Is it possible that the traditional definitions of masculine and feminine need to be re-evaluated, or are they even valid ideas anymore?
I do no think that traditional definitions of masculine and feminine were ever valid; rather, they were merely dogmatically accepted and perpetuated blindly. Certainly, some of this stems to a rigid dualistic categorization of reality. As Mr. Haus notes in his post, “[i]f the man is "courageous, honorable, kind, and reasoning", the woman he exists in contrast to is presumably cowardly, treacherous, unkind and unreasonable.” This goes back to at least the Pythagoreans and their dreaded table of opposites. What occurs, not only on that table but above and beyond the twenty qualities it lists, is that all character traits that are seen as desirable—by a society built on patriarchy—are attributed to maleness, or “manliness:” courage, strength, valour, honour, etc. Thus, the side of the fence that femininity gets placed on will include, by default, the dualistic pairing of all these traits (like Mr. Haus notes in his post); i.e., femininity will become associated with all the reciprocal negative qualities of the positive qualities found on the “manly” side of the fence.
However, there is no reason to suppose that any of these distinctions are based in any sort of reality beyond the patriarchal authority; that is, there are no “valid” reasons (as in defensible reasons) to suppose that such division is correct. In fact, much of the reasons that people have argued over the years for putting trait z in column A (which we will say includes “maleness” ) as opposed to placing it in column B (which we will say includes “femaleness” ) is simply arbitrary choice. Moreover, such division has most often (if not always) been formulated by men—men in positions of power and authority who desire to see themselves in a positive light. Oh the vanity and arrogance of ignorance!
So, certainly “traditional definitions” of masculine and feminine need to be re-evaluated because they are based on a faulty understanding of an illusory division amongst contraries. We need to see that such distinctions are not rigidly polarized, and that, while the biological expressions of male and female are generally a naturally occurring either/or, the traits that human beings associate with this biological gender division are not rigidly categorical under our interpretations. We must allow our interpretations to include a sort of “uncertainty” which reflects our arbitrary distinctions. This means that traits like “courage,” “strength” (or whatever) become smeared out across the simple biological duality and thus occupy positions on either side of the fence. Certainly, for example, either a man or woman can display cowardice or courage; thus, we can’t say that courage falls under “manliness” alone, but we can’t say it is “womanliness” either.
Is it even necessary to define femininity and masculinity or should we concentrate on personality and reject gender division as much as possible?
Thus, it is not necessary in any way, nor possible in any sort of defensible manner, to define femininity and masculinity beyond biological constitution. There are physical differences, and it seems that this is all we can “validly” base distinctions on, but when it comes to associating any character traits with either femininity or masculinity, we are merely doing so based on arbitrary decisions that don’t hold any sort of rigid formulation (beyond that of dogmatic acceptance—i.e., the horseshit of some outmoded authority).
To "be a man" is to have the biological construction that we call “male.” To "be a woman" is to have the biological construction we call “female.” Above and beyond that, it’s wide open. |
- this is the source of the male crisis of identity in our privileged corner of the globe. Not sure about that at all. Thoughts?