Men, manhood and manliness

[Caged Maiden]

I have to agree with Devor on this one. I found this posting disturbing for a bunch of reasons, and I didn't say anything because I'm not a man so maybe I don't have a right? I have several male friends raising children who aren't theirs, and to watch them... You can tell there is love flowing out of them that is genuine. I even have a friend who never wanted children... he dated a woman when he was 43, who had a nine-year-old daughter and he LOVED that girl. He used to vent to me about his relationship and he wanted to break it off with the woman because she had craziness problems. But he didn't want to because he loved the daughter so much. He used to talk about all the wonderful things he got to do with her and how he just reveled in seeing the world through a child's eyes. But he had no legal right to be her parent. The only way he got to be a part of that little girl''s life is if he kept dating the mom (who had a lot of control issues, money issues, insecurities... a life with someone like that can be really hellish).

Also... I've met quite a few men over the years that would try to mount anything with legs... but I've met many more who loved their women and were faithful... sometimes to a fault. I mean... there comes a point when you need to know you CAN leave. Especially when things aren't healthy. You need to get back out of your comfortable corner you painted yourself into and find a better woman with which to share your life. Not everyone makes a good partner just because they're faithful. In fact... sometimes I think faithfulness can lead to real laziness... in a relationship-destroying way. As much as unbridled jealousy.

So I get it. I have a high sex drive and I have since I was young. I'm not ashamed to have slept with a few people I didn't know their names. Nor the friends I've crossed the lines with, out of the blue sticking my hand down their pants or whatever. No one ever seemed to mind. But... there's a lot to me... and I tend to feel that people who count notches in their bedposts are missing something pretty big about the experience. And I think ideas have changed in a world where one in five American adults has herpes. It was a little different in the nineties when I was sleeping with high school kids who were pretty safe. I can't imagine being a promiscuous adult... scary. Really scary.

So... thanks Devor. I know a lot of men and they're a varied lot. Some are good fathers to children they didn't sire, others run from any sort of commitment. Some have a habit of making the rounds, telling every twenty-year old woman they meet that they're special... others are twenty-year old virgins. I think thare is validity in all ways of being and honestly... it's a great thing, because as a writer, it keeps me thinking about characters and gives me a lot of tools.

Historical Romance is not a creative genre. It begins with a woman so damn gorgeous her father/ the nuns/ her brother locked her away from the world that couldn't handle her beauty... and ends when she tames the wild, womanizing knight by cleaning his house. The men are all-night studs with muscles and a poet's heart. The women are all virgins who somehow never knew what they were missing but as soon as they do, their hearts explode with passion because let's be real, ladies... sex is the BEST thing in the world and it's what we're all sadly missing. NOT! Yeah, I have two dozen books on my shelf with that EXACT plot.

I think the thing that sets fantasy aside (at least for me) is that you can take it anywhere. I write romantic fantasy... but I'm certainly no romance writer. Any reader of the genre would be horrified to read my stories, where my male leads aren't typical studs and my ladies aren't pliant virgins. In fact... my intimate scenes are awkward, sometimes funny, and all real. Fantasy allows us to look deeper into our heroes and decide which flaws we want to bring to light--which weaknesses can be turned into strengths, and how people grow when forced to. I think it's the perfect opportunity to play with men and women who might not have seemed remarkable, but make them anything but ordinary in the end. I write average joes who accomplish extraordinary things when the time calls for it--those are my men.

 

[Telcontar]

This is an interesting branch in the conversation for me. "The foundation of male identity..."

I'll start off by repeating what I implied earlier - I no longer believe in any such thing as male identity. Nor female, of course. Only personal identity. Any legitimate pillars of self-worth would apply to all genders by necessity. However, this was not always my view.

Back when I did believe in a distinctly male identity, it was actually wrapped up in... well, violence, to put it bluntly. The ability to do violence, to back up one's will with violence (if necessary). Being a lifelong martial artist and a very capable fighter, I always thought of this as my personal self-worth "trump card." I might not be as good at basketball, or as handsome, or as good a singer... but if it came down to that most basic of competitions I had an advantage. I was the "manlier" person cuz I would win in a fight.

