Men being men part 2 .... the dark side (& comment on androgyny in the mainstream)

[Sue101]

I maintain that most boys want to be boys and they are not interested in adopting an internal feminine gender ID, no matter what are the social conventions. I gather you disagree with this and you maintain that if society said it was OK for all boys to be feminine, most would since they would like to feel pretty?

We are not talking about the same issue. I am not saying boys would become crossdressers and develop a feminine ID, just that the notion "boys will be boys" and the implied idea that boys naturally do not like traditional girly activities is counter-intuitive unless you actually believe that there are behaviors which are exclusively gender based. Again I would suggest you read a scientific book on the subject to open up your mind on this subject.

Basing your beliefs on your own personal observations is unfortunately totally flawed and reveals nothing because everyone you know has been thoroughly indoctrinated into the gender system, including your SO! The only way to truely know what is natural and what is social construct would be to raise hundreds of babies in an isolated genderless environment which offers no clues to the children how genders should behave. If this experiment were to take place do you really think those children would grow up into adults behaving the same way we do? How could they if there were no rules to tell them that they should not like doing something because that behavior is only allowed for the other gender.

So I stand by my reasoning that if many women enjoy feeling pretty and desirable there is no justification to believe that a similar number of men would not also enjoy the same feelings if society allowed them to feel that way without guilt and prejudice. This is not about crossdressers since we have a psychologcal need to cross the gender barrier, this is about understanding that "boys will be boys" only reflects the current gender rigidity that males habitually learn from the day they are born.

[ReineD]

Again I would suggest you read a scientific book on the subject to open up your mind on this subject.

Can you recommend one, or point me to research? I don't have access to a research library. I can only read whatever abstracts I find online. But, given specific papers (author, publication, and date), I can get my SO to print them out for me since she does have access.

The only way to truely know what is natural and what is social construct would be to raise hundreds of babies in an isolated genderless environment which offers no clues to the children how genders should behave. If this experiment were to take place do you really think those children would grow up into adults behaving the same way we do?

I agree, it would be interesting to observe the results of such an experiment. Do you know of any research that approximates such a theory? I'd love to read it. I'm not stuck in any particular thinking pattern, save, as you say, the men that I do know.

[Sue101]

These two books cover hundreds of studies that pour cold water on the notion that the sexes are fundamenatlly different. These can be bought on Amazon second hand quite cheaply.

Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs
Rosalind Barnett, Caryl Rivers

Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference
Cordelia Fine

and if you want to get to grips with a favorite theory that many CDs want to believe in - that prenatal hormones made their brains feminine then get this book as it outlines how the notion that gender is hardwired into our brains is not supported by hundreds of studies-

Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences
Rebecca Jordan-Young

I don't think you can conduct a proper analysis of what crossdressing actually is if you dont understand what gender itself is and where it comes from. If you read these 3 books then you will comprehend crossdressing is not what most CDs want you to believe it is, or what they themselves want to belive it is, since their ideas about gender are deeply flawed and based on populist notions like men are from mars, women are from venus. Men and women are not separate species, we are the same with only minor differences in a few select areas. By and large men and women equally share the same behaviors but we are socialized to act differently to obtain the significant advantages derived from conformity.

[ReineD]

Thanks for the resources! I'll look them up. To be fair though, I'll also look up any criticisms of their work.

EDIT

Men and women are not separate species, we are the same with only minor differences in a few select areas.

I do agree that in many respects, men and women are similar. I also disagree with the notion that engaging in certain activities makes someone more masculine or feminine.

[busker]

Can you recommend one, or point me to research? I don't have access to a research library. I can only read whatever abstracts I find online. But, given specific papers (author, publication, and date), I can get my SO to print them out for me since she does have access.



I agree, it would be interesting to observe the results of such an experiment. Do you know of any research that approximates such a theory? I'd love to read it. I'm not stuck in any particular thinking pattern, save, as you say, the men that I do know.

http://www.pubmed.gov
is open to everyone and probably 50% of the published material is free and total, not just abstracts. also, many public libraries now subscribe to a service which would give you a bit more access to scientific literature, but you must be a member with a valid card and most of it is available on line from your home, but some things are available only from within the library itself. It depends on the library agreement with the vendor. . There are actually a number of major resources on line for free scientific literature but since my other pc crashed, my bookmarks are temporarily "lost". If you already knew this, my apologies.

