Femininity or Masculinity - Essay Example

Discuss the idea that femininity or masculinity is a 'masquerade’.         Abstract Gender is seen as a ‘social construct’; it is the very basis by which human beings are divided into the ‘female’ and ‘male’ categories. The female category is vested with ‘appropriate’ traits that make it ‘feminine’ whilst the male category assumes certain ‘masculine’ traits that are symbolic of its masculinity. Human beings are not the only species that can be sub-categorized as ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’. All objects are represented as having either feminine or masculine qualities and traits as it makes it an easier task to perceive their ‘functions’ in society this way. Typically feminine traits include, ‘fragility’, ‘softness’, ‘fragrant’ whilst some male traits signifying masculinity are the following: ‘tough’, ‘hard’, ‘rough’ and ‘sweaty’. These adjectives basically describe human beings. However, there are certain products/services that may be advertised as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ products in order to target consumer consciousness in the relevant target segment. A sports car, hi-fi system may typically be promoted as being the best choice for males whilst, a deodorant spray or perfume may be advertised using flowers etc showing the feminine traits. Media shapes up our perceptions about what is masculine and what constitutes feminity to a great extent. The fact that fictional heroes like superman, batman are all male and seen to posses certain characteristics is a testimony of media’s influence. An example is the following: “Women are often represented as being part of a context (family, friends, and colleagues) and working/thinking as part of a team. In drama, they tend to take the role of helper (Prop) or object, passive rather than active. Often their passivity extends to victim hood of the misogyny. Men are still represented as TV drama characters up to 3 times more frequently than women, and tend to be the predominant focus of news stories. The representations of women that do make it onto page and screen do tend to be stereotypical, in terms of conforming to societal expectations, and characters that do not fit into the mould tend to be seen as dangerous and deviant. And they get their comeuppance, particularly in the movies. Think of Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) in Fatal Attraction or, more recently, Teena Brandon/Brandon Teena (Hilary Swank) in Boys Don't Cry.” (mediaknowall.com, n.d) Earlier on, gender was defined as a ‘social construct’. This term implies that it is a synthesis of perceptions promoted by culture, society, media etc rather than being rooted in biological difference between males and females. There are many who may look upon masculinity and feminity as being a masquerade in order to ‘play’ certain roles in society and hence, maintain the smooth functioning of house holds which are more often than not the unit of analysis. Several individuals constitute certain groups in society that have a grave problem with this worldview; feminists being one such group broadly speaking. It is these groups that encourage a shift away from societal norms and towards a view that looks beyond physical appearance and biological boundaries. Feminity or Masculinity can there by be viewed as a ‘masquerade’ to enforce certain ideas, values into the lives of people to ensure status quo. The term ‘masquerade’ implies a ‘to enact a pretense’. Essentially, if masculinity or feminity are looked upon as being social constructs; the outcome of environmental factors including media etc, then they can be looked upon as traits that are ‘mimicked’ in order for acceptance in society and thereby, a pretense. Feminist theory questions the notions of masculinity and feminity by drawing attention towards gays, lesbians and androgynous individuals that are looked upon as an ‘anomaly’ since they exhibit the traits of both genders. The emergence of ‘Queer Theory’ further elaborated on sexuality; it’s malleability to morph and imitate characteristics of both genders; male and female. Judith Butler says the following, “One of the interpretations that has been made of Gender Trouble is that there is no sex, there is only gender, and gender is performative. People then go on to think that if gender is performative it must be radically free. And it has seemed too many that the materiality of the body is vacated or ignored or negated here - disavowed, even. (There's a symptomatic reading of this as somatophobia. It's interesting to have one's text pathologised) It is important to distinguish performance from performativity: the former presumes a subject, but the latter contests the very notion of the subject” (Osbourne,n.d) Hence, if we are to see gender as being performative i.e. rooted in biology and then sexuality and its depictive traits like masculinity and feminity become void of any meaning. Butler has won critical acclaim for her book “Gender Trouble’’ mainly because it depicts “gender as a kind of improvisational theatre, a space where different identities can be more or less freely adopted and explored at will. They wanted to get on with the work of enacting gender, in order to undermine its dominant forms.” (Osbourne,n.d) This basically means that the assignment of certain traits depictive of males and females serves to basically outline their ‘roles’ in society. This is the role that will constitute and enforce their ‘identity’. Deviance from these traits in both males and females would result in the society claiming different as deviant. Therefore, young boys interested earlier on in life in music or arts may sub consciously be forced to give up their passions for studying medicine, law or engineering, because this is what will enforce their ‘masculinity’. In this they are involved in ‘enacting’ out the societal desires and expectations of them and thereby, they are masquerading. Females who may start their lives off as tom boys, interested in sports etc may, as they enter adulthood, return to ‘domesticity’ in order to fulfill norms and societal expectations as well. A more ostentatious form of masquerading is in fact, being androgynous or involved in drag. This gives the individual a chance to enact both feminine and masculine traits; often landing them on the periphery of society; marginalized and isolated as deviants. Butler has outlined other problems with being a drag in her essay as well. She says, “The problem with drag is that I offered it as an example of performativity, but it has been taken up as the paradigm for performativity. One ought always to be wary of one's examples. What's interesting is that this voluntarist interpretation, this desire for a kind of radical theatrical remaking of the body, is obviously out there in the public sphere. There's a desire for a fully phantasmatic transfiguration of the body. But no, I don't think that drag is a paradigm for the subversion of gender. I don't think that if we were all more dragged out gender life would become more expansive and less restrictive. There are restrictions in drag. In fact, I argued toward the end of the book that drag has its own melancholia….”