Brett Favre, who I infer is a football player of some accomplishment, cried when announcing his retirement. And anti-feminist radio host Laura Ingraham commented:
“All these years, and I didn’t know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL,” said Ingraham to start her Friday show that aired on replay on Monday at 2:00 a.m. on Newsradio 620 WTMJ.
“Brett Favre…we’re watching this in the studio, obviously retiring from the NFL, great quarterback, handsome 38-year-old man, he gets up there and he does this press conference that was frankly one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen.
“That’s a great message for young boys. ‘Get up there and act like a girl and start blubbering like a baby.”
When I first heard about this, I thought it was a disgusting example of anti-male sexism. But on reading her actual words, what’s striking about it is how perfectly Ingraham merges anti-male and anti-female sexism; note how she uses the terms “woman” and “girl” as insults.
As Jill says, what an asshole.
Wow… I’m no sports fan, but I’ve always found the expressions of earnest emotion by athletes as a result of their passion for their life’s work and joy at their accomplishments touching. Way to attack one of the few venues through which (ironically) men are allowed to cast aside the unreasonable amount of stoicism expected from them in our society.
Pingback: Pandagon :: My god, Earl, they got football! They got football! :: March :: 2008
Wait, I thought football retirement was among the Officially Sanctioned Moments of Male Weeping. Retiring from sports, mourning your dead children, losing your spouse, and remembering fallen comrades in battle at the VFW. Any other time and your sex – AND sexuality – are suspect.
Oh, and: The playing of the national anthem, you godless commie terrorist sympathizer.
But seriously: It sounds more like Ingraham was at a loss to fill air time, so she defaulted being Gender Police. Not like there’s anything more important to talk about (cough, war, cough, economy, cough, cough….)
Nice. I think this is pretty much the dictionary example of PHMT.
Kevin is correct. As the patriarchal token, I can attest that manly sports-related weeping is not only acceptable, it is considered the appropriate thing to do. *Not* weeping in a case like Favre’s would be questionable, unless of course it was steel-jawed emotionally-controlled not-weeping where anyone with eyes can see (a) how broken up you are and (b) how manly in repressing it you are. It’s always OK to do that, unless the cause of your not-weeping is something really frou-frou.
However, Kevin is working from a pre-1957 list, which is incomplete for the modern era. These days it is also acceptable to weep over the fictional or actual death of a beloved dog (the “Old Yeller” precedent). Some commentators are willing to extend this principle to include the death of an (unrelated) baby, but most would say that should be handled with the clenched-jaw variety.
By the way, Amp, “Brett Favre, who I infer is a football player of some accomplishment…” is one of the funnier things I’ve read this week. Thanks for the laugh.
Wow, Robert. Does that mean I get to be an honorary man? ‘Cause I do the steely-jawed, emotionally-controlled, not-weeping even though I’m really broken up thing really, really well.
It would be cool to be an honorary man. Of course they’d have to revoke it the next time I wore a dress, but I don’t do that all that often, so what the hell!
Oh, right. I forgot about dogs. Real men always weep at the death of a dog.
Thanks for the correction, Mr. Patriarchy. I will now go back to my default mode of post-modern dudehood.
Tapetum: Lots of Real Men (TM) wear dresses. Mr. 9-11 wore dresses plenty of times, but always in a burlesque fashion. Milton Burl famously wore dresses while infamously sporting the largest piece of manhood of the 20th Century.
Seriously wearing a dress because it’s comfortable or looks good on you or allows a cooling breeze to overheated nether regions is strictly verboten.
Hence: kilts.
Wow, Robert. Does that mean I get to be an honorary man? ‘Cause I do the steely-jawed, emotionally-controlled, not-weeping even though I’m really broken up thing really, really well. It would be cool to be an honorary man. Of course they’d have to revoke it the next time I wore a dress, but I don’t do that all that often, so what the hell!
Kevin, who is suspiciously well-trained in the patriarchal arts (he’s a witch! burn him!), is again on the right lines. If you’re wearing the dress because it’s funny, then perhaps you can be an honorary man (I would have to look at things like whether you can ask for directions and whether you clean up any pee that gets on the bathroom floor to make a final ruling). If you’re wearing it for any other reason, no; back to the kitchen with you.
