 sj |
||
|
||
Are Men The New Women?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: mousethief Date: 25 Jun 01 - 12:30 PM LH, the great thing about that Matriarchal Period is that it's prehistorical, so one can say anything one wants about it without fear of contradiction. And if anyone gainsays you, you can call them a product of the Patriarchy, and no-one will listen to them. Very handy. alex |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: MMario Date: 25 Jun 01 - 12:35 PM If you start looking at the history of costume (that's costume as in clothing - not theatrical costuming) it's interesting that men's clothing was for the most part as colorful and varied as womens - or more so until the late Victorian era. so it's really only been a few generations. I've seen speculation that the trend towards monotony and less flamboyance was more due to the widespread involvement of men in the military for the first half of the 20th century. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: MMario Date: 25 Jun 01 - 12:45 PM tho there were (not sure if there still are) societies within just the "recent" historical period that were matriachal - at least in inheritance and tracing of lineage. My mother grew up in Japan and China - and said one of the strongest dichotomies observed in both cultures was that publicly women had no power or respect - but within homes and families it was the eldest woman who had the last say, the most respect, and always the final word. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Midchuck Date: 25 Jun 01 - 01:05 PM I've seen speculation that the trend towards monotony and less flamboyance was more due to the widespread involvement of men in the military for the first half of the 20th century. I also read somewhere that, before the revolution in France, the nobility dressed very colorfully and flamboyantly, but the lower classes were required to wear plain drab clothes. After the revolution, during the terror, it was very dangerous to wear colorful or elaborate clothes - if anyone got the idea you were of the nobility, you were dead. So everyone dressed drably. Supposedly the practice caught on all over Europe, because even then France set the fashion; and the habit stuck with men, but not women. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Marion Date: 25 Jun 01 - 05:00 PM I've always thought it interesting that among humans (in our culture and time, anyway) flamboyancy in appearance is largely a female thing (jewellery, makeup, long hair, clothes with loud prints and colours and swishy skirts). Among most other animals, when there's a difference in appearance between genders, it's the other way around. It's the lions that have manes, the peacocks that have plumage, the male robins that have red breasts, the male lightning bugs that light up. In many kinds of birds and bugs and reptiles, it's the males that get to wear the poufy wedding dresses while the females get the plain black suits. Marion |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: sophocleese Date: 25 Jun 01 - 05:39 PM I seem to remember hearing ages ago that Beau Brummel was responsible for removing colour from gentlemen's wardrobes. He thought black and white more elgant and deplored the flashy use of colour. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Peter T. Date: 25 Jun 01 - 05:48 PM And what of Queen Calif of California, home of many of today's Amazonians? yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: mousethief Date: 25 Jun 01 - 06:16 PM I would just like to say that it is my conviction That longer hair and other flamboyant Affectations of appearance are nothing more Than the male's emergence From his drab camouflage Into the gaudy plumage That is the birthright of his sex There is a peculiar notion that Elegant plumage and fine feathers are not proper for the man But actually, that is the way things are in most species. ---Ragni & Rado (from memory; sorry if I goofed) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Amos Date: 25 Jun 01 - 09:32 PM This is an interesting comment on market trends. In basic economics it is usually the rule that if you haven't got enough demand for your product you have to promote madly to drum up business. If word-of-mouth is flooding your capacity to deliver with orders, this becomes a less pressing concern. Large companies keep it up anyway, though, just to ensure future traffic. This suggests that whenever men stopped wearing brilliant clothes -- oh, say, during the advent of Calvinism, for example.... it is either because they were in a supply side market, or the natural market dynamics were being interfered with. This could be because demand was artificially suppressed (product is made illegal, excessive cost of locating product, social censure, etc.) OR because the capacity to supply product was interfered with (for example, shortage of parts or raw material, unreasonable cost of export, or the manipulation into belief in limiting supply for some arbitrary political reason). Consider the