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

[Avana]

Seems you're missing the point here, which is, you do see men in skirts. I was never arguing the case that all men in skirts need be super masculine, I'm certainly not. You named three different types of men in skirts here. Regardless of their sexuality, can we agree that these groups of men were not wearing skirts ten years ago?

i did not contend that 'all men in skirts need be super masculine'. i just said that i've never seen super masculine men wearing skirts in any appreciable amount, especially not men wearing skirts and walking around with their girlfriends.

I don't think the number of skirts among more feminine and or gay men where I live is appreciable either. And it's certainly not going to be a trend any time soon any more than sequin jackets or zebra striped leggings, or fabulous headdresses.

And what does the wearing of a 'utility kilt' really accomplish? It's still defined as a male article of clothing. Show me a masculine guy wearing a lace skirt to his first date with a woman and I'll say that's something. When men are flocking to stores to get in on the 'girlfriend trend' then I think we have something.

[t-girlxsophie]

There is only one type of presentation that offends my sensibilities: the representation of woman as purely a sexual object. By this, I mean the CDers who sexualize the CDing in public. You know the type: short, short skirts, stilettos, fish nets, plunging necklines.

Thought would inject some levity into things.Better never find yourself out on the town on a Friday night in any Northern UK city Reine (unlikely i know),that would knock your sensibilities for six and thats just young girls(not CDers),won't mention what you'll see the blokes doing LOL

Sophie

[ReineD]

You mean like this?

Attachment 159800

I know. If a hooker wants to make her life that way, she's completely free to do so. If a CDer wants to hang out that part of town dressed like that and try to get Johns, that's his prerogative too. That's not what I was talking about though.

[Pythos]

OH I WOULD SO WEAR THAT!!!........with a longer skirt, and more fancy top. LOL.

My old saying though is, it is only the clothing of a hooker, because only hookers have the guts to wear it.

(that skirt is waaaaaay too short though)

[JiveTurkeyOnRye]

i did not contend that 'all men in skirts need be super masculine'. i just said that i've never seen super masculine men wearing skirts in any appreciable amount, especially not men wearing skirts and walking around with their girlfriends.

Um, I never said you said that, the line you are quoting was in reference to my side of the conversation not yours.

And what does the wearing of a 'utility kilt' really accomplish? It's still defined as a male article of clothing. Show me a masculine guy wearing a lace skirt to his first date with a woman and I'll say that's something. When men are flocking to stores to get in on the 'girlfriend trend' then I think we have something.

So let me get this straight, if I may. More feminine men in skirts, who may or may not be gay, isn't appreciable to this conversation, In which I was talking about the way the images of men have changed just in the course of my own lifetime. Do they not count as "men" then? However, on the flip side, the fact that a skirt exists that is fully manufactured and marketed and distributed to masculine men, also doesn't accomplish anything, because it's not from the women's department of a store?

I really don't know what your point has been in either of your responses to me. In speaking of the Utilikilt brand, I was responding to the OP, who was specifically talking about the likelihood of the more aggressive, macho males in society wearing a skirt, as guys in skirts, as opposed to being androgynous or en femme. I cited an example of a brand that markets to exactly that. How do you honestly think that saying that it's still defined as a male article of clothing dismisses that point? That's exactly the point, it's a skirt defined as a male article of clothing. This is a modern skirt that is designed, manufactured, and marketed specifically to macho men.

Now, to Reine:

I know. If a hooker wants to make her life that way, she's completely free to do so. If a CDer wants to hang out that part of town dressed like that and try to get Johns, that's his prerogative too. That's not what I was talking about though.

Sadly, Reine, I think Sophie was talking more about non-working-girls just done up for a night on the town or going clubbing.

(Also, you can just call me Rye, that's my name.)

[ReineD]

Clubbing? Oh, OK. lol. I see the college girls in my town dressed like that too. That's not what I meant in my description either. Maybe I should have found a pic.

[Gillian Gigs]

Pythos said,"My old saying though is, it is only the clothing of a hooker, because only hookers have the guts to wear it".
So what is the average CD looking for when they dress? I think that this is where the problem often lays. Guys are on the lookout for the sexy and provocatively dressed female so they can oogle them. As a generalization, they get upset when they are deceived into looking at a CD who has gotten them to look. The more conservative approach tends to get noticed less. So does the CD want the attention, or not? Getting the attention may get undesired results, and women have had to deal with this for years.
Personally, I go with the age approprate dress mode, I am not 22, so I don't try to dress that way. What I do behind closed doors may be something different. I have given strong consideration to getting a kilt. Why, one I have the heritage, and two I wish to have the freedom to dress in a way that I do not have to worry about anything else other than from the waist down. Skirt, kilt whatever, but the kilt is more acceptable. Seems like a good option to me!
Any kind of clothing, male or female, can have a very sexual conotation behind it, and that is why that person may be dressing that way. Like the fisherman, the type of fish that you want to catch depends on the type of bait you are using. So, whether you are in guy, or girl mode, what are you fishing for????? If men are being men, then they will be looking for something to look at.