[Gaby2]

Well, it took me the whole morning and more to work through this thread, Sara Jessica!
The initial thread took 5 minutes and I was hoping that these 5 pages would read as easily...
no luck there!
Somehow I gave your reference to a “darker side” more weight than what most posts read and what you state the OP projected.
Moreover the following sentence intrigued me:

My state of being has to do with crossing over rather than creating a place in society where boys can look like girls and vice-versa as the new normal.

I can’t help associating “darker side” with words like: sinister, sadistic, evil, mean and cynical.
None of these adjectives are gender-specific but if one needs to use these characteristics to achieve a position of authority, then they can dominate the agenda.
As I see it, (we)men have dominated society for centuries, mostly championing the “breadwinner takes it all” philosophy.

While gratefully reading the wonderful insights as regards society, the behaviour of “typical” men and how our upbringing perhaps even demands a statement like CDing, does this thread mirror a sad present-day loss of “feminine virtues”?
I struggle to come to terms with the lack of… well, “love” in many of the people with whom I deal in everyday life –for what they do and for who they are.
I notice this especially in women – the very “objects” of my CDing interest.
In my youth, it was the women who openly expressed love and thereby hope in a poverty stricken context.
(The men were at work or in the pub, though I didn’t feel less loved by them.)
Maybe my early CDing was expressing a desire to be like these hope-giving women.

Avana #39 allowed me to find:
“…the point [Thaemlitz] wished to convey was that there is a difference between action motivated by optimistic desires for things to come ("trying to change things from this point forward"), and action motivated by an urgency to end the unacceptable present ("trying to end things which have persisted until now")…”

Despite the positive discourse in the thread about forward-looking changes and improvements in society from TG perspectives, what if society is in reality going backwards?
It’s hard to accept, but most of us won’t ever be able to do much against ignorance and injustice, being caught up in and trying to deal with our own very real everyday problems.
Even so, affluent or not, I hope we’re all not just working-class heroes.

Coming back to your statement about “crossing over”…
I noticed the Nigerian Ladies’ soccer team kicking the s..t out of the Germans in the World Cup the other evening. The German Ladies took it like a man!
(I’m not talking about being “tough” – this was the worst of unsporting behavior.)
I’m just wondering where we are heading when the feminine role-models have learnt how to cheat, foul and bully like the “best” of us?
Is this a manifestation of a “darker side” in women as they assert themselves in the man’s world?
It begs the question: do I want to present like them?

In stark contrast, I enjoy reading forum-posts because the real people here (mostly men) express a passion, a desire, and yeah, a love for CDing (and indeed almost all manifestations of TG).
They simply brighten up my day in a very traditional feminine manner.
This gives me lots of hope for the future.

Two-cent take,
Gaby

[ReineD]

We are not talking about the same issue. I am not saying boys would become crossdressers and develop a feminine ID, just that the notion "boys will be boys" and the implied idea that boys naturally do not like traditional girly activities is counter-intuitive unless you actually believe that there are behaviors which are exclusively gender based. Again I would suggest you read a scientific book on the subject to open up your mind on this subject.

Well, I hate being accused of being close-minded, so I've familiarized myself with the literature you suggest in your post #103.

First, a discussion of the books:

I agree with Rosalind Barnett. There is no fundamental difference between men and women in terms of learning, capabilities, and job performance.

I also agree with Cordelia Fine's position. She does take on a more feminist approach with the term "neurosexism", which she coined to explain the flaws in current scientific research that explain away women's different aptitudes by examining biological data in limited contexts and do not take into account social conditioning. I wholeheartedly agree with her that pure biological research does not prove that women's intellects are less capable than men's, women are less capable of leadership than men, women are more empathetic than men and men are more systematic than women. I agree with her there is no biological basis for any inequality between the sexes.

