chalk up another one. Usually, you're much smarter than I, but I think you're way off base on this one, Mrs. JB
<blockquote><hr>Originally posted by pasox2 Um...no. The bull dyke thing takes some work. As does the amazon, the athelete, the femme, the housewife, and a hundred other pictures people intentionally conjure up. We're not talking WolfBoy, here. There isn't a "natural state" all genders or either gender defaults to. What are you, some kind of Platonist? The answer is right under your nose. <hr></blockquote> Man! I wanted to respond to this thread...but pasox2 is all over it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Ooohh...such venom on this innocent little question. Is this a threatening issue for some reason? Just because some women decide to live outside of a predictable pattern of behavior? Interesting. I don't believe I'm off base on this one at all. Ask some lesbians, read some books, visit some gay/lesbian websites. You may find some interesting responses: Some lesbians accentuate their femininity through wearing makeup and feminine clothes because this is what they are most comfortable with. Others consciously reject what they see as socially accepted ideas of what it is to be "a woman" and dress in what is comfortable and easy to manage. Some gay men and lesbians will wear clothes that clearly identify them as gay or lesbian (at least to other gay men and lesbians), others blend in with everyone else. -- PFLAG Fifteen women who identify themselves as lesbians were interviewed about their own development of gender identity. All the women involved in the study indicated a rejection of the traditional feminine role. This was often manifested before they were even aware of same-sex attractions. However, they saw the traditional role for women as representing heterosexuality. To gain access to women, many even saw a need to achieve masculinity. Due to few or no visible lesbian role models and the rejection of the traditional female role, many, as children, chose the male role. This was reflected in 1) taking the male role in play or fantasy, 2) being a "tomboy", and 3) rejecting items of dress and play associated with female children. While none, as adults, still wanted to portray a male role, each still rejected traditional femininity. Thus these lesbians had to come to their own conclusions about what it meant not only to be women, but lesbians as well. -- REJECTING "FEMININITY": SOME RESEARCH NOTES ON GENDER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN LESBIANS, MARGARET COOPER, DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, 1990, VOL 11, P371-380. But that's just the lesbians themselves responding to the question. Perhaps the wiser gentlemen in this thread could enlighten these misguided women (and the rest of us) as to the "real" reason they've adopted a "masculine" appearance.
<blockquote><hr><i>originally posted by Mrs. Jeff</i> I don't believe I'm off base on this one at all. Ask some lesbians, read some books, visit some gay/lesbian websites. You may find some interesting responses: <hr></blockquote> I don't believe pasox2 is off base on this one, at all. I can say that he and I (not together mind you) asked some lesbians, dated some lesbians, stroked their hair, made them laugh, made them angry, danced with them, put make-up on them, laughed at them, admired their Harley's, and discussed "chicks" with them.... and... ..." read some books." but i have NEVER, visited a lesbo web site...I swear!!!!!!!! As Pole said, I think this is the first time I've ever seen you resort to claiming definitive knowledge on a subject to the point of telling people to read up. I think you slipped here into Mr. Jeff-dom.
Spot on Ms JB Surely the way this threads goes it would be up to you to decide why they adopted that masculine appearance, my guess is it is probably to overcome the nerdy tendencies and the fact that every year they say this to themselves "Another year where I have to send a Valentine card to may hand" (Cat for RedDwarf)
How un-original. My wife does not wear makeup (on a regular basis and when she does it is just lipstick and a little eyeshadow to look "funky" not to make her look beautiful). She does not need to as is evidenced by the fact that she gets hit on all of the time - even when she is with me. You (this is a generic "you" not "you, Nomar") only think it looks better because you have been programmed by society (handed down through history as dictated by male wants), just as you could be programmed to be sexually attracted to a boot. It is not that they look better, it is that you think they do and thus prefer them that way. You prefer the painted object. Hmm...did George Sand invent the whole "butch" thing? Of course, she was no lesbian, but she still went agains societal norms and dressed as a man. She had to get permission from the government, but she was allowed. Others had done it before but they would get locked up, so Sand made it "acceptable." I think that the "butch" look, the homosexual male voice affect, etc. can all be attributed to the same thing - open separation from societal norms. Sure, it in itself has turned formulaic (and this is where I disagree with Mrs JB - it still is a controlled look, not just a "letting go" as there are fairly typical haircuts, etc.), but it nonetheless serves the purpose she is describing. Men just don't like it because it puts a frozen towel on their wannabe hot wet dreams of porno lesbians.
Mrs. JB is right. Again. She isn't claiming definitive knowledge - this stuff is well-documented, isn't it? I thought everyone who lived through the seventies and eighties picked this up as general knowledge. Looking like a bull dyke actually takes crap all work. You put on a flannel shirt, some jeans, some boots, get the Wesley Crusher haircut, and you're sorted. It's fairly structured, but it's not hard work at all. Here's another thought: there is a significant lesbian subculture which is all about lipstick and high heels (the 'femmes' in the fifties, the 'lipstick lesbians' in the nineties - the latter argued that 'feminine' appearance is in itself empowering). So if they're sending out traditionally femme signals, how can you guys tell they're gay? You can't. So the only lesbians you notice are the ones who eschew traditionally feminine appearance, and you therefore assume that most lesbians look a certain way. But they probably don't.
I never claimed definitive knowledge on this subject. I was, however, taken aback at how quickly and violently my opinion was dismissed by people who seemed to have no alternative theories to offer. Ultimately, unless any of us here are lesbians, this is a speculative discussion only. If Freak wants a true answer to his question, he may consider asking it on a Gay/Lesbian bulletin board.
