Seems a bit of a tautology, actually, given that “masculinity” and “femininity” are traditional social constructs.
It basically amounts to saying, in paraphrase, 'in our society, the traditional bundle of activities and stereotypes we traditionally label ‘feminine’ are not considered equal in status to the bundle of activities and stereotypes we traditionally label ‘masculine’ '.
The solution, seems to me, is to avoid socially reenforcing the gendered nature of the activities at issue.
I figured out a while back that posters here are not the mainstream of the US. So extreme viewpoints I see here don’t surprise me. FYI I am not mainstream myself but many of the people here are even more outside the mainstream than I am. I can see not wanting to do things that are popular but some people get way too upset about popular stuff.
Thank you for pointing this out. My mother and I have few things we both enjoy doing. We have different tastes in music, food, books, etc. But we nearly always have fun going shopping together. Even though we have very different tastes in clothes, we still have a good time helping the other find something that looks good on them. It’s not like we’re hitting the high end stores either. We have just as much fun rifling through the racks at TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Target, etc.
Well, I meant anyone thinking it.
And I think that anyone who sees a gay man acting annoying and reacts differently than they would to any other person being annoying is equally bigoted.
It appears that this post runs the rest of the way up the gamut from “girlie shit is OK, damn it!” to “non-girlie shit is not OK,” which means – and I’m screwing my head up trying to work this out myself – that we’re all the way back at the starting point, where girlie stuff is almost required of a girl, which mindset actually begat (ill choice of verb in this context, I guess) the contempt for the girlie stuff to begin with…
And that’s where it gets confusing. You’re saying that it annoys you that girlie stuff is given short shrift, not because you think the ultimate in equality is that every woman does whatever-the-fuck, but because, you’re saying, the grooming/makeup routine that establishes your personal appearance is really important; viz. failure to remedy the unibrow is actually not OK. Whereas the majority of the rest of the posters, I think (and I hope, but who cares what I hope) are coming from a perspective that says unibrow’s OK, grooming the unibrow’s OK, whatever you like. Suddenly your perspective looks like much less of a reclamation of the societal expectations of what is super-feminine, and much more like, well, being governed by them.
That is a little bit worrisome, because it’s the opposite of what I thought we were going for here. I thought the idea was everybody just gets to pick. You’ve got me, male, walking down the street, and I’ve got some gray making its presence known around the ears, and I don’t even know what the eyebrow situation is, and nobody’s ever given me any crap about it. It’s definitely not a foundational part of my professional appearance what my nails or skin or facial hair looks like (I do suspect that I’m kind of looked down upon for my beard sometimes but nobody’s yet oppressed me for it directly, as far as I can tell, and I’m probably misinterpreting their covetous gazes).
I certainly can’t imagine a superior telling me, hey, man, I guess you didn’t realize it but this isn’t a license plate factory - you’ve definitely got to tweeze that motherfucker. Go hit a spa and come back tomorrow ready to dazzle, OK hon? And could that tie be any fuglier?!
So isn’t it better if with the non-dying, unibrow-rocking women we just assume that’s what they feel like doing with their bodies and be cool with it? And that way we can make the same assumption about the ones who are all glammed up; that they’re doing it because they like it? If the participants in the makeup thread are going to look down on the people who aren’t into the full treatment, and the ones who aren’t into the full treatment are going to look down on the participants in the makeup thread, what do you guys need us for?
Bolding mine. I wonder how it would be possible to achieve the latter - avoid socially reenforcing the gendered nature of the activities - if certain girly activities or interests appeal more to females than males?
FWIW, I’m not sure that I agree that “few” men appreciate the finer points of quality shoes or leather goods (purses - yeah, probably not so much.) As to other girly activities, I don’t know, I find it hard to imagine that it would be possible to avoid reinforcing the gendered nature of activities like enjoying manicures or romantic comedies, for example. Yes, there are men that like these things, but I would argue that they are still gendered activities.
