Fired for wearing make up

[Fawkes]

So, as I understand it (I may be wrong) employers in the U.S. have the legal right to fire somebody for tattoos, piercings, hairstyle, etc. Does anybody know of any cases involving men being fired for wearing make up? I'm curious because I wanna know to what degree I'm "protected" if I walk into work with nail polish, lipstick, and eye shadow on as many women that I work with do.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I know that one of my friends who wore eye liner often was fired from his farming job for that. But... farming is a little different since everything is usually done "under the table." So for that reason, if you are under 18 and choose to work on a farm, you more or less have no rights unless you want to risk IRS fines and all that shit...

[Sword and Shield]

So, as I understand it (I may be wrong) employers in the U.S. have the legal right to fire somebody for tattoos, piercings, hairstyle, etc. Does anybody know of any cases involving men being fired for wearing make up? I'm curious because I wanna know to what degree I'm "protected" if I walk into work with nail polish, lipstick, and eye shadow on as many women that I work with do.

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup? Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Some guys wear make up to express themselves while others wear it because they think they look better with it on :p I agree with you though, that it is shitty how women who'd rather go without makeup are treated like shit compared to those who wear it. All in all, I think a person should be able to wear whatever they want on their face and body without the risk of being fired unless it's offensive.

[Fawkes]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup?

Why wouldn't they?


Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.
Or we should not worry about creating threat levels of what issues are of greater concern than others when both are examples of transphobia, homophobia, and/or sexism that need to be fought. Plus, you don't think one is just the reciprocate of the other?

You act like everyone that wears makeup does so begrudgingly

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

This is America. You can get fired for ANYTHING. The one redress you have is those rare occasions when you can prove you were fired for discrimination based on age, or race, or age, or disability - in which case at least you might get decent severance pay.

So if a man comes to work wearing lipstick and gets fired and his boss say, "you're fired because you wear lipstick," he might have a case, IF he can prove a) that the boss doesn't object to women wearing lipstick, only men; and b) that there wasn't another valid reason, like "you're fired because a man wearing lipstick interferes with his ability to perform his job."

[TC]

So, as I understand it (I may be wrong) employers in the U.S. have the legal right to fire somebody for tattoos, piercings, hairstyle, etc. Does anybody know of any cases involving men being fired for wearing make up? I'm curious because I wanna know to what degree I'm "protected" if I walk into work with nail polish, lipstick, and eye shadow on as many women that I work with do.

In America, Title VII U.S. Civil Rights Act 1964 (codified as Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter VI § 2000e–2 "Unlawful Employment Practices" of the U.S. Code) prohibits employers from refusing to hire or to discharge an individual or otherwise discriminate against an employee or potential employee because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin - and that includes discrimination given compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

Given this you would think that you might have a case for unlawful discharge if your employer fired you for wearing makeup when they would not have fired a woman for doing the same thing - after all wearing makeup might constitute a term, condition or privilege of employment...

Unfortunately you'd be wrong. There have actually been tons of cases challenging gender based employee dress codes - most of which have been from women who didn't want to wear skirts or put on makeup against dress codes requiring women to wear makeup or skirts or style their hair or some other demeaning thing like that.

To establish a Title VII discrimination claim for sex though, you generally need to establish "disparate treatment" where a dress code imposes greater burdens on one sex than the other. You'd think this would be easy since they mostly obviously impose greater burdens on women, but cause federal judges are typically sexist - normally employers get away with it because they will also require men to shave and keep their hair above the shirt collar or some such thing which is seen as an equally burdensome requirement.

Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co. 280 F.Supp.2d 1189 specifically found that compelling female employees to wear makeup while banning male employees to wear makeup does not rise to disparate impact under Title VII so no civil rights act violation can be sustained for prohibiting males from wearing makeup.



Fun employment law trivia fact: Title VII has a clause that specifically allows employers to discriminate against Communists. Not kidding.


This is America. You can get fired for ANYTHING. The one redress you have is those rare occasions when you can prove you were fired for discrimination based on age, or race, or age, or disability - in which case at least you might get decent severance pay.

So if a man comes to work wearing lipstick and gets fired and his boss say, "you're fired because you wear lipstick," he might have a case, IF he can prove a) that the boss doesn't object to women wearing lipstick, only men; and b) that there wasn't another valid reason, like "you're fired because a man wearing lipstick interferes with his ability to perform his job."

