I’ve written a few articles and plenty of tweets in defense of gay rights, particularly the right for gays to marry. I’ve mocked republicans and social conservatives to no end for their ludicrous and outlandish fears of gay marriage being a “gateway drug” to pedophilia or bestiality. Republicans who vote against expanding hate crime laws to include attacks on gays are particularly disgusting and should be ashamed of themselves. I mean really, the argument is incredibly lame. Not only do we have differing degrees of murder already but in some states killing a federal employee (such as a mailman) or a police officer is considered a capital crime. So trying to use the argument that creating “hate crime” laws is putting crimes against minorities higher than regular crimes is pretty pathetic.
Now with all that said, I’ve come to realize that to some, I’m still a homophobe. This became apparent when I read Morehouse College’s new dress code policy. Some people have labeled this new policy as targeting gays and even being homophobic because of the following rule:
No wearing of clothing associated with women’s garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at College-sponsored events.
I’ll be honest. I see no problem with this. Excuse me for my own ignorance and “homophobia”, but last time I checked, your sexual preference didn’t determine your gender. Men don’t wear dresses. Period. I don’t know when or why this has even come up for discussion but its actually disturbing to me. I’ve actually said this before but I’ll say it again, your gender isn’t up for debate. Your sexuality might be questionable but your gender can be determined by your chromosomes and genitals*. Just because you think you should have been born a woman doesn’t mean that you are a woman.
And let’s be clear. Its not as if Morehouse only targeted gay men. They also say no sagging pants, no jeans at major programs, no grillz and no do-rags. As a matter of fact, the majority of the rules seem to be addressed towards “thugs”. I don’t see anyone complaining that this is stifling a thug’s freedom of expression. Guess its not a progressive enough issue. *Edit* Let me also ask, since when did cross dressing become an exclusive gay thing? While I don’t approve of it, there are straight men that cross dress.
You know what really bothers me about this? Women are the main people pushing this belief that it shouldn’t matter if Morehouse men wear dresses around campus but then women will be the first ones to complain about men not being men. You can’t complain about men wearing skinny jeans only to turn around and bitch about a policy at a private university that says men can’t wear women’s clothing. The truth is, spend some time walking around a College campus or on public transportation in the summer and you’ll see a ridiculous melding of women’s and men’s fashion. From men in skinny jeans to men wearing capri pants to the absolutely ridiculousness of men walking around with a fashion scarf on in the middle of the summer. Hell, I still remember Lil Wayne on that song Duffle Bag Boy when him and the other dude were basically sporting Gucci man-purses like it was the next hot thing. Come on, enough is enough. Being a man encompasses a lot, with how you dress being part of that. What Morehouse is doing is going back to the basics of trying to teach men how to be men (particularly noble considering the number of young boys raised without fathers). Most men I know who grew up with fathers in their homes were taught that “clothes make the man”. Its one of the first lessons we’re taught after how to stand and take a piss. What does that mean? It means we’ve heard our fathers say “Boy, pull those pants up and put a damn belt on” or “Take that damn hat off inside this building, what the hell is wrong with you?” We were taught how to tie a tie, how to polish our shoes and how to put a suit on. This was standard across the board whether you were gay or straight. But in today’s society where the father is a mythical creature replaced by “the sperm donor”, little boys are raised by women and its no surprise that they start thinking putting on a mini-skirt is okay. Now maybe its just my Neanderthal thinking and training, but little boy shouldn’t be wearing mommy’s shoes or trying on mommy’s makeup. That’s not cute, that’s a problem. All Morehouse is doing is reemphasizing one of the most basic principle of being a man which is how to dress. Now if any gay man has a problem with that (Just like any person with a problem with the rest of the items on the dress code) is free to not go to Morehouse and to pick another school.
In their strive to be “progressive” I think some people need to slow down and think about the ramifications of what they are doing. The logic that gay men (who are physically male) who identify more with being a woman should be allowed to participate or use things meant for women is very dangerous. Should gay men be allowed to use the women’s bathroom since they identify more as a woman? Do they qualify for ladies night specials? Can they play on the woman’s basketball team or even better, do we just get rid of gender based sports teams all together and merge the NBA and WNBA? Yeah I know, sounds ridiculous, but if you follow the logic, that our society has a heterosexual bias, then those things I listed are the obvious natural progression of this. And you know what? I’m really not that far off. Earlier this year George Allen, a senior at George Mason University was crowned Homecoming QUEEN. That is ridiculous to me. If he was crowned Homecoming King, I wouldn’t have thought anything of it. A gay man as Homecoming King, that’s progressive. Crowning a gay man Homecoming Queen is absurd. There’s also the case of the gay woman who joined Zeta Phi Beta sorority but then demanded that they use male pronouns to address her and that they treat her as a man. Are you kidding me? Even more ridiculous is the fact that some people actually called this young woman’s sorority sisters bigots because they refused to address her as a man. Excuse me? She joined a sorority, a sisterhood, an organization for WOMEN of her own free will. She knew what she was getting into when she did that and yet they’re the bigots? Come on.
