|
|
| zoebird - 2006-02-14 9:09 AM
It seems that in our culture, women are more open to 'new' (as in newly introduced) spiritual and other ideas, and men are more entrenched.
This hasn't been my experience. Woman certainly dominate the yoga scene, but outside of this arena, I see men predominantly. Further more, men have traditionally been culturally conditioned to be the explorers, to go out and try new things, while women have been trained to stay at home, and socialize.
A lot of this comes from the fear of loosing sight of one's prescribed social gender. The pressure on male identity is massive, and it is also very narrow. Any tiny misstep or step away from comfortable, prescribed masculinity can cause a huge social hammer to come down.
This has a lot more to do with the expectations and rules of the society we live in. This is a general problem and really has nothing to do with gender. It also applies to just about any micro-society you care to mention. Even the "non-conformist" hippies had their uniforms of tie-dyes and blue jeans.
This, of course, leads to a great deal of male suffering--and i see it all around me. Even men in my classrooms, who longingly look at the women's clothing wishing that there was something comparable for men--the right sorts of wicking materials, clothing that fits, but isn't fitted like a glove or sausage wrapper.
There certainly aren't a lot of "yoga" clothes for men, obviously due to a lack of market. However, there are a lot of other places to get comparable things. I see a lot of people with Prana stuff, and one of my office mates has a nice wicking shirt from Nike. It's supposedly for runners, but I don't think it will self-destruct if I took it into a yoga studio. 
Anyway, clothes are probably one of the silliest ways to indicate gender, it doesn't take much poking about in history to turn up something like this:
 (colorplate162-163.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 colorplate162-163.jpg (31KB - 63 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| This hasn't been my experience. Woman certainly dominate the yoga scene, but outside of this arena, I see men predominantly. Further more, men have traditionally been culturally conditioned to be the explorers, to go out and try new things, while women have been trained to stay at home, and socialize.
what i describe has been my experience. while women dominate the yoga scene in this area, they're also the ones dragging their husbands to churches and other religious festivities because the children are of a certain age. i also see more women going alone to more religious or spiritual activities in general, with husbands or boyfriends or even older sons dragging their feet on the issue or finding any number of ways to not participate. i've listened to countless women describe how their husbands do not have interest in various philosophical, social, or spiritual leanings--of any sort, including those in which they were raised but that they insist that their children be raised in the same spiritual surroundings that they were, even if neither man or the woman who would take the responsibility for doing this actually believes in that tradition. finding happy mediums are also difficult for many women i know, who want to give their children a religious education, but their husband are either uninterested or insistant on a particular 'brand.'
i've met a number of men who were spiritual seekers independent of their wives. most of these men are in my classes or in the various places that i've gone. I've also met men who were in these environments to meet women, not for spiritual sustinance. They seem to recognize that women are walking in various spiritual realms, and if they want to meet women, this is a good opportunity--whether or not they actually believe in or practice the religion. I've had men admit to this openly.
It seems to me that the spiritual education and spiritual realms are largely supported by women, even though they're largely lead by a few men. traditional christian churches tend to be lead by men, but actually run by women--women making up the majority of the numbers. A quick glance around in most churches during services demonstrates this--as well as how engaged in the services the individuals are.
I think the greatest evidence, though, is the experience of women in their frustration that their husbands seem completely disinterested in matters of faith or philosophy, and spend very little time seeking out what they feel and believe. Or at least, if they are seeking it, they're not at all communicating it to the women around them.
Those men who do, like my husband, also report that other men see him as very unusual and far less masculine than they see themselves. That to be spiritual, or a concept of 'too spiritual' is to be 'airy fairy' and that is problematic to the male gender.
While men may be conditioned to be explorers, i rarely see men stepping out of their prescribed gender roles of work, spectator sports, and a few other narrow categories of behavior (some more or less related to women). I've watched many men my own age and older fight the very notion of trying something new--from new works of fiction to new activities to new ideas. Whereas, most women i know are always seeking to learn something new, to try something new (for themselves, their families, their children, or their communities), and they often have to drag their husbands into it or leave them behind to "watch the game" or whatever else.
Kabu's experience about her husband being resistant is the most resounding complaint that i hear about men and about husbands--how they won't try various personal, couple, or family activities, and how most of the responsibility for this comes from the woman in the house.
This has a lot more to do with the expectations and rules of the society we live in. This is a general problem and really has nothing to do with gender. It also applies to just about any micro-society you care to mention. Even the "non-conformist" hippies had their uniforms of tie-dyes and blue jeans.
Of course every large and small society has structures and strictures and mechanisms for maintaining those strictures (largely shame). But gender is a large part of our society, and gender structure is important. Over the last 100 years, the prescriptions for female gender structure has radically changed, but it hasn't necessarily radically changed for the male gender structure. In fact, if anything it's become more narrow as the female gender structure has expanded.