In practice you might be able to get fired for anything, but you can in fact sue and win compensation under Title VII if you're fired for your sex, race, color, religion or national origin - and you can add on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim if courts find the conduct of your employer outrageous.

But as described above, a man can totally be fired for wearing lipstick in workplaces where a woman can wear lipstick, and that can be the reason for firing him, because differential makeup policies for employees based on gender has not been found to be discriminatory according to Title VII.

Your comment "you're fired because a man wearing lipstick interferes with his ability to perform his job" hints at another aspect of Title VII employment discrimination law which is that, employers are allowed to discriminate against employees according to a protected status if it is a so-called "bona fide occupational qualification." For example, you can refuse to hire women as sperm donors. But for this question to come up at all, the plaintiff has to already establish that discrimination took place, and make up policies don't count as discrimination.

[TC]

Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.

I tend to agree - makeup requirements for female employees are based on the notion that women's natural skin is unacceptable but men's natural skin is fine, because women need to be pretty decorate the office and be judged for their looks and not job performance, whereas men are evaluated on their job alone.

This is vastly more demeaning and dehumanizing than being told not to use your on the job time as an opportunity to express yourself artistically with your fashion and self-styling.

Trying to twist sexist discrimination against women into 'really equally discriminatory against men' ignores the reality of gendered power dynamics, that different treatment by sex is a way of oppressing women and not oppressing men - it even privileges men: if a man can take 15 minutes to get ready in the morning to go to work whereas a woman needs to take an hour, he has more time to sleep and arrives at the office early and unhurried, whereas she is more tired, less able to do her job, and doesn't arrive as early - when the boss decides who gets let off and who gets to keep their job, the man seems to be the harder worker when really he has just one less job to do.

No one should be required to conform to gender norms regardless of sex - but gender norms function asymmetrically to oppress women.

[gorillafuck]

TC, you're an asshole for demeaning Fawkes predicament.

Fuck off and don't come back.

[Thirsty Crow]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup? Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.

Is this a really polite way to say that you personally feel uncomfortable with a member of the sex whose gender roles traditionally do not include wearing make up?

[TC]

TC, you're an asshole for demeaning Fawkes predicament.

Fuck off and don't come back.

Will a moderator enforce the rules and give Zeekloid an infraction?

[PhoenixAsh]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup? Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.

whoah. Hold on there...why should we do one at the exclusion over the other?

edit:

I think they are two different types of discrimination in their scope. But they result from the same origin, the patriarchy; both are sexist, because they enforce gender roles, and both are abject and deserve our opposition.


also: *face palm* for where this thread is destined to be going...

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Trying to twist sexist discrimination against women into 'really equally discriminatory against men' ignores the reality of gendered power dynamics, that different treatment by sex is a way of oppressing women and not oppressing men - it even privileges men:

Translation: a number of self-described feminists think they can legally get around Title VII and IX and practice blatant discrimination against men. Paradoxically, such people are particularly active in environments where participants are genuinely and rightly sensitive to issues of sexism, like universities or leftists blogs. A good example would be TC throwing around blanket accusations about "men" on this site. If she tried this on the job she'd run a good risk of being tossed out on her legal pad for "creating a hostile workplace environment."

[gorillafuck]

TC is saying that men who face discrimination on the basis of having an androgynous gender role should just shut up and quit whining. I'm proud to have my first infraction be for calling her out on that.

[TC]

I think its highly presumptuous to assume that a man wearing makeup or nail polish is "androgynous"


Translation: a number of self-described feminists think they can legally get around Title VII and IX and practice blatant discrimination against men. Paradoxically, such people are particularly active in environments where participants are genuinely and rightly sensitive to issues of sexism, like universities or leftists blogs. A good example would be TC throwing around blanket accusations about "men" on this site. If she tried this on the job she'd run a good risk of being tossed out on her legal pad for "creating a hostile workplace environment."

Thats a bit non-sensical. I'm not an employer or a federally funded education provider so even if I was perpetrating "discrimination against men" (the horror! Think of the men being discriminated against by the female power structure! Almost as pervasive as centuries old black domination of white people?) I wouldn't need to "legally get around Title VII and IX." Second as I stated I also obviously oppose enforcing male gender norms on men - I just think that a materialist analysis considering the domination of women by men in social hierarchy shows that expectations for gendered behavior disproportionately oppress women.

