|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:07 AM February 9th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
men in Europe often wore skirts and pantaloons until the time of the French Revolution, when pants became the expected masculine attire. Others pointed out that Scottish men have donned kilts for centuries.
Would You Do the Same For a Man?
I once saw officers assisting a couple of homeless women, while I was picketing the Gov't Center. There were plenty of men around who they were doing nothing for so I spoke the above words.
I don't think I'll be putting on a skirt anytime soon, even though I live in L.A. Just not my cup of tea.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am scottish, I believe in my heritage as well as playing the bagpipes.
I own an expensive kilt which when I am dressed up I think that it looks good.
My friends have told me many of the dispariging comments, that have been said about me for wearing my kilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:41 PM February 9th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if I wore a traditional breech-cloth (loin cloth) and buck-skin leggings to work...?
Nice and comfy, those, free and easy, oh yeah!
(^_^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:21 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
Sounds very practical, comfortable, and liberating. I suspect radical feminists would find something wrong with it, because that's just what they do.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
yeah. according to the fembots, if a man is doing it, it MUST be wrong... No matter what it is he's doing.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He also wore some knee socks or something. It was a bit weird. The knee-socks I could have done without. Nevertheless, he still look hot!
Artists can get away with a lot more than regular people. Did you see some of the outfits other male "artists" were wearing at the Grammy's? A skirt would have been an improvement for most of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:37 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Did you see some of the outfits other male "artists" were wearing at the Grammy's? A skirt would have been an improvement for most of them
Thanks Lorianne, but I prefer this look:
PROPER GENTLEMAN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just can't get myself worked up over this one. Having worn theatrical costumes that FAR to closely resembled a dress (complete with matching tights), I can comfortably say I like wearing pants, pants are practical and comfortable, and I simply can't fathom wearing a skirt or dress on any regular basis. Perhaps a kilt, with the right undergarment. But no dress, thank you.
Sorry, guys. You're just not gonna get me excited about this when there is so much more pressing business to be pursued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, speaking as someone who wears a kilt at least once a week to work, and often outside of work, I prefer kilts to pants. I find them more comfortable and convenient. To each one's own, I guess. As long as everyone has the same option, that's all that matters.
However, what I wanted to really say is that I also find wearing a kilt to be a great opportunity to talk to people about gender double standards. I get more flak from women than men, usually, and the question that gets asked most often is "Are you wearing your kilt the right way?" or "What are you wearing under your kilt?" Keeping my sense of humor, I will generally respond by asking them if I could ask them a personal question in return. They often don't want to open that particular door, so then I talk to them about why they would feel comfortable about asking such a question of a man, when they would find an analogous question posed to themselves to be rude or grounds for sexual harrasment charges. As long as the conversation remains easy and humored, they're generally open to discussing the topic, which can lead to all sorts of discussions about men's issues. I've had a few people who have told me that they would never have thought about it, if the situation hadn't come up.
Anyway, the issue of clothing freedom might seem like a small issue, but it can open the door to other topics. It's an issue that people can see much more easily and at least sparks the idea.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey Severin, are you any relation to jay severin, a talk show host in boston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:54 AM February 9th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't about the right to wear kilts. It is a much broader issue. The reality is that both genders traditionally had constraints which dictated how they could present themselves. Women have totally discarded these constraints. Men are still bound by these constraints.
Appearance is all about power eg it will greatly increase your chances of getting a particular job and of advancing in a job. Skilled use of cosmetics can make a woman look 20 years younger. However, it is "unmanly" for a man to attempt to similarly improve his appearance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't get the impression that the article was talking exclusively about kilts. While I've not encountered a kilt at work, I've encountered them at Irish festivals and events near home. And I don't think most of society (at least locally here in central NJ) is particularly offended by kilts. But I have the impression that this article was more about men dressing less in traditional garb than embracing what is regarded as distinctly feminine attire.
We tend, here on this site, to stand our ground against repression of masculinity and over-feminization of men and maleness, particularly in public education. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we MUST stand against this acceptance of men wearing feminine dress. But what we SHOULD do is inquire where the support for this is coming from.
"About 100 men in minis, midis and even tutus ..." shouldn't cause much of a ruckus in New York, and really wouldn't be front page news in NYC (whereas it might be in Des Moines, IA). Consider that it's the Associated Press that's posting this story, and consider what might be their motiviation to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't get the impression that the article was talking exclusively about kilts.
No, it's not talking about kilts, specifically, true. But, I also don't think that wearing dresses, per se, suggests a repression of masculinity, or feminization. Instead, I see it as a broadening of the concept of masculinity, where men are given the choice to decide for themselves what is comfortable and expresses whatever they want to express, just as women do. I believe that repression of masculinity occurs when we tell men what is "masculine". Wearing more traditionally masculine clothing, whether it be flannel shirts and jeans, coat and tie, or whatever, should be just as acceptable a form of masculinity as wearing a dress.
But what we SHOULD do is inquire where the support for this is coming from.
Can you be more specific as to what you're curious about? I'm honestly not sure what difference it makes.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last question first:
I think many would agree that most of the news services, excluding talk radio, Foxnews, and elementson the Web, exhibit a socially liberal P.O.V. Perhaps they're too lenient with corporate interests, but I think all of them are guilty of that. My point is simply that this is a non-story, except that it fits the redefinition of masculinity that seems to be one of the planks of the anti-male agenda. Therefore, AP picked it up because it fits their social agenda.
Follow-up point:
"I believe that repression of masculinity occurs when we tell men what is "masculine".
You're welcome to your point, but I disagree. Masculinity and femininity are distinctly definable qualities, though I might agree that the definition of a man might not require that he be masculine. I do not regard kilts as feminine. But don't put on the latest Halston dress, complete with Victoria's Secret lingerie, Gucci heels, and Byzance perfume and expect me to buy into your definition of that as masculine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Masculinity and femininity are distinctly definable qualities"
I'am sorry but i have to dissagree with you on this. The way i see it, the definition of masculine and feminine, although different, are individualy determined. that is what is manly to one man might not be to anther, for instance some men might consider it masculent to ware a neck tie, but i don't beacause i consider it a sign of slavery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, to each his own. Just don't show up in my company dressed as such and expect me to regard your dress as masculine. And I have to say that should you show up at my kid's school and try to sell that P.O.V. that I would also protest loudly.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:50 PM February 9th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this all illustrates an interesting point.
Isn't it funny that when a woman wears "men's clothing" she's a "FASHION STATEMENT".
But if a man wears "women's clothing" he is automatcaly a transvetite...?
...'the hell...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I have to say that should you show up at my kid's school and try to sell that P.O.V. that I would also protest loudly.
Fair enough. You have the right to protest. And I have the right to wear a Halston and heels, if I want. Of course, I wouldn't wear a dress like that, though. I don't really have the figure for it. Maybe a nice peasant skirt, though, they're much more forgiving.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it funny that when a woman wears "men's clothing" she's a "FASHION STATEMENT".
But if a man wears "women's clothing" he is automatcaly a transvetite...?
Yup. Weird, ain't it?
Women wear slacks or jeans to school outings with children, wear their hair short or long as they choose, wear makeup or not, and no one bats an eye.
A man wears his hair long and wears a sweater that some would consider too "feminine" and wears some tasteful makeup and all of a sudden he's a "danger to the children" and an "outrage". Anybody know whatever happened to that father in Missouri?
