I think this strip also shows the way that many women reinforce gender roles in men.
Panel two: Women only want 'manly men'.
This is not just a stereotype: there is a lot of truth in it.
It's not true that all women are attracted to ultra-manly Schwarzennegger/Rambo types, and it's a massive oversimplification to say that women want "jerks," but women do tend to be attracted to men with more masculine traits than they have themselves.
Consequently, men have an incentive to display those traits if they want any kind of sex/relationships with women.
I have various flavors of reaction to this comment.
The first set of reactions are pretty knee-jerk: First of all, "sex/relationships" is sorta telling--it makes palecast's point out to sound like, "Well, if men want to get laid..." Secondly, "women do tend to be attracted to men with more masculine traits than they have themselves" is such a gross over generalization (on several fronts) that it doesn't add a lot to the conversation--as stated, it's sort of tautological (i.e. [straight] women are attracted to people who are men). At the same time, there are also so many exceptions to it in my own experience, that I want to put the burden of proof back on palecast to prove it.
On the other hand, I have a set of reactions that are less knee-jerk. Most importantly, I think it can be important for us to recognize the ways in which all of us reinforce traditional gender roles.
An Existentialist Aside
I get into trouble sometimes in feminist circles because I'm a big Simone de Beauvoir fan. One of the things that Beauvoir gets criticized for by some feminists is that she places a good deal of responsibility for the oppression of women on women themselves; this comes from Beauvoir's existentialist roots--at bottom we all have existentialist freedom, so in some sense of 'freedom', Beauvoir believes we are all ultimately individually responsible. But her philosophy isn't that simple, because she (unlike Sartre, as I understand it all) introduces the concept of practical freedom, and she shows that political freedom can limit us no matter how much 'existential' freedom we have. One example she gives is of a woman who is held against her will in a 'harem'--sure, she has existentialist freedom; she may choose to live that life or to kill herself, for instance, but she's limited to those choices by her lack of practical freedom, and Beauvoir wants it clear that this lack of freedom is important.
Back to Responsibility for Reinforcing Gender Roles
I mention all of this because I think there is some truth in palecast's observation--but I think that we need to tread very, very carefully when talking about it, mostly because it's complex stuff, but also because it's way, way too easy as men to slip into the "women like jerks" mentality. I'm pretty sure that conceptions of responsibility are usually more complex than people seem to think, which is why I brought up Beauvoir, and the way in which she is sometimes oversimplified.
For example, let's take the idea that women reinforce male gender roles by 'wanting manly men'. I do think it would be silly/wrong to deny this altogether. All of the millions of 'nice guy'(tm) discussions that are to be found on the internets aside, lots of men and women have had experiences in the dating world such that traditional male gender roles have been encouraged by both men and women. Regarding straight-identified people and dating (for the moment, let's limit it to this group of people, though of course traditional gender reinforcement can be found in interactions between people who don't identify as straight): what is going on when a woman says she wants a manly man, or when a man says he wants a womanly woman?
Well, first of all, such things mean different things for different people. Some women who say this mean they like men who look like lumberjacks (hi molly!). Some mean that they like men who take responsibility for their own well-being. Some mean that they like men who don't live with their parents any longer. And on and on. And it's important to remember that lots of women who may say this haven't critically examined exactly what they do mean by it (just as many men haven't critically examined their thoughts around liking femme-ish women)--and I would claim that these women may account for the majority of cases where things like "I like manly men" are uttered by straight-identifying women.
I would further claim that those women have some responsibility for examining what they mean by it. This is the main sense in which I agree with Palecast's comment: It's important to realize that men don't perform their genders in a vacuum, but in part as a reaction to women and other men.
But I would also claim that many, many women--most of the women I interact with on a daily basis and certainly lots of the women I've been romantically interested in--have thought at length about what they mean by "I like manly men" (if they do), and one thing these women don't mean is: "I like men who reinforce patriarchy." Rather, they mean that they like men who look like, say, lumberjacks, or men who aren't afraid to show their emotions, or men who don't feel the need to bully others, etc.
My point, which doesn't exactly run counter to what palecast has said, but has a different spirit, I think, is that we ought not treat masculinity as if it were a simple concept, easily understood by all. So, if it is the case that some women are sometimes encouraging traditional masculinity, we (men, women and others) need to try to better understand what traditional masculinity consists in, and what 'modern' masculinity might consist in. And, in a lot of ways, men have much more control and power over how masculinity develops than women have, though I'm not comfortable saying that women have no say in it, because of course they do.
