Feminism and Androgyny

[Received]

I'm watching Mad Men for the first time, which is giving me a great (and nauseating) look into how guys treated ladies back in the 60s in America. Which got me to thinking of the tide of feminism that rose as a consequence to this.

Feminism, I guess, is about killing off the stupidity involved with the power abused by masculinity. This power isn't just physical, but soaked up into the very legal and cultural structure of society: women aren't simply kept in line physically, but also considered to be less of a person than men are.

But what did feminism really rebel against? Not masculinity per se, but hypermasculinity -- masculinity that wasn't balanced with femininity, and consequently isn't in the psychologically balanced state of androgyny, which plenty of studies point out is best for the individual and especially relationships. People simply become happier when they begin to integrate the gender roles opposite of their given sex: males take on the feminine, and females take on the masculine. Virginia Woolf even wrote a fantastic essay in "A Room of One's Own" pointing out that an author's writing style is best when it's mixed with male and female parts.

So it's not just men being men (as some of the more radical feminists seem to hold) that's bad, but men who aren't "man enough" to transcend their masculinity. But the interesting question is to wonder if there's another side to this. Can women be too feminine, and can this be a bad thing?

I'll leave that for discussion. For the sake of a definition, we can call feminine and masculine those things that are instinctually driven if left untouched by cultural influence. Masulinity means assertiveness, inclination to abstraction, justice over relatedness; femininity means passivity (which isn't at all a bad thing, cf., Buddhism), concreteness over abstractions ("women are masters of the finite," as Kierkegaard said), relatedness over justice.

 

[Paradoxum]

What about assertive females? Are you going to say they are acting male, and unnatural for them? What if it is natural for them?

I don't see the need to define what masculinity or femininity means. All it's going to do is denigrate and repress people who will fall outside the definitions.

Why can't people just be themselves, without being shoved into boxes based on their gender?

(There might be tendencies for the sexes to be slightly different, but I don't think tendencies should be used to define 50% of the human population).

I'm not sure if that answers your question... if there was a question.

 

[Received]

Do you believe that evolution has any at least probabilistic influence on "human nature"?

 

[Paradoxum]

Do you believe that evolution has any at least probabilistic influence on "human nature"?

I don't understand the question. Evolution is the reason humans are what they are. Does that answer your question? :s

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you believe that evolution has any at least probabilistic influence on "human nature"?

To a small extent, much of our behavior is learned, not inherited. And inherited behaviors tend to be what we tend to fear or our immediate responses to certain, limited events, such as threats or childbirth.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I think the problem is that the term 'feminism' is too broad and encompasses a range of various ideas. First-wave feminism really was about the empowerment of women and the removal of institutional barriers. The problem, as I see it, is the feminism that arose after that. Second- and Third-wave feminism began pushing, almost dogmatically, the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed, that narratives like the patriarchy can explain away any kind of perceived discrepancy and that sexual partners must be seen as two amorphous, gender-neutral blobs who ask each other "Is this OK with you?" before daring to move their lips any lower on the other's body. They've now erected a branch of academia that is almost entirely insular, never engaging any contemporary cognitive scientists and, as feminist Gloria Steinem puts it, "[t]hese poor women in academia have to talk this silly language that nobody can understand in order to be accepted...But I recognize the fact that we have this ridiculous system of tenure, that the whole thrust of academia is one that values education, in my opinion, in inverse ratio to its usefulness—and what you write in inverse relationship to its understandability."

 

[FireDragon76]

Some have disputed how accurate Mad Men is in the portrayal of male behaviors in the 60's, others disagree.

Androgyny? Actually, we may be even less "androgynous" and more rigid now than decades ago. Children's toys and the advertising surrounding them, for instance, are more heavily gendered than in the past.

 

[quatona]

I'm watching Mad Men for the first time, which is giving me a great (and nauseating) look into how guys treated ladies back in the 60s in America. Which got me to thinking of the tide of feminism that rose as a consequence to this.

