One thing that I always wanted to do in my life was to be 'more' of a man, and I didn't like the way that being 'more' of a man was presented as in my life such as, for instance, having more of a 'strut' in your walk which is walking with a lofty proud manner of walking, and often in an attempt to impress others. Other ways that 'being a man' is presented as that gives the definition of 'masculinity' some 'validation' is, for instance, distancing your arms slightly from the rest of your physical body and sticking your chest out as a way of showing 'strength'. These have all become physical expressions of 'masculinity'.
In my mind, I've always liked to challenge the perceived 'nature' of 'masculinity'. To me, the physical and mental expressions of what masculinity is is what I found limiting because if a man is not constantly expressing these particular standards of what defines a man as a 'man', then that man is questioned or 'resisted'.
For example, one standard that does not completely align to masculinity would be wearing a pink shirt. For me, there were plenty of times where I have worn a pink shirt in the past and have gotten many neutral and 'positive' remarks both from males and females because over the years, pink has been a color that has been consistenly worn by females, and because the color pink is a color that has been consistently worn by females over time, the color pink will more align to the definition of what comprises 'femininity' rather than masculinity.
Another expression that more aligns to the definition and culture of 'femininity' is the word 'soft', and one attribute that supports the word 'soft' to be aligned to the definition and culture of 'femininity' is the texture of females' skin which has the appearance and the 'feel' of 'softness' compared to a male's appearance and 'feel' of their skin. Although, the texture of males' skin are also relatively soft, one thing that can contribute to the appearance and texture of males' skin appearing more 'rough' is the amount of body hair on a male, the muscles, and the hair follicles which make the skin appear to have a rougher texture.
So I took this definition of 'softness' and played with it. I wanted to expand the definition of masculinity by incorporating the word 'softness' as an attribute of masculinity which is 'naturally' an attribute of femininity, and one way that I did this was for instance, shaving my legs to have an appearance of 'soft' skin, wearing makeup to have an appearance of a 'soft', smooth face, wearing clothing that are advertised for females, and changing the way that I physically move (predominantly only done when wearing clothes that are advertised for females) to more 'graceful' movements such as the swaying of the hands, and incorporating what is called the 'limp wrist' as a physical gesture.
So I began changing the definition of masculinity as a person who expresses both 'masculine' and 'feminine' characteristics believing that: 1) challenging the definition of what a man is is 'facing' the 'natural resistances' that men commonly resist in a man that is not consistently aligning to the 'normal' standards of what it means to be a 'man', and 2) incorporating characteristics that are not normally aligned to the standards and the definition of what a 'man' is, such as incorporating standards of the definition of 'femininity' for example, will make the man a more 'well-rounded' man.
So within this, I didn't realize what I was actually doing, and what I am actually doing is creating an illusion of expanding the definition of what a man is because I realize that the definition of what a man is cannot exist in patterns, and this is what I was reacting to which are the patterns that define a man. The patterns of what a 'man' is are defined within what 'masculinity' is / has been defined as which are the things I stated earlier such as: having more of a 'strut' in your walk which is walking with a lofty proud manner of walking, and often in an attempt to impress others, and distancing your arms slightly from the rest of your physical body along with sticking your chest out as a way of showing 'strength'. These have all actually become physical patterns of 'masculinity' rather than real expressions, and these physical patterns of 'masculinity' are copied by most men in the world. What happens is that a 'value' is created to these patterns, and the man becomes diminished by them thinking that the patterns are what makes a man a 'man' when they are just patterns (like puzzle pieces) that men have put together over time which other men duplicate to create the 'idea' of what 'masculinity' is. This goes the same for females.
So what I was doing in my life within that phase was expanding the definition of 'masculinity' by merging both 'masculine' and 'feminine' patterns into me, and thinking that if I 'merge' them together I will be 'more' of a man, but these patterns are not really 'masculine' patterns nor 'feminine' patterns. They are just patterns of physical behaviors, physical appearance, physical gestures, words, sounds, etc. that have been adopted and expressed by males and females. I mean, virtually anyone can 'act' like a 'man' or a 'woman' by, for example, putting your hand on your hips. This motion has been adopted as more of a 'feminine' gesture, but anyone can do it. It's not that a man cannot. The problem is, again, the 'value' that has been attached to it, and what is this 'value'?
Well first, imagine that you have a jar that is shaped like the physical body of a male. Put all of the physical behaviors, the physical appearances of what comprises a 'male' (such as 'short' hair), the physical gestures, the words, sounds, etc. that has been defined as 'masculine' into that jar, and see them as puzzle pieces. The 'value' is seeing that 'jar', for example, as something 'sacred', and so imagine that you 'add' the 'feminine' gesture of putting your hand on your hips as a 'puzzle piece' into to the same jar, and then placing the jar into a 'safe' to 'protect' it from being 'destroyed' because of the belief that if it's destroyed, then it will destroy your entire identity of the 'who you are' that you created yourself to be (which is all of the puzzle pieces in that jar that represents what a 'man' is).
So this is 'essentially' what most people are doing (which is creating a 'value' to a 'jar' that represents their 'masculine' or 'feminine' expression. The only difference is that for me, what I did was not only have a 'jar' of 'masculine' patterns, but what I did was instead of adding different 'feminine' patterns into the same jar, I created my gender identity to be more 'bigendered' rather than 'androgynous' meaning that I created an 'extra' jar that is shaped like a female, placed various 'feminine' patterns into that jar, and kept the 'masculine jar' and 'feminine jar' separate most of the time, and merged both jars at times, into one which was projected into and as the 'expression' of 'cross-dressing'. But all of these expressions on the spectrum of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are essentially the same because they all use the same patterns; they are just switched around, shifted, exchanged, manipulated, amended, etc. So in the next blog, I will write some self-forgivenesses, and then look at redefining 'masculinity' and 'femininity'.
No comments:
Post a Comment