The “New” Masculinity

[Frédérique]

Way back in 1972, a gentleman named Mark Gerzon wrote an article titled A Choice of Heroes: The Changing Face of American Manhood. In this article, Mr, Gerzon sought to replace five old “archetypes of masculinity” with five new “emerging masculinities.” Keep in mind this was in the early 70’s, a time when gender roles were being questioned and examined in a less-polarized atmosphere than today...

According to the author, the five old archetypes of masculinity are: the Frontiersman, the Soldier, the Expert, the Breadwinner, and the Lord. When I read this list of manly types, I thought that nothing has changed at all in the past 38 years, or has it? I mean, I’ve certainly encountered many frontiersmen, soldiers, breadwinners, and the like on this site, amongst my MtF crossdressing peers. I’ve even met a few “lords” from time to time! The author states that, “Each of these masculine archetypes requires the denial of the feminine. Each depends on denying the independent creative power of womanhood (its so-called masculine side), and on denying the tender, vulnerable dimension of manhood (its so-called feminine side).” Uh-huh...

The new archetypes of masculinity include: the Healer, the Companion, the Mediator, the Colleague, and the Nurturer. The author says that, “The human qualities they symbolize transcend sexual identity. To heal, nurture, or mediate is neither a masculine nor a feminine role, so that unlike the old archetypes, which were for men only, the emerging masculinities are not.” He goes on to say that, “Spirituality in a man does not require denial of the feminine. On the contrary, it is an affirmation of femininity as an essential part of ourselves.” OK, if these new masculinities were “emerging” back in 1972, what happened to them? Back in the day, it was OK (briefly) for a man to heal, to communicate, to befriend, to collaborate, to foster, and to cherish. Nowadays, IMHO, the five old archetypes have made a successful comeback, and males are allowed, encouraged, and even expected to be masculine again. Personally, I’m confused, which apparently is not a “manly” attribute at all...

If you’re dressing up en femme you may not even think about these things, but I do. What are we trying to get in touch with? Are we trying to get in touch with anything at all, or are we just playing with gender? Personally, I’m trying to express the feminine and make it visible - I don’t want to be one of the five old masculine “archetypes,” not now, not ever. There was, and still is, a pattern, or a template for a young male to follow. You must find your role, and here are the available choices – the “old,” or established, masculinities. But, I don’t want to be any of those, because they don’t “speak” to me in any way, shape, or form. In my case, shyness and isolation helped, fostered by innate effeminacy, even though, in my youth, I was always among the VERY male types (described above) I now seek to avoid. Your situation, and perception, may be totally different, but why is it bad to be a different type of male, with certain qualities that many would label as weak, or threatening, or just plain wrong? I guess what I’m trying to say is this – why is “strength” such a wonderful thing, and why can’t so-called "weakness" be perceived as strength? This requires true courage, I feel – the courage to embrace our own inherent femininity...

Of course, there’s plenty of male nurturing, healing, collaborating, and communication going on these days, but I think its being done under the auspices of the old masculinities, meaning it’s a means to an end, or business as usual. It’s sad. All a boy can do is escape into his chosen, blissful feminine clothing, express his femininity as best he can, and avoid the banging on the door – its masculinity calling, and HE WANTS YOU! I pretend not to hear, since I’m in the process of healing the gender divide, nurturing the co-joined self, and trying to communicate with other kindred spirits. Will you be my companion? It can get lonely going against the flow, being assertively non-masculine, but I have no choice in the matter...
:straightface:

[Josie M]

This person has also done a study of the the changing role of masculinity since WW II and through the sexual revolution.

http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/drg.php

I find his ideas pretty compelling

[Kathryn Martin]

While the feminine clothing may be the escape, the refinement of the boy's femininity and the ever progressing battle against the testosterone is what we all share. And in the manner we, you and I and so many others subvert the boy, maybe we express how feminine we really are. Women call it survival:eek:

[Karren H]

A whole different meaning when someone is "pretty masculine". :D

[Alice Torn]

Freddy, Great thread! I agree with you a lot. Do you remember the men's movement ot the mid 1990's, with poet Robert Bly as one of the big leaders, and programs on PBS, with "gatherings of men?" I am with you. I tried for years to be like John Wayne, and other "real men". Though, there is a rough and tumble, outdoorsy side to me, I am mainly supersensitive adult child of a dysfunctional family, with a mostly "weak" almost fem side. I have tried to balance these opposite sides, but, my dad thinks i am a wuss, and so do my older brothers. I lived most of my life trying to live up to their standards of a man, but could never please them. I agree, that the "old violent, tough guy masculinity" seems to dominate again, though the armed forces are having to fight by "rules of engagement", that none from previous eras, would accept. We would have LOST world war 2, if they had fought by today's rules of engagement! The one male our society still won't accept, is crossdressing males, it seems. The closet is still the safest place!

[Kathi Lake]

Hi Freddy! Great post, as per usual. :)

Agreed. I've never fit, never will fit, and never will want to fit any of those molds. One of the things I'm trying to do here (other than just being me), is to break out of the stringent, stifling compartment that society has put me in. Frontiersman? I don't like hunting or camping. Soldier? Well, although I've spent almost 30 years in the armed forces, I'm not exactly what you'd see while tuning into an episode of band of Brothers. Expert? Hmmmmmm. Expert at what? Eyeshadow? Breadwinner? Nope. That's my wife. Lord? Hah! Most lords don't necessarily want to dress like one of the ladies, it seems.

So, if I don't fit one of those "buckets" I'm not a man, eh? Eh. Ah well.

:)

Kathi

[ReineD]

OK, if these new masculinities were “emerging” back in 1972, what happened to them? Back in the day, it was OK (briefly) for a man to heal, to communicate, to befriend, to collaborate, to foster, and to cherish. Nowadays, IMHO, the five old archetypes have made a successful comeback, and males are allowed, encouraged, and even expected to be masculine again. Personally, I’m confused, which apparently is not a “manly” attribute at all...

The 'human' archetypes are all around me. I see them in my sons, my sons' friends, my brother, ny nephews, my SO, and in my male friends. I can think of some men who loosely fit in the old archetypes, but not many.

What makes you believe that when a man nurtures, heals, collaborates, communicates, etc, he is not being true to his nature? I've also often wondered why so many members in the forum think of these qualities as being feminine and not, as you point out, genderless, human traits.

I know that men are often painted as being super macho in this forum, and it is difficult for me to understand why this is so. Do you think that men behave differently among themselves than when they are in the company of women?

If anything, I should think that machismo is the façade, and not the other way around. :)

[linnea]

Frederique, I have often wondered about these very questions and struggled with my own efforts to be non-masculine. I think that in a superficial way (or perhaps it's a more superficial way than it was) the masculine images and roles have return or surged up from some dank place they've been languishing. I think of the rather recent trend among male men to leave a day or two day's worth of whiskers on their faces. I don't mind beards and I don't mind clean-shaven faces (for me, clean-shaven is a must), but this mock-rugged look seems to me to be a sham.
Nurturing, mediating, healing--yes. Those are my comfort areas (oh, yes, and comforting).
thank you so much for recalling those 70s impulses.

[ReineD]

Way back in 1972, a gentleman named Mark Gerzon wrote an article

I looked him up: http://www.bigspeak.com/mark-gerzon.html

He teaches others how to mediate and cooperate.

"Mark Gerzon helps leaders and their organizations learn skills that are critical for dealing with conflict and leading across difficult social divides. He specializes in enhancing the capacity of competing groups and divided organizations to find alignment around shared goals and values."

He does seem to exemplify the newer order of maleness, from the old archetypes he had described. Apparently, others are buying into it. :)


This person has also done a study of the the changing role of masculinity since WW II and through the sexual revolution.

http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/drg.php

Josie, this guy is doing just the opposite. He tells men that they are wimps if they are nice guys. Not impressive.

His characterization of the "Nice Guy Syndrome (http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/ngs.php)" is nothing more than a description of a dysfunctional codependent. I wouldn't even wish that profile for a woman. True nice guys, and nice women, have the courage of their convictions.

[celeste26]

It seems to me that seeing one or the other archetype is an indication of who you all hang out with. The resurgent right wing politics I guess is one of the places we look for the ancient stereotypes, but they are a small fraction of even those who like to participate in electoral politics and they hardly represent anything but some dysfunctional romantic ideology. (They do get a disproportional amount of airtime in the media though.)

All of the male types I personally know are of the second type not the first. So I guess I hang out with that type of person so that's all I see.

[Shari]

I am and always have been all of those "types" described and many more categorizations not mentioned.
I am diverse and unique and am not a cookie cutter of society simply because some egghead received a government grant or decided he or she would make a quick buck writing a book, claiming themselves to be an expert on humankind.