No dress code for women, but severe dress codes for men. Yup, that's fair.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you're not speaking to what constitutes "manliness" ? I think that masculinity and femininity are qualities that are pretty well defined. That's where you and I seem to disagree, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you're not speaking to what constitutes "manliness" ? I think that masculinity and femininity are qualities that are pretty well defined. That's where you and I seem to disagree, I think.
I guess it really depends on how you define "manliness" vs. masculinity. I think, for me, they're tantamount to the same thing, and that they are pretty subjective, and not that well defined. The way I think of it is this: a dress designed for a woman might not work on a man because it isn't designed for his physiology. However, a dress that takes into account those physiological differences might work. Honestly, a kilt is nothing more than a skirt that is designed to work with a man's physiology.
Is a kilt masculine or "manly" because it is designed to fit a man from a biological standpoint (narrower hips, for example)? Or is it masculine, simply because society agrees that it is masculine? I have no problem with clothing being masculine because of its biological design, but I'm not keen on something being masculine simply because some segment of society says so. But, then again, I tend to be more of a free-styler in that sense.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but that's what occurs to me off the top of my head.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:33 PM February 9th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"No dress code for women, but severe dress codes for men." One of the slogans of the early feminists was "burn your bra". This was greeted with great ridicule by men and women in the 1960's.However, the feminists recognised the importance of liberating woman from the traditional dress code as it applied to women. Certain clothes were considered "butch" and unfeminine and wearing them could expose women to ridicule. The feminists recognised that restrictive dress code helped to copper fasten women in the traditional female role.
Liberation of women from traditional dress code has been an important goal of feminism. A woman can wear the most "masculine" of outfits without ridicule and, in doing so, is rejecting the traditional female role. Of course,at a moments notice, she can wear a "fragile flower" outfit and claim the traditional advantages of the female role such as in the criminal courts/family courts/job interviews etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
prhaps i should redefine what i said. what i meant to say wa tht thier are many different kinds of masculinity and that men tend to interprite thier masculinity differently form one another just like a work of art.tats what i meant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hunted around the Internet for a sufficient written definition of masculinity and femininity. What I found was ambiguous, to say the least, in that the definitions aren't explicit. It seems like 'everyone' knows these things when they see them but they can't adequately put their definitions into words. They can give examples, but they cannot give a definition. However, they all seem to be in agreement on the notion that masculinity and femininity are qualities that are concrete and independent of the person who embodies them. In other words, men and women can be either masculine or feminine. I submit to you that these terms do have definitions, even though they're hard to articulate, that describe attributes that derive from manifestations of sex. As adjectives, they're concrete and not subject to broad interpretation.
On the other hand, while masculine characteristics are usually found among men, they are not segregated just to men, nor are feminine characteristics segregated exclusively to women. What constitutes manliness, or maleness, and what constitutes womanliness, or femaleness, seem to me to be subjective, depending on societal interpretation and individual tendency.
That's just how we keep the concepts separate: masculinity and femininity tend to be concrete sets of characteristics, while manliness is something more personal and open to interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, while masculine characteristics are usually found among men, they are not segregated just to men, nor are feminine characteristics segregated exclusively to women. What constitutes manliness, or maleness, and what constitutes womanliness, or femaleness, seem to me to be subjective, depending on societal interpretation and individual tendency.
I think I see what you're getting at. In that sense, I can see the distinction. By those definitions, I suppose one could say that I was speaking to "manliness" rather than "masculinity".
However, if masculine characteristics and feminine characteristics are independent of the sex of the person who may have them, it seems that it's no longer necessary to associate them with a sex. It may be based on biological distinctions (and I do not deny that there are biological distinctions, both physical, and probably psychological), but that may no longer be a necessary criterion, but a tendency.
Also, by that same token, it would seem that (for example) if I wore a dress that has feminine characteristics, that does not threaten masculinity, for I may still have other masculine characteristics, as may women. The definition of masculinity (if there is one, which is difficult to determine, as you indicate) is still there. They are still concrete sets of characteristics that people can freely adopt. Although, I still think that they are not entirely concrete, because these characteristics can shift between being in the masculine or feminine set.
And it does not threaten my "manliness," because that is open to my individual interpretation, and if I feel "manly," then I am.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:05 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I think, for me, they're tantamount to the same thing, and that they are pretty subjective, and not that well defined.
Usually, when people experience gender confusion it is because they are looking at female characteristics and imitating them in their routine behavior. As they imitate an increasing number of female characteristics they become deviant and confused. They loose the ability to tell what makes them masculine even though the underlying masculine traits are still present as a matter of biology.
Hence we find that a deviant is born out of adopting habitual characteristics that are normally feminine. The deviant behavior can be shed, but it requires great determination to break the filthy habits. That is not always easy to do. So, in their failure to break away from their deviant behavior they turn to the public and demand that they be openly embraced. This is like having a person who is in the bad habit of swearing demand that the public embrace their filthy language. NOT! Let the deviants break the bad habits that they chose to adopt and quit forcing their filth upon the public.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:15 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like 'everyone' knows these things when they see them but they can't adequately put their definitions into words.
Good observation Frank. It is like asking what salt taste like. Nobody can define the taste of salt. It is something that must be experienced. Yet everybody knows it when they taste salt and they know when the salt has been contaminated.
In the same way, we know that the masculine deviants have been contaminated; yet they can be purified if the contamination is not too severe.
For this reason, it is too much to demand of the public that they embrace contaminated masculinity. Likewise, we cannot force a person to embrace contaminated salt as the deviants are trying to do. Such contamination is best disposed of.
The deviants definitely have the freedom to cross-dress, and there are no enforceable laws that prevent this deviancy. But they do not have the right to require the public to embrace and cherish their deviancy. We have a right to our own thoughts and choices. My choice is to dispose of deviant masculine behavior wherever possible. There is no reason for keeping contaminated deviant masculists around.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good observation Frank. It is like asking what salt taste like. Nobody can define the taste of salt. It is something that must be experienced. Yet everybody knows it when they taste salt and they know when the salt has been contaminated.
Sure, but I bet male Polynesians (who wear lava-lavas) can tell the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated salt. So can those who live in the Middle East (who wear jalabas), or in Scotland (who wear kilts). Europeans in the Middle Ages probably knew the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated salt, and yet, up until the 12th and 13th centuries, male and female garments were not very different.
There's a big difference between distinguishing different chemical compounds than distinguishing different social entities. Chemists can isolate the different chemical reactions that result in a salty taste. Bitter molecules or glutamate, which activate G protein-coupled receptors, sodium ions and to a lesser extent potassium ions, are thought to produce a salty taste via ion channels present on the surface of taste bud cells.
Social concepts, like masculinity, may have a biological basis, but they are still different with respect to a particular culture and time. Masculinity is practiced in different ways by many different cultures throughout time. What one might consider mainstream modern American society's concept of masculinity would probably be very different from that of, say, Ancient Greece, or even Europe in the 1700s.
In the same way, we know that the masculine deviants have been contaminated; yet they can be purified if the contamination is not too severe.
For this reason, it is too much to demand of the public that they embrace contaminated masculinity. Likewise, we cannot force a person to embrace contaminated salt as the deviants are trying to do. Such contamination is best disposed of.
So, what's your favorite method of purification or disposal?