Middle Agers, for example, when initiative on the part of the ordinary man was discouraged because the benefit of the innovation would never be experienced by the innovator under feudal control. I think it would be reasonable in Anglo Saxon circles to say that the post-Elizabethan dark-spirited conservatism actually damaged the flow of natural economic transactions and reduced the use of "advertising" in males by: (a)persuading them they should not serve more than one customer The ultimate extension of this trend can be found in the suburbs around New York in the Fifties, where all the fathers went to work in gray, dull flannel suits wearing precisely matched dull colored fedoras, averaged 2.25 children, Doris Day reigned on AM Radio, and the men were constrained by extreme censure if they tried normal promotional techniques. Sigh. And they thought Reagonomics was bad!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 25 Jun 01 - 10:27 PM Um... do I have my mind in the gutter, Amos, or are you saying that what the men were constrained against promoting was their sexuality? (Sorry. I'm easily confused these days.) |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Amos Date: 25 Jun 01 - 10:39 PM Probably both, dear lady! :>))!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 25 Jun 01 - 11:26 PM Ok. I can live with that. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: ddw Date: 25 Jun 01 - 11:45 PM MMario — your mother was right about the eldest woman having the last word in the home. But the key words there are "in the home," which is the place of women's responsibility. They are left there to raise the MEN's sons while the men go galavanting as they choose. I was in Japan for two years in the early days of the transition, when the first post-war generation was reaching university age, and it was very interesting to watch the clash of the generations. Some of the adults who had fought in WWII wanted desperately to westernize their society and many of their kids agreed — but a lot of others reacted against what they saw as the loss of their cultural identity. Made for an interesting dynamic. cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: hesperis Date: 26 Jun 01 - 02:49 AM I think that in many societies where men can marry more than one woman, it came about because women's work is somewhat boring. Personally, I find household chores a lot easier to do when I am talking to someone, and even easier when I am working with someone else on it. If the men are off hunting, or working the fields, or at war, then it would be very nice to have another person about the household. (I even told my mother once when I was much younger, that I wouldn't mind it if my future man was married to more than one woman, as long as I was "first wife" and hopefully the favorite wife as well!) But unfortunately, that structure in a society, although it has its advantages, it also constrains people too much into certain patterns. There will always be some who just don't fit. If they have no choice but to fit or die, then they'll die. Or their gifts will not be given because they are not allowed to give them. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Lyndi-loo Date: 26 Jun 01 - 05:11 AM "Behind every succesful man there is a woman" I think this is true to a large extent. Although women have the equipment and skills for child rearing, ever since neolithic times they've been goading men to go out and hunt the best meat. In nature the female will mate with the strongest and most succesful, so that all men do is geared up to getting the girl. WOmen are probably more ambitious too (cf Lady Macbeth, Eleanor of Aquitaine) and how many matriarchal societies are there? So yes men are trained (by their mothers) to be big and brave and not to cry, While girls are trained (albeit unconsciously) to be manipulative and with an eye to the long term |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Amos Date: 26 Jun 01 - 09:25 AM All true, Lyndi-loo, but hopw does that account for wearing bright colored outfits? Oh, DARN!! I put on the wrong socks this morning. Now I'll have to go home and change into the electric blue ones!! Here, hold my spear.... |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Lyndi-loo Date: 26 Jun 01 - 09:31 AM Because dye was expensive and the more richly embrodered and colourful the man's dress, the higher his status and the more likely he is to attract a mate. As for women and colours, make up attracts men in a sexual way rather than in a materialistic way. Lipstick enhances the lips and mimics (so Desmond Morris would have it) the labia in the full flush of sexual excitement |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Peg Date: 26 Jun 01 - 10:29 AM One thing to bear in mind: Post-war fashions in modern times (when society needs to replenish its deceased young men) are, generally speaking, geared towards accentuating the female form and thus inspiring reproductive activities and leading to child-bearing; I am thinking of the 'teens and the