Oddly enough it was in helping a friend that first helped knock this moronic opinion right on its ass where it belonged (ya see what I did there? ).

A buddy of mine had a problem with being bullied. He was smaller, bookish, self-esteem issues. Actually pretty similar to me before I got into martial arts. I stood up for him one day to one of the more obnoxious jerks in the school. I realized after the altercation that my friend couldn't even look the other guy in the eye. I was forced to realize that he was absolutely terrified of getting into a physical fight. I was forced to either question my belief or lose respect for my friend - who I knew to be an awesome guy.

By trying to rely on my strengths as the "true route to manliness" I was insulting good people who lacked what I happened to have. It was a pretty important shift in my perceptions.

Anyway, personal stories aside, no one thing is the center of being a good person. Wrapping our self-worth up in any single element is foolish, due to the above and due to the fact that things change, accidents happen, and those elements can be lost. Don't build a temple on a single pillar.

As an aside, I'm of the opinion that the desire to only raise children that are genetically yours was originally an evolutionary imperative and then a matter of politics (succession, etc). Now it's just historical inertia and no longer serves a useful purpose.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'd say Greg (psychotic) has a point though. I don't fully agree with and I don't feel like it applies to myself, but I've seen it apply to others. I wouldn't say that the importance of the sexual drive as a defining characteristic is a universally manly trait, but I know men for which it is.

I'm pretty sure it's a cultural thing - like so many others.

Some anecdotes:

Me and a friend had quite a falling out over this a while back. We used to go out and have a pint and a good time together but eventually it stopped being fun. His primary purpose for going out was to try and meet a girl to hook up with, and he couldn't understand it wasn't the same for me. He tried to teach me all kinds of ways to start talking to women and what to say etc - while I personally just wasn't all that interested.
I tried a bit, but it just wasn't my thing and I failed. He tried a lot but failed anyway - for other reasons.
In the end we just argued about it and since then we don't go out anymore.

Bit of a shitty experience, but I think it's a good example of how some men really do have a very strong sex drive and how they let it influence whatever they do.

This guy also had the issue with other men's children that was mentioned earlier. Some years ago he had a falling out with his GF at the time. Things went sour and she went and got pregnant with some other guy (who my friend strongly disapproves of since way before then). A few years later, after the kid is born etc the girl is in trouble and wants to get back with my friend. There's still something there, but he just can't do it, because of the kid.

Now these are just anecdotes involving one person. They don't prove anything in the general case, but they indicate that there definitely are men for whom their sexual drive really is a very big deal - just like Greg says.

 

[Feo Takahari]

In retrospect, I'm not sure why I didn't post this earlier.

I'm queer. Masculinity is the framework in which a big beardy fellow like me is expected to operate, so I'm pretty familiar with it, but it's never something that's felt like me. My identity development went through a few stages:

1: I must be a man! But I'm not very good at it.

2: I have an identity! I have a me! So when someone says something about men, and that sounds nothing like me, I'm going to tell them that can't be universal, because I'm not like that!

3: Crap; I don't identify as male. When someone says all men are some way, I won't say anything, because I'm not a man, so I can't judge.

But I was able to get past step 1 because I live in a town where they don't throw rocks at you if they think you might be queer. And I was able to get past step 2 because I've been taught about what it actually means to be queer and have the language to identify myself as it. If I grew up in a more hateful or ignorant environment, I think I would still be chafing against the restrictions of "male," either quietly or loudly.

In other words, pick any essay about what "men" are, and there are going to be a lot of people who call themselves men who nonetheless feel completely alienated from that.

 

[Devor]

There are chemicals involved in some of these concepts. Testosterone is known as the power hormone for a reason, and men have more of it. The male brain also changes twice when it's flooded with it, in the womb and at puberty. It can also mess with the balance of your other hormones, especially by reducing the stress hormone cortisol.