Both Cordelia Fine and Rebecca Jordan-Young suggest there needs to be more rigorous and complete scientific research when determining differences between the sexes. It is a complex field that involves anthropology, sociology, psychology, and biology, in short both the soft and hard sciences, and research that examines the effects of giving hormones to rats in a lab environment for example does not totally explain human gender and sexuality differences.

But, Cordelia Fine does not say that the differences between the sexes are caused purely by social conditioning. Dr. Fine does admit to innate gender differences and she also rather thinks that men have it easier than women in our society. These are excerpts from an interview she gave in "The Psychologist", November 2010, in which she defends criticism about her book:

My book is not concerned with core gender identity, that is, the sense of being male or female. (page 903)

I certainly think that neurosexism is bad for men too, and often downright insulting [the notion that men are not hard-wired to be empathetic]. But at the same time it's worth pointing out that although it's a brave boy or young man who flirts with the feminine in front of his peers, on the whole men tend to be welcomed into traditionally female occupations. By contrast, women who try to enter masculine occupations including those more dangerous ones, often suffer very hostile treatment. (page 902)

She should know. I imagine she has suffered her fair share of sexual discrimination.

The mistake you make, Sue, is in believing that if it were not for social conditioning men would want to feel pretty, just like women. I'm quoting from a post you made in the Nature vs. Nurture thread:

So any male who dresses in a LBD and enjoys feelings of prettiness and desirability then that is as normal a feeling for a man to experience as it is for women.

Non-transgender men do not want to feel pretty in the sense that you describe it. You are not speaking of cognitive functions here, but of a fundamental gender identity which is manifested in the way that we choose to present ourselves. I think you are transferring your own wish for sameness onto everyone else. Men and women may well have no differences in terms of intellect and general capabilities, and it is true that a person's tastes for the arts or sciences vs. the more concrete pastimes such as building engines vary increasingly in our day and age from person to person regardless of gender, but fundamentally there is still a gender difference among people who are not transgender. Women get pregnant and nurse babies, while men don't. Boys would still want to differentiate themselves from girls, and vice versa, if we raised everyone in a gender neutral world. If we lived in nudist colonies for example, we would still be informed of our differences solely based on our different bodies and biological functions. The boys who feel feminine would still want to align themselves with the girls and would want to shave their bodies to approximate women's hairlessness, while those who don't would still want to hang out with the guys and perhaps have hair growing contests, even though we would perhaps all earn how to hunt, fish, grow vegetables, and build huts when not nursing babies.

It is perfectly valid to say that men want to feel attractive and admired. Men want to feel loved and desired too. But to ascribe transgender values on males who are not transgender by saying that were it not for social conditioning, boys would want to feel pretty in LBDs I believe is inaccurate.

[Asche]

Non-transgender men do not want to feel pretty in the sense that you describe it.

But what does "non-transgender men" mean?

As far as I have been able to tell from the way people use the word here, "transgender" simply means a man who is doing (or wanting to do) stuff that is not considered appropriate for men. Since you seem to consider "wanting to feel pretty" to be something "men don't do", you're making your statement true by simply excluding anyone who would make it false. I think this is a case of No True Scotsman

The mistake you make, Sue, is in believing that if it were not for social conditioning men would want to feel pretty, just like women.

I can't speak for Sue, but I certainly would never make such a bald statement, because almost any blanket statement like "men would want to feel pretty" is going to be false simply because men are all different.

However, "men wouldn't want to feel pretty" is equally false, for the same reason.

Some men do want to feel pretty, despite the social conditioning against it -- just look around Crossdressers.Com. It's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be more of them if there weren't all that social conditioning and stigma against it. How many? Nobody knows.

It's also hard to imagine that there wouldn't be plenty of men, maybe even the majority, who would [i]not[/] want to feel pretty, regardless of how society tried to condition them. (After all, a large segment of the female population isn't interested in looking pretty, either, despite the social pressure on them to meet those beauty standards.)

For any reasonably large group X, (almost) any statement "X's are Y" is going to be true for some and false for others. To go on and insist that "X's are Y" is to implicitly erase all the X's who aren't Y. Giving the exceptions a label Z and throwing in the occasional "except for the Z's," doesn't make it any less of an erasure.

