feminish

This is from today’s Times of London. [Thanks for the pointer, Sasha]

A SENIOR lawyer stunned a courtroom [in Wellington, New Zealand] when he walked in wearing a woman’s skirt, patterned blouse, lace stockings and carrying a handbag. He asked the judge to call him Ms Alice.

Bob Moodie, 67, a 6ft 4in former police officer and law lecturer — and once a noted rugby player — told the High Court in Wellington that he had decided to wear women’s clothing because he no longer wished to be a part of what he called the male ethos in New Zealand, including that existing in the judiciary.

Great, I thought. A bit of boundary-breaking in dusty corners of the establishment can only ever be a good thing. But what a shame the (male) journalist is playing this article for laughs - I hope this lawyer is straight.

…He said that he was heterosexual but had always had a strong female gender bias and preferred women’s clothes….

Awesome - his message is directed at heterosexual masculinity. Why did the journalist feel the need to say ‘he was heterosexual but…’ Agh! The power of the heterosexual challenge is undercut. But the fact he’s straight explains why the journalist is front-loading the comedy, deflecting Moodie’s challenge and instead laying it on thick with descriptions of him as ‘balding, mustachioed’ - the kind of body/hair/clothing analysis that court journalists normally only reserve for women.

He intended to wear women’s clothing in future to draw attention to “the old boy network” within the New Zealand judiciary. He said that the judicial handling of his [latest] case “caused me to reflect on what it means to be male in this country. I’ve decided I don’t actually want to be part of that ethos…. I prefer and relate to the gender which is involved in the creation and nurturing of life. Giving and sharing and also, I believe, fairness,” Dr Moodie said. “My confidence in the male ethos is zilch. It’s a culture of intimidation, authority, power and control… The sexes are not opposite, they’re complementary”

Stereotypes aside, this is a strong, rational message. All the more powerful because Moodie chose a sober black women’s skirt and jacket, not a short pink dress; he wasn’t evoking a sexualised femininity, but a more direct womanliness. He wants to opt out of ‘what it means to be male’ (if that’s possible). Female lawyers already get to opt out of women’s clothing and wear trouser-suits and carry huge briefcases into court every day - are they opting out of ‘what it means’ to be female? I’m not so sure. It is remarkable that for a bloke to do the equivalent now is a big, symbolic act. Are manly dress-codes in fact more restrictive than women’s? Or just restrictive in a different way? (For example, I would say that, working in a newsroom, I was restricted from that distinctively powerful posture of sleeves rolled up and hand in pockets leaning against a colleagues’ desk, simply because I couldn’t wear a suit in the same way every man could.)

I also couldn’t help but notice that Moodie is making this dress-statement from a point of vulnerability (he’d actually been called to court to answer contempt charges). The risks were low. I wonder if we’ll ever see a heterosexual man in with ‘authority, power and control’ (as he put it) exercising the same freedom?

Any thoughts?