Why do women put up with men who look like slobs

[Departed Member]

Women wear high heels and makeup and pantyhose and other complicated and uncomfortable "feminine" clothes, to the extent they do, not because their men require it, but because "being a woman" to them means wearing such clothes, at least some of the time. And if anyone is demanding that they dress this way, it is almost always other women who are doing so. It's not that society at large condemns the alternatives, the way it condemns men who wear skirts. It's the women's own identity and the group identity of the women in their support networks.

In the same way, most men won't consider wearing skirts, not because they wouldn't be comfortable, and in many cases even if they know from experience how comfortable it can be, because it's so incompatible with their idea and their friends' idea of who they are, which is mainly drawn from society's male social roles.

Bravo! I was beginning to think that all of the "Women wear fashions that make them look (relatively) helpless" ideas were exclusively a US view! Your observations in the above paragraphs mirrors 'the way things work' in the UK. The "men require it" fallacy is just part of the 'feminazi' trend, as far as citizens here are concerned. BUT, it is equally obvious, that where extremist religious groups exist (of whatever faction), women are still subjugated, so I can also see where Sapphire is coming from, too...

[alexthebird]

If we cannot express these things on here in safety without getting blown up at twice a week in bold red text and cursing, then where can we go as men to talk about gender issues... If we are never allowed to "get it wrong" without getting our head chopped off, then how is that any different than a man feeling ashamed to wear a skirt for fear he will "get it wrong" and be ridiculed and scorned?

On more than a couple of occasions I have remarked that the tone of this board can easily lean towards misogyny and homophobia. Each time I've done it, there have been far more responses implying that I was being merely politically correct than there were responses that tried to deal the issues being raised.

I won't question whether the observations that led to this controversy were real or not, but I'd suggest that they were limited. People's observations are often selective or interpreted in ways that confirm our way of thinking. One person may see a handful of teenagers in some fashionable, "little-girl" fashions and be tempted to draw conclusions about the psychology of women dressing to be vulnerable; someone else may recall images of women attorneys in power suits and draw conclusions about how women want to emulate men; someone else may observe women in the gym lifting more weight than they can and draw conclusions about that. All observations are valid, all are terribly limited.

Yes, people do have the right to get it wrong, but if no one points out its wrong and if the effect of their being wrong is not apparent, what's the point? How do you know it is wrong? How will you learn?

I also wonder about the intensity of the reactions to Sapphire's posts. Are people really trying to defend what she is reacting against, or are they uncomfortable with the vehemence of her reactions? She is reacting against a paternalistic attitude that is still very pervasive throughout our society and I wouldn't mind exploring that, but if you are uncomfortable with her tone, I'd say welcome to her world.

If skirt wearing and the freedom to talk about it entails earning a PhD in women's rights and suffrage, then I think that pretty well eliminates all us ordinary joe's who pump gas, and drive trucks, and drive bulldozers and etc.

I find the anti-intellectual bias being expressed here every bit as distressing as intellectuals who dismiss the thinking of the middle and working class.

At some point we simply have to be ourselves.

No truer words were ever spoken. I spent the first 45 years of my life trying to figure out what it was to be a man, to look like a man, act like a man and think like a man, while all the time most of the people I admired and modeled myself after were women. I was in an extremely uncomfortable state.

Then I decided I was a tranny, and spent 2 years trying to figure out what it meant to me a women, to look like a woman, act like a woman, and think like a woman, while in man's body. That didn't work either.

Now I'm just trying to figure out what it is to be me and frankly, that's a lot harder, but a lot more satisfying.

[ChrisM]

Thank you Sapphire - I thought it was just me.

Your reaction was much stronger than mine, but then being a gent I didn't feel personally threatened, I just felt "Oh, I guess those guys live somewhere far away from me."

None of the women in my life are dressed by men, in any cultural sense. In fact, when we have discussed this most of them will admit they are dressed for women, since as a broad rule the men won't notice (being 'fashion impaired' as we generally are.)

In view of this I have kept silent on this thread, and I will return to lurking mode here shortly. I only popped my head up so that Sapphire wouldn't throw her hands up in dismay and storm from the Cafe.

Sapphire, just remember that within the Cafe there are many conversations, and not all of them represent the totality of the denizens. Indeed, I'll say that NONE of them represent the TOTALITY of denizens. In real life, wandering around say a cocktail party, I drift away from the clutch of women who are talking about babies, and I drift away from the clutch of men talking about ball sports. I drift away from the Republicans, and I seek out, say, Carl to talk about PDP-8s or somewhat.

Some subjects hold noo interest for me. Some even offend me. (You would never accuse me of agreeing with every conversation in the room simply because I was present when it took place! <smile>) So please feel free to pipe up, but don't run off.

You can always sit here in the corner with me (I've got Hamish's old potted palm) and we can discuss the application of Thoreau to the 21st century USA.


Cheers!

Chris

[BrotherTailor]

If we cannot express these things on here in safety without getting blown up at twice a week in bold red text and cursing, then where can we go as men to talk about gender issues... If we are never allowed to "get it wrong" without getting our head chopped off, then how is that any different than a man feeling ashamed to wear a skirt for fear he will "get it wrong" and be ridiculed and scorned?