I don’t think this is unusual. In my experience, anti-male sexism almost always manifests as misogyny, not misandry.
“That’s a great message for young boys. ‘Get up there and act like a girl and start blubbering like a baby'”
Greetings sportfans! This afternoon we’ll be using outmoded stereotypes to ensure none of our sportsmen show any emotion other than the MANLY kind, and that all towel-whipping and ass-patting is done in a friendly, MACHO way not a girly commie homo way. God Bless Gender Roles!
*sigh*
I’m obviously irritated by the ‘girl/woman=inferior ergo qualify as an insult’ crap, but the idea that this is damaging for young boys to see? Way to raise a generation of emotionally stunted psychologically damaged men.
It should be good for young boys to see men crying. While all the male crying they’re likely to see ATM is of the ‘Officially Sanctioned Moments of Male Weeping’ kind, at least it shows them men can cry (at certain times) and not be ridiculed.
Really all I’m trying to say here is GAH!
Robert, I have it on good authority that it is also OK to wear a dress if it is the consequence of losing a manly bet, and you are a good sport about it. (e.g. “whoever has the worst result in the rotisserie football league has to dress up like Dolly Parton for a day”). True?
Heh. I live in Madison, WI. For 3 straight days there wasn’t a man for 150 miles who had dry eyes.
Mythago: Speaking as an apparent Authority (so sez Mr. Patriarchy), I think you have identified another acceptable exception.
Robert: I think I get it mostly from watching stand-up comics. Most of them (and there are brilliant exceptions) mine gender stereotypes and conventional attitudes for comedy. Or “comedy.” Playing to the LCD, usually.
Pingback: GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Nationally-Syndicated Radio Host Laura Ingraham: Brett Favre Is a Wimp
Wow. I think this is the first time that both GlennSacks and Amptoons both have the same headline article and the same commentary.
Well, I don’t know. When the noted physiologist speaks, aren’t we all supposed to pay attention. Asshole? Yeah, but she’s just trying to be Ann Coulter, and it’s hard without the Adam’s apple. The absurdity of women bloviating that bloviating women are too dumb to pay attention to is like some perverse form of Bokononism.
“Yeah, but she’s just trying to be Ann Coulter, and it’s hard without the Adam’s apple.”
Does anybody else notice the odd symmetry in that statement?
:-)
It’s happened several times before, although I don’t remember the exact stories offhand; usually when I’m posting about some form of anti-male sexism, although occasionally when Glenn posts about some anti-female sexism.
In this case, I’m pretty sure Glenn learned about the story from “Alas.”
We men don’t have enough problems without some woman mocking one of us for crying.
Hey, Laura, why aren’t you in the kitchen instead of pretending you’re a man on TV? I mean, if you’re so big on traditional gender roles and all — we men don’t listen to some sceeachy female voice on TV.
Somebody should explain to her that it’s 2008. She should be ashamed.
“Ann Coulter is a man” themed jokes are sexist and wrong. Please don’t make any such jokes on this blog, ever again.
There are a lot of things to criticize Ann Coulter for, but I have never gotten the “Adam’s apple” bit – or the accusations that she’s a “man in a dress” or a “Tranny” (doing much disservice to real Trannies, who deserve support and respect.) I think progressives should lay off that stuff.
Oh, hey. Amp was on top of it while I was posting. Pardon the redundancy, Barry.
Noah, there are a hundred legitimate ways to criticize Laura Ingraham ; “screeatchy female voice” is not one of them. Leave your dislike of “screeatchy female” voices out of this blog, please.
(This is the kind of traffic a link from Glenn brings, I guess.)
Robert, I have it on good authority that it is also OK to wear a dress if it is the consequence of losing a manly bet, and you are a good sport about it. (e.g. “whoever has the worst result in the rotisserie football league has to dress up like Dolly Parton for a day”). True?
Yes, but it does have to be a manly bet. You can get bonus points if your friends make homophobic jokes about how good you look.