Part of why the whole "women like jerks" mentality is easy to slip into is that men can have this "if we want to have relationships with women, we have to be masculine" mentality, which really is part of several false dichotomies. As I've pointed out, 'masculine' means different things to different people, first of all. But also, on a more personal level, do [straight] men really want to change the way they are (if they aren't masculine in various ways) in order to find romance with women? So, we end up with needing to continually define what masculine means (and people of all genders help to define this), but we also make decisions about how we want our identities to play out...and frankly it doesn't seem practical to 'act more masculine' just to find love, or even to get laid, especially given that 'masculine' means different things to different people.
So, what responsibilities to men have in perpetuating traditional masculinities? Well, first of all, they may put being themselves (like pig on the motorized horse) ahead of finding love (and/or sex) with people who don't like who they are. Men can work on what masculinity means to them, and what it ought to mean to them. Men can talk with other men about this, and with women, and find some differences of opinion and perhaps some comon ground. And this is just off the top of my head.
What can women do to stop perpetuating traditional masculinities? They can be conscious of what they mean by 'masculine' (and many women are conscious of this). They can ask themselves what masculinity does mean, and what it ought to mean.
But I still think that the majority of the work here can be done by men. Women may have some indirect 'control' of masculinity of men through relationships with men, but men can both encourage women to better understand masculinity, and walk away from women (and other men!) who don't care to look more deeply into what modern masculinity is, and what it might be.
18 comments:
Wow, Jeff, sometimes we are on the same wavelength a little too much. I was thinking about this on my drive home today from the coffee shop.
I think maybe "bear" might be better than "lumberjack" on second glance. Bears were a queer way of appreciating and loving masculinity, the male body, and also being *queer*.
I love men, I just hate the baggage that comes with it, especially when it comes down to being the woman i am, being butch and watching people wrangle with that concept (am I queer/straight? Am I closeted? Insane?)
After my marriage I went through a "lumberjack" phase. I think for me it meant, really, adult men. That's loaded, but for all intents and purposes it came down to a few things i was not willing to do for my lovers anymore:
1-be the sole source of financial support
2-be the sole source of emotional support
Its hard to stand on your own two feet in this world, especially when you're genderqueer. Its hard to find masculine or feminine role models, and if everything else is "queer" its hard to live in a "queer" space because it disempowers us.
But, in general, I think when I say lumberjack what I mean is: someone who is comfortable with who they are, enough to engage in a fairly queer relationship with a woman like me (butchtastic), enough to question traditional boundaries of gender/sexuality...and on top of that, can take care of their own shit.
I have spent a lot of time up to this point taking care of the people I loved financially. It put me into debt, it forged dependencies where they didn't need to be, and it made the people I was with insecure because I manage to stay financially secure, and goodness knows, I'm a woman.
So that said, I think lumberjack, for me, isn't really about traditional masculinity. What it is about is having a certain amount of confidence and sense of self that does not rely on a femme counterpart of make it stand (there have been drag studies done regarding the necessity of femme queens (women performing hyperfemininity) and butch kings (men performing masculinity) to emphasize the masculinity/femininity of drag kings/queens respectively).
We should all hope to someday have a gender that doesn't need an "opposite" to define it.
While I think bears *do* in some ways have opposites, I think it tends to stretch the concept from "masculinity" (as a singular concept) to "masculinities" (which relate to each other and are contextual, fluid) -and- which explores the relationship between masculinities and femininities (as in pan-sexual events, the intermixing in gay bars, etc).
As far as I'm concerned, I *love* men. But all the lumberjacks I'm into are queer.
Dunno if that makes sense, and I hope anyone I relate to does not mind being "queered" in that manner. But I want to mark the distinction that when I say I love lumberjacks, a lumberjack is NOT a signifier of hegemonic masculinity (to me), but rather of specific kinds of subordinated/queer masculinities.
-m
Jeff,
My sense is that there are a lot of inter-tangled issues here!
Men often feel like they have to "take the initiative" with women. They need to "be assertive" in various ways. They would like for women to "take the risks" along with their risk taking.
At the same time we should be clear that when immediately that a woman shows some assertiveness with a man that he takes it as a sexual come on, it might make a few women hesistant unless that is what they are seeking.
Often the issues are more interwoven with our prior experiences in life. For men we are used to rejections, sometimes emotional isolation, etc.
Women are often used to men who are jerks.
