Politics is ubiquitous and it is a topic unavoidable in every aspect of life. I bring forward the notion of feminine and masculine culture being ever-present in every aspect of day-to-day living. Hofstede’s definition of masculinity in society is said to “stand for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.” Inversely, femininity is discussed as “a society in which social gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.” These definitions in particular are witnessed in many areas of interaction within social, economic, religious and private spheres. These definitions highlight the patriarchal and feminist notions.
In order for me to substantiate, Hofstede seems to highlight that a highly masculine society is selfish and places women as subordinates in multiple spheres. However, feminine societies emphasise the notion of equality which is highly expressed in feminist engagements. Instead of viewing femininity and masculinity at this level, let’s reduce it to basic interactions. The concept of masculinity is usually tied to ideas of strength, leadership, protection and logic whereas the stereotypical characteristics of femininity are that of nurture, kindness, tenderness, sensitivity and being highly emotional. Considering how, throughout the years, these traits have been heavily gendered, there is a desperate need for these patterns and conceptions to be redefined.
What do I mean by this? There is an issue when a woman, who has been caged into feminine constructs, steps into the realm of what is defined as “being a man”. This also occurs inversely- when a man with “womanly characteristics” is deemed either as gay or as a woman. Where do we draw the line in terms of admitting that the concept of femininity does not only belong to women? Yes, they possess most of the characteristics, but it does not define what it means to be a woman -nor does masculinity, a man.
The above is partially to blame for why we have high cases of toxic masculinity, or, more specifically- wounded masculinity. What does this mean? Wounded masculinity can “be best defined by the gap between how men feel about themselves as men and what they believe it means to be a man.” In efforts to not appear feminine in fears of societal ridicule or societal abuse (let’s call it what it is ) we have men who fall on the wrong side of the spectrum and display characteristics of a perpetrator, abuse their power, dominance, aggression, control, abuse, avoidance and instability etc.
On the other hand, we have women who fear leaving the bracket of femininity by avoiding ambition and therefore not speaking up when inequality prevails.
I stand on the notion that every single thing in life is a spectrum- masculinity and femininity being one of them. As the times become more progressive, there has been a prevalence of genders reclaiming what it means to be their identities- what they are, and what they are not. Women reclaiming the concept of what womanhood means intersectionally (where masculinity and femininity meet) entails how womanhood is not just nurturing and kindness: it is also confidence, logic, protection and assertion. Furthermore, my favourite is the instances wherein there has been redefining of what it means to be a man. This includes “boys do cry”, or, from my favourite page, men who take baths. Here, masculinity is transformed. Masculinity is not exclusionary of femininity or better yet, traits of femininity.
Another part of the spectrum that I want to engage with is gender non-binary and androgyny. These identifications do not shelf themselves into particular binaries. They play with the spectrum of femininity and masculinity however they feel fit or however they themselves feel comfortable as to where they fall on the spectrum. The concept is fascinating: it is the redefinition of what binaries “box” you into believing. This is what these ideologies of femininity and masculinity have been subject to. These gender identities create a mould in which societal culture can learn that a certain ideology can co-exist with others. Sadly, with society’s tainted perspectives, people have to fight against the “norm” of the societal norms of masculinity and femininity.
On a more personal anecdote- I am female-presenting and I am portrayed as feminine. However, I spend most of my days feeling more masculine than I am. These concepts are not subject to just people but to any political sphere. An example is of how countries, such as the USA, are portrayed as masculine whereas countries such as Norway are portrayed as feminine. These countries can learn plenty from each other. Swaying toward one or the other is not a negative thing. It can be dangerous for these constructs to lean into their “wounded” characteristics, as the toxicity of some of these traits can be exacerbated.
Femininity and Masculinity are omnipresent constructs that should be observed with careful analysis. Society should not subject these concepts to binary notions. These concepts are simultaneously present as one. They can co-exist without the shame and the ignominy for those who exhibit those characteristics, regardless of gender.