Just remember, if there was never any "deviation," as you call it, we'd all still be living in trees to escape from predators and picking lice out of our fur.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Social concepts, like masculinity, may have a biological basis, but they are still different with respect to a particular culture and time."
Not being an anthropologist (and not having the time or inclination to become one) I think, were we to study it more closely, we would find that regardless of the societal trappings of masculinity that change from time to time, we'd find common threads. Like I'd say that men are generally more prone to public leadership; I'd say that men are more prone to hunting; I'd say that men are more prone to competition; I'd say that men are less fixated by the esthetic and more fixated on the functional. I might even say that men are more inquisitive about what's around them than what's between them. These are just things that I'd expect to find in a study of masculinity; I might be wrong.
Warb, I'd suggest that perhaps 'deviant' might not be the best choice of words, but okay I get your point.
Sev, I'm not sure that deviance is responsible for things changing. I would agree with Zubaty and Paglia, that the biggest single creative force other than that creating life is that of masculine energy. I would caution, though, that this energy expresses itself everyday in the personage of engineers, scientists, architects, and the like, and not exclusively in the personage of artists like Van Gogh or DaVinci.
So our women readers don't too alarmed, I also agree with Zubaty when he says that feminine creative energy largely goes into creating life. And all the earthly creations of men tend to pale in comparison.
Much of what people wear has been driven by fashion for a couple of hundred years now, and it gets moreso every day. And we all know that fashion changes with the winds. Much of mens fashion has been driven by the functional rather than the esthetic, while womens fashion has been driven by the esthetic: attracting a suitable mate. The fact that these fashions only (relatively) recently diverged seems to me more related to the materials available than fashion-consciousness. It's entirely possible that these roles are reversing themselves, and that this decade, in this century is at the knee of the curve of the transition. But to believe that means to accept the feminist notion of the coming matriarchy, where women are the ruling class (moreso than they already are).
Sorry guys. I'm not ready to buy into that. I'm in favor of 'decontaminating the salt,' though I don't particularly desire to enforce it on everyone. I choose to embrace masculinity, as best I understand it, and I wish I understood it better so I could, at the very least, pass that definition on to my son. I detest the notion that the public, 'accepted' definition of masculinity should be edited by women.
I will say, though, that I've enjoyed this discussion :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:21 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
So, what's your favorite method of purification or disposal?
Shunning those that would contaminate the good. If necessary then locking them up.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmm....
The logical extreme of this could be quite draconian. The result would be quite confining. Can you qualify this a little bit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:29 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but I bet male Polynesians (who wear lava-lavas) can tell the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated salt. So can those who live in the Middle East (who wear jalabas), or in Scotland (who wear kilts). Europeans in the Middle Ages probably knew the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated salt, and yet, up until the 12th and 13th centuries, male and female garments were not very different.
This is the same deviant and corrupt form of thinking that our CA Socialist legislature utilizes in passing their Marxist-Feminist laws that oppress males. A much more pressing and important issue, by the way, then a few deviant males whining because while they have the legal right to wear dresses, our culture finds such deviant behavior distasteful.
This is the American culture with its own set of norms. It simply does not compare to a socialist, communist, or tribal culture. Doing so is deviant thinking.
Notice how the deviant-perverts will always look to Europe or other failed cultures to justify their desire to insert evil into our culture.
Finally, the analogy of demonstrating that salt cannot be defined holds up. Like salt, masculinity cannot be defined. Masculinity must be experienced. Both are evident and can be tasted by the mouth in the case of salt or by human interaction as in the case of masculinity.
What these social deviants would have us believe is that we cannot "taste" the difference in our social interactions. NOT! They are liars.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:35 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
If these deviants want the freedom to wear dresses then let them. However, don't expect that I'm going to welcome them with open arms. I'll avoid them and shun them at every opportunity. I believe that it is best that they have their own life-style enclave where they live in isolation so they are not permitted to contaminate our children.
If they insist on shoving their values in my face and forcing them upon my children then I believe they should be locked up for violating my parental rights.
Yes this is harsh. But when I consider the damage that has been done to families over the last 30 years I believe that the fix calls for draconian measures against the deviants and perverts that have so harmed societies children.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. That's the qualification I was looking for. If I calibrate out the anger, Warb, than I have to say I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not being an anthropologist (and not having the time or inclination to become one) I think, were we to study it more closely, we would find that regardless of the societal trappings of masculinity that change from time to time, we'd find common threads.
Oh, I don't doubt it. Perhaps where you and I differ is how many of those common threads are inherent to biology and how many of them are the result of societal environment. Fair enough.
I would agree with Zubaty and Paglia, that the biggest single creative force other than that creating life is that of masculine energy. I would caution, though, that this energy expresses itself everyday in the personage of engineers, scientists, architects, and the like, and not exclusively in the personage of artists like Van Gogh or DaVinci.
So our women readers don't too alarmed, I also agree with Zubaty when he says that feminine creative energy largely goes into creating life. And all the earthly creations of men tend to pale in comparison.
I think that's a very romantic way to look at it. And I do not, in any way, mean that to be disparaging. On the contrary, I can certainly appreciate and respect the idea, and maybe I'll look into Zubaty and Paglia a bit. I've heard of them, but I've never read anything by them. However, I'm not sure if I can match my own experience to that viewpoint.
It's entirely possible that these roles are reversing themselves, and that this decade, in this century is at the knee of the curve of the transition. But to believe that means to accept the feminist notion of the coming matriarchy, where women are the ruling class (moreso than they already are).
For me, it's not so much that the roles are reversing themselves, as much as they are becoming less strict. And that doesn't particularly worry me. I'm more concerned about the idea of a "matriarchy" that is based on the mythos of the "patriarchy" as being a laudable goal.
I choose to embrace masculinity, as best I understand it, and I wish I understood it better so I could, at the very least, pass that definition on to my son.
Me, too. No pressure there, huh?
I will say, though, that I've enjoyed this discussion :-)
As have I.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*So, what's your favorite method of purification or disposal?*
Shunning those that would contaminate the good. If necessary then locking them up.
Ah. I guess if my child were to see a man in a dress, or doing something that I felt to be inappropriate, I would take that opportunity to talk to my child about my feelings on the matter, and try to explain to them why it matters to me.
Unless, of course, the man in question is actively injuring someone else (assaulting them, robbing them, etc). I find that inappropriate, but I'd rather take some action to stop that injury first. Then, I'd take the opportunity to tell my child why I acted as I did.
But, that's just me.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:56 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is the American culture with its own set of norms".
What you overlook is that the norms of American culture, as they applied to women,have been obliterated by the feminists over the past 30 years. Women wear trousers, fly fighter jets,join the marines, are professional boxers etc. Are these women deviant? If you regard women who have rejected traditional norms as deviant, then by your definition, most American women are deviant. Or perhaps the word deviant only applies to men who reject traditional norms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think that masculinity and femininity are qualities that are pretty well defined. "
Yup, and most of society thinks this way as well: There are feminine and masculine traits. The "big deal" is that male humans are forced by society to REMAIN masculine and display masculine traits and *forbidden* to display or engage in anything "feminine". Meanwhile, females are allowed and even ENCOURAGED to take on aspects from *either* gender, with little or no repercussions.
Males are not considered to be *able* to take on feminine traits without losing their gender or sexual identity. Males will be shamed, mocked, ridiculed, and even physical beating for doing so. Females are allowed to engage in feminine OR masculine traits, at their own choosing, without being accused of being "gay", "homo", "perverse", "weird", "queer", and the list goes on and on.
