Is femininity 100% a social construct?

[David Jerome]

Looking around at most other female species of animals, it seems that femininity is mainly a human female trait. As far as I know, no other female organism exhibits stereotypically feminine traits, such as being kinder, or wanting to look pretty. In fact, it's the males in most animals, that look "prettier", and go out of their way to do so, like with birds, (most famously, the peacock).

On top of this, femininity has no survival benefit. It can be argued that feminine traits or more attractive to male humans, (thereby adding a reproductive advantage); however, logic would dictate that males would want a mother that would best be able to protect the children in his absence; and since early man (like most male animals) try to reproduce with as many females as possible, a strong and agressive female would reduce his workload of trying to protect his offspring. Therefore, femininity should be less desirable to males.


So...can it be logically reasoned that feminity isn't natural at all? That it's purely a human social construct, developed only after humans became civilized?

 

[selfinflikted]

Imo, gender roles, as you have described in the OP, are indeed a social construct.

 

[David Jerome]

Imo, gender roles, as you have described in the OP, are indeed a social construct.

Actually, I don't think that's completely a social construct. Since for early humans, women would be the sole source of nutrition for babies, it's a necessity that women would be the ones that stay at home taking care of the children. Also, males are bigger, stronger, and because of testosterone, more agressive; this makes it more ideal for men to be the ones that go out hunting, exploring and build with raw materials. This would be the early human version of "bringing home the bacon", while women stay home with the kids.

I think gender roles are originally born out of some biological necessity. However, I think femininity (stereotypical female personality traits) are purely a social construct.

 

[Jade Margery]

Looking around at most other female species of animals, it seems that femininity is mainly a human female trait. As far as I know, no other female organism exhibits stereotypically feminine traits, such as being kinder, or wanting to look pretty. In fact, it's the males in most animals, that look "prettier", and go out of their way to do so, like with birds, (most famously, the peacock).

On top of this, femininity has no survival benefit. It can be argued that feminine traits or more attractive to male humans, (thereby adding a reproductive advantage); however, logic would dictate that males would want a mother that would best be able to protect the children in his absence; and since early man (like most male animals) try to reproduce with as many females as possible, a strong and agressive female would reduce his workload of trying to protect his offspring. Therefore, femininity should be less desirable to males.

So...can it be logically reasoned that feminity isn't natural at all? That it's purely a human social construct, developed only after humans became civilized?

I think some of our traits are social constructs, and some of them aren't, but what makes you think that just because something arose from social interaction, it is not natural? Forming cooperative societies is one of the most natural things a group of humans (or chimps, or elephants, or lions, etc.) can do. And the values, cultures, and priorities of those groups arise naturally as well through that group interaction. You argument trips where you are assuming that social constructions are unnatural.

 

[Jazer]

In fact, it's the males in most animals, that look "prettier", and go out of their way to do so, like with birds, (most famously, the peacock).

With the ducks the male has a lot more color to distract the preditors from the eggs. Toward the end of summer when the eggs are hatched the male and female start to look a lot more the same. I use to go up and buy the old stale bread and feed the ducks all the time.

 

[AlexBP]

As it happens, I just wrote a post on my blog about David Reimer, the "boy who was raised as a girl". In infancy his, ahem, thing was accidentally cut off, and doctors attempted to have him raised, treated, and socialized as a girl. The result suggests that gender roles are not socially constructed, or at least not entirely so.

However, I don't believe there's any conflict between "natural" and "socially constructed". It seems to me that if there's anything that human beings will naturally do, it's forming a society, complete with rules, roles, and taboos. As far as I know, all human beings everywhere have had separate roles and social norms for men and women, though in some cases the separation is sharper than in others. Gender roles are both natural and socially constructed.

It would, of course, be extremely unnatural to see a group of humans living as animals.

 

[selfinflikted]

Actually, I don't think that's completely a social construct. Since for early humans, women would be the sole source of nutrition for babies, it's a necessity that women would be the ones that stay at home taking care of the children. Also, males are bigger, stronger, and because of testosterone, more agressive; this makes it more ideal for men to be the ones that go out hunting, exploring and build with raw materials. This would be the early human version of "bringing home the bacon", while women stay home with the kids.