[Avana]

I really don't know what your point has been in either of your responses to me.

I'm relating the discussion to the original topic, which concerns "The ever present want of clothing styles and choices to be equal among the genders, no matter the sex of that person."

So I am saying it's all well and good that there are 'utilikilts', but just because they only have one hole for the legs doesn't automatically make them the same as a female cut/styled skirt or represent true clothing equality. It's still 'separate but (possibly) equal'. Those utilikilt guys would never wear a fringed black flapper skirt. Boys wearing the same dresses as ladies are still going to get beat up and pushed into lockers. I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with that if I were a man looking for clothing equality. (which is what the original topic is about)

And this whole discussion is relative to cultural fashions - In the hotter places of the world, such as certain African countries and India, men and women both wear skirt-like or dress-like garments. Yet the difference between male and female in those places is still just as marked for those cultures, and wearing the opposite sex's fashion would still be considered cross-dressing.

[Pythos]

I personally dislike kilts, or kilt like styles. But that is me. I do wish more men WOULD try them and wear them, cause for many, the curiosity of how a more fem style would surface, and overall the idea of men wearing skirts....ANY kind of skirt would be fully accepted. Those who wear pants 3 times too big for "the room", would realize skirts are far far better than pants dragging you down. LOL.

As to what I said about "hooker styles". I find it very very sad that women feel the need to hide so that they are not oggled at. This is why I wished boys in schools were made to at least once a month wear skirts so that they would know how it feels to have their skirts flipped, or later on get stared at like a piece of meat. Now, that does not mean I would like that aspect of life to be eliminated, I like to look at pretty women, BUT, and this is a big but, I do not STARE at them as if they are a piece of food (I saw one guy of my shop crew just glaring at a beautiful girl walking by us, his look frankly gave ME the creeps. Oh, and she was not in a short skirt, but instead she was wearing slightly baggy jeans and shirt. So for many men it only matters 'It" is a woman that is walking by. I swear though he looked like a predator or rapist.

[JiveTurkeyOnRye]

I'm relating the discussion to the original topic, which concerns "The ever present want of clothing styles and choices to be equal among the genders, no matter the sex of that person."

But see, you're quoting a line that itself was being quoted from another thread. It was a point being made by someone that was a jumping off point for the OP, but wasn't actually the purpose of the OP's post. In that post, she wrote about the typical young male she'd find in middle America, and then then she cited an example of male aggressiveness that she encountered, and made the following two statements about them as:

Guys who I could be pretty certain would reject the notion of wearing a skirt no matter where it was sold and how "male" it was marketed... All I could think about "aggressive man" was that beside the fact his behavior was absolutely stereotypically pig-male, he too would not be likely to shop the local WalMart for a new skirt.

So in my original reply, along with a lot of other points, I referenced a brand of skirt that appeals to exactly that type of group of males. Their market is still a fringe one, absolutely, I'm not denying that, but they are only gaining popularity and momentum, not losing it. It was one point being made amongst several others, and yet you seem to have isolated it and applied it to everything that was being said rather than just the one specific point it was being cited against.

So I am saying it's all well and good that there are 'utilikilts', but just because they only have one hole for the legs doesn't automatically make them the same as a female cut/styled skirt or represent true clothing equality. It's still 'separate but (possibly) equal'. Those utilikilt guys would never wear a fringed black flapper skirt. Boys wearing the same dresses as ladies are still going to get beat up and pushed into lockers. I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with that if I were a man looking for clothing equality. (which is what the original topic is about)

But I never made the claim that it did represent true clothing equality. Personally I'm not a big fan of Utilikilts. I wanted one when I was younger and still nervous about the idea of going out in skirts as a man, but at this point their fan-base and insistence on this overly aggressive machismo puts me off.

Is it a fringe flapper skirt? No, you're right. It's not even the madras skirt and black pantyhose with a v-neck t-shirt and grey boots that I wore out on tuesday night, while still presenting as male. Or the blue dress with black boots that I'm wearing in my avatar picture. I never said that the existence of Utilikilts means that equality is here or that boys won't get picked on for being too feminine anymore.

But it's a start.

Clubbing? Oh, OK. lol. I see the college girls in my town dressed like that too. That's not what I meant in my description either. Maybe I should have found a pic.

No, No, I get what you meant, we've all seen pictures or experienced the tendency of some crossdressers to exemplify women in a very objective, sexual way. It bothers my sensibilities too, feels very misogynistic to me. But I've certainly seen plenty of girls hitting clubs here in LA in pretty much the same clothes.