So there are, let's say "universal tendencies" underlying what might be called a male impulse, and a whole lot of societal stuff built on top of it, much of it harmful. But I do think in a conversation like this it's useful to recognize that the tendencies are there, that they are rooted in something real, and that insomuch as they may or may not play a large part of your personal bio-psychology, it can be beneficial to accept them.

Though of course, never mistake having an impulse to mean a lack of choice.

 

[skip.knox]

@psychotick: I disagree with you and your sister.
Having your character lose his sex drive and having that be disastrous for him is fine by me, if and only if you have established the importance of sex for this specific character. Not because he's a male of a species, but because he is that particular male. You could certainly have other male aspects reinforce this (e.g., disapproval from his father because he'll never sire a son, or contempt from his peers because he won't carouse), but ultimately if you want me to believe the story based solely on gender roles, you're going to lose me. You could just as readily write a story about a woman losing her sex drive and having that be her catastrophe, but again only if you have established this aspect of life is hugely important for her.

That's my reaction, anyway.

 

[Feo Takahari]

You could just as readily write a story about a woman losing her sex drive and having that be her catastrophe, but again only if you have established this aspect of life is hugely important for her.

Off-topic: when this is done for female characters, I almost always see it done as them losing their chance or ability to have children, not their sex drive. I've seen this done by authors who seem to be male and by an author who seems to be female. (The latter did it particularly well, emphasizing the protagonist's promise to her mother that she'd someday raise children and continue her family line. She winds up raising some orphaned aliens, and she gives them the armbands her mother gave her.)

 

[Gurkhal]

I'm male and I've never seen any problem is having that as part of my identity.

 

[Ireth]

Off-topic: when this is done for female characters, I almost always see it done as them losing their chance or ability to have children, not their sex drive. I've seen this done by authors who seem to be male and by an author who seems to be female.

One of the male characters in Winter's Queen is a Fae who, in his backstory, is caught in an illicit relationship and consequently cursed with sterility. He still has a sex drive, he just can't father children, and that is a catastrophe to him, because children are a huge part of his life goals. Out of desperation he winds up attempting to kidnap a human infant to raise as his own, which has drastic impact on the present plot of the book. Especially when the girl he'd tried to kidnap, now a young woman, realizes who he is after befriending him in ignorance. For the record, he made no attempts to harm her in the past or the present. Kidnapping human children to adopt them is perfectly normal and accepted in Fae culture, and he was acting out of a need to love and be loved, not out of malice toward the girl's parents.

 

[Penpilot]

Hi,
his sexual drive is about far more than just desire. It's almost the foundation of male identity. Whether men are successful with women or not, alpha male or geek, probably even gay or straight, that sexual drive is fundamental to concepts of self worth, self esteem, identity, pride, status perceived and / or real, and in short masculinity. And I being a man kept wondering how she could not understand that.

I couldn't disagree more. For me as a man, I have never though any of those things were linked to my sex drive.

I think the take home message from all of this is that men have an instinctual almost primal need to "know" that a child is theirs in order to be able to act as a parent. Some men can get around this "knowing" through a sort of emotional bonding which can overcome the actual knowledge that the child is not theirs. And as a corollary many woman do not seem to understand how powerful that need is simply because they do not share it to the same extent.

I don't agree. I know multiple people who are raising children who are not biologically theirs, ranging in ages from teens to toddlers.

As humans, we are biologically geared toward protecting children, with certain exceptions of course. If there's a child lost and crying at the fair, there's always someone who stops and helps, male or female. One time this was me doing the helping. I told the kid we'd find his mom. He gave me that half-crying nod and we found her a minute later, about 20 feet away.

Now, if we turn back the clock and this was a few thousand years ago, and this was the forest, and instead of finding the parents we don't, what do you think a person would do? Sorry kid, you're on your own? No, I don't think so. IMHO, after a solid search for the parents, anyone would take the kid and take care of them.

If we skip to modern times, there are plenty of instances where a kid gets taken in by a friend's family because their real family doesn't care. Or in war torn countries a kid gets adopted by a neighbor because their parents were killed.


