#(but. I don't think the fact that it's a topic traditionally associated with women can be overlooked here)

[marzipanandminutiae]

hi! i was reading an article on fashion history today, specifically the 1840s, and it seemed to focus heavily on the idea of clothes relating to female oppression. i was wondering your opinion, if you have the time?

the article is here, https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1840-1849/

in particular, the article says “Women’s clothes became so constricting that her passivity in society was clear (C.W. Cunnington 135)”. i suppose i’m not entirely sure how valid that is? i’m just looking for another opinion, especially since i’m a complete amateur at fashion history. i know that you’ve talked before about some misconceptions around victorian womenswear, especially with corsets, so i’d love to know if this is of a similar vein to that or if it’s something different with a different background.

if you take the time to respond, thank you so much! i hope you’re doing well :)

This is. A very strange article, providing citiations for opinions as if they were facts. Like...why are you giving a citation for an interpretation of 1840s feminine clothing? I guarantee you won't find anybody in contemporary literature saying "ah yes, women dress like this because they are passive! that is the conscious reason we do this and we have all agreed on it." So it's not really a fact, is it? And therefore, why is it being cited as if it were?

They also seem very determined to believe that these clothes restricted movement to an unmanageable degree. While it's true that you can't bend at the waist easily in 1840s stays, you can still bend at the hips or kneel down. Preventing you from moving in one very specific way doesn't necessarily prevent you from accomplishing the same action with a different movement. It's also bizarre because they talk about women of limited means having access to fashion via ladies' magazines, but don't carry that through to its logical conclusion: working-class women wore similar clothing styles to their upper-class counterparts. And therefore were also wearing stays (practical applications thereof aside). And could ill afford to have their physical action limited. And therefore...? Maybe these garments weren't whalebone cages that kept women from living their lives, perhaps?

Also, this Cunnington fellow they cite for their FactPinions died in 1961. He was active primarily during the period of greatest disdain for all things Victorian- the early to mid 20th century. Are we examining those biases and comparing the opinions expressed therein to modern scholarship, World-Renowned Institution F.I.T.? No! Of course not! Why would we, when Everybody Knows Victorian women's clothing was horrible and restrictive and kept them from doing anything ever? Their society was highly misogynistic, so it must follow that every single thing about their lives was designed to actively oppress them! That's how human beings work, after all! Ahahaha! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Marzi.exe has encountered an error. Please wait.]

Don't get me wrong, he was one of the founders of my main field. He and his wife saved a vast number of garments from being lost forever, and I appreciate that. But he was, as we all are, a product of his time- and that time just happened to absolutely loathe everything about the era he was examining. So I'm not sure why we're taking his word as gospel here- especially when it's not even hard fact.

Like, for example, he says that the scoop bonnets of the era acted like blinders for women, a "moral check" keeping them focused on "the straight and narrow path ahead."

Except. Mr. Cunnington.

Women can turn their heads.

You can just. You can look in another direction. You're not a horse in a head-rein when you put on a coal-scuttle bonnet, so it hardly keeps you from seeing "immoral" things. It is, quite frankly, Not That Deep.

Aaaaand there's the old bugaboo of children's corsets, with a direful comment that girls began "corset training" as young as ten years old. I've gone over this before but, whatever salacious literature of the day may imply, it was not at all common to waist-train young children. Indeed, most so-called "children's corsets" that I've encountered are more like lightly stiffened vests designed for posture support, and can't even be tightened.

There was also at least one very weird technical observation about clothing in here, which surprised me for a fashion school where you'd think at least one person editing their articles would have sewing experience: the comment that the tightly-fitted armsceyes (arm holes) of 1840s bodices kept women from raising their arms above 90 degrees.

I could be wrong, but in my experience a more fitted armsceye allows for MORE freedom of movement, not less. One of the biggest issues I've encountered- and heard other sewists complain about -with modern mass-produced garments is armsceyes cut too large. This may seem counterintuitive, but the principle is something like: Armsceye Cut Close To Armpit = Less Pulling On Body of Garment = Can Raise Arm Higher Without Disturbing Rest Of Shirt/Dress/Whatever. And for an extremely close-fitted garment like a Victorian bodice, that effect could mean that you really CAN'T raise your arm above your head. Trust me; I know this from having made the mistake too many times in my own historical sewing. Now, if the armsceyes were cut very small in general- high in the armpit but very low on the shoulder, too -that maybe could restrict movement somewhat. And I haven't examined many 1840s bodices; it's possible that's how the sloped-shoulder silhouette of the day was achieved.