To define a man in a particular mold, or a woman or a crossdresser, or any other lifestye, whether by choice or genetics using a generalized description is a disservice to most, if not all.

It's also depressing to think that these two and many other "experts" have gained notariety and monetary compensation from blowing yet more smoke up our collective posteriors.

These "opinions" and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee, as well as my own.
Fun to read at times though, as long as you don't take yourself or anyone else too seriously.

[sherri]

Do you think that men behave differently among themselves than when they are in the company of women?I guess I'd have to say yes, they do, especially if you include conversation in behavior. That may not be universally true, but it is pervasively true in more than a few male sub-cultures.

[Pythos]

Well, when it comes to myself, if I could wear my skirts hose and heels, as a male, openly without fear of my reputation taking a hit in the career field I am aiming for, then my wanting to express my "feminine" side would not be. The only reason I would go out fully CDed trying to pass is so I could wear those items of clothing I like to wear, but for the most part am forbidden.

Jive Turkey is a grand example for what I shoot for, though of course mine would be of a gothic nature.

Gender roles have been outdated for the most part, and the remnants of them I think are a key factor in much of the strife in our world.

This morning Good morning America had some male fashionista that was showing these "male" fashions for holiday parties. OMG boring. Really really boring. It was essentially a variation in the shirt worn with the usual suit. Instead of a solid colored shirt and tie, basically the outfit's change was replacing the shirt with a "festive" plaid shirt, and a festive tie.

There was one outfit that had 100 dollar skinny jeans that looked like pure garbage.

This is the nonesense I want to break free from, and sooooo wish more people would. I want my variations to consist of a change of more than just my shirt.

[Kate Simmons]

What it really boils down to Freddy is being able to be a man who is not afraid to express his feelings (all of them).:)

[Josie M]

.....

Josie, this guy is doing just the opposite. He tells men that they are wimps if they are nice guys. Not impressive.

His characterization of the "Nice Guy Syndrome (http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/ngs.php)" is nothing more than a description of a dysfunctional codependent. I wouldn't even wish that profile for a woman. True nice guys, and nice women, have the courage of their convictions.

Actually, he uses the phrase "Nice Guy Syndrome" somewhat facetiously, even going on to say that most "nice guys" are anything but. Indeed, the book actually says pretty much what you said in your last sentence and gives recovering "nice guys" tools to learn how not to be condependant or passive-aggressive and learn how to make their own needs a priority.

[ReineD]

Indeed, the book actually says pretty much what you said in your last sentence and gives recovering "nice guys" tools to learn how not to be condependant or passive-aggressive and learn how to make their own needs a priority.

I spent a little time in their forums. They actually encourage guys to "practice" with their confidence, by getting girls' phone numbers and emails when they never intend to call or write! :eek: I thought that was pretty manipulative. I feel sorry for the poor girl who falls for the guy, and then he never calls.

There's a group, Codependents Anonymous (CODA), for men and women, to help them overcome their passive people-pleasing habits, so they can learn to get their needs met in healthy ways. CODA members learn that fundamentally, their people-pleasing tactics are rather a form of control. And overcoming this does involve courage and honesty ... and not using others as stepping stones.

[Josie M]

I spent a little time in their forums. They actually encourage guys to "practice" with their confidence, by getting girls' phone numbers and emails when they never intend to call or write! :eek: I thought that was pretty manipulative. I feel sorry for the poor girl who falls for the guy, and then he never calls.

There's a group, Codependents Anonymous (CODA), for men and women, to help them overcome their passive people-pleasing habits, so they can learn to get their needs met in healthy ways. CODA members learn that fundamentally, their people-pleasing tactics are rather a form of control. And overcoming this does involve courage and honesty ... and not using others as stepping stones.

I've been in their forums as well and, while I can't say I've gone through them completely, I've never seen anything like that. Can you point me to one of those threads? I mean, if that's correct, then it's a pretty manipulative thing to do.

PM me if you'd prefer, but I'd be very curious to see what you are referring to

[Frédérique]

Sorry it takes me so long to respond, but sometimes I can't get onto the forum when I want to - it can be frustrating...


What makes you believe that when a man nurtures, heals, collaborates, communicates, etc, he is not being true to his nature? I've also often wondered why so many members in the forum think of these qualities as being feminine and not, as you point out, genderless, human traits.
I know that men are often painted as being super macho in this forum, and it is difficult for me to understand why this is so. Do you think that men behave differently among themselves than when they are in the company of women?

You’re absolutely correct when you say these “new” masculine characteristics are part of us all, and thus human, inherent in our nature. So, why would a male wish to distance himself from natural feelings – is it simply because these qualities are not appreciated nowadays? I get the feeling that males were heading towards a new direction some years ago, until someone pointed out that this wasn’t “true” masculinity, and something was wrong with it. There’s no doubt that masculinity is being reinforced at every turn these days – I can’t go very far without bumping into the gender (or masculinity) divide, and all forms of perceived “weakness” in males, such as nurturing, communication, or mediation (which I translate as non-confrontation) are denounced. Imagine that – talking to someone, an exercise that may require human compassion and understanding, not to mention language skills and...gasp...thinking, is akin to effeminacy. I’ve seen this many, many times, and it’s highly disturbing, to say the least...
:sad:

Men definitely behave differently in the company of men, as opposed to women, based on what I’ve seen over the years, in the company I've kept. For this reason, I simply avoid the pack, and the mentality that drives it. It is what it is, but the thing is you DO have a choice, and you can be with others who appreciate those very human qualities that others avoid or do not even care (or wish) to investigate...

Maybe women want their men to be masculine, meaning like the “old” archetypes, and be less “human,” like the so-called “new” archetypes. I know many males have no problem following these acceptable, yet antiquated guidelines, but what happens to those natural qualities they are actively suppressing? It seems to me it would lead to inner conflict and pain, which is ironically something all masculine males would certainly understand, or be familiar with...


What it really boils down to Freddy is being able to be a man who is not afraid to express his feelings (all of them).

I think a male who expresses his feelings would be targeted, one way or another, as a threat to masculinity (as roughly defined in the OP), and he would be marginalized, much like we crossdressers are, in fact “expression” is a dirty word to many people, i.e. males. Did you know that the creation of artwork, which is another form of expression (of feelings, BTW), is considered to be a form of perversion? Getting in touch with one’s feelings, or the feelings of another, is a very dangerous idea to some people...

[kimdl93]

these are all constructs - abstractions. And while we may find some elements of each that resonate, the underlying feeling that I have...can't speak for anyone else... is that I feel "female" or at least as I imagine a woman might feel, and prefer to dress as I imagine a woman dresses. I know from my own life and from observing my wife's life, that we play different roles depending on the situation. Without assigning gender values to these roles, I can say with some confidence, that I am more effective in recognizing, empathizing and collaborating with others as a feminine person than I have been in a more masculine role.

[Helen_Highwater]

Swings and roundabouts: I was stuck by the thought: have women’s archetypes changed? I'm sure they have but I'm not that well informed to (re)categorise them.
On the face of it the new male types have moved towards what were traditionally more fem descriptions. Have women moved towards descriptions that reflect male values. I'm tempted to say only in part, there's now a cohort of young females that are if anything more "girly" than any of their predecessors. Is it more that these charactaristics existed but like being gay or CD, they were suppressed and hidden.

[ReineD]

PM me if you'd prefer, but I'd be very curious to see what you are referring to

I've sent you a PM so as not to derail this thread. :)

[JiveTurkeyOnRye]

I guess for me, I feel like it still falls short to simply redefine masculinity in order to adjust the male position in society. It still tries to cover up the inherent femininity that all men possess by appropriating and re-branding what are feminine traits as being unexplored masculine traits. The truth is that all people, men and women, possess both masculine and feminine qualities, the breakdown of such is different in each person, some men are more masculine, some are more feminine, and the same goes for women, some are very masculine and some are very feminine.

When it comes to my own looks and outfits, I have pushed the line of femininity a little in the past few months with some dresses and different amounts of makeup, and I have managed to make them look fairly good I think, but I feel like my best looks still remain ones where I have at least some balance of masculine and feminine attributes.

Having said that, and here's my moment to be controversial again, I don't know if I really believe that the majority of MtF crossdressers are really doing a whole lot to re-define the image of men in today's society. By dressing to present as women is the statement instead not actually conforming to the idea of femininity being the domain of females? A woman can dress masculine and present as a woman but a man wanting to be feminine chooses to dress as a woman in what seems to be the majority of cases here.

I added in this line for clarification, it sort of sounds like I'm saying what I do is better than what someone passing does. That's not my intention. What I'm saying is that clearly MtF Crossdressing has a different motivation than just allowing a man to express his feminine side.

