If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Masculinties/Femininities
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Inspired by another fred, what do you consider to be 'masculine' or 'feminine'? I'm still grappling with this as gender studies have messed with my mind 
One thing I do think is that the ideals set by whatever is expected of either genders can often do more harm than good. Taken from this site...
Can all men aspire to be this? Do they want to? What happens when 9 times out of 10, a person won't live up to this 'ideal'?
What about drag performance? Could it be argued that all gender is a form of drag, in terms of performance, imitation and trying to live in a role that we can never really fully live up to, and that drag is only an example of being a 'fake of a fake'?
One thing I do think is that the ideals set by whatever is expected of either genders can often do more harm than good. Taken from this site...
Hegemonic masculinity is the dominant form in a given society. In a Western context hegomonic masculinity is defined as a white, straight, upper middle class, college educated, gainfully employed, Protestant, father, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports.
Can all men aspire to be this? Do they want to? What happens when 9 times out of 10, a person won't live up to this 'ideal'?
What about drag performance? Could it be argued that all gender is a form of drag, in terms of performance, imitation and trying to live in a role that we can never really fully live up to, and that drag is only an example of being a 'fake of a fake'?
0
Comments
I guess an obvious problem that jumps out is how closely linked the ideas of masculinity are linked to the other factors within society - and whether they can be realistically seperated. Can a discussion of masculine or feminine even take place outside of wider social factors?
Certainly gender postitioning seems to be different based on social positioning or class as well - though it might be interesting to consider how this has changed as social class organisation alters. Given women working is an absolute necessity for a modern capitalist country (and nothing I'm saying here should be taken to say that the old social orders were ever true, or good) - has the positioning of feminity altered to accomodate this or does it still stand as a throw back to an older social order?
So is work (or at least gainful employment, or looking after the household) still a dominant part of masculinity or has it changed to accomodate wider changes? Is the very concept of a masculine / feminine division always behind the times or leading them?
And of course - how are those ideas formed, what influence does nature/nuture have on the ideas, is it an inhierently harmful idea that promotes a sense of failure in order to create something to aspire to?
Drag is an interesting one as well - worth looking at drag in the army/navy entertainer troops for a situation where the 'female' role is very much a construct and yet accepted - but for what reason? Drag in art remains fascinating wherever it's looked at - especially from the days when all actors had to men (Elizabethian times, Kabuki, Ancient greek plays) who would then play women.
In fact it could be argued that art has no greater influence than in defining set socialital roles - that definitions of masculine and feminine (along with other similar ideals) are part of arts importance (for good or ill in society).
All I'd add is that I don't see the definitions as particularly helpful and I can't wait for MattLiverpool to see this thread
That would be the study of gender - the clue is in the name
I find the dual concepts of masculinity/femininity to be fascinating, especially as one is perceived universally as a good trait to have/way to be and the other is definitely a double-edged sword. Of course, a pressing issue within feminism (and the minds of women in general I'm sure) being how to marry femininity and strength of character. While I think overt femininity can cause women problems, it's definitely necessary to retain the level of femininity you have otherwise you end up basically denying your gender and becoming a makeshift man in the belief that that is what's necessary to get on - a la the milk snatcher.
As for the definition you gave of our society's ideal man's man, I think there is more scope for men to feel like they haven't lived up to that [generally, self-imposed] ideal. Unsurprisingly! The worrying part - for me - is that men have taken to blaming women and the advent of equality for the fact that some of them are starting to feel a little redundant. At least, they are definitely having to review the role they want to take vs. the role they're now more likely to have within a relationship/family/work environment etc.
The same definitely goes for women. As I said before, there is a definite feeling that in order to get ahead you have to compromise (or even, in some environments tone down) femininity in order to get ahead in life because those are not the valued traits. I think that's a definite sign that all is not right and equal just yet, and definitely indicative that masculinity is more valued - and definitely more respected - than femininity. Of course that takes us onto the feminine man and the masculine woman, where the lines get blurred and there is a lack of understanding and respect for reasons that are different but not entirely so.
I'll be back after lunch anyway
Man = hunter/warrior.
Woman cares for children.
Seems simple enough to me.
I am man, here me roar...
So assuming you don't actually fight lions or sabre-tooth tigers for a living - the question would be, do you feel like a failure because you don't live up to your percieved ideal of masculinity?
No because sexes' have biological differences which ultimately affect their gender. Although there are obviouis anomalies.
