Long Live the King: Why don’t we Love Drag Kings like we do Queens?

13th
Oct. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

photo snapped of Switch n Play

I’m out with a pack of drag kings. I’m in the backseat and in front are Billy Burg and Jonathon Bitchman — members of drag-king troupe Switch and Play. We’ve just come from a performance and Jonathon is still in muttonchops and cowboy hat. We are headed to a John Waters-themed drag party. “John Waters loves drag kings!” someone says in the front seat — “Well, John Waters at least had drag kings in one of his movies, which is more than I’ve seen anywhere else.”

Lady Gaga’s recent VMA stint as drag king persona, Jo Calderone, may be the first drag king performance on national television. We’ve seen drag queens on screen, Rupaul has been on television for more than 20 years, but there has been no king equivalent. But it’s not for a lack of a scene — Murray Hill, an accomplished NYC drag king is finally getting some notice by UK television — still no love in the U.S. Propping myself up between the two kings in the backseat, I’m trying to figure out why.

Drag historian, Joe E. Jeffreys archives early footage of drag performances, and from what he’s found, drag kings were there from the beginning. Storme Delarverie, a drag king (and Stonewall veteran) performed at the Jewel Box theater in the 1950’s. The Jewel Box was a traveling drag show that extensively toured the U.S. from the 40’s up until the early 70’s.

Even in earlier days of vaudeville (in the late 1800′s on) drag-kings were common. Women would take the stage dressed as men to sing songs, tell stories — which were somewhat off color — and smoke cigars. Simultaneously, in American culture, gender roles were under going a massive change. This era saw women pushing for the right to vote, and even the right to wear pants. “The big sociological question is how did this transfer to the stage?” asks Jeffreys.

In a loud club, I am drinking whiskey with the kings. I shout over the music; “Is the drag king more taboo than the drag queen?”

There are a lot of answers to this. “It’s more disruptive of power,” says Billy, getting at the idea that a man loses power when he dresses up as a woman, but a woman gains power by dressing as a man. “I mean it’s literally aggressive to put on male drag,” someone agrees.

The talk inevitably turns to Gaga’s performance and the very reason it was so shocking. She was being sexy in a male way, which registered as shock and horror on the faces of sexy pop starlets like Katy Perry and Britney Spears. “I can’t think of another time a female pop star — or anyone — so blatantly broke the gender binary on television,” someone says. Definitely, women in pop culture are expected to adhere to very specific roles.

According to Jeffreys, the popularity of drag king’ing comes in waves. If the 1940’s and 50’s saw was a time of celebration of drag kings — the 1990’s was the drag king explosion. In New York, Club Cassanova was the first weekly drag king party. Diane Torr offered drag king workshops. And at bars in the East Village, Shelley Mars took the stage, in drag, telling sexist jokes — “why do men come before women?” — “Who cares?” before jerking off beer bottles. Or, she played a gay male character with AIDS dementia.

portrait of DRED by Rebecca Swan

In 1997, John Waters interviewed Club Cassanova’s organizer, Mo B. Dick. Mo points out that, at the time, there were a lot of feminist messages in drag — a critique of men — but the drag kings of color were often more respectful. “There’s too much negativity going around as it is. So they’re more positive,” Mo says. DRED’s on stage message is a shining example: “Society is so concerned with what makes a woman and what makes a man. All that matters is what makes us human… Let your light shine through. Let your fire burn.”

Mo also describes his first drag character — a sailor who slapped boys on the butt. Waters says, “You were ‘trade’ that’s what you were. A woman dressed as male trade. That’s very sexy. It’s confusing. See, to me, sex is always the best when you’re confused.”

Classic drag is about performing a gender role– one that is outdated. “Who is that person lady gaga presented? Has that person existed since 1955?” asks Jeffreys.

Where the kings of the 90’s were critiquing masculinity on stage, the kings that followed embraced it.  “I’m interested in how men are vulnerable. And how masculinity can be a burden” says Billy, whose personas include a businessman who discovers he’s gay, and a creepy preacher.

At the John Waters showcase, I am getting an education in the newest school of drag performance. The younger kings go beyond masculinity and shun the binary altogether. A drag king might have breasts and a phallus. As Jeffreys reminded me, sociologists tell us that the first two things you register about anybody in the first three seconds of meeting them is their race and their gender. And maybe that’s why I like this new drag so much, it is confusing.

Talking to the Kings, it feels frustrating that they have not been able to break into popular culture the same way queens have. “We live in a society that sexualizes femininity, so to have a woman dress as a man breaks those norms and mainstream society has a difficult time seeing women in masculine roles,” says Billy.

But also, as I watch the John Waters showcase, which includes gender-queer homages to Divine, and an act where a performer does something unspeakable with a hard boiled egg, it’s hard not to appreciate feeling a part of something still off the mainstream radar, untainted by the inevitable effects of joining popular culture.

This story originally ran on Sexis as part of my SexBeat column. See more stories like this one here.

You tell me:

Why haven’t drag kings caught on in popular culture the same way as drag queens?

Is there something more taboo about a woman taking on a male role?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (25)

Occupy SlutWalk | A Personal Account of Two Protests

7th
Oct. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

It is Saturday night in New York City, just after midnight. While most of Manhattan seems to be walking to and from bars, at Liberty Square hundreds of protesters are in sleeping-bags covered with tarps to keep out the rain. It’s hard to navigate the park without stepping on a snoring body; a few are sprawled blanket-less on park ledges meant for sitting. Someone strums a guitar and people sing in a tent by flashlight, as if from inside a paper lantern.

Earlier today I went to SlutWalk, the world-wide anti rape-culture protest. It’s timely in New York, with two cops acquitted of rape charges and police warning women to dress conservatively. But after Slut Walk, I came here, to day fifteen of Occupy Wall Street–the “live in” protest about the disparity of wealth among the classes, the control big business has on the government and the corruption of Wall Street institutions. I should have guessed that tonight the protesters would be exhausted–just hours before 700 people were arrested in a march over the Brooklyn Bridge.

At SlutWalk, I pulled my sunglasses over my eyes, as I felt them filling with tears. It was the feminist rhetoric I grew up with that got to me. All around me were women with signs like “blame the system not the victim” — and “Slut” scrawled on their chest ala Kathleen Hanna. The lonely teenage riot grrrl inside of me couldn’t believe it.