Denying that is the same as denying that institutional sexism, patriarchy and male privilege exist. Of course some self-described "leftists" do just that which is why its important for people with an anti-sexist critique to call them on it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes...

unfortunately, as you must know, some people's anti-sexist critique always seems to blame all men and go at the expense of gender role enforcement on homosxuals and transgenders...it always also seems to ignore or belittle the institutionalised form of the sexism against these men.

So pretty much...men who are caught between the patriarchy and the anti-sexist critique of these induviduals always seem to get to be the ones who are getting the short end of the stick.

So...we were arguing if men should be allowed to wear make-up and if we should also fight for the rights of homosexual and transgender men and should unequivocally (or however you spell this word) behind their rights as well...I am actually interested in your position on this.

[Thirsty Crow]

TC is saying that men who face discrimination on the basis of having an androgynous gender role should just shut up and quit whining. I'm proud to have my first infraction be for calling her out on that.
Yeah, I remember something about equating spitting at a perceived political opponent with a white nationalist attack on African Americans (an example; the person used the term "hate crime"). When calling bullshit, this person refused to say anything relating to that.
Where were moderators there?

[TC]

So...we were arguing if men should be allowed to wear make-up and if we should also fight for the rights of homosexual and transgender men and should unequivocally (or however you spell this word) behind their rights as well...I am actually interested in your position on this.

Of course men should be allowed to wear makeup and we should fight for gay and transgendered rights - no one has suggested otherwise - enforcement of male gender roles also serve patriarchal functions (but they serve to preserve male dominance not to dominate men just as the expectation that white people live in "nice" white neighborhoods may be contrary to the wish of some white people but it serves to enhance white power structures).

There was also nothing in this thread to suggest that this was about LGBT issues. Are you suggesting that straight men can't or don't want to wear makeup or that wanting to wear makeup automatically makes a man lgbt? How about women not wanting to wear makeup?

[Agent Ducky]

Men should be allowed to wear make-up if they want to, and women should not be confronted/anything for not wearing make-up. Period.
Even though it might somehow "distract" other people, they should learn to deal with it. I don't think people should be able to get fired for any of those reasons. If I was employed and they're like "You got fired for having communist-red hair! Good fight!" .... bad stuff would happen.....

[TC]

Yeah, I remember something about equating spitting at a perceived political opponent with a white nationalist attack on African Americans (an example; the person used the term "hate crime"). When calling bullshit, this person refused to say anything relating to that.
Where were moderators there?

Is bullying me with harassing offtopic spam just a sport on revleft?

You might be shocked to know that "hate crime" doesn't just refer to "a white nationalist attack on African Americans" but to any crime motivated by hate. But of course the point is to bully me and not to make a thread of sense politically.

Can a moderator trash this spam nonsense?

[Le Libérer]

TC is saying that men who face discrimination on the basis of having an androgynous gender role should just shut up and quit whining. I'm proud to have my first infraction be for calling her out on that.
You didnt receive an infraction for calling her out. You received an infraction for flaming. This:

Fuck off and don't come back.

I seriously think some of you just use the word fuck because you know the boys club mentality will rep the fuck out of it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Of course men should be allowed to wear makeup and we should fight for gay and transgendered rights - no one has suggested otherwise - enforcement of male gender roles also serve patriarchal functions

Good.
For me though there is a distinction here...they want to enforce specific male gender roles. Since I do not recognize that there is any such thing as a specific gender role. It also does this by enforcing a specific gender roles on women. Repressing even harder the ones which do not fit them.

Personally I am more of a fan for the use of the term Kyriarchy for the layers and levels of sexism within society to more detailed and accurately describe the complexities of dominance, sexism and repression on a day to day basis...than for the of the exclusive use of the term patriarchy, which IMO is more the macro level of how society functions....and is too limited in its scope for anything below macro.



(but they serve to preserve male dominance not to dominate men just as the expectation that white people live in "nice" white neighborhoods may be contrary to the wish of some white people but it serves to enhance white power structures).

Well..for me again...there is a distinction. Towards preserving specific male dominance. And this includes also the dominance over men who do not fit the gender roles.


