logical fallacy.

Consider the difference between person A telling person B they are bad for liking the colour red because it is ugly and treating person B as unequal because of that and then person B telling person A they are bad for imposing their subjective tastes over others.

Person A is wrong. Person B is not wrong. Person A is acting contrary to centuries of Enlightenment thinking let alone simple basic logic on fairness equality and freedom, person B is upholding them. It is not the calling the other bad that is wrong or both would be equally wrong. Nor is it about who is right about the colour red being ugly or beautiful because as that is a subjective personal truth both CAN and ARE right when speaking purely for the truth of the colour for themselves. It is that Person A has a WHY that is logicly invalid outside of the self and person B has a WHY that is logicly valid outside of the self.

Both are correct about the colour red but only for themselves. Person B is not telling person A to like the colour, but to treat person B as an equal capable of being subjectively different.

This is the way liberty and equality can co-exist, liberty limited only by equality. Person B is defending both, person A opposes both for person B and is claiming inequal liberty for themselves at the expense of person B's liberty.

Hence image-ism is discrimination and is wrong. The very reasons that make racism wrong and religious bigotry wrong make it also wrong. That's Q.E.D. i'm afraid.

[jessielee]

thank you, ladies, for your insights.
very interesting.
i agree with those who observe that we, for the most part, truly respect ggs and that we attempt to fit in, to blend in, which means not drawing attention via gross caricatures or exaggeration of mocking.
however, the perception of mocking may come from generalizing on their part by grouping transvestite "drag queens," those intent on causing a stir or presenting a stereotype, along with other, more respectful dressing, as i see modeled here by you.

[Nicki B]

Michelle, can you explain a little more about the frame these discussions were set in and how you presented yourself during them? Did you introduce yourself to them as trans?

What examples were talked about? Did you feel they were thinking of drag queens, or the general trans population? Do they have any experience at all of the general trans population?

Michelle - would you come back on this?

[battybattybats]

i agree with those who observe that we, for the most part, truly respect ggs and that we attempt to fit in, to blend in, which means not drawing attention via gross caricatures or exaggeration of mocking.
however, the perception of mocking may come from generalizing on their part by grouping transvestite "drag queens," those intent on causing a stir or presenting a stereotype, along with other, more respectful dressing, as i see modeled here by you.

I don't blend in as a guy, why should I as a woman?
I stand out as a man, why shouldn't I as a woman?

It's fine for people to blend in if they choose to, but expecting people to do so, judging people who don't is inexcusable.

The culture of socially enforced conformity has, and I mean this entirely literally, destroyed many cultures and countless lives. It is wretched and evil.

For those who like the current styles and fashions of course they should wear them. For those who choose personally to blend in, go for it.

But as a Goth, as I have indiginous relatives, as a member of a multi-cultural society, as a crossdresser how can I fairly claim my right to dress how I please without defending those Drag Queens?

I can't and no-one can!

So I'll stand beside the Goths and Emos and Punks and Hippies and Ferrals and Rockabillies and Bogans and Women in short skirts with low-cut tops and the leather and latex wearers and drag kings and queens and anyone else who harms no-one but chooses to look different or whose personal style is incidentally different from the mainstream.

It's the right thing to do. It protects womens rights, transgender rights and it protects human rights.

Its vital that people be free to express themselves differently. Its essential to a healthy society for differences to be respected. And we cannot have equality unless we stand up for the right of people to dress differently without fear of discrimination.

[Janie Gunn]

Absolutely! Well said battybattybats.

[Satrana]

Boo-hiss! Just because something is pointed out as being unacceptable behaviour doesn't make said 'pointing out' into discrimation or an '-ism'.

What exactly is the unacceptable behavior? Dressing in a style they disapprove of? Well boo-hiss to that idea. If their fashion style offended my senses do you think they would change for me?

Let's remember that as CDs we already offend many people just by existing. We are the embodiment of unacceptable behavior. How can we then split hairs and debate how short a skirt must be before it becomes unacceptable to a certain section of society.

I am not angry at these women as they answered precisely how I would expect linking CDs to drag queens and overt sexual practices. What I believe is unhealthy is some people jumping on these women's ignorant comments as justification to propose conservative conformity for the whole CD community and condemning others. This only validates ignorance.

If we know ourselves that we are not mocking women then we should not bow down to pressure but instead we should hold our heads up high and be ourselves and educate those who do not understand. Unless of course you agree that CDs are mocking women.

