I remember hearing the term Sally girl once.
matt_mcl said…We need a male equivalent of "tomboy"
No. No we don’t.
If you can accept that men and women are different then there is nothing degrading about it and no inferior/superior roles. Just it could be unfitting for a male to act female, while a female may be more adaptable to filling a male role.
After all the things we associate with female traits have to do with finding a mate and raising children, and male traits are associated with providing and protecting. The male traits seem more an immediate need, so it a way a tomboy is associating with these traits that males comprehend, in a way sort of stepping down (if you will) in order to do the things that need to be done.
The opposite, is a male who is abandoning these basic realities of life, something a male doesn’t understand.
If anything I would say that a tomboy is ‘lowering’ herself, which gains respect amoung the lower class and a sissy is trying to elevate himself beyond where he belongs which is scorn worthy - that is if we want to talk in terms of superior/inferior roles.
I also detest the nonce word “metrosexual”. But perhaps the same concept was conveyed by the not-archaic-but-certainly-out-of-fashion description of “dapper”. According to the dictionary, there are two related definitions:
1: neat and trim in appearance
2: excessively spruce and stylish
It would seem that this is not a bad description of the concept apparently conveyed by the term metrosexual, and this is perhaps a non-negative equivilant for “tomboy”.
“Dapper” is a nice term, but I don’t think it’s really parallel to “tomboy”. I’m thinking now of the teenaged brother of a woman I know. He’s small, not interested in sports, and likes musical theater and cooking. I’m sure the poor kid’s been called a “sissy” and worse plenty of times, but he’s very far from being “dapper”. I guess he might turn into Mr. Style someday, but for now he’s just a shaggy-haired, baggy-shirted, rather scrawny teenaged boy.
I’m partial to “girly-man” myself. They’re all insulting (some worse than others) but…
AFAIK it is presently used to mean “prostitute”, for which usage I’m indebted to Brit TV cop show “The Bill”. It may be rhyming slang, “Thomas More”.
Wanting to “dress feminine” isn’t what the OP addresses. He said, “…a young boy who doesn’t like traditionally masculine pursuits and prefers traditionally feminine ones”.
I don’t think you can equate girls wanted to “dress like boys” with boys wanting to “dress like girls”. Traditional boys’ clothes are practical, while the girls’ clothes we had to wear in the fifties and sixties were a pain-in-the-patookus. Climbing trees in a dress? (OK, for a more “feminine pursuit”, jumping rope in a dress, crawling on the floor playing Barbies in a dress…) Freezing our legs off in the winter time? Little white gloves for church or special meals? Shoes with heels? Stockings (nylons) that last only a day or so before snagging and having to be trashed? Silly little hats? Why in the world would a boy or a girl want to dress like that?
-Another Tomboy Primate
I think you hit the nail on the head here, not that we are seeing one ‘better’ then the other, but seeing them as different, as in a dog is not the same as a cat, not better or worse, just different.
Adding to my above comment, sissy(s) are frequently seen as ‘too good’ to get down and dirty with ‘male’ activities, is a way that the sissy is appearing to be on a higher plane, or better then the common male. The thing is, he, being a male, does not qualify for this ‘betterness’ and is obviously not deserving of this, and rather worthy of condemation (as seen by the common male). (I already went into enought about the reverse above, just didn’t think I went into the sissy side that well).
Since when is Tomboy complimentary or netural? It’s not a compliment, it’s something people say resignly about young girls, while hoping she’ll soon grow out of.
Yes, but that’s not the same kind of thing at all. He’s talking about being a boy and liking ‘boy’ things (running, jumping, climbing trees), but liking make-up/ dressing up as well.
You’re right that there ought to be an equivalent term. The problem is that most of the reasonably neutral ones (like ‘effeminate’, say) imply ‘gay’, which doesn’t always apply. I like ‘sensitive’ the best of the suggestions here, although that does have the same sort of problem with overtones.
Well, then, it’s a matter of degree. There’s just no way that “tomboy” could be negative to the same degree as “sissy”–if only because there have been so many tomboy characters in movies and novels that are positevely presented. A good example is Scout in To Kill A Mockingbird; I’m sure there are many more. There’s no male counterpart to “Scout” in all of filmdom, that I can think of.
Spectre said, “There’s no male counterpart to “Scout” in all of filmdom, that I can think of.”
There was a movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert Duvall – “This Boy’s Life”, where Leo had a friend who was effeminate – and really smart – and I think all they ever called him was “fag” and such. He was into acting, etc. That’s as close to a counterpart to Scout as I can remember right now.
I think the main problem is that no matter what you call it, someone who doesn’t partake in the traditional roles of his gender should be able to do that without being singled out. I’d love to have a husband that sewed, cooked, or made a homey house. Why on earth would anyone think this is a bad thing? Yet they usually do.