fifties especially; both eras in women's fashions featured a cinched waist (the circle skirts of the fifties and corsetted waist/tight-button blouses of teens), emphatic bosom (either low decollete and short jackets, or later the torpedo or push-up bra), bustle, peplum or crinoline to accentuate hip/bottom area, and shoes which lent height and propelled the buttocks back and the chest out... Whether these fashion dictates were intentionally geared towards getting babies made is hard to say; but certainly after long years at war and lonely years t home both men and women were ready for some old-fashioned stay-at-home adventures... Peg (who knows more about fashion than is perhaps healthy in a woman who mainly shops at the Salvation Army) Oh, and as to whether men are the new women: sorry, that is just too insulting to even think about answering. :)
|
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Amos Date: 26 Jun 01 - 09:29 PM Aw, Peg, you say the nicest things! :>) Thaks for really cutting through to core issue here! A |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: sophocleese Date: 26 Jun 01 - 10:08 PM Lyndi Loo I have to say that I take exception to a lot of what you have written here. "Although women have the equipment and skills for child rearing, ever since neolithic times they've been goading men to go out and hunt the best meat. In nature the female will mate with the strongest and most succesful, so that all men do is geared up to getting the girl. WOmen are probably more ambitious too (cf Lady Macbeth, Eleanor of Aquitaine) and how many matriarchal societies are there? So yes men are trained (by their mothers) to be big and brave and not to cry, While girls are trained (albeit unconsciously) to be manipulative and with an eye to the long term " Tamberlaine? I would hesitate to suggest that one gender is more ambitious than the other based on fictional representations of historic characters. Women do not always choose the strongest and the most successful, many women choose the exotic, the sensible, the artistic, the abusive or the sensitive. From personal knowledge I can tell you that I do not raise my son to be big and brave and not cry: I am attempting to raise an emotionally healthy child not a cripple. If I am unconsciously training my daughter to be manipulative I'm doing a bad job of it as I am a lousy manipulator. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jun 01 - 11:32 AM Well said, Sophocleese! Given the fact that human beings have neither the teeth nor the digestive tract of a carnivore.... I have always doubted that humanity began as the traditional cave man, armed with club or spear, trudging off into the wilderness to batter and stab large hairy animals, and drag the meat back home to their admiring womenfolk. Phooey! I think that's just the prevailing mythology of our particular era. I think it far more likely that humanity began as peaceful fruit and plant eaters, since our digestive system is admirably designed for that purpose, and who would not choose peace if conditions easily allowed it? Later, when there was a severe climatic change (ice age), killing off much of the edible vegetation, people were forced to turn to eating meat (as has always been the case in the far northerly regions), and using weapons...then came the popularly conceived age of the "caveman". Then came war. Harsh conditions produce harsh people. I also believe the earlier advanced civilizations were matriarchal...as has been touched on already in this thread. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: gnu Date: 27 Jun 01 - 04:18 PM LH... I've got canine fangs at the upper third tooth on each side (from the front centre). These came in after the "regular" looking teeth came in and were pulled to allow them space. Many people with these canine teeth have the canines removed instead - depends on the dentist. So, I am allowed to kill and eat meat... just finished a deer burger and it was scrumpcious. And I shit just as well as anyone. Now, about my webbed toes... can you swim ? |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 01 - 06:46 PM I was seeing on the box that current evidence seems to suggest that the meta in the diet of Paleolithic people wasn't big hairy animals, but rabbits. Easier and safer to catch, easier to carry around and cook, and tastier. Which all seems much more likely. They weren't stupid. (And it'd mean the women would as likely as not have been off hunting them with the kids, while the blokes hung around the cave singing songs and telling stories. Matriarchy's got a lot going for it. Just so long as women don't copy too many male ways, or we're really in deep trouble.)
Men are merely exploring possibilities that were unavailable to them for hundreds of years. Women are, as well. What's wrong with that? (hesperis) Well, I don't know anyone, male or female, who has been around for hundreds of years. I'd have thought the more powerful thing might be people trying to be a bit different from your mother or father or both.