This is all especially nasty in a society where the males are *constantly* told that THEY are the ones with all of the privileges and freedoms.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
"Females are allowed to engage in feminine OR masculine traits, at their own choosing,"
Exactly. They can alternate between being masculine and feminine depending on which persona confers advantage in a given situation. In so doing, they can reject the constraints of the traditional female role whilst retaining the benefits of the traditional female role. Brilliant!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"They can alternate between being masculine and feminine depending on which persona confers advantage in a given situation. In so doing, they can reject the constraints of the traditional female role whilst retaining the benefits of the traditional female role. Brilliant! "
Exactly my point. I would have NO problems with the whole "feminine" and "masculine" ideals, heck I would not have even notice any discrimination IF (big IF) woman were forced to abide by the same restrictions. But they are not.
Most of society, and this includes a lot of MRAs believe that females should be feminine and males should be masculine. However, society (and MRA's included) only want this limitation forced on males, not on females.
That is the root of my argument, is that only male humans are forced to abide by the feminine/masculine guideline. And failure to do so will result in punishment through shame, humiliation, ridicule and "reminders" that the offending male is stepping outside of his gender limitations.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:40 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"I would have NO problems with the whole "feminine" and "masculine" ideals, heck I would not have even notice any discrimination IF (big IF) woman were forced to abide by the same restrictions. But they are not."
This is precisely my stance on the gender issue. I have no difficulty with "traditional equality" ie. Each gender had responsibilities, duties, constraints and privileges peculiar to his/her gender. However, feminism has changed all that. Women have jettisoned all traditional female duty. That was their right. They have made their choice. We men may bemoan this fact and we may grumble about it but at the end of the day we have to simply accept it. What angers me is that feminists have the arrogance and brazen cheek to demand that men must continue to observe traditional male duty (which is the same as saying women should retain traditional female privilege). My answer is FORGET IT!!. Woman have decided that they cannot be discriminated against in any way whatsoever because of their gender. Equally, as a man I do not accept that I can be discriminated against in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER because of my gender. And this includes wearing whatever clothes I want, just as women have the right to wear whatever clothes they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A woman can wear the most "masculine" of outfits without ridicule and, in doing so, is rejecting the traditional female role. Of course,at a moments notice, she can wear a "fragile flower" outfit and claim the traditional advantages of the female role such as in the criminal courts/family courts/job interviews etc. "
Correct. The whole point that is being made here (at least by me and my postings) is that women have been granted the "option" and power of "choice" by society. Whereas men must stay within their social-presribed boundaries or face ridicule and shame.
IF both genders whole restricted and forced to remain within gender boundaries then there would be no problem. However, as society stands now, only males have this restriction enforced upon them.
I mean, even if society lifted this rule and stoped punishing males for acting "feminine" and 99.99% of the men consciously CHOSE to act masculine, the point is that they should be ALLOWED the choice.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you regard women who have rejected traditional norms as deviant, then by your definition, most American women are deviant. Or perhaps the word deviant only applies to men who reject traditional norms?"
Correct. That is exactly what people like Warble are saying. There are known as "women-firsters". Basically they believe that a woman is allowed to do or say anything that they choose to do so. Period. Men are allowed to do what they want, as long they stay within the limited parameters set down by society.
This also means that women are allowed to do many things that a man would be shunned, ridiculed or punished for, with no repercussions.
Whether limiting a male is considered a hate-crime, sexist or discrimination is irrelevant. These people *must* enforce the limitations on males the way that society has programmed them to do so.
Notice that the vast majority of actions that would result in a male being "shunned", chastised, ridiculed or otherwised punished would NOT apply to a woman if the situation was *exactly* the same, but merely the gender was reversed.
Unfortunately this means that any human that is born as a male (which of course, NO ONE has any control over) will have to live a life without complete freedom of choice; until they die they must live within the set parameters of being a "male" or face segregation, ridicule and possibly even a premature death.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:13 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply to my post,Renegade. I think our analysis of the gender issue is identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:01 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
What does everyone here think of these guys called "Metro-sexuals"?
Sorry, I really DO try to be tollerant, I really do. But seeing a guy in makeup, with his nails painted, smelling of perfume, in a pink blouse/shirt gives me the creeps.
Of course, maybe I'm not one to talk, I do wear my hair braided, in traditional style.
Some people might not cozy to THAT! On the other hand Indian men have worn their hair this way for hundreds of years, and it is not done to be feminine or to "get in touch with our 'feminine side'", or anything of that nature.
I dunno, just a thought.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:20 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud, I haven't a clue what a "metro-sexual" is so I have no comment to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:43 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. That's the qualification I was looking for. If I calibrate out the anger, Warb, than I have to say I agree with you.
Yes. There is quite a bit of anger. I flat out get pissed at having the morals that I teach my children being undermined by the public school system, media, and nutcases that get special attention. There used to be a time when the public didn't have the power to undermine the parents via legislators, public schools, and the media. Now parents are powerless against the onslaught of immorality.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:53 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. That is exactly what people like Warble are saying. There are known as "women-firsters". Basically they believe that a woman is allowed to do or say anything that they choose to do so. Period. Men are allowed to do what they want, as long they stay within the limited parameters set down by society.
Nope. This is a total misstatement of my position. First, there are only a few isolated incidences where women actually dress like their male counterparts. To say that women have complete freedom to dress like a man is propaganda. It is a BIG LIE.
Further, women are not completely free to wear whatever they choose in the workplace. The cross-dressing pathological liars are at work again. For example, there is attire that women cannot wear to work because people like me, a men with balls, will sue them for creating a hostile environment.
Without question women clearly cannot wear anything they want in any situation. That is because there are males like me that have their masculinity in tact who will act to stop such immoral behavior. That means that if a woman wears a mini-skirt to work I'm going to sue the company because they are permitting that woman to create a hostile environment towards the male gender.
I can assure you that the Vice President of human resources at my work no longer wears sexualized attire at work because of that fact.
The real issue here is that the deviant cross-dressers want access to power so that they can corrupt the morals of our children. It ain't gonna happen if I can help it.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does everyone here think of these guys called "Metro-sexuals"?
I hear the term a lot, lately, but I'm not really sure what it means, so I can't really speak to that.
Sorry, I really DO try to be tollerant, I really do. But seeing a guy in makeup, with his nails painted, smelling of perfume, in a pink blouse/shirt gives me the creeps.
I know a lot of women who put on makeup by the trowel load, and that gives me the creeps, too. We all have our own tastes. I happen to like jalapeno ice cream, but most of my friends look at it like it was disgorged by some beast from Hell. But they don't try to stop me from eating it, nor do they (as far as I know) find me worthy of being ostracized, just because of it. They still hang out with me, so I'm assuming that I'm still acceptable in some fashion.
I don't necessarily embrace every one's style, because there are some styles that are not to my taste. And some styles that make my skin crawl. But, I'll defend their right to their style, and I won't demand that they keep their style behind closed doors.
Shoot, I have long hair and I wear kilts on occasion. I don't care if folks think I'm the best thing since sliced bread or stuff on a rock, as long as they don't try to keep me from wearing what I want to wear.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:54 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, maybe I'm not one to talk, I do wear my hair braided, in traditional style.