On more than a couple of occasions I have remarked that the tone of this board can easily lean towards misogyny and homophobia. Each time I've done it, there have been far more responses implying that I was being merely politically correct than there were responses that tried to deal the issues being raised.

I won't question whether the observations that led to this controversy were real or not, but I'd suggest that they were limited. People's observations are often selective or interpreted in ways that confirm our way of thinking. One person may see a handful of teenagers in some fashionable, "little-girl" fashions and be tempted to draw conclusions about the psychology of women dressing to be vulnerable; someone else may recall images of women attorneys in power suits and draw conclusions about how women want to emulate men; someone else may observe women in the gym lifting more weight than they can and draw conclusions about that. All observations are valid, all are terribly limited.

Yes, people do have the right to get it wrong, but if no one points out its wrong and if the effect of their being wrong is not apparent, what's the point? How do you know it is wrong? How will you learn?

I also wonder about the intensity of the reactions to Sapphire's posts. Are people really trying to defend what she is reacting against, or are they uncomfortable with the vehemence of her reactions? She is reacting against a paternalistic attitude that is still very pervasive throughout our society and I wouldn't mind exploring that, but if you are uncomfortable with her tone, I'd say welcome to her world.

If skirt wearing and the freedom to talk about it entails earning a PhD in women's rights and suffrage, then I think that pretty well eliminates all us ordinary joe's who pump gas, and drive trucks, and drive bulldozers and etc.

I find the anti-intellectual bias being expressed here every bit as distressing as intellectuals who dismiss the thinking of the middle and working class.

At some point we simply have to be ourselves.

No truer words were ever spoken. I spent the first 45 years of my life trying to figure out what it was to be a man, to look like a man, act like a man and think like a man, while all the time most of the people I admired and modeled myself after were women. I was in an extremely uncomfortable state.

Then I decided I was a tranny, and spent 2 years trying to figure out what it meant to me a women, to look like a woman, act like a woman, and think like a woman, while in man's body. That didn't work either.

Now I'm just trying to figure out what it is to be me and frankly, that's a lot harder, but a lot more satisfying.

alexthebird,
I'm not implying that only one view is legitimate. What I suppose my point was in objecting to sapphire's response was that it could have been presented otherwise. The stomping of the foot and angry block red font in shouting capitals was simply emoting in a way that shuts down any sort of real exploration of the matter. AMM articulated his observations, feelings, and his theories in a very level and mater of fact way, there was no visible anger, spite, repressiveness etc. Sapphire seemed to be articulating her personal observations, feelings, theories (posited as indubitable verifiable "fact") in a much more graphic and involved way that for all the world looked like a temper tantrum. It is this display of temper I was addressing. Call it a plea for gentlemanly discourse.

I'm not anti-intellectual, if you care to correspond with me, you may find me well able to hold my own in my field of interest, and fwiw I do know a bit of women's history, although do not hold a degree in it.

I'm all for debate, but it must be civil and respectful, and to an extent we must remain detached and dispassionate - otherwise it winds up as some group "Primal Scream" as we exhume all the accumulated skeletal remains in our personal portfolio...

[Emerald Witch]

I have always thought that skirt flipping in young years would fade away, if boys wore skirts in elementary school. Cause they wouldn't like it done to them, so they should not want to do it to others.

I think you are ignoring how deeply social roles affect people's behavior.

Boys aren't flipping skirts because they don't know how unpleasant it is. They do it because they do know how unpleasant it is. They do equally unpleasant things to one another. They do it because being "male" is essential to their idea of who they are, and picking on others -- proving that you can do things to them whether they like it or not -- is a large part of the male social role that they have been taught. Even when acting "male" makes them miserable, as it often does in later life, they can't give it up, because they have no idea who they would be or how to act if they weren't acting "male." Only after they have grown an identity that is larger than these social roles can they consider giving up some of these behaviors.

You know, I've never had a clue why boys are so often horrible to one another. I see them every day being mean, fighting, playing dominance games with one another, etc. All I can think is how much nicer it would be for everybody if the fighting would just stop and everybody could respect one another and take the time to learn what makes each person worth admiring and valuing. Then the whole community could care about each other and treat each other like family instead of like a war zone.

But now that you mention this angle, things start to make a glimmer more sense. I'm not saying it excuses bad behavior AT ALL, I'm just saying maybe it helps explain to my mind why so many boys seem to have a need to behave badly. When all the rules are against it, and all the grownups (mostly women) are frowning, and they are being punished over and over again, where are they getting their encouragement from?

Maybe they're getting their encouragement from an inborn or deeply socialized need to establish an identity within the group.

I would really appreciate the input of the other men on this one. Do you all agree that it is a basic part of male socialization to show dominance/establish a pecking order by basically being horrible to one another? (physical violence, verbal insults, other forms of humiliation)

hmmm. I haven't thought about this yet... I wonder how this might translate to women? I know for sure it's different. Women do have a pecking order, but it's usually much more subtle. Little girls usually show dominance by who they'll talk to and play with, not by hitting. Probably that's a subject for another thread.