This article states that the amount of single men adopting is on the rise. But there are issues outside of being a fit parent that are in the way.
GMA: More Men Adopting Children Alone - ABC News

The statistics. According to a 2013 National Survey of Adoptive Parents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 27 percent of adoptive parents are single men and women. Approximately 22.7 percent are female, 5.5 percent male. I don't know if that counts as vastly out weights.


Single Parent Adoption, Single Mother Adoption, Single Father Adoption - A Love Beyond Borders - Denver Colorado

Adoption Statistics | Statistic Brain

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I find this discussion to be fascinating. What I'm taking away so far is that men are just as complicated and diverse as women, which makes me very happy, both as a writer of male characters and as a person! We talk so much about women that talking about and hearing so honestly from men about men is wonderful and a rare treat. Please, gentlemen, keep talking!

 

[psychotick]

Hi Guys,

Sorry to have put the cat among the pigeons so to speak - and yet also not. Yes the topic can be a little disturbing, but it's also important and discussion can be value.

So to begin, first let me say that I am speaking from experience - my experience as a white male born and raised in New Zealand - a country known for its three R's type culture (Rugby, racing and rooting - I didn't make that up.) And while I am generalising from my experiences and many men may have completely difference experiences / understandings of masculinity, I still believe that what I am saying will apply to all men to varying extents. Some will fall further along the spectrum towards this masculine imperitive, some will fall closer to the "modern / evolved man" stereotype. Something that is exemplified by the statistics in adoption by single fathers as given (and yes a 5% to 22% difference in rates is quite a heavy distinction - it represents a four and a half to one ratio - and speaking from my own personal bias I would have expected it to be higher. I know many single women who have adopted in one way or another a child, but not one case of a single man doing it.) There are of course social and cultural values involved as said, but perhaps men and society really are evolving.)

They're also represented in the stats on child abuse: I took this from Dr Phil! -

•A child with a biological mother who lives alone is 14 times more likely to suffer abuse.
•A child with a biological father who lives alone is 20 times more likely to suffer abuse.
•A child with biological parents who are cohabitating but not married is 20 times more likely to suffer abuse.
•A child with a biological mother who is living with a man who is not the child’s father is 33 times more likely to suffer abuse. (Source: Dreamcatchers for Abused Children)
Dr. Phil.com - Advice - Parenting in the Real World: Shocking Statistics

Studies also show that emasculation / castration has a huge negative psychological impact upon the male psyche - this is seen most commonly in men who have suffered prostrate cancer and been put on Androgen Deprivation Therapy which is effectively a form of chemical castration and affects roughly half a million men in the US alone. These men specifically feel unmanly and that feeds directly into a lot of self esteem type problems: EBSCOhost | 72365395 | Quality of life issues in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy: a review.

Taken together I think these things feed into a concept of masculinity that's rather akin to baking a cake. One cake may have more flour and less sugar than another. Baking soda, colouring, flavouring and fruit may all vary as well. We are all slightly different in our ingredients. And so some cakes will be naturally sweeter etc than others. It's hard therefore to say that simply removing one ingredient entirely say flour (the male sex drive etc) will affect all cakes equally. Some will do better, some worse. Some will be more palatable than others. But all will be affected. And it's hard to see how a cake will be affected when one comes at it from the perspective of another cake that did not have that ingredient to begin with. (Sory - it's a little mixed up as analogies go!)

To sort of return to the topic, I think that it would be difficult for me as a man to write the perspective of a woman fairly. I can bridge this difficulty to an extent by talking to woman and trying to understand them better. But I cannot walk in their high heels so to speak!

Which reminds me of another common male understanding about women. High heels and being dressed up. Speaking purely as a male (call me a caveman if you like!) When I see a woman dressed up in high heels and a revealing outfit I find it hard to imagine that the woman has worn that outfit for reasons other than to attract a male. I am told by many woman that they dress in such a way because it makes them feel good etc and has nothing to do with men. But as a man I find that very hard to accept. Perhaps because if I wanted to dress to feel good I would be wearing jeans a loose T shirt and bare feet. I value comfort far more than appearance. (Having said that I also don't understand this metro-sexual thing either! I will never shave my body hair, use perfume / aftershave, I won't put gel in my hair or wear skin tight pants, and I shave when I damned well want to with a blade and soap not some gunky product! But hey - I'm a happy caveman!)