[ReineD]

Having said that, and here's my moment to be controversial again, I don't know if I really believe that the majority of MtF crossdressers are really doing a whole lot to re-define the image of men in today's society. By dressing to present as women is the statement instead not actually conforming to the idea of femininity being the domain of females? A woman can dress masculine and present as a woman but a man wanting to be feminine chooses to dress as a woman in what seems to be the majority of cases here.

Thanks for posting this. You make a good point.

I agree that presenting as a woman does little to redefine men's images and roles in our society, even if a male just wears a skirt, like you do. :) I'm not making a value judgment on whether someone should dress or not (I'm utterly supportive of transgender expression). I'm agreeing that wearing alternate clothing to one's birth gender has little to do with role definition, or getting in touch with all of one's feelings, for that matter.

As Frédérique points out, gender roles are generally defined by the human qualities that people possess, and how these qualities play out in their lives. In my view, a man can be a nurturing husband and father who is in touch with his feelings and communicates them well with his wife and friends, who also sees himself as a partner in his marriage in terms of decision making, and whose time is balanced between career and family. This man will not be defined as the older male stereotypes, but he will not be defined as a woman either.

Likewise, a woman can hold a career, balance it with her family life while sharing all the decisions with her husband, and also have all the same nurturing and communicating qualities. The fact that she may have a high powered job does not make her a man, even if she wears pantsuits to work.

True, both the man and the woman may need to be a bit more "cut-throat" in order to survive in their careers, depending on what they are, but this is business and it is something that one "does" for work rather than being reflective of a person's inner nature. Business decisions are, and should be, impersonal for both genders and in my view they do not reflect either gender's innate machismo.

The mistake, I think, is in believing that wearing softer clothing, makeup, and perhaps forms will give a genetic male "permission" to express his true nurturing self. It is not necessary to wear clothing in order to do this. The motive is rather a wish to outwardly express the opposite gender identity ... not her role, or her qualities, since men share the same human qualities. I ask the CDers who are reading this to reflect on the sexually titillating nature (when younger), that translates into the 'high' or the intense feeling of well-being when a CDer expresses femininity (and perhaps his perceived notion of submission). In my opinion, this is more tied to a man's hormonal and sexual appreciation of women, unless of course someone is TS. I also believe there is a spectrum of transsexual identities and expression, just as there is with CDers, but this is a topic for another thread.

I smile (good-naturedly) when I see posts from CDs who get all dressed up to do the housework for example. There are many single and married males out there who cook and clean, without feeling the need to wear makeup and feminine clothing. I need to do all the repairs and maintenance on my house and I don't go out and buy men's jeans, T shirts, and sneakers in order to do this, nor does doing any of these chores make me feel less feminine. :) But, I digress.

As with JiveTurkeyOnRye, I also wish to add a caveat. I believe it is healthy for CDers to express feminity. But, to say they do this in order to get in touch with their very human, softer feelings, I believe, prevents CDers from knowing the true reasons they dress.

:2c: :2c: :2c:

[GingerLeigh]

Agh! Too many good points to mention and I'm not nearly eloquent enough to give a proper reply, Sorry! Fascinating post though. Thanks for making me think, uhhhhh now my brain hurts.

It's nice to believe that there are no masculine or feminine personality traits, only human ones. Trouble is that it's been burned into our heads by all forms of media over the course of the last century or so as to what defines a man, and what makes a woman. Sugar and spice and all things nice, frogs snails puppy dog tails. How can we argue with that logic?

True masculinity as defined by popular belief is a facade. Men do cry, they just won't admit it.

Ginger

[ReineD]

True masculinity as defined by popular belief is a facade. Men do cry, they just won't admit it.

Well said.

I remember reading, just after the Columbine school shootings in 1999, a statement from a psychologist who said, "If we don't let our boys cry tears, they'll cry bullets."

I looked him up. William Pollack, PhD, wrote "Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood (http://books.google.com/books?id=5KSzDupux4MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=pollack+real+boys&hl=en&ei=Ur8CTZPvEMe4ngeI8fnlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)". This should be required reading for ALL parents. Here are two quotes from the Introduction:


"Boys today are in serious trouble, including many who seem "normal" and to be doing just fine. Confused by society's mixed messages about what's expected of them as boys, and later as men, many feel a sadness and disconnection they cannot even name. New research shows that boys are faring less well in school than they did in the past and in comparison to girls, that many boys have remarkably fragile self-esteem, and that the rates of both depression and suicide in boys are frighteningly on the rise. Many of our sons are currently in a desperate crisis." (p. xxi)


"In my work I have tried to understand what boys are really saying about their lives and to get behind the mask of masculinity, a mask that most boys and men wear to hide their true inner feelings, and to present to the world an image of male toughness, stoicism, and strength, when in fact they feel desperately alone and afraid. This book is the result of listening to and learning about boys, and thinking about what we can do to help them become happier, more successful boys and men." (p. xxii)

[busker]

[QUOTE=Frédérique;2343475][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="black"]Way back in 1972, a gentleman named Mark Gerzon wrote an article titled A Choice of Heroes: The Changing Face of American Manhood. In this article, Mr, Gerzon sought to replace five old “archetypes of masculinity” with five new “emerging masculinities.” Keep in mind this was in the early 70’s, a time when gender roles were being questioned and examined in a less-polarized atmosphere than today...

According to the author, the five old archetypes of masculinity are: the Frontiersman, the Soldier, the Expert, the Breadwinner, and the Lord.

The new archetypes of masculinity include: the Healer, the Companion, the Mediator, the Colleague, and the Nurturer. The author says that, “The human qualities they symbolize transcend sexual identity. To heal, nurture, or mediate is neither a masculine nor a feminine role, so that unlike the old archetypes, which were for men only, the emerging masculinities are not.” He goes on to say that, “Spirituality in a man does not require denial of the feminine. On the contrary, it is an affirmation of femininity as an essential part of ourselves.” OK, if these new masculinities were “emerging” back in 1972, what happened to them? Back in the day, it was OK (briefly) for a man to heal, to communicate, to befriend, to collaborate, to foster, and to cherish. Nowadays, IMHO, the five old archetypes have made a successful comeback, and males are allowed, encouraged, and even expected to be masculine again. Personally, I’m confused, which apparently is not a “manly” attribute at all...

E]
Hi Frederique, As usual, another think piece. Thanks. They are always insightful and mentally stimulating. Sadly I'm not always up to the task.
I was just about to cut off the head of my christmas turkey when this popped up on screen, and as a result, I thought I would let my femininie wiles take over and so the turkey has been spared. He thanks you from the bottom of his heart. But seriously,

My favorite quote is from Mel Brooks: It's good to be the king".! It was good 2000 years ago and it is still--for many--true. Like much of what we understand from history, "maleness" is nothing more than looking back and extracting qualities that men have demonstrated in recorded history, making up a list, and calleing it "male qualities". As long as we live in a male-centric culture, it is what we will continue to do, but I don't think for a moment, that men throughout time have not demonstrated qualities that were feminine (compasionate, among others)--it is just that they were never really noted by the men making the lists. Had women compiled the 5 manly qualities, we might indeed be different today.
Mother's lost their sons to battle since battles first started, so what mother might not have wanted her son to be less manly and stay home. That would be cowardly (or feminine perhaps in male terms) so off he went to be killed. So men who are killed in battles become heroes and eveybody likes and wants to be a hero.
The frontiersman could have originally been a soldier that survived, is now the breadwinner, but in times past, with all the slaughter of men in battle, the women were actually the breadwinners, the fathers , and perhaps the frontierswomen all combined into one person.
The British women after WWI were in fact all of those things as nearly 2 million young men were killed needlessly, dare I say. So, a whole generation of young British women were the "men" of their generation.
In reading about Civil War history, there were numerous incidents where the troops on both sides would call a day's halt to war to be civil, share the river to bathe, and perhaps rations for an evening meal before calling off their informal truce and resume the slaughter the following day. Wouldn't you say that might be a "feminine" quality exhibited in the soldier stereotype? The same is true of the officer corps during WWI. You fight to kill your enemy but you do it with civilty and grace because you fight for your country, you don't fight to just KILL.
Sarah Palin is popular today because she can go out and kill and gut a deer just like a man!!!!!!!!!!!! Certainly she is popular with the women.
Some societies approve wearing skirt-like clothing--the Scots, the Irish, the Greeks and probably many more-- but in a specific context. As a military uniform. It is not seen as a piece of women's clothing, so there is no SISSY stigma attached. In fact, just the opposite I would imagine. If you're in the Black Watch (they didn't wear panties) there was no question of manliness. Otherwise, as I understand it, wearing a skirt in public is not anymore accepted there than here.
We have an accumulation of 2000 years of what it is to be a man, and by all accounts that means what it is to be a success (I think). It is not going away any time soon, and the more our society grinds down to a lower lever in intellect and education, the more that those values will rise because men will not be able to see beyond their nose and discern a new day of human-ness.
Also now, we have what seems to be a movement away from femininity in that more and more women are crossdressing (god forbid) and looking more and more like ---MEN!!! They drive trucks, they skate on skateboards, they have short hair, they wear no makeup, in short, they are more masculine than every before. Why is that? Is there a reward to be manly and male? Yes, is our culture, there is. We have been masculinizing women since the end of WWII, partly as a result of war work where dress codes were relaxed and partly as a result of 500000+ men getting killed and countless hundreds of thousands disabled. Women again becoming "MEN" out of necessity (read war here). During the 70's and female liberation, the days of bra-burning wasn;t necessarily to get rid of a man's confining contraption, but to masculinize women--men wear no bras , of course (ha, ha, ha, ha,) (That is not a standard take on the women's lib movement, but power-suited women weren't far behind, the glass ceiling also let men get a look-up, and all things that have allowed women to progress in out manly society may have been to just bring them up to speed--e,.g be a man. And what about the women who want to be MANLY? (and not just the butch lesbian as an example).THis is just an off the cuff idea and probably doesn't hold a real drop of .......????).
Women in Paris, on the other are still prohibited from wearing pants by law , still in place, but officials have turned a blind eye to women wearing pants---for now. different times may call for different attitudes.
There is a lot in your post to comment on, but I don't want to hog the show here.. :2c:

[ReineD]

Also now, we have what seems to be a movement away from femininity in that more and more women are crossdressing (god forbid) and looking more and more like ---MEN!!! They drive trucks, they skate on skateboards, they have short hair, they wear no makeup, in short, they are more masculine than every before. Why is that? Is there a reward to be manly and male? Yes, is our culture, there is. We have been masculinizing women since the end of WWII

Busker, I'd like to propose a different way of looking at this, albeit with a second-wave feminist slant :)

I don't look at it as the masculinization of women. I see it as a return to the natural woman, free of adornment, the way she was born to be, beautiful in her own right and allowed to enjoy doing all the things that she's good at! :D

We're not born with makeup on. :)

Frédérique, I feel awkward posting so much in your thread, but you're being so silent and there are just too many good things to comment on!

:hugs:

[Frédérique]

Frédérique, I feel awkward posting so much in your thread, but you're being so silent and there are just too many good things to comment on!

I rarely post more than a time or two in my own threads, since I prefer to start a discussion and not monopolize it. Your input has been greatly appreciated, to say the least! I feel guilty about being silent, but I have to live up to being "a quiet girl!” Also, if I post another verbose clump of text, I run the risk of killing the thread – this has happened more times than I care to tell you...
:sad:

BTW, I was hoping you would notice my post (#18), and respond accordingly. Masculinity is a thing I LOVE to write about, since its connection to crossdressing is highly complex and always changing...

[busker]

Busker, I'd like to propose a different way of looking at this, albeit with a second-wave feminist slant :)

I don't look at it as the masculinization of women. I see it as a return to the natural woman, free of adornment, the way she was born to be, beautiful in her own right and allowed to enjoy doing all the things that she's good at! :D

We're not born with makeup on. :)



:hugs:

I have a feeling I'm about to open mouth and insert a 12w into my mouth.
No, women weren't born with makeup on, but it didn't take very long for it to be discovered and put to use if ancient history is correct.
[I have actually seen/known an unadorned woman in my lifetime who was more beautiful than any adorned person I have ever seen anywhere].

I agree that there can be a return to a more natural state (but I have no real clue exactly what a "Natural" state is, and it might only occur in the rarified realm of physics if we could see it) and further agree that women can drive tractors and fly aeroplanes and shoot guns the same as men do. I think of that in terms of male and female. [humans are such a jumble of traits and ideas over thousands of years, it is really impossible to know what a natural human is like. Maybe reading something about the tribe they discovered in the Filipines before they ever saw another tribe would give me an idea--the Tassaday, I think]

F was writing in terms of masculine and feminine which I see as adjectives describing the ways in which those things are done. Life in the feminine mode vs life in the masculine mode. I suppose further that women may have developed a special woman's way of killing the holiday turkey, as opposed to the "man's " way.
I would dearly love to believe that the feminist slant of which you write is possible, but I have been a cynic of human affairs for at least 50+ years beginning when I was a high school sltudent. Ultimately, I believe that we are a nation of sheep and that our business-shaped culture has nearly assured that few will actually escape with their own identity intact. There is no money in embroidered potholders but there is a lot of money in cars and trucks, for example. While I think it could be in the realm of feminist thinking that "trucks are for girls, silly boys", the automakers of the world see the "masculinization of women as a source of money, and , as we have been told so often--to shop--we are 70 % of the GDP. So , let's sell the men's toys to women, and also the attitutdes that go along with them. I see women now as more agressive, fouler in language, less modest, and many other things. To me that is a simple verification of what is going on, unless you believe that women are naturally foul-mouthed, etc.
The Plymouth PT Cruiser I think has been sold to more women than men and it was supposed to be an updated classic to appeal to the male "collector".
I'm also not saying that this is universal and unstoppable, but it is my--cynical--take. I see any "feminization" of men perhaps as a positive step towards a more humane world, though women in the military could postpone that for a long time by creating in them a "male" attitude that we really don't need.
I don't mean for this to sound sexist--it is not my goal at all, but I think that the reality of the world has to be considered and it is not a place that encourages us to "be what we can be"--men or women.
There is also the notion of "control" but that really is for another thread.
:2c:
Mandrake, really getting out of his depth.

[ReineD]

Busker, your points are well taken. Perhaps we just look at things differently. For me, when all is said and done, we all have 2 arms to do things with, 2 legs to take us there, and a brain and heart. There is no emotion, thought pattern, or learned task that is exclusive to either gender, other than individual roles in procreation and perhaps matters involving physical strength. So I don't tend to classify men and women based on what they do, or how they feel. I have a male friend who is a nurse, another was a translator, and a female friend who drive trucks and chops wood.

Gender differences are simpler, and at times subtle for me. I sense gender through physiognomy, hormones, pheromones, voice, body language, just general vibes. Also by the different ways that men and women notice each other. :) This is very subtle, yet probably the most powerful thing of all. I also do not necessarily sense gender through the way people dress, since most everywhere I go, both men and women are dressed alike in jeans, Tshirts and sneakers.

Maybe I look at things too simply. I don't know. :)


I was hoping you would notice my post (#18), and respond accordingly. Masculinity is a thing I LOVE to write about, since its connection to crossdressing is highly complex and always changing...

Frédérique, I read your post #18, and I just had a revelation. I think I've finally figured out why men enjoy being in the presence of women so much. They get to be themselves! :D Did you see the link to the book I posted in post #25? I think you'll agree with Dr. Pollock's views.

I can well imagine how difficult it must be for boys who are made to feel like wusses for expressing sensitivity. But, maybe the boys who don't feel free to be themselves don't have the right friends? I think that when people form bonds, no matter what gender, masks tend to dissolve and people are freer to express emotion. Even as a GG, I hate to show my vulnerabilities in front of people that I'm not close to.

I also would like to share that I have 3 sons and for years our house was the hanging-out place for them and all their friends. I've heard them have great conversations together, not unlike the conversations I have with my girlfriends. They given each other advice with different issues: school, girls, trouble with friends, trouble with parents. They've been there for each other through rough times: parents divorcing, pets dying, girlfriend breakups. I've seen tears shed on occasion, even as teenagers, and their feelings were always respected. One of my sons even went shopping with a buddy a few times in a city two hours away, for clothes for a special occasion. I remember when they came back, his friend was so proud of the shirt and tie (pink stripes) and after shave he had gotten. This isn't all that different than what I do. :)

I'm just saying that there are so many men out there who don't fit the stereotypes.

[busker]

Maybe I look at things too simply. I don't know. :)

.
I don't think so Reine. You're the brightest star in our firmament and you are usually spot on. I'm just an old cynic.

[tinachristina]

Busker, I'd like to propose a different way of looking at this, albeit with a second-wave feminist slant :)

I don't look at it as the masculinization of women. I see it as a return to the natural woman, free of adornment, the way she was born to be, beautiful in her own right and allowed to enjoy doing all the things that she's good at! :D

We're not born with makeup on. :)

Frédérique, I feel awkward posting so much in your thread, but you're being so silent and there are just too many good things to comment on!

