I found this and think it explains our want well

[crfriend]

think the machismo thing comes from the Alpha Male syndrome to compete and win the female. It's just funny that after they've won their female (most men) still do the machismo thing, as in if they don't live their lives by a certain very strict code of their idea of manliness. They're no longer men.

Well, it makes sense when looked at from the point of view that men are behaving instinctually instead of rationally. Man "on autopilot" can be a pretty obnoxious creature, and the more cultivated specimens learn to override that instinct using their brains. Interestingly, the proper use of brains to leverage a situation almost always yields better results than the application of pure brawn, but that sometimes isn't practised.

Humans are very complex creatures, so to attribute all (or most) forms of behaviour to instinct is over-simplifying matters, but one can gain some insight by using the comparison as a tool. A closer analogy might be to look at the dynamics that drive a wolf pack: in that situation (which can be used by way of analogy to describe small human societies) there's the dominant (Alpha) male and female -- all the other wolves are in supporting roles, and it's only when it's really apparent that the Alphas are no longer "up to the task at hand" that they're taken down. This is in contrast to humans where our highly competitive nature abhors operating in a "beta" (support) role; humans, however, demand the Alpha slot, even if we're not up to it. And this is where we can fail, and fail spectacularly -- and the costs of that failure are legion.

I don't blame guys that can't climb out of that pit for what's going on; they're behaving in a perfectly predictable (and comfortable, because they have no other frame of reference) manner, even if it is destructive. One can only hope that a gentle nudge in the direction of getting them to use their minds may open the doors to new possibilities.

What's this got to do with blokes wearing skirts? Actually a fair bit. We're pushing the envelope of what's "acceptable" for guys, and since a lot of guys tend to be pretty rigid, this can cause "comfort" problems to the "less enlightened" around us. That our wives/girlfriends/lovers can be highly intolerant points up that they're "competing", too, and demand all assistance possible to hold onto their "Alpha roles". Both situations, once rational thought is applied, look positively ridiculous -- indefensible -- but that's the brain talking, not the biology of aeons.

As far as having to prove one's self constantly, we're back to the wolf-pack analogy; if the Alpha doesn't prove himself "worthy" of that status, one of the other doggies will oust him.

[AMM]

think the machismo thing comes from the Alpha Male syndrome to compete and win the female. It's just funny that after they've won their female (most men) still do the machismo thing, as in if they don't live their lives by a certain very strict code of their idea of manliness. They're no longer men.

Well, it makes sense when looked at from the point of view that men are behaving instinctually instead of rationally. Man "on autopilot" can be a pretty obnoxious creature, and the more cultivated specimens learn to override that instinct using their brains. Interestingly, the proper use of brains to leverage a situation almost always yields better results than the application of pure brawn,...

My short-and-not-so-sweet reaction to where this discussion is going: we're blundering around awfully close to the border into BS-land.

I'm being so blunt because people, and especially guys, are in love with the idea that their behavior has some rational basis, and even that it's determined by Evolution. Wolves do it, deer do it, so we menz just can't help doing it, too. Unfortunately, it's usually based on garbled versions of popularized accounts of animal behavior, evolution, and biology, spliced with some wishful thinking. Carl's account is better than most, but I think even it could use a healthy dose of skepticism.

First of all, animal behavior tends to be a lot more complicated than most people suppose. E.g., I recall reading one researcher who found that the wolves he was looking at lived mostly off of mice, which you don't hunt in packs. And when you move to animals closer to us -- gorillas and chimpanzees -- you find stuff that sounds a lot more like politics than Rocky. One quote I recall (not sure which species) was that the successful primate was not the one who liked to fight, but the one who was best at forming and manipulating alliances. Another described how older, non-alpha gorillas tended to be more successful reproductively than anyone had thought, because they would spend more time being nice to specific females, who would then cooperate in finding opportunities for them to mate.

Second of all, the rationalizations of human behavior usually don't make any sense. "Alpha male" behavior in humans doesn't have anything to do with reproductive success. The jock or the tough may have an advantage in getting a date with the cheerleader in high school, but by the time most people are ready to settle down and reproduce, the mild-mannered guy is just as likely to find a mate as the guys who are hung up on being so "alpha." And if it's the guys who are competing for the women, why are women under so much more pressure to attract men than men to attract women?