There certainly aren't a lot of "yoga" clothes for men, obviously due to a lack of market. However, there are a lot of other places to get comparable things. I see a lot of people with Prana stuff, and one of my office mates has a nice wicking shirt from Nike. It's supposedly for runners, but I don't think it will self-destruct if I took it into a yoga studio.
But, is there a lack of market? Men have been doing yoga in the US for many years, and the numbers of men in yoga classes are increasing. Early on, it would be rare to have a man in class--maybe one man for every 30 women. Today, we're seeing a much greater number. I have classes that have more men thatn women in them. I have men in all except two of my classes--and those classes are specialized and small. My most consistant private client is male. Certainly, there is a market in yoga clothing for men. Whether or not other companies will pick up on it is another thing.
As for clothing, my husband also wears the nike or reebok wicking shirts. He finds that the ones with the cap sleeve (which are for triathletes) are the most comfortable, but at $70 per shirt that lasts only a few months (stink), it's not a feasable option. The other shirts (that are sleeved or tanks) cost around $35, last the same amount of time, but are not as comfortable or functional for yoga practice--particularly for shoulder movement (he mentiones that the sleeves get in the way for most of the movements, and the tanks are better, but the tanks constrict movement around the neck due to the cut of them. My husband also notes that these clothes generally only come in certain colors--most of them not as fun or colorful as what he would prefer.
His selection for pants is also limited. He can choose shorts--either baggy in the leg (loose) or tight like biking shorts. Since he is modest and doesn't want to show the jewels off, he wears baggy. But, baggy slide up and down, get in the way in lunges, and are all around difficult to work with. he also prefers that no one sees his underwear, as those sorts of shorts tend to show one more than they want to see. If he goes with pants, he has sweat pants or runner tights, but nothing like the loose-but-fitted stretch pants that women have. These are actually the most functional for him, and so he wear them (he prefers prana's Ono pants for women, btw).
Notice also that the availability of color for most men is limited to a relatively small pallet--olive, navy, brown, black, grey. occassionally, there is deviation. Of course, professional athletes get more options for color over all, but for the most part, color is an issue.
This issue of fashion actually comes up after the image that you gave--with the concept of the Great Renunciation. The great renunciation was a time when men gave up a lot of their 'beauty traits' that they had prior (as in the picture), when they would do as they wished for beauty sake. Sure, fashion is changing, but prior to the renunciation a man could wear any number of vibrant colros and silks in any number of flourishes and fancies, but today a man cannot really get away with a bright purple suit unless he's a rock star, homosexual, or some other form of 'extremist." Your average male won't go out in such garish fashions, simply because it's somehow not considered 'masculine.'
this issue of fashion comes into play from another angle. with the advent of the 20th century, women's fashions expanded to include male fashion, which expanded the social concepts of female identity. Remember that art, and external expression such as individual fashion statements, are meant to be social indicators of status, standing, gender, and a myriad of other elements. looking to the definitions for masculinity that have been handed down since the renunciation, and the fact that women also include these in their own structures now, it has the potential to further expand or to close down on masculine gender identity.
Thus far, it has closed, moreso than opened. There are rare exceptions, of course, such as a young man that my husband and I saw at the movie theater not long ago, dressed in a long, flowing floral skirt, a t shirt and a baggy sweat shirt. he wore this with a pair of wollen socks and clogs. He looked strikingly masculine (to me), and it was obvious that he was male. My husband was also distinctly interested in his mode of dress, as this may foretell of a particular social openness that our next genderation has. Couple this with a local boy who has severe knee trouble, and who is not allowed to wear shorts (it's against school dress code), and so he decided that skirts would be more comfortable than pants (he wears heavy knee braces). He is a very masculine boy who systematicly found easy-to-wear skirts in a variety of colors, which he paired with his usual t-shirts, sweat shirts, and sneakers and socks. He had no real self consciousness about it--and while teachers complained, students though it was 'cool' and many girls considered it 'surprisingly attractive.' the local news anchors made fun of the kids (i sent them a strongly worded letter about it). but even this seems to bode well for the renunciation of the renunciation.
it seems that in the younger groups, masculinity is taking on different structures and outward displays. I would like to see more men in more colors and in skirts--walking comfortably and unselfconsciously as those two teens were. Noteably, the first teen i mentioned was with his parents, who were decidedly and obviously uncomfortable with their son's mode of dress, but obviously not so much that they would keep him from going out publicly, with them, in such a state of dress.
many people consider both of these boys to be transvestites, and we question when (or whether) the language would change. THe term was largely attached to women who wore pants in the 1800s and the early 1900s, but not necessarily attached to them once the gender structure changed that allowed women to wear pants on a regular basis. Does my wearing jeans--traditionally a men's clothing item--make me a transvestite? am i a transvestitie when i wear men's jeans (which i do on occassion), or when i might have a man's suit fitted to my body? Or am i simply a woman, wearing clothing that is now socially prescribed and allowable?
the term transvestite is loaded in our culture. It's loaded with a sense of sexual deviance and shame. If we label these boys as 'transvestites' they may feel that there's something wrong with them--but is there? is there something inherently female about skirts? obviously, in many traditional cultures, we can point to male "skirts" such as kilts and sarongs. But these boys weren't wearing kilts or sarongs--quite obviously, they were wearing 'women's skirts' denoted as such because of the floral patterns. But, are these any less masculine?