Men often seek women who are "thin" regardless of how thin they are, sometimes younger women etc. Some of us seek women who will listen to us talk endlessly, but rarely listen to the women.
Women may seek men who have certain characteristics - e.g. earning power, "masculinity" in appearance or mannerisms etc.
Sexism certainly affects how both men and women react to each other.
You are getting into an interesting area! I encourage you to explore it in more depth if it merits it for you.
Thanks!
Molly--
A good deal of what you've said is what I was referring to when I noted that I didn't think a lot of women who say they want 'manly men' or whatever want men who reinforce patriarchy...thus you like queer lumberjacks.
But your listing of what it is you're attracted to is exactly the sort of beginning of a discussion that I think needs to happen more and more, especially to counter the various threads of "what women want" as overgeneralizations. So thank you. :)
Geo--
Thanks for the feedback. I think that you recognize one central part of what I was getting at, which is that talk about masculinities is the beginning of a process, not the end. So, when a woman says, "I like masculine men," the very next question should be "What do you mean by that?" or some such...
Jeff,
thus is the trouble with language. Archetypes are short-hand and can mean severely different things in different contexts. Their meaning (as with my lumberjack analogy) can also shift over time.
I agree, this discussion is one that needs to happen over and over again between people. The problem with short-hand is that it rarely means the same exact thing to different people
-m
B - my partner is "dominant" (controlling) in her general life and not surprisingly would ideally like me to be "dominant" sexually in very limited moments of other parts of our life.
For me, as a long-time pro-Feminist on top of who I was as a child and a growing older adult, dominance doesn't feel right at all.
I can "play games" - but in most areas it's "not who I am".
As men no doubt we are often equally not desiring totally consistency with women, except perhaps for some men who want women as submissive conquests either sequentially or in numbers at the same time.
It seems as though women have been much, much more successful through feminism at exploring new roles as women. At times these are hard for them due to sexism. Also difficult is trying to maintain: 1.) High pressured jobs
2.) Demanding young children
3.) A primary relationship.
Often the primary relationship is what needs to give in many ways.
As men, we no longer identify as:
1.) The breadwinner
2.) The warrior
3.) The "ultimate boss" in the house.
For some men ties with traditional churches provide some support and a system for support.
For men who don't have the religious ties, we must find other ways to relate and connect with both men and women.
We may (as I do) feel alone not having networks of close friends. We also face homophobia and sometimes boredom with many other men who seem to identify primarily with talking only about sports and women's body parts.
With primary partners we may face women's menstrual cycles and the resultant differences of their moods and desires for us.
We also, both men and women, have our self-doubts that get in our way. For women if often relates to their weight and figures. It can also relate to how we were treated in our families as children - being put down or "little princes" or whatever we faced.
As men we quite naturally face the stereotypes that women may put on us as individuals, based upon their life experiences with other men.
We also as men often have trouble relating to other men who aren't in similar circumstances to us. It is the Gay Men often who, though childless, are "uncles" to lesbian's kids. As fathers, we may connect with other fathers. As "not child centered" - with no kids we often don't relate well to men who are fathers.
I know for myself there is often the "I" - the selfish me that doesn't see beyond my own feelings and seeming needs. Increasingly I try to be more "other" focussed and helpful to my family, my mother and others in my life.
Where I think we really need to go in looking at things though is (as you Jeff talked) of exploring our masculinity and what women mean when they talk of masculinity.
Few women I believe want rude, domineering, violent type men. Being assertive and "dominant" in some ways need not be any of these negative things.
Thanks!
This is an issue I think about a lot, because I'm still attached to several trappings of traditional masculinity. For one thing, many of my choices in entertainment-- fantasy books, video games, Dungeons and Dragons-- are violent, which really contrasts with my sense of ethics.
More fundamentally, I think the problem is that I haven't been able to let go of the concept of gender roles. I'm accepting of differences, but only by modifiying my frameowrk.
That is, when I meet a woman who doesn't conform to my conception of "feminine," I revise ym definition to allow for different expressions of femininity, but I haven't rid myself of the idea of femininity, only expanded it.
Ultimately, though, I'm very skeptical of statements like "women want manly men." The fact is, as molly has pointed out, masculinity means different things in different social contexts.
To pick an example relevant to children and teenagers, in some circles a boy may be considered unmasculine for showing too much interest in girls, and in another circle for showing too little.