But I really doubt that all women went around being unable to raise their arms above their heads given that, again, many of them had to work. And it seems weird that a fashion school would simply say "tight armsceyes Bad" without explaining themselves more specifically. Potentially, depending on what they meant, it's even downright ignorant.

In conclusion: the article is correct in a lot of specifics, like the shapes and silhouettes concerned, the trend towards historical inspiration and very subdued ornamentation, etc. It's just when they start trying to interpret the imagined Deeper Meaning of the garments, or extrapolate about the lived experience of wearing them without ever trying it/examining what women actually said about it in the period (or didn't; absence of discussion can be telling in itself) that it starts to go off the rails.

I also feel like it's emblematic of a larger issue within the field, namely: You Can Just Say Whatever The Hell You Want About Dress History And People Will Believe You. One might think academia would be immune to this and more rigorous in its fact-checking, but. One would be wrong. Probably because there have been so many myths floating around for decades, getting repeated over and over, never being questioned because- as I said above -everyone is very very ready to believe that the past was a total hellhole. And most of these myths bolster that image, so...why would anyone doubt them?

Besides the small, unimportant fact that, you know. They're not true.

I don't know. It definitely puts my professional imposter syndrome to flight, I can tell you that much.

[onecornerface]

Some of my views on trans topics

Some increased number of youth have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria due to the reduction of false negatives in recent years. This is good. (Cf. discourse on autism, as well as increase in recognition of left-handedness, and similar topics). Also some youth have come to identify as trans *without* gender dysphoria. I claim this is good OR neutral.

If gender dysphoria has increased, which has *maybe* happened (or maybe not), this would probably be *somewhat* bad (w/ caveats)-- insofar as dysphoria (i.e. a kind of feeling bad) is bad. (I think feeling bad is bad!!!) However, this has not been *shown* to have happened. Evidence for this claim is highly indirect at most.

Relatedly, all the (few) "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" studies seem to be garbage or of highly suspect quality (e.g. Lisa Littman & a few follow-ups by her and others).

I cannot rule out the possibility that a very few people may have something like ROGD. Similarly for "autogynephilia" and "homosexual transsexuality" (Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence). Also, I make no judgment against anyone who may have such conditions, if there are any. Which maybe there are. (But for some criticism, see Julia Serano's several essays and posts against Blanchardianism.) I think the whole AGP/HSTS theory is likely bunk-- but *if* some properly nuanced version of it is legit, I think that's basically okay.

For instance, I think Tailcalled (Survey-Anon) is a really decent and reasonable Blanchardian.

I know for a fact there are a lot of people who consider themselves AGP, and I suspect there are some people who consider themselves to be HSTS or ROGD (which I've heard secondhand, but not firsthand). However, unlike perhaps some people, I don't consider someone's (gender-related or otherwise) self-identification to be a sufficient reason that the rest of us ought to agree uncritically with their own theory (although I think a certain degree of respect is called for-- and this goes for trans [and cis] people whose self-conceptions I see no reason to disagree with, and for trans [and cis] people whose self-conceptions I see some reason to disagree with).

(Similarly, I think it's fine for pretty much anyone to disagree with some religious people's self-identification, and with some Dissociative Identify Disorder patients' or multiples' self-identification, among others. For that matter, I think it's okay to disagree with the self-identification of some people who consider themselves to be persons, if e.g. you have a Parfitian theory or error theory regarding personhood, or if you believe there is merely matter in motion, etc.)

One big reason to be open to disagreeing with some trans people's self-identification is that there are some trans women who say "I'm actually a man (or male)" or similar assertions. This is an interesting puzzle for some versions of self-ID theory. You can easily find these posts on gender-critical feminist blogs, who reblog these sorts of posts frequently (for obvious reasons). Also some trans people are traditionally religious (e.g. some of them think they have male or female or other gendered souls) or have weird gender theories (which are, in some sense or other, a commonplace in all philosophical literatures, gender-related and otherwise, including secular)-- and I think it's fine to believe they are mistaken. I think this is of some interest, despite the dubious place that many gender-critical feminists are coming from.

To be honest, I think the gender-critical feminist movement is broadly fascist or at least fascist-adjacent, even though some of them are reasonable and decent people on an individual level (much like anti-abortionists, some of whom are reasonable and decent individually, even though their movement is insane, misogynist, and often fascist). This does NOT mean every gender-critical feminist is fascist on a personal level. However, if you are trans or a trans-ally, I also think (on e.g. freedom-of-association grounds, despite my not being a capitalist libertarian) that you do not *have* to associate with people who very much do *not* validate the legitimacy of trans people's identities.