That's not to say people aspire to certain gender attitudes which haven't really changed that much in the past few decades. The perception of the male dominant role and the female subservient role is still prevelant today, in all aspects of society (domestically, politically, socially etc etc.)
white, - disagree
straight, - agree
upper middle class - disagree
college educated - disagree
gainfully employed -disagree
Protestant -disagree
father - only as a sign of sexual activity
of good complexion -disagree
weight, and height - everyone has weight and height - but if it means tall and muscular weight -agree
and a recent record in sports - some sports
To be honest most of that doesn't seem to define masculinity to me - I spent a large chunk of my life with soldiers where 'a man amongst men' is rightfuly praised. Virtually none of the blokes were anything but working class and often uneducated until the army did it. Plenty were Catholic, tattoos and the sign of broken noses etc weren't regarded as feminine and too good a complexision marked you as someone who spent too much time behind a desk (and by defenition therefore not masculine). Shagging lots of women was regarded as fine, but being a Dad was neither here nor there. Rugby, football masculine - cricket, boring, feminine and English (probably much the same thing).
And whilst they were gainfully employed they often came from a masculine culture where large chunks of the men weren't...
In fact I would say much of the above far from being masculine is the antithesis of it...
But what about the biological similarities? There's so much focus on the differences, that some differences seem to pave the way for superiority, thus neither genders could be 'equal' as some think it's to mean 'the same', by focusing on those biological differences, if you see what I mean. I've seen it on these boards from time to time. Then there are people who break the mould, especially those with chromosomal abnormalities like Kleinfelters (XXY)
:yes:
My tutor has put foward the idea that feelings of inadequacy and frustration are one of the factors contributing towards homophobic violence in the US. Not sure how many would agree with that, but still an interesting idea all the same.
I don't think women of a childbearing age are really going to stand much ground in the workplace after children until househusbands are accepted and respected. Their position in the home is just as vital as a woman's decision to go back to work if that's what she wants.
*Snig*
Gender superiority in what aspect? Men are stronger, more aggressive, naturally this leads them to persue power roles, leadership roles. Women carry babies, naturally this assumes they will provide the care and general upbringing of the baby. You can't deny that the biological differences will impact the social roles that are expected from the respective genders. Of course in today's day and age, women are encouraged to persue their own personal goals and shouldn't be denied.
i beleive the saying is, we're all different but we're all the same
Anyway:
While I think the terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are useful, I think they can also be highly damaging, because traits, characteristics, personalities, which fall outside of these predetermined categories can bestow upon their holders they are no longer 'men' or 'women' (e.g. the feminine man and masculine women). So, in using these terms, it seems to be a common action to lump prototypical gender characteristics together (as yerascrote did: men are aggressive, hunters, women are caring, nurturing, etc).
These gender distinctions are culturally-bound, learned, and nurtured traits (and some would argue so is sex), straight from birth (and possibly before). There is a relationship between all these, but if the will was there, such traits and beliefs could be changed.
For example, there are societies in which women hunt (admittedly they are few and far between), e.g the Agta tribe in the Phillipenes. There are societies in which the men don't fight and aren't aggressive: in Tahiti and Semai. Gender is always socially constructed, and although it's based in biology, to a certain extent biological sex is socially constructed (insofar as what society deems individuals can and can't do according to their anatomy).
I also think these aspect of hegemonic masculinity is dangerous, since (for similar reasons I dislike the terms masculinity and femininity) it omits various ways of being a man. Gay men, non-fathers, non-white, non-educated, non-upper-class men are all restricted.
In any event, I feel that gender is always a performance (as is social identity in general). Judith Butler's work in particular deals with this, but also Penny Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet look explicitly at the concept of gender as a social practice, and it's really convincing.
As for the feelings of inadequacy fueling gay-murders, there's a film 'Licensed to Kill' which is a fascinating (and disturbing) insight into the motivations behind the murderers of gay men who are incarcerated.
Well, you kind of answered that yourself.
Granted, a man might have more testosterone and use that to build muscle, but that doesn't mean physical strength across the board. I'm stronger than some of the guys at my gym. It's probably not the best example to use though. I'll use your point on aggression. I can be an incredibally aggressive and competitive person, speak to a male friend of mine and he's very shy and doesn't like confrontation, but both those traits would then make me 'masculine' and him 'feminine', rather than just 'who we are' if you see what I'm saying.
There are other cultures in the world where the men of the tribes provide most care and contact to their infants, where women toil in the fields all day while their husbands stay at home etc. I'm pretty sure they're not that physically different from us, so isn't it better to challenge these roles rather than reinforce them? If I have kids with my current partner, I'd have to go back to work full-time, I don't want it held against me that I should be at home because I'm a woman and therefore should be 'nurturing' my children.