Gee, Ampersand, that’s called “sarcasm.” No, I don’t dislike female voices, on TV, in the boardroom or anywhere else, for your information — the idea was to give Ms. Ingraham a taste of her own non-factual bigotry. Get it? Men don’t cry; women aren’t on TV. We’re back in 1940. She is where she is because of the feminist movement, yet she has no probem keeping men in their own little gender specific box.
@Ampersand
I think Noah was just pointing out the hypocrisy in Ingraham’s comments, not literally attacking her for her “screachy voice”.
And yeah, I dressed up in drag to win a contest in my Frosh week. Much grunting and manliness was required, in between effeminate eye-bats and giggles.
edit: I see Noah beat me to the punch. nm.
Noah, sorry I misunderstood your intent.
Poor choice of analogy, Amersand — because so many men (and women) really say that nonsense about women on TV.
Ms. Ingraham just reinforced all this stereotypical macho crap that we are constantly subjected to — men have to act a certain way or women won’t want us. Men don’t cry; men have to be the breadwinner; men are supposed to “take it like a man.” And what’s the equally ludicrous, terrible corollary? Women are emotional (i.e., flawed).
Wow! And what does this nonsense tell boys and girls? Boys: you’d better be the Marlboro man, or women will mock you. And girls, there’s no hope for you — you are inferior beings.
This sort of thinking goes to the heart of why there’s still not de facto gender equality in this country, I think.
Hmm. I ask for directions all the time. On the other hand, I possess a prominent jaw.
I too got what Noah was saying. Just like, by definition, women cannot advocate their support for fucked up reactionary religion, because they should shut up about their opinions in public. Where does LAURA get off criticizing a man’s man like Favre?
I remember one time, though, when I was disgusted by a pro athlete crying in public. It was Ryan Smyth*, when he was traded to the Islanders. He could have stayed in his beloved Edmonton if he had accepted but a hundred thousand less on his multimillion dollar contract, but he refused and then did a “poor me” song and dance for the media.
*For the 99% of you who don’t follow hockey, I’ll fill you in on two things.
(1) Ryan Smyth was/is an overrated power forward who was nonetheless a “heart and soul” kind of guy who grew up in Edmonton and played there all his life.
(2) Screw you.
That dichotomy always gets my grit. There is no trade-off between emotion and logic. The brain cognates faster when under the influence of certain emotion or moods, and that’s the definition of logic – arriving at a conclusion from an axiomatic starting point, without violating the rules of the system.
Of course, people who use the word “logic” here don’t mean in it in this sense. They mean in it as a synonym for “correct” – which for some reason doesn’t apply to the correct definitions of the very terms you’re using or for their misandrist and/or misogynistic positions.
“In this case, I’m pretty sure Glenn learned about the story from “Alas.””
He says as much in the post… I for one, am simultaneously shocked & amused by that.
well, yes, true enough, but so’s Ann Coulter.
*shakes finger* Two wrongs don’t make a right, Nomen, et al.
Sat analogy:
Insulting a woman : calling her a man
Insulting a man : calling him a girl
Note that Ms. Coulter is being called a man because she’s engaging in not only “bad” behavior, but bad behavior that is deemed stereotypically masculine, like punditry in particular, and being verbally aggressive in the public sphere towards a litany of people that are predominantly male, in general. The true measure of a person isn’t in how they treat their friends — it’s easy to be good to them… it’s in how they treat their enemies. How do people get to complain about lowbrow politics in Washington when they won’t clean it up in their own homes, and how can liberals preach tolerance towards women, and people of alternative sexual orientation/identification when they throw “tranny”, “ugly”, and “bitch” at women whose politics they abhor? Trust, it’s not like any opponent of hers is at a loss for things to say about her that don’t involve her appearance. For instance, how she’s simultaneously eating off of feminists’ hard work and cursing them all the way to the bank.
*steps off of soapbox and removes librarian glasses*
Thanks, Kevin and Robert, for confirming. I assume being a good sport about it is optional but considered good form.
Women are emotional (i.e., flawed).
Ironically, men are equally emotional in a socially sanctioned manner, it’s just that, for some reason, anger isn’t considered an emotion by sexist people.
