you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The reasons I believe females are accepting TWAW and the TiMs in our bathrooms and spaces, those who do, have the combination of those things going on, and their internal workings show that a wig means safe. Long hair means safe. Is not a male.

Sorry, OP, I get your overall points, but the idea that long hair=safe and not male is just plain silly.

In a vast number of cultures around the world at various times in history, tons of men customarily wore their hair very long - and no one thought this signified "safe - is not a male."

Men from the Indian subcontinent who are Sikhs don't cut their hair. That famous Jewish guy from Palestine named Jesus and all his male disciples known as the 12 apostles had long hair. So did a Biblical character called Samson; his long hair was what gave him his male strength, in fact, which is why his male power was diminished when Delilah cut it.

Men in all sorts of tribes native to the Americas traditionally had long hair. So did many of the men of European origin who colonized and settled the Americas. The Native American character played by Daniel Day Louis in "Last of the Mohicans" defo did not come off as safe and not male. Ditto the character played by Mel Gibson - and most of the other males of various ethnicities fighting on all sides in the American Revolution - in "Patriot." Not to mention the macho Scot that Gibson played in "Braveheart," a movie in which all the very macho men have long hair. And none come off as either safe or not male.

All the sexy, hunky pirates in "Black Sails" have long hair - and none seem either safe nor not male for it. Same goes for Johnny Depp in his pirate roles. Same goes for all the Scottish guys and the British troops in the 18th century parts of "Outlander."

IIRC, the Sikh soldier played by Naveen Andrews in the WW2 film "The English Patient" had hair down to his ass - and the length of his hair and his haircare routines were seen as part of what made him incredibly strong and sexually alluring in a 100% male way.

In the 2005 movie of "Pride & Prejudice," Rupert Friend as George Wickham has very long hair - which added to his male sex appeal and heightened that he was a disreputable, untrustworthy cad - definitely not safe to the young woman he led astray and absconded with.

In the West in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, many men wore their hair to or well beyond their shoulders. Check out some classic rock and glam videos. The long hair sported by The Doors, Led Zeppelin, KISS and a TON of other male rockers did not signal that these men were not male or safe. On the contrary, for many it went hand in hand with their very out-there macho male sexuality and heightened their dangerous, bad boy image. Many of these men were widely known to be sexually abusive of girls and women and quite violent; they frequently trashed their hotel suites and their guitars on stage. So they came off as the opposite of safe.

Similarly, many women in Western countries in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc - as well as in other very different decades like the 1920s - wore their hair quite short. Some of us in the punk and new wave eras had buzz cuts and shaved our heads.

And at different points in history, both men and women have routinely worn wigs. Cuz of fashion, custom, baldness, lice and all sorts of unsightly scalp conditions. The term "powder room" originally did not mean toilet or loo as we think today - it meant a room where servants took wigs to powder them. Many of the wigs Louis XIV of France wore had long full locks that went down near to his elbows, others went to his shoulders but were teased up high off his skull - but no one ever regarded him as "not male" or as safe, docile and posing no threat.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am saying that women are programmed in mapping to be more comfortable. Why would all of these women allow a man to hit them in BDSM when wearing women's clothing otherwise?

You are not talking about the US. I am talking about Western Cultures, UK etc.

I mentioned more than long hair. Now you are just being an asshole.

I know why I did not stick around reddit groups the first time.

I used other categories.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What's with the name-calling? You said in your post

Please correct me, argue back, and provide additional info! I am game.

So I took you at your word, and corrected one of your points - and you in turn say I'm an asshole.

Right at the outset, I apologized for the disagreement I was going to voice, and said I got your gist:

Sorry, OP, I get your overall points, but the idea that long hair=safe and not male is just plain silly.

Then I backed up my position on the one point I chose to take issue with with by providing a number of different examples. Never did I call you names.

You are not talking about the US. I am talking about Western Cultures, UK etc.

Huh? That makes no sense. Also, I gave examples from many locales/countries at many points in time - including the US AND other "Western Cultures, UK etc." Specifically, from Scotland, England and the British colonies in North America and the West Indies in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries - and from the UK during the 1970s era of glam and punk rock.

I am saying that women are programmed in mapping to be more comfortable. Why would all of these women allow a man to hit them in BDSM when wearing women's clothing otherwise?

I don't know why "all of these women" you speak of who are into BDSM would "allow a man to hit them... when wearing women's clothing," but I think it's a big leap - and unfair to women on the whole - to suggest that women into BDSM are somehow emblematic of all women in general.

Your post title said it was about "why trans identified males are not seen as a threat by many..." not why women in the BDSM scene in particular don't see TIMs as a threat. In the body of your post, you made many statements which made it sound like you were speaking of female people in general, not just women who accept abuse from males cuz they're into kink. If I misunderstood, I apologize for my error.

Also, for the record, your contention that due to socialization, life experience and biological factors, "Long hair means safe. Is not a male" in the minds of many/most women is not the only part of your post I looked askance at and could've taken issue with. You made many sweeping generalizations about all females that IMO you did not back up with convincing evidence and which struck me as pretty sexist. Such as:

Females have different internal working maps than men. We process trauma differently. We have differences in the way we do that, not just due to estrogen in the blood...

And:

Females are also more compassionate. We are by biology and by grooming of society, and we are also made to feel more, feel the pain of others, do the emotional labor, and accept things no male would accept—ever.

After all that, your immediate response to me for disagreeing with you on one point is to call me an asshole! Which seems to undercut your claim that all females are more compassionate, have greater depth of feeling, and are more likely to feel the pain of others.

To top it off, you gripe as though you've been grievously wronged:

I know why I did not stick around reddit groups the first time.

Okay then.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You seem to be badgering her and I'm not impressed. For women, feminism isn't just an intellectual exercise. It's a way of analyzing and picking apart all the bad things which happen to us simply because we are female.

Sometimes, the bad things are perpetrated by a gay man. A lot of gay dudes are indeed misogynists, but what's worse than the overt stuff is the way some of them pretend to be "just like us" or "similar to us" and the way they demand that we never ever notice their misogyny lest they withdraw their very conditional support.

I suppose it's hurtful for a gay man to hear, particularly if they themselves wouldn't ever be like that. But there's no reason to get defensive and start badgering a woman who's in the process of trying to understand the dynamics at work.