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Devor]

Something that is exemplified by the statistics in adoption by single fathers as given (and yes a 5% to 22% difference in rates is quite a heavy distinction - it represents a four and a half to one ratio - and speaking from my own personal bias I would have expected it to be higher.

Single people adopt when they're old and well-to-do. Be real, how many well-to-do middle aged men are single compared to well-to-do middle-aged women? 22% to 4% might as well be a reflection of the base rate.

They're also represented in the stats on child abuse: I took this from Dr Phil! -

-A child with a biological mother who lives alone is 14 times more likely to suffer abuse.
-A child with a biological father who lives alone is 20 times more likely to suffer abuse.
-A child with biological parents who are cohabitating but not married is 20 times more likely to suffer abuse.
-A child with a biological mother who is living with a man who is not the child’s father is 33 times more likely to suffer abuse. (Source: Dreamcatchers for Abused Children)
Dr. Phil.com - Advice - Parenting in the Real World: Shocking Statistics

More honesty, half the time abuse is synonymous with poverty, and the only way the father ever gets sole custody is if the mother is extremely messed up. These stats don't mean anything about the definition of manhood.

Studies also show that emasculation / castration has a huge negative psychological impact upon the male psyche -

No kidding.

To sort of return to the topic, I think that it would be difficult for me as a man to write the perspective of a woman fairly. I can bridge this difficulty to an extent by talking to woman and trying to understand them better. But I cannot walk in their high heels so to speak!

There are differences, and it's not hard for me to understand why some men in particular might have trouble bridging them. We've had the female POV discussion before, though, and I'd rather not see it hijack the fairly less common take we have going in this one.

I am told by many woman that they dress in such a way because it makes them feel good etc and has nothing to do with men. But as a man I find that very hard to accept. Perhaps because if I wanted to dress to feel good I would be wearing jeans a loose T shirt and bare feet.

I've worn suits just to affect my mood - and it does.

 

[Nihal]

Which reminds me of another common male understanding about women. High heels and being dressed up. Speaking purely as a male (call me a caveman if you like!) When I see a woman dressed up in high heels and a revealing outfit I find it hard to imagine that the woman has worn that outfit for reasons other than to attract a male. I am told by many woman that they dress in such a way because it makes them feel good etc and has nothing to do with men. But as a man I find that very hard to accept. Perhaps because if I wanted to dress to feel good I would be wearing jeans a loose T shirt and bare feet. I value comfort far more than appearance. (Having said that I also don't understand this metro-sexual thing either! I will never shave my body hair, use perfume / aftershave, I won't put gel in my hair or wear skin tight pants, and I shave when I damned well want to with a blade and soap not some gunky product! But hey - I'm a happy caveman!).

Then you'd better start to accept it. You may not understand the reasons*, but you should accept it.
*Pretty things bring delight to humans, therefore, seeing that beauty in the items you've personally picked and is now wearing, and in your own reflection makes you happy.

Or, speaking from my personal experience: I don't give a flying f**k to what men or anyone else will think when I dress myself. I don't paint my nails for the same reason I use make-up: I want. It's my choice. If someone likes or dislikes any of them that person can go cry me a river. Don't you do the same?

 

[Ophiucha]

Same, Nihal.

I've already got a 'male', and I'm not keen to attract another one. But I appreciate beauty, and damn do I look good in a pair of pumps. Plus, what men are attracted to also tends to be what is considered 'luxurious' for women? Like, as Devor said, suits are sort of the 'power' wear for men. For women? Little black dress and red lipstick. Hell, I've worked desk jobs where something 'sexy' was considered the standard uniform - skirts or dresses only, and you'd be sent back home if you didn't at least have a bit of 'natural' makeup on. It was considered unprofessional.