Just as conservatives go too far in the condemnation of homosexuality, liberals also go too far in “protecting” it. I’m all for being progressive but people trying to redefine what manhood is simply because need to fall back. Call me a bigot, a dinosaur, a Neanderthal or even homophobic (a word that’s fast approaching racist as being the most overused and misused word in the English language), I don’t really care. This isn’t something that is up for debate with me. Men don’t wear dresses or any other women’s clothing. Period. If you want to identify yourself as a woman, then don’t apply for admission to a school for men. Apply to Spelman.
*Obviously I’m excluding hermaphrodites from this. That’s another discussion
October 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am
For the record…I completely agree with you from a personal standpoint. If my son came to me wearing female clothing…I am whupping ass fast.
But the LGBT/Gay rights issue started a decades ago with just ‘homo love’ and since then it has evolved into so much more….crossdressing, using the appropriate rest roms, healthcare benefits access etc. Our politicians and society in general have created this gray area that we now have to thread lightly as ‘institutions’ or a ‘group of people’ despite personal beliefs.
For the institution to go anywhere something that might be close to gay rights issues (cause really what man would be wearing a dress?)….its a liability and unnecessary publicity. Which is why I am wary of it (from an institution’s standpoint).
Personally….I think its ridiculous to even entertain a discussion about men wearing dresses but where do you think we are headed when we started w/ cornrows and are now at skinny jeans…this shit aint dying soon. LMFAO…this shit is only the beginning.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Yeah, from an organizational point, I see why this is a problem but man, I’m tired of this. At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand. Crossdressing isn’t a LGBT issue and people that try to say it is are bullshitting not only the public but themselves. There are straight men that cross dress. Cross dressing doesn’t mean gay. To tag this as “Homophobia” is ridiculous. I’m all for being progressive but we live in a society with standards and I’m not budging off my standard that men wear men’s clothing.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am
LMFAO…agreed. People always trying to ‘cross the line’ in the sands. As a people, individual freedom has FAILED us. I don’t want a tyranny but damn…some people SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to have personal freedom. It makes life worse for the rest of us…….
October 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
True..true.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I also agree. “Your sexuality does not determine your gender.” 100 % true. My question to you though, Kriss would be this: wouldn’t it be considered a little contradictive/selective for you to say that you support equal rights among the LBGT community, but don’t support the homosexual male dress code? Why? Because it “doesn’t look right” and because YOU don’t care to see it? Equal rights are equal rights. There are no laws or rules against women who wear clothing that is too small or too revealing…and while it is not particularly pleasing to the eye ( for females anyway), it’s their right to wear whatever they want and noone can tell then otherwise ( yes, I know there is a law against “indecent exposure” but, let’s be real, if a police officer were to spot a sane woman topless and walking down the street vs. a homsexual man in a dress, he would FIND a reason to arrest the man in the dress, rather than prosecute the topless woman in even though she’d be in complete “violation” of the law). Like Dylan said, from a personal standpoint,I do think that men need to dress AND act like men (not a supporter of the LBGT lifestlye). But if you ARE going to support them and your stance is that they should have equal rights as well, it seems silly to say “give them equal rights ……but don’t let them wear dresses.”
October 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I don’t believe its contradictory because first off, I don’t believe cross dressing is a homosexual issue. Straight men cross dress. Most gay men, don’t cross dress. And while there aren’t any laws against a woman dressing like a hooker, I certainly remember in school girls couldn’t wear any skirt that came up above their knee. Secondly, I’m not talking about making a law or a constitutional amendment here. We’re talking about a private university’s dress code. And truth be told, the rights here are equal. Whether you’re gay or straight, you can’t wear women’s clothing. This isn’t like gay marriage where straight men can get married but gay men are left out in the cold. The rule applies to everyone. Now, if a gay man’s personal preference is to wear women’s clothing, he has every right to choose another school without a dress code, just like a straight man who wants to wear a do-rag will have to do the same. There’s no violation of anyone’s rights here.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I was at Spelman’s campus last spring giving a talk and they had a prominent sign at the math lab where students come for tutoring about a dress code to be served. I don’t recall everything, but there were statements about no bare stomachs, and other revealing clothes issues (maybe something about no underwear showing). So, mzlogic, there are standards for that as well.