I admit, it's such a fine line between the black ono pant from prana (made for women, but worn by many men) and a black pair of running tights from nike. No one, to look at either clothing item, would necessarily say "this is masculine. this is feminine." Instead, they'd look to other gender markers such as body type, etc. And, if those markers weren't evident, they'd look to secondary markers such as hair, skin/make up, shoes, etc.
But it does become a different matter when we're talking about men and boys wearing skirts with floral patterns, high heels, and/or make up--all of which they might have or did wear before the renunciation, but haven't really since, except in social deviance that is largely shamed. And, i wonder whether or not these boys feel or adopt any of that social shame on themselves when they wear their favorite floral skirts (all knee length or longer, noteably)--or whether or not we or other people would consider them transvestites. And if we do, why we don't consider women wearing a man's suit or men's jeans, or pants in general, as transvestitism. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 418
Location: New York | Or, there are guys like my husband who think one of the best parts of being a guy is not having to fuss with his appearance, wear makeup, etc. |
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-02-14 11:38 AM
i've listened to countless women describe how their husbands do not have interest in various philosophical, social, or spiritual leanings--of any sort, including those in which they were raised but that they insist that their children be raised in the same spiritual surroundings that they were, even if neither man or the woman who would take the responsibility for doing this actually believes in that tradition. finding happy mediums are also difficult for many women i know, who want to give their children a religious education, but their husband are either uninterested or insistant on a particular 'brand.'
I can't really comment on Church since I'm not a participant. I can tell you I've seen both sexes drag people into their particular brand of spirituality. (Including men dragging women into yoga and meditation classes) I think a lot of them find people they click with on other levels, but not in this one, and it causes problems in the relationship. If the women you're refering to are in yoga classes, obviously they're going to have a tougher sell, because it's not a male dominated arena. The same claim could be made for other male dominated things such as the martial arts. I'd have a heck of a time dragging a lot of women to a dojo.
There's also the fun social past time of "Isn't it terrible" which figures into any b!tching session. From your description it's hard to tell if this is a deep felt need, or a fun thing to complain about. There's also the whole say one thing, do another dynamic. Like all the women who claim to want a "nice" guy, but end up with a--holes.
It seems to me that the spiritual education and spiritual realms are largely supported by women, even though they're largely lead by a few men. traditional christian churches tend to be lead by men, but actually run by women--women making up the majority of the numbers.
Once again, not a church goer, but is this a matter of spiritual particpation, or a social event within the church? In our society women spend a lot of time organizing social events because they're just more social. They also tend to have more time, since less women have full time jobs than men.
A quick glance around in most churches during services demonstrates this--as well as how engaged in the services the individuals are.
I try not to gage people by the shows they put on in these sorts of settings, I think it's almost impossible to tell what's really going on internally. (Which is another good reason to wear a Death Metal T-Shirt to a yoga studio)
Or at least, if they are seeking it, they're not at all communicating it to the women around them.
That may be a more accurate assessment, or if they are communicating it, it's at a level the woman don't understand or can't related to. We can discuss whether this is social or hardwired, but I believe that men and women approach these matters differently, which can result in problems communicating things that are pretty ineffiable to begin with.
Those men who do, like my husband, also report that other men see him as very unusual and far less masculine than they see themselves. That to be spiritual, or a concept of 'too spiritual' is to be 'airy fairy' and that is problematic to the male gender.
Well, I think this also depends on what you mean by 'spiritual'. If you're refering to men who spend a lot of time following women's paths, that's a likely result. Supposedly there used to be rules about the men only teaching the men, and the women only teaching the women partially for this reason. It's hard for the two sexes to teach each other, since they come at things differently. For example, a lot of men use hunting and fishing to commune with nature. I'd consider this spiritual, a lot of women probably wouldn't.
I also think that a lot of people find various spiritual paths that are not the "brand" (love that term) they're used too to be weird or strange. Frankly, I've learned to keep my mouth shut in most circumstances because I don't want to deal with the social repercussions of stepping out of line.
I can also tell you that my teacher is all fire and fierceness. He's probably one of the most powerful, intimidating and masculine men I've ever met. I don't think there's a man out there who would make comments about him being airey-fairy, or less masculine, even when he wore his man's skirt. He is NOT one of these flakey new agers, but rather something much more real and grounded.