This isn't just academic for me. I've had too many experiences where people simply ignored some significant aspect of me because they couldn't be bothered with exceptions to their "X's are...." statements. Or had people insist that I was something or someone other than who I thought I was, simply because they preferred. their theories to my reality. For instance, I've had people in the CD community insist that I was "really female" because I like to wear skirts and dresses.

[Sara Jessica]

Thank you for your comments Gaby.

Please know this thread has taken on a life of it's own in such a good way. It has grown well beyond the little premise I threw out there for consideration. I especially appreciate the enthusiasm shown by several of the members here (especially Reine for seeking out some of the academic works which were cited). I have also found it exhausting to participate further on their level so while I have read every word thus far, my participation has been eclipsed by the others.

That said, to address a couple points you made about the original premise, the "dark side" had two meanings. First of all, it was a contrast to my original "men being men" post from a while back. That one was based on my observation of a couple "Tim Allen / Home Improvement" types. Their passion for what they were into was intriguing, something I saw as nothing but positive. But the "dark side" also had to do with my encounters immediately prior to starting this current thread, with men both young and old whose behavior was what I would call stereotypically pig male, the kind of guy I could never be, nor would I ever hang around with such a person, along with the testosterone-infused youth with all of his bravado on display.

As for "crossing over", that is more to convey my personal POV, a contrast towards a societal trend towards androgyny, if such a thing exists outside of the fringes. I believe many of the responders have touched upon areas where this is the case but I'm still not seeing it as a mainstream endeavor any time soon.

The behaviors you describe in the soccer match are examples of the dark side of sport, a trap that clearly women can fall into despite being the "fairer" gender. But I dare to say that such behavior isn't commonplace beyond the confines of sporting events unless you count a recent trend where girl-fights have been posted on sites like youtube with zeal.

I did find your comment about women in your youth expressing hope and love as something you wish to emulate. In reading what led up to that, I thought to myself "oh no, here it comes" in that I expected a comment about idealization of clothing and styles of that time period, fearing that we were about to read a lament about why women of today don't dress in such a manner. So it was refreshing to be surprised with your lovelier take. All I can say is that times change on every front. Style of course is easy to conceptualize but I think your point is just as valid. The concepts of love and hope, companionship and relationships, etc. are ever changing as well and I think it was a neat point that you made.

[ReineD]

However, "men wouldn't want to feel pretty" is equally false, for the same reason.

Some men do want to feel pretty, despite the social conditioning against it -- just look around Crossdressers.Com. It's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be more of them if there weren't all that social conditioning and stigma against it. How many? Nobody knows.

Of course CDers want to feel pretty! This is the point of CDing for the vast majority!

As to your question about what I mean by "non-transgender" men. I am talking about men who do not wish to cross any gender boundaries, and I am not talking about men who have mild panty fetishes: there are men, such as my prior example, who do put on panties, thigh highs, heels, or something similar during sex only, but who otherwise have no desire or inclination to present feminine in any way, shape, or form. The act of putting on said panties does not make them feel "pretty", but rather brings them emotionally closer to the woman who owns the panties. This is not crossing a gender boundary in my book, it is only engaging in a fetish. The article of clothing could be angora, feathers, or latex, and it would produce the same results.

(After all, a large segment of the female population isn't interested in looking pretty, either, despite the social pressure on them to meet those beauty standards.)

We disagree here. There are many women who do not feel they need the fashion and makeup trappings in order to be feminine. I know there is a "high" standard universally upheld by the CDing community, but in reality, it is a woman's basic nature and her inner sense of self that makes her a woman and feel like one. Not the adornments.

For instance, I've had people in the CD community insist that I was "really female" because I like to wear skirts and dresses.

I understand your frustration with people who have difficulty imagining that anyone is different than they are. Was it a TS who said such things?

So let me ask: what type of CDing do you do exactly? When do you CD, how do you present yourself, and what do you get out of it?