We live in a competitive, individualist, society in which there seems to be, in many circles, an increasing contempt for what is perceived as weakness, in anyone regardless of gender. In my counterculture youth it was uncool to seek status overtly, though various covert status games went on. Today the "real world out there" seems much more insecure and unforgiving. The term "loser" with its connotations is an excellent index of the direction of our contempt.
In a competitive world it is felt to be fatal to show weakness. As women enter this competitive world, or even breathe it in the air so to speak, some may adopt this attitude. It is not feminist as such, rather, in terms of "intersectionality" I would consider it bourgeois.
Many men would like to set down the burden of those parts of the male role which involve hiding their vulnerability and insecurity. Many men would like to adopt a less competitive view of life in general, one less focused on "performance" and the maintenance of a certain type of persona to the world. Some men feel that feminism made an implicit promise that they could be free from the rigidity of gender performance, and then they are disappointed when their social circles (however "liberal") don't validate, in practice, their felt divergence from the "masculine" as they see it. Or they may feel that, in their supposedly "progressive" social circles, it is nevertheless only OK for overtly gay men to free of gender performance expectations. But any men who are attracted to women subject themselves not only to the heterosexual category but also to gender policing regarding their behavior and even their temperament. (And yes, gender policing does hurt more when it comes from self-identified progressives or feminists, and it can.)
Now as for sexual attraction, this is something which is not fair, and should never be expected to be fair. Women and men have a right to their attractions as they are, not as they "should" be according to some other person's ideas. Feminist women are not hypocrites for liking masculine men, but hopefully when they do they can be allies in determining how the concept of masculinity can be reframed in terms of its more positive attributes.
Janet Halley believes that feminism -- feminist legal theory in particular -- is characterized by "a pervasive lack of interest in women's erotic yearning for men and a foreclosure of theoretic space for an affirmation of men's erotic yearning for them." (Split Decisions p. 65) Oddly enough, women's complaints about "Nice Guys TM" actually can (and should, in my opinion) be theorized to help provide the beginnings of a perspective on "what is masculinity such that feminist women can be attracted to it."
As for less masculine heterosexual men, it can be painful for them to learn that being such a man is not necessarily the key to an erotic relation to particular women, feminist or otherwise. Nor does being a temperamentally less masculine man, according to social or cultural norms, give one instant feminist credibility or status.
Where then to search for partners, such men may ask? It becomes easy to adopt self-fulfilling and self-destructive worldviews based on purported animal hierarchies and so forth. Or to succumb to a depressive pessimism and fatalism on this topic.
None of that is necessary, and rigid worldviews provide comfort in the moment but foreclose joyful opportunities that may present themselves in the future. The sufferings of those who don't conform to some narrow cliquish view of gender as they grow up may not compare to those of the "genuinely queer and genderqueer" -- though not all gaybashing is done against "real" gays. But I propose that even mild gender deviants or "victims" of gender policing, even within the heterosexual category, should see gays (actually, LGBT people) as their allies, and should be allies to LGBT people, and should theorize their lesser but still vexing dilemmas using some of the conceptual tools that queer theory has given us.
Ultimately I think we should affirm the positive potential in all gender performance, masculine, feminine, and otherwise. And we should refrain from gender policing within any category, even "heterosexual male." And the behavior of any or all of us can fall short of this ideal, and any or all of us can be called on it, without privilege.
Humbition,
If you want to get outside of the competetive format of contemporary American society, then qualifying statements like:
The sufferings of those who don't conform to some narrow cliquish view of gender as they grow up may not compare to those of the "genuinely queer and genderqueer" -- though not all gaybashing is done against "real" gays
Need to go.
In my work on gender and sexual identities, one of the first things I've run up against are several dualisms that govern peoples' lifestyles: "Authenticity"/Geniuineness/"real" versus poseur/temporaryness/false is one of the first that must go.
After all, what makes a "genuine" genderqueer? The literature seems to point to this category being *anyone* who is subordinated by others because of their gender performance, regardless of their bits. Anyone whose gender performance/behavior lies outside of the archetypes of heteronormative models of masculine/feminine. On the other hand, it includes femme lesbians, who for all intents and purposes have been theorized as "passing straight".
Additionally, what makes a "real" homosexual? Does it mean you have to have sex with people whose bodies are similar to yours *all the time*? Some of the time? Publically/privately?
Its a class-system within the gender system: one that is built to include/exclude (kick people out of the sandbox) for things that don't conform to a specific set of standards which have never been specified. Authenticity is another vector of power.
