Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Harry Styles' masculinity debate

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

40 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

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. 

Wow, you were asked to use your voice and actually name people who deserve credit and you chose not to?

To go in about your delusional stupid and dead ass wrong little rant about the privilege of a white cis-man being able to freely cross dress? Linda, straight (white) cis-men created these gender barriers in clothing. So the least thing this society is ready to accept is an attractive currently successful world known white male artist to do the opposite of what he was taught to do. He’s failing our system. Straight white men are the most restricted people when it comes to the choice of clothing, if you wear something pink, something with floral print, a crop top, all those things, your masculinity is automatically questioned. You are automatically femme and gay. A well dressed white man who expresses himself with fashion, just with the tools in the men’s section, automatically is raising questions about his sexuality, and his masculinity, in a way no other group does. This is why this cover is blowing up, because a (presumably straight) white cis man wearing a dress is so controversial, society can’t ignore it. 

Things like Harry doing this, on the cover of vogue, actually show how far the movement of breaking down gender barriers (in clothing) has come. And how far we still need to go, looking at the backlash, from the conservative side and from people like you who are far more conservative than you think. That’s the significance of this cover shoot. The reaction shows where we as a society stand on this. Because clearly we are more likely to accept drag queens in the mainstream media and queer people in the entertainment business, but we are definitely far from ready to accept our opinions and beliefs actually being enforced and picked up by the mainstream.

 

WHY do we fight for freedom of expression, when we decide how people are allowed to express? Because then we just move the rules, we don’t change or challenge them. 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

I hope she becomes president in 2024.

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

3 minutes ago, littlepotter said:

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

Exactly why I would expect something to have been mentioned about the cultural implications of what he’s doing, but the whole thing seems very oblivious. Its the sort of scenario where, to me, its seems like they attempted to talk the talk without walking the walk. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

3 minutes ago, BornAsUnic0rn said:

Wow, you were asked to use your voice and actually name people who deserve credit and you chose not to?

To go in about your delusional stupid and dead ass wrong little rant about the privilege of a white cis-man being able to freely cross dress? Linda, straight (white) cis-men created these gender barriers in clothing. So the least thing this society is ready to accept is an attractive currently successful world known white male artist to do the opposite of what he was taught to do. He’s failing our system. Straight white men are the most restricted people when it comes to the choice of clothing, if you wear something pink, something with floral print, a crop top, all those things, your masculinity is automatically questioned. You are automatically femme and gay. A well dressed white man who expresses himself with fashion, just with the tools in the men’s section, automatically is raising questions about his sexuality, and his masculinity, in a way no other group does. This is why this cover is blowing up, because a (presumably straight) white cis man wearing a dress is so controversial, society can’t ignore it. 

Things like Harry doing this, on the cover of vogue, actually show how far the movement of breaking down gender barriers (in clothing) has come. And how far we still need to go, looking at the backlash, from the conservative side and from people like you who are far more conservative than you think. That’s the significance of this cover shoot. The reaction shows where we as a society stand on this. Because clearly we are more likely to accept drag queens in the mainstream media and queer people in the entertainment business, but we are definitely far from ready to accept our opinions and beliefs actually being enforced and picked up by the mainstream.

 

WHY do we fight for freedom of expression, when we decide how people are allowed to express? Because then we just move the rules, we don’t change or challenge them. 

Ok clearly you didn’t get what I was trying to argue. I was just trying to express my views on the situation, and I never villainised Harry in the process. Thats not what it was about. Im very happy to see looser forms of gender expressions in mainstream media and I like Harry’s style, but it is literally nothing to write home about and ESPECIALLY not as groundbreaking as they’re making it seem. He is not a pioneer and certainly not the poster boy for gender non-conformity. I’ll admit he does more that most straight men and thats great, but it just goes right back to awarding the wrong people for things they never did. And if you think there is some sort of comprehensive list of names of people that deserve credit that just proves you didn’t understand what I meant. I’m complaining - and very validly so - about the scope of understanding provided by the publication about a very pressing issue before they start glamorising it to the masses, which they simply didn’t do. 