:hugs:
Reine
Women here in India were/stil are known for their high degree of femininess. Our mothers, sisters and wives are you can call feminine to the core. They are the ones that are in forefont of all the festivals. Infact festivals happen because they dress up,do things and make them successful. Men also do their best but are no match for women who are amazing managers I would say. I am surprised by their ability to do so many things in a constraining environment. Till my sisters generation, I say girls had been able to hold on to their feminineness.
Sadly, if you look at working women, they are not very different from men of today. Infact, it was my wife who commented on some women's faces looking like men because of that artificial mask they have to live with . It is a men's world( kind of manipulative , full of attitude, I totally dislike) and if a women wants to be up there , she has to be like men. So you have women who behave exactly like men and in the process almost become one(except physically). And we call such attitude as "professional". And it leaves people ( both men and women) like me who want to do things in a real consensual way ( not might is right or us vs them) to fend for themselves.

Having said that , I think even if women do look beautiful naturally and should all be free of accessories of any kind, some kind of addition sometimes add glamour to life. Even a goggle is form of accessory which enhances the look of a person and probably gets some more self confidence in him/her.

I believe that women have been mascularized because it is how world expected them to be like . Its difficult to make people believe if you appear and behave as feminine and weak and take hard decisions. But you know what is the good part , I have seem many women ( not mascularized ) who do take hard decisions and I think they are the ones to be saluted.

[Debutante]

I agree so much with Frederique!
Forgetting the negative masculine traits and asserting one's feminine ones is
a source of strength, and requires strength. The world needs more of the nurturing, compassionite, creative and loving feminine... as was done in the days of Goddess cultures. If we are born with these gifts, we must embrace them, bring them into the world, without fear (and without naivete), and chose the feminine as the better qualities. I feel this and have felt this for years....

[ReineD]

I believe that women have been mascularized because it is how world expected them to be like . Its difficult to make people believe if you appear and behave as feminine and weak and take hard decisions. But you know what is the good part , I have seem many women ( not mascularized ) who do take hard decisions and I think they are the ones to be saluted.

I believe there is a baseline for all of us, which is simply to develop naturally as humans, from birth. Educators say there is not a great deal of difference between male and female brains in the classroom environment.

Cultural norms encourage the development of masks, but this goes both ways: for men, it is the machismo, and for women it is ultra femininity. I don't know why this is. Perhaps it is developed in order to attract and keep mates? But whatever it is, it is exaggerated, in my view ... on BOTH sides. So, when you see a woman at work who levels off the playing field by not overly adorning herself, I do believe she is being true to her natural core. She was not born wearing makeup and jewelry, and she has a brain and skills that she enjoys using. She also enjoys the feeling of empowerment she derives by freeing herself from men's physical shackles and being the independent woman she was born to be. She is not masculinized, no more than the men are feminized who relate to her and respect her opinions. In this environment, everyone is functioning on their baseline.

Is a female surgeon any less feminine because she enjoys saving lives? Or a female professor, because she enjoys research and teaching? No. She is reaching her full potential as a human being. It's called self-actualization.

The notion that women lose femininity when they use all their talents was developed by men who did not wish to share the world's assets with them. It's been easy for men to believe that a woman's place is to look pretty and be barefoot in the kitchen, since until the last century or so, the world was a place where physical strength counted more than it does today with the advent of modern technology.

The notion that women are masculinized smply because they are no longer the poster girls of the 50's is rooted in CDer fantasies, I'm afraid. :)

Having said that, we women are born in the same world as you. We also have been subjected to cultural influences, we are also bombarded daily with iconic women in the media, and we also do enjoy putting on the pretty and being sexual. But this doesn't mean we are masculine when we take it all off to go to work, just as a man is not less masculine when he doesn't have a beard, beat his chest, and shoot game in the forest to bring home to the supper table. :p

Edit

Frédérique, I seem to be taking over your thread, and I am sorry. It's just that I have a different view than many members here from my GG perspective, and I think it's important to put it out there, to level the playing field somewhat. I hope this is OK. :)

This a very good topic and I'm so grateful that you brought it up. :hugs:

[busker]

So, when you see a woman at work who levels off the playing field by not overly adorning herself, I do believe she is being true to her natural core. She was not born wearing makeup and jewelry, and she has a brain and skills that she enjoys using. She also enjoys the feeling of empowerment she derives by freeing herself from men's physical shackles and being the independent woman she was born to be. :hugs:

Reine, it seems my reply to F's post has put you on the defensive, and that was furtherst from my intention.
I don't think that I or Tinachristina are saying that women cannot be themselves and yes, they are every bit as good as men at the jobs the undertake to do. I was trying to address the MANNER in which things are done--NOT the ability to do them. I have no interest in demeaning women and I'm certainly not fantasizing about va-va-voom girls of the 50's, though I admit it is dificult resisting a smile when i see a picture of Sophia Loren--she was and still is a very attractive woman.
When I was in grad school (1970's), I had some women professors that were every bit as good as their male counterparts, but they all were a reflection of the male-dominated academe, and therefore I saw them as "masculinized" by the society in which they worked. It didn't mean that they couldn't be or weren't feminine, it is just that they didn't present themselves as particularly feminine. Their approach to teaching was very "masculine" in that kind of "drill, baby,drill"attitude as in routines that one came to expect from the men. There was no "lighter" or "different" touch that I could associate with "a feminine way". It didn't mean that I didn't have respect for them, or appreciate their accomplishment, it simply meant that I didn't necessarily see them as feminine--except for my Italian teacher.
My now ex-wife helped me get through graduate school, and in turn, I helped here get through grad school to achieve her goals. She is a very successful artist today in her own right and would have been without me. If there were shackels, they weren't mine. I'm not into s&m.
Also, I think that you may be making a generality here, in that not all women are up to the course, so to speak. You are clearly educated, intelligent, enlightened and certainly know how to present yourself, but you belong in a smallish group of women and cannot speak for all them, anymore that I can say that all men are GREAT, simply because they are men.. :love::hugs:
Plus je connais les hommes, plus j'amine les chiens.!

ps. Frederique, now see what you've gotten us into!

[ReineD]

Busker, I'm not on the defensive at all. I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas in this thread tremendously. I used the term "shackles" figuratively, trying to embellish my writing. lol By shackles, I was referring to women's past repression in our culture before gaining the right to vote, and also the opression that is very much alive today in other parts of the world .. in Afghanistan for example.

Your female professors in college - they were simply delivering the material using the methods that were considered tried and true for the times. I don't think they would have thought they were teaching in a masculine way. They were just trying to do their jobs the best they could, and get all you students to cover the material in the most efficient way. :)

I also had a career during the 70s. I suppose people could say that I was masculinized, but I just tried to present professionally. It was just about getting the job done. I wore mostly skirts and heels because it was my personal choice, but pant suits would have done just as well. The men I worked with didn't seem to care any more about what I wore than I cared about their wardrobe choices. lol

I am also trying to explain my baseline approach to gender, which I know is a different concept to femininity than most CDs have. I'll tell you a GG secret ... most of us who are past the mate seeking stage don't get all dolled up just to sit pretty and hang around. We do when we feel like it, but it's not our "default" mode. Lord knows there are many CDs in this forum who will agree with me. I don't live in a major city where perhaps women dress more, but around here, the malls are filled with regular, garden variety women in jeans and sneakers who look presentable, and to me they look feminine (I know they are women), but they are in their baseline, "default" modes. I'm sure they don't even come close to thinking they are masculinized.

In response to your last paragraph, I do consider myself to be average, when I look around at my friends, neighbors, the other moms as school. These women are out there working because they need to, but also because it brings them a sense of self-fulfillment, especially if they've trained for their jobs. They do appreciate being able to stay home with younger children, but something lacks in a woman's life after the kids are all at school and her life continues to revolve around the needs of others. It's not uncommon for her to lose a sense of herself.

But, we digress ... this thread is supposed to be about masculinity, although around here, I guess it's all related. :)

[Lara Smith]

I guess I'd have to say yes, they do, especially if you include conversation in behavior. That may not be universally true, but it is pervasively true in more than a few male sub-cultures.

I would have to agree with you here...men are completely different in the company of women in general. Especially if they are the only male in a group of women.



I am also trying to explain my baseline approach to gender, which I know is a different concept to femininity than most CDs have. I'll tell you a GG secret ... most of us who are past the mate seeking stage don't get all dolled up just to sit pretty and hang around. We do when we feel like it, but it's not our "default" mode. Lord knows there are many CDs in this forum who will agree with me. I don't live in a major city where perhaps women dress more, but around here, the malls are filled with regular, garden variety women in jeans and sneakers who look presentable, and to me they look feminine (I know they are women), but they are in their baseline, "default" modes. I'm sure they don't even come close to thinking they are masculinized.