While men may be conditioned to be explorers, i rarely see men stepping out of their prescribed gender roles of work, spectator sports, and a few other narrow categories of behavior (some more or less related to women). I've watched many men my own age and older fight the very notion of trying something new--from new works of fiction to new activities to new ideas. Whereas, most women i know are always seeking to learn something new, to try something new (for themselves, their families, their children, or their communities), and they often have to drag their husbands into it or leave them behind to "watch the game" or whatever else.
I see a similar level of inertia in both sexes. If you know any fun, liberated woman, please send them this way.
Kabu's experience about her husband being resistant is the most resounding complaint that i hear about men and about husbands--how they won't try various personal, couple, or family activities, and how most of the responsibility for this comes from the woman in the house.
But you're also hearing this from the woman. It's also hard to say what other things lead up to this. Maybe their SOs have already tried X, Y, or Z, maybe it's not good for them, or maybe the woman are playing some other game associated with the activity.
But, is there a lack of market? Men have been doing yoga in the US for many years, and the numbers of men in yoga classes are increasing. Early on, it would be rare to have a man in class--maybe one man for every 30 women.
There is a market, but not a very big one, IMHO. You've got a relatively niche activity, of which men make up a small percentage (5-10%). Clothes require high volume to be profitable, so most people are going to target the women.
Today, we're seeing a much greater number. I have classes that have more men thatn women in them. I have men in all except two of my classes--and those classes are specialized and small. My most consistant private client is male. Certainly, there is a market in yoga clothing for men.
I think this has something to do with your own personal dynamics. Probably part of your tom boy persona. Never having taken one of your classes, I'd guess you steer away from some of the more touchy-feely/new agey things that turn a lot of men off.
This issue of fashion actually comes up after the image that you gave--with the concept of the Great Renunciation.
Interesting. OTOH, I don't see things being all that different. The style of dress shown is for the upper classes, ie medieval rock stars, nobles, wealthy merchants. Frankly, I'm happy I'm not required to wear a wig in public. ;)
this issue of fashion comes into play from another angle. with the advent of the 20th century, women's fashions expanded to include male fashion, which expanded the social concepts of female identity.
Not sure I see that. From what I see, it seems like most fashions have a lot more to do with basic comfort and/or working clothes. The dominate form of pants are jeans, which were originally designed to be miner's clothing. You are correct that woman can generally wear just about anything they want and not cross-dress, with a few minor exceptions. (Never seen a woman in a kilt)
Thus far, it has closed, moreso than opened. There are rare exceptions, of course, such as a young man that my husband and I saw at the movie theater not long ago, dressed in a long, flowing floral skirt, a t shirt and a baggy sweat shirt. he wore this with a pair of wollen socks and clogs.
Interesting that we've both come back to skirts, and independently. I've got no urge to wear one, but I do like loose fitting clothing, of which a skirt comes in handly. I'm also partially scottish, so maybe a kilt? Always thought it would be fun for a bit.
He looked strikingly masculine (to me), and it was obvious that he was male.
Interesting that the reverse is sometimes used to make woman more attractive as well. Women in men's shirts (generally with nothing else on) or male sports uniforms are pretty common.
it seems that in the younger groups, masculinity is taking on different structures and outward displays.
Or it could be just teenagers being rebellous, like the baby boomers were with long hair.
the term transvestite is loaded in our culture. It's loaded with a sense of sexual deviance and shame.
Yup, from the sounds of things, that much hasn't changed in generations. FWIW, I don't think most people would use the term "transvestite", but rather cross dresser.
OTOH, social shame isn't such a bad thing. It raises the bar on less acceptable forms of activities so that people are less likely to stray off the beaten path and into something dangerous. Currently there's also a lot of shame attacted to smoking, which helps to prevent people from starting, or continuing.
I admit, it's such a fine line between the black ono pant from prana (made for women, but worn by many men) and a black pair of running tights from nike. No one, to look at either clothing item, would necessarily say "this is masculine. this is feminine."
Tell me about it, if there weren't big signs at Old Navy, I'd be unable to tell which set of clothes I was supposed to be buying.
And if we do, why we don't consider women wearing a man's suit or men's jeans, or pants in general, as transvestitism.
We're used to it. |
|
| |
|
| There's also the fun social past time of "Isn't it terrible" which figures into any b!tching session. From your description it's hard to tell if this is a deep felt need, or a fun thing to complain about.
i agree, it could be something to complain about as well. i know that for many, that's a fun past time. I also know that it can also be the sort of thing of. . .well not communicating clearly. Like, i might be mildly agitated by the fact that my husband leaves his socks on the stairs, but this might come out as a huge complaint about how he leaves the house in a shambles. You know?