And as a Spelman alumna and now a faculty member at a private university, they can and do enforce dress codes all of the time. There were things that you could not participate in at Spelman if you did not have on a white dress, including graduation (even though you were wearing a robe over it). I tell potential students all of the time, if that is not what you want, don’t go to Spelman. I love my school and think those sorts are standards are fantastic. I am not asking anyone else to love my school and you have the right to vote with your feet and keep moving right past us to another university.
I also have lots of gay male friends who detest the fact that transgender is now part of the gay rights movement. They believe that transgender is a whole different issue. I agree with them. There are murky issues about transgender in that the current DSM still considers issues with one’s gender identity a mental disorder with dressing and referring to oneself with the opposite gender pronouns a treatment of the disorder, whereas sexuality is not.
That being said, I worry that Morehouse is opening itself to litigation on medical discrimination grounds. They have had huge problems with this at some of the women’s schools like Mt. Holyoak where there are genetic women going through gender transition to become men but don’t want to leave the college. I don’t get that. Why go to a women’s college if you don’t want to be a woman? This confusion of gender identity and sexuality is problematic.
I work at a huge, predominantly white, co-ed university where I don’t care what my students wear. I wouldn’t send any child I might have here, but not because of the fact that women and men can wear whatever they want and I can see why others might. I would choose small liberal arts college over this huge university any day. My choice though. One is not entitled to a college education, much less a Morehouse education. It is not a right to attend Morehouse and they have the right to set standards. Lord knows it must be worse at places like Oral Roberts University. I don’t begrudge ORU the right to set what I consider crazy policies, I just wouldn’t send my child there. But if they wanted to go there, they would have to live with the policies.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Well put. Thanks for the claficiaton. I guess when you put it like that, it is more of society that associates cross-dressing with homosexuality than the gay community itself anyway.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I commented too early on dylan’s post. I’m with you on this. If you have gender issues why do you even want to attend an all male institution. It don’t make sense. And I don’t see how this is controversial, even from an organization standpoint. I don’t see how just because a person supports equal rights for homosexual people, means they have to support equal rights for people who don’t accept their chromosomal makeup. They are not the same thing, and any single sex institution can enforce rules that essentially say “to attend this all male/female school, you can’t be ambiguous about your gender.”
October 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Yeah, see that goes back to larger issue we face in this society: People confusing their inalienable rights with their wants and desires. If you think you are a woman, why are you applying to an all male school? Its ridiculous. Just like the girl that wants to be called a man but she joined a sorority. That’s bullshit.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I agree wholeheartedly that as a private institution, Morehouse has the right to require whatever they want in the way of dress code (or anything else). The issue isn’t one of discrimination based upon sexual preference. And I also agree that liberals are starting to take on all causes as “human rights issues” that are more about personal preference.
For example, The ACLU is dangerously close to becoming an effective laughingstock of the legal community (if they aren’t already) for their vigilant pursuit of all things stupid in the courtroom. I’m always especially offended when I hear of their lawsuits involving separation of church and state. Once you dig deeper you realize that, essentially, the ACLU is suing over kids saying a prayer at lunch or a team prayer on the field. It’s personal choice not to say that prayer…or to say it. And, by the school letting the kids participate in private or consensual group prayer, they are not ESTABLISHING a national or state church (which is what the Constitution prohibits in that amendment).
The death of all things liberal will be had with stupid mess like the ACLU and people who wholeheartedly question the basic rules and regulations of a private institution. Where do we draw the line?
October 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Yeah, as much as I’m a proponent of a separation of church and state, campaigns like removing the Ten Commandments from a courthouse, or taking “In God We Trust” off money is just ridiculous. Its why I’m a moderate. I think both sides are fucking nuts. Common sense would solve a lot of this. There’s a case going before the supreme court now about removing a cross in a park at a memorial for fallen soldiers. I mean really. Is it that big of a deal? In my opinion its not infringing on your rights if you have an opportunity to opt out. Now when they start forcing kids to pray or forcing you to read the ten commandments, then we can talk.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Oh wow…it didn’t even occur to me that Morehouse was a private institution. In that sense, there should be no questions asked about what they choose to enforce as a university. Publicly funded (state) would have to thread thin waters.