This is the norm where I live also. Women still look feminine even in jeans and sweatshirt and hiking boots...and that is standing still! The moment a woman moves there is no doubt about her gender. Saying this...it is so very difficult for the prettiest and most well dressed men to look like a woman. But a woman can be dressed in what is considered the manliest of clothing, and still be no doubt a beautiful and feminine woman...chopping wood, fixing the jeep...whatever...hmmm. I have always been in the second group of men mentioned in this thread topic. But I never felt the need to dress to express those attributes...they were simply a part of me. Dressing was a thing apart altogether. I finally figured out that for me dressing was a severe femininity fetish. I loved women and their bodies and their ability to express themselves visually so much, that I wanted the same. Once I explored the trappings of femininity fully...I was even more hooked than I was the first time I tried on a pair of women's underwear for no good reason when I was in pre-school...but that is off topic and a whole different story.

I also wanted to say I have many male friends who strictly fall into the first category. Ultra male, very macho guys. I don't hang with them a ton because a little goes a long way...and I very much prefer the men who are more like me. No, not CDs. But guys that fall in the second tier. I feel more than a little sorry for my macho guy friends because their life is so shallow and limited compared to the second tier guys. And I will say this...in the mean they seem very much more angry and frustrated than second tier guys who seem to be much more easy going and prosaic in general...and more fullfilled and happy too.

[sometimes_miss]

I would say that I don't think much has changed. Women are still attracted to the same characteristics they always have been. There does arise a conflict, when she realizes that the guys she's attracted to aren't necessarily good for her, but that doesn't stop the attraction to them, nor does it necessarily cause any change in what she finds attractive; very often, I've seen women who've been abuse by a guy try to date a 'nice guy', but find that there's no interest in him. 'Nice guys', without any alpha male characteristics, are nearly always still forever stuck in the friend zone. Feminine characteristics in a male basically turn off any sexual attraction in most women.

[tinachristina]

I believe there is a baseline for all of us, which is simply to develop naturally as humans, from birth. Educators say there is not a great deal of difference between male and female brains in the classroom environment.


At the risk of sounding argumentative, I would take the educators and experts opinions with a pinch of salt. In my opinion, the individual consciousness is not developed at so much at very young age to merit any difference between the boy and girl. So essentially the difference are mostly biological. But there is a marked difference between a teenager girl and boy. And most of it cannot be attributed to just "classroom" or "peer" factors. The way our bodies develop differently is because the way our head functions differently. No doubt that there is an impact of surroundings but it cannot change the way we are set up genetically. If you compare for e.g. heights of two individual, they are a function of their genes+nutrition. Now here the genes do play different parts.
I am not suggesting that one sex is smarter than the other, just the way they are wired differently.There are clearly identifiable traits such as playing with dolls and guns. Not to say that there are no exception but it is a general trend.

But I do believe that other than core traits there are definitely cross-traits from other gender indicating that no one is 100% male or 100% female. We all lie in a gender spectrum somewhere. On a general rule however, I feel there are easily quantifiable traits of individual sex.



Cultural norms encourage the development of masks, but this goes both ways: for men, it is the machismo, and for women it is ultra femininity. I don't know why this is. Perhaps it is developed in order to attract and keep mates? But whatever it is, it is exaggerated, in my view ... on BOTH sides. So, when you see a woman at work who levels off the playing field by not overly adorning herself, I do believe she is being true to her natural core. She was not born wearing makeup and jewelry, and she has a brain and skills that she enjoys using. She also enjoys the feeling of empowerment she derives by freeing herself from men's physical shackles and being the independent woman she was born to be. She is not masculinized, no more than the men are feminized who relate to her and respect her opinions. In this environment, everyone is functioning on their baseline.

maybe true. But then if we all function on baselines, we would live in a perfect world. It would be like efficient market in finance. And men do not for a moment judge women by the amount of accessories she wear. And that is why I said that you can wear a lot of makeup but still possess masculine traits. This is however not the masculinity I was talking about, however


Is a female surgeon any less feminine because she enjoys saving lives? Or a female professor, because she enjoys research and teaching? No. She is reaching her full potential as a human being. It's called self-actualization.


Self actualization is independent of the trait. An at home mother or a construction worker father can have self actualization. It has got nothing to do with the fact that if they are in so called gender opposite roles. Self actualization happens when you see the world as it is without "worrying" about wrongs or rights.




The notion that women lose femininity when they use all their talents was developed by men who did not wish to share the world's assets with them. It's been easy for men to believe that a woman's place is to look pretty and be barefoot in the kitchen, since until the last century or so, the world was a place where physical strength counted more than it does today with the advent of modern technology.

The notion that women are masculinized smply because they are no longer the poster girls of the 50's is rooted in CDer fantasies, I'm afraid. :)

Having said that, we women are born in the same world as you. We also have been subjected to cultural influences, we are also bombarded daily with iconic women in the media, and we also do enjoy putting on the pretty and being sexual. But this doesn't mean we are masculine when we take it all off to go to work, just as a man is not less masculine when he doesn't have a beard, beat his chest, and shoot game in the forest to bring home to the supper table. :p



I would say that is a little biased towards women. You need to give credit to men too for their contribution to rise of women kind. After all there were certain men ( and women ) in our societies that allowed the oppressed ( which include groups other than women too) to be liberated. I am sure you agree that there are parts of the world where men do not allow women to reach their aspirations and fulfillment.
And if I take men's baseline to fulfill aspirations such as career goals, I would definitely say that many women have abandoned their "feminity" to get to where they are ( many have not , those I like and that includes makeup wearing and non wearing. ) Just putting the makeup does not make anyone "feminine".

[ReineD]

It has got nothing to do with the fact that if they are in so called gender opposite roles.

I also don't want to seem argumentative, and with all due respect, I take this comment to be chauvinistic. :) I'm not insulted by chauvinism. We are simply debating a point.

I just don't understand why so many CDs view certain articles of clothing, or certain jobs, as being strictly in the men's domain, hence the assertion that when a woman wear pants, or chooses to develop her career, she has abandoned femininity.

The times have changed and the gender divide in terms of jobs and family roles has narrowed in our culture. This doesn't mean that women are any less feminine even if they don't wear makeup, or that men are any less masculine when they are awarded custody of their children.

I understand a CDer's point of view when she wants to maintain the gender divide and believe that non-CD males are insensitive louts, and that women should conform to the ultra feminine ideal presented in the media. But, please consider this may be a form of rationalization, since CDers need to appear ultra feminine in order to mask their male physiognomies. Also, CDers are more obsessed with femininity than the average person. But please understand that other people in our culture see women more at their baseline than some CDers do.

[Tima]

I just don't understand why so many CDs view certain articles of clothing, or certain jobs, as being strictly in the men's domain, hence the assertion that when a woman wear pants, or chooses to develop her career, she has abandoned femininity.
The times have changed and the gender divide in terms of jobs and family roles has narrowed in our culture. This doesn't mean that women are any less feminine even if they don't wear makeup, or that men are any less masculine when they are awarded custody of their children.
I understand a CDer's point of view when she wants to maintain the gender divide and believe that non-CD males are insensitive louts, and that women should conform to the ultra feminine ideal presented in the media. But, please consider this may be a form of rationalization, since CDers need to appear ultra feminine in order to mask their male physiognomies. Also, CDers are more obsessed with femininity than the average person. But please understand that other people in our culture see women more at their baseline than some CDers do.

You could easily discuss a “New Femininity” in this regard. It is indeed a mistake to consider a “modern” woman to be less feminine, at least in a historical context. I see no withdrawal from femininity in any woman I’ve met, but one person’s idea of femininity is another’s betrayal, at least in regards to appearance and/or thinking. There is evolution going on, all around us, and the speed of change is dizzying. I’m actually surprised that this exaggerated gender divide is even discussed these days, so prevalent is the retro-thought that passes for so-called intelligence. A woman is going to be a woman, and a girl is going to be a girl, and expectations from the phallo-centric world are going to dictate appearance. Individuals will emerge and break free. People, by and large, want to know what they’re dealing with, so even the most liberated woman will dress like a (male idea of a) woman – I know there are women who turn away from expectation, but femininity remains, like a latent characteristic, whether she wishes it to or not. In the same way, I don’t wish to acknowledge my masculinity, but it’s there, and it can be useful at times – luckily, I am allowed to escape from it as often as I can.