Once again, not a church goer, but is this a matter of spiritual particpation, or a social event within the church? In our society women spend a lot of time organizing social events because they're just more social. They also tend to have more time, since less women have full time jobs than men.
it's hard to say, really. first, i use church because it's most accessable. i'm not saying christianity is where this mainly happens or that you have to be a church goer to know. i'm expanding it out to religions in general, as this is my experience in the area where i live now, which is very diverse.
i don't know whether or not religious education or going to services is a social event or not. I know that these things may be for my MIL--as the church is her primary social outlet. It's a built in social network filled with many jobs that she can do, from planning to participating on multiple levels, and that this gives her a sense of worth and self esteem. certainly, i think that's important and it does provide a particular individual and social function and need.
but i think that when it comes to children, it may not necessarily be a social thing. One of my friends had a daughter 4-5 years ago, and prior to having her never went to church or felt any need to go to church. she was raised catholic. her husband was raised lutheren. when she was pregnant, something got in her head that she needed to go to church, to have the baby baptised, and all of that stuff, and so she did. He didn't go to church either--as far as i could tell neither of them cared--but since the birth of their daughter, they haven't missed a sunday. He insisted on luterhanism, but i know that he couldn't tell you the difference between the lutheran church he goes to and the wisconsin synod lutheran church down the street, nor could he tell you how luterhen is different from catholic or baptist or whatever else. Neither can she. It's just that she needed to go to church--for reasons neither of them seem to understand, and she insisted that he go too "for the baby."
prior to having the baby, and after, they were connected to their communities in other ways--family, friends, what have you. once they joined the church, their only participation was sunday services, and whatever services they would need for the baby--and now sunday school. they don't have any clear picture of their own spirituality, they just seem to do this because it's some sense of what they're supposed to do. I can't say that i understand it.
but, i do see it over and over and over again. And often, i see that it's the mothers that are pushing the issue and not the fathers, which i also think is interesting. But i dont' think it's from a need to socialize or plan social events. It would be easy enough to have family and friend parties and set those up independent of the church, particularly if your as social as many of the people whom i know.
similarly, many women do work full time, with children, as do their husbands. so it's difficult to say--with the statistical majority of women who have children are working as well--that they have more time for these sorts of things. to me, it seems like women are interested in or tapped into something--spiritual need or what have you--that drags them back to church once they have children.
I try not to gage people by the shows they put on in these sorts of settings, I think it's almost impossible to tell what's really going on internally. (Which is another good reason to wear a Death Metal T-Shirt to a yoga studio)
while i agree to a point, when a person is reading a grisham novel or what have you in church, it's fair to say that they're not likely paying attention. same with people who are sleeping during church, or appear to be listening to headphones. it's surprising how many men and women are doing this in church, while their kids are with them, reading children's books. I often wonder what, exactly, they're doing there. And, it's not just christian churches either, weird enough.
That may be a more accurate assessment, or if they are communicating it, it's at a level the woman don't understand or can't related to. We can discuss whether this is social or hardwired, but I believe that men and women approach these matters differently, which can result in problems communicating things that are pretty ineffiable to begin with.
i'm going to try and find this interesting article that i got online somewhere--it's about the differences between male and female cognative processes that still lead to equal scores on intellegence tests. But, the brief run down is that 'grey matter' in the brain is an area where calculation is done and that 'white area' is the connections between grey area work. Women have less grey and more white; men have more grey and less while. Most of women's thought is in the frontal lobe region; while men have more grey matter spread throughout the brain. the scientists theorize that the brains developed differently to have equal intellegences but divergent ways of arriving at those intellegences for specific resons, looking largely to the concept or necessities of motherhood. In any cae, males analyze more and communicate less (from grey matter to grey matter), where as women calculate less and communicate more (as indicated by the less grey but more white). So women's breins are utilizing more communication processes--calling on different areas of grey matter) to arrive at a certain conclusion, whereas male brains are localizing their calculating in one parea of grey matter or those that are close to each other and connected through white matter. The studies were from the Univ. of Calif. at Irvine. Interesing huh?
couple this with last month's scientific american article about how motherhood changes the brain, and it's even more fascinating. apparently mother animals seem to evolve--having more memory, more 'bravado or fearlessness, and are better problem solvers. scientists theorize that this may be because they need to find resources quickly and return to their young quickly, in order to help them survive. it was an interesting article--but no human studies have been conducted yet, of course.
In any case, i completely agree that at a certain level, men and women think differently and that they are spiritually different. I think tht the spirit or soul of a person is informed by the biology that is housed in that spirit. And certainly, communicating the differences in these physical soul-experiences can be difficult. But, i don't think that it per se means that it's impossible, or even improbable for these two groups to share their experiences and understand each other.
i do think that there is a social issue regarding communication which i felt was dealt with beautifully in the film Brokeback Mountain. certainly more than a 'gay cowboy movie'--this was a film about masculine intimacy, expectation, fear (legitimate), and many other aspects of male gender construction. it was simply housed in a 'gay cowboy' experience--which i think made the whole thing really powerful. Anyway, there is a communication issue--well documented and discussed in various psychological circles that needs breaking down.