There was also nothing in this thread to suggest that this was about LGBT issues. Are you suggesting that straight men can't or don't want to wear makeup or that wanting to wear makeup automatically makes a man lgbt? How about women not wanting to wear makeup?

I believe OP was a clear indication that they played a role in the question. As for the post itself...you are right. And being such a heterosexual man which likes to wear some form of make-up I did encounter a lot of scorn in the workplace...that also goes for women not wearing make-up.

[gorillafuck]

I know, but I'm glad it was in the same post.


You might be shocked to know that "hate crime" doesn't just refer to "a white nationalist attack on African Americans" but to any crime motivated by hate. But of course the point is to bully me and not to make a thread of sense politically.You're just mad that you've been called out because you think that Fawkes should shut up and be quiet about his situation.


I seriously think some of you just use the word fuck because you know the boys club mentality will rep the fuck out of it.Lol so many people say fuck.

[PhoenixAsh]

You might be shocked to know that "hate crime" doesn't just refer to "a white nationalist attack on African Americans" but to any crime motivated by hate.

I can agree with this interpretation. On the ogther hand this is not how the board interprets this.

Illustrated by the fact that racism is not limited too white people discriminating against non-whites but on many other factors including all racism based on race and ethnicity. Yet the board general opinion is that white people can not be discriminated against.

And, in the topic of this thread, sexism is not limited by the oppression or it being more widespread to women. But on all differentiation good and bad, made on gender or sexe...


Though my personal opinion is that we should fight with just as much enthousiasm and prevent with just as much enthousiasm any form of division based on gender, sex, race, ethnicity, hate, mental ability etc.

[Le Libérer]

I know, but I'm glad it was in the same post.

You're just mad that you've been called out because you think that Fawkes should shut up and be quiet about his situation.
What is this? "I know you are but what am I"?
Seeing I work endlessly with LGBT and AIDS laws, discrimination issues, TC is right. Legally, and I'm sure thats where she is coming from, a hate crime is ANY crime motivated by hate. The possibilities are endless.

[Fawkes]

Trying to twist sexist discrimination against women into 'really equally discriminatory against men' ignores the reality of gendered power dynamics
I never twisted anything nor did I suggest "equal discrimination" (as if that means anything).


that different treatment by sex is a way of oppressing women and not oppressing men - it even privileges men: if a man can take 15 minutes to get ready in the morning to go to work whereas a woman needs to take an hour, he has more time to sleep and arrives at the office early and unhurried, whereas she is more tired, less able to do her job, and doesn't arrive as early - when the boss decides who gets let off and who gets to keep their job, the man seems to be the harder worker when really he has just one less job to do.
But sexism does oppress some men just as homophobia oppresses some heterosexuals. You seem to be purporting a very dichotomous way of analyzing this which is dangerous in that what often manifests is an "us vs. them" attitude, whether it's black vs. white, gay vs. straight, or men vs. women, ignoring the fact that oppression works as something that is intersectional and can have negative impacts to people on both sides of whatever illusionary line of distinction has been set up.


but gender norms function asymmetrically to oppress women
Saying they asymmetrically oppress women (which nobody here that I'm aware of has denied) implies that men also face levels of oppression as a result of gender norms -- doesn't that contradict what you said in the previously quoted part of my post?


(the horror! Think of the men being discriminated against by the female power structure! Almost as pervasive as centuries old black domination of white people?)
I don't care who is more oppressed, but I am a guy and I do face oppression as a result of patriarchy and that strikes me as being something not only valid to address, but necessary to address if there is to be any successful efforts at transforming the existing power structures that dictate how our lives are lived.



So...we were arguing if men should be allowed to wear make-up and if we should also fight for the rights of homosexual and transgender men and should unequivocally (or however you spell this word) behind their rights as well..
This isn't an exclusively LGBT issue seeing as how many heterosexuals are impacted by this as well.

[Red Future]

Not sure about make up...but employers will discriminate if you have political tattoos , especially for men eg Hammer and Sickle or ...not surprisingly
Stalin tattoos

[PhoenixAsh]

This isn't an exclusively LGBT issue seeing as how many heterosexuals are impacted by this as well.

Nor am I implying this. I agree with your statement here completely.

[TC]

I never twisted anything nor did I suggest "equal discrimination" (as if that means anything).