I just kind of take caution with using biology as a means to explain biological difference therefore social/cultural difference. Sure, there may be a few differences, but there are plenty of similarities. Years ago (I'll try and find the name of the paper once I'm back in London), people studying the 'biological' differences between 'civilised' and 'savage' men used that as a means to justify their various forms of racism.
TheKingOfGlasgow: are you an anthropologist :eek2:
Interesting....I often think about this same problem, but sort of see it from a different viewpoint....for me, an even more worrying trend is that some women feel they have to belittle men in order to make them feel redundant, so that the women can find their more prominent (or equal) place in society
To be fair, I haven't noticed it on an individual level, but for instance, the fact that there are so many adverts recently where men are portrayed as the slightly stupid, more childish, element of a relationship (or society) and the woman is the sensible 'adult' barely tolerating the man (and that the media thinks this is acceptable to portray) is quite worrying....I think equality should mean just that and shouldn't require either sex to belittle the other in order to achieve it.
The role of man as hapless bloke who works hard in the office but couldn't bake a souffle to save his life (or whatever) is archaic. Not that that's an excuse for it either, but it's no new strategy.
I don't think it's the case in real life anyway - as you've said yourself it's certainly not noticable if it is - that women patronise and gang up on their [and other] men. I certainly don't know any women who target men with an air of tolerance or superiority. Possibly in couples where they do the "what an idiot" looks and sighs, but then that's not exclusive to the woman. I know a lot of blokes who do that tongue in cheek "why do I put up with her?" sort of joking about their girlfriends, too.
Some factions of feminism do rely heavily on exposing the flaws and weaknesses of men in order to gain ground, but that is a lot more likely on the more extreme fringes of feminism. Most [female, just for the sake of clarity] feminists you would speak to wouldn't be interested in what the hell men are doing or take an interest in putting them down to get ahead. Feminists are generally interested in protecting and furthering the female sex, and would consider achieving that aim by stifling men to be very unproductive and not in the spirit of the equality they seek.
Hmmm....that's interesting....but I'm just worried that this portrayal is allowed to be commonplace at all.....I think it's damaging for men to be portrayed as the fuck-ups of the piece....what kind of message does that give young boys??
And I get worried for men quite a lot...I think they have a hard time in today's society....I would say that these days it's pretty much socially acceptable for a woman to do whatever she wants to do in her life.....but I don't think this change in social acceptance is in keeping with a man's.....this is a bit of a lame example, but....if a man's interested in knitting or flowers, he might be perceived to be a 'bit gay' and not entirely masculine, whereas if a woman wants to sail a yacht round the world, or is the MD of a high profile company, then good on her, she's just acheieving her dream or asserting her right to do what she likes.....
....I accept this is a terrible analogy, but would hope people can see what I'm trying to say?? The definition of what is within acceptable bounds of femininity is increasingly wide while the definition of masculinity is not expanding accordingly and remains worryingly restricted - yet the 'traditional' male roles are being taken over by women too....so where does that leave men??
On the other hand, women can be MD of a company or sail around the world but they'd find it a lot harder to be granted those opportunities because they are still not being taken seriously.
Another thing to remember is that the reason women aren't portrayed as "fuck ups" in adverts etc is because if they were then there would be utter outcry from women (like myself) about the way they were being portrayed. I'm not sure if men generally have had instilled an attitude that they should put up with being ridiculed or if they just basically don't have the passionate feelings about the portrayl in the media that a lot of contemporary women do. If it's the latter then I find it hard to sympathise. Things will NOT change unless someone, somewhere does something about it... says something... stands up and says they won't have it. There are lessons to be learned from the fantastic leaps and bounds in which women have come on.
Men are definitely challenge by the widening female net of opportunity, but women are by no means taking over the lion's share of opportunity and possibility - they are still NOT equal. Women still can't do every job a man can do, whereas a man can do any job a woman can do - but often they don't because of feelings that society or self has imposed on them. Those insecurities are their own, it's unfair to blame women's advances for them.
I remember discussion on here about how unfair it is that women have the babies. I wonder if that will come 'round again... it was interesting :chin:
If you asked me to define masculinity one of its atributes would be taking responsibility for ones own life and not blaming others or society
Had never thought about things that way!!! However, I agree with this:
but not the way you've put it...implies that only women are supposed to stand up for women's issues and only men are supposed to stand up for men's issues....well I'M doing it!!! I'M saying it!!! I WON'T HAVE IT!!!!