But at Occupy, my eyes were wide. It wasn’t the fight I grew up with, but the one that was happening all around me, the frustrations of my generation unfurled. There were messages like “Wealth is meaningless on a dead planet“  or “United Snakes of America”  scrawled on deflated Trader Joes bags or spotted pizza boxes. I watched in a daze, before realizing I had fallen in line for the march.

At the foot of the bridge,  a sea of people unrolled as far as I could see. It was a sampling of the general population– the various ages, ethnicity and culture you might see on a Metra train. At Slutwalk one of the speakers had said “look around you, look at all of the different people and cultures and colors” and I swallowed back a tiny sob. Here, all the more true, I felt warm and stunned, too shocked to cry.

As we marched onto the Brooklyn Bridge, other protesters went on the street below  which had now been cordoned off. “I want to be down there!” I heard and people began jumping from the bridge to the street. One man positioned himself over, gripping the railing, and a police officer grabbed his legs– he was dangled above a 500 foot drop into the east river. Some protesters pulled him back onto the bridge.

I missed the SlutWalk march. But as SlutWalk marchers rounded back chanting, “hey, hey, ho, ho, rape-culture has got to go” I felt my heart beat, bongo-like. At Occupy Wall Street, we were told “don’t yell at the police, they are part of the 99% too. Be peaceful!” But at SlutWalk, everyone knows, cops are not friends. The acquittal of two NYPD officers charged with rape rung in the ears of New York. The protesters yelled, directly at the police, there were anti NYPD chants and some carried signs like: “We will protect ourselves, get a .45” and “Rape is a Felony even for the NYPD”. When the cops told myself and a few girls to move out of the way, we rolled our eyes.

Soon, at the Occupy Wall Street protest, the cops were arresting everyone in the street. A preteen girl with an Invader Zim cap was among the arrests; and cuffed protesters kept chanting– “the banks got bailed out, we got sold out” — “Whose bridge? Our bridge!”. We were told to march on, and I checked the twitter hash-tag, and retweeted “@CNN Is the Brooklyn Bridge too far from your midtown offices to get a camera crew there? Cover the news. #occupywallstreet”.

I saw reporters at SlutWalk, snapping photos of some of the sparsely dressed girls. While the media image of SlutWalk  has become the topless protester, a number of the girls I talked to told me, “I’m wearing what I was sexually assaulted in”–A SlutWalker I met at Occupy in jeans and a hoodie told me this. We sadly agreed: “That’s the real SlutWalk uniform”.

As Occupy protesters got arrested, we marched into Brooklyn. Here, there was a rally, using the people’s mic. Without a PA, Occupy announcements are passed through a sort of game of telephone–the speaker speaks one sentence at a time, pausing, as the crowd repeats it to those behind them. It has been called one of the more striking features of the protest, and undoubtedly hearing messages reverberate through a crowd is powerful.

One man named Trevor stood to talk–“I work 60 hours a week. I get two paychecks a month. One goes to rent and the other goes to food. We can do better than this. This is indentured servitude.”

Later, a veteran of the Iraq war spoke. He talked about holding an Afghan child in his arms, as he died, then holding a Marine as he died. “Some people say we were fighting for one thing. Other people say we were fighting for another thing” people repeated through the crowd. “All I know is I now understand we are dieing for the bank accounts of the rich.”

Before I left SlutWalk, there was a rally too. Sarah E. Patterson gave a fiery talk about sex workers rights: “A society that does not treat its most vulnerable members with the respect doesn’t treat anyone with respect” she said to cheers. Ceyenne Doroshow talked about being trans and made story about almost getting raped by two men into something uplifting and light. I  remember SlutWalk this way, colorful, joyous even. But when I  think of Occupy it’s the gray sky bearing down on the Brooklyn Bridge’s stringed arches, ominous.

While most toss and turn in their sleeping bags at Liberty Square, I find some people hanging out in the back of the Wikileaks truck. There are bean bags and mattresses. There is no alcohol or drugs allowed on the premises, and the protesters take this as seriously as they take staying peaceful. They are not here to be violent, they are not here to party. But in the truck, the mood is light. The kids take turns telling bad jokes. “Knock knock” someone asks. “whose there?”… “9/11”. “9/11 who?” someone asks back. “You said you’d never forget!”

Earlier that day, scrolling through the hastag, #occupywallstreet, I saw acclaimed Internet feminist, Sady Doyle on the thread–ranting at the WikiLeaks truck. Bringing up the Julian Assuange rape case, she  tweeted: “Asked the guy at the #wikileaks truck point-blank whether penetrating an unconscious person was rape. He said, not rape “if they’re married” or “if they’ve slept together.”#occupywallstreet.”

At the SlutWalk rally, someone adressed Occupy Wall Street– “We need to talk about whether we should be occupying this land at all. We need to talk about colonialism and imperialism. We are not the indigenous people of this land!” No doubt, there is a place for this discussion, but it seemed to confuse the audience, who were dispersing. Why did it feel like SlutWalk was pinning itself against Occupy? As though one cannot be a feminist and any other sort of activist?

“What the hell happened with Sady Doyle?” I ask the Wikileaks truck guy. He tells me that Doyle came up to the truck and started yelling at him about the Assuange rape case. His answer– that sometimes in relationships it isn’t rape– obviously isn’t great or even cool. But I can’t shake feeling alienated by this clash of the movements, especially considering how egalitarian Occupy is. One of the rules of the people’s mic is that it’s customary to ask: “are there any non male, non white folks that would like to speak first?”

Despite mainstream media outlets like The New York Times making the Occupy protesters out to be faux-intellectual drop-outs, the kids  are witty and smart. The conversation flows smoothly between atheism, feminism, ethics and philosophy. They are college grads, who are living what they learned in school–despite the fact that they can’t get jobs.

Perhaps the misunderstanding of the movement is generational. The protests of the 1960’s or 70’s seem black and white in contrast, but today’s digital age brings with it a kaleidoscope of viewpoints and political shades. And while there are a number of democrats here, there are lots of anarchists, some are syndicalists who believe in unions, a few are capitalists who believe in free markets and most don’t specify.

It leads me to wonder if this is the birth of a new movement–perhaps, a first ever unification of many different political ideologies. If so, it makes sense that it would take them time to find a message that unites them. Or perhaps the mainstream just can’t hear their message.

In truth, the camp is impressively organized, and works as it’s own tiny town. Entering, I’m offered a sleeping bag, heavy coat, and a tarp to pull over myself in the rain. The food table is filled with granola bars, fruit and hot pizza. There is also a lending library and creative project area to keep people entertained.