I wasn't talking about you or your post - you asked a question, which I answered pretty comprehensively. I was speaking generally in reply to someone else's post.

[Lanky Wanker]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup? Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.

that's sexism right there saying that women's rights are important but men's aren't. of course, women's feelings and rights need paying attention to at this point in time, but why should women actually come before men? they both need to be dealt with equally. everyone should have the right to wear what they want, when they want and where they want. that's like saying "why wouldn't a woman wear make up?" << maybe because she doesn't want to? also, women don't get fired for NOT wearing make up.

[TC]

also, women don't get fired for NOT wearing make up.

Women get fired for not wearing makeup all the time. Its ridiculously common.

[Aeval]

Women get fired for not wearing makeup all the time. Its ridiculously common.

Seriously? I'm sure plenty of women miss out on promotions and even getting hired based on how they look (although this isn't necessarily about them wearing make-up. A young, attractive woman who chooses not to wear make-up will probably be fine, whereas an older or less conventionally attractive person will probably find it hinders their career), and I know a woman who got fired for wearing too much make-up, but I've never heard of someone being fired for not wearing something. Unless it's like a uniform and part of your contract to wear it I don't see how this could be allowed.

[Fawkes]

Seriously? I'm sure plenty of women miss out on promotions and even getting hired based on how they look (although this isn't necessarily about them wearing make-up. A young, attractive woman who chooses not to wear make-up will probably be fine, whereas an older or less conventionally attractive person will probably find it hinders their career), and I know a woman who got fired for wearing too much make-up, but I've never heard of someone being fired for not wearing something. Unless it's like a uniform and part of your contract to wear it I don't see how this could be allowed.

It often is a part of their uniform/contract. The court case TC referenced in her first post in this thread was a case of a woman who was contractually obligated to wear makeup

[Le Libérer]

Women get fired for not wearing makeup all the time. Its ridiculously common.

Women have been fired for not wearing their shirts short enough, or strict guidelines with airline policies men didnt have to. Women have been fired just because, with out reason. I have found anyone who is overweight is discriminated against much more severe than those who are drug or alcohol users.

Fawkes, I would ask your supervisor what is the companies policies on men wearing makeup. I would even go so far as to demand an employees manuel if you didnt get one at hire. Read the policies you agreed to when they hired you. If that didnt happen, they are not complying with state laws. You should know what you can or cannot do before being suspended or fired. If they didnt provide you with that information, then its your responsibility to protect yourself, not just on issues of personal references like makeup, but if something of a more serious issue should come up.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Oh, okay. It sounded as if you were proposing a legal theory that the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply to men.

[Dr Mindbender]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup?

Er, gender identity conflict maybe?

That considered i think this thread poses a good question. If anything it doesnt go far enough.

Can i as a man get fired for wearing a corset, pantyhose and heels?

[GX.]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup? Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup.


Er, gender identity conflict maybe?

Traditionally female gender markers are a sign of confliction, weakness, submission, etc.? While male is unmarked and carries no problems? Male as default/neutral right :rolleyes:

[Sword and Shield]

that's sexism right there saying that women's rights are important but men's aren't. of course, women's feelings and rights need paying attention to at this point in time, but why should women actually come before men?

You must be the kind of person that complains about reverse racism in society. :lol:

The simple truth is that women are affected far more by sexism than men. Unless you live in some sort of tribal society (which I doubt considering you have internet access), you are clearly better off being a man rather than a woman.

[PhoenixAsh]

You must be the kind of person that complains about reverse racism in society. :lol:

The simple truth is that women are affected far more by sexism than men. Unless you live in some sort of tribal society (which I doubt considering you have internet access), you are clearly better off being a man rather than a woman.


Read what you are saying. Here...I'll give you a hint: far more.

So...according to your rationale...the rights of Chinese are not important since they are much less worse off than black people?

[Dr Mindbender]

Traditionally female gender markers are a sign of confliction, weakness, submission, etc.? While male is unmarked and carries no problems? Male as default/neutral right :rolleyes:
Try explaining that to a person with transgenderal orientations.