I think gender roles are originally born out of some biological necessity. However, I think femininity (stereotypical female personality traits) are purely a social construct.

I see your point and tend to agree.

 

[David Jerome]

I think some of our traits are social constructs, and some of them aren't, but what makes you think that just because something arose from social interaction, it is not natural? Forming cooperative societies is one of the most natural things a group of humans (or chimps, or elephants, or lions, etc.) can do. And the values, cultures, and priorities of those groups arise naturally as well through that group interaction. You argument trips where you are assuming that social constructions are unnatural.

You're not understanding what I mean by "natural".

By asking if it's "natural", I mean, is femininity innate. Sexuality is an innate drive in humans; you don't have to be taught to want sex. Unlike with sex, if human females were never taught to be feminine, I think it's doubtful that women would ever act in ways society typically regards as "girly" or "feminine".

Understand what I'm saying?

 

[jpcedotal]

dem's birthin hips...

 

[David Jerome]

As it happens, I just wrote a post on my blog about David Reimer, the "boy who was raised as a girl". In infancy his, ahem, thing was accidentally cut off, and doctors attempted to have him raised, treated, and socialized as a girl. The result suggests that gender roles are not socially constructed, or at least not entirely so.

I remember in the 90's, the show 20/20 had a feature on this. A doctor removed his genitals (I think it may have been deliberate) in order to raise the boy as a girl. This failed, as his behaviors still ended up being stereotypically "male", until the day he found out he really wasn't a girl.

But there's a big difference here: masculinity doesn't have to be taught; it's an innate survival and social skill. However, I think femininity does in fact need to be taught, since there's no natural reason for women to be feminine in the first place.

It would, of course, be extremely unnatural to see a group of humans living as animals.

Maybe now, in 2012; but how do you think early man lived? Exactly as other primates.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that women have a different type of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to men, more oxytocin based rather than dopamine. So maybe there are masculine and feminine versions of the "Big O".

 

[dies-l]

But there's a big difference here: masculinity doesn't have to be taught; it's an innate survival and social skill. However, I think femininity does in fact need to be taught, since there's no natural reason for women to be feminine in the first place.

Isn't there an evolutionary advantage to having a parent who is the primary provider of nurture, love, support, education, and so forth, especially in a species like ours in which healthy brain development takes two decades to complete? This is not so much a "survival" benefit for the individual who takes on the role, but certainly an evolutionary benefit for the genetic line of that individual. And, given that our survival as a species, until recent times, has depended upon the interaction of a male with a female, wouldn't it also make sense that this role would be naturally assigned to one gender or another? And if, as some argue, our species is not naturally monogamous, wouldn't this evolutionary goal be best accomplished if that role were assigned to the sex who is most likely to be present for the life of the offspring?

All this considered, there seems to me to be a very valuable natural basis for femininity. Now, certainly, society has added its own expectations to that role, but it would be wrong to say that it is purely a social construct, as it seems entirely consistent with the natural processes behind our evolution as a species.

(And, if you prefer a YEC interpretation, just pretend that instead of "evolution", I was referring to God's divine design).

 

[David Jerome]

Isn't there an evolutionary advantage to having a parent who is the primary provider of nurture, love, support, education, and so forth, especially in a species like ours in which healthy brain development takes two decades to complete? This is not so much a "survival" benefit for the individual who takes on the role, but certainly an evolutionary benefit for the genetic line of that individual. And, given that our survival as a species, until recent times, has depended upon the interaction of a male with a female, wouldn't it also make sense that this role would be naturally assigned to one gender or another? And if, as some argue, our species is not naturally monogamous, wouldn't this evolutionary goal be best accomplished if that role were assigned to the sex who is most likely to be present for the life of the offspring?

