Don’t forget the beatings. I don’t think we have that kind of leverage.
No, it’s a direct statement that women are sub-human. Why is it such an insult for boys that being “girly” is the worst thing that they can be? And now, all of a sudden, it’s ok for men to actually not just act “girly” but to actually BECOME women physically which is overwhelmingly confusing to many men raised in this tradition of misogyny.
The woman-hatred in our society is at the bottom of this. Boys are drilled and taught that being in any way female is bad. Any sport, game, or profession that girls and women take up is abandoned in droves by boys and men. Can’t be caught being “girly” in any way.
I really hope this transgender issue allows boys and men to escape from the “standards” that are so rigidly forced on them in our society at an early age. What your genitals look like at birth has very little to do with your own desires, talents, and life goals.
How do you feel about the fact that in most states, men can go bare chested, but women can’t?
Thanks for answering. 
thanks for your answer
That distinction in the law bothers me, and I’d like to see it removed. Either make men wear tops, or permit women to be topless.
This is, to me, a bit like the objection to “In God We Trust” on the currency: it isn’t the hill I’m going to make my final stand on, but it does bug me.
I’ll answer for me, I think it’s absolutely absurd and contrary to the basic concept of equality under the law, and don’t expect those statutes to survive more than a decade or two more. I do think it would be interesting for trans women to stage a topless protest of these bathroom laws, arguing that they can’t be arrested for showing a female nipple if the law recognizes them as men, but the risks for trans people who are arrested is pretty extreme.
I think it’s a silly double standard but I also accept it’s not going to change any time soon. It’s also not worth me getting into an argument with anyone over, especially because as a straight guy, a lot of people would assume my support of the premise would be because I wanted to see boobs in public or something suss (and incorrect) like that.
Re: toplessness legality, the wikipedia article on topfreedom (pictures of breasts, so I’m not linking) shows it mostly being allowed where challenged. Except for NJ. That’s assuming the article is comprehensive.
It’s already changed in states that have strong state equal protection guarantees, because there’s no remotely legitimate reason for it and it is obviously discriminatory. The history of such laws also makes them suspect, originally they would require everyone to keep the chest covered (possibly with a breastfeeding exception) but at some point they started exempting men. No one has pushed it up to the federal level both because it’s expensive to do so and it’s easy for a state to just drop misdemeanor charges rather than fight appeals, but I really can’t see how such laws can survive a serious legal challenge.
I think one of the NJ cases was appealed all the way but SCOTUS didn’t want to hear it.
Hi, Chihuahua.
I am familiar with “manly” behavior. I am male-bodied and grew up forced into all-male companionship often enough as a kid and young adult.
I think male-bodied people (whether they style themselves as “men” or not) can be admirably behaving human beings, but if and when they do, they aren’t behaving differently than admirably behaving female-bodied human beings. Do you wish to argue otherwise?
If not, what does sex or gender have to do with standards of behavior?
I am male-bodied and from the time I was ~ 7 years old onwards I’ve been quite proud of not acting like stupid knuckle-dragging male-bodied creatures who can’t control their own behavior, who are violence and disgusting and proud of it, who are insensitive clods, and who have the unmitigated gall to express hostility to me because I was acting like a girl.** In other words, when I was growing up I was exposed to the same bullshit. If you’re ratifying that bullshit, if you would be inclined to disparage me for resembling girls and women in my behaviors, well, where did you get the ridiculous notion that I would care what you or any other male-bodied person thinks about how I live? Masculine males are pathetic. I am so glad I’m not like that.
One of the things I admired about the girls was that they had standards. Boys, not so much. “Men”, allegedly more mature and whatnot, manage a superficial appearance of some modicum of civilized self-constrained behavioral patterns, but in many cases it’s just a gloss. And they still care way too much what other male-bodied folk think of them, to the point that they’ll jump through all kinds of hoops to get confirmation and acceptance from them. A baboon dressed in a tuxedo is still a baboon.
Has it ever occurred to you that to hold male-bodied people in contempt for having behaviors associated with girls and women is to be contemptuous also of female-bodied people, for whom those behaviors are normative?
Please read and answer this, Chihuahua. A number of posters in the thread have raised this point. If your standards for men are “don’t be like a woman”, what does that really say about your view of women themselves?
I’d also like to hear a little more from you on the criminal justice angle – what makes something a crime, to you?