In regards to gender assymetrical attire rules Id like to add something at this point. In regard to aesthetics, in my personal experience, men get the raw deal when it comes to workplace dresscodes. We are obliged to wear what they refer to as 'business attire' for which there is a very specific definition- smart shoes, trousers and long sleeved shirts. Until recently a tie was mandatory. For women on the other hand, what business attire means is more ambiguous. Our female colleages are able to wear loose fitting tops, and a more diverse range of clothing that as far as i can see errs towards the definition of casual wear. So i'm just saying, sometimes it cuts both ways.

[agnixie]

Try explaining that to a person with transgenderal orientations.


Most trans people will point out that male is, in fact, not neutral, and that being trans is not about satisfying gender roles so much as about identity.

[Sword and Shield]

Read what you are saying. Here...I'll give you a hint: far more.

So...according to your rationale...the rights of Chinese are not important since they are much less worse off than black people?

Chinese descendants in America are treated better than black people and worse than white people. Thus, while we should focus more on black people's problems, we certainly need to address the fact that all non-white people are treated worse than whites.

Now, if you can find a sex that males are treated worse than, then I will agree to help solve problems that males face.

[Queercommie Girl]

Now, if you can find a sex that males are treated worse than, then I will agree to help solve problems that males face.

I wouldn't classify queer men into the category of men in general simplistically. Queer people are much more disadvantaged by patriarchy than hetero males.

[PhoenixAsh]

Chinese descendants in America are treated better than black people and worse than white people. Thus, while we should focus more on black people's problems, we certainly need to address the fact that all non-white people are treated worse than whites.

Now, if you can find a sex that males are treated worse than, then I will agree to help solve problems that males face.

I do not feel the need to show you anything. The fact that you clearly think its a revolutionary position to not to strife for the betterment of rights of everybody regardless of the amount and measure of the opression but choose to ignore the rights of certain groups as irrelevant...well...that says it all really.

For you...genderless and race free society means that we should only focus our initiatives on non-whites and non-men.

I do not think you understand the concepts and are to engulfed in the black and white thinking that you are unable to see the shades of grey (the layers of oppression within society and in social interaction) inherrited in the Kyriarchy. You see sex...you see colour...and you generalise the notion that one is worthy of support based on these social constructs.

Now consider that last line....

If you have done that then tell me what this means for what you are?

[Queercommie Girl]

Unless you live in some sort of tribal society (which I doubt considering you have internet access), you are clearly better off being a man rather than a woman.


Nope. This may apply to the hetero population but it is not necessarily the case if one is queer, given that queer men tend to suffer more violent crimes than queer women.

Of course, strictly speaking male-to-female trans people are women (even those who are pre-op) so the fact that they tend to suffer more violent crimes than female-to-male trans people still counts as "women suffering more violent crimes".

Also, why would it necessarily be better to be a woman in a tribal society? It doesn't make sense. For example among tribal peoples in Africa today there is a massive amount of very high level violence against women due to the constant tribal wars that occur there.

Tribal society isn't some kind of "utopia" for women. That's romanticist primitivist non-sense.

[Queercommie Girl]

I seriously think some of you just use the word fuck because you know the boys club mentality will rep the fuck out of it.


Well, this is a fair enough point, but it would be better if mods could be more consistent in terms of explicitly warning people for the use of offensive language, rather than stating it in some instances but not others.

[Queercommie Girl]

But sexism does oppress some men just as homophobia oppresses some heterosexuals. You seem to be purporting a very dichotomous way of analyzing this which is dangerous in that what often manifests is an "us vs. them" attitude, whether it's black vs. white, gay vs. straight, or men vs. women, ignoring the fact that oppression works as something that is intersectional and can have negative impacts to people on both sides of whatever illusionary line of distinction has been set up.


Well, TC has a tendency to use her status as a woman as a kind of rhetorical device to make complaints on this forum. However, I actually don't criticise her for this intrinsically, since I think sometimes it is indeed a fair enough approach - after all, groups who are systematically disadvantaged (such as women) have the right to whine to some extent, and only those who are white hetero males who are not really systematically discriminated against would consider it to be inappropriate.

I do think though that if TC can also appreciate the "whining" of other disadvantaged groups, then it would be better.



Saying they asymmetrically oppress women (which nobody here that I'm aware of has denied) implies that men also face levels of oppression as a result of gender norms -- doesn't that contradict what you said in the previously quoted part of my post?
It depends on what kind of "men" you are talking about. I would argue that "men" isn't really a singular category, and that queer men are actually systematically disadvantaged by the patriarchal system like women are (though in different ways), in a way that hetero men are not.