Feminism, I guess, is about killing off the stupidity involved with the power abused by masculinity. This power isn't just physical, but soaked up into the very legal and cultural structure of society: women aren't simply kept in line physically, but also considered to be less of a person than men are.

But what did feminism really rebel against? Not masculinity per se, but hypermasculinity -- masculinity that wasn't balanced with femininity, and consequently isn't in the psychologically balanced state of androgyny, which plenty of studies point out is best for the individual and especially relationships.

I´m not sure that feminism started from such an elaborated analysis.
Women were simply dissatisfied with certain parts of the role that society naturally asked them to play.
I´m afraid - like it is so often with revolutions - that they weren´t aware of and prepared for the complex consequences of changing this system.
I also tend to think that feminism back then grossly oversimplified matters by thinking of men as the perpetrators and women as the victims (understandably so, I may add). Related to that, the concept of "violence" that they used back then didn´t include certain forms of emotional violence (which, in the traditional gender role game, were the "weapons" given to women).

People simply become happier when they begin to integrate the gender roles opposite of their given sex: males take on the feminine, and females take on the masculine. Virginia Woolf even wrote a fantastic essay in "A Room of One's Own" pointing out that an author's writing style is best when it's mixed with male and female parts.

While I certainly can relate to the idea that an individual is permanently trying to strive for completeness, I am not sure I would approach that task by stereotyping certain attributes as being male or female.

So it's not just men being men (as some of the more radical feminists seem to hold) that's bad, but men who aren't "man enough" to transcend their masculinity. But the interesting question is to wonder if there's another side to this. Can women be too feminine, and can this be a bad thing?

If we are assuming that at some point the male gender role was or became (or was criticized for being) "too male" (which I am not sure is a particularly helpful and useful approach, anyway) it appears to be necessary for the female role to have been proportionally "too feminine". We are talking systems here, after all.

I'll leave that for discussion. For the sake of a definition, we can call feminine and masculine those things that are instinctually driven if left untouched by cultural influence. Masulinity means assertiveness, inclination to abstraction, justice over relatedness; femininity means passivity (which isn't at all a bad thing, cf., Buddhism), concreteness over abstractions ("women are masters of the finite," as Kierkegaard said), relatedness over justice.

I am not agreeing with this premise.

 

[quatona]

Do you believe that evolution has any at least probabilistic influence on "human nature"?

I´m not sure I understand the question (and even less its relevance to the topic at hand). Too many big words in short order, I guess.
Are you asking whether I think that, due to evolution, e.g. a newborn human is likely to have two arms and two legs?
Yes.

 

[poolerboy0077]

People simply become happier when they begin to integrate the gender roles opposite of their given sex: males take on the feminine, and females take on the masculine.

Not necessarily in the bedroom, though.



From Psychology Today, "Why Sexual Passion Fades":

[...]

It’s a conflict between one of the greatest cultural triumphs in the history of our species and one of the most primitive and potent animal instincts in our species. It’s a conflict between the admirable values of feminism and the neural reality of our primal sexual brain.

Women have made marvelous progress over the last hundred years. We run Fortune 500 companies, win Nobel prizes in science, fly fighter planes over battlefields. We have taken control of our lives. But ironically, when we enter the bedroom, this urge for control comes into direct conflict with our sexual brains.

Within the classroom, stateroom, and boardroom, our similarities are more evident than our differences. In the bedroom, however, our differences matter—and matter absolutely. This psychic split is especially vivid in long-term relationships, which tend to push a couple’s interactions out of the realm of animal passions and into more cerebral realms of compromise, equity, and familiarity.

But what the science shows is that our animal sexual brains crave an asymmetry of power in the bedroom. Women’s bodies still long to be sexually taken by a man who is capable of over-powering her with his strength, but chooses to love her. And men still crave a responsive, open lover—one who will enthusiastically follow his lead. The exquisite dance of sexual domination and submission remains an intoxicating element of love-making, in spite of our desire for equality in other aspects of life.