And I have no doubt but that you are quite masculine. I would have no problem with your attire.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To say that women have complete freedom to dress like a man is propaganda. It is a BIG LIE.
Examples? If you're going to say that something is a lie, at least do us the courtesy of explaining your reasoning.
Further, women are not completely free to wear whatever they choose in the workplace.
I'll buy that. But, they do have more options, in many workplaces. Perhaps not yours, but yours isn't the model of all workplaces.
The real issue here is that the deviant cross-dressers want access to power so that they can corrupt the morals of our children.
Little-known secret: many people who dress against the "norm" couldn't care less about people's children. Shhhh...don't tell anyone.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:12 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
"A woman can wear the most "masculine" of outfits without ridicule and, in doing so, is rejecting the traditional female role. Of course,at a moments notice, she can wear a "fragile flower" outfit and claim the traditional advantages of the female role such as in the criminal courts/family courts/job interviews etc. "
This is just absurd nonsense. When women wear pants, in 98% of the situations, they are modified for the female physique and to imbue a feminine quality. I would never wear a wyman’s pants because they are made to be feminine. By contrast, when females dress in male Levis and a male flannel shirt they are seen as Tomboys and thus less feminine. Thus we find that women are limited in how they dress.
Next, who cares what a male or female wears on their own time. Nobody will give it a second thought if a male wears a dress in public. I see it all the time, and yes I take my children and turn the other way. No I’m not going to approach the deviant and start a conversation. It is nothing by a bunch of hypersensitive deviant cross-dressers that want the power to brainwash our children that have a problem.
Indeed, the deviants want the power to control our very thoughts and how we feel about cross-dressing. Sorry, that is Marxism that wants that kind of totalitarian power. Note how the deviants demand that the gubment ….do SOMETHING…..
At work it is a different matter. Employers have the right to enforce a professional dress code. In the case of the production environment, it would be dangerous for either a male or female to wear a mini-skirt or a long flowing dress. Thus we find that the cross-dressing deviants have no argument. Women cannot wear a dress any time they want because of dangerous rotating machinery. At times women must wear pants simply for safety reasons. Yet the pants that I see are all feminine. Of over 200 production workers I don’t see a single female dressing like a man.
Finally, there is nothing that prevents these deviants from cross-dressing in public. Further, there was no arrest, which again proves my point. They have no business demanding the right to wear a dress in any situation. The arguments of these deviants are really about gaining power to corrupt our children with their immoral ideals.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:13 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
. "To say that women have complete freedom to dress like a man is propaganda. It is a BIG LIE."
No, it ain't. It's the truth. Can you give me one example of any woman in America (or anywhere in the Western World)in the past 20 years where a woman was prevented from "dressing like a man" in the workplace or anywhere else.
Also, your assertion that you can dictate what clothes women wear at your workplace stretches credibility to breaking point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When women wear pants, in 98% of the situations, they are modified for the female physique and to imbue a feminine quality. I would never wear a wyman’s pants because they are made to be feminine. By contrast, when females dress in male Levis and a male flannel shirt they are seen as Tomboys and thus less feminine. Thus we find that women are limited in how they dress.
Valid point. So, if a man were to wear a dress that was modified for the male physique, would that be acceptable?
Indeed, the deviants want the power to control our very thoughts and how we feel about cross-dressing.
Yeah! It must be a really sad life, if they have nothing better to do than sit around in their frillies and think up devious and sinister ways to control our minds. I bet they're even now perfecting their mind rays to force you to put on heels and a sun dress. Quick! Put on this aluminum foil hat, it'll block the effect!
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
""When women wear pants, in 98% of the situations, they are modified for the female physique and to imbue a feminine quality."
Women stopped wearing pants like this in the 1950's. The pants worn by women soldiers, police officers, firefighters and every other traditional male occupation do not "imbue a feminine quality" but rather assert the woman's rejection of traditional female fragility.
"By contrast, when females dress in male Levis and a male flannel shirt they are seen as Tomboys and thus less feminine. Thus we find that women are limited in how they dress."
This statement may have had some validity in the 1950's but has no validity to-day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:32 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I think you're missing the point in this discussion. As far as I can see, this discussion is not about the rights or otherwise of male or female transvestites, transsexuals or trans"anything else". The central argument is that over the past 30 years, women have cast away many of restrictions of the dressing code as it applied to women. I believe that men are equally entitled to such freedom. I think you are being a bit unreasonable when you suggest that anyone who holds such views is a Marxist transsexual who wants to corrupt children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Warb, I think you are mistaken in blaming the legislators, the public school systems, and the media, though I agree all are to some degree at fault. But I see the biggest contributor to this degradation as the courts. Activist judges have validated the positions taken by many of the guilty. While I have my trepidations about the Bush administration, one thing you can be sure of is that they are far more likely than the Democrats to appoint conservative or constructionist judges to the federal bench. And that's what we really need right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Nobody will give it a second thought if a male wears a dress in public."
Another lie. YOU are giving this idea 'second thoughts' and YOU portray yourself as being the "majority" of how society thinks. So your own statements contradict themselves. The fact that the term "transvestite", "crossdresser" or "deviant" applies to men alone PROVES that society makes a big deal out of this. Now you just making up statements.
"Indeed, the deviants want the power to control our very thoughts and how we feel about cross-dressing."
Yet people like YOU are trying to control our very thoughts about how others feel about this topic. You are doing the exact same thing that you are complaining that these other people are doing. Therefore, where is the merit in what *you* say?
"Warble, I think you're missing the point in this discussion. As far as I can see, this discussion is not about the rights or otherwise of male or female transvestites, transsexuals or trans"anything else". The central argument is that over the past 30 years, women have cast away many of restrictions of the dressing code as it applied to women. "
Exactly. I think that I would be inclined to agree with Warble IF the same limitations were imposed on females, but they are not. In fact the whole "women's movement" lifted restrictions from women to perform activities like males with no repercussions and that is what happened. The problem that people are trying to point out, which Warble is too with female-supremacy-thinking to see is that a person born as a male gender is not allowed the RIGHT of freedom that a female-born human does.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:29 AM February 11th, 2004 EST (#101)
|
|
|
|
|
(("I haven't a clue what a "metro-sexual" is"))
These are the guys who do pretty much as I described, finger nails painted, make up, etc.
I hear diffrent reasons as to why they do this.
One reason I hear is because they want to get in touch with their "feminine side". another I hear, is because they want to let women know they are sensitive and are "down with girlyness". What ever that means.
To the best of my knowledge most metro-sexuals aren't gay, but some are.
I guess what bothers me about it, and maybe it shouldn't, is the fact that these fellas seem to be trying to hard to be something for some one else. and seem to be trying even harder to be something they are not.
It is like an eagle trying to be a sparrow. (Anyone remember that story?)
And no, while it DOES give me the creeps and I personaly don't LIKE it, I would never harm or attack a metro-sexual. On the other hand if they were to ask my OPPINION on the matter, I'd be toataly honest about my feelings on it. So they're probably better off not asking me. But go in peace, other wise...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:28 PM February 11th, 2004 EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
I know little about Native American culture, but was it not the case that face painting was an accepted part of that culture? Or perhaps it was just a myth created by Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:27 AM February 12th, 2004 EST (#106)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and some of us still do it.
We don't wear face paint in everyday life, but You see it sometimes at powwows, some of the dancers wear face paint.