[Avana]

But see, you're quoting a line that itself was being quoted from another thread. It was a point being made by someone that was a jumping off point for the OP, but wasn't actually the purpose of the OP's post.

The title of this thread includes the phrase 'androgyny in the mainstream'.

There's nothing androgynous about kilts or utilikilts. They are male articles of clothing.

[Sara Jessica]

The title of this thread includes the phrase 'androgyny in the mainstream'.

There's nothing androgynous about kilts or utilikilts. They are male articles of clothing.

True but I think it's fair to say that utilitarian styles such as these are valid points of discussion because 1) they are still skirts 2) they are nowhere near mainstream at this point.

[Frédérique]

Personally I'm not a big fan of Utilikilts. I wanted one when I was younger and still nervous about the idea of going out in skirts as a man, but at this point their fan-base and insistence on this overly aggressive machismo puts me off.

[SIZE="2"]Yes, you see this ultra-male “stance” on these modern kilt sites – the men are always firmly entrenched, legs apart, arms folded across their chests, unrepentantly defensive and defiant. I DO NOT wish to be one of them. Sport Kilt has the same ambiance, using all varieties of accepted male behavior to push their products. What if a more “delicate” male wishes to wear something a little less male to express himself? No doubt he will encounter the aforementioned manly male-ness he’s actively trying to avoid, and perhaps think twice about a kilt being a viable option…[/SIZE]

There's nothing androgynous about kilts or utilikilts. They are male articles of clothing.

[SIZE="2"]What about kilts made for females? I have a few of those (see my profile picture)…

I used to say that kilts are (invariably) MALE articles of clothing, no question about it – I mean, these are obsolete battle garments, incorporated into everyday fashion because of their looks, but their present, accepted, ceremonial presence is largely due to past (male) glories. However, I now see them as skirts (see below)…[/SIZE]

True but I think it's fair to say that utilitarian styles such as these are valid points of discussion because 1) they are still skirts 2) they are nowhere near mainstream at this point.

[SIZE="2"]They are not mainstream at this polarized point in time, where all displays of anti-masculinity are subject to censure. In order to wear a kilt these days, a male needs to magnify his manliness, almost daring a person to say something, and having the strength to back up his convictions. Meanwhile, a male like me would like to wear a kilt devoid of any historical trappings and EXPRESS myself by being different from the other males. I agree with Sara – if you wear a kilt as a skirt, it becomes a skirt, in fact I want it to be seen as a skirt by all, since it tells people that I am taking advantage of this “loophole” in male clothing, effectively crossdressing. You could debate this idea endlessly, since the kilt IS a male garment, yet it resembles a skirt, and 21st century individuals are not interested in splitting hairs when it comes to issues of effeminacy…[/SIZE]

[Avana]

[SIZE="2"]What about kilts made for females? I have a few of those (see my profile picture)…[/SIZE]

if they weren't, you wouldn't have to qualify it with 'made for females'.

[Asche]

In direct contradiction to Pythos, I have to say that we do live in a gender binary world and I don't see it disappearing, no matter how much we ... would wish it were otherwise.

If the gender divide were caused by an overly strict and stereotypical gender socialization mechanism and if it did not sit well with most of these male-socialized men, believe me there would be a much greater segment of the male population wishing to break free from it in adulthood.

It's not that simple. In order to "wish to break free," one has to first of all imagine what breaking free would mean. I do find that there are a great many men who are dissatisfied with what they have turned themselves into, especially as they get older, and you can hear a lot of them express it. But most don't have a clear idea of what exactly it is that they're dissatisfied with. They don't rebel against the masculine role because they don't have enough insight into themselves to recognize what it is that they are dissatisfied with. (BTW, does anybody remember "the problem that has no name"?) They don't have the insight because they've been trained their whole lives that it's bad to look too deeply into yourself.

Even if they do ever realize that that is what is bothering them (or a part of it, anyway), where do they go with it? The only obvious alternative role that they see is the one assigned to females. But that is a huge jump, with enormous costs.

Much of the support that masculine men get from each other and even from women is based on their playing their role. There's no small amount of policing of men who stray from the path, both from people whose sense of self and security is based on maintaining racial, gender, class, ethnic, religious, and you-name-it boundaries, and from those who don't actually need those boundaries but are afraid of becoming outcasts for failing to defend them.

It's easier for people like me, who never fit in much at all, to decide to go my own way. Most people never accepted me anyway, and most of those who accepted me before I started to walk around in skirts still do. But I never had drinking buddies, never had guys who I "bonded" with or had farting competitions with or who I talked about getting laid with, or any of that stuff. I never felt all that at home in men's groups, and I still don't. So I didn't have that much to lose. But those who have all that will be very reluctant to give it up simply to "be themselves", especially if they don't know that they'll be any happier for it.