There is a joke of needing a sectioned off sex area as well. Occupy Wall Street offers impressive sex kits which include condoms, dental dams, lube and finger cots.  “I almost stepped on this couple having sex in their sleeping bag, they just looked at me, laughed and kept going” says one of the protesters.

Late into the night, the fire department arrive at the square — they are flashing lights and blowing sirens. “What’s going on?” I ask. A protester named Max explains that this has happened every night. “They are here to fuck with us, make sure we don’t get sleep. It’s not the firefighters fault, they are ordered to it do it,” he says.

The conversation drops off, and he worries aloud about what might happen, the violence. The protesters are tired and the cops are hardening. This is supposed to be a peaceful protest, but what happens if a cop goes further, what happens if a cop kills a protester? “We will snap.I am afraid of what I would do” says Max. “Everything will change.” The rest of the group agrees, wearily and fearfully, that sometimes it does feel like this is what it’s building toward.

Today, going over the Brooklyn Bridge, I passed a girl who had also just come from SlutWalk, saying about the cops– “they hate feminists!”  Another girl, passing her, turned and said, “it’s not just feminists they hate.”

As the firemen wake more and more people up with their flashing lights, I check the time. It’s 3:00 a.m. and  the people who’ve been arrested should be arriving soon, but it’s hard to imagine where they will all fit. “That’s why we marched to the park in Brooklyn” says Max. “The rumor is, that’s going to be our outpost.” Unlike the cooked Radiohead is playing Occupy rumor, this one makes sense. The protest keeps growing and the kids are here for the longhaul.

On Wednesdays night, I watch the videos from that days march, which I don’t attend– I see a cop beating a woman with a baton, swinging to hit as many people as he could. I hope for this extra space.

SlutWalk NYC was an explosion that was over in a few hours. No one yet knows when Occupy Wall Street will end. You can’t compare the two movements, they for different causes, reacting to different things. But both are born of a similar seed– of fighting a similar evil, of the same generation. A generation who want better, who were promised better. And who are out doing something to get it.

Occupy photos by Edmund X White, SlutWalk photos by EnnuiPoet

You tell me.

Do you support SlutWalk? Occupy Wall Street? Why or why not?

How are the movements the same, how do they clash?

What does this mean for our generation?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (23)

I interviewed My Parents about Their Romance

6th
Oct. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

My mom and dad started dating in the early ’80s. Dad spent the ’70s driving around Chicago in a black van painted with flames, then went out West with nothing but his motorcycle, friends — and, judging by a photo I found from that time period, a decent amount of marijuana. Meanwhile, Mom was putting herself through nursing school and had a reputation as a party girl. She’d borrow her roommates’ dresses and hem them shorter before a night out dancing — but she’d only do a false hem, and afterward return them to the closet, roommate none the wiser.

When Dad was struck by a car on his motorcycle, he decided to “clean up” and go to forestry school. One of the only forestry programs in the country was located in the same small town where Mom lived. Dad noticed Mom around town, but when they finally had their first date, a whirlwind would follow.

So, Dad, despite your wild past — painting your teenage bedroom black, doing hallucinogens out west — you were suddenly shy about hitting on Mom?

Dad: I had moved to go to school, and after nearly dying in a motorcycle accident I was bent on getting my life together. I wasn’t partying as much anymore. But I would see your mom around, and I knew this was the girl I wanted to go out with. Yet, when it came to talking to her, all of a sudden, I was a weenie-boy. I just admired her from afar.

Mom: We first met at a wedding.

D: The first time we met, she sat close to me and kissed me on the cheek, but she had this boyfriend around. I was happy nevertheless and told my sister, “She was smoochin’ on me!” My sister just said, “Oh, she kisses everyone like that, even the guy who sells bagels from a cart at two a.m.!”

M: I liked your dad and was flirting with him, but my old boyfriend was there. We just had chance meetings from then. Later, I saw him in the grocery store. I asked about Christmas trees, then invited him to a New Year’s Eve party, but I was engaged to that same boyfriend by then.

D: I didn’t go. I remember saying to my sister that I really liked this girl — why would I go to the party she and her fiance were throwing?

So, Mom, who was this guy you were engaged to?

M: He was an artist and photographer. He was very cerebral and it felt stable, but sort of conservative or cold. He wasn’t one to dance or party. We had intellectual conversations, but we didn’t really laugh. One of our major problems was that he was very insecure — I was outgoing and a big flirt, and his insecurity about that just made it worse. At a party, if I knew he was watching me, I would really put on a show.

So what happened?

M: We got into a fight one night. Our fights were more like debates, very democratic, taking turns. I finally said, “This isn’t working, I’m done.” I didn’t give him back the ring — but that night he came over and took it off my finger while I was sleeping! That was the only time I’d seen him angry or dramatic. Later, he apologized and said he wanted to stay together but, really, it wasn’t working. After that, I vowed to stop dating guys just because they seemed like stable husband material or had a good job. I decided to just go with my heart and instincts.

From family dinners where everyone’s had a little too much wine, I know that at one point, Dad sort of slept with one of your friends. What happened?

M: It was November, ten months after I invited him to the New Year’s party, but by then I had broken off the engagement. I walked into Cherry Street, a disco, and there was my friend, dancing with your dad. I thought, “Wait, I’m supposed to be dancing with him!” So, I asked him to dance, and he was a great dancer, and really witty. Afterward, I gave him a little kiss on the cheek, tore off a deposit slip from my checkbook with my phone number and address on it, handed it to him and said, “Call me.”

D: I thought, “Oh man, this chick is a professional.” I called and called and she was busy, every time. I figured she was blowing me off.

So, how did the first date finally happen?

M: He was a little younger than me. He was a student, and I was busy with a new job. I had all these excuses, but then he stopped calling. So, I called him up and invited him to my office Christmas party, but since that seemed so formal for a first date, I had him over first.

D: She invited me to her apartment and made dinner. We spent the entire night together on the couch just talking. I had to tear myself away! She begged me to stay, but I had a rule about not sleeping with people I liked on the first date.

M: [Laughs] I did not beg him to stay. And that rule only lasted for the first date.

So you guys got pretty hot and heavy after that?