And please don’t get me started on the ACLU, PETA and all of these other extreme ‘groups’ who have lost their meaning and are trying to find novel ways to recreate themselves….and what do they do? Go on the deep end and fight useless causes instead of being progressive and dealing with real challenges that face us.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Dress is simply a social construct. There is no “right way” for a man to dress. In some cultures men wear items that resemble both skirts and dresses.
Similar arguments as the anti-dress argument have been made in our society in the past: women should have long hair, women should wear dresses or long skirts, men should have short hair, men should wear suits and hats. We’ve moved away from those social constructs and it has not damaged our society. I fail to see men wearing dresses would be any different.
If the issue is simply that you don’t want to see a man in a dress, then you need to get over that. There was a time in our society when the majority also didn’t want to see an interracial couple in public. People simply need to get over things that don’t actually affect them.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Comparing a dress code to interracial dating is a false equivalency. The law states you can’t be refused service or discriminated on based on the color of your skin. That extends to interracial dating as well. Your dress however, has always been regulated as long as it is across the board. Stores have the right to deny service to those who don’t wear shirts and shoes. They can also say “no bookbags allowed” and I know some places also regulate hat wear or face masks. Saying that we’ve moved away from social constructs is ridiculous. I’m required to dress up to go to work. Now if I don’t want to, i’m free to find another job that has a lax dress code. That is my right, just as it is the right of my company to have a dress code.
And saying our lax social rules on dress and behavior hasn’t affected our society is hilariously false. You must be living in a bubble to not see the affect it has on our young men. Its not as if I single out cross dressing, I find sagging pants or skinny jeans just as inappropriate for men to be wearing.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“Saying that we’ve moved away from social constructs is ridiculous. I’m required to dress up to go to work. Now if I don’t want to, i’m free to find another job that has a lax dress code. That is my right, just as it is the right of my company to have a dress code.”
Those aren’t social constructs. Those are dress codes. Sure a private employer can enforce a dress code. That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that in the past it would have been socially unacceptable for a woman to walk around IN PUBLIC in slacks or a man to walk around IN PUBLIC in just a t-shirt. These both happen all the time now.
“And saying our lax social rules on dress and behavior hasn’t affected our society is hilariously false. You must be living in a bubble to not see the affect it has on our young men.”
How has it affected us negatively? It hasn’t in my estimation. Support your statement or else it just seems like you’re reinforcing stereotypes that a man is supposed to look one way, a woman is supposed to look another way, and if they don’t it’s just wrong.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
So then as a Private college, there’s nothing wrong with Morehouse enforcing a dress code.
And you’re trying to tell me that little boys that walk around with their pants hanging off their asses, or “grillz” in their mouths hasn’t negatively impacted us (as a society)? Come on. These boys walk around with these clothes hanging off their asses and then when they get an opportunity to go to a job fair or some professional setting, they have no clue how to dress. Maybe I am reinforcing a stereotype but to me, men not wearing dresses is no more a stereotype than saying men go to the men’s bathroom. Now when we decide to get rid of separating things by gender, i.e. We all use the same bathroom, there’s just one co-ed national basketball league and stores don’t have a men and women’s section, but everything is on the same rack, then you can maybe convince me otherwise.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Morehouse’s dress code. They’re a private institution.
And you’re trying to tell me that little boys that walk around with their pants hanging off their asses, or “grillz” in their mouths hasn’t negatively impacted us (as a society)?
Not in and of itself. Look at the cultural revolution of the 60s. There was a backlash against people shifting to jeans and long hair. Do jeans and long hair in and of themselves make you a bad person? Of course not. May jeans and long hair limit your abaility to get a job? Sure. You either need to be intelligent enough to realize your look will limit certain avenues for you, or intelligent enough to dress and act different at work then you do in your private time. Don’t most of us do this anyway?
“men not wearing dresses is no more a stereotype than saying men go to the men’s bathroom.”
Except that one adversely affects a female’s privacy, and the other just affects one’s comfort level if they don’t approve. The only affect in dress wearing comes in disapproval. That’s why I drew that earlier interracial dating example. The more we come to see these things as a society, the less strange it will seem, and the less people will be offended by it.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sorry Calvin…I just don’t see how the Morehouse dress code can be compared to ’social constructs’ and evolution of society in general.
I see where you are coming from to an extent…what we can do today wasn’t always possible…interacial dating, voting, women wearing suit pants etc…as a society we redefine our social norms but at what point do we draw the line?
This is where personal freedom takes us so far away from common sense that we become lost as a people.