I'm not trying to disparage men at all. Goodness knows i value them so very highly. I think it's difficult for me, or Kabu for example, to watch men self destruct when they dont' have to, when their are options, but they won't consider those options for fear of being seen as 'less than.' i would like to think that 'less than' doesn't exist between sexes, genders, or whatever else. "different" certainly does, but it doesn't imply "less than."
For example, a lot of men use hunting and fishing to commune with nature. I'd consider this spiritual, a lot of women probably wouldn't.
i certainly would. it's also spiritual for women--with women--lest we forget diana/artimis. that aside, though, i agree that many of the pathways of accessing spirituality can be or are different for me, but there are also places where we are all similar. if we take the notion that bodies are housed in souls, and that souls choose different bodies over time, all of us have been men and women at some point, and that experience certainly impacts or is housed in the soul's knowledge. I may not have total access to it, but i do have some. And as i've said in the past, every women has a 'little man' in side of her, just as every man has a 'little woman.'
I also think that a lot of people find various spiritual paths that are not the "brand" (love that term) they're used too to be weird or strange. Frankly, I've learned to keep my mouth shut in most circumstances because I don't want to deal with the social repercussions of stepping out of line.
this certainly goes beyond gender. but, i personally feel that men have it harder in this regard than women. women are already marginalized, so to be marginalized a little farther is no big deal for me. for my husband to be marginalized, it's difficult for him. he finds htat it's even more difficult for other men--at least those who would share their feelings on the matter who are already, i guess, different.
But you're also hearing this from the woman. It's also hard to say what other things lead up to this. Maybe their SOs have already tried X, Y, or Z, maybe it's not good for them, or maybe the woman are playing some other game associated with the activity.
not always. i've actually met many of the husbands whose wives i teach. many of them work out in the gym near-by while their wives do yoga, or they come to meet them for dinner afterwards, or some such. i'll speak to them briefly about coming to class, and they'll give me the same reasons that their wives do (as to why they won't come). so, it's not just one sided. I know that for some of the husbands who are now regulars in my classes, it took three or four years of coaxing gently to get them to try it, and once they did, they loved it. And 'it' could be anything--from going for a walk to taking yoga class to taking the martial arts class or whatever.
FWIW, I don't think most people would use the term "transvestite", but rather cross dresser.
there's no difference in term. trans--across; vest--dress. it's the same term, one just uses the latin. it's like 'homosexual' or 'gay.'
here it is, you'd wear a kilt for comfort; but would you wear a floral print same cut in clothing for comfort? again, it's a matter of gender identification. most men have a bit of a qualm with a kilt (and yet are excited by it--and yes, women do wear kilts), but would wear it. but, few men would wear a kilt that wasn't plaid (see utilikilts) or that was pink or perhaps a floral print--usually for fear of seeming unmasculine.
Also, don't get caught in the fashion example itself. it's just meant to be an example of something playing out. it's not absolute, of course, and it's only one of many things. For me, it's accessable, because my male clients were talking (and complaining) about it recently.
And if we do, why we don't consider women wearing a man's suit or men's jeans, or pants in general, as transvestitism.
We're used to it.
yes, and that's my point. But, when it first happened, we weren't used to it. Women used to be arrested, jailed overnite, and fined for wearing pants in public--it was considered 'public indecency' for 'transvestitism.' While women have worn pants for practical reasons since they were invented, women caught doing so (while still 'being' women, as opposed to women who were caught living as men--transgendered--while serving in the army or some such) would often be jailed for it. Back then, it was shocking and indecent.
Today, while a man won't be jailed for 'cross dressing' there may be strong cultural indiciations that it shouldn't be done, lest someone questions he's masculinity. And, from the experience of the second young man (who was on the news for wearing skirts), it seems that people weren't, unless he was wearing floral patterns or 'girly' colors and people also asked (or teased him about) other feminine markers such as shaving his legs or wearing make up. But, what would be the wrong in either of those?
nothing inherently. clothing, make up, etc, doesn't have gender. but, we assign it meaning and assign it to a gender. and this then has personal and social implications. It's like this with many things, fashion is just one. Once we're used to the idea that clothing doesn't have a gender, men will feel more free to (and likely more inclined to) wear comfortable skirts.
afterall, you're not doing anything at work that would require pants, now do you? my work does, but programming computers all day likely doesn't, does it? |
|
| |
|
| JackieCat - 2006-02-14 2:14 PM
Or, there are guys like my husband who think one of the best parts of being a guy is not having to fuss with his appearance, wear makeup, etc.
but this begs the question then, does a woman have to fuss with her appearance, wear make up, etc? is there something inherent in women that makes this necessary, or is this simply another aspect of gender stratification, meaning heaped on actions and outward displays to demonstrate differences between the sexes?
honestly, i don't wear make up, i don't fuss too much over clothing (i'm pretty simple about it really), and i don't do anything with my hair, and i shave my legs occassionally. seriously, my husband cares far more about his appearance than i do about mine. If i'm clean and neat, i'm happy. He thinks about what he's going to wear, what goes with what, he has a whole skin-care regime, he's picky about his hair/hairstyle, he loves jewelry. . .get the idea? It doesn't make him less masculine or me less feminine because we're different than our common social gender constructs.
right? |
|
| |
|
| zoebird -
The pressure on male identity is massive, and it is also very narrow.