M: Before this, I always knew deep down my relationships weren’t going to work out, because guys would stay over and I’d think “I wish he’d just go home now.” Even with my fiance, it felt like he was a guest, and I had to be on my best behavior. But when I woke up with your dad, I thought, “Oh, you can stay forever.” I was just comfortable. I could be goofy and relax. He made me laugh so much, and we had great conversations. I knew he could handle my crazy family, and it would just be okay. He was gregarious and outgoing like me. He would fit in with everyone I knew.

D: I couldn’t believe she was interested in me. It was a high that lasted for months. She was so gorgeous and smart and accomplished. I was just smitten.

M: He went home for Christmas, but he bought me the most beautiful Christmas tree and an ornament with the inscription “Our first Christmas together.”

D: When I came back, we decided to throw a New Year’s Eve party to announce our engagement.

So you guys had been dating less than a month before you got engaged? How did this happen?

M: We were cuddled up on the couch, talking about how crazy we were about each other. I said, “If you want to marry me, you have to do it fast, or I’ll back out.” And he said, “I accept!” He called his mother right then to announce it. So we had an engagement party, and as people were coming in, it was like, “Hey! Meet so-and-so! We’re getting married!”

How did people respond?

D: I answered the door, and it was her sister. I introduced myself and said, “I guess I’ll be your brother-in-law!” She just walked past me and said, “We’ll see about that!”

Yep, things start to get crazy from here. Click to read the rest at Nerve!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

The Future of Marriage and Non-Monogamy | A Conversation with Pamela Haag

30th
Sep. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

Marriage has never been one solid thing throughout time– contrary to its “sanctity”. Even the bible was once suspicious of marriage– it was seen as more holy to be celibate and in many cultures throughout time polygamy has been the preferred relationship model. Women were also once sold from father to husband–family decided who you married. But perhaps most shockingly, monogamy hasn’t always been central to American marriages! So in the digital age, when things shift faster than ever, what is the future of  marriage?

In this interview, I talk with marriage researcher, Pamela Haag, author of the book “Marriage Confidential” , about the future of marriage–and the role non-monogamy is already playing.

Can you tell us a bit about the “secretly transgressive” oreo marriages you describe in your book?

If you’re at a cocktail party with 20 married couples, chances are, one or two are in openly non-monogamous marriages. They’re the marriage next door. They pay the bills, go to little league games, recycle—and maybe on the weekend go on swinging holidays.

 Have the rules of monogamy in marriage always been so strict?

The 1950s—a so-called golden era of “family values!”—was more tolerant of covert affairs than the 1980s. This was more true for husbands more than wives, but not entirely, Kinsey found in his research that a fair percentage of wives had had affairs too

In the 1950s  there was a fair amount of “wink, wink” tolerance for a gap between the monogamy ideal and reality. The conservative 1980s were more about regulating behavior, religious social conservatives not only wanted us to act as if we were monogamous, they wanted us to BE monogamous–monogamy became a stricter social ethic.

But the reality is that a fair number of spouses cheat,  and we forbid cheating. So, we end up with what I call the “shocking banality” of infidelity: it happens all the time and we’re shocked by it all the time.

When did we begin to see an opening up of non monogamy in marriage?

My argument is that in the 1970s, free love and non-monogamy had a certain chic to it, but it didn’t have solid foundations in demography, economy, or technology.

Today, the idea of openly non-monogamous marriages has no political chic to it, but it does have a more solid foundation in demography (we live longer and healthier than ever), economy (women earn their own paycheck, and don’t rely on the sexual contract in marriage for their meal ticket), and technology (we’re connected to people more than ever—and much more easily than ever before).

So marital monogamy is under greater stress today. And I think it’s being deliberately rethought and re-evaluated by a post-romantic generation that sees the main function of marriage as friendship, an establishment of a home base–not sexual passion and fidelity, per se.

In the past, people married for money, order, family and having babies. Today we seem more apt to say we marry for love. Yet statistics show we marry in our own social class and race… What are we really marrying for?

Today we are more inclined to marry “partners” than lovers. The majority of unmarried Americans say they want to marry a soul mate, according to Gallup research. It’s an interesting goal, because it’s not specifically a romantic love that we’re envisioning. “Soul mate” can apply to any number of relationships, from friend to colleague to spouse. Maybe we want marriages that are intimate, but not “romantic,” per se.

From what I understand, more people are marrying their best friend, but this is not boding well for marriages– that best friend/spouse is too expected to be “all things” for us.

Men and women have the same opportunities and life experiences more than ever before, we’re more similar and comradely toward each other. All of those things are victories, and upsides of feminism. The bad news is that a marriage today can slide too much into a “partnership” or a co-parenting arrangement, and lose that sense of intimacy that comes from a sense of mystery or difference.

How does non-monogamy  fit into the future of marriage?

More marriages will have a conversation about monogamy, rather than just assuming it is the default.  It seems to me that non-monogamy might become a more accepted option, much as premarital sex has shifted from largely scorned to widely tolerated today.

In my book I look at the entire gamut of extramarital sex—from conventional cheating  to “affair tolerators” who look the other way, to monogamy “agnostics” who don’t care as much about marital monogamy as they thought they would, to deliberately open, ethically non-monogamous marriages and even “asexual” marriages, where one or both spouses really doesn’t have an interest in sex.

It’s funny that historically, there were more models for non-monogamy — even if it was the “mistress” model.

I wonder how our views would be different if we had a social recognition for those historically honored roles of “Mistress” and “Lover.” If these roles were more integrated socially, we’d be less inclined to mistake lust or romantic attachment with “true love” — and bolt for divorce court when an affair happens. I like to entertain the idea of a revival of the mistress and lover roles in society.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a trend story claiming that less people are divorcing because divorce would mean a failure. I got the sense this was among the kids who grew up in the family values 1980′s…

More affluent, better-educated Americans are getting and staying married than less affluent Americans. I think this is happening in part because we have a Type A desire to succeed, and this applies to marriage as to everything else. Whereas in the 1970s there was a certain admiration attached to getting divorced and fulfilling your dreams and “personal growth,” we grew up in the 1980s, when the family values retrenchment was going strong.

Also, some of these spouses grew up in divorced families themselves. I encountered more than one husband or wife who had vowed never, ever to do that to their own children. In my own survey for my book, I found that 33% of respondents agreed that “even if you’re unhappy, you should stick it out for the children.” That’s up from 20% in a 1970 survey.

How are things different for younger generations, such as my own, who largely grew up in the 90s early 00s?

