Male coercion regarding women’s clothing used to be about more, not less

Male coercion regarding women’s clothing used to be about more, not less

Ed Balls found the footage “upsetting”. I agree. Although I’d add “deeply creepy” to describe what happened on the red carpet at the Grammy awards ceremony in Los Angeles on Sunday night. Kanye West, 47, can be seen coaching his wife, Bianca Censori, 30, through the removal of her fur coat to stand naked under a sheer mesh (ie totally see-through) slip dress in front of the world’s media. Censori looks, to my eye, anxious, trapped, troubled. But also strangely catatonic. A body language expert said her posture went from confident and poised (in the coat) to “uncomfortable and embarrassed” (without it). Hardly surprising, really.

Since getting together with West, Censori is regularly photographed in public almost naked, reportedly at her husband’s insistence. West’s ex, Kim Kardashian, has said he controlled her wardrobe too. He has a long history of being an appalling human being, particularly the way he treats women. Obviously, Censori needs to bin him. But she needs guidance.

There’s a weird divergence going on. In the celebrity/social media/Trump White House world, men want women to be increasingly Barbiefied. Yet in the normal, non-famous, non-social media world, it seems to me things are slowly improving. Historically, male coercion regarding female clothing has been about getting them to wear more, not less. Now, across the civilised world, far fewer men attempt to control their wife’s wardrobe in this way than they did, say, 50 years ago. Even traditionalists look aghast at Islamic dress codes for women.

Kanye West and Bianca Censori attend the 67th Grammy Awards

Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic

Sexist Fifties adverts telling women how to dress to please men are now mocked. Judges don’t any longer tell rape victims they invited sexual assault by wearing a short skirt. The average woman in Middle England, out with the girls at prosecco o’clock on a Friday night, wears what she likes. If one of the gang confided that her husband had issues with a short skirt or exposed cleavage, the rest would tell her to, in Mumsnet shorthand, “LTB” (leave the bastard).

I wouldn’t dream of telling my wife what to wear. (Or what not to wear, in West’s case.) More revealing? Less revealing? Looser? Tighter? Not my call. OK, if she wanted to model the Censori “fur coat then no knickers” vibe at, say, Uncle Dave’s 90th at the King Billy in Cottingham, west of Hull, I’d seek to dissuade her, for all sorts of sensible reasons, temperature not least among them. In that extreme case an intervention would be merited. I certainly wouldn’t stand next to her in the street calling the shots.

Most normal men know to stay away from expressing opinions (always supposing we have any) on outfits. We confine ourselves, if we’ve any sense, to “you look great”. Asked to elaborate, we plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. I once remarked that a complicated, layered new dress looked like it was still in its dry cleaning bag. That observation can still get me put on the full rinse cycle, 20 years later. Ever since, I’ve channelled my inner downed Allied airman captured by the Gestapo. Name, rank and serial number. That’s all you’re getting.

It feels wrong to even argue the case against West supposedly instructing his wife to expose herself, because the very act of doing so may confer spurious legitimacy. It’s like saying “it’s wrong to torture animals for fun”, as if there might be a world in which such cruelty had moral validity. But evidently making the case is necessary, because of the way youngsters, by which I mean a sizeable minority of young men, are influenced by the likes of West, Andrew Tate and indeed Donald Trump. These young folk like dictators, we found out last week. And capital punishment. And many of them don’t like non-submissive women. And they think such attitudes are appealing.

Take it from me, guys, they’re not. West-style micro-management is wrong. It’s weird, women hate it and you know what? It makes you look silly and weak because, hey, silly and weak is what you’re being. You’re trying to be all tough but rest assured, the watching world thinks you’re pathetic.

Are Gen Z really mollycoddled?

Gareth Parker-Jones, head master of Rugby School, thinks Gen Z have anxiety issues because they’ve been mollycoddled in childhood, with their mums and dads exaggerating real-world risks while ignoring online dangers. He’s got a point, especially about the risks of leaving youngsters to be baby-sat by their phones. Australia has the right idea: ban social media for under-16s.

Why would you risk exposing your teenager to suicide websites? Or anorexia forums? Or sadistic pornography? Why would you give an obvious wrong ’un like Elon Musk unfettered influence over your kids? What possible upside is there to justify such mass parental neglect? Poor form used to be parking your kids in front of some cartoons while you took a breather. Now, the average 14-year-old is vulnerable to every crackpot theory on the planet, and his or her parents throw up their hands in defeat and choose to view it as an inevitable part of growing up.

As for Parker-Jones’s argument that society is obsessed with eliminating all childhood risk in a “culture of safetyism”, that’s more complex. Just look at the sport that takes its name from Parker-Jones’s school. I suspect he’s a rugby fan, as am I. But I’m glad my son’s school didn’t force him to play the game as a 12-year-old boy, as used to be the norm in many British schools. Full-blooded contact sport will only ever be a minority taste, and should not be imposed on those not suited to it, as it was in my day. Yes, we should be all for more “adventurous play”, but that shouldn’t mean a return to “violence and pain makes a man of you”, which is, if we’re honest, how it used to be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *