Manliness vs Femininity

[Ralitsa]

I'm glad you've decided to share your thoughts Elizabeth.
I 100% agree with you that there is no "normal" and I have no patience with people who want, or expect everyone to be, or who try to make everyone normal. There is the cliche that variety is the spice of life, and this is a very spicy place here!!
Although I appreciate that this discussion has been going on in one form or another since the begining of time with no resolution yet, I don't agree that it's pointless. It is not a solution that we want, nor even so much of an explanation, just a chance to discuss how we feel about it and some acceptance and possibly understanding. I guess I'm probably just the opposite of you, I don't identify myself as a woman, and many people have described me as chauvanistic and prejudjiced, not at all compassionate and emotional. How much of that is a screen thrown up to appear like a "regular guy" I won't say.
But the point is not that I understand you, or am like you, or can relate to how you feel. I really can't, I can't understand nor relate to anyone, neither male nor female. But I can sympathize with you, and say "OK, so were both crazy, in different ways maybe, but who cares?" So even if I don't know what it's like to be you, and I don't know what your feeling, and I don't understand anything, I can still accept who you are and not try to fit you into something I can understand.

[Anthony Simon]

This is so daft, what I'm about to do.

I'm glad you've decided to share your thoughts Elizabeth.
I 100% agree with you that there is no "normal" and I have no patience with people who want, or expect everyone to be, or who try to make everyone normal. There is the cliche that variety is the spice of life, and this is a very spicy place here!!

Patience [Dictionary Definition]: The quality of being able calmly to endure suffering, toil, delay, vexation, or the like: sufferance: a card game of various kinds, generally for one person, the object being to fit the cards into some scheme as they turn up.

I do have patience with that sort of person, because they need something to order their world - as it were a scheme to make sense of the card game of chaotic human life. But it doesn't make "normal" true or useful to us here. We're kind of out there in the middle of the (gender) chaos. It's not an easy place to be.

But I maintain that it is a place that brings insights - and it's worth bearing with (at least some of) the pain for that reason. Having that sort of patience.

[Absaroka]

Thanks Elizabeth and everyone else.

Elizabeths post about girls wanting BA to feel like real women put me in mind of something a friend of mine said about 20 years ago. She and my wife were discussing pregnancy, which my wife had just completed and the other woman was contemplating. I was mostly listening. The woman made the comment that she could not imagine anything less feminine than pregnancy. No that is not a typo.....she viewed this as a very negative aspect of pregnancy, that it would render her less feminine.

It had to do with her idea of feminine being pretty, and pretty being defined as thin, as well as stuff like morning sickness. She had done a lot of dance and the physical awkwardness towards the last couple of months of pregnancy also seemed unfeminine.

At this point I commented on the absurdity of this and she agreed but said that this was how she felt, regardless of the logic of it.

End of story is a happy pregnancy and birth and now a happy 17 year old daughter..........

I'm not saying the ability to bear children should define anyone or the way they feel about themselves. I have heard several women talk about the "I'm not fat I'm pregnant" thought process they must go through. Perhaps that's another story. But it strikes me that when we get to considering pregnancy as un feminine that something wierd is going on. Since it is obviously not masculine, it therefore must be gender neutral, which makes me think that our whole conception of gender as sometimes sexual rather than reproductive is perhaps occuring. Talking to women who are breast feeding about this in terms of how people view their breasts would reinforce this view....

[Robyn Katie]

Carolynn, looking over your first post as quoted by Anthony, and then your latest, you're pretty clearly looking for some underlying perception about masculinity and femininity that gets beneath the cliches and really tries to clarify them to us all.

I sense frustration on your part. I sense you're looking for something deeper, but as I read what you said, I can't quite figure out what sort of insight you are asking for. Could you define it more precisely?

(I share your mystification, I guess we all do. But I do think we might get further if we figured out what the right questions are.)

Love, Robyn Katie

[Anthony Simon]

Thanks Elizabeth and everyone else.

Elizabeths post about girls wanting BA to feel like real women put me in mind of something a friend of mine said about 20 years ago. She and my wife were discussing pregnancy, which my wife had just completed and the other woman was contemplating. I was mostly listening. The woman made the comment that she could not imagine anything less feminine than pregnancy. No that is not a typo.....she viewed this as a very negative aspect of pregnancy, that it would render her less feminine.