The younger generation that grew up in the 1990s is vastly more “connected”. It’s my guess that your generation won’t have the same expectation that a marriage should be “the world” to them. I think there will be more tolerance for having a range of intimate relationships and friendships, and a greater understanding that it’s not a marital failure if you seek different things from different relationships. I also sensed that the younger generation has more pragmatic views of marriage, even more than my generation.

Is marriage on the way out?

40%  of Americans think that marriage is “becoming obsolete,” and 50% of younger Americans believe this, according to 2010 Pew research. I think that marriage is in a brainstorming phase. It’s trying to find its footing in the new realities of the 21st century. It seems to me that we still believe in marriage—we still want to give it a try—but the reality is, we don’t always do it according to spec. We’re improvising.

The bottom line is that I think both arrangements are challenging. It’s challenging to have a non-monogamous, committed relationship; it’s challenging to have a monogamous, committed relationship. Forever is a long time—it pays to be flexible.

This story also appeared at The Atlantic

And now let me ask you guys:

  • Do you think marriage is on the way out?

  • How is your generation changing marriage? Do you want to someday marry– what for?

  • Do you think more people are really going to try non-monogamy in marriage? Would you?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (8)

Open Relationships, Making your gf Cum & Dudes who Wax their Chests

23rd
Sep. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

Yay! Answering questions about open relationships, making somebody special cum and whether girls like guys who wax their chests…

If you’ve got a question or topic for conversation–ask here. Or e-mail  askrabbit (at) rachelrabbitwhite dot com

Maybe we continue the conversation? You tell me:

What do you think about open relationships?

Have another answer for making your gf cum?

Thoughts on guys, their body hair and marketers attacking their self esteem?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (10)

What’s up with the Bisexual Double Standard?

16th
Sep. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

Bisexual women are seen in popular culture as hot (duuuuude) or just, like, normal. Bisexual men aren’t really considered by popular culture. It seems we would prefer to imagine that they don’t exist.

In 2005 a Northwestern study made the claim that bisexual men aren’t real– the now infamous study had men watch porn and measured arousal. That study found that men were only responding to gay porn or straight porn, but not both. This prompted he New York Times to make the headline: Gay Straight or Lying? It also prompted a lot of bisexual people to exclaim: fuck you! Now (finally) a new study posits that bisexual men do actually exist, this one is again from Northwestern, and more rigorous.

What is going on with this double-standard of the ubiquitous girl-girl kiss and the bi guy seen as a barely existent depressing weirdo? And, with a rise in awareness around male bisexuality– are we seeing this change?

Five years after that initial study was released, the Midwest’s first “all bisexual swingers club” popped up– targeted to men. Hosts of the party, Tim and Karen, are a couple in their late 40’s to early 50’s with youthful energy. When the two of them began looking into the “swinger/lifestyle scene” they realized Tim’s bisexuality wasn’t going to be accepted. “We put up an online profile, but when we put bi-curious on my side, our profile hits dropped to zero,” says Tim. At the same time, another party-goer points out, if women don’t put that they are bisexual on profiles, the couple will also get far less play.

Getting experience gave Tim savvy — there were bi guys in the lifestyle, but there was a code. “Now I know what words to look for on the profile: ‘open-minded,’ ‘up for anything,’ alternative interests’ — those are generally the tip off” he says.

Bisexual nights at these parties are a “trend” all over the country. Perhaps it shows a shift–  a rise of a male bisexual chic. But, the double standard remains. Bi men have to go to special dowlow parties  to kiss a guy, while all women, regardless of their sexuality,  are often expected to be sexual with other women at sex parties. And really, not just sex parties, as I’ve been kissed by far more straight girls at parties than queer ones.

The swinger scene is often a bit older– so what about the generation who was raised on the Internet? According to a study by Eric Anderson of Bath University in England, there are a growing number of college-aged straight men kissing each other. In the study of male university students, 89 percent had kissed each other on the lips, and 37 percent reported engaging in “sustained kissing.”

Anderson says that this trend stemmed from professional sports, and the recent popularity of soccer players sharing passionate kisses after goals. “That made kissing between men acceptable for college and high-school players. Then the players took the same behaviors to nights out in pubs, spreading the trend to non-athletes” Anderson reports to Live Science.

We see this come to life in the “gay chicken” videos on YouTube. Gay chicken is a game in which two straight, alpha-male types make-out, and the first one to pull away is a “pussy.” In the linked YouTube video, two athletic-looking young men make out, while a crowd of people holding plastic cups, cheer them on, their phones held out. The boys only wear underwear, pressing against one and other as they kiss, not coming up for air for the full three minutes.

I polled my social network, and asked young men about their “bisexual” experiences. Aaron is 25 and doesn’t identify as bisexual, but he’s made out with his male friends. “I think good kissing is universal, I’ve made out with a ton of girls who aren’t half as good as some of the guys I’ve kissed.” Aaron says that during high school, and early college, it was just sort of part of the indie rock “scene” he was a part of but he’s left it behind:

“I wouldn’t say I have crushes on guys anymore. Because now, I would never act on it. When you come out, straight dudes will respect you less. Maybe girls will too. I was just lucky that this all happened in a time of my life when it seemed like nothing mattered. When I still felt I could do anything.”

I do think the double-standard is changing– but it will be slow, precisely because of what Aaron describes. Being bisexual was fine when he was hanging out with other kids his age, but when Aaron had to enter the “real world” that double standard snapped him into place.

This is a shortened version of my “Sex Beat” column at Sexis, a bi weekly journalism column about sex and gender.

What do you make of the Bisexual Double Standard? Where does it come from?

Do you think we will see a rise in male bisexual chic? Str8 dudes, would you kiss your dude friends?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (73)

Some Things…

12th
Sep. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

photos by Giulia Agostini

Some things that are on my Radar, Some things that I’ve been upto:

  • Vote for Isabel!: Feminist-Fashion blogger Isabel is a finalist in the Who Inspires U video contest which gives “Canadian girls a chance to win money to help accomplish their dreams”.  Isabel’s dream is to start a  feminist fashion magazine that includes sex in a sex positive way, without the  ridiculous pushyness of Cosmopolitan. I know you guys want to see this too, so vote for her. Today is the last day.
  • Sexism Survey: A recent study found that women who test as more sexist go for pick-up artists. Upon reading this study I was more interested in the sexism scale used in the study, which is actually available to take online. How do you  measure? What do you make of the survey?
  • I’ve been seeing a lot more erotica blogs on Tumblr, but Strange Bed is lovely writing more in the realm of literary fiction– that often deals with themes of sex and relationships. Recommend.
  • I wrote about Being an Atheist for The Frisky: Recently, while sitting in the kitchen as a friend helped me dye my hair, the topic turned to death. We had both experienced close friends dying in our early twenties, and we were discussing how we dealt with it. I sat facing away from her, as she checked the foils on my hair. “I just have to think that they are in a better place, in heaven,” she said. “For me, it soothes me to know there is no after-life. Like, there is completion in it. They are gone, that was their life, and it’s okay. I don’t have to worry about seeing them again. It’s been helpful to really process their death and know they are gone.” My friend listened to me– “I’d never thought about it that way,” she said.
  • This month I picked up a camera. Will I continue taking photos? Who knows! Only as long as it inspires me.