Perhaps they started dressing more masculine in their early years...and then that stuff just became more comfortable to them. As I was growing up I wore jean shorts...now they're just comfortable. It's the same concept really. But that's just my opinion.
I have actually lost the focus of the disagreement (perhaps b/c it's late)... but I think everyone agrees that it's a signal. Mrs. JB's posts, Swopa specifically, pasox, rimbaud, everyone has nailed the notion that it's another pose. The issue is... if a woman simply doesn't do the bank-teller/tupperware saleswoman dressup does that make them look butchy? No. Of course not. If a woman wakes up, cleans herself and throws on clothes, does she look butchy? No, of course not. The look that theFreak and all of us are mentioning is the pose, MrsJB. If there's a scale of masculinity where -1 == the hammy bank-teller femininity and +1 == man with back hair... imo, the flannel/stubby femmulletts fall into the masculine range... they're not just pared down to a base 0. They're not just a chipped down female. The common sense female, the one that you can rough house with, the one that's your peer, the one that doesn't wear makeup, yadda^3... that's the person I love.... and that's the hippy chick that I think you were hinting at earlier. There's nothing about being a hippy chick or an anthropologist female out in the middle of Africa, or anything like that... that has anything to do with growing out your hair into a femmullett and digging up 80s blue jean shorts.... That's certainly a signal... and it's nothing to do w/ a "disregard of cultural descriptions of being female". It isn't passive, imo. Passive == lovely hippy chick. Active == the signalling butchy girl. But that's just my opinion, mind you. I could be wrong.
Average post count of members in this thread = 3069 Average registration date of members = Sept. 2000 Intelligent conversation on a mildly controversial subject. Old school BBS. Who says posts counts don't matter?
Like I said, its a fact. Chicks look better with makeup. Even if you're right about me being programmed to think that way, THEY STILL LOOK BETTER WITH MAKEUP! There is no reason why I should be like "I'm going to break the mold here and force myself to be disgusted by chicks with makeup." Haha. They look better dude! Don't kid yourself!
Yeah, I got you. I was just reiterating that I agree with the "signal" part but not with the "letting go" part, that is all. Note that I said it was a controlled look - speaking to the same activity of which you are speaking.
There seems to be a semantics issue at work here. I didn't say that any woman who just "let themselves go" would be a lesbian. As if a woman might wake up one day, decide not to pretty herself up and suddenly she's a diesel dyke. I said that women who gave up trying to live up to certain standards (ie...a conscious rejection of prevailing standards of feminine beauty) would begin to resemble the lesbian stereotype. And there's a lot more to it than just makeup -- there's shaving, waxing, hairdye, hair perms/relaxers, pedicures, manicures, tweezing eyebrows, bleaching facial hair, moisturizers, blemish creams, working out, colored contacts, tooth whiteners, wearing distinctly feminine clothing and shoes, perfumes, deodorants, wearing jewelry, etc.. Yes, Achebe, it is a pose. It's the pose of a woman rejecting the current notion of feminine beauty. That's all I was trying to say.
Before I read Mrs JB's quotes, I knew there were so-called "lipstick" lesbians...as indicated in the article she quoted. I also knew there were lesbians that eschewed what society considers "traditional" femininity.....that was also shown in the article. We all also know of the "bull dyke" phenomena. This is very obviously what this thread was referring to when it was started. To deny this exists is ridiculous. I can see why it would be "PC" to downplay it (or even fail to mention it entirely) in the studies Mrs JB presented, but don't tell us that it doesn't exist. Don't tell us it's the end to the means either. Meaning this is what happens when you dress comfortably and eschew so-called "traditional" femininity. I bartened for over five years in a bar that was very popular with a good size group of lesbians. Work boots might be more comfortable that high heels, but they don't beat tennis shoes. Levis or other jeans cut for a man (which I have seen on numerous occasions) might be better for some female bodies than women's levi's that are supposedly cut for a woman's body, but it would surprise me if they fit more than two or three women in a crowd--which I've seen. Flannel work shorts might be comfy, and I'd certainly agree that a short man's haircut is easy......but my gawd....two of these women who were like this all the time; they worked in a coffee shop.....not in the lumber yard. There are certainly more comfortable things they could have done and worn. It's very obvious to me. I distinctly remember it being very obvious to Charles too. Charles was one of my regular guests at the bar, and he also cut my hair. He used to laugh about how they all dressed to look like men...especially in the hair department. Being gay himself, of course didn't give him the ability to think like a lesbian, but being a small college town, the gay community was fairly tight-nit....he was friends with these women, and the joking wasn't mean-spirited. It was just given as fact. To me, this is so obvious as to be ridiculous. This must be the latest act of the PC police to sweep certain things under the carpet. Sorry in advance if I start to sound like a broken record on that, but it's the only way I can explain it away.
Although if I sound a little harsh on you Mrs. JB (which really wasn't my intention), I just want you to know that the first sentence of what I just typed was: This seems to be a semantics issue. For some reason, I erased it, and went off in the direction I eventually took. My apologies if it comes off as harsh, but it really seems like the quotes from your article make it seem like the author is tip-toeing around the obvious......then again, I only read the excerpt you provided us with.
Thanks for the apology and yes, you do sound like a broken record. P.C. police? On this? Jesus Christ, do you obsess much? I've never heard this discussed outside of this BBS. Get over it. There's not a vast conspiracy by the left to cover up why lesbians dress a certain way. Wow.