It had to do with her idea of feminine being pretty, and pretty being defined as thin, as well as stuff like morning sickness. She had done a lot of dance and the physical awkwardness towards the last couple of months of pregnancy also seemed unfeminine.

At this point I commented on the absurdity of this and she agreed but said that this was how she felt, regardless of the logic of it.

End of story is a happy pregnancy and birth and now a happy 17 year old daughter..........

I'm not saying the ability to bear children should define anyone or the way they feel about themselves. I have heard several women talk about the "I'm not fat I'm pregnant" thought process they must go through. Perhaps that's another story. But it strikes me that when we get to considering pregnancy as un feminine that something wierd is going on. Since it is obviously not masculine, it therefore must be gender neutral, which makes me think that our whole conception of gender as sometimes sexual rather than reproductive is perhaps occuring. Talking to women who are breast feeding about this in terms of how people view their breasts would reinforce this view....

I don't know. Maybe one wants to look at this through the life-cycle butterflies go through. So that's catterpillar, cocoon, butterfly - and the butterfly is the beautiful bit, akin to "the feminine" in women. The cocoon would be parallel to pregnancy, while the catterpillar could be thought of as the opposite of the butterfly in not at all being beautiful. Although the fit's not exact you could then see how someone might think of the pregnancy thing as being the opposite of being feminine - in the sense of being at the other pole of attractiveness (or beauty) in the cycle of producing life for women.

OK, I would say that sex is to do with the physical stuff derived from your genetic inheritance (generally either male or female) - and having babies would be the classic case of something only women can do. So that would make it completely sexually non-neutral. But if we say that gender is to do with enacted sex roles, the actual physical process of having a baby doesn't seem to fit there. Does that mean it's gender neutral? Well, no - Becuase I think that so much of the accepted female role in this (and probably others too) society does seem to revolve around kind of iterations of what women do with children. Like the whole passive, supportive, holding, developmental thing. So then you get professions which have a lot of women in them (e.g medicine, social work, education) and others where they struggle to get on (e.g. business) - because the ethic there asserts the need for stereotypical "male" values (e.g. competitive aggression).

I just want to say that probably, somewhere, deep inside me, I really wish I could have babies - like be a "real woman" like that. But I can't and there's this resentment because of it. Which is daft. But there it is. But, if you argue that "the feminine" is at the opposite pole to pregnancy in the cycle of producing life for women - well, at least that's one bit of "being like a woman" I can do. Like it's an enactment of the female gender.

At any rate, if I don't agree that pregnancy is gender neutral, I absolutely do think that femininity is highly (female) gender specific.

[Absaroka]

Anthony you hit the nail on the head. Feminimity being different from being female.

[CJ]

Hi all,

Fascinating thread.

Anthony wrote: I just want to say that probably, somewhere, deep inside me, I really wish I could have babies - like be a "real woman" like that. But I can't and there's this resentment because of it. Which is daft. But there it is.

Yes, that would be an instance of what Karen Horney called "womb envy." See, for instance: Wikipedia entry on Womb and vagina envy

Much food for thought, here.

Love,
CJ

[Anthony Simon]

Hi all,

Fascinating thread.

Anthony wrote: I just want to say that probably, somewhere, deep inside me, I really wish I could have babies - like be a "real woman" like that. But I can't and there's this resentment because of it. Which is daft. But there it is.

Yes, that would be an instance of what Karen Horney called "womb envy." See, for instance: Wikipedia entry on Womb and vagina envy

Much food for thought, here.

Love,
CJ

Thanks for the link CJ. It does fit me in part, certainly I think I have womb envy (or whatever one calls it). The bit about men= not women, I am very aware of as something I've fought all my life and has created great conflict for me because of my desire to dress as a woman.

The thing about women's power to have babies, essentially to create life, gives each and every woman the potential to have at least some meaning in her life - just by going along the path of motherhood. You only have to watch women with babies to see how engrossing and fulfilling that can be.

But men don't have that intrinsic possibility of meaning in their life. So they are compelled to look for it in other ways. My take is that is both a good and bad thing. On the one hand it impels men to take risks (even immense risks) to provide that meaning. Like this is the sort of thing that drives the great explorers, or the discoverers of all sorts. It's also the thing that impels men to die for a cause. Which is where heroism comes from. But sometimes the cause can be a lie or even evil and if people then kill for it...