[Stacey Summer]

Androgyny is already here. We see it all levels of society, from the business suit to the followers of fashion. But it's still essentially binary. As many others have said, Mankind's greatest asset is our diversity, our differing beliefs and opinions. Any attempt to force acceptance is doomed to failure, as a species we are for too independent and strong willed to meekly submit to someone elses idea of what is right. Acceptance should come about through greater understanding, better education and an increase in the respect we show to one another. The anti-discrimination laws in effect are a good thing, at their heart they mean that it's against the law to verbally or physically abuse someone for how they dress, how they look, their skin colour, their sex or their gender but they don't preclude you from having your own opinions or beliefs. Would I like to be able to wear a nice skirt and heels to the shops without fear of sniggers and rude comments? Absolutely but I'm also aware that everyone is different and everyone is entitled to their own opinion on any given subject.

I'[m not entirely sure that made too much sense so I'll say it this way. Acceptance is by far a more laudable goal than some sort of asexual society where everything is the same. However, having said that I'd like to go back in time, find the person or group of people who first defined what men and women were "allowed" to wear and do nasty things to them. If there was no segregation of clothing in the first place their would be no discrimination in this area. A juxtaposition I know.

Stacey.

[dawnmarrie1961]

but does it have to change at the speed of a meteor hitting the earth, or can it just be as sure of the change that a glacier makes on the land (and no - the speed analogy is not lost on me)? I would rather try to persuade rather than force. That's the way i liken those two methods.

Kathi

Any real and lasting change takes a certain amount of time.
Rememeber "rome wasn"t built in a day."The world will learn at a speed that reflects that amount of good teachers that are out there to learn from. Bad teachers will only hinder progress.
LET US EACH TAKE A PRIVATE OATH TODAY TO BE A "GOOD TEACHER".

[Gaby2]

That's interesting, Dawn Marrie!
You agreed with Kathi who had answered Pythos:

Society will never change, unless something changes it.

But does it have to change at the speed of a meteor hitting the Earth, or can it just be as sure of the change that a glacier makes on the land (and no - the speed analogy is not lost on me)? I would rather try to persuade rather than force. That's the way I liken those two methods.

Kathi

Any real and lasting change takes a certain amount of time.
Rememeber "rome wasn"t built in a day."The world will learn at a speed that reflects that amount of good teachers that are out there to learn from. Bad teachers will only hinder progress.
LET US EACH TAKE A PRIVATE OATH TODAY TO BE A "GOOD TEACHER".

I'm with you and Kathi as regards letting time do the work.
But Pythos' statement allows for much more!
Sometimes nothing less than radical means will work to change attitudes.
Especially, if people in general (=us) accept the status quo because that's just the way it is.
Remember John Lennon...
Here's quoting him more specifically this time (4th verse):
"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still f**k*** peasents as far as I can see,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be."
Gaby

[Sue101]

Reine I am glad you looked up summaries of these books but that was not really the reason I suggested them. I do not necessarily agree with all the theories being put forward, I believe some to be flawed. The value of these books is that they describe many gender studies and how the results contradict what we feel is natural about the genders.

The mistake you make, Sue, is in believing that if it were not for social conditioning men would want to feel pretty, just like women

Why is this a mistake. That is like saying women cannot possess any typical masculine behaviors like aggression. On what basis can you support the notion that there are feelings and behaviors that only women display? Also how does this square to numerous examples in our history and other cultures where men go to some lengths to beautify themselves? In a non taboo world a LBD would be recognized for what it is - a flattering article with feminine overtones. Something a man could wear to convey his perception of himself as a more sensitive person - but not necessarily transgendered.

Non-transgender men do not want to feel pretty in the sense that you describe it. You are not speaking of cognitive functions here, but of a fundamental gender identity which is manifested in the way that we choose to present ourselves. I think you are transferring your own wish for sameness onto everyone else.

Again you are basing your assumptions on post conditioned men when you say they don't want to feel pretty. We know that because boys were conditioned to think that way. Feeling pretty has nothing to do with gender identity. It is a simple human emotion that like all emotions are shared by both genders. Only social conditioning tries to make them exclusive to one sex.