This information will come in handy for me, as a person who works with children daily. (all ages from 5-15) So, fellas, whatcha think?

[gshubert]

I think you are ignoring how deeply social roles affect people's behavior.

I may not agree with some particular examples, but I feel it's a pretty fair general idea.

I think many times a person makes clothing choices to show what sort of group he or she is in. Or to help indicate how the person expects to be treated. Clothes are not quite badges of rank, but they do show class, and kind of set the tone for personal interactions.

Clothes can be a kind of shorthand to aid in "classifying" or "pigeon-holing", to set the stage so others can see at a glance the various roles and relations.

Since some human interactions are arbitrary or unfair, any clothing choices that tend to correlate with those may take on those unpleasant associations. Expensive suits with lobbyists. Horsehair wigs with barristers. Whatever.

[Bob]

I think many times a person makes clothing choices to show what sort of group he or she is in.

I've noticed that in ballet, students --- boys and girls --- so often seem to be rushing as fast as they can to express their gender. I agree, expressing who we are or what sort of group we are in is very important.

What I suppose my point was in objecting to sapphire's response was that it could have been presented otherwise. The stomping of the foot and angry block red font in shouting capitals was simply emoting in a way that shuts down any sort of real exploration of the matter.

I've come to learn that different people use (or don't use) emotions in different ways in public discourse. The idea that emotion has no place in public is deeply ingrained in British society, but it is not at all a universal cultural phenomenon.

We are a diverse group, and how we express and relate to emotions is part of that diversity. I hope we can all grow in learning to communicate through this diversity, and to act as a community.

Sapphire's post was certainly worded strongly, and even included four-letter words (appropriately starred out). But it did not attack or cut down others at the Cafe. The statements were "I" statements, not "you" statements. It therefore falls on the "respectful" side of SkirtCafe's policy of mutual respect. Moreover, the post made its point, in that many people now know exactly how sapphire thinks and feels about this issue.

[Peter v]

I have always thought that skirt flipping in young years would fade away, if boys wore skirts in elementary school. Cause they wouldn't like it done to them, so they should not want to do it to others.

I think you are ignoring how deeply social roles affect people's behavior.

Boys aren't flipping skirts because they don't know how unpleasant it is. They do it because they do know how unpleasant it is. They do equally unpleasant things to one another. They do it because being "male" is essential to their idea of who they are, and picking on others -- proving that you can do things to them whether they like it or not -- is a large part of the male social role that they have been taught. Even when acting "male" makes them miserable, as it often does in later life, they can't give it up, because they have no idea who they would be or how to act if they weren't acting "male." Only after they have grown an identity that is larger than these social roles can they consider giving up some of these behaviors.

You know, I've never had a clue why boys are so often horrible to one another. I see them every day being mean, fighting, playing dominance games with one another, etc. All I can think is how much nicer it would be for everybody if the fighting would just stop and everybody could respect one another and take the time to learn what makes each person worth admiring and valuing. Then the whole community could care about each other and treat each other like family instead of like a war zone.

But now that you mention this angle, things start to make a glimmer more sense. I'm not saying it excuses bad behavior AT ALL, I'm just saying maybe it helps explain to my mind why so many boys seem to have a need to behave badly. When all the rules are against it, and all the grownups (mostly women) are frowning, and they are being punished over and over again, where are they getting their encouragement from?

Maybe they're getting their encouragement from an inborn or deeply socialized need to establish an identity within the group.

I would really appreciate the input of the other men on this one. Do you all agree that it is a basic part of male socialization to show dominance/establish a pecking order by basically being horrible to one another? (physical violence, verbal insults, other forms of humiliation)

hmmm. I haven't thought about this yet... I wonder how this might translate to women? I know for sure it's different. Women do have a pecking order, but it's usually much more subtle. Little girls usually show dominance by who they'll talk to and play with, not by hitting. Probably that's a subject for another thread.

This information will come in handy for me, as a person who works with children daily. (all ages from 5-15) So, fellas, whatcha think?

I think that:

Men work more visually, fysically, women are the more how can I name it? Thinking ones, but both are ruthless. When women don't fight fysically, they are fighting a mind battle. It's just normal survival, still going strong since the planet was born. It's not the object to permanently hurt, but as stated, a way to establish your place in a group, survival. With all our canned food, etc. we don't see the need for many actions that we see around us. Only by looking at them deeply can we se the real reason and see what really is going on.

It's no wonder that at least at first men wearing dresses was condemned, because without being able to know what made that person tik, there was only one conclusion, he was a man who was no longer manly, and therefore didnt fit in the group, was something the group had no knowledge of how to deal with, a "danger to the continuance of the group in it's form". We now know better. What would you have thought of people who talked to themselves, and shook their heads while walking down the street 50 years ago? They'd be locked in an asylum. Today we see that, but they are only talking in their handsfree telefone and listening to their MP3 music player.

All these discussions lead to a better understanding of each other on the forum, and ultimately the world around us. That understanding helps for skirt wearing too.

peter v.