What I do know is that men in our society are raised to feel that masculinity is something (a) vital to your existence, (b) but you're not sure exactly what it is, and (b) easy to lose (forever?) if you're not careful. This is a good "lever" if you want to make men go out and do things that they would otherwise regard as too stupid to consider, like getting close up and personal with people swinging sharp metal things, or marching into machine-gun fire. When you add to this the understandable fallacy that "not a man" = "woman", and then you provide these well-trained defenders-of-masculinity with fewer and fewer ways to insure that they haven't lost their precious masculinity somewhere, then .... you have what we have now.

This relates directly to men-in-skirts. Rational arguments saying why skirts are more practical or more traditional or are more in tune with "freedom" (whatever that is) are a waste of time, because they don't address the real issue. Half our society is convinced that they are in danger of their "masculinity" falling off and no obvious way to prevent it or know when it's happening. From the point of view of magical thinking, they'd be crazy to further endanger their masculinity by doing anything that might have un-masculine manna, and wearing skirts is close to the most un-masculine thing they can think of. We can either (a) try to convince our brothers that masculinity isn't something you can lose (good luck!) or (b) take the Utilikilt approach: convince guys that MUGs are even more masculine than trousers!

[Sarongman]

AMM, it seems you read the same article as I did re. primate behaviour. The thing about that article that stuck in my mind was that the chimps could not co-operate and failed to gain a reward just out of reach with the tools provided, while the slightly smaller cousins who are known to co-operate, quickly grasped the situation and brought the reward within reach. I hope we, as the top ranking primates, are not heading, chimp-wise toward a catastrophe of "alpha" sefishness.

[crfriend]

Carl's account is better than most, but I think even it could use a healthy dose of skepticism.

Well, thank you, but it should be said that I was "winging it" with that. So, skepticism is well advised.

What I do know is that men in our society are raised to feel that masculinity is something (a) vital to your existence, (b) but you're not sure exactly what it is, and (b) easy to lose (forever?) if you're not careful. This is a good "lever" if you want to make men go out and do things that they would otherwise regard as too stupid to consider, like getting close up and personal with people swinging sharp metal things, or marching into machine-gun fire. When you add to this the understandable fallacy that "not a man" = "woman", and then you provide these well-trained defenders-of-masculinity with fewer and fewer ways to insure that they haven't lost their precious masculinity somewhere, then .... you have what we have now.

Now that is quite a bit better and, along with the commentary that almost all "alpha behaviours" are not directly related to procreation, points up just how shallow things can get. The last time I looked, my "manliness" hadn't fallen off because I wear skirts from time to time, and I don't believe that Sapphire perceives me as being any less "manly" than before I started wearing skirts.

In point of fact, it takes "more of a man" to actually break ranks with the herd and strike out on his own path; it takes bravery, it takes determination, and it takes fortitude -- all of which, I suspect, we'll agree are supposedly "masculine" traits (I also know women who have those traits and are most decidedly not masculine, so I may be barking up the wrong tree).

We can either (a) try to convince our brothers that masculinity isn't something you can lose (good luck!) or (b) take the Utilikilt approach: convince guys that MUGs are even more masculine than trousers!

I'd hope for, and attempt to work towards, option "a" above. Option "b" just preserves the silliness and doesn't address the root of the problem.

[alexthebird]

We can either (a) try to convince our brothers that masculinity isn't something you can lose (good luck!) or (b) take the Utilikilt approach: convince guys that MUGs are even more masculine than trousers!

Wonderful analysis AMM. I think, though, that there is a third option, and that would involve women. I'm convinced that a substantial part of the reason that many men have such a fear of not being perceived as sufficiently masculine is because of the traditionally superior status of men. To lose masculinity is to lose status and privilege, to be cast into a traditionally subsurvient role. Now as this has been changing over the past century or so (and accelerating over the past 30 years), those who still believe that there are fundamentally different roles for men and women can become increasingly worried as more and more people challenge those roles.

Obviously, there are biological differences, but the increasing number of people who choose not to have children openly challenge the biological determination of social roles. So do women who choose careers in politics or law, or men who share childcare. So do women who dress for comfort, practicality, or power (as opposed to corsets and hoopskirts) and men who wear skirts.