It's particularly hard for men, because men are used to being the ones who society caters to. Giving up masculinity (the stuff that the OP was talking about, and what underlies it) means giving up masculine privilege. By contrast, when women rebel against the feminine role, it is about getting more privilege -- more autonomy, better pay, less being pushed around, etc.

Nothing will ever take away the fact that most boys want to be boys and most girls want to be girls (even if said girls wear blue jeans). It is not a stupid notion. It is simply a fact of life.

Most kids want to be whoever or whatever they're supposed to be. That much I think is genetic, and I think for obvious reasons: if children were not driven to absorb and take on the roles and expectations of the society they grow up in, there would be no continuity of the society. If there is one constant in the human species, it is that humans live in social groups, each with a social structure that perpetuates itself even as members die and are replaced.

This isn't 100%. I have a son who has Asperger Syndrome, and a degree of autistic spectrum runs in both sides of the family. But in trying to understand what goes on with him, I've come to realize that most people (not just children) have a strong unconscious drive and ability to become what the people around them expect them to be, and one difference between him and "normal" people is that either the drive or the ability (maybe both) is a lot weaker in him. It isn't until you spend a lot of time with someone (like my son) who isn't that way to appreciate just how strongly society influences not only what we do, but who we are.

It is very, very hard to appreciate how much influence society and its expectations have on us, or how different we might be if the expectations were different. Athropologists describe societies which don't expect women and men to be all that different (aside from their duties), and they see that the men and women don't in fact act all that differently. However, it's hard for us to experience this, because it's almost impossible to find a society that isn't heavily overshadowed by what we call Western Society. Anthropologists have had to seek out very isolated small tribes, and there aren't any any more.

Yes, you see this ultra-male “stance” on these modern kilt sites – the men are always firmly entrenched, legs apart, arms folded across their chests, unrepentantly defensive and defiant. I DO NOT wish to be one of them. Sport Kilt has the same ambiance, using all varieties of accepted male behavior to push their products.

I've visited some kilt websites. (Try "X marks the Scot", not sure of the URL.) You can get testosterone poisoning just looking at it. There's an enormous fear of being seen as in any way feminine. (Typical quote: "Why do they call it a 'kilt'? Because you get 'kilt' if you call it a skirt.") Guns and fighting are popular topic. Mention of righ-over-left kilts or pictures of men wearing an unapproved length of kilt are popular occasions for dogpiling.

It's pretty obvious that kilts raise all kinds of anxiety about loss of masculinity in many of the guys who wear them and many who don't.

They are not mainstream at this polarized point in time, where all displays of anti-masculinity are subject to censure.

For my college reunion, I made a kilt from our class reunion fabric. Aside from having pockets (and being made out of cotton print instead of tartan wool), it was a very traditional-looking kilt. I had a guy (around my age) come up to me and commiserate with me, assuming my classmates had forced me to wear it because I'd lost a bet.

But I think it's also a generational thing. When our class marched bast the other classes, the people from younger classes (2000 and younger) routinely gave me high-fives and cheers (and free beers.) And the "X marks" crowd appears to be more my age.

[JiveTurkeyOnRye]

I've visited some kilt websites. (Try "X marks the Scot", not sure of the URL.) You can get testosterone poisoning just looking at it. There's an enormous fear of being seen as in any way feminine. (Typical quote: "Why do they call it a 'kilt'? Because you get 'kilt' if you call it a skirt.") Guns and fighting are popular topic. Mention of righ-over-left kilts or pictures of men wearing an unapproved length of kilt are popular occasions for dogpiling.

It's pretty obvious that kilts raise all kinds of anxiety about loss of masculinity in many of the guys who wear them and many who don't.

I was never hardcore enough for "X Marks the Scot," but I used to post on Skirt Cafe, and before that, a site known as "Skirt lover's nest" which was around all the way back in the 90's. I found I fit into those sites better before I started actually getting comfortable with wearing skirts in public and seeing what it really felt like for me to do so. It was a nice place to post when I was still scared, but once I got my own courage, I started to feel less like I fit in.

I feel still like a lot of the guys on those sites are really scared of being seen as feminine, there's a whole camp calling themselves "Bravehearts" that I just have never seen eye to eye with. We used to clash over my occasionally slipping the word "crossdress" into a conversation, and I finally parted ways with them after there was a whole brouhaha when I questioned the removal of a post from their "Fashion Freedom" topic board that was about wearing women's jeans.

For a group advocating men's fashion freedom, it felt like the gang was very close minded to anything that didn't fit their own narrow image of what fashion freedom meant. I can only imagine the fuss they'd raise over the outfits I've been wearing the last few months.

