Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!seb
From: seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: what makes you feel feminine/masculine?
Message-ID: <1290@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 19:54:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1290
Posted: Mon Oct 21 19:54:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 06:17:58 EDT
References: <248@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1944@reed.UUCP> <32@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 132


>> [from me]
> [from  siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk]

>	Men have been dictating what is masculine and feminine 
>throughout time. Clothes is (are) a particularly good example.

> "Men have been dictating"? I think you are over estimating the power
> of men.

Ok, men have not been "dictating" but throughout history they have
been the prime movers in society. The "feminine ideal" was conceived
by men (and women) to please men. There is nothing wrong with pleasing
men, but when the ideal calls for getting rid of all ambition, 
learning and self-reliance, I think that's pushing it a little far.
In the past women were in competition for a limited commodity - men.
For a woman without a man was dependent on her family for support.
And she was a failure. If she couldn't attract a man she had failed
because in reality that was all she could do. Just think about all the
novels(particularly romantic novels) that are based on the poor peasant
girl marrying the rich prince (Cinderella!!). This was success! So
a woman's success in life was based on her ability to attract men.
Certainly, this isn't true of men. The romantic novels just wouldn't
work the other way around.

Thankfully, things are changing and women are not judged successful
or unsuccessful based on how well they attract men. Well, that isn't
the only criteria used anymore, though women are still judged more severely
on their looks than men. (There was a recent study that showed that
attractiveness has some strange effects on perceptions of executives.
More attractive women are perceived as less effective, while in men it
has no effect. Why do you think that is so? That's a rhetorical question.)

Oddly enough, while the strict rules of femininity have been greatly
relaxed in recent years, the basic rules of masculinity remain intact.
And from what I've read here, the reason that they are still intact is
peer pressure from MEN. I've seen a few men come out and say that they
like dresses, earrings and nail polish, which are feminine things. And
why don't they indulge these whims? Because they fear rejection and
embarrassment from other men. Do they fear the same things from women?

In my 25 years of life (or the part of it I remember, at least :-)), I've
found that women try to impress men (with bigger breasts, shaplier legs,
more knowledge of football) and men try to impress men (with running
faster, throwing harder, and drinking more). Sure men try to impress
women, but many of the masculine things that men do to impress women
are also there to impress men. All the sports stuff, all the body
stuff ("oh he's such a hunk!"), the fast sleek sports cars. Now, I know
I'm speaking in stereotypes, but I think you get the point. 

The men are the only ones who can answer my question. You complain about the
rules of masculinity, but where do they come from? Don't throw "SOCIETY"
at me! Society is made up of people. Society's perception of women
as drastically changed in the last 30 years. Why not an equal shift in
society's perception of men? You all have to admit that the change has
not been equal. Women are free to be more like men (that's the best way
I can think of putting it). They can sweat, they can work and they
can do something other than get married. Are men more free to be women?
Well, men are encouraged to be more open and emotional, but it seems
that a lot of that has not come off. For instance, TV, the barometer of 
popular culture and thought in our country. I was watching Hill St Blues
last week. The Mayor's son was shot and killed. I was kind of hoping
they'd show at least a little tear, ok maybe just a welling up of tears
in the mayor's eyes when he talked about it. But no, he's the great
stoic. You can see him forcing to keep it all inside of him. So much for
open and emotional.

So we're back to the question of "why can't men act like more like women?"
If men could act more like women, men could wear dresses in the heat
of the summer, men could wear makeup if they wanted to, men could be
nurses without having to be "male nurses" like we somehow have to dis-
tinguish them from the women, men could be interior decoraters and florists
without being labeled gay.  You want me to solve this problem? I can't
figure why the problem persists, and you want me to offer a solution? 
But I am sure that the solution rests mostly with men - yes men. How men
percieve each other. And that's something that you have to work out in 
your own head.

>>	Men have no interest in changing the standards of femininity
>>because they have nothing to lose if the standards remain the same,
>>and stand to lose security and possibly power if they do change. But
>>if they wanted to, they could bring about change. 

>I have a lot of interest in changing the standards, and I can
>think of a lot of things I stand to gain if they do change.

Ok, lets look at the loss of security and power I speak of. I will use
examples I have seen on the net. Just this morning someone (a male)
said that though he liked to wear an earring and sometimes clear
nail polish, he felt very uncomfortable doing this in group of strange
men. Obviously this is a loss of security. I don't know that he feared
bodily harm, but I would think he feared verbal abuse and derision.
Is this a loss of power? You bet your sweet boots it is! He no longer
taken seriously among his peers, namely other men. He has become like
a woman, a sissy, a fag.

Now, this man doesn't have any reason to change femininity. In fact, he
wants to embarce a small part of it. What he wants to change is mascu-
linity, because masculinity does not include the feminine side of him.

Looking at the responses to the what makes you feel feminine/masculine
question you find that the feminine part hasn't changed. If you want some
more proof look around. Particularly look at Madison Ave. I'm not saying
that Madison Ave is the last authority on what "men" or "women" think,
but advertising does show us what sells. And what sells is what
agrees with the values of most of the people in this country. What do
we see? Almost all the cooking, cleaning, and mothering done in this
country is still done by women. We see "America made the American way,"
everyone happily toiling away in the fields and the factories, but no
women! What I see is what sells in this country and it doesn't
give me too much hope.

Femininity has not changed all that much, folks. And though women
have more freedom in taking the parts of femininity that
they want, they are still constrained by the feminine ideal. (In fact
it's probably gotten harder for women to come close to the ideal.
Now they have to have to possess glamour, poise and beauty, plus
an IQ of 150, a well paying job, and successfully handle a family.
Seems to me that we've just added a bit to femininity.) And 
I don't see all that much change going on among the men. Though
all of you may deny it loudly, I believe that men want the old
feminine ideals of beauty, and sometimes the self-reliance and brains.
I know all you men out there are going to scream and yell and say it isn't
true. But I'll just remind you that you are not representative of
men. You are probably some of the brightest men, the best educated
men and the most liberal men (in a social values sense, not a political
sense), Ken Arndt excluded, of course. :-) Do you really think the
way that you perceive the world is representative? I don't pretend
that my views are representative of women. 

Sharon Badian
ihnp4!mtgzz!seb