So I think this is an extremely deep pool. I think, on a society-wide level, the threat posed to men's sense of their own value by women's intrinsic capacity to do something valuable by creating babies, may account for their need to treat women as second class citizens. I'm not sure where, specifically, the men=not women thing comes from, but it sounds in part like a vast version of a castration complex (not to get reductive or anything). But the Gilmore book I like has another theory.

[SaraSnow]

Here’s my 2 cents and I apologize in advance if I’m a bit redundant from some of you girl’s posts but most of you have captured the subject eloquently. I believe that I’m 100% male even when I’m dressed fully as a woman. My goal, my desire when dressed is to completely embrace myself in femininity. Almost like a cold wind that sends chills through your body when a snow shower is about to arrive. The feeling of my transformation is complete when I catch a glance in a mirror, be it freshly shaved legs, my stride in heels, or a quick makeup check. I never have believed that I have transformed myself into a woman nor do I believe I can ever really accomplish this feat. I think this is the goal of 90%+ of all cross-dressers.
I also do the same when I am in male mode. I try to be the best man I could be: father, husband, teammate, and friend. I rarely try to be androgynous but on occasion, panties under male clothes. Typically I believe that crosses the fetish / cross-dressing line. But being a good cross-dresser I think we have to keep some of our grooming androgynous so it doesn’t take us a ½ day to get dressed.
The real emotional benefit of being a cross-dresser is we’ve broken down the stereo-typical male / female emotional roles. I think we girls don’t feel awkward crying or showing our real emotions in either mode we’re in. I think we are more open with our spouses and more responsive to their needs.

[Absaroka]

Although men die for causes usually the cause is at root protecting their families from "the enemy" Even the Taliban thinks they are protecting their women and children, especially the male children.

[Anthony Simon]

Although men die for causes usually the cause is at root protecting their families from "the enemy" Even the Taliban thinks they are protecting their women and children, especially the male children.

Who can doubt that that is part of the motivation. But, no I don't think it's the whole thing. I believe (personally) that men tend to need somthing beyond that. Certainly I do. My problem is that, particularly in the West - and amongst liberals - causes are out of favour and seen as dubious. That has a lot to do with the legacy of the Nazis and Imperialism. Both of which are seen as dubious causes (or worse) which created great havoc in the world. And they have tainted all causes as a result. But, to me, that's like giving Hitler a posthumous victory.

I do think the liberal, democratic tradition has some more mileage in it, particularly if it includes in a real (rather than, as now, rather superficial) way women and minorities. I think there are all sorts of positive gains that can come out of that, not just in terms of a fairer society, but most all in terms of a society in which the fullest potential of humanity can come out. Which would make such a society much more competetive than the ones we have now. I do believe that is an ideal worth dying for, but I don't expect anyone much to agree with me.

Amongst other things, just to bring it back somewhat to the subject of the thread, such a society would require men losing their dominant position. And then I think you're into sex war (on some level or other).

[Danielle La Belle]

Hi Girls:

This is so complicated. Let me take a different position here.

When a biologically, at birth, accepted woman (gg) wakes in the morning, she does not have to think about why she will wear today what she wears. Simply put, she puts on what she has clean to wear and perhaps reflects in the “duties of the day.”

She just like a man that is of the same opposing nature, does not need to digress over his attire for the day. It is by cultural bias, pretty much defined for him in his job and the “duties of the day.’

TG people, for the most part, are hybrids of humanity. We recognize both biological modes as being combined into one personality. Yes, it can be said that there are perhaps two distinct personalities for us to express, This is perhaps the biological difference.

When we consciously decide to express outwardly, a trait that is often considered reserved for the opposing sex of our birth, we challenge the very meaning of “social definition.’

Consider a basketball and a football. You would never expect to see a sports team using the opposing ball to their game application and rules. Bouncing a football down the basketball court would just not work.

Humanity operates on the process of nomenclature indexing. I can call you on the telephone, sight unseen, and state that I have a football in my hand. You on the other hand, because of your “nomenclature indexing” exerperience in a modern culture, would know exactly what I had in my hand. You might not know the color of the lettering on the football. But, you have a point of safe reference for the basic definition and description.