Also, I can't be the only one who's going to point out that Dr. Phil is about as reliable a source as Perez Hilton.



On the subject of worldbuilding and children, it's certainly an interesting topic to explore - it has, in the past, been an important part of life. Many societies, particularly medieval European ones, were very focused on blood and patrilineality, sometimes even resorting to having a brother or father bed a man's wife just to keep the child 'in the blood' if the husband was infertile. But on the same note, there have been matrilineal societies (not matriarchal, mind) and prominent ones at that. Many scholars speculate that the Ancient Greeks were matrilineal, and that thrones were passed through the mother's blood. To misappropriate the Roman phrase, Mater semper certa est. You always know who the mother is.

Perhaps a topic of exploration in a bit of worldbuilding - a male character, perhaps a King, who has to deal with the idea that perhaps his heir isn't his, and that there's nothing he can do about it by the laws of his land. Just a thought, for those in the 'blood paternity is instinctive' camp of this thread.

 

[buyjupiter]

They're also represented in the stats on child abuse: I took this from Dr Phil! -

•A child with a biological mother who lives alone is 14 times more likely to suffer abuse.
•A child with a biological father who lives alone is 20 times more likely to suffer abuse.
•A child with biological parents who are cohabitating but not married is 20 times more likely to suffer abuse.
•A child with a biological mother who is living with a man who is not the child’s father is 33 times more likely to suffer abuse. (Source: Dreamcatchers for Abused Children)
Dr. Phil.com - Advice - Parenting in the Real World: Shocking Statistics

I should point out that Dr. Phil does not have a license to practice psychology in the state of California, and the sleaziness that comes with purporting to be a doctor, when he isn't really (even if he has a PhD), means that the stats do require some double checking and some backing up from alternative sources.

I'm not arguing that this is not in fact the case, but come on. Cite credible sources please. It's not that hard to find statistics like the above from a reputable NGO or even a university study.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Which reminds me of another common male understanding about women. High heels and being dressed up. Speaking purely as a male (call me a caveman if you like!) When I see a woman dressed up in high heels and a revealing outfit I find it hard to imagine that the woman has worn that outfit for reasons other than to attract a male. I am told by many woman that they dress in such a way because it makes them feel good etc and has nothing to do with men. But as a man I find that very hard to accept. Perhaps because if I wanted to dress to feel good I would be wearing jeans a loose T shirt and bare feet. I value comfort far more than appearance. (Having said that I also don't understand this metro-sexual thing either! I will never shave my body hair, use perfume / aftershave, I won't put gel in my hair or wear skin tight pants, and I shave when I damned well want to with a blade and soap not some gunky product! But hey - I'm a happy caveman!)

I'll try to comment on this as well (fro a male pov). - This post contains some outrageous generalisations. I'm aware there are all kinds of exceptions to everything, but I'm trying to deal with the general case as I see it.

My impression is that in a way it's about comfort as well, but emotional instead of physical. In my home I can wear whatever I want, but if I'm leaving my apartment, even to just go down to the corner store and get some milk I try to make sure I'm at least decent. Much as I don't particularly care how people think I look, I don't want them to think I'm a slob. I don't usually put on deodorant etc, but I will at least have showered. I don't want people thinking I have hygiene issues.

Now, as a guy, people won't be looking twice at me unless I dress real sharp, and I'm fine with that. It's really only if I dress badly and/or smell that people will take notice. Specifically, other guys don't give a flying fart about my appearance as long as I don't stink up the place.
It's my impression this isn't the case for women. Everyone looks at women - including other women. Women are judged much more harshly based on their appearance and it's other women that are the most judgmental. Guys will go either "I'd tap that" or "no thanks" and that's that.
Women on the other hand get into a lot more detail: "how can she wear that colour with that colour", "her ass looks too big in that skirt", "I wish I could afford those earrings, but I sure wouldn't wear them with that lipstick".

Women don't necessarily dress up to attract men. It may be just as much to avoid the scornful looks of other women.

Then again, as Nihal says; it feels good to look good.