But why would they need to be feminine for this? Even fathers can be tender and loving to their children, without being feminine, right? Basically, mothers don't need a feminine personality, in order to be loving, nurturing etc., with just their kids. Take mother bears, for instance; they're still snarling beasts who kill and fight (and not just when they have cubs to protect). Female bears aren't "nicer" or more demure than male bears...except maybe to their own cubs. Therefor, a "feminine" nature isn't needed; just a drive to care for her offspring.

Make sense?

 

[Michael]

Looking around at most other female species of animals, it seems that femininity is mainly a human female trait. As far as I know, no other female organism exhibits stereotypically feminine traits, such as being kinder, or wanting to look pretty. In fact, it's the males in most animals, that look "prettier", and go out of their way to do so, like with birds, (most famously, the peacock).

On top of this, femininity has no survival benefit. It can be argued that feminine traits or more attractive to male humans, (thereby adding a reproductive advantage); however, logic would dictate that males would want a mother that would best be able to protect the children in his absence; and since early man (like most male animals) try to reproduce with as many females as possible, a strong and agressive female would reduce his workload of trying to protect his offspring. Therefore, femininity should be less desirable to males.


So...can it be logically reasoned that feminity isn't natural at all? That it's purely a human social construct, developed only after humans became civilized?

Having watched my wife and two daughters go through a series of hormone changes over the past 25 years, I get the feeling that's probably a slight oversimplification. I believe that there are proven links between testosterone found more in men and a propensity for violence. There are likely to also be hormonal links to female human behavior that are biological factors as well.

The differentiation of work in virtually all "human units" is probably linked to some of these traits as well. That's my belief anyway.

 

[Redac]

Our idea of femininity is not at all universal if you look cross-culturally, so I tend to think that it's mostly a cultural construct. Most societies do indeed have various degrees of separation in gender roles that have their roots in biological differences, but the way these differences are expressed, and even the acceptance of one gender taking on characteristics and behaviors of the other, can differ considerably from culture to culture.

 

[Michael]

The fact that reproduction remains the sole capability of the female of the species certainly plays a role in the cultural constructs that we develop over time don't you think?

 

[Redac]

The fact that reproduction remains the sole capability of the female of the species certainly plays a role in the cultural constructs that we develop over time don't you think?

Indeed, I'd say that's fairly accurate. Birthing and caring for children often shapes and even limits a female's roles (not necessarily out of a belief that they don't belong out of camp, but for practical reasons). For example, if you're trying to hunt something, it's a really bad idea to bring a pregnant female, or one caring for a toddler. Who knows when it'll scream for whatever reason and scare away whatever you're hunting.

 

[rambot]

It is 100% a social construct. If the only option to that is that it's biological.... absolutely.

 

[David Jerome]

The fact that reproduction remains the sole capability of the female of the species certainly plays a role in the cultural constructs that we develop over time don't you think?

Indeed, I'd say that's fairly accurate. Birthing and caring for children often shapes and even limits a female's roles (not necessarily out of a belief that they don't belong out of camp, but for practical reasons). For example, if you're trying to hunt something, it's a really bad idea to bring a pregnant female, or one caring for a toddler. Who knows when it'll scream for whatever reason and scare away whatever you're hunting.

You guys are confusing traditional females roles with femininity; they are NOT the same. A role is quite simply that: a part to play. Feminity is a personality trait.

A woman can play a traditional female role, yet not be feminine at all. A woman can be a stay-at-home mom, watching kids, cooking, cleaning, etc., and still be "butch", and have a more masculine personality.

 

[Redac]

You guys are confusing traditional females roles with femininity; they are NOT the same. A role is quite simply that: a part to play. Feminity is a personality trait.

A woman can play a traditional female role, yet not be feminine at all. A woman can be a stay-at-home mom, watching kids, cooking, cleaning, etc., and still be "butch", and have a more masculine personality.

Like I said, "femininity" as you seem to be defining it is not a universal quality. What is "feminine" in one place is not "feminine" in another. I'd wonder, though, whether femininity is a specific personality trait, or whether it's just a set of behaviors and personality traits that our culture has decided to call feminine. Of course culture plays a role in how behavior and personality is expressed, so it's probably somewhere in between.