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

7 minutes ago, littlepotter said:

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

That’s where these arguments fail me. Of course he has the privilege to do this, so does Jaden Smith, or queer people like Billy Porter, who started to do these extremely extravagant looks when he finally made it, because he had the privilege of money and being a household name to do it. But we need those people to push this movement in the public eye.

And since straight white men created the rules, Harry refusing to label himself and refusing to play by the rules society teaches us obviously is getting more attention. Because he is standing up to a system meant to benefit him. He could be on a way safer and more mass appealing carrer path if he said “I’m straight” and he wore a white tee and jeans or a suit, but he chooses not to.

 

 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

5 minutes ago, BornAsUnic0rn said:

That’s where these arguments fail me. Of course he has the privilege to do this, so does Jaden Smith, or queer people like Billy Porter, who started to do these extremely extravagant looks when he finally made it, because he had the privilege of money and being a household name to do it. But we need those people to push this movement in the public eye.

And since straight white men created the rules, Harry refusing to label himself and refusing to play by the rules society teaches us obviously is getting more attention. Because he is standing up to a system meant to benefit him. He could be on a way safer and more mass appealing carrer path if he said “I’m straight” and he wore a white tee and jeans or a suit, but he chooses not to.

 

 

Jaden and Billy have actively spoken very articulately about the implications of what they do even outside of any publication and I have yet to see the same lucid engagement from Harry. I’m not saying he needs to provide it, but the publication should before glorifying him as something he’s not. 

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

3 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Ok clearly you didn’t get what I was trying to argue. I was just trying to express my views on the situation, and I never villainised Harry in the process. Thats not what it was about. Im very happy to see looser forms of gender expressions in mainstream media and I like Harry’s style, but it is literally nothing to write home about and ESPECIALLY not as groundbreaking as they’re making it seem. He is not a pioneer and certainly not the poster boy for gender non-conformity. I’ll admit he does more that most straight men and thats great, but it just goes right back to awarding the wrong people for things they never did. And if you think there is some sort of comprehensive list of names of people that deserve credit that just proves you didn’t understand what I meant. I’m complaining - and very validly so - about the scope of understanding provided by the publication about a very pressing issue before they start glamorising it to the masses, which they simply didn’t do. 

Vogue is presenting more and more queer people in its printed and its online outlets. Rupaul had a vogue spread last year and the MET Gala theme was camp. Matter of the fact is Harry Styles would have gotten the Vogue cover anyways, because he is Harry Styles. He is a globally known successful artist. That makes this big, that he could have worn men’s clothing on the cover; but Vogue and him decided not to. That makes it groundbreaking. They chose a statement instead of a easy sellable low key cover. 

 

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

3 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Jaden and Billy have actively spoken very articulately about the implications of what they do even outside of any publication and I have yet to see the same lucid engagement from Harry. I’m not saying he needs to provide it, but the publication should before glorifying him as something he’s not. 

They spoke about the implications after they did it mostly. Not before they did it. Why is it so hard for you to give Harry Styles the chance to make a move and then explain it and further it? If you explain your statement before you make it, it doesn’t hit the same way. You get attention and afterward you use the attention.

 

The matter of the fact is.. your reaction to the cover could be “Yes, and..” Furthering the message of the the cover shoot with the important points you want to make. But you chose the route of belittling it, saying it doesn’t deserve the attention and pointing out where it, in your eyes, failed. So you are ultimately part of the problem. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

6 minutes ago, BornAsUnic0rn said:

They spoke about the implications after they did it mostly. Not before they did it. Why is it so hard for you to give Harry Styles the chance to make a move and then explain it and further it? If you explain your statement before you make it, it doesn’t hit the same way. You get attention and afterward you use the attention.

 

The matter of the fact is.. your reaction to the cover could be “Yes, and..” Furthering the message of the the cover shoot with the important points you want to make. But you chose the route of belittling it, saying it doesn’t deserve the attention and pointing out where it, in your eyes, failed. So you are ultimately part of the problem. 