 

 

  • I wrote about being Married Young for The Frisky:   At the top of the Sears Tower is the 103rd floor, enclosed in large glass windows, overlooking the whole city. The room isn’t very big, and we walked in slowly, looping over and over for what felt forever. He was visibly nervous. Finally, he got down on one knee, the afternoon slipping into a gold-peach fire behind him. 24 is young. “Too young.” But what does that mean exactly?
  • Kate from Eat The Damn Cake is hilarious and so is her piece on the awkwardness of the couples massage.
  • I wanna talk about Kiki Kannibal and Internet Bullying: I tried to talk to you  guys about it on Twitter but Twitter ate all my replies… I still feel haunted by the story, it says a lot about the “famous for being famous” thing that reigned in the last decade. But unlike Paris and Kim, Kiki’s (internet) fame was built entirely by the people, and the people tore her down. It also says a lot about how once a woman takes her clothes off online, she is open to all kinds of attacks. But being that Kiki was underage this is a very different matter all together– what should her parents have done?
  • Street art on Williamsburg Bridge, had to capture and share:

  • A musing about the term cougar has made the blog rounds. A few months ago I recorded the video below on “cougar”, after a reader wrote in and asked my thoughtsShe’s in her late thirties (but looks late twenties, go her, as I say) and married to a guy in his twenties. I totally forgot I had this video, but here are some loose thoughts on the “cougar explosion”. With shoulder-pads.

What’s on your radar? I’d love to talk about any of these stories, or anything else that’s caught your eye in the news /queer/fem/lady/spheres this week!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (6)

Rock Groupies and Feminism

2nd
Sep. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

Groupies aren’t usually seen as a positive force for women — the word has never been associated with feminism. And yet, as the fantasy of “Almost Famous” shows, we are intrigued by this certain “free spirit” brand of female sexuality and “promiscuity”.

This week I took a look at some of the most famous rock groupies for The Frisky. Check out that piece for a quick slide-show, or nerd-out with me here as I look at rock groupies and the affect feminism has had on the term, “groupie” and groupie culture.

1960’s

Los Angeles in the 1960’s was known as a “groupie heaven”. There were a lot of girls hanging out on Sunset Boulevard in the groupie look — layers of scarves and ruffles and heavy eye make-up. But it was the GTO’s who rose to fame. The GTO’s stood for “Girls Together Outrageously” or “Only” or “Orally”; whatever you choose. Their members included Pamela Des Barres and Cynthia Plaster Caster.

Many of the women of the GTO’s had come over from the hippie community. The original members of the GTO’s were close with — sometimes financially supported by — Frank Zappa, who eventually produced their albums. The GTO’s were a band despite none of them being able to sing or play instruments (how very riot grrrl of them.) They were hanging out with Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones and were known as the girls you would want to meet if you were a musician.

The GTO’s owned being groupies, and they owned their creativity as well.  Aside from spoken word and music performances, the GTO’s were said to have had a hand in men’s careers, and are credited with coming up with Alice Cooper’s signature mascara’d proto-goth look. Cynthia would go on to be thirdwave feminist darling — as her plaster casts of rock-star penises have been shown in countless feminist art shows.

1970’s

The early ’70’s saw a new era of groupie in the mix. The girls in the tiny shorts, floppy hats and strewn with scarves became known as the “groupie babies”. The name was apt, as the two most famous of the pack got their start at 13. The groupie babies also had near instant brushes with fame, as a short lived, but infamous groupie magazine called “Star” chronicled their lives in paralyzing glamorization.


Sable Starr and Lori Maddox were the  ’stars’ of the magazine. Lori got her start by losing her virginity to David Bowie, as the tale goes, at age 13. She began seeing Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin after he saw her in the pages of Star and swore he had to meet her. In true romance novel style, he had his tour manager “kidnap her” and take her back to his hotel room. Sable was Lori’s best friend, and lost her virginity to Iggy Pop at age 13. Sable was also linked to Robert Plant and David Bowie but fell in love with Johnny Thunders, guitarist of the New York Dolls. She ran away to New York City at age 15 to live with him, and hung around Debbie Harry while her boyfriend got further into drugs. When she finally decided to go back to California and live a “normal life,” she was only 17.

It’s hard to pull feminist themes from the famed groupies of this era. Where-as girls their age a decade previous were fainting at Elvis concerts, Lori and Sable were hanging on the Sunset Strip with Iggy Pop. But this does speak to real teenage experience — it seems we have a hard time societally dealing with the fact that teenagers are sexual, and those teenagers who do decide to explore their sexuality may end up doing it in extreme or unsafe ways. Certainly we still see this today.

1970’s — Punk Rock and the Death of wanting to be a Groupie

Punk rock in it’s purest form was an extremely short lived genre. And one of the most cliche’d images has become Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistold and his girlfriend, Nancy Spungen. Nancy was a New York groupie who hung around Sable Star and bands like the New York Dolls and Aerosmith.

When Nancy got with Sid, the press dubbed her “Nauseating Nancy,” and to this day, it is how she is remembered — in revile. And when she was killed, stabbed, at the Chelsea Hotel…not many people seemed to care. Was it the blasé punk rock attitude? Was it that people were sick of groupies? Was Sid and Nancy, the unit, detestable? I’ve always read the story of Nancy as one that is quite sexist, and it seems Nancy changed the course of the “famous groupie”. The label stopped being a good thing.

1980’s and ’90’s

With the rise of hair metal and rock making more money than ever —  there were also more groupies than ever. But now the “famous groupies” are famous for other things — being actresses, models, porn-stars and…do musicians themselves count as groupies? It may be too obvious to note, but while the groupies of the 1960’s were busy playing home-maker to the rock-stars, these girls were all about getting their own career out of the deal.