Glad I don’t listen to these people, they don’t have much to say and when they do it isn’t worth listening to.
Deoridhe, anger is, of course, be used for positive purposes, and has proven essential to fighting injustices throughout history, but can and must be controlled. My comment, above, was limited to the context of the Ingraham statement. Ingraham’s statement kills two birds with one stone by suggesting that men who cry are flawed since only women are supposed to cry, and that since women cry, the implicit suggestion is that they are naturally flawed.
I suspect, though, that if you asked her, Ingraham would tell you that it’s perfectly natural and acceptable for women to cry, AND to be strong (like, she would tell you, she is stong). She would never bother to add that she is where she is because of the feminist movement that broke down, to some degree, gender stereotype walls for women. I suspect the intent of her bizarre statement was really limited to keeping men in that gender-constricting box that most people — and, yes, that sadly includes most women — are very happy to keep men. You know — men don’t cry, men are strong and silent, men are the breadwinners, etc. This sort of wide-spread sentiment does wonders to restrict male emotional evolution. I also suspect that if women en masse expressed a desire to mate with men who cry, you’d see men en masse studying Brett Favre’s press conference the way they study March Madness brackets. Just sayin’.
mythago: I imagine Robert shares my surprise that the two of us could join forces so effectively. I have found that understanding the conventional parameters of “masculinity” in the terms we have described them exposes just how absurd they are, how limiting they are on individual freedom, personal expression and identity formation, and how strongly they reinforce sex and gender repression of both sexes.
bananadanna: I prefer to think of Anne Coulter as “unhinged.” Perhaps following the rule that a woman must work twice as hard as a man to prove herself in any chosen profession, Coulter stands out among her colleagues as a particularly vicious, angry and hatemongering person. Her closest male equivalent is Michael Savage, whose appearances on the pundit circuit are much fewer than Coulter’s, due in part to his less telegenic presence, but mostly because I think even Sean Hannity is taken aback by Savage. Whatever connection to reality Coulter may have had at the start of her career, it snapped under the strains from her competitive urge to outdo her fellow Right Wing pundits.
Kevin and Robert: It is also acceptable to cry when ht in the nuts.
And props to Ampersand and other posters for keeping out the bs Obama-Clinton battles.
Unscientific survey; gentlemen, when was the last time you cried in public?
Couple of weeks ago, when I got kicked in the nuts because I was wearing a dress to a revival of “Old Yeller”.
Good times.
Tapetum, in post #6, displayed her anti-male sexism when she made the comment, in regard to being made an “honorary man”, “Of course, they’d have to revoke it the next time I wore a dress…” Myself being a MAN who wears dresses I take offense at this sexist attitude, and it’s proof that ALL women think like Laura Ingraham. Tapetum goes on to say that (her wearing dresses) “…isn’t that often”. So in other words it’s okay for Tapetum to wear pants and be a MAN most of the time, and yet still be a woman, but in her view I can’t wear a dress (or cry under ANY circumstances) and yet be a MAN. So, Tapetum, explain to me why only you WOMEN should be able to enjoy the freedom of expression to wear dresses or pants (or to cry or not cry about anything traumatic), but we men should be forbidden the same freedom of gender expression. Both Tapetum and Laura Ingraham remind me of a scene in the Arnold Schwarzenegger Christmas movie “Jingle All The Way”, where Schwarzenegger’s character’s car breaks down, and he’s getting a ride in the tow truck, and he’s voicing how upset he is that he couldn’t get his son the action figure he wanted, and the macho butch woman tow truck driver says “Why don’t you put on a dress and cry like a girl”. Oh, it’s okay for HER to be a butch, masculine tow truck driver, and yet still be a woman, but it’s definitely NOT okay for Arnold Schwarzenegger (or ANY man) to either wear dresses or cry about anything, and still be a man. I’m tired of women constantly saying that dresses are for themselves only, but they can always wear men’s clothes anytime they want and still be women.