I think if we're going to examine and challenge "real man" and "real woman" ways of thinking, we need to also challenge the notion that there are "real" homosexuals, "real" genderqueers, or even the notion of *having* a "geniune" identity. They all feed into the same power structures and all either give or deny access to direct social benefits.
Granted, I know first hand about being the recipient of heterosexist and homophobic discrimination, and the kind of thinking that relates butch femininity to lesbians, and fey masculinity to gays...its rough. But not impossible. And knowing that it is a systemic way makes it possible to articulate our frustrations with that way of thinking.
Then again, I think the most useful tool in that is denying the existence of the "geniune" and starting to see "identities" as moments in time that we can mobilize people around rather than as something congealed, or as jeff would say "forever and ever amen" or even *authentic*.
-m
I should point out also that I am not denying that people who spend their lives only desiring same-gendered sexual relations exist (the Kinsey 6), nor do I deny that people who spend their lives having relations with people of different bodies than their own (the Kinsey 1).
I want to challenge, however, that, say the kinsey 6 is more authentically homosexual than say, a Kinsey 3, or even a Kinsey 2 who is non-gender-normative.
What does this do? It broadens the scope of the people fighting against heterosexism and homophobia, if they are willing and can come to grips with the fact that it's *one* system. It means that there are those the system priviledges (which changes context to context) and there are a WHOLE lot more of us who it doesn't. We may as well quit drawing lines in the sand about whose life experiences are "more real" than others'.
-m
Molly --
I am an anthropologist. What you have described is an occupational hazard of ours.
Sometimes I describe systems from within their own operation. And then sometimes I am talking about my own view. I guess I didn't make this difference clear.
But I want everyone to know this! Whenever I talk about a system that encourages "identity normativity" (exactly that pressure to be just like what whatever your identity is supposed to be, according to the people who enforce such things, which I try to make it a point never to do myself), and I talk about how people enforce this kind of normativity, I am not endorsing that.
Sometimes I guess I just don't make it clear that I'm talking about a system (and that's why "real" is in scare quotes in the first place). I'm glad I revisited this so I could make it clear.
In other worlds, Molly, I agree with you 1000 per cent, on both your comments. I am fully and on principle against identity normativity.
Or wait a minute, is this what you mean, Molly?
Sometimes when thinking about queer theory, which I'm only slightly versed in, the thought has occurred to me:
What would happen if everyone who has ever been called "queer," considered themselves "queer" for the purpose of analyzing how gender enforcement worked against them?
Is the "queer movement" really that inclusive?
Because among men in particular, that is an incredibly large set of people.
Maybe my "real" in my post wasn't entirely meant to imply my own or someone else's practice of normativity, but it was actually a reflex based my desire to allow oppressed identity groups to have a veto power in defining their membership. So, if maybe I make an analogy of male playground gender enforcement to what, yes, "real queers" go through, I don't dare say it's the same thing, because I don't want to claim the same level of suffering or oppression.
So it's actually about not claiming victimhood and understanding my privilege as against people who live, really, oppressed lives. But, you know, if "anyone who has ever been called queer, is" -- it would be interesting.
In some ways I mean both.
I *do* use "queer" pretty much that loosely because I think outside of normalizing power, the normative models don't really exist in any concrete sense as anything more than a particular subjective position in a particular moment in time in a particular space.
I tend to see things in terms of interactions and moments (time and space) rather than as identities forever and ever amen.
I think that this makes "queer" involve quite a few people over the course of time.
Like Malachi's example earlier: in one situation a boy may be considered fey if he hangs out with girls too much, in another if he doesn't.
Similarly in certain circles my behavior is viewed as "queer" and in other times/spaces/contexts its "straight".
I think that the real uselessness is the categories themselves: useful for discussions of actions (doings and feelings) as opposed to states (beings and havings).
-m
I like the idea of defining "queer" througg interactions rather than states of being, but I wonder if this conflicts with the rule of calling people what they want to be called.
After all, I think most people have some kind of internal gender identity that may or may not line up with the way that they are perceived, especially because gender roles and displays vary with time and place.
For instance, I make a lot of choices in my clothing and personal appearance that some people perceive as "feminine," the point of calling me a cross-dresser. But I don't *feel* queer-- I don't perceive myself as feminine, or even as gender-neutral, but most definitely masculine.
If we wanted to decide whether I was "queer," whose perceptions would we go with, theirs or mine?
malachi,
I really think that If we wanted to decide whether I was "queer," whose perceptions would we go with, theirs or mine? is worth pondering
Part of me, a gut reaction, call it...wants to say you're still thinking in terms of identities: having/being instead of doing/feeling. but the other part of me realizes that for a lot of people naming things and being named/recognizeable is incredibly important.