(Osbourne,n.d.) Hence, if according to Butler, drag involves ‘dragging’ boundaries to ‘impersonate’ a certain dramatized version of conflicting identities, then it may not be wrongful to assume that in the first place, masculinity and feminity are also forms of role play; with the ‘traditional’ actors refusing to ‘stretch’ their boundaries and thereby, enacting only one kind of traits i.e. either masculine or feminine. Beverley Skeggs from the University of York, in her ethnographic account of the regulatory and tactical forms implemented in Further Education classes observed them to be a ground for building up of masculine and feminine identities. This is almost akin to the make-up room for the performers backstage where they are ‘groomed’ into their performative roles. Skeggs had the following observations to report, “Drawing from ethnographic research this paper focuses on how sexuality is deployed in regulative and tactical forms within Further Education. It examines how masculinity is institutionalized through the internal discourses of education. It demonstrates how, on the basis of the normalization of masculinity, male teachers are able to regulate female students through the sexualizing of situations. The resentment generated by being forced to confront their educational and feminine powerlessness leads the female students to develop a number of different coping tactics. One of these is a transformative attack on masculine hegemony whereby female students take up masculine subject positions and use strategies of masculinity to control male teachers. It argues that the refusal to give legitimacy and consent to masculine regulation, in education, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, could engender challenges across the sites, thereby necessitating reconstructions of masculine power.” (Skeggs,n.d.) Skeggs research demonstrates how centers of education are in essence, institutions that serve to ‘preserve’ masculine and feminine traits. This means if a man or woman who does not exhibit there ‘relevant’ characteristics, they will automatically be shunned so perhaps the easier way out is ‘masquerading’ the part and playing your own roles. Hans J. Eysenck quoting research carried out by distributing questionnaires to both males and females said that most of their answers could reflect an underlying sentiment of homosexuality in them. This is a very powerful observation as it serves to undermine the entire notion of masculinity or feminity as a facile, conscious attempt to mask the ‘difference’ in sexuality that may actually exist amongst different individuals in a society. However, there is a strong psychological element involved as well. These traits are an exhibition of the ‘psychological’ Self which may be a product of several different factors in an individual’s environment. Another study by Jacobson and Aaland on the subject of sexuality, states the following: “(1) Even though people may define "masculine" and "feminine" as polar opposites, they frequently admire combinations of "masculine" and "feminine" traits in individuals of both sexes. (2) There is a tendency in parts of the college population to assign similar meanings to the terms "masculine" and "feminine," rendering them not contrasting but overlapping or synonymous.” (Jacobson&Aaland, 1991) This is an entirely different perspective; one that may help understand the emergence of androgyny in society as well. According to Simon De Beauvoir, “in all societies men are defined as actors or subjects, while women are defined in relation to men. He is the Subject [hunter, farmer, soldier].She is the Other [mother, mate, wife]" (1952: xvi).Thus, the distinctive characteristic of femininity is said to be alterity, or otherness. Whether or not this is true in all societies, it has been true in Western civilization. (Witness Mr. and Mrs. Adam Smith, man and wife, or Adam Smith and his lovely wife, Eve.)”(Skeggs, n.d.) Beauvoir’s views on Men as actors further corroborate the notion of masculinity as a masquerade. Women, too, in their own specific role play then are engaged in acting in relation to men, less individuated, with flexible ego boundaries when compared with the stereotypical rigidity of men. It is the enactment of these stereotypical male characteristics that affords males ‘agency’ in society whilst the females are by virtue of their feminity reclined to a ‘communion’ with society members i.e. engaged in acts of harmonizing rather than individuating. With changing times, different views on the role of women and men in society have emerged. This is mainly due to the fact that trends have changed drastically in terms of divorce rates and the increasing number of single mothers. Divorce essentially means that the woman has to take on the role of the male in society. This is actually akin to a rite of passage into yet another ‘identity’. It becomes easier to deduce that perhaps, the notions of masculinity and feminity are indeed, a masquerade as when the need arises; a female has to adopt masculine traits like running the household as she takes on her role as the sole breadwinner after a divorce or widowhood. Apart from this, with the rising awareness of the important of education; more and more women are entering ‘male’ dominated professions like medicine, law, engineering etc. Similarly, divorced and widowed men in society too, have to bring up children single handedly at times. They have to adopt ‘feminine’ traits of ‘caring’, ‘loving’ and ‘nurturing’ their child alone. These kinds of role reversals and overlapping of characteristics reflects on the fact that perhaps, indeed, masculinity and feminity are two diverse phenomenon that are incorporated into the fabric of a human being’s life and existence in order to abide by social norms and morays. This would indeed, qualify it as a masquerade; one that can be seen on different levels as a complex but necessary dramatization for the smooth functioning of the society at large. It is the presence of deviance in the form of queers, androgyny and drag that call attention towards the real essence of what constitutes gender, sex and identity and whether an overt display of feminine or masculine characteristics are actually needed to conform. Bibliography 1) Eysenck, Hans J. "Masculinity-Femininity, Personality and Sexual Attitudes." Jstor.Org. 2)"Feminity and Masculinity." Mediaknowall.Com. 16 May 2008 . 3) Jacobson, Evalyn, and Leigh M. Aaland. "Masculinity, Feminity and Androgyny." Jstor.Org. 16May 2008. 4) Osbourne, Peter. "An Interview with Judith Butler." Theory.Org. 16 May 2008 . 5) Skeggs, Beverley. "Challenging Masculinity and Using Sexuality." Jstor.Org (1991). Read More

 

Read More