[Sandie43]

I find when talking to men on work sites that they mock everything that is not manly even saying they never buy their partners flowers and yet I have seen one in a florist. Drag Queens, Croosdressers, Gay's, Men in suits are all targets for them, If one starts it seems that they all start and all stay on that theme. Could the same be happening with this group? Once the image of a man in a dress was in their head that typical image of big boobs, short skirts, kinky sex was their focus. Perhaps a few pitcures of crossdressers from all areas of the cross dressing community be shown before the discussion starts, would give a different response. It would also appear that the more people in a group the less likely they are to accept something out of their norm.

[Toni_Lynn]

What exactly is the unacceptable behavior? Dressing in a style they disapprove of? Well boo-hiss to that idea. If their fashion style offended my senses do you think they would change for me?

My boo-hiss is actually more about the fact that anything that is a form of criticism seems to be made into an -ism. Batty's view that it is image-ism is equally image-istic in and of itself as it specifically was critical of size-0 models who should, by the standards set by one not wanting to be guilty of image-ism, be allowed to look and promote what they want too also.

My point here and in my statement is that one can find any criticism to be an -ism of some sort. I may not have stated my case appropriately, but I get very riled up when I hear a bunch of politically correct warm fuzziness passed of as an excuse for a reason for people feel a certain way about things.

I fail to see why one cannot be critical of those in the TG community who dress in a manner that invokes scorn upon us, while at the same time it is fine to cry foul when a commercial or TV show made outside the community does the same. Its kind of like why the rap/hip-hop community can get away with using the N word yet anyone away fropm that can't. If something isn't right or offense, it applies to all.

Toni-Lynn

[victoriamwilliams1]

Thats interesting. I think the perception they have is based on how we are presented on television shows like Springer and others. The question would be interesting if it was reversed if the woman was a CD and it was a room full of men that where asked the question.

I think that a few are dressing in an over exaggerated style on both sides of the CD/TG world, however I think they need to see those of us who not only dress for acceptance but those of us who if they were in the room with them they would be surprised.

I think a good group would be to include a TG/CD who has blended and if the same type of responses come have the person reveal themselves as well as photo support of those who do not over exaggerate.

[LA CINDY LOVE]

My theory on this is that the angry women are upset and jealous, because they see crossdressing men as invading their territory.

Time after time, less than happy women comment that my nails are better than theirs, that I look better in a skirt than they do, and that they can't wear heels as high as mine.

When men invade and conquer women's traditional territory, it is natural that some women will be jealous and angry. I accept that, and do not seek to escalate conflict.

It is not my problem, though, if insecure women feel threatened by a man who better manifests traditionally female styles.

This as got to be the worst theory I have every heard... and I can not believe that some of you think this way about women......no the angry women. Look at all the sh#t that women had to go through and still look at the BS that women have to go through today and now women are told that they are angry, upset and jealous by some man in dress because they feel that cross dressing man are invading there territory ....PLEASE PLEASE SOMEBODY CALL OPRAH.

I feel that we are blaming drag queens for the mockery because they go over top as some of you had said and that is very unfair, all drag queens are not the same, you have the drag queen who is a celebrity impersonator and the drag queen who is into high theatrical exaggerate, but both are entertainers and some are very professional. While a lot of you were hiding in your closet drag queens were out helping or community.

I get the feeling that some of you feel that you are better then drag queens because you dress more appropriate

When a women sees another woman in a very short tight dress she thinking tramp or that is very unappropriated to wear, but if she sees a man in the same outfit what do you think she is thinking then.

We are so quick to jump on people when they attack us for what we do and here we are doing the same thing, you think when you put on that wig and dress with that hand bag you came up with something new........? dose Cindy mock women......yes she dose, do cross dressers mock woman......well next time you put on the wig and that dress with that hand bag ask your self that.



LA CINDY LOVE

[jessielee]

But as a Goth, as I have indiginous relatives, as a member of a multi-cultural society, as a crossdresser how can I fairly claim my right to dress how I please without defending those Drag Queens?...
It's the right thing to do. It protects womens rights, transgender rights and it protects human rights...

freedom is axiomatic, ideally.
no one said anything about forced homogeneity.
my point is that those who value femininity so much as to emulate it cannot be logically accused of mocking it.