Why’s a manicure (for instance) necessarily gendered?
Way to miss the point ninja. We had spent the whole semester talking about social welfare policy, class stratification, politics, U.S. history, institutional racism, economic inequality and every other heavy deep subject known to man. We didn’t talk about hot celebrities because we bought into a groupthink mentality about what women are supposed to talk about. We talked about hot celebrities because we were in the mood to talk about hot celebrities. That’s what we wanted to do. We didn’t WANT to talk about anything meaningful. And you seem to be unable to accept that it’s possible for a group of intelligent women to actively choose to engage in something completely girly and ‘‘frivolous’’ because they want to do it.
I’m a gamer, and I’m the first to admit gaming is pretty useless. It’s pure entertainment. It’s not any more evolved than any other form of entertainment.
Artwork ‘‘just sits there’’ but it has aesthetic value. Do you consider art worthless? How about music? What does music really do, anyway. You just sit there and listen to it. Worthless.
If YOU have no sense of aesthetics for clothing or jewelry or the human body, fine, nobody’s forcing you to be interested in it. But there’s no reason for denigrating those who are.
I’m not focusing on that aspect because I don’t think that gay men are experiencing a unique situation. If you belong to a group that is persecuted then you would not benefit from anyone exacerbating the situation. You might even be unhappy with people whose actions widen the gap between your group and people that dislike your group. I think politics is a perfect example of this; people that drive a wedge between Republicans and Democrats are poisoning the well for the rest of us (to mix metaphors inappropriately).
I think that that doesn’t necessarily apply to members of a persecuted group. There’s a gray area that I can’t clearly pin down. The effect is evident when you complain that your family is a bunch of idiots and that’s OK, but if someone else says it you would be insulted and defend them. Same words, but the context makes a world of difference.
Something my Father used to say seems relevant, “If you want to become anti-semitic, move to Israel. All of the people that piss you off will be Jewish.” I’m not certain that this will make sense to you, but I think that there’s some truth to it.
I think by saying that gay men are exacerbating the problem you basically are victim blaming, though.
No snark–I honestly don’t really see how this ties in to what I was saying at all. Are you saying that gay men are the only ones who can insult other gay men, or…what?
It’s not, really. That comment was based only on my own experience getting professional manicures in two different big cities that have large populations of metrosexual and gay men. I’ve observed that in the spas and salons that I’ve visited, the clientele for professional manicures or pedicures was at least 90% female.
I think the degree which is the case tracks with culture. Black men, in my experience, seem more attuned to clothes and shoes and are not afraid to say so. They are also more likely to partake in dancing and singing without feeling the need to relinquish their straight male card.
There’s a difference between enjoying the process of personal aesthetic presentation and being “into fashion”. I love going to thrift stores with my friends, dressing up, creating outfits, etc. But none of us would say we’re “into fashion”. Fashion with a capital-F is like an in-club for people with lots of disposable income. $400 t-shirts and the like. New colors every season. Judgment if you’re not up on the latest. Forget it! Dress-up, wearing makeup, enjoying clothing and jewelry is wholly different from “Fashion”.
That being said, a lot of “girly” interests can be boiled down to “vanity writ large”. Which I think is what makes them seem frivolous.
I’m actually not sure I’d agree with that, and I think that reason is why a lot of people think fashion is stupid or intimidating or just not something that applies to them. For me, fashion isn’t about super pricey things. It’s about seeing something I like and kind of putting together an outfit, making it my own. It could be about seeing a ten or fifteen dollar t-shirt that’s not necessarily in a high end store, and somehow “making it work” as Tim Gunn would put it. Or accessorizing and whatnot–most of the most awesome accessories I’ve gotten were from little street fair/market type places.
This sounds like what you’re rejecting is haute couture, not fashion per se. If the term “fashion” offends you, OK, but I don’t see that term as implying high-end merchandise necessarily.