Generaly, face painting is something handed down from members of particular clans and such.
No one ever handed down any type of face painting to me, so I never do it. and one is never supposed to do so without "permission".
While metro-sexuals generaly wear make up as a "fashion statement", our people wore\wear it as a reflection of spirituality.
I also don't wear face paint because I am basicaly a Christian.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:54 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
The way i see it, the definition of masculine and feminine, although different, are individualy determined.
While there may be characteristics that both genders share in common and some grey area in gender identification, it is most definitely hardwired into our brains to take on specific gender roles. By observing those roles we can identify categories of gender behavior and make generalizations.
Unfortunately, the Marxist-Feminist through their use of propaganda and The BIG LIE would have is embrace a PC notion that gender is a socialized characteristic. It is this attack on the masculine that is so dangerous to our children.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is this attack on the masculine that is so dangerous to our children.
Don't think much of the ability of children to be able to determine right from wrong, huh?
On a totally unrelated note, when I hear folks say that men have to pay exhorbitant amounts of child support "for the children" and that mothers should get sole custody of the kids "for the protection of the children," it really chaps my hide. The idea that someone would use children to defend their own prejudices is pretty uncool.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And allot of people didn't think there was anything wrong with Jackson bearing breast at the Super Bowl. Yet mainstream America knows that the incident was wrong and an attack on our families by pop culture.
And mainstream culture also believes that men are violent, are never abused, and an oppressive patriarchy. So, is mainstream culture good or bad? I forget.
The fact is that men in feminine attire ARE an attack on masculinity.
Ok, let's try that again. You are assuming that a dress is intrinsically a feminine garment? So, what's the difference between a kilt and a dress? Not a whole lot, truth be told. Are pants intrinsically masculine or feminine? If they're masculine, I suppose you would say that all the women wearing jeans or pants are corrupting our children and adding to the moral decay of these United States of America. Is that right? You cannot tell me what is masculine, any more than I can tell you what is masculine. That is up to the individual.
I refuse to be the good little soldier and stay in line. If I wanted to be a conformist, I sure wouldn't be here.
This is tantamount to NAMBLA claiming that there is nothing wrong with man-boy love and sexual relations.
To paraphrase you, "NOT!" Apples and oranges, man.
Severin
Happy Filth Monger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wwwwhaaaa!!!! Wwwwwhhhaaa!!!
Is that more Cthulhu stuff? I read a lot of Lovecraft, and I'm not familiar with that one. But, that's ok, I'll play along:
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fthagn!
People like me are not going to become accepting or tolerant of deviant behavior anytime soon just because a few perverts want to corrupt our social norms.
Hey, if you want to be socially intolerant, you have that right, as long as you do it behind closed doors where the rest of us don't have to look at it.
Finally, it is intrinsically wrong for males to act like females, dress like females, and demand to have recognition as females.
Yeah! Men should stay in the trenches and spend their days in undesirable jobs, offering up their lives for the "greater good" instead of whining about "equal rights". I mean, please, stop trying to spend time with your children, or living in peace. That's woman's work. Is that what you mean?
Please nobody get their federally-approved socially-condoned certified Male (tm) undergarments in a twist. The above was highly sarcastic. I mean, come on, people, according to "mainstream society," we're all pretty deviant just for trying to promote men's rights.
Deviants have a need for attention because of their syndrome. I guess it is too much to ask for them to practice their deviant behavior in their own home and to stay away from my children.
You forgot to add "you pinko commie!" But, in all fairness, I see where you're coming from. I mean, I think guys who do that little comb over thing with approximately three hairs to hide their manly baldness are pretty deviant. And there's a lot of folks I know who would agree with me, so let's activate some of those social control mechanisms. I say keep them away from my children, you might scar them for life. I mean it's just horrible! Just... well intrinsically wrong.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, man, first thing that popped out of my head ... I mean... Oops, sorry, bad choice of words. I know that's a sensitive area for some folks. (:
Severin
Secure in my (apparently) deviant masculinity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, man, first thing that popped out of my head ... I mean... Oops, sorry, bad choice of words
Sounds a bit seminal to me....
*looks around innocently*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:14 PM February 9th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"Finally, it is intrinsically wrong for males to act like females, dress like females, and demand to have recognition as females." Since women nowadays often wear trousers, play football and become soldiers, are we to conclude from your post that it is intrinsically wrong for men to wear trousers, play football and become soldiers??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"B.T.W. cross-dressing males do have the legal right to act deviant by wearing women's clothing. However, society has established social control mechanisms to prevent such deviants from corrupting our children. "
"Finally, it is intrinsically wrong for males to act like females, dress like females, and demand to have recognition as females. "
Sooo, why *isn't* it wrong for females to dress and display masculine aspects? Why is it only "corrupt" or "deviant" if a male does this? Why are females allowed to do this without being considered to "corrupt our young children"?
Almost any situation that discriminates against males begs the question, "Would I have a problem with this if this was a woman instead of a man?" Ask yourself that question before you start condemning males.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point that I would like to address is that males should have the freedom to CHOOSE what clothing to wear. Whether or not others think they look good is irrelevant.
I am sick and tired of hearing how males have all the "freedom and power" in society, then hearing about a man getting mocked, ridiculed and/or beaten just because he wanted to wear a particular article of clothing.
Women have the freedom to CHOOSE what clothing to wear and society does not even turn its head. Yet if a man dons a skirt, dress or blouse society is all over him! Once again, women may CHOOSE to take on aspects of either gender without losing their gender identity, but men MUST stay within their gender-limited "masculine" roles.
How is that freedom?
Notice how the very words "Transvestite" and Cross-dresser" only apply to males?
Pet peeve.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:54 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
"The point that I would like to address is that males should have the freedom to CHOOSE what clothing to wear. Whether or not others think they look good is irrelevant."
A man after my own heart, sort of like this guy:
POP A BUTTON (link)
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray...STOP IT!!!
Ack-I have spent half my morning linking to t-shirts!!! ;-)
TBQ
btw, they do look great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:21 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
"What a bunch of retards making a big deal about nothing. MEN HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO WEAR A DRESS. Stop being an ass-hole about it and stop telling lies."
This is FALSE. In my workplace, men must conform to a certain dress code whereas women can wear what they like. And I know the same applies to many other work places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:44 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are required to dress professionally just like males."
I repeat: THIS IS FALSE. In my workplace, shirt and tie are MANDATORY for males. I have seen women working in my workplace in tracksuits, in tee shirts, and basically anything they want. If you believe the courts will support a restrictive dress code applied to women, then your knowledge of the courts is non-existent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a load of crap. If a woman came to work in a skimpy outfit then the males would sue under hostile environment laws.
Not really an apt argument, I'm afraid. Both sexes would be in danger of legal action if they dressed in skimpy outfits. No one's arguing that. But, women can wear a much greater variety of clothing in the workplace. Frankly I've got no problem with them doing that, so I see no reason to try to sue them. I just want the same option.
Stop whining about being professional in the workplace and the requirement to wear a uniform.
Umm...no, thanks, I'd rather whine. Of course, I like to think of it as asserting my rights, but there are all sorts of semantic dialectal differences, so I can see how that could be confused.
Nevertheless, if they get in my face they will hear about it.
What constitues "getting in your face?" Being 50 feet away? Within visual proximity? Do you really have men in skirts running up to you and screaming at you? Wow, that would be weird place to live.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:42 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with your points, Severin, and would like to add a few more points for Warble to ponder.