Think it's really damaging for future generations of men.....don't want my future son (not that I'm planning on being pregnant any time soon, so very future!) feeling like he has to apologise for being male.....or that because he's male he deserves to be ridiculed or slightly downtrodden. It's damaging...and think because this attitude is mostly presented in a joke-y, light-hearted way, it's actually much more damaging because it carries on un-noticed and un-challenged all too often.
So I'm challenging it....on behalf of (and alongside) any men, women or otherwise who think it's wrong too.....let's start a mini revolution right here....who's with me??
But until we can rely on that being the case (and it took a long, long time before men would label themselves feminists and go to bat for women's rights etc) we have to stick up for ourselves both individually and as sexes. After all, if men won't stand up for themselves and fight their own battles then they can't really expect other men or women to do it for them.
Do you really think that men are downtrodden and generally ridiculed? It's a genuine question, personally speaking I honestly haven't seen any evidence of that sort of trend developing. I can see it's not beyond the realms of possibility, though.
I totally agree. Women's advances, modern society and feminism at large are incredibly easy targets/scapegoats.
It seems like men have just lost all their enthusiam for masculinity and for being a man (whatever their personal definition of that may be). Or that they feel as if they've already lost some kind of imagined battle. Hard to articulate, but at least I know what I mean :razz:
I really do...... or at least I worry about it happening in the not too distant future.....but then I have long suspected that I'm some secret misogynist (so secret even I don't really know it!! :hyper: ) with some very odd ideas about what a 'man' and a 'woman' should be....:chin:
Women not liking (bit of a strong term, but YKWIM) other women is no new thing. One of the only places I've seen genuine niceness between other women is at the gym in the freeweights section (no joke). I suppose it's because we feel like we've 'invaded' a sacred men's area so we have to stick together through 'sisterhood'
Actually, I do feel sad about the whole notion of sisterhood. I wish women day to day would be nicer to each other, I think women can be so cruel towards other women (particularly where pregnancy and motherhood are concerned :eek: )
*Sigh* You'll think I'm a complete freak....and I do recognise ahead of this that I'm VERY old fashioned secretly.....and my ideas are SOOOOO outdated...and I'm probably just completely contradicting everything I've said before......however....*deep breath*:
I think it's nice, attractive, and 'manly' if a man smells of tobacco (in a faint, nice, musky sort of way, like) and likes to drink good whisky.....think it's sort of 'how it should be' if a man works with his hands...preferably in a slightly physical role...for his profession; think he should be robust and outdoorsy to meet my idea of a man; think there's nothing wrong with women being expected to be more nurturing and domesticated than men...because much as we hate to admit it, and as much as it is an inconvenience to our modern lives, it IS biologically programmed into most of us (notice I said most....it doesn't mean I think the women who don't feel like this are wrong in any way).....
Anyway, those are the beginnings of my ideas on gender......I know....I belong in the 50s....I'll get back into my freak cage now so you can all point, laugh and criticise...:(
However, I do recognise that just because those are my ideas, doesn't mean they're right, and gender (just like sexuality) is a massively broad spectrum....and I would never criticise anyone who falls outside of my extremely narrow ideals.....
I think this is part of the crisis of masculinity I was talking about in the other thread. Men have lost their 'enthusiasm' for masculinity because what this emcompasses is the general stance of aggressive, powerful, dominant man, which is what is supported and promoted (to a certain extent) by men and women in modern day society. But on the flip side, too far in this direction and a man is looked upon as boorish, arrogant, trouble-maker, and ne'er do well. On the flip-flip side of it, go too far in the other direction (e.g. knitting, flower arranging, showing your feelings (god forbid!) ) a man can be looked upon as a sissy, pansy, ineffectual, emasculated etc. So, in escence, men have fewer directions in which to go. While these may be socially constructed and culturally-created restraints on men, the fact remains that at the moment society is imbricated in the creation of 'masculinity', cause society has particular expections of men (and women for that matter). You only have to look at the massive increase (particularly in the '90s and '00s) of the 'perfect' man (or the SNAG: Sensitive New Age Guy), who can kill a boar, but also whisk his significant other on a whirlwind romance of orgasmic ecstasy (but is sensitive about it at the same time).
David Gilmore has written an awesome book called 'manhood in the making', and he argues that the creation of masculinity throughout the world is remarkably similar, regardless of 'level of civilisation' (I feel uncomfortable using this, cause it's towards cultural supremacy, the reason Britain felt justified in ruling the world to a certain extent).
And yes Go-Away, I am kind of an anthropologist, but I would say first and foremost I'm a sociolinguist. Unfortunately in my field, there's far too little theorising about issues like these, and they get left to the linguistic anthropologists. So, anthropology is a pretty major side interest for me.