I am not transferring my own wish for sameness. I am not saying men would become crossdressers. I am saying there is no basis to claim that men would not express these feelings if the taboo was lifted. That does not make them feminine men or CDs, just whole persons. As I have mentioned before you would hold exactly the same views of women if you lived a hundred years earlier. Women were not considered capable of being aggressive, competitive, business minded, politically minded, sports minded etc. We know that is all nonsense, a woman can be everything a man can be and have the same interests and feelings. But apparently this is not true of men? There is no rationale to this.

Women get pregnant and nurse babies, while men don't.

Is this not old school thinking linking the physical attributes with gender? Do women feel feminine when pregnant or do they feel like they are a woman? Granted since we are all post conditioned many people do link certain activities to the gender. They feel reassured and are comforted by the fact that they are doing something strongly linked to their social gender so are fulfilling their role. If I picked up a gun I might feel masculine because I am replicating the thousands of images I have in my head of macho men firing guns but anyone can fire a gun. I don't see how this sheds any light onto the issue of how males are conditioned to stay clear of certain behaviors and feelings solely due to gender socialization.

[ReineD]

LOL. We seem to be discussing the same thing across two different threads. I've just addressed this in the Nature vs. Nurture thread.

But, I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of the "post-conditioned" discussion. It's just far too speculative for me, and also I hate to say this, but I just don't think I'm as invested in discussing it at length as you are. Besides, I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this. I see us going around in circles.

It was fun, though!

[Sue101]

Better than a panty thread! Debates are not about winning or losing but about throwing ideas around. The main benefactors are the audience who learn from watching. ;-)

I will ask you this though. In one thirty words or less describe what femininity is as precisely as possible - no examples to be included just your best dictionary definition.

[Asche]

So let me ask: what type of CDing do you do exactly? When do you CD, how do you present yourself, and what do you get out of it?

My "type of CDing":

The main "CD-ish" thing I do is to wear skirts and tights. I wear skirts pretty much all the time, except for work or events with the kids. That includes hiking and bicycling. I don't try to hide the fact that I'm male: for one thing, I have a beard, for another, with my body shape, there's no way I could pass for female. I also wear kilts (usually Utilikilt-style kilts, the Scottish style ones are too uncomfortable.)

I end up making my own skirts, because I haven't found a skirt sold for women that I think looks right on me. I go for fairly full skirts, because I like the feeling of the skirt swirling around. For contra dances, which is where I got my start wearing skirts, I go for fairly "feminine" skirts: lace, satin or taffeta, ruffles, petticoats, and skirts that stick way out when you twirl (a lot of twirling goes on at contra dances!)

My shirts are ordinary men's shirts, because women's blouses don't fit me any better than women's skirts. I haven't mastered sewing my own shirts, but whenever I do, I'll probably start experimenting with lace, ruffles, and pouffier shirts. For that matter, when I figure out how to make dresses that I think look good on me, I'll start experimenting with dresses.

FWIW, I don't do makeup, bras, high heels, or sheer pantyhose. Never felt the urge.

How I present:

The effect that I look for is that I'm a man who wears what he wants to wear, regardless of what may be considered "appropriate" for males, and who has his own sense of style.

FWIW, I have no wish to be mistaken for female -- which is just as well, since I'd have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding!

What I get out of it:

I like pretty things. I like looking at them, I like looking at women wearing pretty things. I like wearing them because it's a way of participating in them, just like dancing is, for me, a way of participating in the music. (Full) skirts, in particular, look and feel pretty to me.

I imagine myself as the little boy who, at nursery school, aways wants to wear the princess dress, not because he wants to be a girl, but because he (like a lot of the girls) is enraptured by the prettiness of the dress. I've always wondered what would have happened if I'd had an older sister or two.

I also get a sense of getting in touch with parts of myself that I've had to suppress. I can see how some people might see this as their "female side", but I've never felt particularly "masculine" or "feminine."

Of course, my experience of "masculinity" while I was growing up was mostly that it involved beating up and getting beaten up (in my case, mostly the latter) and other, equally uncomfortable things, while "femininity" seemed to mostly involve pretending to be stupid and incompetent, neither of which had anything to do with what I felt I was or wanted to be. Hence my dislike of Teh Gender Binary.