Definition of Masculinity and Femininity
This is a continuation of a forum post I made on ObjectivismOnline.net in response to a thread on romance and the nature of sexuality. I commonly get into discussions about this sort of thing but don’t always feel I communicate my entire message properly so I figured I’d try and lay the whole thing out here for good measure.
I would define masculinity and femininity as outward social mores, personality traits and aesthetic ideals assigned to you by your parents and communicated to you from infancy. From the very first time your parents buy you a blue jumper instead of a pink one, you begin to observe that there are two types of humans and that one of them shares similar characteristics with you and so you begin to act like them. I do not believe any part of a person’s personality or psychology is deterministically (as in, unchangeably) decided by the genetic code.
That last part is especially important to my stance on this. I think the idea of gender being solely determined by genetic makeup ignores tabula rasa. Homosexuality is linked to this issue in the original thread, as the person is struggling to reconcile homosexual desires with his definition of masculinity that necessarily includes wanting to be attractive to women. This also ties in with my theory of homosexuality being a choice, which I will lay out in a future post. My definitions of masculinity and femininity are necessary to that theory. Dr. Leonard Peikoff put forth an interesting alternative to the ‘gay is in my genes’ definition of homosexuality in one of his podcasts. The podcast was Episode 35 — November 03, 2008, and the question was: 11:22: “‘In one of your podcasts, you stated that homosexuality does not involve choice. If sexual orientation is not a choice then why isn’t it an instinct?’” (Thanks to ObjectivismOnline’s unofficial index of Peikoff’s Podcasts for the timestamp.)
“Is your sense of life a choice? Now, it’s a definite viewpoint on the universe, on yourself, which has all kinds of implications for your values and your behavior. But you never sit down and say, you know when you’re 8 or 14 or whatever, “This is my conclusion about the universe, about myself, etc.” It takes place as a subconscious generalization from your experiences. It’s not an instinct, but it’s not a choice either. It’s a subconscious generalization which has many consequences. Now your experiences, as your child self interpreted them, and I think a comparable thing underlies sexual orientation.
“Some kind of sense of self, one of the opposite sex, of one’s own sex. Whatever. Becomes subconscious generalization and adds up to a certain view of yourself and certain kinds of desire. It’s not an instinct, and it’s not a choice.”
Now, as was noted by many Objectivists about Ayn Rand’s claim that homosexuality is immoral, Ayn Rand was not a psychologist, and neither is Dr. Peikoff. However I do respect his opinion on this issue as it raises questions to my stance while keeping tabula rasa in mind. (The majority of arguments against my stance that I’ve heard are based on the ‘gay is genetic’ idea.) I agree with his assessment of how sexual identity is usually decided in an average human being in this age, however I disagree that this is the only way sexual identity works. My own experience with sexual identity development disagrees with his theory totally. At a (relatively) older age I was considering the questions of who am I sexually, who do I want sexually, romantically, how do I know these things, what are my standards. I was considering my sexual identity both explicitly and subconsciously until around 17 or so I finally decided (as in chose) to be primarily homosexual.
Why do I say primarily? Because I am always open to my statistical data being proven wrong. Let me clarify by continuing with the quoted forum post I wrote:
“I think they (masculinity and femininity) are exclusive to outward behavior and appearance. I have met many ‘masculine’ women and many ‘effeminate’ men and all kinds in between. How then do I create my standards for what is attractive to me or not? I begin with virtue, is he/she virtuous. Then I examine him or her as a person and judge the whole, aesthetically, emotionally (sense of life), idiosyncrasy, etc. The only time gender comes into my judgement is completely prior to meeting the person, when deciding what gender I will ‘focus’ on, as in, what gender would I primarily look for were I to sign up for a dating site? What gender will I imagine myself being with at an old age. I make that decision off of my judgements of masculinity and femininity, which in my definition could also be described as ‘generalizations about men and women that I have observed.’ So in this case my method of getting at what masculinity and femininity are are the same as yours (I am addressing the original poster of the thread here); I observe. However my observations enter into my standards only insomuch as I recognize them for what they are, an informally gathered statistic. As Dr. Peikoff quoted Ayn Rand saying: Statistics are only useful when you necessarily must decide without the necessary information to be sure. Once I have actually met a person and am getting to know them, my definitions of masculine and feminine (statistical data) is moot, I need no longer assume this person will act a certain way based on my observations of others of his type, I can simply watch him and judge his actions on their own.”
To reiterate, I compare a person’s personal definitions of masculinity and femininity to informally gathered statistical data. This implies a very particular use for those definitions, as I said: when you must decide without the necessary information to be sure. When you get to know a person, it is already too late, the time for your statistical data to have use to you is over and now you must use your perceptions of their actions to judge them objectively. The same is true of stereotypes. People wearing gang paraphernalia are a group I generally tend to avoid based on my stereotype of them: the data I have gathered about them via people of that group I’ve met before. However, once I am in contact with one, it is not useful nor proper to avoid talking/treat him poorly/run away just based on my stereotype alone. I must now judge him based on his character alone and decide if it is one I wish to associate with or avoid. Sometimes I run into some that are quite friendly and make good acquaintances.
So there it is, my definition of masculinity and femininity can be summarized thusly: Outward, socially defined and propagated, mores of behavior and appearance defined via personal observation, both conscious and subconscious, which allow one to make generalized opinions of humans one has not met yet. Once one is in the process of getting to know a person, these assumptions must necessarily be ignored until they are validated by the behavior of the person. They can only give you a vague idea of how a person might be.
What do you think? Do you agree with my definitions? I would like to request that the discussion be kept specifically to my definitions of masculinity and femininity and the support thereof; I will be posting another blog post in the future on my theory of homosexuality being a choice and the comment thread there will be a better place to discuss that topic with me.