Carmen Electra got her name and rise to fame from Prince, Pamela Anderson was almost just as well known for dating Tommy Lee. Donna D’Erricho was a well known as a Baywatch star as well as a wife to Nikki Sixx. And there were women like Tawny Kitean and Erin Everly or Bobbie Brown who became video-babes for Whitesnake, Guns and Roses, Warrant, as well as girlfriends to the bandmembers. On the indie side of things, when Winona Ryder rose to fame in the ’80’s she was dating quite a few musicians.

What about Male Groupies?

There is one “famous” male groupie, and he goes by “Pleather”. Pleather rose to fame by the accounts of his conquests — which include Courtney Love — in Pamela Des Barres’ book I’m With The Band; Confessions of the Groupie. He recounts Courtney’s shaky self-esteem, but apparently has a lot of very nice things to say about women in music.

I find it interesting that it is not until riot grrrl and the explosion of women in rock during the ’90’s that we see the concept of a male groupie.

photo by J Silva

2000’s

The Internet has allowed allowed certain groupie cultures to flourish. One semi-active groupie forum dedicated to indie rock and pop punk offers tips from other girls. They talk about which bandmembers fool around, which will give you an STI, who has a girlfriend and tips on how they got them.

Reading through pages of the forum, it struck me at times these were young women owning their desires and getting what they want without shame. There was little slut-shaming (of course not, they were Kathleen Hanna fans) and a strong sense of solidarity among the girls.

On the forum, when the girls ask about who is dating /has slept with who, there are a few names that come up again and again: Audrey Kitching, Hanna Beth and Jac Vanec: who are neon-clad, pastel-haired “Internet personalities” with have records of solely dating musicians. I imagine they are of the ilk who fight the groupie label — but unlike the Electras and Andersons of yesteryear, it’s hard to pin-point exactly what these girls do for a living. Which in my mind makes them all the more like the free-spirited GTO’s of the ’60s. What’s interesting is that we see the rise of the famous groupie again, not thanks to the tabloids but the Internet.

What do you think, is groupie bashing unfair?

As women gained more equality, in work and otherwise, the groupie label fell for famous groupies. They become simply known as models, artists, or whatever it is they are passionate about. However, the hobby of sleeping with a musicians still exists with it’s own culture. And it’s a hobby that I don’t think necessarily needs to oppose feminist ideals.

Pamela Des Barres, was a bit more blunt about it when feminists called her sexist , saying: “Hey I went after what I wanted, and I got it. Gloria Steinam can kiss my ass.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (18)

Let’s Talk About what Can we Learn from Asexuality.

26th
Aug. × ’11
By Rachel R. White

A new documentary (A)sexual  has brought the  topic to the blogosphere–both Salon and The Rumpus published interviews with David Jay–founder of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network.

But the “asexuals exist” has kinda been broken and the new documentary covers this, reveling in footage of the ladies of The View questioning  David Jay about whether or not he masturbates. In a wood-paneled Manhattan diner, Jay informs me that when you go on The View, you get a giant care-basket full of booze afterwards. Full-sized bottles. After the Q&A, he promptly invited friends over for a hotel party.

Jay is sort of responsible for the movement of asexuality. The film follows his life, and mostly answers the basic questions: how his relationships work, what being asexual looks like, but it also delved deeper, with a glance at the trials of asexuality. An uncharacteristically vulnerable David Jay opens up to the filmmaker, on the street in New York City, lamenting that he will have to have sex if he wants to find a partner.

Jay shifts in his seat when talking about this part of the documentary, because he’s worked a lot of this stuff out now–he dates and yes he has had sex but he’s still asexual. To Jay, the only regret with the film is not not talking about “Gray-A’s” — who are fluid with their asexuality. Just as one’s sexual attraction can be fluid (ala bisexuality, pansexuality, a shifting of preference over time) one’s asexuality can shift too.  At some points in your life you might be more sexual, other times you might not

And feeling less sexual can be okay and normal and here are these very nice organized group of people who will help you find ways to navigate relationships.“How freeing is that! This should be in every women’s magazine,” I say to David, who is eating a halved melon with a spoon.

Yet this message — that not sex is okay and interesting — has been slow to catch on in the sex positive community. The filmmaker capture this in Dan Savage, as a devil’s advocate. He makes insightful comments about asexuals in the interview alongside speculation that often if you don’t want sex, you must be repressing something. (I get it, Dan, but fail to understand why it can be okay that kinksters might be acting out unconcious trauma, but if asexuals are it’s bad?)

“Yeah, what about Dan!?” I ask David, who seemed to have nothing but respect for the columnist, agreeing that America remains sexually repressed. After-all, we are presented with poor sex education, queer-phobias and a culture which seems adverse to talking about sex in any sort of logical, constructive way.

And yet, ours is also a culture with sex in every ad, billboard, plot-line. We are presented with a culture that simultaneously says: sex is shameful, and sex is glamorous and incredible.

Sex positive people often lament the image on the billboard, the omnipresent airbrushed white lady– but not necessarily the content. Sex positivity is rooted in “sex is good and natural” but even this can lead to glamorizing sex. “The desire to create a dialogue about sexuality in our marketing driven culture can easily turn into over celebrating sexuality and glamorizing and fetishizing it. By celebrating sexuality, you should also be celebrating the fact that  sometimes sex is boring and that there are other ways to connect” says Jay.

Too often for women, celebrating your sexuality is a specific kind of sexuality–available, sexy-all-the-time. The message that it’s okay to celebrate sexuality in opposite ways seems powerful and important.

In sex positivity, there are also assumptions about what sex does. “So in our society, intimacy is really strongly correlated with sex. The ability for someone to fully emotionally connect with someone else is largely sexualized. Just the words “intimacy” and “relationship” have an expectation of being sexual…but there is a strong case to be made that not all intimacy on an emotional level is sexual,” says Jay.

As I sit across from Jay, I find myself studying his fingernails, and thinking “Cute. His fingernails are so cute.” Here was intimacy and connection, and in any other situation I would have felt a need to address that sexually–go into “sexy mode”. But, refreshingly,was no need to make it sexual, which made the chemistry and the moment feel all the more intense.

Asexual people are perhaps, better at this then sexual people. They are relationship-geeks, creating new models. Jay scribbles into my molkeskin his diagram for tackling relationships. According to Jay relationships are a cycle of time spent together, emotions shared about that time and promises to spend more time together. He has intricate maps to help you figure out what kind of relationships you want, and how to foster those you have.

