• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Is Harry Styles really representing gender diversity and individualism?

DuckRabbit

Well-Known Member
Is Harry styles really representing gender diversity or just someone with sky-high social-status (looks, health, wealth, approved career, belonging, social desirability) who can afford to play around with gender boundaries and societal norms?

Harry Styles mocking masculine norms for 5 minutes
499,032 views Apr 13, 2019

Said to be worth around $60 million, Harry Styles has one of the most masculine voices and faces (with the jawline) and appears to be straight-down-the-line heterosexual*, but commendably he tries his best to break norms for himself and for people all over the world. By playing around with gender boundaries and being strikingly individualistic, he's showing the world what being a real man truly means i.e., true to oneself. * = Notwithstanding his self-confessed crush on one of his male band members. Many were touched by his special bond with a fellow band member, and the freedom both felt to express it; it was/is widely regarded as quite beautiful. He seems to be capable of beautiful friendships with both males and females, across the spectrum.

But I would say: don't assume that the trajectory goes only one way, from oppressive societal norm to airily individualistic. Many people on the autistic spectrum are born with a lack of concept of masculine, feminine and other societally-reinforced gender boundaries. Their well-being hinges instead on trying to learn to draw societally-approved boundaries, rather than breaking away from them (depending on the socio-cultural context they're living in). That can be just as ground-breaking and radical for ASC individuals, as what Harry Styles is trying to do for societal norms (he's trying to break them down so as to free everyone up to be themselves as he is being).

e.g., Many ASC girls are considered 'too masculine' by guys (albeit they may be heterosexual) and many ASC boys aren't considered 'manly' enough by girls (albeit they may be heterosexual).

It is one thing to be a rock-solid neurotypical who learns to do the Asperger things of being overly truthful, unfiltered, vulnerable and embracing or accentuating differentness. They will be admired. It is quite another thing to be all those things already (ASC) and go on being those things, unreflexively. Society usually recoils at such differentness and lack of consciousness.

Similarly, if one is already a raging heterosexual, it can be admirable to blur gender boundaries and play around with that. But if one is at the core gender atypical, then going even further in an atypical direction often meet with ridicule or disapproval (depending on socio-cultural context).

Not that Harry has to represent everyone under the sun (just himself really), but I do wonder if he has considered this additional nuance and additional complexity? - that 'breaking away from norms' isn't the only trajectory. For some (on the autistic spectrum), they spend their lives trying to discern what the norms are so as to try to fit into them. If they don't, they get excluded from job opportunities, relationships, social life etc. Only a raging neurotypical could whole-heartedly encourage someone to 'be themselves'. For many on the spectrum, 'being themselves' can be catastrophic - a one-way ticket to social exclusion and unemployability.

In short, could someone without his looks and popularity flaunt their diversity unfettered, the way Harry Styles is doing?
 
Last edited:
I don't know for sure, but I think he is doing whatever is popular so he wont't lose his fans and income. If he makes his fans angry, he can wave goodbye to his career, sponsors and millions of dollars. So he doesn't really have a choice. If recreational panda hunting became modern and popular tomorrow, he would post videos of himself killing pandas all day long. I would say he is as fake as one can be. Because of the celebrity status and money. One wrong word from him and he is cancelled. And he knows that.
Thanks for your view. It is a cynical one - but an important one to consider. While I think there is a kernel of truth in what you say, I actually think people like him because they can sense a genuineness about him, a natural empathy, and I do think he strives to avoid superficiality or shallowness, and do what he does with meaningfulness and depth. Whether he succeeds or not is another matter.

I think his popularity is largely from (1) being pleasing on the eye in his physical appearance, movements or style, (2) his personality which I feel shows a certain relaxed tolerance and genuine empathy towards others, (3) his voice and songs. Whether these factors can be ranked in descending order is also up for debate!

EDIT TO MY POST ABOVE: I refer to 'they' and 'them' whoever I'm talking about so as to move away from in-groups and out-groups, us and them. In my form of expression, everyone is being analysed as an outgroup (my own self-categorisations included) so as to try to be more objective about them. Sometimes striving for an objective view is useful and sometimes a subjective view is useful. To understand a matter or phenomenon more clearly, it can be useful to strive for objectivity. To come to decisions or relate to others, it can be useful, even necessary, to be subjective.
 
Last edited:
I've no idea who this person is.

Ed
He is a 28-year-old British pop star who gained fame in a boy band and is now a solo 'artist', making his mark with some catchy songs but also striving to stand out by being insouciant about his masculinity through sometimes appearing in dresses and other frilly and be-pearled attire, to make a statement. (I don't think he goes to any such effort when he's not being seen in public).
 
Fair enough, that'll be why I know nothing about him then. Pop music makes me physically and mentally uncomfortable when I hear it.

Ed
 
Fair enough, that'll be why I know nothing about him then. Pop music makes me physically and mentally uncomfortable when I hear it.

Ed
I can understand that but wouldn't write it off altogether. Isn't there room to be discerning, whatever the genre of music? e.g., Schönberg is a classical music composer but his music makes me physically and mentally uncomfortable - I find it unlistenable. In comparison, millions of people myself included find the following pop song eminently listenable:


But some people dislike a song for that reason, on principle: "If the masses like it, it can't be good". I'd rather be more discerning in terms of whether it's a got good melodies, rhythms, lyrics, instrumentation, contrasts, etc, rather than what genre it falls into or how many people like it.
 
Last edited:
I don't dislike a song on principle. I just know that pop music is generic and unappealing to me. That song you shared was no different.

Ed
 
I don't dislike a song on principle. I just know that pop music is generic and unappealing to me. That song you shared was no different.