I honestly do not think I am very biased on this topic, contrary to common allegations that all skeptics are biased. (Zack Davis, among others, seems to make this assertion.) This is for many direct and indirect reasons. Unlike some people, I would not care much if ROGD or Blanchardianism (AGP/HSTS) were true, but I think there are many reasons to consider these views most likely untrue-- both in general, and for a sizeable majority of trans people.

It is hard to emphasize enough how unbiased I think I am on this topic, both for personal and intellectual reasons.

I understand there is a lot of actual and perceived bias on this topic, in regard to wokeness or political correctness or suchlike, so I don't know how to prove this. But IF I believed that (say) trans women were in fact men, then I believe I would say so openly. I'd make some serious effort toward saying this respectfully, but I *would* say it, and I'd say it directly. I do not say so, because I do not believe so.

I think a lot of people think there is widespread dishonesty on this topic. Quite possibly there is. Many people would be yelled at if they said openly that they believed trans women were men, so this is some reason to think many people wouldn't say so even if they believed so. But I swear I'm not being dishonest on this topic.

All that said, the ROGD studies appear to suck, so likely ROGD isn't common, and allegations otherwise are bunk and most likely very biased. (I also suspect AGP and HSTS are bunk, although I admit my allegation on this matter is more complex and less blatantly correct.)

I think gender dysphoria (in itself) is bad-- insofar as dysphoria (i.e. a type of feeling bad) is bad. I disagree with some number of trans advocates who think curing gender dysphoria (i.e. successful conversion therapy) would be bad in itself. Also it seems plausible to me that gender-critical feminists such as Holly Lawfort-Smith are correct in saying that the failure of trans-conversion therapy has been exaggerated. However, I also think wanting to transition is basically okay (at whatever age, including under 18 and under 13), and I disagree with the view that transition per se is bad (apart from the inconvenience and cost, which I grant is somewhat bad in itself).

Also, I reject transmedicalism and the notion that one needs to have gender dysphoria to be trans. I also (approximately) affirm self-ID as sufficient without dysphoria. So if & insofar as some increased number of young people have come to self-ID as trans (trans men, women, nonbinary), even if they don't have gender dysphoria, I think this is totally fine.

If some increased number of young people self-identify as trans due to a "trend" or "social contagion," or even a "paraphilia" (with various caveats), then I think that's cool, this is fine.

Cry about it.

[cruelsister-moved2]

do u have reading recs on the rituals of slaughter? i’m very interested

I actually don't think I do because I haven't read about this specifically I just keep noticing it as a thread in more general ethnographic readings over the years (and often like the author doesn't treat it as particularly consequential). I might have a dig and get back to you though because I would love to see what work has been done on it.

I have seen a lot of conversations on halal and especially kosher practises from an ecological perspective BUT I'm mostly interested in the like spiritual/social/psychological ramifications of actually killing an animal and how that is mitigated ritually, which i really haven't seen any work actually analyse that even if it relates examples of it happening. and relatedly the idea of hierarchy in relation to animals - which varies a lot, but the whole 'man is the master of the beasts who owes them nothing in return and should have no concern for their suffering' is a pretty western christian perspective.

i am really not a fan of comparative religion and other comparative study [too long to get into here but I think it's important to study cultures in their own right & recognise specifics & especially not try to rationally 'justify' cultural beliefs or force connections to some kind of 'universal human nature'] so i want to make the distinction here between that mode of study - I just think it's interesting that many individual cultures share some aspect of contrition for the killing of animals and various responses to that. relatedly i have noticed a bunch of animist beliefs (especially in hunter-gatherer societies who don't/didn't traditionally raise animals) make some kind of distinction between the killing of an animal's physical body for sustenance and the sense of domination or triumph over the animal's being. there are a lot of various formulations of this, but i always loved this ainu chant in which a fox's upper and lower jawbones have to be buried under the men's and women's toilet to stop the spirit of the fox from basically regenerating after the body is killed. beliefs in which certain parts can't be eaten and/or slaughter must be performed in certain ways are common and mostly defy any kind of 'logical' rationalisation (e.g hygiene). there's also an interesting resonance in the fact that kosher and halal dietary laws both specifically forbid the consumption of blood, because it's associated with some kind of 'life force'. i.e: you can consume this meat as is necessary for you to survive but you are not entitled to this creature's very existence. the torah as a whole is like extremely ambivalent towards animal slaughter; at once a sacred ritual and blessing, but also dangerously intoxicating and needs to be constrained. at points slaughter of animals is explicitly linked to slaughter of humans; the intitial permission to eat meat is sort of grudging (and a midrash suggests it's basically offered for noah and his family to take out their bloodlust rather than kill humans); the ideal state is still a world in which humans and animals don't prey on eachother. i think its all very buberian (you thought i wasnt going to bring martin buber into this) in that it's accepted as something which is not ideal but may be necessary for survival.