I agree wholeheartedly!
I read an interesting book on male depression, and it covered the whole "male identity" thing quite a bit. The pressure is high, and the forumla is quite simple but strict: You have to be tough, unshakable, aggressive, ambitious. The inability to live up to the prescribed formula meant "failure" or "fraud."
The author felt many men struggle with this constant tug of war between their tough guy facade and who they really are.
|
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-02-14 4:49 PM
Once again, not a church goer, but is this a matter of spiritual particpation, or a social event within the church? In our society women spend a lot of time organizing social events because they're just more social. They also tend to have more time, since less women have full time jobs than men.
i don't know whether or not religious education or going to services is a social event or not.
It is, but my point was that women often get stuck in the role of organizing church events because of their superior social skills.
It's just that she needed to go to church--for reasons neither of them seem to understand, and she insisted that he go too "for the baby."
Which is another reason I hate "good" people. Generally they're working too hard on the wrong things because they're "good". As a result they miss the point, and end up causing more problems. In the case it sounds a lot like the BS my father pulled when I was born. Essentially he threw-out all his old rock n roll records because they were "bad", gave up motorcycle racing, etc. Kids change things, but sometimes people go overboard.
similarly, many women do work full time, with children, as do their husbands. so it's difficult to say--with the statistical majority of women who have children are working as well--that they have more time for these sorts of things.
Sure, I'm not down playing that, but rather pointing at a general trend. There are still a lot of traditional, one breadwinner households, with a stay at home mother. While probably 98% of men work FT, maybe 75-85% of women do. (These are just wild ass guesses) It's also tradition, and nothing changes slower than a millenial old religious institution. :D
to me, it seems like women are interested in or tapped into something--spiritual need or what have you--that drags them back to church once they have children.
Maybe. I've heard the claim that due to their menstrual cycle, women are more in tune with this sort of thing. Not being a women, or knowing a lot of spiritual women, it's hard for me to say.
while i agree to a point, when a person is reading a grisham novel or what have you in church, it's fair to say that they're not likely paying attention. same with people who are sleeping during church, or appear to be listening to headphones. it's surprising how many men and women are doing this in church, while their kids are with them, reading children's books. I often wonder what, exactly, they're doing there. And, it's not just christian churches either, weird enough.
I used to see the same thing in college, which I found really really strange. I never had a class where the prof took attendence, so there wasn't any reason to be there if you weren't going to pay attention. I asked some people about this, and they said they didn't want to miss something. (Homework, tests, etc) Maybe the people doing this aren't into whatever portion of the proceedings is going on, are getting a passive-aggressive pleasure from it, or are there because they were drug there by their SO.
In any cae, males analyze more and communicate less (from grey matter to grey matter), where as women calculate less and communicate more (as indicated by the less grey but more white). So women's breins are utilizing more communication processes--calling on different areas of grey matter) to arrive at a certain conclusion, whereas male brains are localizing their calculating in one parea of grey matter or those that are close to each other and connected through white matter. The studies were from the Univ. of Calif. at Irvine. Interesing huh?
Yes. It also goes a long way towards explaining the stereotype of the overly talkative female, huh?
But, i don't think that it per se means that it's impossible, or even improbable for these two groups to share their experiences and understand each other.
Nope, but it can mean that the husbands ARE having a deep, and spiritual existence, and the wives don't get it.
I'm not trying to disparage men at all. Goodness knows i value them so very highly.
I don't get that feeling, though I do feel we're back to our (yours and mine) contention about specific and general. You're talking about a specific part of the social roles, I like to tackle things a bit higher up.
I think it's difficult for me, or Kabu for example, to watch men self destruct when they dont' have to, when their are options, but they won't consider those options for fear of being seen as 'less than.' i would like to think that 'less than' doesn't exist between sexes, genders, or whatever else. "different" certainly does, but it doesn't imply "less than."
It used to bother me, but my friend Pat has played the martyr card so many times I've pretty much given up. It's just to easy to play the "Yes, but" game. It's not until people are really ready to change that anything will happen.
IIRC, a number of the wisdom schools adopted a simple format for the teacher/student dynamic. A student would ask a question, and the teacher would attempt to answer it. That's it. The student showed interest, and the teacher responded based on this. I think this is also part of the reason why the guru appears when the student is ready. The student's own drive, determination, and interest fuel the teacher's ability to answer the question. I know I got a lot more out of my teacher than some of his other students due to my faith, interest, and determination.