Ed
Are you a classical music fan then?

Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was generic - composed for mass appeal. He hated it himself but complied with the spec in order to earn a crust.
 
Well Harry Styles is an artist, so his job is expressing himself creatively through his art, right ? And I mean, not only the music, but everything around it. Generally, people like an artist because of what he/she conveys, I suppose. So if it is "freedom from the norm", then I understand why a lot of people appreciate it and rally. Now, it happens that "freedom from the norm" is specifically from the gender norm in his case, mostly I think because it is a product of its time, and gender diversity as well as neuro-diversity are important topics nowadays.
 
I can understand that but wouldn't write it off altogether. Isn't there room to be discerning, whatever the genre of music? e.g., Schönberg is a classical music composer but his music makes me physically and mentally uncomfortable - I find it unlistenable. In comparison, millions of people myself included find the following pop song eminently listenable:


But some people dislike a song for that reason, on principle: "If the masses like it, it can't be good". I'd rather be more discerning in terms of whether it's a got good melodies, rhythms, lyrics, instrumentation, contrasts, etc, rather than what genre it falls into or how many people like it.

I don't follow his music or videos etc, so can't say much. (I did like one song of his - but all I can remember is Marching Bands of New York - and don't know if that was the band or song name).

But I would be initially cautious to assign any meaning to it. I suspect (guess) that in many cases public persons of all types adopt, support or promote things for Public Relations. It can be hard to determine whether it is that or genuine motivation.
 
Without knowing much about Harry Styles, what he's doing sounds no different than what Dee Snider did in the 80s.
 
Well Harry Styles is an artist, so his job is expressing himself creatively through his art, right ? And I mean, not only the music, but everything around it. Generally, people like an artist because of what he/she conveys, I suppose. So if it is "freedom from the norm", then I understand why a lot of people appreciate it and rally. Now, it happens that "freedom from the norm" is specifically from the gender norm in his case, mostly I think because it is a product of its time, and gender diversity as well as neuro-diversity are important topics nowadays.
I agree. I'm not critising him - and kudos to him if he can find some way of being original in this era of machine-generated music with hordes of experts swarming over each production for maximum appeal. But as you say, the thing he's chosen to address is gender, where the trajectory is rather straightforwardly away from the norm. (Also many accuse him of not being original at all - they roll their eyes, noting that David Bowie was doing the gender fluid thing in the 1970s. Perhaps Harry's advantage is that most of his fans may not be old enough or interested enough to know that, so to them, he's a total trailblazer).

But is this really ground-breaking and radical for him? Harry Styles has social status to burn. Arguably not everyone has. It's no skin off his nose to play around with gender boundaries, but could someone not matching his physical attractiveness and masculinity ideal do the same?

The other question I wanted to raise is whether the opposite trajectory can be just as groundbreaking or radical: moving away from individuality towards the norm. The example I thought of was of many ASC individuals already being 'out there' with their boundaries, values, understandings, perceptions, and sometimes lifestyles. For ASC individuals to conform to the norm should be just a laudable as the iconoclastic trajectory Harry Styles is travelling. But mostly it's not acknowledged at all, let alone admired.
 
Or David Bowie in 1970s.

Ain't never heard of Dee Snider - will have to look him up!

He and his band 'Twisted Sister' were in the local bar circuit on Long Island, NY in the mid 70's. Saw them quite a few times, but didn't care for them much musically. However the frontman Dee was pretty crazy and could make the show more interesting. I would have called them a mix of Glam and Hard rock at that time.
 
I don't follow his music or videos etc, so can't say much. (I did like one song of his - but all I can remember is Marching Bands of New York - and don't know if that was the band or song name).

But I would be initially cautious to assign any meaning to it. I suspect (guess) that in many cases public persons of all types adopt, support or promote things for Public Relations. It can be hard to determine whether it is that or genuine motivation.

I don't follow his music or videos etc, so can't say much. (I did like one song of his - but all I can remember is Marching Bands of New York - and don't know if that was the band or song name).
I tend to like only one song from certain artists too, or one or two songs max - I certainly wouldn't rush out and buy every album of some artist, but I guess some people do that because they are 'fans', so anything that that celebrity produces has a halo around it for them.

But I would be initially cautious to assign any meaning to it. I suspect (guess) that in many cases public persons of all types adopt, support or promote things for Public Relations. It can be hard to determine whether it is that or genuine motivation.
We can be cautious in assigning meaning but I don't think we need to abstain altogether. If you follow enough clues from what's available on the internet, a picture starts to build e.g., some people think that Harry Styles is secretly gay or trans from his openly affectionate relationship with a fellow male band member and from his sometimes feminine attire. Such people have either not dug deeply enough or drawn the correct inferences from the evidence, because if one factors in that Harry Styles (1) has heterosexual relationships, (2) never dresses in girls' clothing when he's not in public (or not that we know of!), it seems pretty clear he's a heterosexual but pushing the envelope in order to (1) [selfishly] stand out in his industry and in popular culture and (2) [selflessly] serve as a role model for those feeling excluded from the gender mainstream, to (unconsciously) aid human evolution. As the saying goes, "Reliable truths gestate slowly" - one has to wade through all the personal projections first and trust that the truth can be discerned if one is open-minded and cautious enough.

Anyway that's one of the reasons for airing one's thoughts on a forum: the interchange of views and knowledge enables correction or nuancing one's perspective.
 
Who the Sam Hill actually cares? If any of this serves a practical purpose, it'll work without our scrutiny. If it's just a rich guy peacocking around in a hoopskirt so teenagers can scream at concerns (as I suspect his whole stage persona to be--just foolishness) then it'll not matter at all in the end.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom