20080401

One of the currently popular hobby horses of American pop-Christianity is the so-called feminization of our culture. This comes up all the time. I was most recently reminded of our society's effeminacy and its detrimental effect on the world as we know it by a CAPC-commenter's thoughts on an article on violence and mixed martial arts.

The proposition forwarded by so many is that there is an ideal level of masculinity toward which men in society should strive and an ideal level of femininity toward which women in society should strive. And further, many of the problems evident in our current culture are seen to be a result of a reversal of this standard—where men are increasingly feminized and women are becoming more and more masculine.

In discussing this concept today, we will come to the conclusion that such talk is moron's talk. And that those who forward such ideals in the month of April are prime examples of April Fools.

To start with, we'll have to presume both that there is such a thing as masculinity and femininity and that there is a level of each to which each sex should aim, neither exceeding nor falling short of such marks. But wait! Why should we presume such things? Let's start apart from the presuppositions and only then come to evaluate the argument from the realm of pure hypotheticals.

In the first place, while there are certain characteristics that we tend to assign to the descriptions masculine and feminine, I tend to think that those descriptors have no connection more necessary to the sex with which we've tied them than pof and hil do (that is, masculinity and femininity might as well be random terms for all they relate to the sexes). The typically admirable traits associated with masculinity (courage, honour, bravery, strength, charisma, leadership, decisiveness) are as lauded in females as they are males, and probably no less present. Contrawise, the negative traits associated with masculinity (anger, violence, laziness, heartlessness, aggression) are as loathed in females as they are in males, and probably no less present.* Similarly, the typically admirable traits commonly associated with femininity (compassion, sensitivity, romance, nurture, domestic prowess) are lauded in men while the negative traits (cattiness, over-sensitivity, moodiness, menstruation) are loathed in men as well as they are in women.**

Masculinity and maleness are two entirely separate descriptions and intersect about as frequently as masculinity and femaleness.*** Question: Are men brave or are women brave? Answer: Men and women are brave. Fact: Both men and women are capable of bravery and prone to cowardice. Question: Are women compassionate or are men compassionate? Answer: Women and men are compassionate. Fact: Both women and men are capable of compassion and both are prone to callousness.

And then what if there was some testable difference between men and women? What if it wasn't merely anecdotal? What if 60% of men were brave and only 20% of women were? What if 75% of women showed compassion while only 13% of men bore the trait? How would it be that we could tell whether the distinction was something natural to the sexes or whether it was merely just the cultural hegemony showing its colours and influences.

And with how fuzzy our understanding is of whether femininity and masculinity even exist, how on earth can we responsibly make it a moral thing? How can we say that men should aim to be, quote-unquote, masculine (with all that entails) and women should be, quote-unquote, feminine (with all that entails)? How can we honestly do that? Answer: because people are clowns. We are. We're ridiculous and we like to make rules to govern things whether those rules are at all realistic.

So wait, let's go back. Let's pretend that there really is some such thing as this Platonic form of masculinity and another of femininity. Let's pretend that there really is this objective standard. And let's further pretend that we, as men and women, are supposed to strive toward our respective gendered standards. Let's pretend that I and all American men should be striving for True Masculinity. And even more, let's pretend that if we don't, as a society, meet that standard (and that the women don't meet theirs)—let's pretend that if we are truly negligent here that society will get all screwed up. That all sorts of horrible things will happen. That kids will stop learning well. That we won't have prayer in schools. That incidents of homosexuality will rise. That Bush will attack Iran and kill more people who are not white enough to care about. That teenage boys will start wearing women's pants that are too small for women their size. That the rest of society will follow suit, crumbling around our ankles.

Let's pretend all that will happen if we don't get the masculinity/femininity thing right.

OMG We ares doomulnated!!! No really. If the health of society rests at all upon us getting the masculinity/femininity distinction correct, we are without hope. We are so doomed that even the doomed will feel safe, happy, and well-cared for by comparison. And why is this?

Because we have no freakin' standard to look to!

Not even a hint.

There is nothing we can reliably look at, point to, and say, "Behold! Femininity!" There is no example of what true masculinity might look like if it were to actually exist. Even if there is this fabled objective standard, we, the people of earth, have no possible way of discerning it. Well, unless God decides that it's important enough for us to know that he sends a third testament to explain it. Maybe it's in the Book of Mormon, I don't know. What I do know for a certainty is that such a standard is very much not found in the Bible as delivered to the saints in ages past.

No, everything we know to be masculinity and femininity is made up. Which is part of the reason we see such vast differences in the so-called gendered traits from culture to culture. So knock it off already.

---

Incidentally, what really kills me about the kind of ideology Hooser (the CAPC commenter) forwards is how common it is in certain segments of Christendom. The Monk recently regaled me with tales of how in her own college town, there was a big movement**** toward letting boys reclaim their masculinity by letting children fight it out. Instead of quashing fights before they could get out of hand and before lips were bloodied and teeth were lost and ears were punched, boys would be allowed to duke it out, presumably to make mens out of 'em. Part of the justification was that we should be encouraging boys to be boys.

Somehow I doubt that the Christians in this particular town really followed through on their own line of thought, because heck if you're gonna let boys be boys, there is nothing so immediately boyish than teenage boys doing anything within their power to engage the fairer sex in a little first base, second base, third base, GRAND SLAM! Really, more than fighting, boys seem to be all about the dream of fornication—though I doubt if they would ever term it as anything so vulgur as "fornication."

Example. I am in eighth grade. I have a water bed. I have also just purchased a small colour television set (back in the day when you could still get a black-and-white). To which I have connected my NES. The NES being the current Rad Thing, neighbourhood kids would come by, hoping to taste the finest cuisine proffered by the Japanese technation. So me and three other kids sit on my bed and the following conversation takes place:

DRAMATIS PERSONAE:
Tubby Little Fifth Grader played by BOB
Tubby's Younger Brother played by IAN
World-Wise Beanpole played by WEE DANE
Cynical Classmate of Beanpole played by JUSTIN

JUSTIN:
Crap. Lost again.

WEE DANE:
I hate this level.

BOB:
Dude. You water bed is awesome.

WEE DANE:
Uhm.

BOB:
I'll bet this is just like humping a girl.

IAN:
Woah! Cool!

WEE DANE:
[Realizing that girls don't look like anamorphic blobs
and so probably don't feel anything like a water bed...]
Wow. I, uh, sincerely doubt it.

BOB:
Huh. Still...

JUSTIN:
Dude. Stop humping his bed. That's... just. Dude.

[BOB stops, feeling what one would hope to be something akin to shame.]

Now, neither Bob nor Ian were particularly aberrant.***** They were just average boys from an evangelical Christian home who had what might be considered something nearbouts the normal level of sexual curiosity. They just really wanted to fornicate their little brains out. A fifth grader and a something like a second or third grader. But hey, after all, boys will be boys.

---

NOTES:

*I believe a case can be made that the presence of testosterone in males can cause heightened and sustained aggression, surpassing that normally found in females. This would be a part of the male chemical environment.

**I only included menstruation to see if you were paying attention.

***The rate of intersection differs based upon cultural influences.

****I actually made up the "big" part and have no idea exactly how prevalent the "movement" really was.

*****They did still like Michael Jackson in 1988, but what did they know...