But what we’re saying is that is not the fault of the annoying gay person (or annoying black person, whatever), but rather the fault of the bigots who can’t look past their own confirmation bias. So saying that it’s natural for someone to be mad at someone for contributing to negative stereotypes, while true in the “all human psychological responses are natural” sense, is just as relevant as saying it’s natural to use the behavior of a few to malign the rest. Even though this too is true, that doesn’t make it sensible and it shouldn’t be encouraged.
For what it’s worth, I’m going to get one the morning I get married, because everyone did it in PG Wodehouse stories and it seems like a sensible idea for an event like that.
I wouldn’t do it on a regular basis, but probably only because it’s expensive (I imagine). I’m also getting an old-fashioned straight razor shave that day.
First off, unibrows on anyone are not okay. Man, woman, whatever. Seriously people, unless you’re self-employed or born independently wealthy, you gotta interview and impress people often to get a job, to get internships, to get into college. Appearance matters, and I hate the denial that it doesn’t. I don’t care if you shave 'em, wax 'em, or pluck 'em, but you’re doing yourself a disservice if your eyebrows are an eyebrow and if nails aren’t decently taken care of (not even a manicure! Just trimmed filed and without hangnails or blood oozing from it!). Obviously this only applies to office type jobs, anything but manual labor.
My future MIL was in a panel with her colleagues, interviewing candidates for a tenure-tracked associate professorship a little bit ago. Over dinner last night, she was telling us how one candidate had flaming pink hair, tattoos all over, piercings, etc and how it was all anyone could talk about for ten minutes afterwards. It upset her because a) she specialized in an area they need and b) because it shouldn’t matter but it still did. That shit doesn’t do you any good, people!.
One of my former bosses is possibly the kindest and smartest boss I’ve ever had or even heard tell of, but it kills me that he’s never gonna get promoted because of his tattoos (all up and down his arms) earrings (all up and down his ears) and hair (to his mid-back). He could run the whole institution he’s so smart and incredible at satisfying disparate groups of people, but he’ll never get the chance.
Bottom line is I genuinely don’t care what you do with your body, but you can’t expect people a) not to judge you and have it affect the way you’re treated b) to take you seriously. If you wanna rock out on the weekends with a drawn-on unibrow and chewed off nails, more power to ya. But the real world calls for a modicum of professionalism.
Or perhaps, Ninja Chick, some of us are pointing out that people have more diverse interests? That “girly” isn’t one size fits all? :rolleyes:
I hate it when there are threads about “I don’t wear make-up or care about my hair” because there’s an under current of “I’m PROUD to feel this way – and you should be ashamed of if you DO care!” I like dressing up, I like picking out fancy clothes and trying them on and twirling around in front of the mirrors. (Well, sometimes it’s a pain getting dressed AND undressed again and again – and those dressing rooms can be damned small! – but I sure do love clothes. And I love vintage fashion – I always have.)
Oh wait, but here, I’ll tell you I like history and Star Wars so there, I can “justify” being girly, okay? :rolleyes:
If you don’t like it, or think I’m shallow, go right ahead.
Doesn’t the make-up brand have it all in caps – MAC?
You should have heard me screaming last night!!! I was about ready to bite my fingers off.
SOME sports terms I still don’t understand, and I’m never going to be an expert on statistics, but like I said, I like watching hockey and football just because it’s damned FUN to watch.
I heard that Gonch might leave and I’m really upset about it.
And the pink jerseys – those are ugly. (Mark Eaton’s little girl has one – but she’s only two.)
Has it occurred to you that if enough people grow up and decide it truly doesn’t matter that maybe, eventually, it won’t? Saying people need to dress or groom a certain way because that’s just how it’s always been done is what doesn’t do anyone any good. Nothing ever changes if we insist on carrying on just because that’s how it’s always been done.
I will admit that I’d prefer being around people that bathe and wear clean clothes, but that’s pretty much where it stops. Whether I’m hiring someone or just passing them on the street, a uni-brow, pink hair and tattoos really have no bearing on whether they can do a certain job or not.