[ReineD]

It's not that simple.

I think it is, in my original context. The world that I live in is mostly binary. The majority of the men that I know do not wish to cross the gender barriers in terms of altering their presentation to appear more feminine. You don't know me, but this is not a comment about whether or not anyone "should" cross the gender barriers or boundaries. I am fully supportive of anyone honoring their gender affiliations, no matter their chromosomes.

In order to "wish to break free," one has to first of all imagine what breaking free would mean. I do find that there are a great many men who are dissatisfied with what they have turned themselves into, especially as they get older, and you can hear a lot of them express it. But most don't have a clear idea of what exactly it is that they're dissatisfied with. They don't rebel against the masculine role because they don't have enough insight into themselves to recognize what it is that they are dissatisfied with. (BTW, does anybody remember "the problem that has no name"?) They don't have the insight because they've been trained their whole lives that it's bad to look too deeply into yourself.

Younger males might be more afraid of 'appearing' more feminine or gay than their peers by making public their desire to decorate their bedrooms or by sharing their feelings with other males (that they don't know ... see below for more) for example. But, this is understandable during a time when they are establishing themselves among the male pecking order. More mature and confident men (in terms of attitude as well as in chronological age) do not feel as if their masculinity is threatened if they allow themselves to develop their artistic sensibilities, or show their feelings. At least, this is what I have witnessed among family members and friends. I also know quite a few men who make no apologies for not being interested in sports or cars but instead follow their other interests. Many men have just as strong opinions as their wives as to what color to put on the wall, or what furniture to choose, or the proper way to cook a certain dish, and they can be just as emotional watching commercials about puppies. Honestly, I've seen this multiple times and this is why I feel that as men mature, they move away from the more stringent "if I want to be respected by my peers, I must behave in this or that way" rule.

Even if they do ever realize that that is what is bothering them (or a part of it, anyway), where do they go with it? The only obvious alternative role that they see is the one assigned to females. But that is a huge jump, with enormous costs.

I've seen no evidence of this among the men that I've come to know. Admittedly, men do give themselves permission to show their softer sides to women (even in their teenage years) and maybe this is why you and I disagree, since obviously I'm not in the room when there are only males present. Maybe men know how to change their attitudes depending on whether they are with close friends or a room full of potential competitors. The ability to do this might be just one of the rules of engagement, and it may not be a big deal to them. I really don't think that men are permanently "stuck" in overly macho behavioral patterns, especially as they gain maturity. But, this may vary depending on their socio-economic milieus. I don't know.

Having said this, I have three grown sons (and no daughters). Over the years my house was the 'hang out' place for countless all-nighters. I've witnessed the boys being there for one another emotionally when one or the other experienced difficult circumstances such as family or girlfriend troubles. I've seen my sons give advice and feel sad for their friends. I've seen them go shopping with their buddies for that special shirt and tie, and cologne, in addition to hearing them talk about which girl was the hottest and the coolest car to have. But, these boys knew one another well, had bonded, and they were all good friends. I'm sure they didn't exhibit as many vulnerabilities on the football field with the rest of the team.

Much of the support that masculine men get from each other and even from women is based on their playing their role.

How can this be true? In modern marriages, dads are expected to help with the kids and housework, and working moms have an equal voice in the family's finances, decisions as to where to move in order to follow career paths, etc. Men and women each bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the relationship and they each rely on each other for different things. If a man should lose his job, the wife will be the strong one, and vice versa for example.

It's easier for people like me, who never fit in much at all, to decide to go my own way. Most people never accepted me anyway, and most of those who accepted me before I started to walk around in skirts still do. But I never had drinking buddies, never had guys who I "bonded" with or had farting competitions with or who I talked about getting laid with, or any of that stuff. I never felt all that at home in men's groups, and I still don't.

Had you felt more comfortable being with guys, do you think you would have bonded with them enough to feel comfortable showing your more human vulnerabilities, like my sons did? (Although I understand not feeling safe enough to dress in front of them since this is a boundary that IMO most men do not wish to cross). I don't want to dismiss your experiences, but if you never got close enough to men in order to see their softer side, then how can you say it doesn't exist or that they are afraid to show it to the people they are close to?

I do see men as having multiple facets, the softer more emotional sides as well as enjoying competition in areas that interest them. So, why would they feel as if they need to be more feminine in order to be themselves, if they are not transgender?

[Fab Karen]

Freedom is a matter of perception. It is more a condition of mind than an actual physical state. What binds us from being who we are is often an internal problem rather than an external one. We are often prisoners, inmates of penitentiaries made from hardened steel and stone, winthin our own minds. The elusive key to our freedom must be found from within not without.