If men who don't wear trousers are "deviant" and "queer", then this means the Vikings, AngloSaxons, Germanic tribes, Romans and American Indian (to name but a few) were all "deviant". The fashion of wearing trousers was brought to Europe by attacking Mongol hordes. These Mongol horseman found that trousers reduced chaffing of the legs caused by riding horses. No doubt, the macho Europeans considered these Mongols to be "deviant" and "queer" but they soon found that trousers did make riding more comfortable and so they adopted this Mongol fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to build more upon this idea.
The whole problem with this discussion is that "Men cannot perform 'feminine' activities without losing their gender/sexual identity."
This is where I think that society is wrong. Women *themselves* have proven that human beings CAN take on aspects of either gender WITHOUT losing your gender identity. Women CAN smoke cigars, where pants, play sports, 'rough-house' and STILL be considered women.
Are people saying that men *lack* this adaptiblity? Society is saying that a male human CANNOT wear feminine clothing, play with dolls (as boys, I guess), wear makeup (casually), hug or dance with each other *without* losing their identity as a heterosexual male.
Are males really that inferior to women? Is that what society is saying?
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point.
Look at the world we live in today. People wear thongs in public. Young teens are watching vidios showing threesomes in in-flight restrooms and women wearing nipple clips during the Superbowl. A woman wore a stuffed swan as a dress. Anything goes. if it were merely about fashion, anything would go. This is far more complicated than fashion.
I think that for men to be allowed to be human, as opposed to men, would mean feminists would lose their most powerful weopon, which is the ability to catagorize and demonize based on the group. If straight men can care for children, keep a home, be considerate and understanding, care about what they wear and be good at putting themselves together, then the old stereotype of aggressive, dominant, socially and astetically clueless, and incapable of running house and home does not work. If that stereotype does not work then all the family law, all the DV organizations, all the schools, the draft, is all based on a false premise and will start to fall apart.
Men wearing skirts? That is the old tip of the iceburgh. Lil Miss Lorainne will have you believe it is all about peer pressure, but it goes a lot deeper than that.
Men are needed for all the down and dirty jobs in this country. If men were human, then could we really accept 95% of workforce deaths belonging to one group? Wouldn't someone have to say-"wait a minute, this is wrong, we should investigate this".
Also, men are needed as figure heads. If a woman were president, and the country inevitably did not spontaneously become a sun soaked utopia, who would feminists blame? The Patriarchy? Hah! Only if men are always there to hold up as in chgarge and responsible, even though they are not, can feminism exist. Feminism is a huge hoary monster which is loath to give up her power. Feminism is based on the lie that men are in charge and not quite human.
Men in skirts?
You mean men in a human skin?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Men are needed for all the down and dirty jobs in this country. If men were human, then could we really accept 95% of workforce deaths belonging to one group? Wouldn't someone have to say-"wait a minute, this is wrong, we should investigate this"."
Oh my God, jenk/Bisquit Queen!! It is so refreshing to see other people think "outside of the box" for a change! This has nothing to do with "perversion" or "homosexuality". This issue is about rights has a HUMAN BEING, not as a gender type. No one is allowed to *choose* their gender when they are born. Therefore to discriminate against someone based on their gender is a crime itself.
That is precisely what society is doing to males. Whether it is something as simple as telling men what attire they can wear or that they *must* give up their lives for others, anyone born as a male has no HUMAN rights. They are viewed as "males" first, then, as long as they remain within the guuidelines of being a "male", they may be allowed "human" rights.
This is especially something which anti-male people like Warble do no and will not understand.
Thanks,
Renegade
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:56 AM February 12th, 2004 EST (#109)
|
|
|
|
|
"Therefore to discriminate against someone based on their gender is a crime itself." Agreed. Gender based discrimination has been abolished in regard to the female gender. Equality demands that it be similarly abolished in regard to the male gender.
"This is especially something which anti-male people like Warble do no and will not understand." I think it unfair to refer to Warble as "anti-male", but I think you probably mean he is being INADVERTENTLY anti-male. I have just as much yearning to a return to the traditional society as Warble (possibly more so). Those are the values I grew up with. For example, my instinct is still to open the door for a woman, give up my seat etc. However, over the past few years I have slowly and painfully begun to wake up. The traditional societal values are gone. This is simple fact. Women have decided to abandon all the duties , constraints, and obligations which women have observed for generations. We may not like it, but that's how it is. Dan Lynch frequently puts forward the view that these societal changes were engineered by Communists and that if this Communist influence is extirpated, then women will revert to the traditional role. I don't buy it. Women will not be persuaded to go back to that role. As far as they are concerned "those days are gone". In Western societies (unlike fundamentalist Islamic societies) they cannot be forced to return to that role. The option of returning to the pre-feminist society DOES NOT EXIST. What are the options? One option is to accept the status quo. That is , that we should accept the present arrangement in which men have lost all traditional male privilege and yet are forced to observe all traditional male duty. This is not acceptable to me as it makes us third class citizens with rights , in some cases, no better than animals (I do not exaggerate). So what is the answer? There is only one answer, namely that men should cast away all the traditional inequalities which, for generations, have applied to men. When men finally do this,as I believe they will, the result will be a tranformation in society every bit as great as that produced by the feminists over the past 30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:28 PM February 11th, 2004 EST (#104)
|
|
|
|
|
Good Warble because if you got in my face while I was "prancing" around in my kilt, I assure you that you would be more then hearing about it from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What a bunch of retards making a big deal about nothing. MEN HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO WEAR A DRESS. Stop being an ass-hole about it and stop telling lies. "
"This issue is really about a few men that want to wear dresses and force thought control in the form of acceptance on the rest of us. Well these leftist commies don't get to control my thoughts and freedom of expression.
They are cross-dressing deviants that lie about being cross dressers. I don't want such pathological liars around my family to spread their hatred of heterosexuals."
Gee, what else do I need to say. You said it all for me. There is NO legal law stopping men from doing this, but there is a *social* law. These males MUST remain within their parameters of "men" or else society will condemn and shame them. Tell me, is a woman a homosexual because she wears male clothing? No? Once again, a social law that ONLY applies to males.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men still wear skirts, actually lava-lava, in most of Polynesia. I would imagine it is much cooler than pants, and easier to take off and put on on the beach.
The US representative to Congress from American Samoa wears a lava-lava with a Western shirt/tie/jacket in Washington DC.
In addition, many men in the Middle East wear a long shirt/dress (called jalaba).
In Samoa men wear either Western style pants or lava-lava or a mixture of Samoan and Western attire. No one thinks anything of it.
IMO a "skirts" are much more practical in many situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:09 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"IMO a "skirts" are much more practical in many situations."
Lorianne:
Actually I prefer loose fitting trousers with a shirt that buttons at the neck, when I dress to impress: DRESS TO IMPRESS (link)
Rolling up one's sleeves, standing on one foot, and leaning on a chair also helps to add to that air of masculine self-confidence, that I have come to treasure so grandly.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but in western society, for western men, it is not acceptable for men to wear skirts. Notice all those men you meantion are either in their native countries, or thought of a ethnic.
Western men are facing a severe double standard where society controls what they wear.
Rebut that.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Western men are facing a severe double standard where society controls what they wear."