I'm not a sociologist, but it seems to me that many women have been challenging gender roles longer and more successfully than men. We would be well advised to emulate them until we are at a place where we acknowledge and celebrate the identities of individual people without first classifying them by gender roles.

So how does this all relate to AMM's two options? Well, beside joining some of our more enlighted sisters in challenging gender roles, isn't our concept of masculinity based in part on a reflection of what women think it is? I'm thinking of long hair, for example. Once, long hair on men was seen to be effeminate. But, once women started swooning over the Beatles and Rolling Stones, even the macho-est alpha male started growing his hair. The pendulum has swung back and forth a few times, but long hair has lost its symbolism. If women find men in skirts to be attractive, skirts will lose their stigma.

[Departed Member]

If women find men in skirts to be attractive, skirts will lose their stigma.

Forget everything else that's been said! That one sentence says it all!

[AMM]

Disclaimer: in my responses below, I speak from my experience in the USA and to a limited degree in Germany. I don't have enough experience with the UK to speak intelligently about gender in the UK.

I'm convinced that a substantial part of the reason that many men have such a fear of not being perceived as sufficiently masculine is because of the traditionally superior status of men. To lose masculinity is to lose status and privilege, to be cast into a traditionally subsurvient role.

I think that this is only part of it. You're leaving out the aspect of identity.

For most men, "masculinity -- that is, "being a man," as they conceive of it (and each man will conceive of it differently) -- is one of the most essential parts of who they are. The "I am a boy" is one of the first-laid bricks (cornerstone) of their Self. Take away their masculinity, and they are somebody else; you might as well transplant RuPaul's brain into their body. And since practically every other part of their Self is laid upon this cornerstone of masculinity, even changing their concept of masculinity amounts to a complete rebuilding of their personality.

... the increasing number of people who choose not to have children openly challenge the biological determination of social roles...

I don't think that social roles were ever biologically determined. Biology (e.g., the need to produce and care for children, so society doesn't die out) provides certain requirements, which, by the way, have not gone away, and one function of social roles is to meet these requirements. But there are many, many ways to meet these requirements, and our species has tried out many, many ways that most of us have never heard of.

...it seems to me that many women have been challenging gender roles longer and more successfully than men. We would be well advised to emulate them ...

A minority of women. Most women still only object to their gender roles when and where it causes them obvious pain, and don't want to examine the connections between the painful bits and the rest of the concept of femininity that they grew up with.

The difference between men and women here is that women's roles contained so many aspects that were acutely painful, which gaven them more motivation to change them, at least in these aspects. In the USA, at least, women's involvement in the war effort during World War II opened many women's minds to the joys of meaningful work outside the home. My ex-wife's mother was one of the many women who was forced out of her interesting work (cryptography) when the war ended (because women's place was in the home) and resented it to the day she died.

But most women still don't challenge things that don't hurt. For example, as long as they can feel that people see them as pretty (regardless of what they have to do to get there), they are happy with the expectation that "feminine" = pretty.

And most men are satisfied (or have learned to satisfy themselves) with the male role. Especially given what they see as the alternative.

.. isn't our concept of masculinity based in part on a reflection of what women think it is?

No. At least not here in the USA. What women think has remarkably little effect on most men. In fact, for the majority of men, listening to what women say about anything takes away from their masculinity. Most will do it to some extent if they have to; for example, to save their marriage. But they see it as a sacrifice of their selves. The conflict for men between their fellow men's expectations and their wives' and children's is the source of a lot of bitter humor.

Sociologists find over and over again that most socialization comes from people in your own group. Children learn how to be from other children, and adopt the values and social rules of their peer group. Boys follow the dictates of their fellow boys, girls obey the social rules held by their fellow girls, etc.

If women find men in skirts to be attractive, skirts will lose their stigma.

Not if other men give them the look that says, "not very masculine."

Consider how often people here at SkirtCafe talk about whether a skirt or ensemble is "masculine enough."

[Bob]

No. At least not here in the USA. What women think has remarkably little effect on most men. In fact, for the majority of men, listening to what women say about anything takes away from their masculinity.

Yes, I would agree. If men REALLY cared what women think, they would listen more and commit more, rather than looking for the quick "one-off."