Approximate reading time: 5 minutes, 49 seconds
The proximity of March 8, International Women’s Day, leads me to reflect on these terms that, by the way, have many controversial edges. A few days ago there was a virtual forum on Masculinity and gender violence, for example. The topic undoubtedly calls for discussion, sometimes even very heated.
Some, and especially some, will begin by wondering if it is possible to talk about ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ in these times when many concepts related to gender identity are subject to strong questioning. In many instances today the distinction between the masculine and the feminine appears very fluid, even in its most visible expressions. When I was at the Toronto International Film Festival last year, I was struck by the fact that in the event’s main venue complex, the signs indicating the bathrooms were no longer identified with words (men, women), but only by a series of ideograms, so to distinguish the male toilet service it was necessary to find one that included the ideogram of a urinal. Needless to say, on more than one occasion I saw a lady burst into the men’s bathroom confused! In short, a sign of the new times, some will say.
But certainly the issue leads to more fundamental aspects than the signage of public bathrooms. Are the concepts of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ still valid? Are these categories valid at a time when there are many questions about the traditional parameters that defined what is feminine and what is masculine?
Strictly speaking, no one can deny the primarily biological distinction that exists between men and women within what we call the human species. From that perspective then ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are still current concepts, but they are understood in a dynamic context of change. Masculinity in its traditional conception of “strong sex”, characterized by exercising domination, for example, is today practically indefensible, at least within what we call ‘Western culture’. The same can be said of the traditional characterization of femininity as an expression of the “weaker sex” therefore subject to male domination. None of these conceptualizations of the masculine and the feminine can be considered valid today, however this does not imply that masculinity and femininity, as signifiers of something specific, have ceased to exist. The concepts are still there, perhaps they are not used much because they still carry connotations that today seem obsolete and retrograde. Thus, when we say “that guy acts macho” or “swearing is unfeminine,” we say it with an ironic or mocking tone. We’re not serious.
Of course, if the concepts of masculinity and femininity are still valid and we have already rejected the traditional meanings of both terms, what now corresponds is to try to formulate new definitions of them. We then have to—following a Platonic exercise—ask ourselves what is the essence of the masculine and the feminine at this time. In this, by the way, we are referring to the social connotations of “being a man” or “being a woman” and not to the biological roles of both sexes, which are obviously well differentiated. And this without ignoring that—although a minority—there is also a sector of people who do not agree with their biological identity, but for whom masculine or feminine would still apply as referential categories, or another group that does not even adhere to the masculine-feminine dichotomy.
Carl Jung in his conception of archetypes used to attribute leadership qualities to the “masculine side” of our personality, while sensitivity was a reflection of our “feminine side.” Without a doubt, associations that would be questioned today, although Jung noted that these archetypes had been formed as part of what he called the collective unconscious, by the accumulated experience of the entire life of the human species, that is, that the masculine is associated with leadership would have originated from the fact that since the time of the caves, men would have developed that role, while women, due to their ability to be mothers, stimulated their sensitive archetype.
Although from a psychological perspective Jung’s vision may be interesting, on the other hand anthropological research would reveal that women actually developed and had leadership roles already in prehistoric times, which would destroy this explanation of masculine and feminine.
This being the case, the redefinition of what is masculine and feminine will probably remain an open topic. From a left perspective one can point to certain aspects that can be a central characteristic of both masculinity and femininity: the solidarity or mutual support of men and women, for example, which should manifest itself both within life both as a couple and in the social sphere. The ability to complement the shortcomings of both sexes could also be counted as a central aspect of both the masculine and the feminine. An undeniable statistical fact tells us that in most cases men, in their youth and adulthood, are physically stronger than women, which has been reflected in thousands of stories and in the popular imagination of practically all cultures. This protective role in that instance of human life does not have to be repudiated or considered a “sexist ambiguity” but rather it is a fact of life. On the contrary, in the twilight stage of our existence, statistics indicate that there are more women than men capable of dealing with these new circumstances and in this scenario, there are many women who assume the protective role of their male partner. Of course, only in more recent times has this scenario begun to be portrayed in cinema and literature, contrary to the abundant cultural production where young men came to the rescue of their maidens. At some point it will be necessary to recognize and portray in artistic creation the protective role that these older women assume with respect to those who were once their young beaus.
Lastly, this desire to redefine what is masculine and feminine cannot be separated from what is the process of looking for a partner and then courting her or him, by the way, which in turn is closely linked to the concept of beauty. Here too, without a doubt, I enter somewhat swampy territory. In 1990, the American Naomi Wolf published her book The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Womenbasically in it the author denounces how women are subjected to constant media bombardment to adapt their physical appearances to the standards beauty standards dictated by large companies in the cosmetics industry and those that market weight loss products.
Even though I fully agree with the denunciation of this powerful industry that exploits the image of women, on the other hand this should not lead to discarding the very concept of beauty. After all, since the times of Socrates and Plato, the idea of beauty has been a matter of serious consideration. By the way, beauty as a concept has also been subject to changes in perception, although in my opinion Plato’s attempt in the dialogue The banquet remains the simplest to understand: “beautiful is what is measured, harmonious and proportionate.” The characterization is also pertinent because the central theme of that dialogue is love. By the way, this is not going to satisfy everyone because it brings up how subjective or objective those requirements of beauty can be. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” says the well-known English expression that could also be freely translated as “everything depends on the color of the glass you look through.”
Popular culture is surely one of the most illustrative sources of beauty (or the lack thereof): in the popular comic strip Condorito, without a doubt that Yayita represents in all its splendor the notion of beauty that Plato gave us. Doña Tremebunda, on the contrary, represents the opposite of beauty (although on the other hand, if we stick to another source of popular culture, the beautiful song Time, the relentless by Pablo Milanés, someone would have to tell Condorito that it is very likely that eventually Yayita, when she is very old, will look like her mother…)
In any case, and this is good to keep in mind, the search for beauty, the focus of that branch of philosophy called aesthetics, whether in art, nature or people, is something very human and therefore very intertwined. also to our conceptions of the masculine and the feminine. The mercantilist distortions of this society should not lead us to deny that, both in what attracts us to the feminine and the masculine, there is a legitimate search for what we consider beautiful, both on a subjective level (what one likes : “beauty is a beautiful maiden” says the sophist Hippias in the Socratic dialogue transcribed by Plato, Hippias Major), as well as a more objective one (what we appreciate as beautiful according to certain culturally established canons, which makes us attribute beauty to something or someone, that is, it shares the “essence of the beautiful”, as Socrates would reply).
Certainly, the fact that beauty is one of the determining factors in the way human beings like each other should not give rise to the advertising exploitation that the author Wolf denounces, but it should not lead us to try to banish it from our conceptions. of masculinity and femininity. In this sense, we just have to make sure that all these concepts, masculinity, femininity, and those that we have associated with these ideas either as essential elements or as that of beauty, that we have linked to the important aspect of how men and women feel attracted to other people, develop in an environment of authenticity. Only in this way can men and women fully embody the concepts of masculinity or femininity. And by the way, along with beauty, celebrate them as the great ingredients of our human condition that they are.
By Sergio Martínez (temporarily from Ñuñoa, Chile)