WRONG, Stentor. (post #10)
Anti-male sexism always manifests as misandry, not misogyny. It may, on one level, SEEM to be misogyny (Laura Ingraham telling a man his supposed “acting like a girl” is something bad), but it is ultimately anti-male sexism and misandry. Ingraham is saying that it is okay for women and girls to cry when they are sad or hurt, and can still be strong women, but we men should be held to a different, and unfair and unrealistic, standard. It is a classic example of women thinking they can define what is, and is not, appropriate masculine behavior, or “manliness”, and expecting men to live up to THEIR standards.
So Ampersand,
Why are “Ann Coulter is a man” jokes “sexist and wrong”, and not tolerated, but it’s okay for Tapetum and others on here to make jokes about men wearing dresses,and infer, as Tapetum did in post #6, that wearing dresses is for women and girls only, and not appropriate for males, and that attitude is NOT considered sexist or wrong?
Or Ann Coulter, for that matter, calling men who get hairstyles that she apparently considers “too pretty” or gender-inappropriate, “faggots”, as she called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (because of his hairstyle), or, of course, Laura Ingraham and her sexist, anti-male comment about Brett Favre.
Why the double standard?
As I read these threads I’m getting a little tired of the attitudes of Kevin Moore, Robert, and Silence is Foo and others on here who keep making jokes about and inferring that there is something “wrong” with men wearing dresses and “dressing in drag”. If you people on this site are really such “liberals” or “progressives” then WHY do you all turn around and keep saying there is something wrong or bad about men wearing what our sexist society (sexist against MEN as well as against women) has deemed to be the “privilege-of-females-only” clothing. I am a MAN and I wear dresses and NOT as a “joke” or for “losing a bet”. And again, WHY, Ampersand, is it not tolerated to make “Ann Coulter is a man” jokes on this site, but you tolerate these guys continually making their jokes about men who want to wear dresses?
Dave, did you by any chance come over here from Glenn Sacks’ blog?
I am a MAN and I wear dresses and NOT as a “joke” or for “losing a bet”.
Then go with God and do so. It is none of my business or concern.
I don’t wear dresses, so it is funny for me to put myself in situations where I do. You are correct; there is nothing wrong with men wearing dresses. I am therefore free to jape about the subject, particularly in relation to my own manly self.
However, in the spirit of conciliation, I hear you when you express your discomfort with the atmosphere. My apologies for you having experienced it.
Got to spend my birthday taking my cat to the vet for the final farewell. As birthday ideas go, I can’t recommend it. The vet people sent me a VERY nice card; I think they were worried about me.
Death sucks. But it is better than some alternatives.
“and it’s proof that ALL women think like Laura Ingraham.”
Uh, no… sorry… the least you could do is dig up a nationwide poll. And that would just be proof of American women’s sentiments. Many men from other nations wear garments that we would roughly describe as “dresses” here in America or unisex clothing. Furthermore, in many contexts, the donning of “female” clothing by men is permitted and even encouraged — in the context of traditional Japanese kabuki theater and Chinese opera, for instance. So whether you mean “all of the world’s women” or “all American women”, you’re probably wrong, and your assertion is completely unfounded.
“Or Ann Coulter, for that matter, calling men who get hairstyles that she apparently considers “too pretty” or gender-inappropriate, “faggots”, as she called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards”
You obviously haven’t been spending too much time in the leftist blogosphere. People wailed on her as a direct result of that comment, and rightly so.
Wow, NR, that’s a really horrible birthday. :-(
I’d like to answer the survey, but honestly, I can’t remember the last time I cried in public.
“Yes, but it does have to be a manly bet. You can get bonus points if your friends make homophobic jokes about how good you look.”
I heard of a guy making a bet he would keep surgically-added-breasts for a year, if he won he’d get 100,000$. I think he won his bet, and decided to keep them afterwards. He got ridiculed a bit for the nature of the bet, but not for his gambling-ways, cause he’d never back down. He apparently kept them out of liking them.
@dave
*headslap*
Wow. Here’s where I get really impolite:
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: That’s not funny.
After seeing both Ampersand and Dave make the same mistake (albeit in Dave’s case it occurred within a flurry of paranoia), I have to say that it appears this joke applies to MRAs as well.