Right on, very true.


"The more anyone tries to push a change on society, the more society pushes back, rejecting that change."
Imagine if black people in this country had listened to that kind of thinking, where would they be now? Or women? Gay people? They have shown us how it's done.

On the topic of men, Reine has made some excellent points showing that not all men are knuckle-draggers who for example have farting contests ( personally I have never seen such things with guys even among boys ), or ( if heterosexual ) only view women as pieces of meat. As with any category you can name, the more we generalize, the further we get from the truth.

[DebsUK]

Well 'm joining the thread late (been away for a bit, see below..). Apologies also for not grasping a lot of the issues raised in this thread (three pages worth, srsly? )

I've been in the gender wilderness for the last couple of months. CD? TV? TG? Dunno, but just couldn't be bothered to do the whole dressing thing since about Feb. Why? No idea, but it's how I've felt. On the other hand I've still been trying to be more andogynous. I still have been growing out my hair, keeping my nails long (no polish though), occasionally wearing tinted moisturiser and stuff. See, I want to be me, and the internal "me" is kind of not male nor female per se. Obviously the external "me" is male, though I'm small and slight so I have a fairly androgynous shape. The style I aim for is "androgynous skate-punk lesbian". Maybe not the most appropriate look for a young-looking 43 year old man, but that's part of my dilemma. Androgyny in women is acceptable. Androgyny in guys isn't. One of my role models is one of the instructors at my gym: quite butch, short hair, generally androgynous but definitely proud of being female. OK, I can't claim the proud of being a girl thing, but I still admire her androgyny and see her look as something to maybe not aspire to, but perhaos be inspired by. It's so much easier for girls though. Wear a pair of chinos? That's the trend. I wear a pair of girls' trousers and I'm a pervert, and that's just my wife before I leave the house (actually, she's not that bad, but you know what I mean).
Funnily enough, not especially apropros, yesterday at the gym after classes my wife and me were chatting to a couple of friends (women). They are going to a fitness weekend soon along with another friend from our classes who happens to be agay man. This weekend has a fancy dress do and this year's theme is school days, so he opted to be a headmistress, but is having trouble deciding on an outfit. Now, if it were me I'd be a schoolgirl (NO WAY would I want to present as a fusty, middle-aged spinster ), anyway, the thing is, my friends were making fun of the fact he had to go and choose a dress, and the awkwardness that would cause. Again, gender boundaries coming to the fore. I know they'd still accept me if I said "actually I have a couple of dresses he can try", but I think I'd be looked on as more of a joke figure as a result. Is this about status? I wonder. I mean, I said I've nothing to prove, but maybe if I admit I wear dresses, or that I'm TG in some way, they think less of me, Is that an issue for some or for me?

The point I think I'm trying to make is I'm proud to be transgendered in some way. I'm happily married, I've got nothing to prove as a guy (which relates nicely to Reine's post about young guys needing to assert themselves and older guys not). I've never been the alpha male, never will be, but I'm now realising I never wanted to be. I don't have to fit into a gender stereotype mould. Don't get me wrong, the pendulum will swing back to me wearing dresses (October seems to be the tipping point, go figure), but the move this time is less than las time I lost the urge, my only obstacle at the moment is not being arsed to get dressed

Apologies if this is a little incoherent, or a bit stream of conciousness, but there are loads of issues this thread raises

[Erika_bagels]

What about kilts? I've always had a manly penchant for plaid, ruffled skirts, whether they be on myself (with fur sporran and tartan tam-o-shanter), or on japanese schoolgirls (with sailor bib and long white stockings). I can see what Reine means. Even when a manly skirt is available, I'd pick the manly skirt for manly days, because a short, flirty one would still earn me a proper beating in the right alley.

[Sweet Sabrina]

Originally Posted by

"Frédérique
View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Add as Contact Send Email

A quiet girl...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date:Sep 2006
Location:Lindsborg, Kansas, USA
Posts:1,542 Originally Posted by Sara Jessica
Men being men part 2 .... the dark side
I admire your bravery, Sara – you’ve started this thread on one of those special days set aside for the glorification of masculinity. I came out of my closet of solitude to reply! I recently wrote a thread about male behavior, specifically the “dark” yet whimsical side of manliness, but I didn’t dare to submit it for reasons that will soon become clear. Anyway, well done…"

My Reply:
As I read this reply, I can only assume you are referring to "Memorial Day". I would hardly consider this a glorification of masculinity. The holiday was established to remember the sacrifices of those men and WOMEN who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the ideals and values that we as Americans hold dear. If you think that simply because you are in the military you have some over developed sense of masculinity, I think you have a lot to learn. As a veteran, I have seen first hand that the military is very diversified when it comes to it's members. While until recently, hiding your sexual or dressing preferences was the norm, nevertheless, we were there. I cannot speak for all those who have served but for me the reason I enlisted had nothing to do with my masculinity. It had to do with what I considered a duty and a responsibility to protect and preserve the country that has provided so much to us all. I know this might sound like an angry reply but it is not meant to be. It is meant to enlighten. Simply because one joins the military does not mean they are hellbent on guns and glory. Generalizations are the worst things people can do to one another. Thanks for listening to my rant

Scott. USN 1991-1995

[Sue101]

If the gender divide were caused by an overly strict and stereotypical gender socialization mechanism and if it did not sit well with most of these male-socialized men, believe me there would be a much greater segment of the male population wishing to break free from it in adulthood.