But, it is also a mistake to say that CD’ers “need to appear ultra-feminine” to mask their physical male characteristics. That may be true to some extent, but there are all types (and levels) of crossdressing appearance, and I would hate to feel that others see my presentation as some kind of exaggerative display, trying to hide the obvious. I wouldn’t say I’m “obsessed” with femininity, either, but I am obsessed with the modifying virtues that femininity can impart to masculinity. This is not meat-and-potatoes MtF crossdressing, for a sexual thrill, or a quick giggle, but it is more like a process of sculpting one’s psyche with unwieldy materials. The parts, male and female, are there, attempting to be harmonious, so you might as well blend them together and try to achieve a cohesive whole. One's appearance can be seen as an afterthought, a product of expression, and, in my case, it fits no prejudicial parameters that an outsider may recognize. Maybe I’m lucky, or just over-sensitive on this issue, but I don’t like generalizations about males, females or crossdressers. Not fitting into a pre-determined mold is desired and interesting, requiring individuality and a certain amount of courage. You can be female, yet be male, and you can be male, yet be female, and dress accordingly. Not being female by birth, I would not presume to understand this womanly “baseline” you are referring to, but at least I recognize and acknowledge it. Ultra-femininity is not my cherished goal, since it is not a true representation of how I feel, or how I wish to feel. I would rather be M+F and go about my business as a human being – this combination, a “new” masculinity, is under-appreciated in our polarized world. Old habits die hard, I’m afraid.

[Lara Smith]

I also don't want to seem argumentative, and with all due respect, I take this comment to be chauvinistic. :) I'm not insulted by chauvinism. We are simply debating a point.

I just don't understand why so many CDs view certain articles of clothing, or certain jobs, as being strictly in the men's domain, hence the assertion that when a woman wear pants, or chooses to develop her career, she has abandoned femininity.

The times have changed and the gender divide in terms of jobs and family roles has narrowed in our culture. This doesn't mean that women are any less feminine even if they don't wear makeup, or that men are any less masculine when they are awarded custody of their children.

I understand a CDer's point of view when she wants to maintain the gender divide and believe that non-CD males are insensitive louts, and that women should conform to the ultra feminine ideal presented in the media. But, please consider this may be a form of rationalization, since CDers need to appear ultra feminine in order to mask their male physiognomies. Also, CDers are more obsessed with femininity than the average person. But please understand that other people in our culture see women more at their baseline than some CDers do.

I have to agree with everything here. Except with my spouse and the 3 GG's I have shared my dressing with, I have always been very private about it. It is very personal for me, and I have never and will never feel the need to dress in public or pass, even if I could do so easily (Moot because I can't). I do wish I could freely walk about my home or go to my detached garage or whatever in my own space without reservation. For me, if I can wear a cami and nice panties under my regular guy's sweathshirt and Wranglers and stand in a pair of mules while going about my business in my home, then I feel very womanly...and probably pretty close to the baseline in question. I also feel very satisfied with that. And no matter how much I feel like a woman sometimes, or love the feel of purposely female clothing on my body, it is not important to me pass or be seen in public or be accepted as a "woman". I may be very different in that aspect of my CDing, though I have been there for more than 50 years. Though on many levels I understand the desires, I find the needs of many CDs often intensely self centered, vain and selfish and lacking in the traits they believe to be espousing the most when enfemme. Please forgive me for that if you are offended by it, it is just my opinion and worth exactly that much. We as humans are mostly only slightly defined by our gender, no matter the physical trappings applied to it. What really defines us is our character, our word, and our values, and how we treat and nurture the rest of the human race. It isn't what we look like or what we wear. It is what we say, what we do, and how we act that define us as human beings, regardless of gender.

[ReineD]

Maybe I’m lucky, or just over-sensitive on this issue, but I don’t like generalizations about males, females or crossdressers. Not fitting into a pre-determined mold is desired and interesting, requiring individuality and a certain amount of courage.

I couldn't agree more. And all your other points are well taken. I do apologize, to you and everyone else reading this thread, for saying that CDs overcompensate on the femininity scale; I should have said "perhaps some" and it should have been in the form of a question. I am well aware that our community members are varied and my own SO also sees herself as M + F, like you do.

When I made that statement, I was attempting to understand the motives some TGs have when they overly segregate certain aspects of gender and when they believe that women are masculine if they do not strive to conform to a certain beauty ideal.

So, if you'll allow me a "redo", let me replace my sentence with " ... since perhaps some CDers prize ultra femininity as an ideal they wish to emulate, in order to make the jump from looking like a man to looking like a woman."

[tinachristina]

I also don't want to seem argumentative, and with all due respect, I take this comment to be chauvinistic. :) I'm not insulted by chauvinism. We are simply debating a point.


I knew the classic word was coming up. This is an example of how words can shape up an argument. In my defense I don't know what I said termed Chavunistic. If every argument ends with these "words" then it is not a good conversation practice I suppose.



I just don't understand why so many CDs view certain articles of clothing, or certain jobs, as being strictly in the men's domain, hence the assertion that when a woman wear pants, or chooses to develop her career, she has abandoned femininity.

I am sorry I never said anything like that. What I meant was simple.
1) I never said that when women choose career they lose feminity. That is your conclusion. I am just talking about the phenomenon that is happening . And let me clear about definition of feminity ( my version). It is same as caring, loving and sharing. It has got nothing to do with career. So a caring father is also partly masculine and partly feminine while a mother who goes on the work wearing pants or dresses or whatever also possess feminine and masculine qualities
2) You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that having a job is masculine or working from home is feminine. Please read my posts once again. I talked about the core traits that we cannot run away from. Other than that we are a mix of multiple characterstics. Some of them are inclined one way or the other . Please take the gender quiz at BBC site , I am sure even you would not come out 100% female.
3) My father has treated my sister and me on equal footing. I am proud of that and I would do the same. If my son wants to become a nurse, I would let him be. If my daughter wants to become a soldier, I would not stop her. To me there is no job that either sex cannot do.



The times have changed and the gender divide in terms of jobs and family roles has narrowed in our culture. This doesn't mean that women are any less feminine even if they don't wear makeup, or that men are any less masculine when they are awarded custody of their children.

I dont disagree with anything here. I just said that pretending is harmful. You talked about self actualization in your last post and I said it is different from the how feminine or masculine you are . But I have seen many women in office take up mantle of persons who they are not. It might be conscious or not conscious but it is equally harmful to behave like men they are working with


I understand a CDer's point of view when she wants to maintain the gender divide and believe that non-CD males are insensitive louts, and that women should conform to the ultra feminine ideal presented in the media. But, please consider this may be a form of rationalization, since CDers need to appear ultra feminine in order to mask their male physiognomies. Also, CDers are more obsessed with femininity than the average person. But please understand that other people in our culture see women more at their baseline than some CDers do.

Assumptions. I donot want to maintain the gender divide. I want men to be sensitive caring and expressive about the feelings. I feel many times we are told to man up and you know by whom "Our own mothers" who are women, feminine too.
Also I do not think non CD males are " insensitive louts". I have seen many men whom I do not suspect of being CDs as more caring and loving that some of the women I have seen. What you are saying is based on your opinion of CDs and not from a mouth of a CD ctually. Most of us like feminity and even obsessed, but seriously once I knew who I was I never needed to rationalize any of my feelings

[Alice Torn]

Reine, Great posts, and Denise, too, and others! Poet and Men's Movement leader Robert Bly wrote several books about men, including "Iron John." Many other books werre wriotten during the 1990's, about men. One was called, "The Angry Man", by David Arterburn. The baby boomers were the first generation of the begtime sexual revolutions. In my opinion, it messed us aLL up. But, we hopefully learn from it all. Codependent Anonymous is a good thing, for us people pleasers! I go to Adult Children Anonymous, too. During the 1940s and 50s, women were put on a high pedastel, in music and songs, and society, This reached fever pitch, in the 60's. Songs worshipped the females. Females got sick and tired of it, and rebelled, stopped wearing dresses much, got sick of all the unwanted male attention. So, men became unwanted, and unneeded. So true, that society "devalued men". Many boys and men are starved for love, but hide it under the tough exterior. Many turn to alcohol and drugs, to quell their lonliness and pain, and sorrow. There just is not much real love in this world. Men need to stop looking at women as sex objects, and women need to stop looking to men as success objects! Mutual respect and love is needed. CDing, is often, men becoming the nice looking lady, they are starved for, among other reasons, such as healing their greif, rejection, solitude. And of course, some of us just like the look and feel of lady clothes, the excitement of them! But, society today definitely greatly prizes the female, and has been greatly confusinng and devaluing the male.

[tinachristina]

I would say that I don't think much has changed. Women are still attracted to the same characteristics they always have been. There does arise a conflict, when she realizes that the guys she's attracted to aren't necessarily good for her, but that doesn't stop the attraction to them, nor does it necessarily cause any change in what she finds attractive; very often, I've seen women who've been abuse by a guy try to date a 'nice guy', but find that there's no interest in him. 'Nice guys', without any alpha male characteristics, are nearly always still forever stuck in the friend zone. Feminine characteristics in a male basically turn off any sexual attraction in most women.

In my opnion you are correct to large extent. I once told a female friend of mine that I am a CD. Before that she was interested in me but after that she was gone( though she is back after four years of rumination).
However many times, women do find CDers interesting and if they are open minded they will accept and enjoy with you. The great part about women is that they symapthize fast( at least most of them ) and if they like you there is no end to what they will do for you.
How I know this? I have one of them as my wife and she is great.