Marriage researchers like Stephanie Coontz and Pamela Haag report that more and more people are looking solely to their partner for friendship — for their partner to fulfill everything . So Jay’s model of maintaining many friendships, and figuring out which are helpful or not seems like a way of the future — no matter your sexuality.

“The sex positive community wants to create an open honest dialogue about sexuality; the asexual community wants to create an open honest dialogue about asexuality—those two missions are fundamentally aligned,” he says.

Sex-positivity is about bringing a set of ethics and morals for how we talk about sex. And there are some established morals, the safe-sane-consensual ethos of the BDSM world, the “do as little harm as possible” hippie mantra of The Ethical Slut. But I also argue that sex positivity needs a more psychological approach that is personally crafted — that may ask: what is okay for me? How interested in sex am I really? Where is this behavior stemming from? It seems that if this was where sex positivity were coming from, we might more easily find that while sex is a beautiful part of life, it’s perhaps not necessary, and by no means the only option.

Talk to me:

How can we work on not glamorizing sex? Should we?
If asexuals are “just repressed” does it matter?
What do you think about sexuality– asexuality being fluid?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (41)

Is Fashion Feminist? | The Dialogue Between the Two

19th
Aug. × ’11
By Rachel R. White


Moshino Fall 2011, Ready to Wear

The idea that fashion and feminism are inherently opposed hasn’t died out in the digital wave. Publications like Bitch and Filament have prided themselves on not being “into fashion”. “No Fashion, No Diets, No Celeb Rubbish.” reads the former’s tagline. Yet the inclination for fashion to oppose feminism seems a bit ironic, considering that in the fashion industry women have long reigned. What’s more interesting to me than the question is fashion feminist is the dialogue between fashion and feminism.

Feminism has affected in trends in fashion. The first wave of Victoria Woodhulls and suffragettes fought for the right for women to own property and to vote, as we begin to see these victories take hold (1920 for the latter) fashions change. Flappers with bare knees and shifty dresses become the image, not of feminists, but of women relishing their newfound  freedom. The successes of the second wavers with Roe v Wade and divorce laws are celebrated with mini skirts. And pro-sex third wavers get Paris Hilton. At least this makes for good party banter.

I discussed these ideas with fashion illustrator and poignant blogger, Danielle Meder. She was more curious about how certain trends in fashion are feminist. She took her ideas to a post, writing:

“One of the initial, most life-improving changes that women fought to claim was literally freedom of movement – the ability to participate in work, sports, and daily activities without being weighed down by long skirts and restrained by corsetry.

Initially, advocates of dress reform were ridiculed. Their efforts lacked style, their models weren’t attractive, and they lacked the ability to sell the public on their ideas. It wasn’t until fashion designers like Poiret and Chanel proposed a corsetless silhouette, with their considerable publicity engines and attractive clientele, that corsetry and long skirts were under serious threat. Even then, the fashions weren’t necessarily feminist – Poiret held women’s mobility under bondage with the hobble skirt. While Chanel’s motivations were more clearly feminist in that she designed for emancipated, active women, Poiret’s were more about novelty and publicity.”

Left: two piece ensemble, 1925, Right: Yves Saint Laurent 1982

What might be worth noting here is the privilege of fashion. While I’ve found some sources that say Chanel began designing for working women in France during World War I (offering men’s pull over sweaters, sailor jackets and plain skirts) most seem to trace Chanel to upscale patrons since the beginning. Regardless, Chanel’s simple designs, her menswear for women was not fashionable when Chanel was accepted by the fashion industry and serving upscale clients. But things that are reserved for the privileged always trickle down to the middle classes, to the mall.

With this trickle-down into the clothing of the  every-day woman, feminism didn’t just passively affect feminism, the right to wear pants (outside of the factory) was hard won, Danielle notes:

“The bifurcated garment has been considered a masculine garment since the middle ages. Co-opting it for women was not at all an insignificant social shift – in fact, vestigial laws are still being revoked, and the subject provokes (confusing) debate in some circles to this day. The leading edge of trouser-clad femininity was celebrity. Amelia Earhart, Katherine Hepburn, and Marlene Dietrich imbued the garment with adventure, charisma and sex.

The early majority was youth – young women who were for the first time, were enjoying the phenomenon of ‘teen years’ in between childhood and adulthood. Youth had an excess of casual down-time and the disposable income to exert influence over their own clothing, it makes sense that the popularity of pants – and that notable unisex garment, denim, began to trend during the 40s and 50s even as feminist goals were backsliding due to The Feminine Mystique.”

It’s interesting though, that with the new rights women gained, fashion saw women trying on male-ness. Is it feminist, if women had to bend what they were wearing in order to fit into the “man’s world’? Whether it’s women bobbing their hair after they get the vote, or Chanel’s pantsuit, or the 1980′s power-suit with it’s pointed masculine edges, worn as women really took hold of the workplace it’s all women taking on male roles. (One of the things the third wave seems to have done is take back traditional feminine fashion, in it’s “ironic” retro silhouettes and crinoline.) And yet playing with gender in fashion can be liberating, and helpful to breaking down gender roles and the binary.

But men have not socially been allowed to try on the accouterments of female-ness in quite the same way. While the last twenty years have seen more androgyny on male models, men in skirts have not sauntered into mainstream.  But as more and more men begin questioning their gender roles and it’s stereotypes, will be see more ripples in male fashion? With designers like Rick Owens and the mall-level phenomenon of metrosexuality, we are already and I think this is just the beginning.


Rock Owens  Spring 2012 Menswear

But that nagging question — can fashion can be feminist– does have it’s arguing points. Fashion is an industry that promotes unrealistic standards of beauty– via underweight models who are overwhelmingly white. Fashion also promotes a culture of consumerism. The logic here often is fashion = corporatism = bad. But as illustrated in the “Slow Fashion” movement of designers hand-making all of their wares, fashion can embody feminist values.

Feminism today is not the feminism of Chanel’s or Friedan’s. In it’s digital incarnation is far more effort toward inclusivity than we’ve ever seen before, and as we align our support with women around the globe, what is the affect? Through it all, there will be a dialogue between the two, whether that conversation is: No, I disagree, I reject you or Yes, yes, yes!

Where do you think feminism influences fashion? Where do fashion and feminism agree– or disagree?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed (30)