I will agree with Asche and say it is not that simple.

Just some points to consider.

1. Everything you observe in male and female behaviors are after the fact, meaning everyone has already been thoroughly brainwashed into their gender socialization behaviors. Sure there are variations and rebels but there is no way to ascertain how masculine the average male would be if he grew up without this rigid gender structure because they are no examples out there you will encounter.
2. Science has looked at gender behavior and conducted numerous experiments and studies. There are plenty of books about this you can read. Science has a hard time finding any basis in believing that gender behaviors are based on genetics. Pretty much everything you assume an average male to be defined as appears to be based solely on the gender socialization. Look up the science.
3. Gender socialization does not just affect children. Everyday, every hour we are being bombarded by numerous signs and situations that reinforce the binary system. It is constantly being reinforced so only a concerted effort can break through it - meaning a man must WANT to be feminine in order to overcome the mental roadblocks.
4. If the traditional female socialization mechanism was so strict and unpalatable then why did the feminist movement only appear in the 20th century? There should be a long history dating back to the beginnings of human civilization of women protesting their role and demanding to break free and acquire male roles. This is not so because women did not think there was an alternative. The same is true of men today - men don't want femininity because they believe this is not a viable or desirable alternative behavior - because they were brought up to think this way and without a masculist movement to open their minds this will remain so.
5. The old social movement equation. Society understands why women would want to "improve" themselves by becoming more masculine but society thinks men moving down the social ladder by becoming feminine is a perversion of human nature. By nature, we seek to improve our lot and be more successful. Men wanting to become more feminine goes against this most elementary rule.
6. Masculinity is actually defined by being the opposite to femininity. A masculine man has no feminine attributes. Masculine men are successful in business and with the opposite sex so there is no glaring advantage why a man would want to develop feminine attributes when this would shatter the masculine aura and so is clearly disadvantageous.

The point is you believe boys want to be boys based on your observations of males who are being controlled by the factors listed above and are unable/unaware that they have a feminine side and it is ok to express it except in specific situations like being with a girlfriend. The only males you know who actively want to pursue feminine behaviors are crossdressers and sometimes gays. For every other male the mere thought of developing femininity is an immediate turn-off. You say girls want to be girls but I don't think that is the case anymore. Girls want to be girls and boys at the same time.

[Asche]

I will agree with Asche and say it is not that simple.

Oh, it's so nice to feel every now and then that someone thinks that something I say isn't crazy. I'm used to always being the one with ideas that don't make sense to anyone else....

4. If the traditional female socialization mechanism was so strict and unpalatable then why did the feminist movement only appear in the 20th century? There should be a long history dating back to the beginnings of human civilization of women protesting their role and demanding to break free and acquire male roles. This is not so because women did not think there was an alternative.

Actually, there have been individual women through history who have objected or rebelled against the roles they were forced into. What is unusual over the past 60 years or so is that the majority of women (in Western society, at least) have stopped going along with large parts of the role. I've read that there were mini-feminist movements in the past, such as in the mid 1700's and another one (in the US, at least) in the mid-1800's. And the suffragettes in the 1920's.

My own theory, for what theories are worth, is that it has to do with security. For most of human history, one's very survival depended upon the active support of people one was closely connected to -- family, tribe, village. To have a role -- any role (even slave) -- was to have some security in a dangerous world. I don't think it's a coincidence that modern feminism arose during a time and place of unprecedented prosperity and social mobility (the 1950's-1970's in Western society.) Civil rights for African-Americans first gained real ground during this period, too.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a certain social retrenchment started in the 80's and 90's not long after the economy went into its long slow decline and the social safety net started to unravel.

The point is you believe boys want to be boys based on your observations of males who are being controlled by the factors listed above and are unable/unaware that they have a feminine side and it is ok to express it except in specific situations like being with a girlfriend....You say girls want to be girls but I don't think that is the case anymore. Girls want to be girls and boys at the same time.

