If “clothes make man,” then, for conservative commentator Candace Owens, those clothes would be better “masculine.” In fact, she argues, human civilization depends on it.
Owens’ commentary, aired in a series of tweets, was in response to British pop star Harry Styles donning a Gucci gown with lace and ruffle, under a black blazer, for the cover of the December issue of Vogue. She called Stiles’ dress, indicating that she referred to society as “the static feminization of our men,” “an outward attack”. He concludes his idea with an announcement: “Bring back the manly man.”
At a time of ending crises – a global epidemic that destroys lives, incites police violence and racism against black people, an autocratic president who threatens American democracy by refusing to win elections – a magazine cover criticizes It seems a little strange to dedicate energy to do. Even misguided. But the fact that the tweet hits close to 100,000 in just a few days suggests that Owens – for better or worse – has struck a nerve.
Owens (as well as for thousands of people who like his tweet) maintains that the continuity of “society” depends entirely on the impenetrability of classes and castes – from gender to economic. This is why he is very strangely involved in a pinch about Marxism – “the same time-bound feminization of our men that our children are being taught is no coincidence.”
Traditionalists, like Owens, on the other hand, fear the destruction of boundaries and boundaries that maintain the traditional social – gender and racial – hierarchy.
Marxism, in its simplest form, is an ideology that leads to the creation of a classless society; It provides the framework for communism as practice. People like Owens, on the other hand, fear the destruction of borders and the destruction of boundaries that maintain the traditional social – gender and racial – hierarchy. The terror of this loss of domination is reflected in a variety of policies and tactics, ranging from weakening Black Lives Matter to punishing migrants and refugees and throwing their children in cages.
Gender, especially as a category that enables discrimination based on physical appearance, is arguably the most ancient human limit. Traditionalists, consciously or not, regard traditional boundaries as not only fundamental to the sustainability of society, but also their own understanding of their personal beliefs. It is no surprise that they express nervousness when gender becomes disco.
Gender binary as a worldview suggests that a man is defined by his masculinity, which is based on the appearance and actions of traits and dominance. In contrast, a woman is defined by her femininity, according to modesty. It is not that men are inherently more powerful. No, rather it is that dominance is considered powerful. That men have over time exacted forms of dominance – through expressions of violence, aggression, and virility; From war to genocide, from rape to lynching – it has given rise to the belief that man is biologically powerful and masculinity is an expression of this power. Femininity must be located as essential, binary opposite masculinity, polished continuously so that masculinity remains impenetrable and undeniable.
And yet whatever is revealed, power is erased by women in different ways, and more effectively, especially during this epidemic. For women such as Angela Merkel of Germany, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand and Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, leadership means first harnessing the powers of their offices to protect their people by protecting their lives. It is no surprise that many women-led countries have controlled the epidemic better – especially when compared to countries led by autocratic, power-hungry men.
It is the job of feminists not only to show how this gender binary has worked in society, but also to underline how arbitrary – how, academically-speaking, to use “manufactured” -. It is binary.
This is why a photo of a former boy-bander in a dress as something that seems to cause such gender terror – as it exposes the artificial boundaries of our society. Historically, clothing has also been coded to represent the two traditional genders, regulated by law. The clothes represent femininity, which allegedly should be expressed only by women. This thinking depends very much on the moral policing set by religious doctrine; In Christian societies, Deuteronomy 22: 5 explicitly states: “A woman shall not wear a man’s clothes, nor shall a man be put on a woman’s clothes; whoever does these things for the Lord. There is hatred for your God. ” (This is all a bit strange, because in Christian iconography everyone is – men and women – in dress costumes. There are no pants to see!)
For Stiles, “says with him in a Vogue interview,” it’s fun to dress and play and play together. “When you go away ‘There are clothes for men and there are clothes for women,’ once you remove any obstacles, obviously you open up the area in which you can play.” … [A]Anytime you are putting obstacles in your life, you are just limiting yourself. Enjoys playing with clothes. I’ve never really given much thought to what it means – it just becomes this extended part of making something. “
Where people like Stiles find freedom in the midst of crossing boundaries and boundaries, others like Owens find destruction – and, it reveals Marxism. These competing world interviews represent two very specific principles of freedom. But when Stiles advocates a type of freedom embodied by creative expression and creative freedom, Owens – a conservative who wraps himself in the American flag – gives rise to a freedom based on barriers and male dominance.