For my part, I tend to think of "queer" as a relation to normalizing power, and of self-identification as an interactive kind of short-hand for describing my speaking position to others. The second tends to fluctuate depending on who I am speaking with.
I've been toying consciously with the way I self-identify lately because I think I run into a lot of oddities. My manner of dress/behavior/gesture tends to make others see me as masculine/butch and definitively lesbian, while I tend to view myself as a different kind of feminine, or actively re-defining what feminine means (its very hard to dig through a dictionary and find all the different meanings of feminine without running up against the descriptor "weak" at some point or another).
Its true that for some people this is not "queer enough" because I, for example, am not having sex with a woman right now...nor do I have any intention of living as a man.
It is also true that "queer" as a term used on people has a difficult history; one infused with a lot of hatred.
So that said, I think its good to look at the story of genesis from a feminist perspective and to keep in mind that the first thing Adam does is "name" everything around him. One of the ways that patriarchy works is in language: the power of naming things and imposing from the outside how they relate to each other instead of inquiring.
So that said, I tend to identify others only *after* they self-identify if I can help it, and I use queer to describe actions and contexts and specific relations of/to power.
My self-identification fluctuates depending on the group I'm in; its much more fluid and I really use it as a way to contextualize myself within a time and space. I tell some people I'm straight, others that I'm genderqueer and still others that I'm feminine, thankyouverymuch, depending on the situation and the power relations embedded in the interaction...but I'm not going to pretend even for a second that that works for everybody, especially with today's focus in GLBTQ circles about being "out" and "visible".
So to answer your question in a way too long manner: I didn't "decide" I was queer, nor did anyone else decide for me. Instead, occasionally, in moments I have a 'queer' relation to normalizing power structures involving gender/sexuality (and quite probably age/race/class).
Self identification is, for me, a very complicated means of telling people *that*. And the answer really is dependent on why they are asking: what do they really want to know about me?
I have to assume from my limited perspective that other people self-identify in a particular manner for similar reasons.
Speaking as a midlife dater I think we use gender catagories to describe what we want (more manly) when it's really more about individual people traits we turn into gender because that is how the sexual dance is discussed.
When I talk about wanting a real man I mean one who is a person like me. Self confident, pursuing his dreams, treating people decently and willing to do what needs to be done to survive and make a better world.
What happens in real life instead is you get jerks who fake it, stare into your eyes, say the right things to begin with and get you hooked early until they become the jerky "bad" boys women are spose to be addicted too. Most of us feel entrapped. Where was the charming, sweet, adventurous, not boring guy who wanted my attention to begin with? Who is this person calling me a bitch? Is this a mood? Do I fight for this? And of course as soon as you start to wake up the charm is back and the apologies and the attention that says you are the only one is turned on.
I watch guys constantly looking for the look first. The woman that looks like their ideal that makes them feel manly. I watch them cruise past women who aren't buying into gender games. Women who are looking for equal, fun, frolicky partnerships of individuals. But the women aren't small enough, or girly enough, or young enough. So they pick the women that conform to society feminine for their society masculine and then complain about how women keep them in their gender roles.
Yes, I've seen the boys who take the women's studies courses do this.
Basically, no one can keep you in a gender role unless you choose to be in it to begin with.
But if you want to break out it's not just women who reinforce, it's yourself still being attracted to the normative line that will reinforce success. "See, i can cry about me all the time but I'm still a man cause I have a modelly good girlfriend to prove I'm successful alpha male!"
Humans are complicated and often want to be validated by the same systems they reject.
Ok, rambling off, hope I made some sense in there. Thanks for the discussion! Love the blog.
Hi Jeff, I just saw this post and I will respond on my blog soon.
P.S. You are welcome to call me "Hugh" now, rather than "PaleCast."
*sigh* what are the chance that you (Jeff) are young and single?
I have given up on trying to understand what constitutes "femininity" and "masculinity". I've decided to focus on "aspects" I like of "people", regardless of their gender.
And for the record, I've been in love with a man who couldn't be defined as "manly" at all. So, not all women like "manly" men, whatever that turns out to be.
Unfortunately, I've come across some women's opinions on what they consider "manly" and why they like it, and it's, disapointingly, close to the all known stereotype of "man-hunter-dominant-insensitive, etc"
I'm still hopefull, though.
Post a Comment