No I literally NEVER SAID it didn’t deserve attention, nor did I belittle it. I agree with what you said about it being preferable to make a statement than to have a generic cover, but I don’t see an especially subversive or exciting statement with this cover in particular. To many people it may be and thats OK, to me its just a good magazine cover with nice clothing. I’m not not sold on the gender nonconformity pioneer angle they took. And please save yourself from labelling me as a part of the problem before you know the first thing about my identity, especially who and what I speak for and about. 

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

1 minute ago, HausOfAntonio said:

No I literally NEVER SAID it didn’t deserve attention, nor did I belittle it. I agree with what you said about it being preferable to make a statement than to have a generic cover, but I don’t see an especially subversive or exciting statement with this cover in particular. To many people it may be and thats OK, to me its just a good magazine cover with nice clothing. I’m not not sold on the gender nonconformity pioneer angle they took. And please save yourself from labelling me as a part of the problem before you know the first thing about my identity, especially who and what I speak for and about. 

Well, I know I stand for breaking down gender barriers and I know that I actually am someone who is considered as someone who cross-dresses in many ways, like I said, I do drag, and I do buy personal clothes in both sections, actually make some of my own clothes. And I nodded at that in my (I think) first reply to you.

And all I know from you is looking at your history on this forum whenever someone is praising something an artist does that you don’t care for, you’re ready to prove to them why it isn’t praise-worthy. I rarely see you commenting something positive.

[COOOK 76,405]

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

6 minutes ago, BornAsUnic0rn said:

Well, I know I stand for breaking down gender barriers and I know that I actually am someone who is considered as someone who cross-dresses in many ways, like I said, I do drag, and I do buy personal clothes in both sections, actually make some of my own clothes. And I nodded at that in my (I think) first reply to you.

And all I know from you is looking at your history on this forum whenever someone is praising something an artist does that you don’t care for, you’re ready to prove to them why it isn’t praise-worthy. I rarely see you commenting something positive.

Thats not what I take from the content I publish. Every single time there is any sort of bashing towards artists I like I am the first person to defend them. See ANY thread made about Marina and how I’ll be the first one pointing out how hate towards her last album is completely unwarranted. I have constantly and fervently stood up for Gaga every day throughout this era. Every single time Gaga has been body shamed in this very forum I will be there pointing out how people are acting. I will have opinions about things I consider shady and will air them when I see fit, but I genuinely don’t consider what I post negative, as opposed to many members who take the first opportunity to shame Gaga for anything she does. See any thread with pictures of her and I am always positive. See any megarate I have taken part in and I am always having a fun banter with the other members. I am far from being a troll, but I’ll stand up for what I believe in. 

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

1 minute ago, HausOfAntonio said:

Thats not what I take from the content I publish. Every single time there is any sort of bashing towards artists I like I am the first person to defend them. See ANY thread made about Marina and how I’ll be the first one pointing out how hate towards her last album is completely unwarranted. I have constantly and fervently stood up for Gaga every day throughout this era. Every single time Gaga has been body shamed in this very forum I will be there pointing out how people are acting. I will have opinions about things I consider shady and will air them when I see fit, but I genuinely don’t consider what I post negative, as opposed to many members who take the first opportunity to shame Gaga for anything she does. See any thread with pictures of her and I am always positive. See any megarate I have taken part in and I am always having a fun banter with the other members. I am far from being a troll, but I’ll stand up for what I believe in. 

I specifically talked about opinions you don’t share and artists you don’t care for. But ok. 

[HausOfAntonio 7,821]

2 minutes ago, BornAsUnic0rn said:

I specifically talked about opinions you don’t share and artists you don’t care for. But ok. 

So when I share opinions you frame as negative that erases all of the positive things I share? And debating contrasting opinions is automatically a negative thing? Ok.

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

3 minutes ago, HausOfAntonio said:

So when I share opinions you frame as negative that erases all of the positive things I share? And debating contrasting opinions is automatically a negative thing? Ok.

Not at all. I share many of the same sentiments with you. It’s not about what you say, it’s how you say it. Like here, you in fact did belittle the attention the cover gets and the people who think this is a big deal and the way you voiced your opinion really seemed to make Vogue and Harry into the villain. Which as you said wasn’t your intention. You seem to see things very black and white without finding middle ground or being able to see the bigger picture.