[...]
​

 

[Received]

Some have disputed how accurate Mad Men is in the portrayal of male behaviors in the 60's, others disagree.

Androgyny? Actually, we may be even less "androgynous" and more rigid now than decades ago. Children's toys and the advertising surrounding them, for instance, are more heavily gendered than in the past.

That, IMO, says more about capitalism on steroids than gender roles.

 

[Received]

I´m not sure I understand the question (and even less its relevance to the topic at hand). Too many big words in short order, I guess.
Are you asking whether I think that, due to evolution, e.g. a newborn human is likely to have two arms and two legs?
Yes.

And (to keep the pointless big words in style), do you think that the phenotype stops with arms and legs, or also extends to behavior and therefore gender roles?

 

[Received]

Not necessarily in the bedroom, though.



From Psychology Today, "Why Sexual Passion Fades":

[...]

It’s a conflict between one of the greatest cultural triumphs in the history of our species and one of the most primitive and potent animal instincts in our species. It’s a conflict between the admirable values of feminism and the neural reality of our primal sexual brain.

Women have made marvelous progress over the last hundred years. We run Fortune 500 companies, win Nobel prizes in science, fly fighter planes over battlefields. We have taken control of our lives. But ironically, when we enter the bedroom, this urge for control comes into direct conflict with our sexual brains.

Within the classroom, stateroom, and boardroom, our similarities are more evident than our differences. In the bedroom, however, our differences matter—and matter absolutely. This psychic split is especially vivid in long-term relationships, which tend to push a couple’s interactions out of the realm of animal passions and into more cerebral realms of compromise, equity, and familiarity.

But what the science shows is that our animal sexual brains crave an asymmetry of power in the bedroom. Women’s bodies still long to be sexually taken by a man who is capable of over-powering her with his strength, but chooses to love her. And men still crave a responsive, open lover—one who will enthusiastically follow his lead. The exquisite dance of sexual domination and submission remains an intoxicating element of love-making, in spite of our desire for equality in other aspects of life.

[...]
​

Wow! What a great find!

I'd imagine the at-all-costs brand of feminism ultimately precipitates in a denial of human nature in terms of evolution, given that they have good desires for equality over complementarity.

And maybe it's also true that more of these feminists just need to get laid.

 

[Received]

I don't understand the question. Evolution is the reason humans are what they are. Does that answer your question? :s

Does that account for gender roles, though?

I think the answer is obviously "yes," unless we're intent on playing semantics. At the same time, this is only a probabilistic thing. I think genes have a larger sway over individuals than environment, but at the same time environment can even influence gene expression. So a person can end up with a gender role opposite of what his genes would determine for him if he's in an environment that's strong enough to override them. This can even take a pathological extreme. I remember one client with complex PTSD who was consistently mocked and abused by an older boy when she was younger because of her sex; so she ends up hating femininity and embracing bisexuality.

 

[Received]

I think if we pay attention to evolution, gender is to some degree determined (but capable of being overruled by environment). The trick is that we often conflate the freedom instilled by democracy with biology, and so we end up concluding that biology is sexist.

 

[Received]

I´m not sure that feminism started from such an elaborated analysis.
Women were simply dissatisfied with certain parts of the role that society naturally asked them to play.
I´m afraid - like it is so often with revolutions - that they weren´t aware of and prepared for the complex consequences of changing this system.
I also tend to think that feminism back then grossly oversimplified matters by thinking of men as the perpetrators and women as the victims (understandably so, I may add). Related to that, the concept of "violence" that they used back then didn´t include certain forms of emotional violence (which, in the traditional gender role game, were the "weapons" given to women).