Hint: the bits about how men can only wear a dress when being manly about it and laughing about it were meant as a joke, mocking the fact. Not a celebration of it. We’re on your side on that issue. Kinda.
Take a pill, okay?
Oh, and have fun with the dress thing. Seriously, I wish I were brave enough to act out my own desires like that. Too bad about the chip on your shoulder, though.
And as for the survey: when my mom died 5 years ago (has it been so long?) – otherwise, never… but I tend to think it’s just the way I’m wired… I do tend to make loud displays of frustration when the shiat hits the fan at work, so I can’t really judge people for the head-leaking thing. As long as you keep your wits together and shake it off, who cares how you display emotion?
Seems more like YOU’VE got the chip on your shoulder, Silence is Foo. If YOU were transgender I don’t think you’d be so quick to judge ME as “paranoid”. But I suppose you’re one of those “normal” males (unlike me) who has NO desire to ever put on a dress.
BTW, Silence is Foo, I just lost MY mother too, only one year ago and am still trying to deal with that. I was at her bedside in the hospital when she went, and yes I cried at the time. I was very close to her and this has been a very life-changing event for me.
Well, BananaDanna, I AM quite new to ANY blogosphere, seeing as I only recently got an Internet connection and computer (not all of us have the money for that). It’s good to see that there ARE people out there who see the wrong in Ann Coulter’s and Laura Ingraham’s comments. I perhaps did overreact a bit, and was wrong, in stating that ALL women think like Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter, but I was a bit pissed at the time about the one female poster here who inferred that there was something “wrong” with males wearing dresses, on top of the Laura Ingraham and Coulter comments. I realize there are women who DON’T think that way, but from my experience there are far too many (yes, here in the U.S.) who DO. Until you experience all the women and teenage girls laughing at you and ridiculing you for being male and having long hair (as I do), you probably won’t quite understand my frustration. When I do wear a skirt it’s usually women and girls who laugh at me and give me a hard time for it, while they enjoy the freedom to wear skirts or pants, or masculine or feminine clothing at their choosing, without being similarly ridiculed for it. I know, people always tell me, “Well, men in Scotland wear kilts”, but the attitude toward that here is always “That should stay in Scotland…”
Seems more like YOU’VE got the chip on your shoulder, Silence is Foo. If YOU were transgender I don’t think you’d be so quick to judge ME as “paranoid”. But I suppose you’re one of those “normal” males (unlike me) who has NO desire to ever put on a dress. But it’s nice to hear that you’re my side on the issue, but why just “kinda”? Because maybe no matter how liberal one is, a male wanting to wear a dress just,maybe, a tad “weird”?
Dave, speaking only for myself, I was not mocking men who wear dresses. I have worked in the LGBT community, count transgender and transexual folks as friends, and consider issues of sex and gender to be very important. I was mocking the Patriarchal Conventional Wisdom that strictly defines gender expression by men. Granted, my tone was dry, and sarcasm does not translate well on the InterNets, but I thought “Real Men (TM)” was clear enough.
Also, I joined Ampersand in rejecting transphobic and sexist criticism of Ann Coulter. I don’t think the Left (or anyone else, really, but especially progressives) should resort to critical rhetoric that implies criticism of innocent people who deserve our love and support.
“I realize there are women who DON’T think that way, but from my experience there are far too many (yes, here in the U.S.) who DO. Until you experience all the women and teenage girls laughing at you and ridiculing you for being male and having long hair (as I do), you probably won’t quite understand my frustration.”
Hmm… if people have a problem with your long hair — or kilts, for that matter — I’d guess that you lived in a particularly staid and backwards area… as do I. *insert self-serving lament about the dearth of long-haired men at school here* You’re right, dave, I couldn’t possibly fully understand the hell that men (or women, for that matter) who don’t fit into their socially prescribed gender roles go through. I can only guess, and I’m guessing that it’s pretty bad. Just a few seconds ago, I was going to say that your “chip” is probably warranted and forged through years of experience.
