Isn't it weird how gender roles are formatted? Like, the forefathers wore wigs with long hair and curls, and their shoes had pretty high heels, which means they would have wiggled when they walked!
Here's a HuffPost article on that:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/16/gender-facts-traditional-roles_n_5115265.html
The entire article misses the mark. Yup. Men used to wear wigs, high heels, and people used to dress their boys in pink. Unless you honestly believe that dressing your boy in pink when all of society does means that the boys were somehow rebelling against gender norms...
If, in the future, a wife beater shirt becomes associated with the female sex it does not mean that the men wearing them today are breaking gender norms.
"In the 18th century, crying was so normalized and even expected that "if you didn't cry at the theatre … you were some kind of lower class boor," So what? Stupid men trying to impress society and show that they were not lower class would turn on the waterworks. It only goes to show that men through the ages have been stupid to conform to what society expects, least they be seen a "lower class." Am I honestly supposed to believe that they would be so moved with every performance that they could not help but weep openly, or that they learned what the desired response was, and then produced it?
Finally, "Results of a 2013 survey of 81 women and 27 men in Britain suggested that..." is not a study that anybody should quote. When a "journalist" tells me that 27 men (all likely on one university campus, in one city) in Britain are going to be used as an example that "all men must feel the same way" it is a giant red flag that the entire article should be condemned to the dustbin.