That last part is what I think of when I wonder if women can be too "feminine" just as men were too "masculine". We don't equate emotional or psychological violence with physical violence, understandably to some degree, but still. Granted, a legal system would be impossible if we punished emotional and psychological violence. I've always thought it unfair that the cruel smartass who inspires his enemy to throw the first punch could walk away with only a bruise while his enemy gets an assault charge.

While I certainly can relate to the idea that an individual is permanently trying to strive for completeness, I am not sure I would approach that task by stereotyping certain attributes as being male or female.

Well, it's not technically a stereotype if we're taking a continuum into account. "All girls like makeup," is a stereotype; "all girls on point X of a mascule-feminine continuum like makeup," isn't a stereotype, arguably. Of course, we'll never get to the point to where we can pinpoint someone's gender identity with such precision, so we'd never speak this way, but that's not the point.

If we are assuming that at some point the male gender role was or became (or was criticized for being) "too male" (which I am not sure is a particularly helpful and useful approach, anyway) it appears to be necessary for the female role to have been proportionally "too feminine". We are talking systems here, after all.

Indeed.

 

[Paradoxum]

Does that account for gender roles, though?

What gender roles? I'm not sure there are any gender roles, and if there are, I'm not sure what those roles are. I don't think anyone except the most conservative and sexist people think that women should stay home, and only men work, for example.

I think the answer is obviously "yes," unless we're intent on playing semantics.

I don't see why it's obvious, or even likely true. I'd say that a particular sex might have a tendency to be a certain way, based on genetics. But a tendency is different from a gender role. I'd say gender roles are completely based on culture.

Ie: It would be stupid to say there are race roles, if say, black people were to be found to be better at athletics than white people. Not all black people will be better than all white people, and not all people, regardless of race, care about sport. Assigning a massive group of people a role, based on a biological tendency, is silly and repressive.

At the same time, this is only a probabilistic thing. I think genes have a larger sway over individuals than environment, but at the same time environment can even influence gene expression. So a person can end up with a gender role opposite of what his genes would determine for him if he's in an environment that's strong enough to override them. This can even take a pathological extreme. I remember one client with complex PTSD who was consistently mocked and abused by an older boy when she was younger because of her sex; so she ends up hating femininity and embracing bisexuality.

I'm not sure I'd agree that genes are more important than environment, for determining who someone becomes. It could be true, but so could the opposite.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Ie: It would be stupid to say there are race roles, if say, black people were to be found to be better at athletics than white people. Not all black people will be better than all white people, and not all people, regardless of race, care about sport. Assigning a massive group of people a role, based on a biological tendency, is silly and repressive.

And it would be equally silly to deny that there is some biological essentialism not only to race and gender, but also the existence of statistical advantage: men are better at throwing whereas women are more dexterous; men are better at mentally rotating shapes whereas women are better at visual memory; men are better at problem solving whereas women are better at mathematical calculations. Our educational system is structured in such a way that it favors abilities more commonly found in females than males. If, for instance, men are better at problem-solving but math curricula emphasizes mathematical calculations, we can expect to see a difference in student results. These statistical advantages are not sex differences per se, mind you, but they will nonetheless affect performance outcomes. I don't think this educational structuring was done deliberately or out of malice, but I think it's important not to downplay or outright deny our innate differences. Doing so can have dire social consequences.

 

[variant]

But what did feminism really rebel against? Not masculinity per se, but hypermasculinity -- masculinity that wasn't balanced with femininity, and consequently isn't in the psychologically balanced state of androgyny, which plenty of studies point out is best for the individual and especially relationships.

Given the evidence of um, recorded history, it's pretty much how masculinity in society operated to differing degrees.

What changed was mechanization and information ages that moved us away from the concept of being physically stronger was important in how people are valued.

 

[quatona]

And (to keep the pointless big words in style), do you think that the phenotype stops with arms and legs, or also extends to behavior and therefore gender roles?

I see no reason to assume that traditional gender roles (as observable in a particular society at a particular point in time) are - unlike the number of our extremities - directly determined by evolution.