However, I can say that women aren’t as “free” as they seem when it comes to clothing choices, although they’re probably freer than men. I’ve studied women’s fashions for a while now, and there are many, many gender boundaries that can’t be crossed without garnering censure, they just aren’t as clear cut. I’ve said this before here, that there’s a difference between a tomboy and a butch woman… and there’s a difference between a butch woman and a transman. The former is what you’re probably referencing… I’ve been (still am in spirit) the former, and as a result, I know that it’s not percieved as a substantial threat to the status quo/gender paradigm… the latter two, however most certainly are, and reactions are much more extreme. I imagine if you were to talk with women from the latter two categories, you would see quite a few parallels between their experiences and your own. Contrary to popular belief, feminists aren’t just fighting for women against men, we’re fighting against a system of gender that oppresses both and is perpetuated by both — perhaps not in the same ways and in equal measure (there’s a lot of healthy, vigorous discussion about all of that) — but both, all the same. However, I’m not going to lie to you, dave, it isn’t all sweetness and light. As Amp highlights in his “An Easy Mistake to Make” cartoon, feminists aren’t totally free from anti-trans sentiment either.
As someone who was seen as male while in school, I can vouch for Dave’s comment on hair, and where I am is pretty liberal by any measure. I live in Quebec province, Canada, where religious power and influence radically diminished about 40 years ago. If people see long hair on a guy, they won’t refer to sin, Paul’s Corynthians writing, or such.
There’s a constant between the Christian community and the community at large though, many do believe in the “men should be men” and “women should be women”, even if in their mind that includes a wider expression allowance than religious circles will talk about.
A guy with substantially longer hair than the norm (if the norm is 1-2, maybe 3 inch, someone with 6+ inch) will get flack from it, probably not from everyone, but definitely from some (maybe teachers, bosses, co-workers, I know I did), boys and girls, who somehow, feel robbed of their identity when someone adopts a style that is closer or too far (too different) to theirs than the one they feel the individual should have (ie too girly for a guy).The corporate world isn’t any better, requiring shorter hair as a matter of code (dress code). Then there are prisons, and the army, where you almost need an act of God to prove that you should have the right to keep your hair, unless you’re female. It isn’t the fault of women that the double standard exists, I’m well aware of that, so I’m not blaming women, just looking at the sad state of affair and sighing.
As Dave said, skirts, or kilt wearers, if they’re not in Scotland, will usually have a person or two at least coming forward and commenting. If they’re transgender or transsexual, and people can tell, then the danger becomes harsher, it’s no more about insults, possible threats, it’s about being beaten up and possibly killed.
There are two possible ways to see why people (mostly men) would have such a reaction. Either they view you as a traitor to manhood, or they view you as having benefits (or trying to get benefits) they couldn’t possibly have. Many men will shower women with gifts, court them, and to do the same to a man, as a guy interested in women, means someone not-worthy is trying to benefit from their courtship or their generosity (even if they do nothing to actively get it, it’s a perceived threat).
I think it was Daran who said (not here) there was another hypothesis, the guy or man has given up on the feminine parts of his personality as conditioning from childhood, and views the non-conforming person as somehow not as advanced as them (they didn’t get rid of that part), and a part of acceptable male behavior is to drill those inferior, or perceived as inferior, until they learn (or die). This doesn’t mean every guy will beat another to death, far from it, but it’s condoned behavior to police other boys.
Women may view a trans woman, or sometimes a crossdresser, as competing with them (in looks, and in desire for male attention, especially in venues established towards courtship – parties, bars, clubs). It’s an easy target to ‘take down’ if they so wish, because the trans woman will have little power to retaliate or assert herself as being as valuable as them. I’m not saying most women would do it, but even if only 1% did, that’s enough for it to happen once every time you go out. A woman could simply assert herself as more real, deride characteristics she perceives (but are not necessarily incongruent), and people in general have a confirmation bias when it comes to trans people – just read the comments on Harisu*’s youtube video to see what I mean.
*Harisu is a post-op trans woman born in Korea, who now resides in Japan. She’s a singer, model and actress and looks very much like what you’d expect a female model to look like, maybe more curvy.
My comment may seem to go on a tangent, but it concerns acceptable gendered behavior, and how people react to exceptions (and hence how hard it is to live as one of those exceptions or to even deviate slightly from the norm).