sorry that this is just anecdotes and not a reading list! i am going to scout the work looking at this in detail but i would have to read it first before i felt comfortable recommending it! when I finish work though I will reblog this post with all the readings i can remember where i encountered specific examples although none of them are specifically about animal slaughter, but some of them are more broadly about relationships with the natural world. im glad other people find it interesting anyway, i think it's a super rich topic!

[elisemeitner]

now that I'm on the topic I do actually have to whine. it drives me up a damn wall how liberal feminism (and queer/lgbtq theory/spaces) reinforce femininity and masculinity as roles while claiming to upend them.

and I do understand where it comes from in many ways- I'm a trans masc person who wears extremely femme clothing! one of the biggest reasons I've yet to go on T is that it'll make wearing clothing I love much, much harder. I'm fully aware that gnc men are treated poorly. I've also experienced enough shit myself to know that hyperfem women do get bullshit, and the dynamics of gender expression are more complex than "conforming" and "nonconforming"

it's also true that many things traditionally associated with women are derided and seen as unimportant within society. but none of this leads into femmephobia being a useful concept!

it's all much, much simpler imo: the oppression of women is upheld using a strict set of gender roles, and those roles are encoded within "femininity" and "masculinity". they aren't natural categories, and they aren't neutral. the existence of these categories alone is the backbone of cishet patriarchy (& others, but were not discussing that here)

divorcing those categories from gender isn't enough, and will never be enough. you have to stop categorizing them entirely. and like, I get that were a long way from that overall! I get that you can't get people to "femininity and masculinity are bad concepts" without first convincing them that anyone can be feminine and vice versa

but my issue is that liberals don't just say that it's too soon. they flat out never think about it! feminine ideals are Good and masculine ones are Bad. esp the emotional ones. god. there's nothing a liberal feminist hates more than a "facts not feelings" commie in pink

[trans-axian-archive]

Asking respectfully mostly because I don't understand - if it is transphobic to make canonically male characters cis women (eg cisswapping, which I agree is gross), but also transphobic to make canonically male characters /trans/ women (unless you are a trans woman yourself), does this mean that it's? transphobic to imply that canonically male characters could be anything other than male? eg that gender is immutable and cannot be changed???? i don't follow but i know you will have insight

trans headcanons can still be applied to man characters. you can headcanon men characters as trans men (or women characters as trans women, or really any character - unless stated to specifically to be trans in a different way - as nonbinary). that's perfectly fine, that's great! the issue is not that Your Gender Is Inherent To Your "Birth Sex" And Cannot Change, the issue is that certain depictions of this concept are just straight up transphobic. genderbends/cisswaps/whatever are transphobic because their core idea is that there are traits and behaviors that are inherent to men and women, and that those are the only two genders that exist. hcing a canonically male character as a transfem person, as I explained in the other ask, is transmisogynistic because it directly compares trans women to cis men. the problem isn't saying that gender can change, the problem is how you say it and what characters you apply it to. if you want to explore the gender of a character, it's perfectly acceptable to do that, but there are ways to go about it

this is sort of a different topic, but I do think there are ways to say "hey, what if the protagonist/villain/etc of this story was a woman instead of a man" that aren't transphobic or sexist, or even genderbends at all, but that is a whole different scope of discussion and something that I think has to be done with a lot of care and respect

but back to your question, "does this mean it's transphobic to imply that canonically male characters could be anything other than male" well... thats sort of a loaded question, and not really what the problem is about at all. in fact, the issue has nothing to Do with maleness or manhood or masculinity, its about how those things/concepts are harmfully associated with transfems and weaponized against them and trans people in general (obviously this affects fransfems the most and in more violent ways, but those concepts can be weaponized against transmasc people as well to invalidate and infantilize us). I also question what you mean when you say "male"... do you mean a cis man, or do you just mean men in general (ie including trans men/transmascs)? because, as I said, cis-maleness is not inherent to any man character, in fact I encourage people to embrace transmasc headcanons for men characters, to explore them (within respectful limitations if you are cis, obvi) and love them and celebrate them! but asking if/saying that "maleness", in the context of "birth sex" in the way that it is traditionally referred to, is immutable and unchangeable, is an issue on its own and not what the actual problem is about