Because it’s believed that these actions speak of a hidden desire to be made sweet love to be big, burly men.
It’s silly, I know. I was called sissy through much of my youth by older brothers (and dad, on occasion)- they all felt that effeminate behavior and attitudes were a step on the path to gayitude, and did everything they could to discourage it. As I doubt that this attitude is likely to change soon, I doubt we’ll see the development of value neutral terms for it.
Also, think of the difference in these two terms: daddy’s girl vs. momma’s boy. One might be value neutral, but the other is certainly an insult where I am from.
-stonebow, the cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing hubbie with no interest in sports, hunting, or fishing.
Momma’s boy never struck me as being an identifier of gayitude. I look at it as a guy who needs his mom’s approval and can’t make decisions on his own. A wimp. More of a weakness of character than a reference to homosexuality.
Daddy’s Girl, on the other hand, is anything but neutral. These are women who are spoiled. Plain and simple. They get what they want and whine about it if they don’t. Daddy always fixes everything, and frequently, the mother is put on the back burner so they can be fawned over.
I don’t know which is worse…
Fella-girlie or Girl-a-fella.
[OT]A metrosexual also has the following traits: young, broadminded, has gay friends, has other-skin-coloured friends, educated, damned cute. Has anyone ever met an UGLY metrosexual?[/OT]
Not only does it not “always apply”, it “usually” doesnt apply. I would say the vast majority of girls who are/were tomboys, as well as boys who prefer femininity, are not homosexual at all.
If you are going to come up with a term for the male equivalent of tomboy, then it should not have any implications to “gay”. Plenty, probably most girls who are tomboys, who were tomboys, (at least the ones I personally know) are not gay, so why should boys who want to appear and act feminine be tagged with a “gay” terminology?
Whatever term is come up with should not even hint at homosexuality, esp if we are talking about young boys who want to wear dresses and make up and play with dolls or jump rope and bake cookees. A youngster, girl or boy, esp if they are young before puberty who cross traditional male/female roles isnt even thinking about who they may want to have sex with, they only want to wear pants/dresses and climb trees/play with dolls. A little girl who wears jeans and plays baseball is no more a lesbian than a little boy who wears dresses and prefers to play jacks is a male homosexual. 3, 5, 8, 10 year olds who want to cross traditional male/female lines do not have “sex partners” on their minds, they dont even know what sex is. A boy of 5 who just wants to play with dolls cant even imagine a desire to have sex with another man. Why would anyone even think that of give him a label that implies such a thing?
Talking/implying/associating even hinting homosexuality with such youngsters is irresponsible.
No offense to any homosexuals out there, but homosexuality is a completely different subject, as most women who engaged in tomboy activity at some time in their lives can testify.
I would also argue with the poster above that “tomboy” is a negative term. I dont think it is. I know plenty of mothers, and fathers, who actually brag about their daughters(and wives) who display tomboy characteristics/dress/interests or who express an interest in taking up traditional masculine activities. I even know plenty of fathers who not only could care less if their daughters wore pants and did male type things, they actually encourage their little girls(and even wives) to engage in long time masculine activities, and are proud of their daughters who play baseball or go hunting, etc. I dont know of any mothers who show the same kind of encouraging to get their sons to become feminine. I seriously doubt any mothers/fathers would encourage/brag in the same way if their sons/husbands wanted to dress/act/persue traditoinal feminine same.
The bottom line is that most people think it is ok for girls/women to act/dress/persue in traditional masculine behavior, but it is not ok for boys/men to act/dress/persue traditional feminine behavior because deep down they associate masculinity as “good”(higher status), and “feminity” as bad(lower status).
If masculinity and femininity were truely equal, this question would not even have come up, and parents would be equally proud/encouraging of such sons and daughters.
Within 20 years, the word “metrosexual” will have vanished. Nobody will remember it. A better word is needed.
I wrote a post this morning about how I decided I don’t like the idea anymore but it was stolen by hampsters.
Anyway I thought that people got tired of worrying about “traditionally male” and “traditionally female” in 1971 (when I was born.)
The thing about Tomboy is that it was out of style even when I was a kid. It’s normal for a girl to wear overalls and trick passersby into painting fences or whatever the hell a traditionally male manchild does. When I was growing up it was normal for boys and girls to play together and to play a variety of different things that might range from shooting each other to easybaking the playdough and there was no stigma about who liked what or how much. Boys who preferred to play house and dress up were not looked on as weird as far as I ever noticed.
I can’t even think of the last time I heard of a girl being called a tomboy.
People used to call people tomboys or sissies because people used to be damn ignorant and thought they should get all in a snit if anyone got out of line. I think the problem with gender is that people are really insecure that if they just let people be who they are without finding a name for them we might all get confused, forget how to make babies and die out.