Whether the pleasure from looking good outweighs that of being comfortably dressed probably varies from person to person, but I'd say that on the hole women are more prepared to suffer a bit of discomfort in order to look good than men are.
That said, on an everyday basis I don't think comfort is that much of an issue. Putting on makeup and doing your hair and whatever is probably a chore to do, but once it's there it probably isn't that much of a pain - not like wearing six inch stilettos.

Of course, after reading all this I notice you specify "high heals and a revealing outfit". I believe many women who dress up like that - especially on a Saturday night, really are trying to look good in order for men to find them attractive. I don't think it applies to all of them though. I know married women and women in long term relationships that also dress up like that and while I could be wrong I don't think all of them are out to find themselves "some fun on the side."


Speaking of Saturday night. I work until midnight and my way home takes me through the city centre and past some of the more popular haunts there. It's interesting to note that almost all of the women I see then are dressed up in some way (high heels and short skirts), while most of the guys look pretty much the same they would at any other time of the week (jeans and t-shirt).

 

[skip.knox]

There are cultures where women spend much or even all of the day in the company of other women. Yet, they still dress up. There is a danger looking at one's own culture and extrapolating from that to the entirety of the human experience.

In the time period I know, men often dressed up, everything from shoes with extravagantly pointed toes to shirts with puffy sleeves. I wonder what constituted dressing up among the rural nobility. Fancy robes, I suppose. Furs were big. Fine clothes. Jewelry. Note I am speaking of men here. Some of that surely was a display of wealth and power.

OTOH, men and women commoners both dressed up mainly only for special occasions such as a feast day. There, dressing up was a reiteration of communal identity.

In monastic and clerical communities, dressing up was something regulated by the religious calendar. It was done to fulfill sacral requirements.

In short, there can be many reasons for puttin' on the Ritz, including just the desire to look super duper.

 

[buyjupiter]

That said, on an everyday basis I don't think comfort is that much of an issue. Putting on makeup and doing your hair and whatever is probably a chore to do, but once it's there it probably isn't that much of a pain - not like wearing six inch stilettos.

Stilettos are no problem. Once you get used to wearing them, they're not an issue...but then again, I walk on the tips of my toes if I'm not thinking about it and I wear heels a lot.

Makeup? Hair? Not a pain? Thank you, Svrt, I needed the laugh. I'm not the norm when it comes to either, because I have really decent skin and I don't care enough about what other people think to rigorously apply makeup. But when I have, I'm constantly reapplying just about everything all day long (the exception being mascara, that lasts all day). And hair? Oh goodness. I keep mine pinned back severely, because it takes me two hours to straighten it. I have the waviest, thickest, Rapunzel like hair that any stylist has ever seen in their life. And I'm always mucking about with it to keep it up, as it wants to tumble down my back--which is where I don't want it.

It is a ton of work to appear "natural", which is what I go for when I do go full out femme. The amount of makeup required for that puzzles me, quite honestly, when you'd think that you'd need less makeup, not more.

 

[skip.knox]

So far the discussion has been awfully un-fantastical. We write fantasy, yes?

In my world, gnomes are a sort of servant race. When they came into the world, they did so by being very cooperative with other, stronger races. Once in Altearth, they naturally became much like serfs in medieval Earth. They are naturally obsequious, polite, self-effacing. They live near human communities for protection from the Wild and a core value is never rock the boat. This is a brief sketch; there's more to them than this, but I'm still working things out.

What is manliness to a gnome? Well-spoken, infallibly courteous, clever (to get what he wants out of more powerful creatures). Honestly, I don't know those are all manly traits. So far I have only one gnome character and he's male. I haven't explored the female aspect. Maybe these are merely gnomic traits rather than specifically male gnomic traits.

Anyway, I offer this as an example of how we as fantasy writers can deconstruct human gender stereotypes and re-assemble them in our fantastical creations. As I said previously on this thread, it seems to me this is something we fantasy writers have as an advantage over all other literary forms. Science fiction can do much the same (one thinks immediately of Le Guin), but is more constricted by having to make due obeisance to Science. We have more freedom.