Now suppose that you are living in Africa and have never seen a football and someone introduces you to a telephone (cell phone), could you understand the concept of a football? No, of course not! You have no point of reference for such an item let alone the cell phone which would need explanation.

People give things names so that in common language, we can communicate and have an understanding between us. When we introduce the football onto the basketball court, we violate that understanding and rules associated with both the ball and the location.

Rules that we expect to not be broken so that we have a basis of understanding. Without such a process, there would be total chaos! The tower of Babel etc…., while we may share a common language, there would be such disorder as to prevent us from having a meaningful conversation.

My point here is, we break the understood rules that permit social understanding when we put on clothing that is specifically designed to transmit the sex and gender of another. That is, in simple terms, we create a form of social chaos not unlike the football on the basketball court.

We are “changing the rules,” and that disturbs people. How can you possibly play basketball with a football?

This is not about the question of “do we have the right,” it is more about living outside the box that was created for us at birth. You have an “inney, or an outey.” Ha ha LOL!

So, our game was decided for us at birth. We just choose to express the internal self more than the external self at times. Bottom line, we have to think about it! We make a conscious choice to represent the opposing gender/sex of another.

Slice it anyway you like, I for one each day, choose, based on my “duties of the day,” how to dress. Along with that choice, I accept the responsibility that goes with it. If I am going to take my football on to the basketball court, I expect to create a stir! People are going to react as one should expect.


Hugs

Danielle Marie

[Carolynn]

Personally, I should think taking a football onto the basketball court and trying to dribble it would add interest to an otherwise boring game.

As for your points about selecting clothing, this response is from the standpont of a post op TS. I did the same when in male guise as I do now, just that the choices are a bit different. As my body may fluctuate a bit day to day, I sometimes have to check the fit of clothes as to whether they will be comfortable or not, as clothing sizes are more variable for womens clothes by manufacturer than mens.

As I did when I was portraying a male, I wear pants most every day, just that instead of full fit kahkis to accomodate my butt, I now wear girls jeans in either black, blue or wheat colors, unless there is a more formal event, then slacks, again not too dissimilar to my attire in male mode.

Shirts as a guy were kinda colorful, often in pastels though, and my tops at the present time are similar, though there is more white and a greater variety of colors. Jewelry is something I did not wear as a guy, and do use some now, but not much.

Skirts and dresses, well I have them but I just don't wear them often. I'm usually more comfortable in pants, but wear a dress or skirt on occasion. Hmm, I need to rid myself of a bunch of them. Hardly in style anymore. Then SHOPPING. Now that is a difference. I enjoy shopping more than before.

Make up is a difference, but there again it is light and quickly applied, and often consists of a slightly tinted moisturizer, and maybe some mascara. I have always used a skin moisturizer, so not really too much change there. I usually eschew lippy, though I do use a skin protecting lip balm, sometimes tinted. I wore T shirts as a guy, and as a casual cover in summer do so now.

In the cold, I wore thermal underwear for working outside, but now since I am retired, I don't have to be out in the cold all day, so I will use tights or the tight weave, soft underclothes called CuddleDuds (tm), bottoms and tops for warmth, if I will be out for awhile. I wore sweat shirts seasonally, I still do.

I didn't spend much time deciding on what to wear in male emulation mode, and I still do not, though I did and do consider the days activites before I choose. Also no change.

So for me, not so much change, but then I always knew who I was, and who I could permit myself to be. I am comfortable in my skin, and really don't see a need to do much camoflague with clothing.

I was always more interested in what I would have time to make for breakfast (my favorite meal of the day), and still am.

No, not too much change.

Carolynn

[Paula G]

On the subject of balls, you can through in local geographical cultural differences after all to most of the world a basketball is just an overinflated football, and what Americans call a footbal is just an undernurished rugby ball. So what may be appropriate for the day's activities in one place are not in another. In Italy they dress much more formally and carefully for all sorts of actovities, in the UK we dress formal to dine out, as I was recently reminded in France they dress much more casual, but behave more formal this just goes to show that.... erm beats me

[Carolynn]

Paula, maybe the point is that what one is to wear is culturally/socially defined? There are still formal modes and casual modes no matter the culture, just that culture and soiciety changes the rules ever so slightly every once in awhile. Sometimes the social conventions can strongly separate gender lines, sometimes blurs them, as in the US in the 1970's vs. the 1950's.