I also think that a lot of people find various spiritual paths that are not the "brand" (love that term) they're used too to be weird or strange. Frankly, I've learned to keep my mouth shut in most circumstances because I don't want to deal with the social repercussions of stepping out of line.
this certainly goes beyond gender. but, i personally feel that men have it harder in this regard than women. women are already marginalized, so to be marginalized a little farther is no big deal for me. for my husband to be marginalized, it's difficult for him. he finds htat it's even more difficult for other men--at least those who would share their feelings on the matter who are already, i guess, different.
Probably. I think I mentioned before that one of my earliest memories is one of my kindergarden class mates saying that I was wierd. I am wierd, I live on the margins, I'm not a high status individual. I don't have to deal with all the worry and pain about losing that, because I have nothing in that regard to lose. I hadn't really thought about it too much before, but that's probably the reason I spend so much time playing the anti-status game.
Also, don't get caught in the fashion example itself. it's just meant to be an example of something playing out. it's not absolute, of course, and it's only one of many things. For me, it's accessable, because my male clients were talking (and complaining) about it recently.
Sure, and it sounds like it fixed itself. I wouldn't want to wear a pink skirt because there's no pay-off. (Other than the attention). What do I gain by wearing a skirt? Nothing. In the case of yoga clothes, that's a more serious problem, and once somebody decided that the pay-off was better than the problem, it fixed itself. (That which is against the Tao will no long endure)
But, when it first happened, we weren't used to it. Women used to be arrested, jailed overnite, and fined for wearing pants in public--it was considered 'public indecency' for 'transvestitism.' While women have worn pants for practical reasons since they were invented, women caught doing so (while still 'being' women, as opposed to women who were caught living as men--transgendered--while serving in the army or some such) would often be jailed for it.
Once again there's a huge pay off for wearing pants for women. Particulary in the time period you mentioned, since many people were working in factories where wearing the women's fashion of the day was likely to get you killed or maimed.
In the case of the boy with braces you mentioned, once again there was a huge pay-off for wearing a skirt. There was also less hostile attention because he was a cripple, and people were likely going to treat him differently anyway, so the skirt was icing.
Probably the same thing with the boy and his folks. He was getting a pay-off by making them uncomfortable, and asserting this independence.
afterall, you're not doing anything at work that would require pants, now do you? my work does, but programming computers all day likely doesn't, does it?
Nope, I could probably wear a skirt in, if I really wanted to, but why? My current wardrobe works reasonable well, I've got no real complaints, other than the belt, but I'm not sure what to do about that, other than take it off. There is no real dress code where I work, I certainly dress above what's expected of me.
but this begs the question then, does a woman have to fuss with her appearance, wear make up, etc?
Yes, because woman are judged on thier physical beauty more than men. This isn't just cultural, because women bear the children. So anything that enhances that is good for the woman. Does that mean she has to have the perfect set of shoes, and the right earrings, or lipstick? I don't think so. I personally find it vain and pretentous when a woman spends a lot of time on her appearance. I might tease your husband about his approach too, for the same reason.
I also might be setting up a double standard because I expect a woman to look drop dead gorgeous, and yet not doing anything to achieve this state. I'll have to think about this one a bit.
Edited by GreenJello 2006-02-14 6:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 418
Location: New York | zoebird - 2006-02-14 4:53 PM
JackieCat - 2006-02-14 2:14 PM
Or, there are guys like my husband who think one of the best parts of being a guy is not having to fuss with his appearance, wear makeup, etc.
but this begs the question then, does a woman have to fuss with her appearance, wear make up, etc? is there something inherent in women that makes this necessary, or is this simply another aspect of gender stratification, meaning heaped on actions and outward displays to demonstrate differences between the sexes?
honestly, i don't wear make up, i don't fuss too much over clothing (i'm pretty simple about it really ), and i don't do anything with my hair, and i shave my legs occassionally. seriously, my husband cares far more about his appearance than i do about mine. If i'm clean and neat, i'm happy. He thinks about what he's going to wear, what goes with what, he has a whole skin-care regime, he's picky about his hair/hairstyle, he loves jewelry. . .get the idea? It doesn't make him less masculine or me less feminine because we're different than our common social gender constructs.
right?
My husband feels like he gets a pass from "society" (for lack of a better word) regarding all the stuff that your husband is into. Not that he goes around looking like a vagrant- he doesn't just throw clothes on at random or leave his hair uncut or uncombed. He just doesn't spend an excessive amount of time considering these matters. And he's glad that makes him fit right in to what most (actually, these days I don't know if it even is most men, as many men seems to be getting more into grooming, etc.) or many are doing. He's happy being a Great Renunciate.
Anyhoo . . . I thought "masculine" and "feminine" WERE "common social gender constructs." |
|
| |
how many classes a week?