And I never understand this seat-up / seat-down bit either - don't most men leave the seat down anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: mousethief Date: 27 Jun 01 - 06:59 PM I've got canine incisors too. And flat-topped molars. And only one stomach, which is just as effective at digesting meat as it is at digesting fruits and veggies. If I had to make a call, based just on science and not on unground axes, I'd probably say I'm an omnivore. I've never understood the toilet thing. If men can lift it to piddle, why can't women lower it? What is it that causes a woman to go into the bathroom butt-first, never at any point looking at the toilet to determine the status of the seat? Never understood that one. Good point, McG, about the mother/father (versus 100s of years) thing. The real issue is that society at one time had strong ideas of what men and women were "supposed to" do based on gender. And those ideas have been discounted and/or discarded to a large extent, and society still doesn't have anything to fill the gap that is left. And we have people from varying generations, and/or in varying stages along this line from strict gender roles to no gender roles, and all the various points in between. So naturally there is some tension. A large part of it comes down to the MYOB principle, and for heterosexual couples, talking out what each wants the relationship to be like in terms of who does what. Come to think of it homosexual couples have to have exactly the same sorts of discussions, although there is no gender-based expectations that cloud up the issue there. (Lesbians never have to touch the toilet seat (with hands) except to clean it -- lucky gals!) Just some thoughts. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 01 - 07:05 PM "If men can lift it to piddle" - that's a big if... |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jun 01 - 07:11 PM Sorry to be late to the party, but cold beer is manly? Warm bitter, please, not cold lager - that's for women. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Peg Date: 27 Jun 01 - 07:12 PM Men occasionally use the seat when it's down (at least once a day, let's hope). Women never use it when it's up (except when they clean it, and let's face it, women are usually the ones who clean it). 'Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: hesperis Date: 27 Jun 01 - 07:19 PM Well, fung shui says that if you don't put the lid down, you are draining prosperity away... |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 27 Jun 01 - 09:03 PM Actually, there are hygenic arguments for both the seat and the lid being kept down on the toilet. Every time the toilet is flushed, some of the contents (water as well as waste) become airborn particulate matter. You end up living with a residue of sewage on your stuff and in your lungs. I guess that thought doesn't bother some people. It kind of grosses me out, though. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: GUEST,blt Date: 27 Jun 01 - 10:04 PM Well, this certainly is a charming thread. My initial reaction was to be impressed by the number of assumptions, myths, and magical thinking that I was reading, beginning with the title. IMHO, typecasting either gender gets tricky, because there's always, always an exception. For example, shaving--as a woman, facial hair can be a fact of life, and not due to hormonal changes at menopause. So some women have beards, some shave. Culturally, some males have no or very little facial hair, so shaving (or not) has no tie-in to virility. The importance of the public vs private domains of women's lives survives cross-culturally for several reasons: it works (in terms of how power is managed), it provides women respite from the demands of a male-dominate public setting, and, typically, when women are no longer able to bear children, their status increases. It goes without saying that this is not true in the US. Amazons also lived in Africa, one group in particular earning a reputation as strong fighters. I don't believe that the word "amazon" was used to describe them, and I don't remember very much about their history. I believe their ruler, a woman, became very well-known for her intelligence and governing skills, but that's somewhat of a guess--she could easily have simply been a despot. It's so interesting to me that gender seems to be perceived as a polarized issue, as if one either fits column A or column B. In my own experience, I can sense a range of body images and identities. Sometimes, these are related to outside appearances, such as haircuts, wearing a dress or jeans, assertiveness, eye contact--in my youth, I was often mistaken for a young man, now it happens less frequently but it still happens. Little kids will often ask me if I'm a boy or a girl. I think if anything I cultivated an androgenous look for the freedom of it, to not be typcast. blt
|