Authoritarian views are (often) rooted in fear, as you yourself point out. But being afraid of things gives them power over you. To help resolve (or at least examine) cognitive dissonance, maybe it might make sense to imagine yourself as a woman, or a homeless person, or someone addicted to drugs, and think through some of the views you hold now.
John Rawls talks about the “veil of ignorance” in matters of justice. Would you want something to be a law, or a social norm (or “standard”) if you couldn’t know what sort of person you would be on the other side of the veil?
the real problem with rigid “standards” of behavior based on superficial characteristics such as external genitalia is that the vast majority of the population ends up being utterly miserable. Only the tiny percentage of people who would have naturally chosen to behave in the way dictated by the “standards” are happy and the rest struggle along and try to hide their unhappiness. And if they don’t go along with the “standard” they tend to be harassed, beaten up, and even killed.
This I think is the core of your problem, Social standards have not deteriorated they have changed. Think of the war on drugs, a bunch of white christian males decided they were the ones who knew what was best for everyone else.
Those are not my standards.
Good manners used to mean respecting your elders regardless of how much they actually deserved your respect.
again not my standards.
Society has not embraced Vileness nor criminal behavior, (I won’t touch stupid, Humans have always been dumbasses and always will be) and you are correct, there is no universal standard…because as adults each of us should be capable of choosing our own.
I’m not sure about the “vast majority” aspect of this. I can’t speak for the US, but I believe the “not heterosexual” population of Australia was recently worked out in as being about 5, maybe 10 per cent at most.
According to the 2011 census, there were about 34,000 same-sex couples in Australia, representing about 1% of the population.
Even taking into account people not answering the census properly, and the many homosexual folks not in a committed relationship, the “not heterosexual” component of Australia is definitely a minority - and not a statistically large one, either, it would seem.
Now, that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to the same rights & protections etc as everyone else - they absolutely are - but in this case, I’d suggest the overwhelming majority of people aren’t “miserable” about the societal expectation being that people behave heterosexually, because most people are heterosexual. Obviously lots of people might disagree with that expectation, or think it’s unfair or unreasonable, but that’s a totally different kettle of fish to actually being miserable about it.
It’s not just that people behave “heterosexually”–the OP is talking about a set of standards in which the ideal man is a manly man–athletic, competitive, assertive to the point of aggressive, ambitious in a fairly narrow band of interests, uninterested in a wide variety of other things, and largely unexpressive.
Making everything a race and limiting the “win” condition to a narrow set means that 1) not that many people can win 2) almost everyone else will fail and 3) even the winners may not be particularly happy if they felt obligated to match a model that went against their expectations.
Let me give you an example–I am a lot more career ambitious than my husband. When we started a family, he’s the one that quit his job and stays home with our son. I would hate hate hate that. On the rare occasions I have a two-day weekend, by Sunday afternoon I am inventing errands to get out of the house. He’d be miserable working the sort of hours I work to allow us to keep a parent home.
The “standards” the OP grew up with label both of us failures–he’s failing to provide and I’m failing to nurture. I don’t want to speak for him, but I suspect he’d have a negative emotional reaction to both of us, even if he didn’t want to. We are happy and our son is well loved because we have a arrangement that they old system simply didn’t “allow”–I mean, it wasn’t illegal, but it meant accepting a lot of social criticism.
Yeah, this goes far beyond sexual orientation. The majority of straight men are also harmed by enforcement of traditional masculinity.
But that deliberately avoids the ‘old fashioned’ definition of ‘not heterosexual’. Just focusing on bedroom fun, how much of that remaining 95% are into pegging (or receiving ass play in general), or cross-dressing, or having a woman in charge? All of them are NOT MANLY. What about relationship structures - any kind of poly or open where the woman has other male partners, being a stay-at-home dad, doing inside housework while she does outside? NOT MANLY. What about attraction - if you only want to have sex with an emotional connection and not just ‘wow hot chick’, or if you find women who have short hair and no makeup attractive? NOT MANLY
The nitpicking of sex and relationship preferences in the old ‘standards’ is huge, and ‘not manly’ goes way beyond ‘do you have an active desire to have sex with other men’.
Liking ballet or classical music - NOT MANLY. Liking romantic stories - NOT MANLY. Liking dressing up (whether traditional or not) - NOT MANLY. Liking cooking - NOT MANLY.