Of course, explicitly male-to-female trans people are technically actually women rather than men, but they are a minority among the queer population. Even many trans and genderqueer people aren't explicitly male-to-female.



I don't care who is more oppressed, but I am a guy and I do face oppression as a result of patriarchy and that strikes me as being something not only valid to address, but necessary to address if there is to be any successful efforts at transforming the existing power structures that dictate how our lives are lived.
Technically speaking, you face oppression as a result of patriarchy because you are queer, not because you are a guy. Guys without the "queer qualifier" do not systematically suffer from patriarchy, just like white people don't systematically suffer from racism.

However, queer men do systematically suffer from patriarchy.



This isn't an exclusively LGBT issue seeing as how many heterosexuals are impacted by this as well.
No, but it impacts on LGBT people much more seriously. For most hetero cis-men, wearing make-up is like a joke, for many queer people, it's a part of their sexual or gender identity.

[RedSunRising]

I wouldn't classify queer men into the category of men in generally simplistically. Queer people are much more disadvantaged by patriarchy than hetero males.

Its pretty hard for a woman to go into the closet about her gender. Thats a big difference.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its pretty hard for a woman to go into the closet about her gender. Thats a big difference.

Is it, though? Or is it just a different level?

[Queercommie Girl]

Its pretty hard for a woman to go into the closet about her gender. Thats a big difference.


Difference yes, but not necessarily "better". Do you know what's like to be "in the closet" all the time?

Also, you are forgetting about transgendered and genderqueer people. Not so easy to be "in the closet" for them. (Though of course male-to-female trans people are technically women)

[agnixie]

Its pretty hard for a woman to go into the closet about her gender. Thats a big difference.

Hierarchy of oppressions? What is this, the 60s?

[GX.]

Try explaining that to a person with transgenderal orientations.

Such as myself? lol. and yeah, this:

being trans is not about satisfying gender roles so much as about identity

[Dr Mindbender]

Such as myself? lol. and yeah, this:
roles and aesthetics arent the same thing. People feel comfortable looking one way or the other. Each to their own i suppose.

[RedSunRising]

Hierarchy of oppressions? What is this, the 60s?

No its reality. There is a hierarchy of oppressions.

How many women and girls in the world today cannot choose their husbands?

Revolutionary feminism looks at the world for their persecptive and fights for them. One village at a time.

[Fawkes]

No its reality. There is a hierarchy of oppressions.

How many women and girls in the world today cannot choose their husbands?

Revolutionary feminism looks at the world for their persecptive and fights for them. One village at a time.

No, there's an intersectionality of oppression based not on identities, but those identities' relations to power within marginalized groups and dominant groups. It's not a clear hierarchy.

[Astarte]

Of course men should be allowed to wear makeup and we should fight for gay and transgendered rights - no one has suggested otherwise - enforcement of male gender roles also serve patriarchal functions (but they serve to preserve male dominance not to dominate men just as the expectation that white people live in "nice" white neighborhoods may be contrary to the wish of some white people but it serves to enhance white power structures).

There was also nothing in this thread to suggest that this was about LGBT issues. Are you suggesting that straight men can't or don't want to wear makeup or that wanting to wear makeup automatically makes a man lgbt? How about women not wanting to wear makeup?

Actually, the machismo male image is made to dominate a minority of males as well. If you are a male who crossdresses, you probably started by experimenting with eyeliner, nailpolish, lipstick, etc... if you are a male "crossdresser" who feels they are transgender you run the risk of alienating everyone you know and being completely marginalized by them and your own family, not to mention what your employer and reactionary co-workers can put you through. To say that the expectation of male-ness is not oppressive and coercive to some segments of the "male" population is ridiculous - I would say the image of male dominance though, is made to keep in power a certain hyper-masculine segment of the male population, but generalizations of the entire male population's situation are not appropriate.

[GX.]

roles and aesthetics arent the same thing. People feel comfortable looking one way or the other.
This is not the same as gender though. There are men who wear makeup, and women who have short hair and would never dream of dressing up. These things are often associated with a specific gender but they are obviously distinct from it.

[agnixie]

No its reality. There is a hierarchy of oppressions.

How many women and girls in the world today cannot choose their husbands?