The effect of attire, surroundings etc don’t have a direct effect on behaviors…TRUE…but best believe combine those things with every other bullshit that comes with too relaxed-a-standards and we are in trouble.
The graffiti on the New York City subways didn’t jump off the wall to commit crimes but the culture/environment it presented definitely helped.
The dress code of the Ku Klux Klan didn’t jump directly minimize lives but it all helped define a culture that we did not like.
The same arguement you make works just in reverse…we shunned some things as a society and it made us better.
We started allowing somethings as a society which also made us better.
At the end of the day, we need standards drawn.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
My bad…I probably shouldn’t have used the KKK in that example…last thing I need is for this convo take a racial tone. That will never end lol.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
particularly like this…
“What Morehouse is doing is going back to the basics of trying to teach men how to be men (particularly noble considering the number of young boys raised without fathers). Most men I know who grew up with fathers in their homes were taught that “clothes make the man”. Its one of the first lessons we’re taught after how to stand and take a piss. What does that mean? It means we’ve heard our fathers say “Boy, pull those pants up and put a damn belt on” or “Take that damn hat off inside this building, what the hell is wrong with you?” We were taught how to tie a tie, how to polish our shoes and how to put a suit on. This was standard across the board whether you were gay or straight.”
couldn’t have said it better. these kids don’t have anyone telling them this anymore. and it saddens me to see grown ass men wearing stocking caps at events. yeah, nice suit, but what is that shit on your head?
and not to play devil’s advocate, but what about kilts?
October 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Kilts are different. Why you ask? Because back when William Wallace and the rest of them were originally wearing kilts, they were also walking around carrying claymore swords that Arnold Schwarzenegger would struggle to swing around. I mean shit, if you’re gonna wear a skirt you better be able to kick some ass. Just kidding…William Wallace probably didn’t have a kilt.
Kilts to me would fall under religion/cultural exception. Even then, Kilts have meaning and aren’t “mini skirts” you buy at Forever 21. Kilts are traditional, just like here its traditional for men not to wear fucking dresses. lol
October 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Normally, i love reading this blog because it is hilarious. Today, Im a little disappointed. first, let me make this clarification. Sex is biological. Gender is socially constructed. Thats a mistake many people make. Gender is between your ears, not between your legs.
Second, while I respect the school’s right to change its dress code, this addition is discriminatory. What it is doing is re-inscribing problematic gender norms.if a man wants to wear women’s clothing, that is his preference. Just like it is my preference not to be seen in public with him. As to the women’s bathroom thing, they already have those. They are called family bathrooms. Men as well as women use them. For people who are transitioning, it can be the one place where they feel safe.
Third, there is a condition where the body and the mind are confused. I cant remember what it is called but it does exist. In essence a child is born with a female body and a male brain and vice versa. What about them? Morehouse cant say a student in that situation cant wear a dress. Thats against the law. The same applies for transitioning men. Under the law, they have to be dress as women for an entire year before a legal sex change will be granted. Is Morehouse going to make that person start over or tranfer? Thats not fair.
Just my two cents.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
You’re talking about gender confusion and that’s not really even an issue here. A man that believes he is a woman, shouldn’t be applying to Morehouse, a school for men.
Again, if this was a public university, your argument would hold some weight but this is a private university. They have every right to have a dress code. On top of that, as I mentioned before, there’s no discrimination here. Cross dressing isn’t exclusive to being gay or transgender. What the school is saying is that men, regardless of their sexual preference cannot wear woman’s clothing. Period. The only people that could quite possibly have a legitimate argument are men that believe they are women but as I said before, why the hell would they apply to an all male school if they identify as a woman?
October 16th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Wait…men are wearing Kilts? where? WTF? How did I miss this one? Wait….I am glad I missed it.
Carry on….