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: gnu Date: 28 Jun 01 - 04:18 PM I like cold beer. I always put the seat AND the lid down after I inspect and clean it if required - every usage. I turn around and walk out when I enter my neighbourhood pub if the bartender is female and I don't know anyone in the pub. I am always courteous and would rather be friends with anyone than be overbearing or macho. Gee... I wonder if I do have a feminine side ? But, if I do, it must be lesbian, cause I sure like p... er, women. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Amos Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:05 PM Wal, gnu, this ol' Texas hand came to visit the Big Apple and ended up buying hisself a beer in one of the many bars therein, and struck up a conversation with a fine looking young woman. She asked hiom (because of his hat) if he was a REAL cowboy, and he allowed he was, and after a bit of chat he asked her what she did. "Oh," she replied, "I'm a lesbian!" "Oh, yeah? Well, what's that?" "Well, it means I like making love to women!!" "Oh, I get ya....hmmm....innerestin'!" Well, by'n'by she wanders off and he's sittin' there nursing his beer and another nice looking lady comes up and asks him, "Are you a REAL cowboy??" "Well, ma'a'm, I useta think that's what I wuz. But now I think I must be a lesbian!" Whaddya mean, not funny!!!?? Whassamadda you? Geeez, some folks got no sensa yewma!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: GUEST,blt Date: 28 Jun 01 - 11:23 PM Maybe the new women are lesbians--it wouldn't be the first time. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 28 Jun 01 - 11:59 PM I don't know... I think the whole point of being a new woman is that we get to be whatever we want. (cause I sure like c..k er, men) |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: gnu Date: 29 Jun 01 - 05:47 AM Well, I WAS going to say "pretty girls", but I thought it might offend, so I used the term "women". |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 01 - 07:36 AM New Labour, New Country, New Women...
I don't trust anything that uses "New" as a positive buzz word. Or Old for that matter. Chronological snobbery.
Presumably if there's some change in the zeitgeist and it becomes intellectually in for women to go round being submissive and so forth, people will call that being a "New Women". |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 29 Jun 01 - 11:01 PM Ouch! Touche, gnu. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: gnu Date: 30 Jun 01 - 06:06 AM Aw, Carol. Didn't mean to ouch you. Just teasing. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 30 Jun 01 - 06:42 AM Me too. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:19 PM OK, I'd been ignoring this thread, but then the conversation at the BBQ I went to yesterday brought this up for me. Imagine a bunch of restauranteurs, aged anywhere from early 20's to late 40's, it seemed, talking around a grill on which there was prime rib, among other things. And yummy sides (even an excellent avocado salad) and even yummier desserts... and men greatly outnumbered women. I'm new to the crowd, didn't know anybody but the person who brought me, so I'm being quiet and listening. And all the men are talking about is diet, nutrition, fat content versus sugar content and on and on, and I was thinking Wow, it's just like the thread said, when I realized an important and critical difference, wondering if y'all noticed this too: When women (gross overgeneralizations and stereotyping follow) talk about nutrition, it all seems to be about LOOKS (oh, if I eat that cake, it'll go straight to my hips). None of these men were even slightly talking about their looks, they were talking about their HEALTH, predispositions to diabetes, etc. Not one of them ever mentioned how much SEXIER he is now that he's lost the 70 lbs, or whatever, they all talked about how much BETTER THEY FEEL. I found it very, very interesting. Men have taken over counting calories but not the reasons why? |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: MMario Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:30 PM Mrzzy - according to my sisters -(whom I would NEVER - EVER - contridict) this is because men *assume* they are the Creator's gift to Women, no matter whether it's true. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: CarolC Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:23 PM I've had different experiences of why women talk about nutrition and healthy food than you have, Mrrzy. Most of the women I know who talk about that sort of thing do it for reasons of being and feeling healthy. |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 01 - 09:45 AM Well, after exhaustive research I have some good news that can retire this perplexity and conundrum among us. It has been definitively concluded by some very leading-edge researchers in an esteemed research university that in 98.32 per cent (a high enough figure to be statistically meaningful even on the most difficult issues) that once you compensate for purely semiotic obfuscation and a small outlying number of sexual conversions, the underlying pattern is unmistakeable: New women are new WOMEN!!!! And men are MEN!!!
Tadaaaaaaaaaa!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Are Men The New Women? From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Jul 01 - 10:05 AM Hey, even 99.99% isn't statistically significant till you see all 4 cells... (BG!) |
| Share Thread: |