Also, it is not just what males wear that society, it is so much of their life. To summarize, anything that may be considered "feminine", society prevents, or at least frowns upon, males from doing this. The sad thing is that society encourages it's people to use shame, ridicule and even physical punishments to try and enforce "masculine" ways upon males.
Can a male human wear a skirt or makeup or join a "kitting club" and STILL be male? Society does not even pose the question. Society is just trained to make sure that anyone human that is born as a male, *stays* a male.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can a male human wear a skirt or makeup or join a "kitting club" and STILL be male?
Absolutely, although, to be honest, I'm not really sure what a "kitting club" is.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:06 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
(("Kitting club"))
I think that was a type-o. I'm willing to bet he meant 'KNITTING club'.
...Unless there IS something called a "kitting club"..., In that case I have no idea as to what THAT is.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that was a type-o. I'm willing to bet he meant 'KNITTING club'.
That's kind of what I was wondering. I mean, I've done some knitting in my time, and last time I checked (which was this morning), I'm still male. So, I would say that the answer to the question would be yes. But, then again, I'm deviant.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, heh. "Knitting club". Where women get together to gossip and knit stuff. Like a quilting club or something. I was trying to think of something on the spur of the moment.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:40 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
. "The sad thing is that society encourages it's people to use shame, ridicule and even physical punishments to try and enforce "masculine" ways upon males."
Basically, it's all about the feminists ensuring that men remain shackled by the duties, responsibilities and constraints of the traditional male role despite the reality that women have been liberated from the duties, responsibilities and constraints of the traditional female role.
That one gender only has been liberated form it's traditional dress code is just one manifestation of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, it's all about the feminists ensuring that men remain shackled by the duties, responsibilities and constraints of the traditional male role despite the reality that women have been liberated from the duties, responsibilities and constraints of the traditional female role.
With respect, I'm not certain that we can entirely blame this on feminism. As you said, "society" enforces masculinity. That includes men and women. Definitions of masculinity and femininity have developed over years of societal development among men and women. Now, granted, I would have to say that the influence of, let's say, less tolerant forms of feminism has resulted in liberation of women getting higher credence and respectability, while liberation of men is treated far less favorably.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:45 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
"Now, granted, I would have to say that the influence of, let's say, less tolerant forms of feminism has resulted in liberation of women getting higher credence and respectability, while liberation of men is treated far less favorably."
This is basically the point I was making and which you quoted in the first part of your post, although you expressed the point less forcibly than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is basically the point I was making and which you quoted in the first part of your post, although you expressed the point less forcibly than I did.
Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:45 AM February 10th, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
You got it wrong! Anything 'feminine' and anything 'masculine' society frowns upon.
For example; You work your ass off to provide for your family - you are insensitive to your families needs and don't spend enough time at home, you will be called a typical male caring nothing about your own selfish intrest in money, they will make a movie about you where your wife leaves you because you work too hard and don't meet her needs.
On the other hand if you don't work so ambitiously, take a low paying job, or god help you stay at home with your kids while your wife works then you are a pansy, a poor provider, and a bum. They will make a movie about you ridiculing what you do.
So you see it doesn't matter what you do. Society has no desire in making sure you stay "male", they just want you around to blame for everything that happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:11 PM February 10th, 2004 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
EXACTLY!
Which is why I don't date, and am NEVER getting married.
Hmm, maybe I should change my name from 'Thundercloud' to 'Lone wolf'.
...Nah...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:40 PM February 11th, 2004 EST (#105)
|
|
|
|
|
women near where I live kills a baby she was babysitting, she recieves some pathetic minimal sentence.
What happens after this tragedy is reported to the public? Do they think that more time should be spent monitoring dayhomes? Do they think, hey it's possible that women can be violent to children, maybe we should work at becoming more aware of the problem? No, none of the above.
Some of the first voices being heard are saying "Where was her husband when all this happened?", "Why wasn't he supporting her?".
You see you don't even have to be there to be blamed. I believe this is the heart of the North American female psyche, this belief that no matter what happens it's someone else's fault and preferably a males fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize men face a double standard, but that is part of fitting in with society. Nudists are frowned upon too in our society.
Women who wore pants were once scandalous and bitterly opposed. Over a period of many many years, people got over themselves (most of them) and don't care ... in this country ... what women wear. But it took some braver women at the beginning to buck society's preconceieved notions of what women should wear.
Likewise, men will have to go through the same process of pushing the envelope to gain societal acceptance.
Peer pressure is a STRONG societal force, always has been. It takes a few people to start out by saying "this is stupid, I'll wear what I want". At one time a man showing up at Congress without a powdered wig on was considered the height of bad taste. Eventually, some men simply bucked tradition and the powdered wig was eventually chucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nudists are not only men, they are both sexes. Nice attempt at misdirection.
So while women fought for "equality" they really only fought for "better stuff for women". Is that what you are saying?
Men face a double standard in this society, where society controls what they wear.
Women uphold that standard, when they so strenuously fought for thier own rights.
If feminism were truly about equality, they would be lending a helping hand to these men who wish to "push the envelope".
Of course, when it is men who have a problem, society is normal and men just have to fight harder, but when women have a problem, society is unjust and must change.
I am so tired of your hypocracy. Go back to MS.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of society is "controlled" by peer pressure. If I want to wear a read hat with a bird's nest on top and fake birds in it ... I'm able to .. as is a man. But that doesn't mean I'm coing to be accepted as "normal" by most people. If I wore that to a job interview, I probably wouldn't get the job, nor would a man.
As far as "society" controlling what people wear, society can only change if brave people push the envelope. Dress has gotten a LOT freer for everyone than it used to be. That came about by people going out and experiencing the hazards of dressing unconventionally themselves and bearing the brunt of criticism, mocking, ostracizing on themselves.
Sitting around talking about it won't change anything. If certain men want to dress unconventionally (and for the record many do, just look at the Grammy's), they, like everyone else, has to face the criticism/mockery etc. Women who first wore trousers had to face the same things in "society".
Society can only "control" you if you allow it. As far as I know, there are no laws forbidding men from wearing dresses. But social pressure is often more powerful than laws. We ALL bend to social pressure in one way or another. Only the true pioneers (typically creative types like artists) dare venture out of the standard mold. And that is why they are so influential in the world of fashion and mechandizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Dress has gotten a LOT freer for everyone than it used to be."
This I do agree with. For example, decades ago, males were frowned upon if they wore jewelry and long hair. Even wearing the color pink would net a man ridicule. Now, it is at least "acceptable" to see a few men with long hair or wearing some jewelry or wearing pink.
Males are still not completely free from ridicule and there will still be *someone* that ridicules a man for wearing long hair, the color pink, jewelry, or even for being a ballet dancer, hairstylist, fashion designer or nurse.
The restrictions that society had imposed upon females in the past have been removed and the removal *accepted*, like 90%. While society has removed about 10% of gender restrictions from males and the general populace has only accepted half of those restriction removals.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:37 AM February 12th, 2004 EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
I might get flamed for this, but I always feel a little bad for Lorianne.
She keeps comein' back, we flame her, (includeing me) but she just keeps comeing back.
I may not always agree with your points Lorianne, but I gotta give you credit for trying.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get flamed everywhere :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I get flamed everywhere
Jerry Springer is hated by millions, and is still VERY SUCCESSFUL. So being flamed by 20 people is npo big deal.
Now, if I could get 1% of JS's negative publicity I would be very happy.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