Revolutionary feminism looks at the world for their persecptive and fights for them. One village at a time.

Learn intersectionality or get the fuck out.

How many queers today can't come out of the closet for fear of death?
And that's not even touching racism, ableism, etc.

[TC]

Learn intersectionality or get the fuck out.

How many queers today can't come out of the closet for fear of death?
And that's not even touching racism, ableism, etc.

Recognizing the intersectionality of oppression does not mean that oppression is equal or that there isn't a material hierarchy of power - where people are oppressed to greater or lesser degrees. Multiple intersections of identity can still contribute to a higher or lower social status than other intersections of identity.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually, the machismo male image is made to dominate a minority of males as well. If you are a male who crossdresses, you probably started by experimenting with eyeliner, nailpolish, lipstick, etc... if you are a male "crossdresser" who feels they are transgender you run the risk of alienating everyone you know and being completely marginalized by them and your own family, not to mention what your employer and reactionary co-workers can put you through. To say that the expectation of male-ness is not oppressive and coercive to some segments of the "male" population is ridiculous - I would say the image of male dominance though, is made to keep in power a certain hyper-masculine segment of the male population, but generalizations of the entire male population's situation are not appropriate.

You obviously have a point, but I would add that explicitly male-to-female trans people are technically women, not men, so strictly speaking the oppression suffered by male-to-female trans people is a sub-section of the oppression suffered by women in general, not men.

Male-to-female trans people aren't the same as men who put on make-up and wear dresses. In fact, not all male-to-female trans people behave in stereotypically "feminine" ways.

[Queercommie Girl]

Recognizing the intersectionality of oppression does not mean that oppression is equal or that there isn't a material hierarchy of power - where people are oppressed to greater or lesser degrees. Multiple intersections of identity can still contribute to a higher or lower social status than other intersections of identity.


It does imply though that not all "women" (or what society recognises as women) are more oppressed than all "men" (or what society recognises as men).

"Men" and "women" shouldn't even be treated as absolutist labels, since they are social constructions, and this is especially true if one adds queer issues into the mix.

[Queercommie Girl]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup? Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.

No, I think most women (even people like TC) would agree that wearing make-up is not an intrinsically negative thing. It's only negative when oppressive patriarchal norms force women to wear make-up, such as in the work-place.

[GX.]

Intersectionality does allude to the fact that most people are privileged by certain aspects of their identity and marginalized by others, and that these forces combine in uneven ways. But it's not just saying that forms of oppression exist simultaneously but that they interact and can't so easily be disentangled. So for example it's not that women of color are both oppressed by race and gender as if these things can be boxed off but that being people of color shapes their existence as women, and likewise gender contributes to racism in different ways. Similarly it would be impossible to fully divorce sexuality and gender. After all, gender is treated as the preeminent category in the dominant, socially-constructed understanding of sexual attraction/orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.)

[GX.]

Also iirc the phrase "hierarchy of oppressions" came from Audre Lorde who was saying that one dimension of her oppression didn't take precedent over all others (this is highly relevant to intersectionality). This not at all arguing that nobody is more oppressed than anyone else despite what TC seems to imply...

[Tim Finnegan]

Excuse the off-topic remark, but why would a man wear makeup?
...Because he wants to? I'm honestly surprised that you felt the need to ask that.


Unlike women, who are forced into wearing makeup due to oppressive patriarchal norms, men don't have to wear makeup. We should be more worried about women's rights to not wear makeup than about men's rights to wear makeup.Given that the very norms you describe are based upon the rigid feminisation of make-up, can the two really be separated? The demand for certain perceivably feminine performances from women and the denial of those performances to men are two sides of the same misogynistic coin, the former demanding an adherence to uniform subordination, the latter a maintenance of what could loosely be termed "gender loyalty". The patriarchal ideology that causes effeminate men (and male-bodied or perceivedly male-bodied genderqueer people) to be scorned as gender-traitors is the same that causes masculine women (and female-bodied or perceivedly female-bodied genderqueer people) to be scorned as upstarts.

[Queercommie Girl]

Given that the very norms you describe are based upon the rigid feminisation of make-up, aren't the two issues really one and the same?

I never actually thought like this.

I wouldn't say I completely agree with you here, but it's certainly an intriguing and original point.

One mark for you. ;)