It's that forbidden fruit-of-the-loom
The most striking bit of research (tongue in cheek) and perhaps an answer off-handedly came to me once as I walked towards the restrooms at work. Two doors side by side, each with that universal symbol for male and female. One in pants, one in a dress. It made me wonder how many times I've seen that without realizing it and wondering, as well, when it was I began seeing it. From there I wondered how effective it was as symbol using my grandchildren at 3, 4, and 5 as a test.
My reasoning is based on a rough estimate of how many times we've seen that symbol from the age of three on and it comes out to be about 5,000 to 10,000 times (give or take whatever you want to give or take). Any marketing person (and the CIA) will tell you that viewing a symbol or brand that many times in any length of time insures an imprint strong enough to create both a physical and emotional association to some degree of relevance.
Which brings me back to my grandchildren age 3-male, 4-female and 5-female. Within a second or two they all recognized that those symbols were for a bathroom and which one was appropriate for which gender. Remarkably, we have a large number of social symbols and branding on what is and isn't gender appropriate and beginning with that first warning "put that down, that's for a girl". Which gets added (and layered) to a host of unwritten rules about being guys (colors, fabrics, cosmetics, mannerisms, emotions, etc. etc. etc.).
The thing is most of what we learn taught to us behaviorally is by way of negative reinforcement. Before the age of kindergarten, the word "No" over "Yes" is used roughly 100 to 1. Almost all of our teachings as we are imprinting is negative and by the time we do reach Kindergarten we've got a pretty good handle on what is and isn't appropriate for our gender. If we don't, we quickly learn the consequences of not following those unwritten rules... we've all heard or used the word "sissy".
Moreover, imagine how difficult it was (for most of us) to overcome all of that programming just to dress that first time. How often, in fact, have we purged, felt guilty, or agonized over doing this? Now imagine a guy that doesn't do this (with that same set of rules) and I can almost guarantee it's going to be negative because that's his (and our) programming. Ironically, there is very little difference between us in how we feel about this. We just want to feel differently, he doesn't.
Ironically though that negative reinforcement is the very essence of our attractions (less those feelings driven by genetics pushing some of us to female). It's that proverbial forbidden fruit-of-the-loom and thus it drives some of us stronger and causes my answer in two parts: Part one suggest it will never be acceptable, tolerated perhaps, but always odd; and part two, hints as a given that the majority of males have or will experiment at one time or another in spite of what they've been taught.
So many pretty things, so little time...
Hugs
Linda Lee
Back to the question you asked, not the one you wanted answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimberly.tv
Ever since coming out to my (now ex) girlfriend, and talking to her about this, gender issues and the issues society seems to have against men wearing skirts and heels etc, I've been thinking really in depth about whether there will ever be a utopia in which no one cares what people wear and base their judgements on personality...
Sorry if this gets confusing, but...
I find it incredibly difficult to understand why people find men in skirts and heels strange.
Americans have no tolerance for ambiguity.
(Probably true about people in general, but I hold out hope that there is some culture which does.)
None. The last election cycle certainly hammered that home. Things are black or white, conservative or liberal, male or female. Debits or credits. Right or wrong. Winners or losers. When people talk about a middle way, they are mostly just using it as an interim step, while they try and convert you to their point of view.
Overly harsh, overly simplistic, and thoroughly depressing? You betcha. But mostly true.
Heck, I'll be more depressing than that. If (American) society ever *did* come around and accept CD/TG/TS (which is already *way* too many categories) , they would do in in a such a thoroughly-studied, inflexible, and rigidly-defined way, that half of us would no longer be comfortable defining ourselves that way. (If we even are now.) Then we wouldn't just have to worry that we were bad men, but that we were bad TGs.
Why do things have to work this way? My current belief is that it's a consequence of society being so big. Studies have shown that companies usually have major problems when they grow above a certain size (my memory is fuzzy, I think it's somewhere between 200-500 people), which coincidentally is the same size as your typical medieval village. It's the maximum size where most people can actually know and remember every single other person in the group as an individual. Once you get past that, you start dealing with people on a much more abstract basis. Personal relationships get replaced with chain of command. You have to reduce things down to a finite number of variables so that you can actually cope with the information. Expand on that a few times and you'll see how large-scale discourse is working right now.
Are there any alternatives? Sure. Loosen up central control. Now instead of one large structure making yes-no decisions, you have several smaller entities, making more nuanced decisions. Of course, now everything is running less efficiently, because you have more layers of bureaucracy. And different places are making different rules, so you lose your uniformity and predictability. And, lots of people that some of these places are making decisions that are "right" and some of them are "wrong". But these decisions are (at least theoretically) closer to what the people who make up the groups want.
Okay, so now *I'm* thoroughly depressed, even if you aren't. But it does get better.
The truth is, very few of us are ever dealing with "society at large". We're dealing with a much smaller subgroup--our neighborhood, our company, our team. This newsgroup. Work on achieving your acceptance there (or going to a different group where you can), and trust that if enough subgroups can learn, then eventually the overarching groups will too. (You have to trust in that, don't you. Cause if that doesn't work, if the overarching structure of society doesn't eventually match up with the desires of the people who live in it, well then it'll eventually crumble anyway, won't it?)
Well, that's what I believe today, anyway. This is so *not* what I thought I was going to write.
Phoebe
who used to think she was an optimist
but has since realized she's just a cheerful pessimist
wish I could be so bold...
Thanks Carolyn, much to ponder there.
My first reaction is to say:
Ah… but that I could be so bold, like a great Vonnegut character, oblivious to the small mindedness of my environment. Yet I wonder about the element of narcissism in cross-dressing. Should I, a father, a husband, ignore the impact of this small mindedness on my child and my wife?
Perhaps, I’m just making excuses for my own small mindedness. I do long to be forthright and brave. I find the transcendence of self discovery without bounds appealing but should I think only of myself. I’m not suggesting that you are wrong, or even that you are advocating anything without bounds; only that I don’t know what is right and I must test my bounds cautiously.