Famous American Olympic decathlete Bruce Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair this week dressed as a woman.


It’s a long way from the cover of the Wheaties cereal box after his spectacular gold medal Olympic performance in 1976:
 One interesting aspect (and there are many) of all this is that when Bruce wants to look like a woman, he picks the image of a traditional American beauty queen. Hillary Clinton’s pant suit and Ellen Degeneres’ sport coat are nowhere in sight.

Christopher Knight of the LA Times described Bruce’s photo in Vanity Fair spot on: “For wardrobe, Betty Grable’s ’40s bathing suit is crossed with Madonna’s white-satin ’90s bustier. Toss in the gold-ground setting from a Byzantine icon that Andy Warhol chose for his silk-screen version of Marilyn Monroe’s famous publicity still from the 1953 Hollywood potboiler ‘Niagara.’”

If you want to portray that segment of the human species that ain’t a man, Grable, Madonna and Monroe will do the job.

Here’s Ellen:
     And Hillary:
     And Betty:
     And Marilyn:

(We can skip Madonna.)

Bruce’s choice raises some interesting questions:
     –     Why didn’t Bruce go for the Ellen/Hillary look?
     –    Does he not consider Ellen or Hillary to be true women?
     –     Why did he feel the need to dress like a contestant in a Miss (Mrs?) America pagent?
     –     Is Bruce reinforcing a politically incorrect female stereotype?
     –     Why aren’t feminist icons denouncing him for promoting such a sexist stereotype?
     –     Why are they not denouncing him for the trauma he may be causing young girls by representing “woman” in such a sexist stereotype?
     –     Isn’t he setting women’s lib back 50 years?

Bruce has exposed the schizophrenia inherent in modern liberalism, feminism, and the subject of “Gender-Identity.”  At the same time, he has unwittingly reinforced a more traditional view of women.

The subject of “Gender-Identity” is, at root, really a matter of “Gender-Confusion”: men wanting to become women (Bruce, “Renee” Richards), women wanting to become men (Chaz Bono), men dressing as women (RuPaul), women dressing as men (Ellen, Hillary).  It’s a sad legacy for liberalism that taught for decades that there’s no real difference between a man and a woman. Now they’re not even sure what a man and woman are.  And maybe like “marriage,” the term “gender” needs some redefinition.  For quite some millennia now it’s been a matter of the objective physical condition; call it “the plumbing.”  Now “gender identity” is a matter of subjective feeling.  The objective physical condition may or may not be an impediment, an accident of “nature.”  In any case, whichever gender they are by birth, they wish they weren’t.

But Bruce has made one thing very clear.  We know what he and the world really think a woman looks like.

Another thing is clear, too.  Society will always recognize that there is something not quite right with cross-dressing and gender-confusion.  This will be true no matter how much advocates promote gender “fluidity” and deny that nature defines normalcy.

William Castle knew what he was doing in 1961 when he made the movie Homicidal.  Watch from 2:28-3:35.

Warren really was an Emily (or a Joan).  Joan Marshall was and remained a woman.  She wisely took “Jean Arless” for a stage name for this movie.  Many a movie-goer no doubt for some time after leaving the theater remembered the line: “I’m right here, Miriam…Of course, I’ve always been Warren.”  The fact is, this cross-dressing business used to be the stuff of scary movies and freak shows.

Bruce will always be Bruce.  Anyone can tell that in his present condition there’s just “something that’s not quite right.”  Maybe he’ll come to see this too.  He should talk to Walt Heyer.  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/03/repentant-transsexual-warns-jenner-the-hangover-is-coming/

But for now, at least, it’s a reason for some encouragement that Bruce, Vanity Fair, and the rest of the world acknowledge what a woman looks like.  In the twisted world of today, even the confused subjective “gender identity” has come back to manifest itself in an undeniable objective appearance.  A rose by any other name.  Odd progress.  But progress nevertheless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: