Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Harry Styles' masculinity debate

[NewUsername 10,337]

10 hours ago, ItWasntLaauv said:

The fact that this is such a debated discussion about gender is so funny to me, like it’s pieces of cloth lol.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

11 hours ago, bionic said:

She’s the most pretentious and dislikable Dem in Congress IMO.  I can’t wait for her district to be dissolved next come 2022

Getting the brainwashed, corporate politician-loving types pressed af and we LOVE to see it.

AOC becoming President can't come soon enough on pure pettiness alone just to get haters of strong, unapologetic women of color like you fuming at your keyboards. 

[Stupid Oreo 14,033]

Hotel Cortez is all I can think about

[Pennywise 34,844]

Centrists and conservatives can seethe 

[Sepsami 17,522]

13 hours ago, PunkTheFunk said:

AOC 2024 

I'm not even American and I'm praying for this

[littlepotter 72,847]

4 hours ago, HausOfAntonio said:

It does normalise it, but the problem to me lies in how he frames this act in a way that doesn’t show any sort of critical engagement with what it means to be queer, yet get praise and attention for that precisely. He is not being a revolutionary, he is not doing front line work for the acceptance of looser expressions of gender, and yet he is treated and spoken of like he is. In my eyes he “served a lewk” like any of our pop girlies do, but what that tells me is that we’re merely judging men to the same standards we judge women. If Harry wants to compete in the big league with other big female names in fashion, then let him get treated as such (because lets be honest, male celebrities rarely do anything interesting in fashion). If its fashion we’re talking, then let him being a man be completely irrelevant, his looks are going to be talked about exactly how we would talk about any woman’s. However, if its gender that we’re talking, I’m going to need a bit more work from big name publications to give credit where its due, and to make their conversations on gender diversity MUCH more complex than just “omg Harry Styles is wearing a dress!!! A true gender fluid queer icon for our generation!” Harry did nothing wrong, its great that he feels liberated enough to wear what he wants, but a part of me can’t help but see some sort of queer-baiting (if we can call it that) in his public persona. The problem is obviously much more to do with the publications that generate and contextualise cultural conversations around these very urgent and complex issues. 

You're basically writing essays complaining about how people are perceiving him, which is not his responsibility. Do you realize how much you overthinking this goes against the point? 

He saw an article of clothing. He liked it. He wore it. This is all there should be to it.

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

Just let men dress how they want. It shouldn't even be a discussion. 

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

7 hours ago, HausOfAntonio said:

It does normalise it, but the problem to me lies in how he frames this act in a way that doesn’t show any sort of critical engagement with what it means to be queer, yet get praise and attention for that precisely. He is not being a revolutionary, he is not doing front line work for the acceptance of looser expressions of gender, and yet he is treated and spoken of like he is. In my eyes he “served a lewk” like any of our pop girlies do, but what that tells me is that we’re merely judging men to the same standards we judge women. If Harry wants to compete in the big league with other big female names in fashion, then let him get treated as such (because lets be honest, male celebrities rarely do anything interesting in fashion). If its fashion we’re talking, then let him being a man be completely irrelevant, his looks are going to be talked about exactly how we would talk about any woman’s. However, if its gender that we’re talking, I’m going to need a bit more work from big name publications to give credit where its due, and to make their conversations on gender diversity MUCH more complex than just “omg Harry Styles is wearing a dress!!! A true gender fluid queer icon for our generation!” Harry did nothing wrong, its great that he feels liberated enough to wear what he wants, but a part of me can’t help but see some sort of queer-baiting (if we can call it that) in his public persona. The problem is obviously much more to do with the publications that generate and contextualise cultural conversations around these very urgent and complex issues. 

He is praised for it because a (straight) man succeeding while wearing stuff considered for the other Gender is automatically political. Not because he tries to be political. And the way you frame it as “trying to compete with” female popstars is how YOU want to see it. For me it’s a man being inspired by people like Bowie, Mercury, his female counterparts and queer culture. Not someone who’s competing with anyone. And that queer-baiting argument.. every man straying away from what we usually see male popstars doing is considered queer baiting, and that is a you problem, not a him problem. We can’t ask for breaking down gender norms and when straight men actually start to get with the movement we criticize them for it. We are keeping the norms running just like straights do.

He didn’t frame his fashion as groundbreaking, so why is he being criticized for the reaction he gets and the feelings people have towards it? This is no better than criticizing queer people for “cross-dressing” because of the bad reactions they get from society in day to day life. No different. 

[Fusel 1,085]

edit: accidentally posted this, pls ignore

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

1 hour ago, BornAsUnic0rn said:

He is praised for it because a (straight) man succeeding while wearing stuff considered for the other Gender is automatically political. Not because he tries to be political. And the way you frame it as “trying to compete with” female popstars is how YOU want to see it. For me it’s a man being inspired by people like Bowie, Mercury, his female counterparts and queer culture. Not someone who’s competing with anyone. And that queer-baiting argument.. every man straying away from what we usually see male popstars doing is considered queer baiting, and that is a you problem, not a him problem. We can’t ask for breaking down gender norms and when straight men actually start to get with the movement we criticize them for it. We are keeping the norms running just like straights do.

He didn’t frame his fashion as groundbreaking, so why is he being criticized for the reaction he gets and the feelings people have towards it? This is no better than criticizing queer people for “cross-dressing” because of the bad reactions they get from society in day to day life. No different. 

You clearly misread my argument, I specifically said I don’t blame him. The problem is media outlets framing his act as something its not. He can wear whatever he wants, but I’m not going to find his fashion interesting BECAUSE he is a man. I am going to find his fashion interesting or not, period. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

5 hours ago, littlepotter said:

You're basically writing essays complaining about how people are perceiving him, which is not his responsibility. Do you realize how much you overthinking this goes against the point? 

He saw an article of clothing. He liked it. He wore it. This is all there should be to it.

Did I say it was his responsibility? No. I don’t even think it is. But I want, actually I DEMAND credit be given where its due, and nowhere in this scenario was that the case. If you argument of “he simply saw a piece of clothing he liked and wore it” then we wouldn’t have to read about how he is queering gender norms and advancing the fight for gender nonconformity when in fact thats not what he would be doing. His actions wouldn’t be framed that way, which is what is IN FACT being done. 
 

EDIT: and I don’t believe I’m overthinking anything. Like any sort of cultural phenomenon, this deserves to be spoken about and I view all of these conversations as productive. I don’t believe in being dismissive about what I consider to be important. 

[littlepotter 72,847]

12 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Did I say it was his responsibility? No. I don’t even think it is. But I want, actually I DEMAND credit be given where its due, and nowhere in this scenario was that the case. If you argument of “he simply saw a piece of clothing he liked and wore it” then we wouldn’t have to read about how he is queering gender norms and advancing the fight for gender nonconformity when in fact thats not what he would be doing. His actions wouldn’t be framed that way, which is what is IN FACT being done. 
 

EDIT: and I don’t believe I’m overthinking anything. Like any sort of cultural phenomenon, this deserves to be spoken about and I view all of these conversations as productive. I don’t believe in being dismissive about what I consider to be important. 

Ok then, let's talk. Forget about my previous statement. I don't see what your point is, honestly. AOC is not saying anything that discredits the work of men before him (by the way you keep mentioning credit where it is due but I still don't know who do you want to be credited? and why not name them, so they receive credit?)

A famous male artist embracing gender nonconformity is something unusual and it does warrant a conversation. Why do you think it discredits anyone else? If you think this is something that we're so beyond, we really aren't. Maybe you missed Candance Owens' tweet insulting him and saying how people want to destroy masculinity, that real men don't exist anymore, and her tweet got hundreds of thousands of likes. You cannot dismiss this as "oh she's just living in the dark ages" because this is actually something millions of people think whether we like it or not it. Conservative mothers whose daughters stan harry style will have to deal with the fact that their daughters like a man who wears dresses. That means something. He did not invent it, but the media are going to talk about it, and I don't see the point of you being upset by it.

[JoliesLips 233]

Lady Hitler and her delusional fans are such a KII. I hope she stays and continues to destroy the Democratic party. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

1 hour ago, littlepotter said:

Ok then, let's talk. Forget about my previous statement. I don't see what your point is, honestly. AOC is not saying anything that discredits the work of men before him (by the way you keep mentioning credit where it is due but I still don't know who do you want to be credited? and why not name them, so they receive credit?)

A famous male artist embracing gender nonconformity is something unusual and it does warrant a conversation. Why do you think it discredits anyone else? If you think this is something that we're so beyond, we really aren't. Maybe you missed Candance Owens' tweet insulting him and saying how people want to destroy masculinity, that real men don't exist anymore, and her tweet got hundreds of thousands of likes. You cannot dismiss this as "oh she's just living in the dark ages" because this is actually something millions of people think whether we like it or not it. Conservative mothers whose daughters stan harry style will have to deal with the fact that their daughters like a man who wears dresses. That means something. He did not invent it, but the media are going to talk about it, and I don't see the point of you being upset by it.

I literally didn’t bring up AOC once. I agree with what she said. My point was about how PUBLICATIONS frame him as central to some sort of constructed gender avant garde when he literally isn’t. And on the topic of credit, I am adamant about centring the conversation of “cross-dressing” as something that engenders actual dangerous situations in many people’s lives, and I really don’t see any attempt from Vogue to frame their discussion in a way that acknowledges that what Harry does safely out of extreme privilege is actually a battle cry for so many people. I genuinely think its great that he wears what he likes and that he opens up the minds of centrists and conservatives, but I also believe that these same people need to be exposed to the fact that not all people have the luxury to “play dress up”, cash a check and not have to worry about getting beat up on the streets. 

[littlepotter 72,847]

50 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

I literally didn’t bring up AOC once. I agree with what she said. My point was about how PUBLICATIONS frame him as central to some sort of constructed gender avant garde when he literally isn’t. And on the topic of credit, I am adamant about centring the conversation of “cross-dressing” as something that engenders actual dangerous situations in many people’s lives, and I really don’t see any attempt from Vogue to frame their discussion in a way that acknowledges that what Harry does safely out of extreme privilege is actually a battle cry for so many people. I genuinely think its great that he wears what he likes and that he opens up the minds of centrists and conservatives, but I also believe that these same people need to be exposed to the fact that not all people have the luxury to “play dress up”, cash a check and not have to worry about getting beat up on the streets. 

The thread is about AOC so obviously I am going to assume that you are talking about what she said. 

I think it's a given that rich people are a lot more privileged to do whatever they want than the rest of us. I understand you want people to acknowledge that regular people can't do this without risk, but this goes for so many things in life that the rich and famous enjoy and we can't. So i find it weird to nitpick this situation. I don't think anyone is under the impression that this is safe to do for anyone