During the 19th century and even more before then, men and women have been completely and obviously separate and were expected to do completely different things. Men were expected to be cold, rational and emotionless on the outside; women were expected to be more emotional and irrational.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I hope you don't take offense at my starting an argument, but this seems like a completely modernized view of history (I say this because it has become the fashion to say that men are evil and women have been the true heralds of goodness in all history, at least in public schools round here). Men were not expected to be anything of the sort. Men were expected to be
calm and
composed... this is not to be confused with cold and emotionless. And yes, men were indeed expected to be rational - but who are you to say that women weren't? Human nature does not change. Everyone is expected to be rational in today's world, and it was the same in the 19th century. If women were thought of as "irrational", why were they left in charge of the household in most European and European-based (eg America) societies? But you are right in that they were seen as wildly emotional - which they are. Women are more emotional than men because of their hormonal make up; fact of life.
Men wore tight pants, because showing the shape of the body was more "manly", sometimes wearing skin-revealing shorts and short sleeves; women wore long dresses with long sleeves so they could hide the shape of their body.
...Yes? Fashions have changed throughout time, what are you trying to say here? Actually, while we might consider the 19th century typical dress "prudish" they were often considered quite attractive in the time. The large hooped skirts were a symbol of the way a woman's hips extend out, amongst other things, and many did show off some bosom.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, women have progressed
monumentally in their social rights, while still keeping any of their previous rights they had earlier. It has become acceptable for women to wear tight jeans or shorts or short sleeved shirts. However, their skirt hems have shortened to a length that reveals the legs, and since men have recently liked covering their legs, revealing the skin has become a
womanish thing. However, it is still okay for women to wear long dresses, if they like, and switch around according to how they feel.
Friend, it has been a rare occasion in history where men would show off the flair of their skin. It is not a "recent" phenomenon. You're looking at the problem all wrong. You're thinking of it like territory, "women can wear this and that but men can only wear that!" Not so. Think about
why women wear skirts and show off their legs. Why is it? Because men find it attractive. Do women find it attractive when men show off their legs? Not typically, no. Both sexes wearing pants is more of a cultural/practicality thing, but even in the 19th century women of certain classes/professions would wear pants. There's your answer as to why men don't show off skin and women do, friend.
It has also become acceptable to speak loudly and debate topics for a woman. They can now be aggressive and assertive, but it is perfectly acceptable for them to discuss their emotions quietly with others as well as display their emotions.
Women were perfectly assertive in prior times, only it was not in any sort of reigning council. What has changed are the situations in which it is acceptable for women to debate with men. On the other end of the spectrum, I think it has become (and is widely becoming) more acceptable for men to be more "sensitive" and discuss their emotions, whereas in American society it has usually been more socially correct for males to keep their problems to themselves so as not to bother others.
Now the funny thing I'd like to point out is that women won't hesitate to be "manly", or adapt men's habits and styles, but men are so afraid of doing ANYTHING that is related only to women. It seems to be a strong case of "superiority complex", on the men's side. They disrespect women and think of themselves as higher than them. So women doing "men's stuff" is fine because they are adapting a "higher" standard, and it also seems that it is perfectly fine for them to "drop" to their own "lower" women's standard. But men are "better" than women, so they are expected to maintain their "high standard" and NEVER lower themselves the the "lower standard of the inferior gender".
I'll have to disagree here. I wouldn't consider this a superiority complex at all. I don't understand why society is trying to "meld" the two genders together. In all of history sexes have had certain tasks and such considered more applicable to them. I, for one, consider history a mentor and don't understand why society wants to fuse these two. If a woman wants to be a lumberjack, that's just fine. I feel the job makes more sense for a man (being anatomically bigger and stronger usually), but her choice. However, I'd rather not sit at home and learn how to quilt. Why? Historically, this is something women have traditionally done and I don't have an interest in it. Am I not learning it because I feel it is "below" me? No. My reasons have nothing to do with any sort of superiority complex. Sure, there are men who disrespect women, but are you going to tell me that it doesn't go the other way around? What do we, as men, constantly hear? "Men are pigs." This is not considered sexist at all because men do tend to use women. But when a man says "Women are hos" because they dress provocatively, get drunk, and do things it's considered degrading and sexist. It's a silly double-standard. Sorry, I guess I'm rambling. =p My point is you're looking at it from one angle (one very skewed angle). But also, what would you consider "women things"? Sewing? Cooking? These are both things that were performed by both sexes but professionally by men. The common view that sewing and cooking are "girly" things is historically rubbish.
In other words, it is fine for a woman to bawl out her feelings, cry and hug her friends, but it's also perfectly fine for her to be cold and emotionless. However, a man must
always be cold and emotionless because he is superior to the woman and most not lower himself to her level. If your female friend was crying for losing her jewelry, you would try to help her or comfort her, but, tell me
honestly, WOULD YOU treat your male friend as kindly or compassionately if he acted the same manner?
First of all, women need different treatment in that situation because they
are more emotional and need a little more sympathy. If my male friend lost something I would help him just the same. You may mistake the fact that I'm not telling him 'everything's going to be okay' or hugging him as a lack of kindness or compassion - but that's just silly.
On another note, society is trying to breed generations of males to be "sensitive and emotional" so if that's what you really want you might soon be getting your wish. I still don't understand where you get this "superiority" concept, though.
You can call him "effeminate", but please, please, please, PLEASE don't call him "GAY", because that would mean that he likes men, which he probably doesn't. It's so childish. Women don't call other women "dykes" or "lesbo" for wearing jeans and being emotionless, so PLEASE respect what other men do as straight, unless it's obvious he likes men.
What are you trying to say here? I really wish you'd stop tagging men as emotionless just because we're less open on average.
Men are stuck trying to maintain their pathetic "he-man" image and they think it's the mature thing to do, but they don't realize that it is the
exact opposite of what they think. Not respecting the other sex as your equal by adopting her practices just like she
respectfully adopts yours is extremely immature and is just as bad as preventing her from adopting your practices, which was done over a century ago.
Respectfully adopting her practices? Listen friend, let's take skirts for example: skirts, compared to pants or shorts, are unwieldy and difficult. Why do women wear them? Because it's "womanly", "proper", or "attractive." I have no problem with this. Women would laugh at and ridicule a man in a skirt (not all of them, obviously). My point is women have these historical tendencies, too, that belong to them. Why aren't arguing that they should be abolished? You seem to think that because women adopted practicalities like pants, we should adopt impracticalities like skirts. I'm confused?
Men, please please get over it. If you really, truly, honestly respect women as your equals, then respect what they do and don't avoid repeating their practices like the plague.
After reading this, I am tempted to stop being chivalrous, wear skirts, and watch Opera. =p