Fantastic points from you.

[Alice Torn]

One more thing. Our society, still tends to equate masculinity, with macho warriors, sports stars, boxers, tough guys. One friend i had years ago, calls it, the "satanic man". Men who are basically gods, who need no Higher Power, no sensitvity, get what they want, crush their enemies. Now, there is a time for such maleness, but, it sure should be almost never. Women, in general, have become harder and tougher emotionally, too! It is a crass society. Sensitive men, especially in hardnosed blue collar work, do have a tough time, feel like Lone Rangers. I know, because i have always been sensitive, and worked around cussing, belching hard guys, on blue collar jobs, but mainly in the past now. At 12 step meetings, I speak my mind, but cding, i don't talk about there. Our big city brutal society, has hardened the hearts of all of us some, but , out in the country,and small towns, it is even worse, in some ways, and more macho, and intolerant. Tough world!

[pattyv]

Well, when it comes to myself, if I could wear my skirts hose and heels, as a male, openly without fear of my reputation taking a hit in the career field I am aiming for, then my wanting to express my "feminine" side would not be. The only reason I would go out fully CDed trying to pass is so I could wear those items of clothing I like to wear, but for the most part am forbidden.

Jive Turkey is a grand example for what I shoot for, though of course mine would be of a gothic nature.

Gender roles have been outdated for the most part, and the remnants of them I think are a key factor in much of the strife in our world.

This morning Good morning America had some male fashionista that was showing these "male" fashions for holiday parties. OMG boring. Really really boring. It was essentially a variation in the shirt worn with the usual suit. Instead of a solid colored shirt and tie, basically the outfit's change was replacing the shirt with a "festive" plaid shirt, and a festive tie.

There was one outfit that had 100 dollar skinny jeans that looked like pure garbage.

This is the nonesense I want to break free from, and sooooo wish more people would. I want my variations to consist of a change of more than just my shirt.


Pythos-you have expressed my thoughts exactly.

[Satrana]

Great thread everyone, lots of knowledgeable and rational thinking going on here.

I think this thread is important because it deals with a subject rarely discussed - the role of masculinity and how it affects the creation of CDs.

I believe it is an examination of masculinity that provides the key to understanding MTF CDing. You see although there can be multiple reasons why a boy may get into CDing, the majority seem to tell a similar story. Most say that they were never exposed to situations which forced them or introduced them to the idea of becoming a girl. Most say that they had never once thought of the notion until one day somewhere between the ages of 8-12 they did. In fact becoming a girl was the worst imaginable thing that could happen to a boy. Clearly they cannot have been born transgendered since they would have been expressing this need throughout their entire childhood. So how to explain the sudden appearance of this need seemingly out of the blue?

A big clue is found in looking at what happens to some girls at around this age. For a year or two some girls temporarily become tomboys - they reject female clothing, reject the idea that they will become sexual and claim no interest in marriage or becoming mothers. What this indicates is that when children reach an age where they are capable of understanding the true impact of gender roles and are increasing subject to the pressure to begin the transformation into an adult, some pause and reflect. The immediate future may look less than appealing so these girls flee from their gender roles and become tomboyish. For sure the same questioning goes on in the minds of some boys but there is no evidence for this. Why?

Unlike girls, boys feel inhibited from talking about feelings. It is considered a sign of weakness. Boys don't cry, boys don't admit to feelings of being afraid. Secondly unlike girls boys cannot become tomgirls and express these feelings through their appearance. So boys do what boys do - they internalize their doubts and apprehensions. So for many CDs the origin is based on a flight from masculinity - specifically the tough, mean, nasty, brutal, over-competitive machismo that teenage boys are drafted into.

To avoid this troubling future boys begin to fantasize they can escape by magically becoming a girl either by a pill or being forced or tricked. Ask a 10 year old boy how to make a boy turn into a girl and he will say put him in a dress, make-up and wig. So that is what young fledgling CDs do - we imagine ourselves dressed as girls, imagine what the clothes feel like, imagine how others must treat us differently. Becoming a girl means we can continue being sweet, innocent, care-free children and avoid the machismo behavior we don't care for. It is an exciting adventure into an alternative universe and we develop an alternative female "me" in our dreams to explore this new world.

And when puberty arrives our escapism fantasies become sexual fantasies and the whole CDing experience gets linked to pleasure seeking. We oppose efforts to brutalize us but we understand we have to play along to a certain degree to fit in and not be bullied or identified as a sissy.

It has already been said that machismo men are just hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities behind a mask. Men naturally have all "feminine" feelings and behaviors since we are all human and share these equally regardless of physical gender. So a confident man would drop the machismo BS and openly show his softer side for everyone to see. And of course many men do in fact do this. You certainly do not need to CD in order to do so but when you are 10 years old this is totally beyond your comprehension. A boy's apprehension over masculinity is addressed by developing a psychological tool of escapism which over many years,reinforced by his sexuality, becomes interwoven with his personality so that it becomes inseparable.

As a result CDs find it hard to express anything feminine in male mode. Partly because they are afraid that this would somehow reveal their CDing secret, and partly because they relate feminine feelings and behaviors solely with their female alter ego. That to me is pretty sad.

It is a shame that the machismo role model remains intact and more importantly remains the goal of transforming a boy into a man. It does not just mess up our lives as CDs carrying a guilty secret, but it messes up non-CD men as well, and society at large.

[Alice Torn]

Satrana, well said.

[ReineD]

1)So a caring father is also partly masculine and partly feminine while a mother who goes on the work wearing pants or dresses or whatever also possess feminine and masculine qualities

Tina, I'm sorry for using the word chauvinistic. I looked it up, it does mean a bias towards men and I know you did not mean this. I was trying to use a word that meant segregating gender in terms of attributing qualities and roles as being gender specific, as you do in the above quote by saying that each gender has masculine and feminine traits. I see the traits as being just human: gender independent. I believe that a father who is caring is not partly feminine. He is a good parent. Same with a woman who wears pants or takes on an authoritarian role at work. She is not tapping into her inner masculinity. She is rather expressing one of the many different human qualities that she does possess.

Satrana (as usual :)) said it better than me when describing men:



It has already been said that machismo men are just hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities behind a mask. Men naturally have all "feminine" feelings and behaviors since we are all human and share these equally regardless of physical gender. So a confident man would drop the machismo BS and openly show his softer side for everyone to see. And of course many men do in fact do this. You certainly do not need to CD in order to do so

[Debutante]

Thank you for bringing this issue up, Frederique!
I have ordered the book... I am especially interested in femininity-masculinity interconnections...

[busker]

chauvinistic. I looked it up, it does mean a bias towards men
:

If I am not mistaken, the term comes from the name of a Frenchman NICOLAS CHAUVIN, who was very nationalistic, hence the term really means someone who is excessively patriotic (he was realyl keen on Napoleon) And in France or La France (feminine nown), it would seen if anything to go more towards women rather than men.

[ReineD]

I saw that too. :) But in the past, I'd heard it used by feminists to explain (I thought) men who preferred to segregate women from their domains.

I did use the term inappropriately, as explained in my post just above and if I could take it back a million times, I would. I know that CDers here do not by any means believe that men are superior to women. If fact, quite the contrary. But I get the impression there is a tendency for some CDers to want to separate gender roles or rather to see them as being quite distinct, and this is what I was trying to address. The gender gap is narrowing in terms of jobs and family roles, even in terms of clothing when it comes to our seemingly new national androgynous look of blue jeans, sneakers, and Tshirts, and what was once considered strictly a male or a female domain simply doesn't apply any more, or not nearly to the same degree.

The differences between men and women are rather physiological in my view. It's a matter of biology, with all the hormones and brain chemistry that goes with it. IMO the gender divide has nothing to do with anyone's ability to be a nurturing parent, or to be a team leader at work.

[busker]

Reine, I think that it is a matter of how dictionaries hijack certain words and they become the more commonplace usage. It's like "awesome". People use it so frequently, that they wouldn't have a word for something that is truly awesome.--like the power of the A-bomb.
Yes, chauvinist -e.g. male pig-- is used by women who want to express their disgust at men's attempt to corral them into little niches, but whoever identified that as a "cause to have undue attachment to" should have been horsewhipped. It has totally ruined a perfectly good word.
That way, Men can be chauvanists in the appropriate sense and still like women for who they are.:2c:

[ReineD]

Yes, chauvinist -e.g. male pig-- is used by women who want to express their disgust at men's attempt to corral them into little niches,

That's certainly NOT what I intended when I used the term. I should know better, but sometimes I do use words when I think they mean a certain thing, even if they don't.

Note to self .. always double check the definitions. :p