October 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
Perhaps this can help you get over your homophopia, my brother….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/malcolm-x-bisexual-black-history
October 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
My “homophobia” was more of a joke. The whole “Malcolm X was Bi-sexual” debate is a whole bunch of speculation and hearsay. But even if its true, it doesn’t change what I said here. I don’t care of Malcolm X was gay. He didn’t wear a damn dress. Hell if anything, it only strengthens my argument that being gay doesn’t mean walking around like a woman.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
omg, i am tempted to claw my brains out of my head after reading the article. my mind attempts to flee from my grasp and seperate from the absolute madness that is deemed reality. what the fuck. if you are a girl and don’t like it hey sucks to be you. as much as you would want to be a guy, i dont think you would find it beneficial to your cause if you were born as a hermaphrodite. you’d probably commit suicide which you should go do. omg. sorry logical ppl for my rant but that shyt was unbearable.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
You sir must be a politician, in this I mean you speak out of both sides of your mouth. You say you support gay rights, but deny that transgendered people even exist. Scientific labs have determined that the male and female brains develope differently and this can and does affect gender identity. A boy who is LATE in developement has more female hormones in his body then that of a boy who begins puberty normally. This is the primary cause of gender dysphoria (transgenderism). There are medical test to prove this. This means that a boy with male genitalia may think and act more feminine then those who passed through puberty normally. This boy may not enjoy rough housing, playing sports, or engaging in other predominately male activities. He may enjoy the arts, fashion and other feminine pursuits. Other signs of gender dysphoria include associations with peers while growing up. Does or did he relate better with females then males. Were his friends mostly the opposite gender. This also happens in females if for some reason male hormones are released stronger into their bodies. Most of these girls are referred to as TOMBOYS and it is accepted, boys are called SISSIES and is not accepted. Before you go writing articles on transgenderism or gender dysphoria you should investigate it properly. Talk to licensed physicians who treat this everyday. You should go to the library and Read some of the hundreds of books on this subject.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Obviously, you didn’t read or even attempt to process what I said. My point was…regardless of how they feel or what they view themselves as…until they have a sex change, a transgender person is still the gender of their genitalia. Just because a man identifies more with being a woman doesn’t mean he is allowed to use the woman’s bathroom.
Also, as far as the issue that lead to writing this post, cross dressing doesn’t necessarily mean gay or trangender. I fully believe more hetrosexual males cross dress than anyone else. Also, in the case of Morehouse…an all male school, a trangender male (who thinks they are female) probably wouldn’t apply to that school to begin with…they’d apply to Spelman.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Indeed there are people with both or neither genitalia. So sex isn’t always set in stone. It’s a silly policy. It doesn’t mean the school doesn’t have the right to enforce it or that students wouldn’t support it. But what if someone from another culture wants to wear s “womanly” robe or carry a purse?
April 13th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
‘Happen to find this article in google. I’m writing a book on the subject. I disagree with the rationale behind the premise of your proposition here. It gets complicated only when you begin to talk about the rights of a private university. Private Universities like Morehouse are not tiny countries. There are bounds of reason to their rights. They can legally discriminate any demographic of any people for any reason. For example, they can suggest the school should be whites only. On the flip side, as a student, you can sue them for discrimination. The outcome from there can only be decided in court.
Lets bury that right now, okay – I’m not going to argue that. Having said that you branch out into arguing societal conventions. I’m not going to ask why you even care how someone else dresses – I sure as hell don’t but that’s me. It’s up to you to argue why gender variation is dangerous. You’ve failed to do this. It clearly bothers YOU, but luckily the kind of person who would reject conventional norms could give half a fuck about your opinion. Furthermore, there is no such thing uniform standard of gender – not in dress code, behavior, or sexual practices or whatever. A man doesn’t need to go in the back and chop wood to prove his manhood. Not even close. My brother recently had a kid. I remember we were in the mens room once – he was changing his sons diaper. I recall him making those funny weird noises and faces to amuse his kid. A man and his son was walking out and I heard the man turn to his son and sincerely say “That there son is a real man.”
Those were really wise words IMO. In short, don’t believe the hype. A real man isn’t defined by how masculine he can be or how masculine his clothes are. A real man is defined by whether he can take care of his family – whether he can put food on the table and pay bills – whether he can stay with his woman and keep his job. A real man isn’t sleeping around and being unfaithful – a real man celebrates his kid’s first birthday and takes pictures of the clown they hired for the party. A real man pays for and send his son off to college.
The man who wears a dress and does these things still is more of a man than the man who doesn’t wear a dress and DOESN’T do these things.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:21 am
For the last time, there is no discrimination here. Heterosexual men can’t wear dresses and neither can homosexual men. Both, equally.
Here’s the question I have. If the “wearing dresses and women’s clothing” part wasn’t in there, would you or anyone else be bitching about the dress code? Would you then be on this whole “what a man wears doesn’t matter” tip or would you do like I suspect you would and not even take notice?
Does wearing nice clothes automatically make a man a man? Of course not. And I never suggested that. As I said in the article, Morehouse is taking it back to the very basics of helping men understand how to become a man. Dressing is one of those things. It’s not the only thing, it’s not the defining thing but it’s a piece.