My own view is that "masculinity" and "femininity" are purely social constructs. We are not born linking liking pink or lace or horses with "female" or liking cars or playing football with "male." What's more, the variation among men and among women is far greater than the difference between the "average" man and "average" woman. It is our culture that defines certain characteristics as "masculine" and "feminine." IMHO, what is happening with girls is not that they "want to be girls and boys at the same time," but that as feminist ideas become rooted in our culture, girls are feeling more free to express their characteristics without regard to whether society labels them "masculine" or "feminine" than they were when I was growing up. For instance, there were plenty of rough tomboy girls when I was growing up, but now some of them are feeling free to demand the opportunity to play tackle football.

I am seeing some signs that some groups of boys in my sons' generation are feeling freer to express characteristics that would have been labeled "girly" or even "sissy" when I was their age, but I don't know how widespread it is or whether it's growing. If there is a change, I suspect it will happen over generations -- assuming things don't happen that would reverse the trend.

[ReineD]

Sue & Asche, we'll simply need to agree to disagree. I do not believe that gender is a pure social construct.

I do believe gender identities are reinforced (and also some gender roles but this is decreasing remarkably), but they reinforce something that is there to begin with. How would nature ensure the propagation of our species if it favored gender neutrality? These are deep questions and I suppose I could take a week (or a lifetime ) to conduct research, but I don't have the time nor the current resources to do it properly.

I just know the little things. For example, I have 3 boys. I was determined to raise nurturing, feeling human beings. They did not go to public school, but to a Montessori school where everything is gender neutral, from the age of 18 months. There was an elaborate Playmobil dollhouse that I volunteered to bring home once in order to put crazy glue on all the joints, that the little ones kept taking apart. It was at my house for months. My sons and I played with it and they loved it because here was the world they saw around them reflected in miniature. I did not allow guns in my house. The toys were zoos, circuses, lots of art materials and books, no popular culture male character toys, etc. All their friends also went to Montessori. The dress up box had loads of different things it it, with some things specifically for boys but most of it was gender neutral.

Well, guess what? They would go outside and make their own guns out of sticks. They would play aggressive games with their friends. They would tie each other up to trees. Girls don't do this.

Also, if gender were a social construct that CDs and TSs don't "fall for" then how come there are not more CDs and TSs?

I posted in another thread today, I do believe traditional gender roles are narrowing in the workforce and at home. Dads and moms both do yard work and household chores. They both have university degrees and they both work side by side in the workforce. Male nurses or flight attendants are more common now as well. Yet, the males do not "feel" more feminine, nor do the females "feel" more masculine in these jobs or activities. Men enjoy ballet, the arts, the theater, and women enjoy sports. They both like to cook. When men and women date, they each take turns picking up the tab. Gender identity is so much deeper than what someone does for a living, the pastimes they engage in, and what chores they take on at home.

I know the idea that sometime in the future men will universally want to break out of the restrictive masculine chains that have been "forced" on them and will therefore embrace and accept a more feminine style of presentation may be appealing to CDers who have felt society's bias all their lives, but I honestly do not believe this is a realistic outlook of things to come. And this is because gender roles are narrowing (AND NOT gender identities which is separate from the roles). Things have relaxed considerably from 60 years ago, they continue to relax even more, yet outside of the trans community, boys still want to be boys and girls still want to be girls. At least this is what I have observed in the many different places I have lived among the hundreds of people I have known, in the dozens of different social contexts.

I am not at all saying that transpersons need to conform to the cis world. I am saying that I do not believe it is realistic for transpersons to believe that the cis world will disappear when society stops imposing all these "fake" gender constructs on men. If non-TG men felt so constrained by these constructs, they'd buck the system royally, just like the women did at the turn of the last century when they demanded equal rights.

What we do have now are dads clamoring for fairer divorce and custody laws. They want custody of their kids and they don't want to pay alimony. And the trend is going their way, together with the narrowing gender roles in the workforce and at home that enable women to support themselves and enable dads to take care of their kids. But, this does not make these dads feel more feminine or want to present in a more feminine manner.

[Sara Jessica]

Nothing like the real-world experiences to drive a point home Reine, so very well stated. I did a similar thing in describing some of these gender role things that had to do with my little girls.

I know the idea that sometime in the future men will universally want to break out of the restrictive masculine chains that have been "forced" on them and will therefore embrace and accept a more feminine style of presentation may be appealing to CDers who have felt society's bias all their lives, but I honestly do not believe this is a realistic outlook of things to come. And this is because gender roles are narrowing (AND NOT gender identities which is separate from the roles). Things have relaxed considerably from 60 years ago, they continue to relax even more, yet outside of the trans community, boys still want to be boys and girls still want to be girls. At least this is what I have observed in the many different places I have lived among the hundreds of people I have known, in the dozens of different social contexts.

And this pretty much sums up this thread in a succinct paragraph.